Are Your Files Backed Up?

As I write this weekly email, my computer is backing up its c: drive. It’s making a permanent record of the operating system, relevant databases, Excel and Word files, PowerPoint presentations, the 200+ weekly emails I’ve written, and more. The bits and bytes are flying to the external backup drive even as I write this. I’ve been thinking, that while computers and humans have certain characteristics in common, the ability to make and use backups is not one of them.
 
One might make the argument that memories are a sort of mental backup. Memories serve an excellent purpose, from giving context and perspective to life, to turning into stories that endlessly entertain our grandchildren. However, as fine as they are, memories are not backups. Let me use an illustration. 
 
A few weeks ago, I loaded some new software onto our home computer and things did not go according to plan, to put it mildly. It was so bad that the machine wouldn’t even boot off a USB thumb drive. It was an incredibly frustrating and alarming event that took me from 2am to 8am to fix (helpful hint: don’t install new software late at night). I was finally able to use a backup from a week before to get things up and running (second helpful hint: create backups regularly).
 
By returning to that backup, I effectively reversed time from my computer’s perspective. It was now operating as if nothing had gone wrong at all. All was well and it could simply go on its merry way doing what it was supposed to do. All software installation mishaps, work it had done, files it had created, and changes to the operating system were yet to come in the future, if so decided by our family.
 
Now, the restore from the backup had two distinct components: reading the backup image to see what had changed, and then copying the appropriate files back to the c: drive. The memory in this case was the backup image; the actual backup was a set of files, that when written to the c: drive, physically changed things back to how they were earlier.
 
Humans have memories, which do not have the ability to change past events. We do not have backups that can actually alter the past and restore events to a prior time. However, there is an “exception clause” of sorts.
 
The things we want to change in our past are always bad things, not unlike the crash of a computer. The exception clause is that God is able to actually backup our lives to a pure point where the bad things didn’t happen, through justification in Christ. It’s as if those things never happened. The irony here is that we will still have the memories, but the events effectively never occurred in His eyes, which is what truly matters.
 
In the policy world, as in other aspects of life, we have our memories and would like to often reverse past events. Roe v. Wade, the last presidential election, bills in our ND legislature that did not pass, decisions by local school boards. We have the memories, but can’t change the past.
However, that’s OK. Our failures in changing laws, losing elections, and other policy defeats are wiped clean with God’s backup. He simply asks us to be faithful and advance his Kingdom in the policy arena.
 
It’s a wonderful thing to know that there is a backup to overwrite every mistake and wrong I’ve done or every bad thing that’s ever happened (including a bad software installation). Just don’t confuse memories with backups. The memories of these events may stay with us or fade over time, but regardless, the backups will always belong to God.

Teach Kids the Holocaust Was Just Fine?

I thought that might grab your attention. Not only is it a patently false and offensive statement, but it is also an affront to all those who fought for freedom in WWII, those who sacrificed so much, and particularly those who lost their lives in concentration camps, similar to some of our family members. Who would have the temerity to make such a claim? 

Gina Peddy, that’s who. She is the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction for the Carroll Independent School District in Southlake, Texas. She advised teachers in a recent training meeting that if they have a book in their classroom describing the atrocities of the Holocaust, they should also offer students access to a book from an “opposing” perspective.  
 
So why is she taking this ludicrous and offensive position? It’s pretty clear that her goal is to make a mockery of a recent Texas law that doesn’t sit well with the Left. The Texas Legislature recently passed a bill aimed to mitigate Critical Race Theory and other dubious concepts from being taught in the classroom. The goal of the legislation was not to make it easier to ban books on these subjects, but instead, it simply asked for balanced teaching. Despite this reasonable approach, Peddy is clearly showing her contempt for the new law and her support of the “we will decide what curriculum is best for your child” mentality. 

That said, Peddy didn’t have many standing in her confusing corner. The liberal Texas State Teachers Association called it an overreaction and misinterpretation of the law, policy experts familiar with the state’s education body of law refuted her interpretation, and the school district itself posted a retraction, authored by Superintendent Lane Ledbetter. It stated, in part, that, “the comments made were in no way to convey that the Holocaust was anything less than a terrible event in history. Additionally, we recognize there are not two sides of the Holocaust. As we continue to work through implementation of HB3979, we also understand this bill does not require an opposing viewpoint on historical facts.” No kidding.

If Peddy was going for drama, she succeeded. If she was trying to show that the new law was poor legislation, she failed miserably. She was simply trotting out the all-too-familiar slippery slope argument. By her standard, we need to make sure that children get a balanced perspective by presenting books which argue that slavery wasn’t so bad, the Roman Colosseum was built for soccer games, the pyramids were part of a giant Tetris® game, and so on. 

This whole unfortunate situation illustrates a few points. First, if you make wildly crazy claims, you get media coverage. Second, while not everyone can articulate the logical facility in her illustration, it should be obvious at an intuitive level that her conclusion just simply doesn’t mesh with what the new law will do. Third, it highlights that the intent and interpretation of a law is often as important as the wording of the law itself. The courts look at written laws, interpretations, and intentions – the interpretation and intent of this law is not to require refutation of the Holocaust. Finally, nothing is off limits for those opposed to your values. Whether it be lies about life in the womb, pretending transgender advantages in womens’ sports don’t exist, or aggressively forcing the indoctrination of your children and grandchildren on Critical Race Theory and other baseless concepts, they will stop at nothing.

Are we passionate enough about defending our biblical values despite adverse media coverage, intentional misinterpretation of laws, and the merciless onslaught by those on the other side of the issues? I can assure you that North Dakota Family Alliance is, and I hope you stand alongside us in defending our shared values.

If we lose, someday North Dakota students may be required to read a book that argues that the Cat really didn’t have a Hat. With apologies to Dr. Suess, I can live with that. But denying the atrocities of the Holocaust? That will not happen on our watch.