faith


I admitted a patient from the ER one night over the holidays. The ER called with a CT scan showing diffuse pneumatosis, and the most obvious portal venous air I’ve seen so far. The patient himself looked far better than the scan, and was amazingly comfortable, considering that he had a heart rate of 140 and was already in acute renal failure. He was so comfortable that it was very difficult to persuade either my attending, or the patient, that he needed emergency surgery. (“Pain out of proportion to exam, Alice. You can’t tell me he has ischemic bowel and no pain.” I insisted, so we didn’t really lose any time, but it was a little disconcerting.)

As for the patient, that was the worst conversation I have ever had to have. Telling a family that someone died is easier. Telling a man who’s chatting happily that he’s almost certainly going to be dead within 24 hours is nearly impossible, either to find the words, or to convince the patient. I had to not only convince him that matters were this serious, but also discuss the option of surgery – his only chance of survival, but a very slim one, with a significant chance of a long ICU stay and major morbidities, if he did survive. (Some might say that with that CT scan, we shouldn’t operate. 1) You can see pneumatosis and portal venous air from a bad bowel obstruction, which can be salvageable. 2) He was relatively young, and with few comorbidities. We never did figure out what caused his ischemia.)

In between talking to him, I was calling the chief and the attending and the OR and the ICU, getting iv fluids and antibiotics running, and moving him to preop holding. Not much time. No sooner had I settled him in preop, with a nurse to watch, and the attending about to walk in, than the trauma pager started going off with multiple gunshot wounds, so I had to leave him. Three hours and several traumas later, I found him and the chief resident in the ICU. The operation had been completely unsuccessful; there was absolutely nothing to be done. His body was shutting down, and there was barely time to have the family at the bedside before he died.

I felt awful afterwards. Not just because it was the holidays, and we had lost a previously healthy man suddenly, but because I had spent half an hour talking to him about his death, and had never talked about what would happen to him after death. I had watched somebody dying, and had never even mentioned God or heaven or hell. Which meant that I did him exactly no good at all. He died, as I knew he would, and had to face eternity, and I hadn’t even mentioned it.

Yesterday one of the PACU nurses came up to me. (At night PACU and preop are staffed by the same nurses.) “Remember that man with the ischemic bowel who died? I went to the funeral home. I had to tell his family something he told me that night. He said, ‘I’m not worried about this, because I’m putting it in God’s hands. He took care of me when I had surgery 30 years ago, and he’s taking care of me now. If he wants me to live, I will; and if not, it’s all right. If I don’t make it through surgery, tell my family I’ll see them in heaven.’ ” I started crying in the middle of PACU. He’s safe, after all. I didn’t do anything I should have, but he knew better than me. Next time, I won’t make the same mistake.

(As for the nurse, I have a whole new respect for her, going out of her way to comfort not only the family, but also the other caregivers.)

I’ve been listening to a Christmas CD from the Boston Camerata – An American Christmas, which contains few familiar carols, but many beautiful early American hymns, which demonstrate an understanding of [I cringe to use the cliche] the true meaning of Christmas far beyond that which pervades pop culture today. This song is called Bozrah, from the Biblical reference given further down; you can hear a rendition of it by the Rose Ensemble here, very similar to the Camerata version, but with different verses at the end.

Who is this that comes from far,
With his garments dipped in blood?
Strong triumphant traveller
Is he’Emmanuel, is he God?

I that reign in righteousness,
Son of God and Man I am.
Mighty to redeem your race -
               Jesus is your Savior’s name.

Hark the trumpet’s awful voice
Sounds abroad through sea and land.
Let his people now rejoice -
Their redemption is at hand.

I that reign in righteousness,
Son of God and Man I am.
Mighty to redeem your race -
                Jesus is your Savior’s name.

See, the Lord appears in view;
Heav’n and earth before him fly.
Rise ye saints, he comes for you;
Rise to meet him in the sky.

I that reign in righteousness,
Son of God and Man I am;
Mighty to redeem your race -
               Jesus is your Savior’s name.

The first half of the song is a paraphrase of  Isaiah 63:1. The  prophet asks,  “Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength?” And Christ answers, “I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.”

Messianic prophecies often refer to blood-red garments: either the Lamb’s blood, shed to cover his people’s sins, or the blood of the Lion’s enemies, spilled as he comes in judgment.

A lot of people have been known to remark at Christmas-time that they “relate best to baby Jesus,” or some similar nonsense; as though it is possible to believe only in Jesus as a helpless infant, and to ignore the rest of his life. Jesus’ birth was a real moment in time and space, when one Person of the Triune God took a human body. But he existed before that, indeed from all eternity, as the Son of God, the Word, the Wisdom of God who breathed life into creation (Proverbs 8, John 1). He existed after that, as a sinless man, the perfect sacrifice who died, and then rose from the dead. He exists now, reigning at the Father’s right hand, while all enemies are put under his feet.

And now, when we remember his birth, we also remember and long for his second coming, which will be from the heavens, awesome and full of glory; when those who have denied and mocked him will see the One who was pierced for our transgressions, and weep at their fatal error; when those who have believed in him will realize in full the truth of his promise, “He who believes in me, though he be dead, yet shall he live; and he who lives and believes in me shall never die.”

As the historic church recognized in the observance of Advent, Christmas is a joyful time, not only because our Savior was born, but because he is coming again.

Belatedly, Merry Christmas.

Another magnificent piece of music: Haydn’s Te Deum, which was performed for a visit of Admiral Nelson to the Austrian court in 1800. It can be sampled (and even better, acquired) here.

This ancient hymn is glorious in itself, and Haydn’s triumphal score sets it beautifully. Some great lines:

Te Deum laudamus,
te Dominum confitemur.
We praise thee, O Lord; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.

Te aeternum Patrem omnis terra veneratur. . .
Thee, the Father everlasting, all the earth doth worship. . .

Te gloriosus apostolorum chorus,
te prophetarum laudabilis numerus,
te martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus. . .

Thee, the glorious choir of the apostles,
Thee, the admirable company of the prophets,
Thee, the white-robed army of martyrs doth praise. . .

Tu rex gloriae, Christe.
Thou, O Christ, art the King of glory.

Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius.
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.

Tu, ad liberandum suscepturus hominem,
non horruisti Virginis uterum.
Thou, having taken upon thee to deliver man,
didst not disdain the Virgin’s womb.

Tu, devicto mortis aculeo,
aperuisti credentibus regna caelorum. . .

Thou, having overcome the sting of death,
hast opened to believers the kingdom of heaven. . .

Salvum fac populum tuum, Domine,
et benedic hereditati tuae
. . .
O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine inheritance. . .

Fiat misericordia tua, Domine, super nos,
quemadmodum speravimus in te.

Let thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, as we have trusted in thee.

In te, Domine, speravi;
non confundar in aeternum.

In thee, O Lord, have I trusted;
let me not be confounded for ever.

That last line is absolutely magnificent, as Haydn plays it out into a minute-long meditation of confidence and faith.

I don’t know why, but somehow prayers and psalms mean more to me in Latin. Maybe because the language forces me to think about them slowly, rather than racing glibly through the phrases.

In te Domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.

My patient is dying (again), and I can’t do anything to stop him.

That’s such a horrible feeling. I can’t help him. I can’t stop the disease, I can’t change anything anymore. It’s too late.

At that point, the thought arises, if I can’t cure him, at least maybe I could make this quicker, easier for him and his family.

I never thought I’d understand (dare I say sympathize with) that idea.

I understood today, finally, how doctors, whose purpose is to heal, can end up wanting to kill (because that’s what euthanasia is, in the final analysis). I wanted to do something, anything, for this man; and if I couldn’t fix him, that left only one thing.

The problem is that I’m not God. There’s a very old joke about the difference between God and the surgeons; and I think death is his way of reminding us humans of our place in the world. Death is not under our control. It’s not a thing that we can order around, or organize, or turn off and on at our whim.

Life and death belong to God. He gives life, and he controls its end. The time of death does not belong to us. That’s our human arrogance talking, to think we can control every aspect of our lives, right down to death itself.

So I had to let go. That man was God’s creation. God let me care for him for a while; but ultimately I and my colleagues were never the ones in control. As the psalmist says, “Man returns to dust, and his spirit returns to his Maker.”

In accordance with my resolution for the next [school] year to write more about the Bible:

The first ten or twelve verses of Ephesians 1 are amazing from many perspectives, but today I was noticing the emphasis on the role of God’s will and God’s choice in our salvation. Words denoting the supremacy of God’s will and purpose are mentioned at least twelve times in six verses:

“According as he [the Father] hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love;
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself,
That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him. . .”
Ephesians 1:4-10

Which (if you don’t get along well with King James English, and that passage is particularly convoluted in both English and Greek) is to the point that God, from the beginning of the world, chose his children, and set his love on us and forgave us and planned everything for the purpose of bringing us together in Christ, for his own glory. He planned it all. It doesn’t depend on me – which is good, these days, because I haven’t always been paying as much attention as I should.

He makes us accepted in his beloved Son. What else is left to desire?

(Ok,  now we can discuss predestination, if you like. . . )

For someone who spends as much time communicating as I do, I’m obviously still not very good at it.

Since between work and Pascha services this week I don’t have much time, let me, as the fastest way of saying what I really think about Mormonism, refer you to a post I made this spring, back when Romney was a viable contender. You can find it right here. Basically, I conclude that Mormonism is a false religion, just as much originated by Satan as Islam is, in that he probably inspired two men (Mohammed and Joseph Smith) to write blasphemous lies against Jesus. Mormonism, unlike true Christianity, does not regard Jesus as divine, the only-begotten, unique Son of God. Mormonism teaches that God was once a human, and that all humans (or at least all males) can become gods in their own private universes, peopled by the offspring of their subservient wives (so yes, Mormonism, like other false religions, tramples on women, and, unlike Christianity, regards them as lower in kind than men).

Regarding polygamy, I agree that it’s illegal in America, and that even the biblical patriarchs limited themselves to two wives, and those of an age to consent.

What I was trying to say about the FLDS branch of Mormonism is that 1) I think most Americans’ visceral reaction to them is based on lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with polygamy, but which do present a glaring challenge to the culture of hedonism and free sex that prevails in America today; and 2) I respect groups which hold to the original tradition when it’s not politically correct to do so. The mainstream LDS church threw out Joseph Smith’s original teaching on polygamy because it made their life easier to do so. The FLDS hold onto it; even though that may involve brainwashing women, it’s at least the original form of Mormonism. Similarly, I respect “radical” Muslims more than “moderate” Muslims, because I think the radical Muslims understand and obey the original commands of Mohammed (kill the unbelievers until they submit to you, make no friends with Jews or Christians) better than the watered-down, secularized, moderate Muslims. That doesn’t mean that I approve of suicide bombers; I simply think they’re acting on the logical conclusions of their beliefs.

Does that help at all? Maybe I should also mention that in my personal beliefs, I try to stick to the Bible exactly as God gave it, without making alterations for modern sensibilities. God created the world out of nothing, in the space of six days, and all very good, until it was marred by man’s sin and the entry of death. God condemns sinners to hell in the next life because of their infinite crimes against him, and he is righteous and loving to do so (we can take this up in a later post). God offers free forgiveness and eternal life to all who confess that they have broken his laws, and accept his merciful gift in Christ, who died for us and rose from the dead on the third day, and sits in heaven until his kingdom is established through the whole world, and all nations kneel down and worship him. And along the way, women should submit to their husbands, men should have one wife and be faithful to her, and Christians ought to love their neighbors as much as they love themselves. This is absolutely true, and I make no apology for any of it, except to say that I wrote it as forcefully and bluntly as possible in order to parallel my wild statements about Islam and Mormonism.

They and I are at least in agreement about the existence of absolute truth and the extreme importance of finding it out; just as I had more in common, regarding modest clothes, and avoidance of wild parties, and chastity, and taking time out from studying for religious observances, with the Muslim girls in medical school, than with the nominal Christians.

I look forward to reading your comments.  :)  And I guess I had better also put out an apology in case any of the above is needlessly offensive, as I may not have time to answer comments till late in the day. I don’t mean to be insulting, but to state the truth as I know it, forcefully. The lateness of the hour may make some phrases ill-judged.

You know the reason everyone is really so rabid about the polygamists? It’s not just the matter of teenage mothers (who, after all, are a common enough phenomenon in this society; here, at least, they’re respected as legitimate, and the fathers are involved with their children).

No, it’s the women’s clothes. Modern Americans take one look at their appearance – which I would describe as graceful, elegant, sweeping, modest dresses and beautiful swept-up hair – and react viscerally, I believe because they’re convicted by this total contravention of modern society’s flagrant embrace of everything vulgar and obscene. It’s almost as though men think they have a right to see barely-clothed women, and are affronted by these women denying them that privilege; as though women think that they earn respect by flaunting their beauty in the eyes of all, and are defied by these women’s refusal to do that.

That, and the large families. In a society where a single child is pondered before years before being accepted, and where two children are an imposition, three unheard of (in the professional circles I seem to be in these days), the idea of having many children is shocking – the 400 kidnapped children (since I don’t see where the government gets the right to take all of them without specific evidence against everyone’s fathers) are described as a crowd of toddlers and 4-5 year olds running around under foot.

Plus, their rejection of the modern world. My friends talk as though it’s evil not to have TV and internet and cell phones. Who am I to talk, of course; but I think I can at least recognize the beauty and possible desirability of such a lifestyle (the Amish, for instance), while still choosing to use some of modern technology myself. So far, I’ve refrained from pointing out to my colleagues that I was raised without TV (although they may have figured that out from my profound pop culture illiteracy), and regard my cell phone as a necessary evil.

(I have previously described Mormonism as a heresy. But I respect the FLDS people for being consistent and true to the original spirit of Mormonism in spite of intense persecution.)

I betook myself to the Coptic Pascha evening service tonight after work. I missed Palm Sunday service through falling asleep post-call, and not being able to muster the energy to get myself out of bed after a 15min nap. So I felt bad about that, and I considered giving up on the enterprise of keeping Pascha and working 13-15hrs a day at the same time. But then there wouldn’t be an Easter that meant anything to me, and that would ruin the whole year, and that would be pretty bad.

So I dragged myself to church after work, not entirely thrilled about a 1hr round trip, and two hours of service (allowing for missing the first hour, and skipping the last 45min due to the sermon being entirely in Arabic).

Somebody please kick me the next time I consider missing Coptic church. I was so glad to be there. I didn’t know many of the people, and I didn’t have a service book. But we were praising God and commemorating Christ’s passion, and there is nothing better in the world.

Thine is the power, the glory, the blessing, and the majesty, forever, Amen.
       Emmanuel, our God and our King.
Thine is the power, the glory, the blessing, and the majesty, forever, Amen.
       My Lord Jesus Christ, my Good Savior.
           The Lord is my strength and my song, and has become my salvation.
Thine is the power, the glory, the blessing, and the majesty, forever, Amen.

The Copts are my identity, one of the only things about me that’s still the same at the end of this year. At that church, everything is right and in order.

(Man cannot live by bread alone; and neither can one get by entirely with Presbyterian church services, especially the strict ones. They’re missing something, like icons and incense and color and music. I should point that out to the elders of the church I’ve been going to. The reaction at least would be interesting.)

I’m looking for opinions/advice on how to deal with people doing impressions of others. A lot of the guys here like to do “impressions” of various attendings. To me it feels like mocking them for being older than us, or for having a pet phrase or two, or for always approaching a problem in the same way. I’m not sure whether it’s mocking, though. They don’t do it as much about the attendings we don’t like as about the nice attendings. But of course they wouldn’t do it if the attending was around, and I’m pretty sure the attendings wouldn’t like it if they heard it. I wish I could stop these conversations, but I don’t know what to say.

Ok, that’s the Dear Abby section for today. Now, some stereotypes from another angle:

Another group that my colleagues like to do imitations of are medicine residents in general (not one in particular). At one point today I had decided that was really enough, and we were setting a bad example for the medical students, and I needed to do something to slow it down, or at least demonstrate that we do respect our colleagues. And then we got a consult from the medical ICU, and the medicine resident said, at various points in the conversation, “I know there’s nothing you can do for this guy, but my attending said, ‘He’s crashing, and I’m not sure what to do about it; consult surgery.’ . . . Yes, I’ve been here all morning; it took me four hours to put in a central line, that’s why I didn’t call you earlier. . . Sure, take the chart, I’m going to be writing a note here for quite a while longer [1hr, by my count]. . . We were going to get an ultrasound to evaluate the ascites. You guys don’t do that kind of thing, do you? You just touch it.”

That, my friends, is an admission I could not make up. Every single medicine stereotype that the other surgery residents had been quoting to the med students, in living color – from one of the smartest, most competent (except for lines) medicine residents. He knew the consult was ridiculous. At least he called us about it, and we had an intelligent conversation about the patient. (And as for the ascites, yes: we had a CT, and an abdominal exam. No need to be repetitious with the ultrasounds, except if you intend to tap it. At the beginning of this year, I was puzzled when called upon to say whether someone’s abdomen was distended or not. I couldn’t tell the difference between distention (which is usually pathological) and obesity (which is physiological – not an immediate surgical pathology). I’ve learned the difference now, though. Distention, even an obese person, gives a different texture, a different quality under the skin. It’s fluid, or air, that shouldn’t be there; and you can sense how the skin is stretched in an unusual way to accomodate it.)

And then finally, another group whom I have decided to abandon all scruples concerning, and make bitter and sarcastic remarks about without reserve: the ER, and especially the ER residents. I think, honestly, ER doctors with specialty residents in-house are obliged to do better than this, because they think a bit longer before calling an attending in from home, than before calling a resident down the stairs.

Today, ten minutes before sign-out, we got a page from the ER, for a young man who had arrived only 15 minutes before. (I know, because we were down there evaluating a genuine surgical issue when the fellow was brought back.) The consult was for appendicitis in a patient with no other medical problems. No labs had been done, and certainly no imaging. We went to see the patient, and a few moments later informed the ER resident that in our opinion, a young man with groin/testicular pain as well as right lower quadrant pain, who had a history of both kidney stones and Crohn’s disease, deserved a little investigation into other possible causes of pain (testicular torsion, kidney stones, Crohn’s disease) before being summarily dumped on the general surgery service as an appendicitis. (If it were one of those other causes, he should have been sent to urology, or colorectal surgery, or even plain medicine.) So I apologize to the excellent ER doctors in the blogosphere, but I’m giving up being polite about the ER for right now. From here on, I’m going to fight every call from them until it’s been properly – even exhaustively – worked up. And all stereotypical jokes are fair game. As my chief remarks, we’re not asking them to think like surgeons, just like doctors. Examine the patient and think for two minutes!

(My patient is dying of cancer, and I can’t fix him, I can’t help him, I can’t even make him comfortable. Every time I go to see him, he holds my hand and cries. I hate cancer. My patients are all sick, and I can’t fix them. I’m tired of sick people. Did you know everyone in the hospital is sick? I forget what healthy people look like. All my patients end up in the ICU. The world is broken and I can’t mend it. . . The creation also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. The whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now; and not only they, but we also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies. And we are saved by hope, but hope that is seen is not hope, for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? Likewise the Spirit also helps our infirmities. . .)

Dr. Schwab’s Surgeonsblog is one of my favorite blogs ever. He has tremendous stories, and tells them very well, and I am inspired by his example as a caring and competent surgeon.

Lately, though, he’s taken to posting political and religious rants (his word) on the weekends. Creationists are a common target. I’ve got to respond to his latest post, but so many ideas came to mind I thought it would be better to write on my own blog.

Dr. Schwab’s post opens with an 8min clip of an ABC news segment on two creationist men who give tours of a Denver science museum to Christian homeschoolers, giving the creationist point of view in contradiction to the evolutionary teachings of the museum.

First, two things about the video: the two men, while I applaud their beliefs and their activism, are not the best possible spokesmen for young-earth creationism. When asked how long the period was between Adam’s creation and Noah’s flood, they stumble, and end up guessing that there were six or seven generations. In other instances, I agree that their responses are simplistic. If they know of the scientific evidence for creation, they’re not adept at mentioning it when called on. In their defense, this could be due to the young age of the children; most of them look to be in early elementary school. A disquisition on carbon-dating would be over their heads. I would bet that if you filmed an elementary school tour led by an evolutionist, there wouldn’t be much more sophisticated discussion than there was here. However, the ABC producers slanted the segment nastily. When the two creationist spokesmen guessed that there were six or seven generations of 800-yr olds between Adam and the flood, they multiplied 800 x 7 and got 5000+ years, making the creationists look ridiculous. Actually, the egg should be on ABC’s face. You don’t multiply generations like that. Each generation ought to start 20-40 years after the previous one. Better informed young earth theorists add up the genealogies in the Bible to make 1500 years between Adam and the Flood. There are other ways, as well, in which the producers went out of their way to pick soundbites that would make the creationists look bad. You might also notice that their claims, and those of the evolutionary scientist at the museum, are equally without evidence – in this video. Those watching this news segment were being asked to choose between creation and evolution based simply on the mockery of the museum’s scientist and of the producers.

(For further information on all kinds of questions regarding creation science, check out Answers in Genesis (specifically the answers page) and the Institute for Creation Research, which give much better evidence-based and Bible-based reasoning than the tour leaders in that video were able to do.)

 Now, to Dr. Schwab’s comments. He says,

My reaction to the above video goes beyond anger: it makes me sick. These kids are deliberately being deceived. Brainwashed. And, yes, abused.

My question to Dr. Schwab is, who doesn’t brainwash their kids, by his definition? Children sent to public schools and taught to believe that the entire universe sprang into existence on its own (where, after all, did the material for the Big Bang come from?), and that random atoms then coalesced into organic molecules, which then arranged themselves into the infinite complexity of data coding which is DNA, and that information was somehow progressively added into the system, making more and more complex organisms, until their own intelligence randomly developed – are they not being “brainwashed” as well? They’re told that these are the facts, this is how life is, this is what they should believe, and the alternatives are mocked and laughed at, if they’re even mentioned at all. All parents want to teach their children the same things that they believe. That’s not abuse, that’s good parenting. If you, as an adult, believe that you know what is true, you want to protect your children and save them from the painful errors that you yourself may have made. I’m sure Dr. Schwab would not be thrilled to let a creationist lecture to his children. Neither would creationists want evolutionists teaching their young impressionable children – although most of us do encourage the study of the theory of evolution for older children, say highschoolers.

But this is the part that really annoys me:

They are being led to extremism which differs not from the kind that creates believers in paradise filled with virgins. And we know where that leads.

I respect Dr. Schwab’s right to believe whatever he wants about the origin of life and the universe, and to make his arguments for what children should be taught. But to accuse Christian creationists of being morally on a par with Islamic suicide bombers is – I think slander is the right word, although more loaded than I’d like for a polite discussion. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in orthodox Christian teaching which would in any way condone the killing of other innocent people simply to make a point. You cannot show a single instance in recent history of Christians, acting on teaching which has anything near polite acceptance in the Christian community, killing other people. (The rare instances of killing abortionists don’t count: the number of Christians who would approve of this is vanishingly small, too small to count in a percentage.) Islam, on the other hand, teaches repeatedly and clearly, throughout the Koran and the hadiths, and among the vast majority of imams, that it is not only right, but necessary, to kill unbelievers. Creationism, which teaches children that they were made in the image of God (and therefore they should respect and value their own bodies and the lives of others) comes nowhere near this kind of violence.

Dr. Schwab continues:

These are the people putting religious tests to our potential leaders, proclaiming their holiness above mine . . . banning books and destroying public education. Rioting over cartoons. These are the people claiming our country needs more religion, even as their religion-above-all attitude is subverting the very foundations of our democracy and aiming us toward societal failure by substituting indoctrination for education.

What can I say? I learn from the Bible to proclaim, not my holiness, but my sinfulness – and God’s holiness and mercy. My homeschooling family, and those like us, are not destroying public education, but trying to rescue our children from an educational system which has already failed disastrously (school shootings on a regular basis, drugs available in schools, high school graduates who can’t read or do simple math, high schoolers who can’t compete with most other developed countries in math and science, schools which spend more time teaching young children how to have sex than telling them basic facts about American history). When our religion is mortally insulted (as in the demeaning and gross “art” exhibits in New York a few years ago, which were far more insulting to Jesus than those cartoons were to Islam), we didn’t riot. We wrote polite letters to the editor.

I don’t want to make this sound like boasting, but in the homeschooling creationist community nationwide that my family is part of, there are many young people becoming doctors and nurses; we are acing the SAT and ACT, and are competitive applicants to the best universities in the country. My friends from college, creationists like me, went on to become biochemical researchers.

Dr. Schwab, your indignation would be better spent on the disaster that is the public school system, and the teachers’ unions who refuse to allow any changes, and the truly dangerous religious extremists (Muslims) rather than on a group which is simply trying to raise their children in peace to be good and productive citizens.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.