Feed on
Posts
Comments

Zacchaeus

Luke 19
1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.
5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to-day I must abide at thy house.
6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.
7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.
8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

I was thinking about Zacchaeus lately. Zacchaeus was a publican, in other words, a tax collector. And not only that, he was the head of all the tax collectors. He was on the top of the food chain. He was the CEO. Now generally speaking, people didn’t have a lot of respect for the tax collectors during Biblical times, just as people don’t have a lot of respect for rich folks today. They were notorious for their greed, and for cheating people out of money. I imagine they were viewed by the poor pretty unilaterally as being heartless, greedy, and caring about nothing except money.

And I believe this was a false perception, and Zacchaeus gives a lot of insight into that. There’s a universal adage we’ve all heard that “money can’t buy happiness.” And I think all people, rich or poor, recognize that. I think that universally all people want to be happy — even rich people. I don’t deny that there are many rich people who genuinely do have their focus only on a take, take, take mentality, and the bottom line is all that matters. But I also think there are some people in rich positions who would, quite frankly, rather be poor. I think there are some people who inwardly loathe their own rich lifestyle, and envy the poor people who seem so much happier and so much more carefree than themselves.

But when these people try to live those carefree and happy lifestyles, it doesn’t come naturally to them and they fail at it. They feel broken. They wonder how poor people can be so innocent, so strong, so happy, and they covet that. They know that no amount of money can ever buy them that, but they’re not sure that they themselves can ever get to that point. They’re not sure that they even deserve to get to that point. It seems to them that what would be required to get to that point is fundamentally changing who they are; erasing their own identity and emulating the identity of someone else. And of course, trying to be anyone but yourself is always going to fail. So they do fail at this, and then fall back on their default rich lifestyle, now a little more bitter and cynical that they weren’t able to fit in with the happier but poorer people when they tried. Maybe they repeat this process, and maybe they keep failing and gradually become even more withdrawn from the culture that they would love to break into.

I also imagine that some of these people aren’t stupid. They can see clearly the sharp perceptions that others have of them for being rich, and they take these to heart. They know what other people have to say about them, and they hate it, but they feel powerless to change it. Whatever it is about them that has enabled them to become rich, that feels natural to them. That feels like a part of them. And they realize that other people hate them for it. And maybe they start to hate themselves, too. This is what I believe to be true of Zacchaeus. In fact, I don’t believe the story could have proceeded the way it did were this not true. I think Zacchaeus was rich, but he hated it. He hated his own lifestyle, and hated himself. He had wished that he could give it all up and just be genuinely happy like “normal” people. But everytime he tried to do that, it would backfire, and so he would retreat further into his riches. I’m very much reading between the lines here, I know, but I think it’s a solid explanation for why Jesus was able to treat him the way he did.

I think Jesus could recognize this clearly. I think that rather than seeing the outward appearance that everyone else around him was seeing: that of a greedy, heartless corporate fatcat, Jesus saw a little child looking for love. A little child wishing he could find true friendship and true happiness that didn’t depend on reciprocating money and business favors. A little child longing for the deep connections that he saw around him, for the carefree, joyous, and boundless love that he saw in all the “normal” people he collected taxes from, but unsure how to do that, and unsure he was even worthy of ever being able to do that. I think Jesus saw a deep desire to love and be loved in Zacchaeus. He saw that, all along, Zacchaeus would have happily traded all the wealth he had ever acquired just for a single moment of feeling the presence of unconditional Love in his life. All his life, I think he said to himself that he would in an instant trade all his material possessions if he could just for an instant be washed clean and feel real, tangible Love.

But all his life, no one else around him could see this desire burning in his heart. Everyone else assumed he was what he appeared to be on the surface. They all assumed he was a greedy, heartless tax collector with no concern for anything but money. Nothing could be farther from the Truth. I believe his only real concern only ever was love, but he felt stuck and powerless to change his situation. And that’s where the Christ jumped in. I believe that Jesus intuitively knew all of this. I’m not sure what Jesus prayed about that enabled Zacchaeus to be released from his prison of false perceptions, but whatever he did pray it clearly worked, and made real to Zacchaeus the fact that he was embraced now and forever by the All Love that is God. Jesus freed him from the mental barrier that had been erected that prevented him from sharing this joy and love with others out of fear of criticism and rejection.

It was once explained to me that the “Christ,” the divine message from God to man, is really a person’s true self. So in this sense, Zacchaeus was shown the Christ. He was shown just how profoundly unselfish and loving he really was — and had been all along. This understanding of the Christ was so powerful that it completely broke through an entire lifetime of tax-collecting-because-he-had-to. It completely shattered a lifetime of false perceptions by others, and false perceptions by himself. It showed forth the true man: magnanimously generous, unflinchingly free and light, and unconditionally loving. Jesus saw this true self in Zacchaeus lying dormant, desperately waiting to break free but unsure how to. And Jesus’ prayer brought forth the real Zacchaeus.

Love

Generally speaking, I always prefer the King James translation of the Bible over the other versions. For the most part, it’s the most accurate translation of any of the editions available. However, there are a few notable exceptions. In this post I’ll be discussing one such passage: John 21:15-17. Here’s what that looks like in the KJV:

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There is a lot going on underneath the surface here. First of all, this happened after Jesus’ resurrection — and after the dreaded night where this same Peter, son of Jonas, had publicly denied even having met Jesus three times. Peter loved his master dearly, and was eager to attack anyone who threatened Jesus physically, as evidenced by his cutting off Malchus’ ear with a sword in John 18:10. But Jesus knew that this love was not perfect, and there was still an element of timid selfishness within it, when he warned Peter that he would deny him three times. Peter was flabbergasted by this prediction. He didn’t believe it. But when it came true exactly as Jesus had predicted, and when he realized this, he wept bitterly. He felt like a miserable failure of a disciple. He was overwhelmed by guilt.

It is significant that Peter denied Jesus three times, and that Jesus asked him here “lovest thou me?” three times. Jesus was dragging him back out of the sense of guilt and shame he was now burdened with, after having denied his beloved master. For each denial, there was a reassurance of his love. Jesus was lifting him up with forgiveness and a renewed sense of purpose. In a sense, this was Peter’s resurrection.

But there is still much more going on here that isn’t revealed with the King James translation. In the Greek language, there are three words employed that all mean love: eros, philia, and agape. Eros is physical, romantic, sexual love. Movies like The Notebook are concerned with the eros type of love, as is pornography. (Sidenote: I consider movies like The Notebook to be a mild form of pornography, but that’s beside the point…)

Philia corresponds more closely with our ideas of brotherhood, sisterhood, or camaraderie. When you feel a close, personal connection with someone that isn’t necessarily physical, that’s the philia kind of love. Finally, there’s agape, which is a higher, more spiritual love. Agape describes God’s unfailing Love for mankind. A good analogy for this kind of love is sunlight. The sun doesn’t hold grudges. The sun doesn’t rise in the morning thinking to itself, “Jeremy hasn’t been very nice to me lately, so I’m going to send my sunbeams to everyone except Jeremy.” No — the sun shines down on everyone unconditionally (see Matthew 5:45). In the same way, God loves all of His creation equally and unconditionally. Even in sin, He still loves the real you. This is exemplified by the mere fact that Jesus had returned to encourage Peter here, even after Peter had betrayed him on the cross.

In the verses quoted above, when Jesus asks, “lovest thou me?” he asks “agapas me?” the first two times. Here he is asking if Peter has this higher form of agape love for Christ. Both times, Peter responds with “philos se,” meaning, “I love you,” but with the philia kind of love.

Peter considered Jesus to be his best friend in the whole world. He was happily willing to give his life for his master; he worshiped and adored him. To him, it was not a generic love for Christ, but a personal connection to the man Jesus, his best friend. To Peter, this was his highest understanding of what love is. This brotherhood, this personal connection, was higher and more real to him than the agape sort of love that Jesus was trying to teach him. He eagerly and impetuously answered in the affirmative, with this philia sort of love. Jesus was trying to teach him a lesson that, while this love is beautiful, it isn’t permanent and isn’t the highest, unconditional form of love there is. Still, in Peter’s mind, it was the highest form of love he understood at the time.

Finally, the third time, when Jesus asks, “lovest thou me?” he is actually asking “phileis me?” As you can see, he changed the question. Unfortunately this isn’t reflected in the English translation, since we only have one concise word for love. You might wonder why Jesus seemed to have abandoned his effort to teach Peter about this higher form of love and simply conceded to philia love. And that’s because, as Mary Baker Eddy says, he represented “divinity embracing humanity.” Peter wasn’t able to understand this higher form of love, and Jesus could see that. But rather than rebuking his disciple for not understanding the lesson yet, he tenderly acknowledged their relationship. He acknowledged the love that Peter had for him, and reciprocated it, letting him know that he also considered Peter to be a cherished best friend. He was meeting him where he was at.

But it’s interesting that after asking Peter if he loves him, he immediately makes demands on him to prove this love. Some people might think that if you love someone, you shouldn’t have to prove this, but here Jesus is showing that it is, indeed, absolutely vital that we continually prove the sincerity of our love through our actions — otherwise we become hypocrites. Have you ever had someone tell you they love you, or that they care about you, but then carry out actions that seem inconsistent with this declaration? To say that we “love” someone, but then to act inconsistently, is to dishonor Love — and ourselves — because it is dishonest. To say we love others but to not demonstrate our love for them is merely making the outward appearance look beautiful, while the inward reality is full of all uncleanness. Mary Baker Eddy also writes this quotation, which I love:

Love is not something put upon a shelf, to be taken down on rare occasions with sugar-tongs and laid on a rose-leaf. I make strong demands on love, call for active witnesses to prove it, and noble sacrifices and grand achievements as its results. Unless these appear, I cast aside the word as a sham and counterfeit, having no ring of the true metal. Love cannot be a mere abstraction, or goodness without activity and power.

Love cannot be a mere abstraction. In the case of this Bible verse, the agape form of love that Jesus was trying to explain to Peter did seem like a vague abstraction. He understood the personal, philia type of love, but he did not fully understand the more spiritual, agape sort of love. So rather than just leaving things ambiguous, Jesus expressed his love in a tangible way that Peter could understand by conceding that he did, indeed, share the philia type of love for his disciple. But, again, he does make demands on him to prove this love.

And interestingly enough, one of the commands is mistranslated in the King James Version! The KJV records “feed my lambs,” “feed my sheep,” and then “feed my sheep” again. When you look at the original Greek translation, you’ll see there is no such repetition in the last two commands; they are distinct. The New International Version offers a better translation when it points out that the second command is “take care of my sheep.” Another way of reading it would be “tend my flock.” So the three commands are “feed my lambs,” “tend my flock,” and “feed my sheep.” There are many ways one might interpret these commands, but let me offer my own interpretations.

I believe the first command, “feed my lambs,” is referring to children. We are commanded to provide spiritual nourishment to our children. This can be done by teaching them the word of God at an early age, by bringing them up in Sunday School, by teaching them good morals and how to love both their friends and their enemies. Children are naturally receptive to goodness, and we see many evidences that Jesus loved little children for their humility, receptivity, and light nature. You never see a child holding a grudge, or stressing out over their future. Children forgive quickly and easily, while they might be hurt or offended, they’ll have completely forgotten about the problem five minutes later. This kind of mentality is what Jesus loved, and he commands Peter (and all of us, by proxy) to feed this with every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The second command, to “take care of my sheep,” is to take care of the adults. It is interesting that he does not issue a command to “take care of my lambs.” I believe that’s because they don’t need any special taking care of. Children are taken care of naturally by God. I believe this shows us that God makes special efforts to watch over children. Often this is manifest through the protection of their human parents, but sometimes in other ways as well. But generally speaking, children only need to be protected from external dangers, but not from themselves. Adults, on the other hands, sometimes need to be protected from themselves. And this is why, I believe, he issues this command. Adults are given special freedoms that children aren’t — for better or for worse. Adults are sometimes educated into false ideas and bad habits, thinking that these things will lead them to happiness. And these same adults have to then be un-educated out of these vices. I believe that is what this command is referring to. It is asking us to take the time and care to take care of those who really need our help, and may not be able to fully help themselves.

Finally, Jesus says to “feed my sheep.” Here he is bringing home the point that the adults, too, also need to be fed with the word of God, just as the children do. They may also need special care as seen in the second command, but that isn’t to the exclusion of being fed.

Jesus commanded that we follow these commands if we are to prove that we really love Christ. I think this is a reflection for any sort of “love” that we claim in our lives. If we love someone, we should acknowledge and prove it. We should live consistently with our words, otherwise our claim of loving that person is a sham. I heard a pastor once say that “until we speak a blessing to a person, we haven’t really blessed them.” I’m inclined to agree with him, but what I believe more generally to be true is that until we send that person a blessing, whether that’s spoken or whether it’s done through some silent action, then it isn’t really a blessing. It isn’t love to simply think nice thoughts about a person when they’re not around, but then to avoid them at all costs.

However, sometimes relationships don’t work out, and it is necessary to love a person “from a distance.” Does that mean that we don’t love this person? Yes, it does! “Loving from a distance” is a poor substitute for real reciprocation! But at the same time, we still may feel love for them, just not in the most directly tangible form, or not in a form that they can recognize. We may always have a place for them in our hearts, and we may not love them as much as, perhaps, we ourselves implied to them. When we do love people fully and genuinely, we naturally want to be around them! We want to do things for them, to say nice and encouraging things to them, and to love them in whatever way they can understand. However, as we all learn, this isn’t always possible. Relationships don’t always work out, and so we realize that we can’t be around the person because it creates too much friction or too much bad-blood.

In the end, only the love of God is permanent. Human love, whether that’s eros or philia, will fail or have its shortcomings. Peter’s philia love for Jesus failed him on the night of the crucifixion. Even someone that we think absolutely owes us love due to one reason or another may fail us. But God never does. In the cases where we realize that we aren’t able to reciprocate our love in the way the other person wants, and that we have to instead love them “from a distance,” we also sometimes have to un-educate ourselves out of whatever bitterness, resentment, or false sense of superiority may have built up in our own thinking. We have to let go of the past and send them off with a blessing, and love them with an agape love…but from a distance. Does this make us bad people? No, of course not. But loving from a distance is not the same as a reciprocal love, as the kind of love that can and does prove itself through consistent action. But ultimately, we are not responsible for making anyone else feel loved. God will do this.

In the end, the only kind of love that is permanent is the love for God. Even the best marriages are still sadly brought to a close by death, and as Jesus says, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” But the comfort of these verses in John 21 is that Christ does make that unfailing love tangible and real to everyone. Jesus’ concession to the philia type of love that Peter could understand, in his third question, reciprocated and made real to Peter the underlying agape love he was trying to explain. And Christ does this same thing for all of us. The agape love is, and always has been, present in our lives continually. But when we can’t see it, or when we can only conceive of a lesser form of love, we are still eventually embraced by that lesser form in order to understand that the agape love behind it really is real.

Last night at church the First Reader picked out some absolutely beautiful passages written by Paul the Apostle in chapter 12 of his first epistle to the Corinthians. It is just overflowing with love, acceptance, and diversity! He begins:

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Everyone is given a different and unique set of gifts, talents. Some are given the “word of wisdom,” others the “word of knowledge,” others yet are given faith, and some are given the “gifts of healing,” and so on. I don’t think he means to imply that any of these attributes are mutually exclusive — certainly there are many people with both faith and wisdom, for instance! While Paul gives a finite list of gifts, we can certainly extend these to any sorts of “gifts” that God bestows. Some people have musical talent, others are really athletic, some people are good with mathematics, others still are really good at relating and connecting to people, and so on. “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit.” In other words, all these gifts, talents, and abilities, and all the people that express them, are all working together. Life is not a competition for limited resources or limited love; Life is a gift.

In the first chapter of Genesis, we read that “God created man in his own image and likeness.” Have you ever considered that, in a way, we are all God? This is not to blaspheme or imply that we have supernatural powers. But thinking about it from the perspective that a drop of water is, in a way, the ocean. And a ray of light is, in a way, the sun. So too that every man and woman created by God is, in a way, God. That is to say that we each are expressing the true image of God, we are each revealing who God really is whenever we are doing His will. We are still distinct from Him, because we are not God. But we are showing who God is by doing His will, by using our talents, by appreciating our gifts, by encouraging others. One individual droplet of water on its own is not the ocean, but together, all the droplets working together comprise the whole ocean. And one individual ray of light on its own is not the sun, but together, all of the light emanating from the sun expresses the likeness of the sun. The analogy isn’t perfect (no analogy is!), because the water droplets actually are the ocean, whereas men and women are not God, but God’s reflection. Paul continues:

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

Here Paul is conveying the holy importance of valuing and cherishing everyone for who they really are. We are often tempted to label certain people as “better” in some regard. We think that John is more successful than Jim, or that Terri is more attractive than Susan. We think that Alan is stronger than Rick, that Amy has more experience than Greta. We think that one spouse is better than another. Even the 12 disciples “disputed” with each other over who was the best. But these same disciples received a very stern rebuke from Christ in Mark 9:33-35, saying, “if any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all.”

It is arrogance to think that we are better or more valued than anyone else. This does not mean we need to feel worthless or insignificant. Indeed, we need to feel valued, loved, and important. But putting that in perspective, we also need to understand that everyone else is just as important — no exceptions. “God is no respecter of persons.” If someone has offended us, or wronged us, or hurt us, or withheld love from us, does this mean they are a mistake? Does this mean we should cast them out? Does this mean we should gossip about them behind their back? Does this mean we should condemn them mentally? No. “If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar.” People often say, “I don’t hate that person — I just really don’t like them.” There is no difference. To not like is to hate. Hatred is merely the absence of love, just as darkness is the absence of light. So if we are not loving someone, we are hating them. To try and use a euphemism such as “I just don’t like them” is hypocrisy. That is trying to make the outward appear beautiful while the inward reality is “full of all uncleanness.” We cannot say that the eye is better than the ear, or the hand is better than the foot. All are equally important. Paul continues:

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

Here he is saying how we are all unique, but that we are all in this together. He is saying that we are not meant to be clones of each other conforming to one person’s standard. Unity is not the same as uniformity. He also stresses that if one person is suffering, we should all empathize with them and help them out of it. We should not ignore their plight and feel grateful that we don’t have to go through that. That is what’s called the “pride of circumstance.” If one person is rejoicing, we should rejoice with them. We should not covet and wonder why they always get wonderful things and we never get anything good. We should just be genuinely happy for them, and see the blessings they have received as a promise of the blessings we too will receive.

Now on the topic of uniformity, the same apostle Paul is very clear about not condoning sin. He is especially clear about this at the end of Romans 1. But he is equally clear about not judging people in Romans 2, saying that if we are judging someone else for their sins, that is merely an indicator that we are still sinning ourselves. Once you have fully conquered a sin yourself, the serpent will transform into a rod, and you will be able to cast it out with confidence. But until then, it is better to worry about casting out the beam from your own eye before you worry about the mote in your brother’s eye. Sin does not define a person. Sin never constitutes anyone’s real identity, no matter how much they themselves may even insist that it does. Love people for who they are…for who they really are. Sin is just a temptation to start devaluing and excluding certain people. And Paul is clear that we are all in this together.

Busy, busy, busy

I haven’t blogged in awhile. I said in my last post that I’d be going through, changing things, removing things, and cleaning up things. That hasn’t happened yet. A good friend of mine is a web designer, and she has agreed to help me come up with a new site design for this website. So part of the reason I haven’t done this “spring cleaning” yet is because she hasn’t come up with the new design yet. The other part, however, is just that I’ve been very busy! Things are going very well at work, as we actually have more work than we can handle at the moment (so we’ve been going through the process of hiring additional employees).

At home, I’ve been looking for a new home. I’ve been working with a realtor trying to find a house to purchase. It’s an exciting next step, and I’ve already learned some important lessons along the way. But most of all, I’ve been more active with church work. Specifically, I’ve been acting as the adviser for the Christian Science Organization on the UW Madison campus. We have an hour-long meeting once a week on Thursday nights at 6:30 PM. With each meeting, we (the students and I) pick a discussion topic, and we share readings from the Bible and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy about that topic, as well as our own personal insights and struggles. So far some of the discussion topics have been employment, life purpose, stress, relationships, and the efficacy of prayer.

And because I’m kind of a technologically-inclined person, I’ve been maintaining the website for the CSO online. Part of this has been typing up summaries of what we talk about in the meetings. In other words, I’ve been blogging on a different blog. For the sake of privacy, I refer to the students in these blog posts using fake names; however I do refer to myself using my actual name because if you’ve ever met me you probably know that I’m a naturally candid person and I have few qualms about sharing details of my personal life with strangers. Still, I have been trying to keep my own self, my own ego, out of the discussions we have at CSO.

Since I am not a student any longer, I feel that in the long run my role as adviser should be more structural than anything else. This of course hasn’t been the case yet; I’ve been very hands on in leading the discussions, and preparing a lot before the meetings so there’s plenty to comprise an hour long discussion with. But like I said, even though there have been a few meetings where I do a lot of the talking, the goal I have in mind is always to do more listening than talking. The ultimate goal I have in mind is to eventually be able to phase myself out completely and let the next group of students take over completely, but before that happens I think it’s best to lead by example. And also, just from a technical point of view, I already know that I need to make the blogging tools I’ve been using a little easier to use, because I would like whoever my successor will be to be able to continue writing up summaries of our meetings as blog posts, and to continue using the power of the internet to connect with people. I have an advantage in that I built all of the tools I’m using myself, so I know very intimately how they work, but I know that I have to make them as user-friendly to as broad a user base as possible, because tools should help you get something done, not be an obstacle to getting things done. But then time is limited and at the moment I’m balancing a lot of things.

On the personal relationship side of things, I’m not really sure where I stand. There is a girl I’ve been pursuing, but I’m just not so sure about it. It’s something I’ve been praying very seriously about, and this morning I had a epiphany. I know that I am not being led to divulge any of the so-called juicy details here on the internet about it (which as some of you know, is something that I’ve done in the past with other girls), so I will not do that. What I am being led to do is to write a sermon, or perhaps even a series of sermons, on what I’ve been going through (both recently and over the years). I have valuable insights to share and encouragement for others to offer. I’m going to use this blog as a platform for some online sermons. And I have a feeling some of the first ones may be related to relationships.

So what I’m going to do with this blog, going forward, is divide the posts into three separate categories: personal updates (such as this one), religious sermons, and posts about computer programming. I’m still debating whether or not it would be best to go through and delete many of my old posts that don’t fit within these categories, but that’s what I’m leaning toward. But for now, before I’ve made the updates, I will leave all the old posts be.

So that’s enough for this post. I’m going to start typing up the next post, which will be a religious sermon, later this evening. But first, I’m going to go visit a house that I’m seriously interested in buying. I’m bringing my parents along so I can some extra sets of eyes and extra opinions to help me as I initiate the home-buying process. It’s exciting stuff!

I’ve been thinking just a little bit about the purpose of this blog. When I get back I plan to do a bit of spring cleaning. I’ll either be drastically editing down or just outright deleting a number of posts that I feel are no longer in line with my thinking. At the same time I think I’m going to be switching away from using WordPress and start using some custom-made blogging software instead in order to afford some more granular control. I think there is a potential with this blog to do some good, and so far (with the exception of perhaps the last two posts) I don’t think I’ve really been utilizing that. So expect to see changes within a few weeks months to both the content and layout.

But until then, I thought I’d share with you all two absolutely wonderful examples of the power of Love to resolve all conflicts. The first is taken from a book called Return from Tomorrow by Dr. George Ritchie. This particular excerpt is about his encounter with a man who was a prisoner of a concentration camp, and his unconditional love and forgiveness is just absolutely incredible. The second is a video clip of a television interview, to which I’ve also included a transcript, of a former KKK member, his interactions with a black minister, and the result. This ex-KKK member later completely reformed all his ways and became a Christian minister himself, but what is really important to pay attention to is the loving response that the black minister offered to even the most frightening forms of hatred. His absolute refusal to take offense with this man despite his horrifying errors in judgment (that may seem obvious to you and me), and his ability to rightly discern who this man really was despite his poor actions, are nothing short of wonderful. I hope that both stories will help to light a flame of inspiration in your hearts to love more unconditionally and to forgive those who have hurt you, for both your own benefit and their’s.

When the war in Europe ended in May 1945, the 123rd Evacuation entered Germany with the occupying troops. I was part of a group assigned to a concentration camp near Wuppertal [...] And that’s how I came to know Wild Bill Cody. That wasn’t his real name. His real name was seven unpronounceable syllables in Polish, but he had a long drooping handlebar mustache like pictures of the old western hero, so the American soldiers called him Wild Bill. He was one of the inmates of the concentration camp, but obviously he hadn’t been there long: his posture was erect, his eyes bright, his energy indefatigable. Since he was fluent in English, French, German and Russian, as well as Polish, he became a kind of unofficial camp translator.

We came to him with all sorts of problems; the paper work alone was staggering in attempting to relocate people whose families, even whole hometowns, might have disappeared. But though Wild Bill worked fifteen and sixteen hours a day, he showed no signs of weariness. While the rest of us were drooping with fatigue, he seemed to gain strength. “We have time for this old fellow,” he would say. “He’s been waiting to see us all day.” His compassion for his fellow prisoners glowed on his face, and it was to this glow that I came when my own spirits were low.

So I was astonished to learn when Wild Bill’s own papers came before us one day that he had been in Wuppertal since 1939! For six years he had lived on the same starvation diet, slept in the same airless and disease-ridden barracks as everyone else, but without the least physical or mental deterioration.

Perhaps even more amazing, every group in the camp looked on him as a friend. He was the one to whom quarrels between inmates were brought for arbitration. Only after I’d been at Wuppertal a number of weeks did I realize what a rarity this was in a compound where the different nationalities of prisoners hated each other almost as much as they did the Germans.

As for Germans, feelings against them ran so high that in some camps liberated earlier former prisoners had seized guns, run into the nearest village and simply shot the first Germans they saw. Part of our instructions were to prevent this kind of thing and again, Wild Bill was our greatest asset, reasoning with the different groups, counseling forgiveness.

“It’s not easy for some of them to forgive,” I commented to him one day as we sat over mugs of tea in the processing center. “So many of them have lost members of their families.”

Wild Bill leaned back in the upright chair and sipped at his drink. “We lived in the Jewish section of Warsaw,” he began slowly, the first words I had heard him speak about himself, “my wife, our two daughters, and our three little boys. When the Germans reached our street they lined everyone against a wall and opened up with machine guns. I begged to be allowed to die with my family, but because I spoke German they put me in a work group.”
He paused, perhaps seeing again his wife and five children. “I had to decide right then,” he continued, “whether to let myself hate the soldiers who had done this. It was an easy decision, really. I was a lawyer. In my practice I had seen too often what hate could do to people’s minds and bodies. Hate had just killed the six people who mattered most to me in the world. I decided then that I would spend the rest of my life–whether it was a few days or many years–loving each person I came in contact with.”

Loving every person . . . this was the power that had kept a man well in the face of every privation.

Video Transcript:

A: In 1979, you went to a radio debate with the Reverend Wade Watts, who was the state leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, worked with Martin Luther King. When you got to this debate, he held out his hand for you to shake. Did you hesitate?

J: He caught me off guard. See, I’m expecting this black militant to come in with a great big afro and an African dashiki on with bones hanging around it and a button on that says, “I hate honkies,” and “death to crackers,” and all that stuff.

A: You seriously thought that?

J: Yeah, that’s what I thought. And I thought he’d come in there carrying a boom box wearing out the theme from Shaft; I figured he’d say, “Black is beautiful, honkie. I’m gonna kill all you white devils!” That’s what I thought I was going to see, so when the door opened up and in came Reverend Wade Watts, and he’s wearing a suit and a tie and he’s carrying a Bible, and he walks out and puts his hand out to me and says, “Hello there Mr. Clary. I’m Reverend Wade Watts. I just want to tell you that I love you and Jesus loves you,” I’m shocked! And he puts his hand out and I’m shaking his hand without thinking because this isn’t what I’m expecting.

Then I realized that I just broke a clan rule and I jerked my hand back and I start looking at my hand. He saw that, and that was met as an insult. The clan rulebook says that the physical touch of a non-white is pollution, and I thought I just shook hands with a black person, and he sees me looking at my hand and says, “don’t worry Johnny, it don’t come off.” And I start calling him names, I say, “you no good, sorry bleep bleep, you mother this, you this you that,” and he looked at me and said, “God bless you Johnny.” He said, “you can’t do enough to me to make me hate you; I’m going to love you and I’m going to pray for you whether you like it or not.” And I didn’t know how to deal with that; I had never had that happen to me before.

A: A few years later you burnt down his church, didn’t you?

J: Set fire to his church. See, what happened was that we had started off going to his house, calling him names, we got no response. We threw trash all over his lawn, got no response. We showed up with our sheets and hoods and stood out there in his yard, and said, “get on out here boy, we got something for you,” and he comes outside and says, “boys, Halloween is four more months away; I got no trick or treats in here for you. Come back in October,” and he goes back in the house.

A: That’s a brave man.

J: Yeah! And I didn’t know how to deal with this. And so the clan says, “you got any more bright ideas?” I said, “I don’t know!” And then I said, “I’ll tell you what we’ll do,” so we burned a cross across the street from his house. He came outside and asked us if we needed hotdogs and marshmallows for our barbeque.

So finally I said I’m tired of messing with him, so we set fire to his church. And they put the fire out before the church was destroyed, and I remember I called him up and disguised my voice, and I said, “hey boy you better be afraid, we’re coming to get you boy, you don’t know who we are but we know who you are,” and he says, “Hello Johnny! A man like you takes the time to call me; I’m so honored! Let me do something for you,” he says, “Dear Lord, please forgive Johnny for being so stupid. He doesn’t mean to be so ornery; he’s a good boy trying to–” and I hung up the phone, and I said, “how dare him!”

The funniest thing that happened with him, though, is when I didn’t know what to do, and I was at my rope’s end, and one day we were watching him and he went into a restaurant, so we got a bunch of us together and about thirty of us went in there and surrounded him, and he had this chicken there on the table at the restaurant, and I walked up and said, “hey boy, this restaurant’s for white people only; we don’t want you here. So I’m going to make you a promise.” I said, “I promise you we’re going to do the same thing to you that you do to that chicken, so you think real hard before you touch that chicken.”

So he looked at me and looked at the clan, then he picked up the chicken and he kissed it. And when he kissed the chicken, the whole restaurant acted just like ya’ll did; they all start laughing. And I looked up and even the clan was laughing. You gotta admit, that was funny. I said, “everyone of you outside!” I’m outside and they’re doubled over laughing, I’m saying, “you guys are going to get suspended and lose your robes for two weeks; I’m getting tired of this.” And I’m hollering at them and yelling and they’re laughing, and I heard a horn honk and Reverend Watts is driving by, waving, and saying, “Bye Johnny!” And that’s how he chose, that’s how one old black–we never bothered him again–and that’s how one old black man defeated the entire Ku Klux Klan, because he used his head instead of brawn.

A: And he used his heart too, a very brave man.

J: He used his heart, yeah.

Faith and Government

On Tuesday, November 10, 2009, I used up half of a vacation day at work so that I could commute over to our State Capitol and show my support for a bill being brought in front of a Senate Committee. I’m of course referring to the Wisconsin State Senate–not the 100-member Washington D.C.-based Senate you usually think of when you hear the word “senate.” The Wisconsin Senate only has 33 members, while the Wisconsin Assembly (our equivalent of the House of Representatives) has 99 members. The bill I’m referring to is Senate Bill 384, the Freedom of Choice of Faith Act, which you can read unabridged via that link. The bill was put forward by State Senator Lena Taylor, who I really must say is a very sensible yet vibrant woman.

That Tuesday, as the bill was introduced, the session was technically called a “public hearing,” because anyone from the public had the opportunity to speak before the committee with their thoughts on the bill. A lot of people showed up, most of whom came to speak in support of the bill. They actually had to move us to a larger room twice to accommodate so many people sitting in on the hearing (there were more than 50 people present in support of the bill). I would encourage you to read the text of the bill and judge for yourself to see what it’s all about; it’s really not that long. I’m about to include a verbatim copy of the letter I’ve just sent to my state senator, so reading that should fill you in on the details of this bill. But I’ll give you a quick spoiler anyway just to wet your whistle. I will caution that this post is going to get very long, so if you’re not going to read the whole thing, or even if you just find me annoying, I would still strongly encourage you to scroll down to the end of the post and read the last testimony. I think it’s really good.

This bill has to deal with faith healing and child negligence laws. Last April, a girl died of diabetes after her parents adamantly refused any medical treatment for her, even though her condition visibly worsened over the course of about a month. They were charged and brought to trial, where they tried to use Wisconsin’s current law to argue that what they did cannot be considered negligence. Their argument was denied, and they were convicted. So to be perfectly frank, the law worked. They were tried and convicted. Still, this case galvanized a lot of people into wanting to change the law to be stricter about these things to hopefully prevent it from happening again at all, and that’s an honorable charge. Senate Bill 384 does just that. It makes the law stricter than what it is right now.

Currently, Wisconsin law states that “A person is not guilty of [physical abuse of a child] solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.” So right now, the law on the books says that any form of faith healing at all is to be considered legitimate, and should not be regarded as negligent behavior in a court of law. This bill that I’m supporting here repeals that clause. However, it does put something in its place–and this is key. There have been alternate bills proposed that simply remove this clause altogether and put nothing in its place, and quite frankly I think that idea is not only dangerously intolerant, but is also insidiously anti-religion. Senator Taylor’s bill will replace that section of the law with a new section that essentially says a parent can be considered negligent for using another system of healing besides the medical–unless they can show evidence in court that they had a reasonable expectation that it would work based on past success.

And that’s really the crux of the whole argument surrounding faith healing. If you’re an atheist, then clearly you don’t believe faith healing is or ever has been possible. If there’s no God, then there’s certainly no way He can heal anything, and so from that point of view, it is logically correct to deduce that relying on faith healing is the same as doing nothing, and is therefore negligent. I can understand that viewpoint perfectly, but I still completely disagree with it. If you do believe in God, then you have to admit that faith healing is possible. Now I understand different people are going to differ on their beliefs of how probable it is–for instance, some people might argue that God heals by giving us medicine. I don’t happen to agree with that either, but I understand the argument.

Likewise, I would ask you to understand that there are a good many people who not only believe that faith healing is both possible and reliable, but they rely on it being so for their own health care. I am one of those people. As a Christian Scientist, I always turn to God first. Now I’m not unreasonable, and I know when I’m in over my head, so I have turned to the medical world for relief once or twice in my lifetime, but on the whole I’ve found that putting my trust and understand in the Lord does affect ones health for the better. And don’t just take my word for it; I would highly encourage you to read the testimonies in support of this bill given by other Wisconsin residents as well. I’ll include them below, but I’ll also include a PDF file of them here as well.

Anyways, the issue fundamentally boils down to one thing: does faith healing work? Again, if you’re atheist, I know that your answer is no, and there’s probably little I can say to convince you. You would probably believe that faith healing is 0% effective, and while the medical world might not be 100% effective, it’s the only thing we’ve got. But I, my friends, and my family can all attest to the efficacy of prayer-based healing. It works. Testimonies of it working are recorded and even published all the time. I know that atheists will still generally dismiss those testimonies as purely coincidental, but if you are a person of faith, I implore you to express that faith. Opponents of faith healing are often very quick to point out cases like the one mentioned above, where a child dies despite the best efforts of a faith healer. However they are often very quiet when faced with the statistics of children who die because of medical complications despite the best efforts of a medical doctor. Isn’t that called confirmation bias?

However I do not deny that they have valid concerns–we obviously don’t want to promote children dying. So I agree that the law should be stricter than what it is now, and so I believe Senator Taylor’s bill is the best way to do that. I believe her bill is a good compromise, because while it does place the burden of proof with the parents, it still allows them the chance to explain themselves before the court and tell about any past success they’ve had. Because if something’s worked for you in the past, it’s reasonable to expect that it will work for you again in the future. But anyways, enough of my quick summary; I’m just going to include the letter that I sent to my State Senator below. I’m also going to include my transcript of all the testimonies given in support of the bill that day below, which I reference in my letter. Please, if you’re willing, write or call your Wisconsin state senator and ask them to support Senate Bill 384.


Dear Senator,

I am writing to ask your support on Senate Bill 384, The Freedom of Choice of Faith Act, authored by Senator Lena Taylor of the 4th District. This bill deals with both religious freedom and child negligence laws. As a Wisconsin resident and practicing Christian Scientist, I am strongly in favor in Senator Taylor’s bill and I wish to give you a little context on the issue as well as explain my own opinion. I was present at the public hearing for this bill, and using the video footage provided by the Wisconsin Eye service, I later went back and wrote up a full transcript of all the testimonies given in support of the bill that day. I have attached said transcript with this message, so after reading through my own take on the matter, I’d appreciate if you would take a look at what other Wisconsin citizens have to say about it as well.

Back in April of last year, an 11-year old girl in Wausau named Madeline Kara Neumann died of diabetes. Her parents, who did not belong to any particular church, insisted on relying on faith healing in lieu of conventional medical treatment. Though their daughter’s condition visibly worsened over the course of about a month, they adamantly refused medical care during that time until the girl eventually passed away. Later, both parents were charged and convicted of reckless endangerment and were sentenced to jail time. This situation quickly became a high profile case and sparked a lot of debate about the merits of prayer or faith based healing. It also galvanized many into demanding changes in the law in order to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

The protection of children should always be given the utmost importance. However, it is crucial that as a lawmaker you carefully examine any proposal that comes forward on the matter to ensure that it does not conceal hidden agendas–especially when it is regarding a case that can elicit a strong emotional response from the public (like Madeline’s death clearly does). Certain other lawmakers have begun drafting alternative proposals to Senator Taylor’s bill, and after examining at least one of those bills I found quite a bit of anti-religious “pork” and insidious side effects on personal liberties contained therein. Fortunately, after close examination of Senator Taylor’s bill, I can confidently say that it is a well-thought compromise for all parties. I ask for your support of Senator Taylor’s bill 384.

I am a lifelong Christian Scientist. Christian Science is a worldwide Christian religion, founded in 1866, that teaches its followers to follow the path shown by Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible. However, there are some notable distinctions between Christian Science and “mainstream” Christianity, including a reliance on prayer and spiritual treatment instead of medical treatment. I also want to point out that I am writing you today of my own volition; no one from the church has asked me to be a spokesperson or anything to that effect. I am writing as a concerned citizen who wants a fair system of law that will protect children without creating unwanted side effects.

I can tell you from my own experience that Christian Science works. I know that healing through prayer is not only possible, but happens on a regular basis all over the world. Since the late 1800s, the Christian Science church has published both weekly and monthly literature with testimonies of healing through the practice. However, I also know through personal experience that there is no stigma in the church if one chooses to rely on medical care instead of spiritual treatment, as I have done so myself on a few occasions. When I was 14, I accidentally swallowed my orthodontic retainer in my sleep. My parents and I first turned to Christian Science treatment, but after a little while we decided together that the situation was not one we felt ready to handle through prayer, so we opted to go to the hospital where I underwent stomach surgery to have the retainer removed.
My reason for sharing a story in which I did not rely on spiritual care is simply to illustrate that my family and I have always had the rational judgment to know when we’re in over our heads and ask for whatever help we can get. And this is fundamentally the difference I want to point out between every Christian Scientist I have ever met and the Neumann family. The Neumanns insisted on shunning all medical treatment and rigidly sticking with one method, despite seeing no signs of progress whatsoever over the course of a month, nor any evidence of past success either. In the end, they effectively martyred their daughter rather than using common sense judgment. I do not believe any rational parent would do this, which is why I believe it was correct that they were tried and convicted.

However, had they been able to show a reasonable expectation of recovery based on past success, I believe that would have been a different story. It is reasonable to expect that a system that has yielded consistent positive results in the past will continue to do so in the future. So if the Neumanns had any reasonable expectation that their method would have worked based on past experience, then I might withhold my judgment. However, this does not seem to be the case. It seems as though they were trying their method blindly and stubbornly, which is precisely what Senator Taylor’s bill would help to prevent from happening again.

Currently the Wisconsin State Statues state that a parent cannot be considered negligent solely because they turned to faith healing in lieu of medical treatment (948.03(6)). The law also provides a specific exemption that no other Wisconsin law shall be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science (448.03(6)). Senator Taylor’s bill will repeal the former and amend the latter. Her bill will also create a brand new section to effectively replace the former.

In place of 948.03(6)–which currently serves as a blanket protection for all faith healing–the Taylor bill will create what is called an “affirmative defense.” This means that if a child were to die while under the care of spiritual or faith-based healing, the parents would be considered negligent, but they would be given a chance to prove themselves in court and argue that their actions were reasonable. This affirmative defense would provide a set of nine very specific criteria that they could use to prove that they were acting reasonably, including past efficacy of spiritual treatment, length of time that the child showed symptoms, and more.

Opponents of this bill insist that the best idea is simply to remove any and all religious considerations whatsoever from the law, thereby providing “equal” protection for all children. This unfortunately represents a very short-sighted and intolerant viewpoint. Removing all religious considerations is not equality; it’s monopoly. It’s a monopoly on health care, demanding through force of law that the only safe, effective, and legal option would be to use medical treatment in every case. This would effectively aim to legislate away a whole set of cultures and practices as well as writing into law the belief that God either does not exist or cannot heal. This makes sense from an atheistic point of view, but it is not the role of government to force everyone into being atheists.

Opponents are also very quick to point out anecdotal cases where children have died under spiritual care, but are strangely silent when asked about children who have died under the care of doctors, because of infections, medical complications, or other unfortunate circumstances. Removing all religious considerations from the law would effectively legislate that medical science is 100% reliable while spiritual treatment is 0% reliable. And there are volumes upon volumes of documented testimonies that prove otherwise. I would encourage you to read the transcript of the public hearing for this bill that I’ve attached–there are several positive testimonies of prayer-based healing at work from your own Wisconsin neighbors.

But I will concede that some of the opponents have a valid concern that it is dangerous for government to be too permissive when it comes to religion. The Neumann case is already a clear example of that. However, I will remind you that the Neumanns were not Christian Scientists as they did not belong to any particular church at all, and that they were convicted in a court of law. Still, since the law presently excuses all forms of faith-based healing from being considered negligent, I believe Senator Taylor’s bill offers a solid compromise by removing this exemption but still leaving in its place the affirmative defense. By giving parents a chance to explain their actions and include testimony of past success as reason to have turned to a method other than the medical, this will simply allow as much as evidence as possible to be considered before passing judgment. Since the bill is a bit harsher than current law, it will help to deter any parents like the Neumanns who have no history of success with faith-based healing from blindly turning to something they do not understand.

As Mr. Joe Farkas so eloquently said in his testimony, the protection of children is paramount. And Senator Taylor’s bill treats that protection with the utmost importance, while simultaneously having the wisdom and tolerance that sometimes there are several different paths to the same summit. I strongly encourage you to read the testimonies I have transcribed of other Wisconsin residents who support this bill, and to likewise strongly support this bill yourself.

Warm Regards,

Gordon Myers


Lastly, I did mention in that letter and above that I transcribed all the testimonies given in support of the bill back in November. I used the footage provided by Wisconsin Eye to do this. Wisconsin Eye is essentially the equivalent of C-SPAN, except on the state level. The video of the hearing is split into two parts: part one and part two. So if you’d rather just watch the video, by all means feel free to do so. It starts at around 1:16:00 into part one, and continues right into part two. I will caution you, though, that the video does cut out abruptly at two points: first, between part one and part two there is a small gap, and then again toward the end of part two when the cameraman had to change the tape.

These gaps made it a little more challenging to transcribe the testimonies, so what I ended up doing was getting in touch with the two individuals whose video testimony is interrupted, and asked them to transcribe the missing section for me. They both graciously obliged, but I’ve put those sections below in italics to note that it wasn’t a direct transcription but still was from the primary sources. And since I was there myself, I can attest to the fact that these parts are correct. Anyways, if you’re only going to read one thing in this post at all, read the very last testimony by Sonette Tippins. It’s really good.


Lena Taylor

Honorable members of the committee, thank you for taking testimony relating to Senate Bill 384–the
Freedom of Choice of Faith Act–a piece of legislation relating to a person’s constitutional right to
practice their faith, healing beliefs, and the exemptions in the law regarding prosecutions of crimes. The
unfortunate case that has happened with the Neumann family in Wausau has drawn much attention, not
just within our state but within the nation, to the issue of electing spiritual or Christian Science treatment
in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for a child.

The Freedom of Choice of Faith Act modifies current law to further protect the child. Current law
provides exemption to prosecution for parents or guardians who elect spiritual treatment in lieu of
medical treatment of their child. This bill repeals this exemption to prosecution. Also, under current law,
individuals choosing Christian Science treatment cannot be compelled to submit to medical or surgical
treatment. SB 384 mandates the use of medical treatment as required when a child is taken into custody
because the child is in immediate danger from his or her surroundings. To be clear, law enforcement can
determine at their discretion when any child is in danger and immediately remove the child from the
home under current law. This bill says that medical treatment must be given if the child is in need of
medical treatment.

To protect the rights of practice of faith, this bill creates an affirmative defense for parents or guardians
when their conduct is in good faith and is a reasonable use of spiritual, prayer, or religious treatment in
lieu of medical treatment. However, by using an affirmative defense the burden of proof goes to the
defendant to prove that they were or are capable of faith healing. Lastly, in applying that affirmative
defense, the bill provides direction to the presiding judge by outlining nine factors related to determining
whether the use of spiritual, prayer, or religious treatment in lieu of medical treatment was indeed
reasonable.

There will be many person testifying today on this bill. I encourage you to listen carefully to each with an
open mind, realizing that we all come to the table with different perspectives, different beliefs, different
faith. The goal of this bill is to find the balance to protecting the children and ensuring that we do not
violate the first amendment right of our citizens. They have the right of faith, even if it is not our faith. I
encourage you to review it closely and to ask yourself–ask me questions if need be. But I ask for your
support of this legislation.

Glenn Grothman

I’d like to thank you for introducing the bill. I think it’s a necessary bill. I think there’s always the danger
of intolerance in our society and I see just going through the handouts that we’re going to have some
people that are going to express that intolerance later on, but I’m glad to see we have some people looking
out for freedom and people who believe in faith. Thank you.

Joseph Farkas

Thank you for this opportunity to support this bill. I am the legislative and media liaison for the Christian
Science churches and societies here in Wisconsin. I am also a Christian Science practitioner–someone
who provides help through prayer at the request of individuals who have chosen to rely on spiritual means
for healing as taught in Christian Science.

The protection of [children is paramount]. The Christian Science church has always supported the
protection of children. Our newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, a Pulitzer Prize-winning paper has
always highlighted aspects in society where there has been an abuse and have also called for solutions to
this. I’m not going to go into the Neumann case because Senator Taylor so eloquently described it; just to
point out that the Neumanns were not Christian Scientists. This bill also clarifies the Wisconsin Medical
Practices Act, which is merely a licensing part of the law.

Some people have expressed concern that the language supersedes Wisconsin child protection laws and
that is not the case. This legislation adds already existing language in law that really points out that the
state does have the opportunity to immediately step in and remove a child in danger, need, illness, or
sickness and then order medical treatment.

I’m not a lawyer, but in terms of the affirmative defense that’s in this bill–it provides an opportunity for
everyone to hear all the facts that are involved in this case, a full story, and I believe reasonable people in
a jury or a judge can listen and determine the reasonableness of the people’s actions, so I believe it helps
everyone understand what happened and form a reasonable decision about the facts.

At the heart of all of this, I think both opponents and proponents have one goal in mind: do no harm to
children. Spiritual healing is at the heart of this issue and I truly believe that laws can be passed that
protect children and accommodate the reasonable use of spiritual healing for children’s healthcare needs.
This is such a bill, and I ask that it be voted out of committee, and I thank you for letting me speak today.

Cymbrie Van Fossen

Good morning. My name is Cymbrie Van Fossen. I am a member of the Christian Science church and I
wanted to start my testimony by thanking Senator Taylor and the committee for taking the time to hear
from members of the Wisconsin faith community like me who feel strongly that prayer is a safe and
effective means of maintaining the health and welfare of our children and our families. I am speaking in
support of Senate Bill 384. I’m a mom of three children. I have twin girls who are 12, a little boy who is 9,
and my first priority is the well being of these children. Nothing is more important to me than their safety,
their health, and their happiness.

I do respect the need of the state of Wisconsin to ensure that all children, regardless of their parents’
religious affiliations, are protected from harm and that’s why I support the proposed legislation. It gives
parents the legal framework in which to present information about their spiritual background and their
history of success in relying on prayer for healing as an affirmative defense in the event of a jury trial. My
own family has had many examples of physical healing throughout the years–everything from colds,
coughs, rashes, small stuff to medically-diagnosed instances of strep throat, anemia, and in one case
abnormal hip development.

I know my time is limited; I did want to share a few details of this last example as it was a medicallydiagnosed
situation where, at the birth of my son, the attending pediatrician at Meriter hospital gave him a
checkup, said everything was great, except there was this hip-click, which he said could lead to a
permanent disability if it wasn’t addressed and that he wouldn’t crawl properly and then wouldn’t walk
properly. I’ll just conclude by saying that I did turn to prayer for this and when I returned two months later
for his regularly scheduled checkup it was determined that there was no further problem and this has been
diagnosed and recorded in his health care exam sheets that I still do have. I think that Christian Science
care can be provided responsibly and I thank the committee for considering this legislation which helps us
to do that.

Robin Engel

Good morning and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Robin Engel and I live on Highway 89 in
Jefferson. I am here to support the Taylor bill because of its clear-headed thinking necessary to protect
children. The Christian Science church I belong to in Fort Atkinson was founded in the 1890s by pillars
of the community. This legislature honored its centennial anniversary. The individual contributions of our
members to the community over the years have been significant and enduring. My heart goes out to the
Neumann family, whose daughter died despite their best prayers.

The welfare of children transcends dogma and constitutional arguments. Christian Scientists are loving
and responsible parents who pray with and for our children because it works. My own children and
grandchildren have been healed of medically-examined concerns, including a hip-joint issue, hearing and
speech impairment, and a contagious skin disease through the practical application of Christian Science.
Christian Science does not prohibit medical treatment nor do Christian Scientists think less of church
members who use doctors. Some of us wear glasses, get broken bones set, and have surgical procedures.
As a Christian Scientist, I obey the law regarding quarantine of contagious diseases and vaccinations, and
I am grateful to this state for its strong child protection laws, and I support and obey them. I commend
you for your thoughtfulness in finding a solution that will protect children and provide fairness in a jury
trial. Thank you for supporting the Taylor bill.

Barry Whiteman

My name is Barry Whiteman; I’m here to speak in favor of Senate Bill 384 because it protects children by
removing the criminal child abuse religious accommodation that the Neumann’s defense attorney used to
try to shield prosecution. The bill also protects children by making it clear that the state can, at any time,
go into a home, take custody of a seriously ill child, and provide medical treatment. It’s a reasonable
compromise.

My wife and I were both raised in Christian Science and so were our three kids, and they’re all in their
twenties, and they’re gone; they’re launched, and they’re happy, healthy, and fully launched, and as
everybody knows that’s no small task. We saw many evidences of spiritual healing with our children.
Some years ago one of them was hit by a car while riding his bike and he spent six weeks in a fine
hospital–traction, the whole bit. It was one situation where we just weren’t prepared to handle it
exclusively through prayer. We feel it’s important to practice a reasonable and responsible use of spiritual
treatment and prayer. Anyway, he recovered fully, but his doctors did say that as a result of his serious leg
injury he might have trouble being fully mobile in the future. He was six years old at the time. Anyway,
he recovered fully, and it turns out that that kid played high school tennis, high school football, then he
went on to college, and he played college division three tennis and football and he was named All
Conference three times for tennis. So he did okay, and his leg is just fine. Continued prayer for our son
had a valuable role in that long-term healing. Prayer does work. It promotes very good health outcomes
for kids.

I’m in favor in the responsible and reasonable use of prayer that promotes this well being and the health
and protection of children is paramount, and for these reasons I support Senate Bill 384 as a good
compromise, and I urge you to do so as well. Thank you very much.

Wanda Warmack

Thank you Senator Taylor and I appreciate that I have submitted some written testimony and you can
refer to that for the points, but I just thought for clarification in addressing what the former speaker raised
as objections to the bill, it will not make it more difficult to intervene. I think the chairman has recognized
that it actually iterates what’s already the standard within Wisconsin that the state can immediately take
custody of a child and provide immediate–without court order–medical treatment for seriously ill
children. What this legislation does do is provide an anti-discrimination provision at a trial which would
just allow presentation of evidence, and the iteration of the different factors–they’re very concrete: the
age of the child, whether the parents knew it was serious or not, these are all considerations that are very
clearly defined in the aspects that you set forth as part of information that can be presented in trial. So, if
there are any questions I’m willing to answer them if necessary later. I am here representing the Christian
Science church; I am the legislative manager of the area that deals with government.

Janet Chisholm

My name is Janet Chisholm and I’m here to speak in favor of the Taylor bill. I’ve lived in Madison for a
number of years, but don’t get worried that I’m going back this far; I was born in a small town in
Oklahoma, where I was raised a Methodist and had a wonderful experience in that church.
They had a strong sense of community and I was instilled with the idea of caring for others. The most
interesting thing about life in that church was my Sunday School teachers who were brilliant research
scientists for Continental Oil Company, as it was known at that time, and they taught me to challenge all
my thinking, to look at what I was thinking, to challenge it, to be a thinker, and to search for the truth. I
think my parents were happy that I went on a spiritual journey and left the church. I hope they were; my
sister’s a Tibetan Buddhist and my other sister’s a Catholic, so we kind of took it at heart what our
research scientist-teachers told us.

I ended up studying Christian Science and becoming a member and raised a daughter in it. When I look
back on my experience as a Methodist and as a Christian Scientist, and compare my experience in those
churches, I can honestly say that both churches are filled with parents who love their children and who
work tirelessly for their benefit, for their nurturing, for their protection. So as a Christian Scientist, I
would not want a state law that benefits parents who do neglect their children or abuse them, and as a
parent I can say unequivocally that I would never knowingly sacrifice the life of my child for my religious
beliefs; I just wouldn’t do it.

And so this brings me to the Taylor bill, because I do think it protects the rights of children, and I also
think it gives parents who might find themselves in a court case the ability to explain themselves. If I
were a juror on that case, I would want to know what they were thinking so I could help render a more
informed verdict. So I thank you for your work on this bill and I support it.

Jon Axelrod

Thank you Senator Taylor. First I want to thank you and thank the members of the committee for
allowing me to come express not my support or opposition to the bill, but to try to give you my analysis
from a legal point of view, and specifically a constitutional law point of view.

[At this point Senator Taylor interrupted to ask whether Attorney Axelrod was registering in favor or
speaking for informational only, and Attorney Axelrod clarified that he was registering in support.]

I’m supporting it because I think from a constitutional point of view as well as a legal point of view it’s
just an excellent balance. I represent the Christian Science church. I’m a partner in Dewitt, Ross, and
Stevens in Madison. I’m not a Christian Scientist, and as I said I’m not here today to express my views
either in support of the policy in the bill or against the policy in the bill, but instead to try to analyze SB
384 from a constitutional law point of view, and let me tell you, I think not only are you an excellent
chairman but I think you’re an excellent attorney because your proposal strikes a very thoughtful balance
between the perceived abuses of the Neumann case on the one hand, who incidentally were not Christian
Scientists and who incidentally were convicted. And the opposite pole, which I believe would promote
religious discrimination and deny people of faith the opportunity to reasonably practice their faith, and I
believe that would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment and particularly the standards in the
City of Hialeah case in the United States Supreme Court.

I think what you’ve done is very thoughtfully struck a balance between these two poles, if you will, and I
think that the affirmative defense which would remain in Wisconsin is done in a particularly thoughtful
way because it would allow people their due process rights to explain themselves if it ever came to a trial
in front of a judge or in front of a jury as to whether or not they acted reasonably, but it wouldn’t put
handcuffs on the court or the jury to accept that testimony, but simply to evaluate that testimony in light
of all other factors including whether medical treatment could have solved that particular condition, the
family’s religious background, and so forth. So I applaud your efforts; I think this is the legislative process
at its best. I did come today hoping that you would allow me more than two-and-a-half minutes, and I
understand why that’s not possible, but I have some written which I would like to give to the page or the
clerk and I thank you.

Nancy Gingras

Good afternoon Senator Taylor, and a very heartfelt thank you for this opportunity today for not only
myself but for everyone who’s being able to speak in favor of this bill and to the committee, thank you.
As you mentioned my name is Nancy Gingras, and in my own experience I have practiced Christian
Science all my life, and I have found it to be an effective way of treating illness and injury. Therefore, as
a mother of two children who are now grown, it was just natural for me to turn to Christian Science in the
health care of my children. However the children’s father was not a practicing Christian Scientist, and talk
about tolerance, we had that right within our own home, and there were circumstances where we were
prompted to seek medical help. I always wanted to seek what was most effective and also, one of the
previous speakers mentioned about the children, and I want you to know that from the youngest children
on, they are receptive to prayer and they do really register right in that decision-making.

As parents, we love our children, and I would never think of sacrificing their well being, and the good
news is there is no stigma in our church if a parent seeks medical help. We are a very loving congregation
that supports one another, and we all know how it feels to have a sick child. I’d like to share two healings
which did involve physicians in regard to my son who is now serving as a captain in the United States Air
Force.

As a nine year-old, he developed a deep cough. His father and I decided to take him to a doctor. The
doctor diagnosed our son with double-pneumonia. After a discussion with the doctor, it was with his
approval we were able to take the child home. And as a family, we discussed and made the decision to
rely on prayer alone because we had seen many effective healings. But we complied with the doctor’s
request and returned within a couple of days, and per his examination, the child was free of any effect of
pneumonia. In fact, he went skiing that weekend.

The same son as a teenager was standing alongside a school bus when he was hit by an SUV that did not
see him. A head injury resulted and an ambulance was called. His father and I met him in the emergency
room, in fact this happened right here in Madison at the University Hospital. The doctor explained that
there was significant bleeding under the skull and our son was kept overnight for observation, but there
were no medical procedures being implemented, as we were relying on prayer, but per the father’s
decision, we did have the observation.

During the night, our son regained consciousness, and within a matter of a few days regained normal
function and was released without any medical treatment. Before his release he had a CAT scan which
showed improvement. The abrasions were cleared up in three days. He went back to school within a
week, and in order for our son to attend the Air Force Academy an extensive medical examination was
administered. He received a CAT scan of the head and there was no trace of injury found. I’m so grateful
for these healings, and grateful for the compassionate physicians who let us know when it was safe for my
son to come home from the hospital. Christian Scientists, like parents everywhere, want only the best care
for their children. Thank you.

Martin Evanson

Thank you, my name is Marty Evanson, I live in the southwest side of Madison. I shouldn’t have any
trouble dealing with the two-minute drill without any timeouts. I’m a lifelong Christian Scientist, and a
long-time Christian Science Sunday School teacher. I’m blessed to have five energetic aspiring and
inspiring young students in my charge. I’m here to speak in favor of Senator Lena Taylor’s bill.
Children are precious gifts who deserve the very best comfort and immediate care that we can give them.
Christian Scientists rely on the proven and practical methods that have been most effective in their lives
and in the best interest of their children. Christian Science treatment is extremely effective as I’ve found,
as it provides physical healing coupled with a growing understanding and deepening relationship with the
Almighty.

The well being of children is a foremost and solemn responsibility. I support this bill because it ensures
that laws do not provide a shield for irresponsible or injurious behavior and allows parents to explain their
actions in the event of judicial proceedings. Thank you.

James Treutler

Thank you Senator Taylor and committee members. My name is James Treutler; that’s why my students
call me Mr. T. Throughout my life I have worked with children as a high school teacher, coach, and
athletic director. As a little aside, one of your senators who’s not on this committee [Ted Kanavas], is a
past athlete and student of mine. As a coach and athletic director and a teacher, it’s always been my
purpose for educating them and looking out for their well being. This legislation that is being presented
leaves no doubt in people’s mind that the proper care of children is of utmost importance. It clearly points
out that there is no bar to prosecution for inappropriate behavior regarding the health and safety of
children. It reinforces the already existing law which gives the right to the state to step in and take custody
of a child who is deemed to be in danger and to provide medical treatment as needed.
As someone who has seen the effectiveness of spiritual care in my own life, I support the language being
proposed which provides for a fair trial if someone is charged in connection with the use of spiritual
treatment. Clarity and fairness is what this bill is designed to provide. I ask in the name of all those who
rely on spiritual treatment that you support this bill. Thank you very much.

Charles Wellington

Good morning Chairperson Taylor, Senators Grothman and Hopper. My name is Charles Wellington and
I live in Monroe, Wisconsin with my wife, Christine. We’ve lived there since 1979. I’m here today to
speak in favor of Senate Bill 384. The committee’s heard a lot of testimony here this morning, and I’m
here to add one more. Let me, if I may, begin with my story to help you get an idea of the foundation of
where I’m coming from. Shortly after World War I, my grandmother was informed by more than one
doctor that she’d never be able to have children. She suffered with this diagnosis for many years, until she
heard about a physician that might be able to help. She visited him in Evanston, Illinois and he also
confirmed the diagnosis. But while she was in his office, she noticed a book on the shelf of his library,
that was Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian
Science. She asked about it, and he gave it to her and said it might help. A few years later, my uncle was
born, and a year so after that my mother was born. My grandmother became a Christian Scientist; my
mother was raised that way and I was raised that way with my brothers and sister.

In high school, I sustained a particularly severe back injury in wrestling, and my father who is not a
Christian Scientist insisted that I be taken to the hospital where I was, and X-rays confirmed that I was in
pretty bad shape and would never wrestle again or be involved in any physically demanding activity.
After that diagnosis, I asked my father if I could utilize Christian Science treatment and he readily agreed,
and I did, with the help of a Christian Science practitioner, and I was back wrestling within a week. I also
participated in intercollegiate athletics in college and I’ve been fairly physically active all my life. I’ve
continued to study and practice Christian Science because it’s been proven effective in my life, and as you
may have concluded, my wife and I have raised our children similarly.

Let me be perfectly clear, however, that nothing challenges ones beliefs more acutely than relying on
them in the care of one’s children. Any parent with a sick or ailing child wants only one thing, and that’s
the immediate and complete alleviation of that child’s suffering. Some parents turn to medicine for that,
and that’s perfectly fine. My wife and I turn to prayer for one reason: that we had found it to be effective,
and logically inferred that it would continue to be so. By choosing this route, we hope to accomplish two
things: one, the alleviation of the physical problem, and two, teaching our children by experience that
God indeed was a very present help in trouble.

SB 384 simply permits a parent who may face criminal charges regarding his or her decisions relating to a
child to explain to a trier of fact why a decision was made. This simply reflects basic fairness. There’s a
world of difference between using prayer for a child’s illness because it has proven effective in the past
and blindly martyring one’s child in the name of religion. No one can rationally support the latter, but the
former is critical when weighing these issues. The issue is extremely important for our time. The world
seems to be spinning ever faster toward a more secular disposition. Christian Scientists do not ask for any
special treatment or protection as suggested by some. They would readily acknowledge that the welfare of
children is paramount. SB 384 strikes a fair balance in preserving the welfare of children while not
creating an atmosphere that would have a chilling effect on spiritual healing, and I respectfully submit
that it should become the law of this state. Thank you very much.

Jorie Clark

Thank you so much, Senator Taylor, for sponsoring this bill, and the courage to bring forward concepts
and discussions that don’t often happen. What’s wonderful about it is that encourages all of us to come
forward in a discussion to share ideas, so thank you to all the senators who will be also reviewing this
thoughtfully. My name is Jorie Clark, and I’m here for a couple of reasons. First of all, I’m a mother of
three children here in Wisconsin and I have personally logged hundreds of hours in prayer as well as
hundreds of hours in hospitals supporting family members who’ve chosen medical treatment. I’m also a
founder of a virtual world on the internet that serves over two-and-a-quarter million families online, and
we’ve been recognized both for our innovation in education, and at our looking at solving social issues.
I’ve also been a lead participant in the development of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act,
working both by invitation of the FTC to talk at hearings, as well as the Commerce Department. So
keeping children safe is a key focus of both my personal interest and my professional work.

In my work, we teach children to think and families to share ideas and make informed choices. With that,
we look at solving social issues from a variety of viewpoints while protecting everyone involved. A
second consideration is following the rigors of science. We’re encouraging children to apply scientific
methods in reviewing data, looking for patterns, applying knowledge to problems, and providing proofs
of effectiveness. It is for this reason that I support Senator Taylor’s bill, because it appears to both provide
fairness and reasonableness. It also encourages thinking, protecting children, while also allowing parents
to choose healthcare treatments that have proven effective for them and share their reasoning if needed.
Thank you very much.

Ginger Mack

My name is Ginger Mack, as you stated, and I’m a student here at UW Madison. I also meet with the
Christian Science Student Organization here on campus. From my own experience, I grew up as a
Christian Scientist, and I can attest to the fact that I was diligently cared for by my parents. I have also
seen firsthand that Christian Science parents respond promptly to the needs of their children, and are able
to seek medical help for their children when needed. As a constituent I feel it is important to have
legislation that is transparent and allows Christian Scientists to provide the very best care for their
children. Also, this includes being accountable to State and Federal laws. Thank you.

Margaret Lewis

Thank you Senator Taylor and committee members. My name is Margaret Lewis; I am representing
myself speaking in favor of Senate Bill 384. I have been a student of Christian Science for more than 50
years and prayer in lieu of medical treatment has been the treatment of first resort in my family for four
generations. Like you, I had the honor of serving three years in the State Legislature in the 80s and when
this current provision of the law related to child abuse and neglect was passed. I’ve been married for 28
years, my husband is not a Christian Scientist, I have three very active children born every off-election
year that were raised very publically and have experienced healings of every childhood disease–measles,
burns, cuts, ear aches, allergic reactions to bee stings, falls. I did, however, have the bone of my oldest
son, when he was in middle school, set. My children have not been immunized, nor attended health
classes that focus on the causes of disease, but they have seen a doctor as they have had to have physical
exams to participate in sports–in soccer, in diving, in cross country, in wrestling–and have had their
needs met.

I too have experienced many healings of physical, financial, career, or relationship issues, but I have also
had treatment for an inoperative lymphatic system in my left side, a detached retina, and all my children
were born in a hospital. I may not be a model Christian Scientist, and that’s why I call myself a student of
Christian Science, and frankly we do not have a model law. Each of us does the best we can based on our
experience, choosing the alternatives that are our highest sense of right under the circumstances. In
lawmaking, we try to do the same thing; we try to assure that what is passed produces the greatest good
for the greatest number and can’t foresee every individual circumstance. This is why, I think, we
appreciate so much the work on building balance and tolerance in the work that you have done.
The current criminal law says that child abuse and neglect does not occur solely for the reason someone
relies on prayer in lieu of medical treatment. I kind of liked that law; I didn’t want to be considered a felon
for practicing my religion with my children. The jury in the Neumann case took into account not only that
prayer was used, but the effectiveness of that prayer. Folks are on notice: if you choose prayer in the case
of children, it better be effective. That’s a good thing. We all want the very best treatment for children. No
one’s personal pride or blind belief should be put before a child’s safety. However, neither current law, nor
what’s been proposed absolves from legal penalty those that have deeply held religious beliefs no matter
what their history and experience might be.

Under current law, and under the proposed law, a child can be removed from a parent’s custody, as we
have discussed earlier, if there’s a life-threatening situation. So what does this change contribute? If
language in current law is removed, it does give some guidance to parents as to what they can reasonably
expect to be able to present in a defense if a tragedy occurs. Just like a doctor sued for malpractice would
be able to present evidence as to why a correct diagnosis and treatment might have been difficult because
each individual is different. In some courts, this presentation of evidence has not been allowed. The good
news is that the proposed law continues to recognize that there are those with different deeply held
religious beliefs that have a long history of successful healing practice, and at the least, they should be
allowed to share their experiences with the court and that their experience may be relevant to the actions
they take. Thank you Senator Taylor for respecting deeply held religious beliefs, and I’d be glad to answer
any questions. Thank you.

Sonette Tippins

I hadn’t planned to speak, I was just going to be here in favor of this bill, but I couldn’t help but ask if I
could speak after hearing the testimony against by the medical representatives. If, as a parent, I could be
assured–and now I’m a grandparent–that every child under medical treatment would never die, would
always be cured, and would become fine, I would be thrilled. I’d be delighted, and I think everybody
would rejoice. But we all know that’s not the case. Every parent chooses what they believe is the most
effective health care for their child. I was able to raise my children with Christian Science very
successfully, and I want to speak so that my daughter will be assured this right for her children.

When I was pregnant with my first child, at six months into the pregnancy, I was stricken with terrible
pains and went to the health clinic, where our doctor diagnosed me with acute appendicitis, and he said
the condition was so serious that I must go immediately for surgery but the baby would die. So he called
in a specialist on appendicitis who confirmed the diagnosis and, with tears in their eyes, they called the
hospital and said to be ready for me. They told my husband and me that because of the seriousness of this
appendicitis, either the baby was already dead, or he would die during the surgery. I stopped at home,
which was en route to the hospital and called a Christian Science practitioner to ask her to support me
with prayer. By the time I got to the hospital, the surgeon was waiting, and he happened to be the same
man that I had been seeing as an obstetrician. He said, “I know you’re a Christian Scientist and I am going
to [give you some time to see if you can get better by your Christian Science." I was checked into the
hospital, and a few hours later the doctor stood by my bed and pronounced me well. He said, "you are
ready to go home, and could even go to school--I was a high school teacher. But why don't you have a
nice breakfast here, and then your husband can come and get you, and you stay home and enjoy the rest
of the day." At the proper time, this doctor delivered my dear little baby, who was normal in every way.
All of the children's health care needs were met through Christian Science, with my husband, who was
not a Christian Scientist, so impressed by the quick healings he witnessed, that he too preferred Christian
Science treatment for our children.

When our daughter was born, after a few months it was evident that one of her toes had never grown.
Through prayer, by the time she turned one, her toes were all completely normal. I have never heard of
any medical treatment that can make limbs or toes grow.]

When my son was twelve, he had such severe acne that it covered his arms, his legs, his hair. You can
imagine the torment he experienced in school and the name-calling. So my husband, who was a supporter
of Christian Science for our children for healing, we both decided we would take him to a skin specialist.
We took him for two years to three different doctors who did everything they could and we followed
everything they told us to do. He only became worse. Finally, at age fourteen our son asked to rely
entirely on Christian Science for treatment, and he was healed in one month. I am grateful for the efforts
of the medical profession, and I am grateful for their contributions to everybody’s health and safety. I also
believe that parents should be able to use their own experience as a guide in what is going to provide the
best care for their children, and if their experience has shown them that Christian Science is it, then I
would like that privilege to be there. Thank you.


Again, all these testimonies can be downloaded here. Please call or write to your State Senator in support of SB 384. You don’t have to write a fancy 3-page letter like I did; you just need to tell them your name and address and that you support Senate Bill 384: The Freedom of Choice of Faith Act. And by all means, feel free to talk to me about it if you have questions. It’s something I feel passionately about so I’ve done a bit of thinking about it (if that’s not immediately obvious).

Quick links back through time: Part I, Part II, Cretaceous.

The arcade machine is coming along nicely. A little while back, I built a computer that will tie it all together, and up to this point I have been referring to it as “the computer I built,” but I want to explain a little bit more of what went into it, and also discuss software. Basically, I bought all the parts you would need to build an ordinary desktop computer. There weren’t any special arcade machine parts or any special hardware cards designed just for arcade machines, just plain, ordinary computer parts. In fact I could have gone to Best Buy and bought one of their computers off the shelf and that would have worked just as well (but who on Earth actually buys computers any more, when you can just buy the parts and put them together yourself?). The only special parts I needed were the buttons, joysticks, and I-PAC which I described earlier, but those are all peripheral–you just plug them in to any old computer.

Now since this is an arcade machine, I only need it to play all the old games of my childhood, like Mario, Tetris, Pac Man, Dig Dug, Space Invaders…so on and so forth. For that reason, it doesn’t exactly need to have top of the line hardware, since those are all games that can run on 15-year old computers. Still, it’s actually more difficult to find new parts for really old computers than it is to just buy more current parts, so I ended up building a machine that is significantly more powerful than it needed to be…by a lot. It has an Athlon 64 processor on a Gigabyte motherboard, with 2GB of RAM, a fairly nice 512MB graphics card, and an 80GB hard drive. And I put it all inside a sleek, black case. The case that is probably more fancy than it needs to be, since I’ll have the thing inside the cabinet where no one can see it, but c’est la vie. “La vie!”

Right away, I tried installing the 64-bit version of Ubuntu Linux on it, but I was regerttably very dissappointed with the results. All the normal stuff ran fine, like Firefox, Open Office, etc. But when I actually tried to play any of the games using SDLMAME, it slowed to a crawl. It was bad. And there was absolutely no excuse for that, since I was using hardware that’s hundreds of times faster than any of the hardware available 15 years ago when the games were made. So it was just strange to think that’d they actually be slower now. That was downright unacceptable, so I formatted the drive and begrudingly installed Windows XP. All the games ran just fine there, using the standard MAME program.

I also installed emulators to play Nintendo and Super Nintendo games. For NES, I picked Nestopia because it was the most customizable one I could find that actually worked right (I had mixed results with some others). And for Super Nintendo, I of course used ZSNES. I did have to do one minor “hack” to the ZSNES config file to make the program quit whenever I hit the Escape key (otherwise it would have essentially just paused the game upon pressing Esc), but otherwise it was basically ready to go. I also want to run a “frontend” program that starts automatically on startup, and lists all the games available and lets you scroll through them and pick them. There are already a couple options available out there for this, but I decided it’d be more fun to just write my own. So I’ve been slowly but surely building one using wxPython, so it’s been kind of fun to pick up a new language. I’ve been quite busy with a lot of different things, though, so that program is not ready yet. But it will be soon! Right now it looks in an INI config file for all the emulators you list, and their corresponding ROMS directories, builds a list, and listens for keyboard input. It’s also got a customizable background image and music that it can loop. I decided, at least for now, to loop the song “No More Memory” by cyriak, since it sounds kind of like an 8-bit game.

Then, this past weekend, I went home to Sheboygan and bought a bunch of wood. Actually, I had to work some on Saturday, so my dad bought it and had it waiting for me when I got home. And oh man…you have no idea just how big five 4′×8′, ¾”-inch thick MDF boards are. They are HEAVY. I didn’t realize it when I was first envisioning this project, but this machine is probably going to weigh at least 200 lbs. Here’s a picture of me standing by the boards before we cut any of them down, but unfortunately it doesn’t fully do it justice. Just trust me when I say that they were really big.

But I forgot to mention: a couple of weekends ago, I sat down with my dad and, using some free drafting software, we came up with plans for how we were going to cut the wood. That was no easy task in and of itself, and probably took a couple of hours. I really must say, though, that it’s quite convenient having a father who’s a mechanical and civil engineer by trade, and does drafting stuff like that for a living. It would have probably taken a lot longer if I was just doing it on my own. I’ll leave the file we created as a download for you here in case you’re interested; you’ll need to install a free program called Solid Edge 2D.

So using that draft as a guide, we busted out the measuring tape, rulers, and pencil, and made lots of very precise markings all over the wood. Then we got to business with the skill saw. This was actually the first time I had ever used a skill saw; it was surprisingly quite easy to do, though. Felt very natural. I’ve had a lot of first-time experiences with this project so far, so it’s been kind of nice. The skill saw was enough to take care of all the cuts but two–the cuts inside the “window” area required a hand held jigsaw, which allows for easy turns but is regrettably less smooth. I had originally planned on assembling the thing right away too, and then sanding everything down to adjust for discrepancies, but my friend Chris called with an invitation to go to a karaoke bar, so I stopped the project after just doing the cutting.

The next time I’m home (don’t know when that will be), I’ll screw the whole thing together, sand and cut as necessary, and then probably prime paint it as well. It’ll be black, and hopefully over time I’ll actually get people with artistic talent (ahem, sister), to perhaps and decorative designs all over it. There are still some more parts I’ll need to buy, such as Plexiglas to cover the “window” area, a banner for the top area, and speakers. But overall it’s coming together nicely. My dad got a bunch of screws that we’ll be able to take out after assembling it, so that we can assemble it once in Sheboygan to make sure it fits, disassemble it and transport it to Madison, and then set it up for real here. Because I don’t think it would have a very fun time in the back of a truck for two hours on the highway. Easier to just take it apart and put it back together. All in all, I ended up cutting out a total of 11 boards this weekend. And to give you an idea of the general shape of how it’s going to look, and the overall scale, here’s a shot of me standing next to one of the side pieces.

So hopefully in the next installment of this, I’ll have finished the frontend program in Python, and I’ll have fully assembled the thing. We’ll see, I guess. But I’m getting closer to completion with this all the time. It’s exciting.

I explained in a previous post that I have been building a homemade arcade machine (properly referred to as a MAME cabinet), and have been documenting my progress here. Last time I went over briefly the process of sawing, drilling, and painting wood as to create the main control panel and affix all the buttons, joysticks, and circuit boards to it. However, I hadn’t connected anything together; they were all just sitting there, unaware that someday they would become part of something much greater. So this time I’m explaining all the wiring. As you can see, I’ve got a lot of wires now. (And by the way, the duct tape is only temporary; I’m going to use a staple gun to hold some of those wires down when I can find one to borrow.)



As I mentioned previously, I’m using the I-PAC4 circuit board from Ultimarc to translate the button presses and joystick movements into something a computer can understand. But I still needed to connect the buttons to the I-PAC4 first. So I went out to Home Depot and bought two spools of 16-gauge wire, a package of 100 “female disconnects,” and a package of 100 “spade terminals.” They’re fairly cheap. I wasn’t able to find them on their website, but Ace has both the female disconnects and the spade terminals as well. Although I highly recommend you just go outside and buy them from an actual hardware store, because the online prices are ridiculous. In the store they’re really quite cheap.

For this project, I also needed a standard wire cutter/stripper/crimper, a soldering iron, and some solder. I’ve got a picture of all the tools and components necessary on the right. And in case you haven’t noticed, all these pictures are click-able if you’d like to enlarge them. What I had to do was basically three steps: cut the wires to length (roughly), strip off the ends, and solder/crimp the disconnects and terminals on. Some wires had one disconnect and one terminal, while others had one disconnect and one “raw” end, and others still had one terminal and one raw end. Before I explain which ends are needed and why, here’s a quick how-to video I made explaining briefly how to attach the disconnects and terminals to a wire.

If you take a look at the I-PAC4, you’ll see that it has little screw holes that accept the end of a wire for every possible button. This is extremely convenient, as all you have to do is strip a small portion of the wire end, stick it in, and screw it down. (Technology always sounds so dirty; it makes for copious usages of “that’s what she said” at work.) But on the other end, you’ll still have to attach it to a button, which is where the disconnect comes in. Also, each button needs a “ground” line for the “return path,” and I accomplished that by connecting each button to a terminal strip which was in turn connected to the “ground” input of the I-PAC4. This would require a wire that has a disconnect on one end, for the button, with a spade terminal on the other, for the terminal strip. The terminal strip itself then had one end connected by a spade terminal and the other screwing the I-PAC4, so to speak. If you’re building one of these on your own like me, I trust that my meager explanation is enough for you and you’re able to discern my meaning. If not, leave a comment asking for clarification.

And finally, most of the buttons have three metal prongs on them, while the light-up ones have five. To connect to the I-PAC4, we only use two: the “common” connector (COM) and the “normally open” (NO) connector (see the picture on the left). The common line goes to the terminal strip, while the normally open line goes to the circuit board. This line “closes” when the button is pressed, and thereby creates a closed circuit and sends the command onto the computer. Think about it for awhile if it doesn’t make sense; it will. Also, if the disconnects on these feel loose at all, don’t be afraid to take a needle nose pliers and carefully squeeze them tight on there. I had to do this for the joysticks.

So that did it. It did take quite awhile to do all the cutting, stripping, soldering, crimping, and connecting. I paced it over a few days. You could probably get it done in a single afternoon if you were feeling really ambitious, but I was not, so it took me awhile. I then plugged the I-PAC4 into the computer I built with a keyboard in the pass through slot, and tested it out. I started simple by just opening a text editor and seeing if the buttons did anything. Sometimes it’s not always immediately obvious that they do anything, since some are assigned to be the equivalent of SHIFT or CTRL. But as you play with them it becomes easy to ensure that they’re all working. Mine all worked right away without any problems. It was entertaining trying to type sentences using only the arcade control panel, especially since I didn’t have the full alphabet. Lastly, I installed some emulator software and starting playing right away, and was pleased with the results. Emulation and software will be the topic of the next post in this series, I think. In conclusion, my arcade machine is fully functional, but it is still missing the actual cabinet part. That, however, is for another day.

I have a couple life updates and apologies to mention, but I’m going to separate those into another post, probably to come later tonight. I want this post to stay focused on one topic and one topic only. I’ve actually mentioned my plans to do this somewhat off-handedly in a few previous posts here and there, but I’m finally writing a whole post about it here with my progress. I am building a full-size arcade machine out of wood and computer parts. You know, the kind that you would see in movie theaters, bars, and (duh) video arcades. The kind with the joysticks and the colorful buttons. I’m building my own. Technically it will be a “MAME cabinet,” where MAME stands for Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator. This means that when you turn it on, you’ll be able to select from literally hundreds of old games, and play whichever one you desire. Pac-Man, Dig Dug, Super Breakout, Space Invaders, Mario…the list goes on. And you get to play with the authentic arcade machine style controls.

This weekend I worked on the Control Panel. I went to Home Depot and bought a piece of MDF wood, ¾” thick and 2′ × 4′. I cut this down to be 12″ × 34½” with the help of my father and his handy table saw. I then took a hammer and a center punch and marked off the points that I wanted to drill holes in, for the buttons and joysticks. As you can see I drew up a template of how I wanted things to line up on the computer.

After having left small little guide holes in the wood, I drove over to Wal-Mart at about 11:00 at night and picked up a can of black spray paint. I went to work with that, coating 5 of the 6 sides of the board with it in the backyard. Spray paint is kind of fun. I also hoped to pick up a 1-1/8″ hole saw at Wal-Mart, but they didn’t have anything like that. That’s the exact size you need for the holes for this sort of project, and it’s a little non-standard. So I went to True Value the next morning and picked one up for around $15, pictured below on the newly painted piece of wood.

Drilling holes took a long time. That hole saw had a lot of trouble getting through the thick wood; I’d say each hole took three to four minutes, and there were sixteen of them. It didn’t help that every single time, the hole in the wood I would cut out would immediately get stuck inside the hole saw itself, and then I’d have to take a screwdriver to try and pry it out. I ended up bruising my thumb pretty badly doing that. I’m fine now, but it was a source of grumblecakes at the time. After getting all the holes done, my father and I took the hand-powered drill and lightly made holes to mount some of the circuit boards and terminal strips with. That was much faster and easier.

I ended up buying the I-PAC4 circuit board from a company called Ultimarc to be able to connect the buttons to the computer I’m putting together. Honestly I only needed the I-PAC2 since this will only be a two-player system, but I like to go over the top sometimes and make sure I have what I need. I put five washers on each of the four screws that hold the I-PAC4 on the board (totaling 20 washers) to make sure the solder points don’t scratch up against the wood. The terminal strips I got from Radioshack and will be vital for the next phase of the project: doing all the wiring for this control panel. Currently it’s just a piece of wood with plastic buttons and joysticks stuck in it, but they’re all autonomous, not connected to anything. So my goal is to connect them to the I-PAC4 by the end of the week, and plug that in to the computer I’m using and start testing. In other words, my goal is to have the control panel fully operational by this weekend and actually start playing games with it. So I’d effectively have a working arcade machine, but it would be sitting naked in pieces, since I haven’t built the cabinet for it yet.

The control panel does look pretty cool right now; I must say that every time I see it, it’s as if it’s calling to me, saying, “Gordon… you want to play videogames….” There’s still a lot of work to be done just to get the wiring right, then I’ll have to make sure all the emulators work properly, and then I actually have to, y’know, build an entire cabinet out of wood and paint it. So this is kind of a long-term project. But it’s been both fun and challenging already, so I’m enjoying it. And then when it’s done, I can think about adding embellishments, like embedding an ice cream dispenser in the side, and other ridiculous but fun add-ons. I’m going to continue to post here about it when I make additional progress, and I think I’ll even explain the wiring more in-depth in case Joe Internet stumbles across this and wants to build one himself. Anyways, I’m excited. You should come over and play it when I have it working. Yes, you.