Life according to Gordon

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 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.

I acknowledge that I had sinned. I had pursued sin in the hope that it would bring me happiness, comfort, power, control, stability, strength, joy. Sin promises all of those things. It looks alluring and seduces you, always tempting you with the belief that you don't already have enough in your life and that you need more. In thinking about sin, I realized that it is very much like a casino slot machine. Last June I went to Las Vegas with a group of friends and had an overall negative experience. We spent five days there, and while there were some good points in the trip (I did enjoy the shows we went to), the misery vastly outweighed the fleeting happiness. Las Vegas really just isn't my cup of tea. But I do remember seeing vast multitudes of people just pouring in huge amounts of money into the slot machines. They would put in more and more and more, always hoping to win it big. There were posters on the wall showcasing all the lucky individuals who had supposedly won it big. One lady won $6,000. As I looked at that picture, I just had to wonder how much more she had spent prior to that jackpot, and how much more she continued to spend afterward. Not to mention how much more everyone else spent because that picture was there.

Any slot machine you will ever encounter is rigged. They are specifically programmed to ensure that the odds are always greatly against you. They are also programmed to give you a small payout every once in awhile--just enough to get people to believe that they're winning, or that they're about to win big. There's even a term for this; it's called the gambler's fallacy. The money you put into a slot machine will almost invariably be more than the money you take out. The idea behind the fallacy is that people believe these tiny payouts they get once in a blue moon are signs that some higher power has some memory of all the times they lost money and is about ready to turn things around for them. In reality, there's no such thing as a higher power that's going to encourage anyone's gambling habits. The odds are what they are, and terrible odds are terrible odds. Mathematics is constant. Just because you lost six times in a row doesn't make things any more likely for you to win the seventh time. All that's going to happen is that you will put in more and more money until you're broke and desolate, or until you realize your own error and stop yourself.

The same is true for sin. Any supposed pleasure you derive from sin will always be vastly outnumbered by the accompanying pain. Like I said, sin makes big promises. It promises happiness, power, all those things. But it never delivers. Even if you can find 10 minutes of supposed joy in sin, how many days, weeks, months will it cost you in dissatisfaction and unhappiness to get there? Gamblers convince themselves that things are going to turn around if they keep putting money in the slot machines. "I feel a lucky streak coming!" And in so doing, they make themselves blind to what is really happening. When I was in Las Vegas, I saw a couple of beggars on the street, and I later saw some of them literally using the money they had begged for to play the slots. I was astonished and disgusted with how absurd that was. It was just so plainly obvious to me how much they were wasting their money, their time, their lives.

So if we're using this analogy where money represents happiness, then investing yourself in the slot machines is never going to bring you more money. The only thing that will do that is hard work. And the trouble with hard work is that it's hard. The so-called "promise" that slot machines offer is that you can acquire all this money without having to do any hard work. And it's a lie. It's absolutely a lie. And again, the same is true with sin. It promises a lot of things: happiness, closeness, love, strength, relief. But it doesn't deliver, and it will never deliver. It is a lie.

My practitioner recently shared with me an idea I really liked. She said she had been thinking about the story in the Bible about the Pool of Bethesda. In case you're unfamiliar with the story, I'll give you a quick rundown. The pool of Bethesda was a large pool of water--the size of a football field. Many people believed that every once in awhile, an angel came down and touched the water which caused a ripple. They believed that if you could be the first person to touch the water after seeing that ripple, you would be healed of any ailment. So as a result, huge crowds of sick people sat around this pool all the time, waiting for the payout. They lived their lives around it. Remember, this pool is the size of a football field. Just imagine how many people would be packed all around it, each one hoping to be the first to make it to the water. One man in particular that is discussed in the story was lame (i.e. he could not walk), and had been sitting by the pool for 38 years. He couldn't walk, and he didn't have anyone who was willing to lift him over toward the pool, so he obviously had no chance of ever making it to the water before anyone else. But he stayed there anyway, foolishly believing that maybe he could. One day Jesus came by, saw this man, and asked him if he wanted to be healed. He answered by saying that he didn't have anyone who could carry him over to the water in time to be healed. And Jesus responded by telling him to just take up his bed and walk. Immediately, the man was healed and walked away from the pool.

Now I found my practitioner's interpretation of this story particularly interesting. The Bible is clear that Jesus revealed Himself only to this man, and to no one else. So for awhile, she had wondered why Jesus only healed that one man at the pool. Surely there had to have been thousands of sick people gathered there, all desperately staring at the pool, hoping that the ripple would cure them. So why didn't he just heal everybody there? The conclusion she came to was that because this one man He talked to was the only man who actually looked away from the pool. He was the only one who actually looked away from the false promises that it offered. Once Jesus questioned him and really made him examine his own situation, he realized and acknowledged that the situation was hopeless. There was no possible way he would ever actually make it to the pool in the time. It just wasn't going to happen. So his 38 years sitting there thinking that he might were a waste. But the important part is that he finally was able to turn away from the pool and follow where Christ led him, and sin no more. Everyone else presumably just kept staring at the pool.

I have realized that I have been sitting, staring at a pool, thinking falsely that it will bring me everything I need if I can just get to it in time. And I have seen that this is a lie. It's just as impossible for me to reach my metaphorical pool as it was for the lame man to reach the Pool of Bethesda. Now I'm not going to cut myself down completely as a terrible person. It would simply be incorrect to say that I'm a miserable, worthless person who has never done anything right. I have done lots of things right. However, lately I've been realizing that I had been ignoring the bad parts, or covering them up and thinking that the good parts were sufficient to make up for them. But good and evil are like oil and water. Even if you've got a solution that's 90% water and only 10% oil, it doesn't matter how much you shake up the bottle; the oil will never dissolve. You need to filter out the oil completely. And that is what I need to do. I cannot expect the oil in my life to ever mix with the water.

The sin that I have come to realize recently is my pursuit of women, or more accurately my pursuit of validation from women, as a source of happiness. And let's be clear, lots of people do this. With everything in the movies and on TV showing us often-unrealistic romantic stories, trying to get us to believe that if we just find "the one" then everything in our life will suddenly be complete. This belief, however, goes hand in hand with the idea that without finding this person, our life is incomplete. Without this person there to complement us, we should feel empty or imperfect. This idea effectively tells us that we can only ever hope to be half of a person. And what happens then if that person spends time apart from us? Should we be unhappy? Does that make us incomplete again? This also goes hand in hand with another idea. There are 6 billion people in the world, and roughly half of them are female. If I'm to believe that there's only truly one person out there who could possibly provide me with this true sense of completeness, how depressing is that? Does that mean I only have a 1 in 3 billion chance of finding satisfaction? Does that mean I only have a 1 in 3 billion chance of finding completeness? Does that mean I only have a 1 in 3 billion chance of being a good, happy person? I hope you can see how absurd that idea is.

The truth is that I already am complete. I already can be happy, with or without a partner. I don't need to go out and constantly try to make someone else happy every waking moment in order to be happy myself. I can find all my strength, all my happiness, all my supply right now in the Lord. I can turn away from this pool of false hope, and turn toward the true source of joy, health, and completeness. That source is not in another person. That source is in God. Sinning isn't going to get me any closer to God. Sinning isn't going to give me strength. Sinning only ever brings pain and hardship. And actually, it's good that it does. Because all that pain can be used as a catalyst to get us to stop sinning. All that pain can be used to make us crave something higher than ourselves, something more than just a quick fix. It's only natural that when people feel pain, they recoil. They try to get away from the pain. It's completely unnatural to put yourself through pain again, believing the myth that it will somehow make you happier eventually. That is a self-destructive lie.

There's one more analogy I was reading about lately that I also really enjoyed, and again the credit does not go to me for this one. Imagine a person is out in the ocean, in a wild storm with waves crashing about that push them under the water. They start to drown. Now some people believe that when a person is drowning, and as their brain is deprived of oxygen, they actually enter a euphoric state in their final moments. Just before they're about to die, they go completely numb to all the pain as they sink toward the bottom. Now suppose this person drowning is already at this point. They're on the brink of death, so they're completely numb to all the pain they felt initially. Would it be cruel for someone else to jump in and rescue them? Would it be cruel for someone to reach out their arm and save them? When they get pulled out of the water, that euphoric numbness is going to go away. They're going to feel pain again--probably lots of pain as they cough up all that salt water. Is it cruel to make them go through this pain? Obviously not! It is much better that they go through that pain temporarily in order to save them from death.

The same is true for sin. Is it cruel to try to save a person who is drowning in sin? When they've gotten to the point where they're so numb to the pain that they're on the brink of death, they're so out of it that they can no longer recognize the situation that they're in, is it cruel to pull them back? To bring them to the surface, knowing that their temporary numbness will dissolve and they will be forced through huge amounts of pain from repentance? Again, obviously not. Now let me clear: I'm not talking about just any old person saving another person. The only person outstretching His arm to save the drowning victim is the Christ. The person reaching out is God. So does it make sense to curse God for trying to save you, even though it seems to hurt? Even though the pains of repentance, the pains from taking responsibility for your own sins, hurt like nothing else? Not at all. Don't blame the person saving you. Don't blame God for the pain. Blame the salt water that had filled your lungs. Blame the sin itself that you fell into. This week I've been coughing up a lot of that salt water. And let me tell you it sure feels good to breathe fresh air again.

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.

Symbree Van Faucen

Good morning. My name is Symbree Van Faucen. 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 Chism

My name is Janet Chism 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).

It bothers me a lot when people intentionally misquote things or include false or highly misleading statistics to promote their own agenda. There's nothing wrong with trying to promote your own agenda, but if you're going to do it, don't lie or make up statistics out of thin air. This post is going to focus on a recent false statistic used in the current American health care debate. First, so you know where I'm coming from: I believe the public option is already a major concession; what we really need is true universal health care--just like every other developed nation in the world. But if we're going to have to compromise, the public option is what we need. It is the loving, Christian thing to do. I do not trust corporations to magically "do the right thing" after a little prodding with tort reform. In fact that's downright delusional. But my own opinions aside, I want this post to focus on some recent statistics I've come across.

Awhile ago, you may have seen a so-called public service announcement circulating on the internet with a number of celebrities sarcastically decrying Obama's new plan for being harmful to health insurance CEOs and fat-cats. On the off-chance that you haven't already seen it, I have it re-posted here.

Then, earlier tonight I saw that a friend had posted a similar video she had dug up on her Facebook page, presumably the Republican response to this video. I have also included this one for you here.

Now wait a second, did the second video just claim (around 1:10) that 71% of doctors actually oppose the public option? Wait, what? Hearing that statistic made me do a double-take. Especially since I remembered hearing multiple times, through multiple news outlets, that somewhere around 70% of doctors support the public option. I ran a quick Google search. Sure enough, article after article citing figures wavering around 70% in support from physicians. Did they really just flip that statistic on its head? Would they genuinely be that downright deceitful, by saying the exact opposite of what polls showed? I had to find out more, so I've done my research and I'm prepared to cite all my sources. I'll let you be the judge.

First, it is true that 72.5% of physicians SUPPORT the public option. This data comes from a scientific study titled "Doctors on Coverage -- Physicians' View on a New Public Insurance Option and Medicare Expansion," which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. You can read the full study yourself. More specifically, 62.9% of physicians support a system that includes the public option alongside with the existing private insurance companies, while an additional 9.6% of physicians said they supported a system that used the public option only--in other words, true Universal Health Care. Since these two groups are supporting a public option in one form or another (and yes, they are mutually exclusive in the study), we find that 62.9 + 9.6 = 72.5% of physicians support the public option.

So where'd this supposed 71% figure in the second video come from? I did some more digging, and found an article in a newspaper called the Investors' Business Daily (IBD) conducting a survey by mail of some physicians. They asked the question, "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?" They claim 71% of their respondents answered "no," although they admit in the article that they hadn't finished fully collecting surveys before publishing their results. I continued to do research, and found that the IBD poll is completely unscientific and not in any way credible. To explain why, and to include some other things to consider, I offer the following succinct bullet-point list.

• The New England Journal of Medicine is the oldest continuously published medical journal in the world, and is the most widely read, cited, and influential medical journal in the world.
• The New England Journal of Medicine is a professional, peer-reviewed medical journal. The survey they conducted is extremely well documented and follows the standard professional methodology for conducting scientific surveys.
• The Investors' Business Daily is a newspaper with an agenda. The article does not disclose any of their polling methods, and admits that they did not finish collecting all the responses before publishing the results. There is no peer review process whatsoever. They have a primarily conservative audience, and they conducted a mail-in survey.
• The question used in the Investors' Business Daily poll is a long run-on sentence. It is multi-faceted, biased, and leading. It would never be regarded as a good question to ask in any sort of scientific study. But it is a great question for writing biased newspaper articles. Asking "do you believe the government can do it?" (what they asked) is very different from asking "are you for or against the public option?" For example, a physician might strongly support the public option, but also no longer believe the government can do it--because the Republican senators have been blocking it. He would have to respond with "no" to the IBD question, despite supporting the public option.
• The Investors' Business Daily is already infamous for publishing poll results that are wildly inaccurate. For instance, in October of 2008--just one month before the presidential election--they published poll results that claimed 74% of American voters between the ages of 18 to 24 were going to vote for John McCain. This did not happen. This did not come anywhere close to happening. That age group voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.

You can draw your own conclusions, but personally I trust the results of a scientific, peer-reviewed study published in the most trusted medical journal in the world over the results of mail-in poll run by a newspaper that's already notorious for inaccurate polling. 72.5% of doctors support the public option.

I am not an atheist and I never could be one. But it seems that in this day and age, atheism has become the new popular and cool philosophy to fit in with. Everybody's doing it. I do not find atheism repulsive and terrible. Atheism, at face value, is simply the belief that there is no higher power, and I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs. What I do take issue with, however, is what's been dubbed "militant atheism." Really a better term for it would be "antitheism." Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God, but antitheism is the extension that those who do believe in God are stupid, harmful to society, and should be done away with. Richard Dawkins, a British biologist, has become a huge proponent and leader to the cause of antitheism. Personally, I can't stand him.

I had a chance to skim through what has become his most famous book, and the holy gospel to militant atheists around the world: The God Delusion. Much like its author, I can't stand the book, and I thought I'd write a blog post discussing some of it. I find the whole thing terribly intolerant, misleading, and downright poorly researched. Fundamentally, the entire book seems to whittle down to one statement: "If everyone in the world agreed with all my points of view, we'd be much better off." That's the best that I can summarize the whole philosophy he seems to encourage throughout. He also tries to cite quotations from famous and scholarly historical figures, but I did a better job of citing sources in academic writing than Dawkins when I was 14. I'll start off with a quote from the book.

It is conventional to assume that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were deists. No doubt many of them were, although it has been argued that the greatest of them might have been atheists. Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt that most of them would have been atheists in ours.

This is really a very telling passage that highlights Mr. Dawkins' general approach to history. He has no doubt that many of the Founding Fathers of America fit the archetype of the modern atheist. Well I do have doubts. Quite a few doubts in fact, since he offers no real evidence on which to base this assumption--in fact all the evidence that does exist on the matter unequivocally disproves his claim. But before we get into that evidence, it's important to take note some of the intricacies of how he's phrased this passage.

"It has been argued that some of them were atheists" is a true statement. This says nothing as to whether or not any of them actually were atheists--all it says is that the arguments have been made by other people that they could have been atheists. Yes, people have argued that. Sure, fine, great. But notice how he phrased that: he didn't say "some of them," he said "the greatest of them," as if to imply that only the great ones had the honor of being atheists, while the not-as-great ones seemingly weren't quite as smart. And how could they be, believing in God, right? This is really the crux of his whole approach. This book isn't about reason; it's about fostering an us-versus-them dichotomy and rewriting history to make the great and scholarly historical figures appear as if they would befriend and support everything he says. It's about him trying to fit in with famous and smart people, and repeatedly insist that they would have supported him had they lived long enough. These passages in The God Delusion on the Founding Fathers are to American history as Inglourious Basterds is to German history (except not as entertaining).

He then gets more specific as he offers up short quotations from particular Founding Fathers to try and suggest that they were secretly atheists all along. (By the way, why is everyone so obsessed with the Founding Fathers of America?) However, it is obvious to see that all he is doing is cherry-picking fragments of un-cited quotations taken completely out of context to support his own conclusions. Here are some examples.

Remarks of Jefferson's such as "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" are compatible with deism but also with atheism.

Yes, Jefferson did say this, in a letter dated March 21, 1801 to Dr. Joseph Priestley. The full quote is as follows.

This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery and charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy,--the most sublime and benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man,--endeavored to crush your well-earnt and well-deserved fame.

Dr. Joseph Priestley was a Presbyterian minister who later converted and became a Unitarian minister. He was also a scientist credited with the discovery/isolation of oxygen as well as the invention of soda water. At the time he was criticized and attacked by members of the Presbyterian church for his dissent. Jefferson was condemning the Calvinists (Presbyterians) here in particular, claiming that they had perverted the intent of Christianity. But criticizing one particular sect of Christianity is still a far-cry from claiming that he did not believe in God. The quotations showing that he did believe in a divine creator are numerous. Indeed, Jefferson also identified as a Unitarian as well as a deist. In fact, in another letter Jefferson wrote, dated April 11, 1823 to John Adams, he stated, "[John Calvin] was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be." Is that remark "compatible" with atheism, Mr. Dawkins? Continuing with some more of the quotes he offers up...

The same could be said of Benjamin Franklin's "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" and of John Adams' "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

First of all, I have no reason to believe that Benjamin Franklin really did say that. Dawkins offers no citations whatsoever, and I haven't been able to come up with any after searching the internet for awhile. A Google search will reveal plenty of websites attributing that quote to Franklin, but none of them seem to offer any citation of where or when he said that--if he said that at all. The only citation that ever showed up was from page 43 of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion! By the very logic that Dawkins encourages in this book--that you have no reason to believe something unless you can see physical, scientific proof of it--we simply cannot assume that Benjamin Franklin really did say that quote. For all we know, Dawkins could have heard it from anybody at a dinner party and later misattributed it to Franklin. If anyone reading this can find the citation, I'd be happy to go back and revise this post to include an analysis of the quote in its full context.

But even if it was true that Franklin did say that, this by no means makes him an atheist. The more reasonable explanation is that he was making a statement critical of a particular sect, denomination, or religion (much like Jefferson did above)--not condemning all religions as Dawkins loves to suggest. If we take a look at some of the other things Franklin said, which we can confirm with citations, we see a different story. In the book Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion, written by Benjamin Franklin and published in 1728, he wrote the following.

I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being. ... I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous.

Once again, this is historical evidence that runs completely counter to what Dawkins implies throughout. The only thing that Dawkins does successfully prove is that he'd make a great poster child for confirmation bias. From Wikipedia: "Confirmation bias is an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms preconceptions or working hypotheses." In a nutshell, confirmation bias happens when you search for evidence that confirms what you believe, but then stop short once you've found some, without trying to see if there is any other evidence that would contradict what you believe. The God Delusion is chocked full of this. Dawkins takes sentence fragments that--when taken alone, at face value--seem to support what he's saying, but then he doesn't bother to look for any quotes that would contradict his own beliefs. Indeed, in some instances he seems to ignore the fact that the next sentence in the very same quote can contradict his hypotheses! Here's the full context of the Adams quote from above:

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, "this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!" But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company--I mean hell.

This quote is very straight-forward. John Adams declares in the very same breath that the portion of this quote Dawkins has picked out was only a temporal and mistaken frustration, which he immediately recants. Adams explains in no uncertain terms that life would be hell without religion. That's completely opposite to the implication Dawkins makes with this quote. In fact, this quote was included in They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions, published in 1989, as a clear example of how people will change the meaning of quotes completely by leaving off the full context. The fact that this quote was already widely known as an exemplar of misquotation 17 years before Dawkins wrote his book shows that either Dawkins is not anywhere near as rigorous as someone with a doctorate should be, or just downright deceitful. I find it hard to believe that someone with a Doctorate of Philosophy wouldn't recognize that the quote was only partial and out of context, so my belief is that he included it as a fragment to intentionally mislead his readers and encourage others to misquote it. But I will admit that this is only speculation. It's also possible that Dawkins is just unintelligent.

In any case, the simple fact is that Richard Dawkins is uninterested in providing accurate, historical context for the quotes he offers up. He's more interested in this self-affirming vitriol he passes off as logic. To suggest that any of the Founding Fathers were atheists, despite their own associations with religious bodies such as the Unitarian church, despite their own numerous writings declaring their belief in higher powers, and despite their many letters expounding on their deist beliefs is utter nonsense. Dawkins' arguments are sadly juvenile. He might as well have written, "If Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were born in the 20th Century, they would have been atheists! And they would have liked me, and we would have been friends!"

There is no historical basis to assume that any of the Founding Fathers were atheists. And even if there had been, what does that matter? Again, why the obsession with the Founding Fathers? Are his misquotes just an attempt to sound more credible? Or is this just an attempt to try and establish an "in crowd" and insist that only the smartest and most revered people belong there? Would it really matter if a small handful of people from 200 years ago didn't believe in God? In any case, all of them did publicly state on numerous occasions that they did believe in a higher power, so regardless of what Dawkins was going for, his arguments fall apart.

But all this failure to properly quote people aside, to his credit Dawkins admits that he cannot prove that God does not exist; he can only assure you that he thinks it's highly improbable that He does. For me, that point makes writing this book completely superfluous. He is of course entitled to his opinion, but I would be more supportive of his search for understanding if he didn't so strongly need to force his beliefs down others' throats while doing it. Again, saying "I don't believe in God" is one thing, but saying "I don't believe in God, and you're stupid if you do" is another. And in not as many words, that latter bit is a good summary of his book.

Hi there loyal blog readers -- all four of you. I haven't updated this in awhile. Well rest assured, further updates are coming; I just haven't had time! I've had too much time for life! Well the most major change that some of you have heard about is that I am dating someone. Her name is Megan, and we've been dating now for just shy of one month.

Megan is a girl I knew from high school. We actually went to both middle school and high school together, but we didn't meet until high school. She was friends with a girl who was dating a friend of mine, and we all went out to a movie. Both of us often never had dates at the school homecoming dances and proms, so we would often default to being each other's slow-dance partners then. I had her over to my place a couple of times, where I would watch Radiohead videos videos with her, or play her songs on guitar, etc. I also took her to a movie once (just the two of us), at which the ushers came in the theater and announced that the owner of the car with XYZ license plates should know that there was smoke coming out of the car's engine (it was mine). And to my embarrassment, I must admit that I had actually forgotten about a lot of this, as I think I've effectively blocked out some of high school (or just ran out of memory). She recalled all of these things, and I just kind of said, "ohhhh yeaah! I kind of remember that!" Give me a break, it's been more than half a decade.

So it's interesting how things work out. Right now I can proudly say that I'm happier than I've ever been. Everything fits, everything feels comfortable and natural, and probably for the first time I feel like I can be 100% me without reservation. In the past, I think I always had to dress myself up a bit, so to speak, and maybe be 90% me at most. They always say that when you find the right person, you'll just know. I just know. I mean, to be fair, I thought I knew before, seeing as I'll probably always think I know, but now I know. Anyways, I understand what I'm talking about. I can only hope you can follow along.

And just yesterday, apparently Megan was toying around on the internet, and stumbled across some old poetry written by "Gordon Myers" and wondered if it was mine. I didn't recognize the particular one she sent me at first, but after looking through all the different ones on the internet I eventually remembered. That's an aspect of me that I guess I had forgotten. I used to write depressing poetry. I imagine a lot of kids do. I wrote it all in high school, so keep in mind that it is high school poetry. I do think there are a few in there that were pretty good, but there were also several that I read and immediately thought, "Aha! I must've just discovered what a thesaurus is!"

So feel free to peruse through my high school poetry. In other quick updates, last weekend I ran a mini-triathlon, and I did horribly. I finished, but I finished in 197th place. This is what happens when you never practice, kids. In my defense, I've never been a strong biker, and the bike part just killed me. This coming weekend I'll be running the half-marathon here in Madison. My goal: finish the race. I looked at the course map they have on their website, and it's a looooong way. I had done the mini-triathlon before, but I've never done a half-marathon before. I've never run that distance period. We'll see how it goes.

Last weekend I also went to the Packer (preseason) game with my dad, and got to watch them crush the Buffalo Bills 31-21. There were a lot of people wearing Favre jerseys with X's over the 4, and there were posters that said things like "#12: 3X better than Bret!" The Minnesota -- Green Bay games are going to be very, very tense. And Favre has sullied his reputation forever, all seemingly in the name of money. Lastly, I am quite serious when I say that I've been meaning to blog for awhile. I have a legal pad full of handwritten pages containing the makings of the next blog post. I'll give you a sneak peek by saying it'll be my thoughts on Richard Dawkins--well-known militant atheist and author of The God Delusion--and why the intolerant bastard pisses me off. That's on the way. For now, since this post mentioned poetry, I think I'll end with a limerick.

I know that I've promised more updates
And often they're absent or just late
But I do a lot
So more often than not
Writing well requires you just wait

I'm a PHP developer. It's what I do for a living. I enjoy being a PHP developer because I generally enjoy coding in PHP. I've written a few posts here in defense of PHP. As such, I'd have to be living under a rock to not have noticed that many other people don't seem to share my enthusiasm. Programming sites all around are littered with "PHP sucks" headlines and articles. In fact, I think PHP might currently be the trendiest language to bash. It used to be Java, and I'm not sure what it was before that (maybe Perl?), but now if you want to find your way into the in-crowd of cool programmers, the first step in initiation is outlining all the reasons why you've always hated PHP.

I read these articles on occasion, and usually walk away shaking my head with disappointment. There are a number of valid criticisms of PHP, because it definitely has flaws and drawbacks (every language does). In fact, as someone who programs in PHP every day, I would wager that I understand many of the drawbacks better than many of the people authoring all the "PHP sucks" articles. But I work around them and continue to love the language. But what really "grinds my gears" is how the criticisms of PHP have really diminished in quality as they have become more ubiquitous. It's now a lot harder to find any "PHP sucks" articles that can succinctly state genuine problems and drawbacks without mixing in false information, matters of personal preference, and things that really aren't drawbacks at all. In any anti-PHP thread, you now seem to find a flurry of young programmers so eager to chime in and add their two cents to the mix that a lot of the arguments that show up lack any meaningful content or criticism.

For instance, on a recent thread I saw about the drawbacks and design failures of PHP, one commenter used one example he thought would highlight the obvious flaws of the language, namely, the "strpos" function. The "strpos" function is simple: it's used for locating the first position of a substring within a string. In PHP, this function returns either a non-negative numerical value specifying the index of this substring, or boolean FALSE. This commenter thought it was ridiculous that a function such as this could return 0 on success, presumably because 0 typecasts to FALSE in an == comparison. However, he failed to realize that just about every other language you can find similarly can return 0 on success (which would likewise typecast to false in any of those languages as well). That was probably the most glaring example of a poor attempt at criticism I found, seeing as he criticized a standard, cross-language function behavior. I pointed this out to him, which got him on the defensive, and then started claiming that it was absurd that it didn't return -1 on failure instead of boolean FALSE. That just left me thinking: why does that matter, really? (And it's still not a behavior unique to PHP by any stretch.) If you're worried about 0 being a "true" value, that means you're evaluating it in a boolean manner: checking if the substring is there or not. So why does it matter to have to check for "=== false" instead of "< 0"? That really becomes a matter of personal preference, not a flaw in language design. The argument reduces to "well I just don't like it," which isn't an argument at all. I can rattle off a long list of languages that similarly don't return -1 on failure for substring searching functions: C, C++, Ruby, Common Lisp, Haskell, etc. Again, this particular argument is just one rather ridiculous claim against PHP, and may be an "outlier" so to speak, but it's one that got under my skin.

The particular article I found the above example was actually a question someone posted earnestly that asked, essentially, "why do you guys hate PHP so much?" So it got a lot of responses, at least half of which I would say are complete junk. But after sifting through them all, I found a couple that I did really like and felt like sharing. First, I offer you a more critical but still very honest quote about PHP:

I also write PHP daily. My conclusion is that it's a fine language for getting things done. There is nothing beautiful about it. If given a choice I'd pick Python every time.

People always say that PHP is so successful purely because it's easy to get started with. I think it's also successful because it scales from small inline HTML pages to large applications similarly easily. Many programmers don't leave PHP because they never run into a problem that it can't handle. It's not like BASIC where you run into that wall quite early on.

PHP is the best bad language there is.

While I can't personally say I'd go and pick another language every day, seeing as I still enjoy working PHP, he makes a lot of good points. I will admit that it isn't a particularly elegant or ground-shattering language. There's nothing you can do in PHP that you can't do in other languages, for the most part. But likewise, the reverse of that is also true, for the most part. It's a high level language, and you can get things done in it. And the real advantage is that you can get things done in it quickly. Another advantage is that it's still extremely popular at the moment, so chances are if you buy some web space, it supports PHP fully. The popularity is also very likely the reason it gets so much flack. But back on the topic of getting things done quickly, here's another quote someone had to offer:

PHP is nothing more than a very thin layer over the C, posix and glibc libraries. If you come from a Linux/Unix C background, it takes about 15 minutes to pick-up PHP.

That guy is spot-on, and honestly that's probably one of the reasons I loved PHP so much when I first learned about it. I had only ever touched C++ prior to that, so it was a very natural and easy transition. But another reason it's still great is that it's a very fast language to both program and run. Combine it with something like eAccelerator and you've got yourself a very powerful and speedy engine to run web scripts. Now I've also seen a lot of people (primarily Python fanboys) complain about a few points: 1) PHP is only single-threaded, 2) PHP has terrible consistency with function/method argument order, 3) PHP has standard library bloat, and 4) PHP lets you get away with too much shit. Being single-threaded is not a problem. It just isn't. The purpose of PHP is to serve up webpages, and you simply do not need the scripting language to be multi-threaded for that purpose, when the webserver already is. PHP is not meant for desktop applications. If you're trying to do something that absolutely needs to be multi-threaded with PHP, chances are you're doing it wrong. (And as a quick aside, if you really want to have threads, you can always emulate threading by calling fsockopen to your own server to open another script, which the webserver will give its own thread to).

Two is a perfectly valid criticism. The lack of consistency is terrible. But to cope with this, most developers I know either memorize the order for the functions they use, or use a text editor that has code hints so they don't have to. And honestly, code hints are freaking awesome, and they make that argument moot. Three I've never really seen as a fundamental problem, but instead more of a "personal preference" issue. Yes, there are a lot of frickin' functions in PHP. I actually see that as a positive thing. That means that if I want to do something, chances are someone else has already wanted to do that same thing and so there's a library function for it. Awesome. I can understand that some people prefer a more minimalist approach, and only want to include things they absolutely need, but again that's really a matter of style than anything else. I have yet to see any PHP application that blows up because the standard library is too big. With op code caching and the like, it's still really fast.

And the final argument I mentioned is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. Honestly, it's the reason I love the language so much--being able to get away with a lot and not having the system freak out at you. But I acknowledge that it can also be the bane of ones existence. I like that things are loose in PHP. It means I can write code quickly and not have to worry so much about all the pedantic details. That's also the reason I loathe Java. Any little mistake, no matter how tiny, I find out about right away in Java. In PHP, I can be more lazy and still get away with it. But I do know well that this also presents a problem: if people can be lazy, they will be lazy. And because of this, there is a lot of awful, awful PHP code floating around out there from programmers who didn't know what they were doing, didn't have time to learn, and were as lazy and unorganized as could be. And if you've ever had to deal with any of their code, you know it's a nightmare. This is probably the biggest thing that turns people off to PHP: debugging poorly written code. If everybody wrote good, elegant, organized code, I really don't think there would be nearly as much criticism of PHP. This is also a reason some developers prefer the stricter languages so much, because you just can't get away with that. But I still like the laid-back environment PHP offers, and as a developer working for a very small company where we write all our own code, it's relatively easy to maintain quality control, at least when compared to larger companies.

But anyways, people are going to continue bashing PHP so long as it remains popular, and it's going to remain popular for awhile. A lot of the alternatives seem like great languages with a lot to offer, but none of them cater to web programming quite as completely as PHP does. Functional programming languages will probably never be popular, because functional programming is hard. Or at least harder than procedural programming. Languages like Python and Ruby have lots to offer, but since they're threaded, that means strings are immutable. And any way you look at it, immutable strings just aren't very conducive to web programming. But then I could be wrong. With the proper framework you can always overcome those limitations to some extent, and Python certainly has been gaining a lot of popularity in programming circles, so we'll see. Though I would recommend this very brief article comparing PHP and Pythong in terms of usefulness for the web; it's good. But for now, I'm still quite happy with PHP, and similarly happy about all the shiny new things that came with version 5.3!

For some reason I feel about writing a very quick rant about things that I've noticed about people in relationships. Some of these things I've seen exclusively in others, some I've seen in myself whilst introspecting a bit about the past (because I am not currently in a relationship), and certainly some of these have been present in both myself and others. In fact I think most would fit in that latter category; I'm not as weird and unusual as I sometimes like to think I am. (But mind you, I am weird and unusual.) So here goes.

They disconnect from their friends
This one I see all the time. Sometimes people don't even realize they're doing it--especially if it's their first major relationship. They dedicate all their time and energy to being with the other person. And while it's good to have someone to confide in, to relate with, to spend time with, it's not as good if it means giving up friendships. Of course no one would ever really admit that they're doing this, at least until it's too late and they've spent enough time away from their former friends that when they finally try to reconnect they find themselves suddenly incompatible and then blame either their friends or themselves, depending on what type of person they are. Oftentimes people might not even consciously notice that they suddenly spend less time talking with or spending time with their friends because they're still too starstruck about being in a relationship to notice. Fortunately though, a lot of people who fall into this trap do so at an early age when it's still easy to make friends again after they eventually break up. I think this is kind of a lesson that you learn mostly in hindsight--to pay attention and not take for granted all your regular friends. It's good to spend a lot of time and energy on your partner, but it's also important that this doesn't come at too much of a cost to the friends you value.

They start to become slightly different, less interesting versions of themselves
Again, this is something that more often comes with the first major relationship than later ones, but I've seen both in myself and others how people will essentially sacrifice parts of themselves to be with the other person. Unfortunately this is kind of another lesson that people seem to have learn for themselves, and won't realize until after the relationship is over. Hindsight is everything.

They think they're cuter together and better for each other than they actually are
This one I find especially baffling, despite my ability to sympathize with it, because often people will naturally have ridiculously high/unreasonable standards for selecting a partner prior to entering any relationships, but once in one, suddenly a lot of the criteria they had in mind for a partner seems to fade away. And naturally, if confronted about this, many people will often rationalize and give excuses, thinking that what they've got is special and unique. Spoiler alert: it's not.

They suddenly become more careless/carefree when it comes to PDA
Public display of affection is generally only okay in very small doses. Hand holding? Great. Awesome. Spectacular. A quick kiss? Yeah, okay. Passionately making out? Ehh....can't you guys do it somewhere else? Groping/etc.? Get a freaking room! I think these are some pretty good standards for PDA, and I think most people would agree with me there. Some people even get irritated at nothing more than a light kiss in public, although I think that's silly. But what is truly strange is how those same people will later seem to forget how much it irritated them to be forced to watch others gloat in their passion when all of a sudden they themselves find themselves locked in a relationship. All those former rules, guidelines, and dos/don'ts about PDA...out the window. I'm not going to try and pretend that I myself never made this mistake, but that's the thing about mistakes...you learn from them. So the next time you're out with your sweet honey cakes at the park, in the pool, or wherever you may be, try to force yourself to experience some sort of existentialist look, and cool it on the passion. Or at least get the heck out of there and take care of each other in private, if you need it right then.

They suddenly start giving out relationship advice as if they know what they're talking about
This one annoys me to no end sometime. Just because you happen to be in a relationship right now does not mean you know anything at all--let alone that you know significantly more than those around you, particularly single people. Even if you have a lot of experience with relationships, experience hardly means a thing if you haven't learned from your mistakes. Never assume you know more than everyone else around you just because life seems to be going your way for the time being. There will be times when you know more than other people, and in particular there will be people who are not as wise as you. But the state of being "officially" in a relationship does not make you an authority on anything and everything who has all the answers. It makes you a person who happens to be in a relationship.

So those are the things I've noticed and felt like sharing. I feel like they all fundamentally boil down to the same, simple piece of advice: "try to have a little self awareness." I hope somebody reading this can get something out of it. Otherwise, stay classy, non-single people.

A recent trend among the Facebook-addicted to further bolster the narcissistic web-trendy persona has been to take a series of online quizzes that automatically post their results to your profile. So a little while ago I spotted a quiz that asked, "What's Your Bible IQ?" The result which I hoped for (and admittedly somewhat expected) was that it deemed me a "Bible scholar," meaning that I answered the majority of the questions correctly. (There were some pretty tough questions in there too, mind you!) It's been awhile since I've taken that quiz, so I don't really remember the majority of the questions it asked; however, there was one particular question that stuck out in my mind. It asked, essentially, "how many times is the Trinity referenced in the Bible?" It's a good question, I think, because I think it's an easy "trap" for anyone who's gone to a mainstream church their whole life but have never really invested their time to actually reading the Bible or trying to interpret anything for themselves. Spoiler: the answer is zero.

Yes, the concept of the Trinity, or tripartite Godhead made up of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, one of the fundamental tenets of many mainstream denominations, one of the most essential pieces of modern Christian dogma, is not actually mentioned in the Bible even once. Not directly, anyway. The concept of the Trinity is purely an interpretation, and one that I find to be a rather strange interpretation. Some people will get absolutely up-in-arms over even the mere suggestion that the Trinity might just be myth, even though the real, Biblical evidence can be shown to refute it. And that fascinates me. I remember when I took that 600-level Religious Studies course, at one point it was mentioned that the whole concept of the Trinity was solidified as creed in the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. So it was almost 300 years since Jesus' ascension that this was accepted as a sanctioned Christian belief. Although that's not wholly surprising, since I think it took a similarly long time to standardize which books were going to be included in the Bible and which books didn't make the cut.

Then, recently, I came across an absolutely fascinating article examining the historical background of the council of Nicaea and the power struggle between Arius and Athanasius. Arius taught a non-Trinitarian view of Christianity, while Athanasius spearheaded the Trinity. So naturally, they came into conflict, and because the article author certainly knows more about it than I do, I'll just give you a sample of the article here.

There are numerous accounts of Athanasius' followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around. Non-trinitarians were accused of "rending the robe of Christ", crucifying Him afresh, and far worse. It would be wrong to think of the dispute as a matter of learned men of God disagreeing with each other over a matter of Biblical interpretation. Athanasius, who had the ear of Constantine more than Arius, was out for victory. He therefore emotionalized the issue and used every manner of politics and destruction of his opponents in order to get Constantine to come down on his side, exile Arius for heresy, and therefore leave him as the senior churchman of the Roman empire--which meant major political power, in an empire which had newly adopted Christianity and sought to enforce it as the empire's religion. It's highly significant that the draft 'creed' relating to the Godhead was initially acceptable to Arius; but because Alexander and his side simply wanted Arius 'out', they made the language more extreme; so that reconciliation wouldn't be achieved. And so they added the clause that Jesus was homoousios, of the same substance, with the Father--knowing Arius would have to reject this. Again, this was no outcome of sober, sincere Bible study. It was pure politics.

This kind of thing fascinates me. The battle between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian churches rages on today, though thankfully I don't think we see quite as many instances of parading around the dead bodies of opponents. The things that have been done in the name of Christianity and its various sects always baffles my mind. The crusades, the invasion and forced conversion of indigenous people by the Spanish conquistadors, witch hunts, and even the torture and murder of so-called Arian heretics, all show a stark contrast with anything and everything Jesus ever said. Jesus was a consistent proponent of the "love thy neighbor as thyself" doctrine, the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doctrine, and the "turn the other cheek" doctrine, through and through. So how anyone has ever been able to sanely extrapolate that killing in his name is a good thing is just beyond me. Nowadays it seems the conflict between different sects is a lot more passive-aggressive, with differing denominations decrying each other as being false or cultish, and emotionalizing the issue just the same, but without the whole "we'll kill you if you disagree" part. Although from the way some people get so flustered over this, I don't think it's entirely by choice that they hold back in this regard.

So feeling inspired to learn more, after reading that article, I went digging and found an interesting collection of Biblical quotes and corresponding analyses on the website of a church that identifies as being "Biblical Unitarian." Specifically they cover 17 verses from the Old Testament and 88 verses from the New Testament, all of which are the quotes most typically used in support of the concept of the Trinity. I thought it was very good, honest analysis of each Bible verse. And I do appreciate the disclaimer they have at the top, which starts off, "please feel free not to believe everything you find here." The site seems very genuine in its attempt to discuss each verse rationally and with proper historic context and does not attempt to force any particular doctrine down ones throat, so to speak, at least as I read it. And again, I find it all fascinating. I thought I'd quote here a sample of the analysis given on that site, in particular addressing what is probably the most famous quote given to support the idea of the trinity, namely John 10:30 ("I and my father are one").

There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant--he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "he who plants and he who waters are one" (1 Cor. 3:8 -- KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose." Why translate the phrase as "are one" in one place, but as "have one purpose" in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ's statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father's will; he and God have "one purpose."

I tried to confirm this myself by searching for the original Greek texts of both Biblical verses online, and learned two things: they were somewhat hard to find in the first place, and I don't speak Greek. I did notice that there was definitely a grouping of words in the first quote that was identical to a grouping of words in the second quote, which is enough for me. Plus I also noticed that in about half of the different English versions of the Bible, that line in 1 Corinthians 3:8 is translated as "are one" while the other half translate it as "have one purpose." Personally I have to agree with the Biblical Unitarian analysis here; why on Earth would certain editions of the Bible translate the two verses differently even though they have the same structure in Greek? (Probable answer: because the ones responsible for translating in the first place either wanted to find better support for the idea of the Trinity / Jesus' divinity, or felt pressure from above to do so.) So anyways, like I said, this kind of thing fascinates me, and I would recommend that you take a moment to look at some of the other analysis if this similarly interests you.

An old friend of mine from my school-of-ed-days called me up today in the middle of one of his classes with a math question. He was subbing in a precalculus class at some high school, and had come to a problem that was causing a lot of hubbub amongst the students, and apparently no amount of internal deliberation was clearing anything up. He read the problem to me over the phone in the hopes that I might immediately recognize what was going on and what the proper solution was. Unfortunately, I found myself in a similar boat as the students, and to give you a quick spoiler, I ultimately determined that the real problem at hand was that the question was extremely poorly worded and just not practical. Unfortunately since I never got to see the problem or the textbook from whence it came, I'm just quoting--as best as I can--what I think he said the problem was over the telephone, so understand that just as in the game of telephone, the accuracy of my quote may have already degraded. But if I recall correctly, it was something like this, below.

A company has a total of 14 computers, 1 host computer, and 3 printers. Using graph theory, show whether it is possible to connect the computers so that each one is connected to two other computers, the host, and one printer.

The first issue I have with this problem should be obvious to anyone who understands a decent amount about computer networking: he's doing it wrong. In fact he couldn't be more wrong about his general setup to this problem. In the real world, you would never use graph theory in this situation. The actual solution, which we'll get to eventually, is so much more straight-forward. So as you might imagine, when I first heard that question, I did not hear a sophisticated mathematician posing a practical problem about graph theory; instead I pictured a bumbling old man frustrated with technology walking into an electronics store ranting about the "best" way to connect a series of computers together--a bumbling old man who clearly doesn't understand a thing about modern networking at all, that is. Lord have mercy on whatever poor sales associate has to deal with him and try to explain how horribly inefficient his use of unnecessary mathematics is making things. So I don't see any real mathematical insight to be gleaned from that problem; I just see a lot of ambiguity that leaves the students worse off in the end. I see an older math teacher gradually losing touch with the modern world, struggling to explain concepts of graph theory to uninterested youth and desperately trying to tie in real-world examples to make the problem seem more interesting. While that's a good thing to do in theory, it's actually quite harmful in practice when the real world example doesn't make any sense. And take my word for it--in this particular case, it just doesn't make any sense.

First of all, he's omitted some very important details. Keep in mind that my phrasing of the problem above is not at all a verbatim quote, and from what I recall, one central point of confusion for the students was whether or not we should count the host computer as a "computer". For the sake of clarity, the question should explicitly label each reference to a computer as either the "host" or a "client," rather than using a broad term. It seemed to be asking to connect each client computer to 2 other client computers as well as the host computer, although they didn't really explain that well. So which is it? Do we connect each computer to 2 other clients + the host = 3 computers total? Or do we just daisy chain the host in there somewhere, essentially making it indistinguishable from any of the client machines? The latter option wouldn't really make sense, because it'd be extremely difficult to configure any of the clients not directly connected to the host to even recognize it as a host. Plus you'd have to have all of the computers powered on at all times for that to work, and even then, if any one of them had any hardware issues, all machines further down the line would lose connectivity.

And what about the printers? Are these the low-budget, only-has-one-USB-connection type of printers you'd find in a retail store? Or are these full-blown network printers? If they're the former, then they can only possibly be connected to one computer at a time, so the quick answer to the question is: no, you cannot connect each client to a printer. But even if you could somehow hack together some sort of one-to-many, direct plug connections with printers to computers, why would you? There are much easier and better solutions. You'd connect each printer to a single computer (and if you had any sanity to your setup, all three printers would be connected specifically to the host--though this would not be strictly required), and then configure them as "shared printers" on the network. But in an office where you need 14+ workstations, the likelihood of buying three low-end printers is already quite low; you would more likely get network printers which would be connected to the network at large and not directly to any computer (though you would still install the printer drivers on the host computer and allow it to act as a controller). But I suppose this doesn't fit well with the graph theory model to suggest that we don't have the printers attached to any computers directly.

So the real question at this point should start to become a little more clear, namely: what the hell does the author actually want us to learn? It's important to recognize that he clearly has a very misinformed view of how computer networking works, and instead try to abstract the problem into something meaningful. If our goal is to connect each object to no more than two other objects, then I don't really see the point. Clearly you can line the computers up in a circle and daisy-chain them together. That's easy. And with the additional (potential) requirement of each one connecting to the host and a printer, you just throw them in there somewhere as well. Here we have to abandon our sense of real-world common sense and assume that printers can magically have as many computers plug into them as is desired, when in actuality (as mentioned above), they would only ever allow one input connection--either direct USB through a computer or indirectly over a network. So our messy graph theory diagram might look something like this:

But again, I don't really see what the point of this would be. If all this exercise is intended to do is to get students to be able to line up things in a circle, then it seems completely trivial and a waste of time. If that was really the lesson, perhaps the class would be better suited standing in a circle holding hands to the benefit of any bodily-kinesthetic learners in the class. Although I suppose that hand-holding is probably considered sexual harassment nowadays, so scratch that. Looking at that diagram above produced from the problem, the real question we should be asking is: what the fuck is wrong with our IT department?! If we are directly connecting computers as the problem implies, there are still more problems this creates. First, computers typically only have one network card. If we are connecting them directly to each other, in any interpretation of the setup described, we will absolutely need at least two network cards in each computer (if not three).

From there we would either connect each node directly together with crossover cables, or we would need to place 2-port switches between each connection. I should probably be tarred and feathered for even mentioning the possibility of using crossover cables as such in a business environment, so forget that I even said that and stick with using 2-port switches. But let's not forget that 2-port switches don't actually exist; they generally only come in multiples of 4 or limited multiples of 5. So we'll get a bunch of 4-port switches to connect in between each pair of client machines. We might use the third port to also connect the host, but the problem now is that we potentially have redundant connections to the host, as each computer is connected to two different switches on two different network cards, yet each switch might have its own connection to the host. Fortunately, since we have an even number of nodes, if we daisy-chain them all into a loop, then we can alternate switches to also be attached to the host computer. If the problem had an odd number of clients, though, we'd be fucked. What I've described so far would look something like the diagram below. The hexagons are switches. And keep in mind that I'm not even bothering with printers on this one.

Next logical question: how the hell are we assigning unique IPs to each of these computers? We can only have one DHCP client (which is why I've chosen switches instead of routers), so is the host computer somehow magically handling this? That seems exceedingly complex, and would require it to have eight (yes, 8!) network cards installed (one for the internet), which is downright ridiculous. Of course I could modify my diagram above and have each switch feed into a central router that is also connected to the host. That would be reasonable (all things considered) and would no longer require the host to have eight network cards. But even still, this is getting exceedingly complex. The fact that we've got 14 machines with 2 network cards each is insane. And do we really want to buy fourteen 4-port switches when we'll only ever be using two ports on half of them and three on the other half? Who in their right mind would set up a network that way?

If you want to know how this would be done in the real world, it's actually quite simple. We'd have a server room that contains the host and a clusterfuck of network equipment, like most businesses do. There you would have your 24-port switch (instead of fourteen individual switches), your router, any firewalls and spam filters you might like, and your host machine. The host machine would act as the domain controller running Active Directory on a Windows network, or do something similar on a *nix-based network. There would be absolutely no daisy chaining. Each client would just be plugged into the one central switch, which allows it to connect to the host or to any other client machine. The printers would all be network printers and would similarly be connected to the switch and controlled by the host. Nice and simple. Here's the final diagram.

As you can see, we don't need to even think about using graph theory in this practical, real world example. We just get a switch with enough ports to accommodate all of our machines and peripherals (and then some, so we can always add a few more), and then just plug in everything and go. Graph theory should never enter into the equation. So now I kind of hope that at least one of the students in that class, or even the regular teacher, might see my analysis of that confusing problem here. The students have every right to question it. Whatever "right answer" was intended to be produced, I can assure you it was not all that "right." I understand that math is a mostly theoretical field which makes it sometimes difficult to tie in a broad range of real-world examples. But even so, this example just makes it look like the author isn't even trying. That was a terrible example, and I think it does more harm than good to ask a student something like this, because if they're in the least bit tech-savvy they should be able to tell you "you're doing it wrong," or simply fail to come up with any intelligible answer out of shyness.

If this question was intended to hint at some discussion of star topology versus ring topology between interconnected routers (not computers!), then maybe you'd have something worthwhile. But generally speaking, you would never connect two client computers directly to each other. You would connect them to a larger switch or router which has a host controller attached at some point, and that router may be connected to further routers. A much better question would have been from the perspective of an internet service provider trying to connect a number of network clusters. That question would probably have a number of parallels with the current question, but would have been substantially better seeing as it actually makes sense to ask that. Connecting different routers together that have to share a "host" connection to the outside world is an actual, meaningful problem with real world applications. Connecting 14 client machines in an office directly through one another is not.

Unfortunately it's questions like these that contribute to a general loss of interest in schoolwork. Because if the author is trying to illustrate all the uses mathematics has in the real world, he should probably, you know, make sure that his real world examples are actually plausible. Otherwise, what's the point? Lastly, a quick shout out to an online web app called Autodesk Draw, which is fantastic for making Visio-style diagrams if you don't actually have Visio and don't feel like paying any money. But anyways, the lesson to walk away with is that your high school teachers might not have a clue what they're talking about. Don't trust that they do, kids.