The following are articles by Jim Coffin published in the Orlando Sentinel:

Face It, Sir Charles, You've Got it Wrong This Time

The Wisdom of Feeding Babies When They Get Hungry

Pastor: Why I Oppose Law Calling for Prayer in School

Stop Trying to Second-Guess Jurors in the O.J. Simpson Trial

Before Calling Flat Tire a Miracle . . .

Adventist Minister Scorns Anti-Catholic Publication

Yes, a Rough Week, Mr. Clinton

Should It Take a Massacre to Move Us?

(The Orlando Sentinel, May 20, 1993) 
Face It, Sir Charles, You've Got it Wrong This Time

by James Coffin

Recently television viewers have been treated to a well-produced but highly unusual Nike ad featuring the Phoenix Suns' mercurial star Charles Barkley.
  In the ad, "Sir Charles" drives home the point that he is not a role model, and that parents, not he, should accept responsibility for how their kids behave. 
     If Barkley is decrying the abdication of parental responsibility that is rampant across the United States, then I agree 100 percent. He is right: In the final analysis, parents--not news media, church, school or government--must accept the ultimate responsibility for transmitting values to the next generation. 
     However, that doesn't seem to be what Barkley is saying. Rather, it appears that he is trying to abdicate the responsibility that comes with being a hero in the eyes of fame-worshipping youth. 
     The fact is, by choice or by chance, certain people find themselves in circumstances that place added obligation upon them.  The "haves" have an obligation to the "have nots." 
     Those with knowledge have an obligation to those in ignorance. 
     Those with increased influence have an obligation to those being influenced. 
     People occupy positions that thrust them into the role of hero, exemplar, role model. Parents, teachers, ministers, politicians, movie stars, athletes and a long list of others automatically become role models to the young, whether they like it or not. Nothing they say can change that fact. 
     Kids are going to have heroes. And they don't ask in advance if the person they idolize wishes to be idolized. Further, people in prominent positions can't decide whether they will or won't include "role model" in their portfolio. Being a role model comes with the turf. 
     Nike Corp. doesn't pay mega-bucks for Charles Barkley to endorse its shoes just because his name has a nice ring to it. They pay him because it knows his fame on the basketball court means that millions of kids will fork over millions of dollars for Nikes--"If Sir Charles wears Nikes, then I'm going to wear Nikes too." 
     In short, because the company knows he is such a role model, Nike is paying Barkley astronomical sums to stand up and deny he is a role model! 
     But I'm not really worried about the direct impact of Barkley's ad on children. What concerns me is that other actually-are-but-would-rather-not-be role models will hear what he has to say and take it to heart. I'm worried that other heroes to youth will also mistakenly assume that being a role model is something they can accept or reject as they please. 
     Barkley has earned his credibility in the game of basketball. But when it comes to understanding what influences kids, his shot has totally missed the backboard. 
     Sir Charles, you may be an unwilling one, but you are a role model. 

James Coffin is youth pastor at the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church in Longwood. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, November 16, 1994) 
The Wisdom of Feeding Babies When They Get Hungry 

by James Coffin

The article "Baby-feeding Guide Based on Biblical Principles Stirs Debate" (Style, Nov. 8), which outlined religious arguments against demand-feeding of babies, stirred my emotions as well as my memory. 
     Seventeen years ago I was a young pastor going to a new assignment. My wife was several months pregnant. We were extremely idealistic and wanted to raise our child in the right way--spiritually, physically, socially. 
     Upon arrival at our new post, we had lunch with the senior pastor and his wife. "I hope you won't demand-feed your baby," he said, sharing his belief that demand-feeding was a major cause of juvenile delinquency. 
    My wife was serious about motherhood. No junk food for her! During her entire pregnancy she ate dessert only once: just one cookie. She was determined to give her child every advantage. 
     But despite her commitment, our first baby cried a lot. He seemed perpetually hungry. His crying always stopped when he was put to the breast. But long before his next scheduled feeding, he would cry again. 
     What were we to do? Frequent feeding (every one or two hours) was the only thing that seemed to stop his crying. But demand-feeding had serious moral implications. We would spoil him, we were told. He needed to adapt to our schedule. Parents should be in control. 
     Fortunately, my distraught wife made contact with the local La Leche chapter--but not until several highly traumatic weeks had passed. The leader of the group, an active church member whose husband was a research scientist, saved the day. 
     She explained several things. For starters, mother's milk is digested more quickly than formula. So a breast-fed baby--especially a newborn--will probably get hungry sooner. Further, mothers produce milk on the basis of supply and demand. If the milk supply is inadequate, the way to increase it is to have the baby nurse more often. Finally, whether it's breast milk or formula, babies vary. 
     Demand-feeding doesn't mean parents are in the iron-fisted control of a monster-in-the-making. Rather, it means that feeding times are based on demonstrated need instead of a one-size-fits-all generic schedule. "Need-based feeding" would be a better description than "demand-feeding." 
     The argument that the orderliness of God's universe demands rigid baby-feeding schedules is flawed. Orderliness and uniformity aren't synonymous. In fact, God seems to go out of His way to ensure diversity. 
     No two snowflakes are the same. No two people's finger prints are the same. No two people have the same genetic code in their DNA. Some people are extroverts, and some are introverts. Some are black, and some are white. Some--old and young alike--can tank up and go for long periods without eating; others need to top up their blood sugar more often. 
     Two things concern me about the rigid approach to baby-feeding described in the article: I don't think it's good science, and I'm even more certain it's not good religion. 

James Coffin is pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church and the father of three sons, ages 16, 12 and 7. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, March 10, 1995) 
Pastor: Why I Oppose Law Calling for Prayer in School

by James Coffin

A slight majority of respondents to a recent Sentinel Sound Off phone-in say they want a law calling for prayer in public schools. 
     I don't. 
     Yet it would seem I should. I'm a pastor. I get paid to pray for and with people. I encourage people to pray. I believe in prayer. So why would I ever oppose it? 
     The answer is, because such legislation would erode a critical freedom granted by the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment, which ensures that government won't create a state religion. Legislation for prayer in public schools may be well-intended, but it's an inappropriate cure for society's moral problems. 
     Anyone who has ever tried to offer a prayer acceptable to Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus knows how impossible it is. The state could never write prayers that would satisfy everyone. Inevitably, they would please some (the majority religions, probably) and offend others (the minority religions). And even a period of silence to facilitate prayer is a subtle but dangerous step. 
     I believe that most Christians view prayer as something they can do silently, wherever and whenever they choose, for as long as they choose, without altering body posture and without specific equipment. So a period of silence would allow most Christians to pray. 
     However, suppose a student subscribes to a belief system in which prayer must be audible. Suppose it would be a sacrilege not to bow to the ground, facing a specific direction, at specific times of the day. 

     Suppose prayer in this system must continue for a long period. Suppose prayer can't be offered under a roof but must be outdoors. Suppose prayer requires a prayer shawl, a prayer mat or equipment that would disrupt those students who are simply bowing their heads. 
     The government would need to accommodate a multitude of prayer options or be guilty of religious favoritism. If the government refuses to make such accommodations, it in essence is stating that non-Christians aren't worthy of special provisions to make prayer possible, but Christians are. 
     And what about atheists or agnostics? Are they going to have to bow their heads in a show of respect they don't feel, or risk being looked down on? 
     Don't misunderstand me. I'm biased in favor of Christianity, and I wish everyone would pray. But I don't want the government's help. I don't want legislation that, however unintended, might favor Baptists over Unitarians, Protestants over Catholics, or Christians over Buddhists. 
     Understandably, the government wants good, law-abiding citizens. But whether that goal is best achieved by praying in the name of Jesus, by praying to Allah, or by rejecting religion altogether shouldn't concern the state. 
     And when it becomes the state's concern, the First Amendment's no-establishment clause is on its way toward being abolished. 

James Coffin is pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church in Longwood. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, October 5, 1995) 
Stop Trying to Second-Guess Jurors in the O.J. Simpson Trial

by James Coffin

How could a jury of 12 people find O.J. Simpson not guilty of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman when such a mountain of evidence seemed to scream to the contrary? 
     How did an earlier California jury of 12 find four police officers not guilty when an eye-witness's home video showed them brutalizing Rodney King? 
     In each case, the immediate explanation is racism. 
     In the case of O.J. Simpson, many whites said that the predominantly black jury based its decision not on the merits of the evidence but on their ethnic affinity with the defendant and his flamboyant defense attorney. 
     In the case of Rodney King's attackers, many blacks questioned whether they could expect any other verdict in a society in which many whites blame black men as a matter of course. 
     But is the true explanation that simple? 
     Granted, various forms of bigotry have existed in this country since the first settlers arrived. And despite the progress in the civil-rights arena during the past 40 years, racism is far from dead--as Mark Fuhrman confirmed so graphically. 
     But is racism so alive that any predominantly black or predominantly white jury is inherently incapable of responding in a fair, thoughtful and measured manner? 
     Perhaps I'm naive. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic. Perhaps I credit my fellow human beings with more depth of character than they deserve. But I would like to think that the majority of the populace--whether black or white--acts more on principle than on racial affinity. 
     Certainly there are exceptions. And often the exceptions grab the spotlight. But let's not extrapolate the flaws of some members of a racial group to the entire racial group, be they blacks or whites. And, particularly, let's not oversimplify the role of a jury. 
     A juror doesn't just answer the question: Do you think the defendant is guilty? Juries must operate within stringent protocols that are specified by the court. Thus, even when a juror is totally convinced of someone's guilt, he or she can render a guilty verdict only on the basis that the court will allow. 
     In the Simpson case, the jury was repeatedly reminded that the prosecution had the responsibility to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant was guilty. The fact that 12 members of a predominantly black jury unanimously said they were not so convinced isn't innately a sign of racial bias. One or all of the jurors may have felt that Simpson was guilty. But any juror who felt the evidence wasn't "beyond reasonable doubt" had no choice, legally or morally, but to vote for acquittal. 
     A well-known passage of scripture says that humans look on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. Because I'm not God, I don't know what was going through the minds of the jurors in the predominantly black jury that acquitted Simpson--or the predominantly white jury that earlier acquitted four Los Angeles -police officers. 
     But I do know that nothing is gained--and a tremendous amount is lost--when we automatically assume that, when a group from another race views things differently from us, they must be racially motivated. 

James Coffin is pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church in Longwood. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, May 15, 1996) 
Before Calling Flat Tire a Miracle . . .

by James Coffin

When a flat tire kept Domingo Pacheco from boarding ValuJet's doomed Flight 592 on Saturday, his mother declared, "It's God's way of saying you weren't supposed to be on that flight." 
 Pacheco lived because of a flat tire. One hundred and 10 others had no tire trouble but died. Pacheco's family sings God's praises for his intervention. The families of the 110 passengers without car trouble wrestle with this question: How could God allow such a terrible tragedy? 
     Why is it that we go through life with scarcely a mention of God, yet give us a narrow escape from tragedy and even the most secular among us suddenly bring God into the picture? 
     Hundreds of people miss flights every day because of flat tires, traffic jams and a host of other disruptions. We don't view these failures to be on time as God-ordained. But let a plane crash, and a delay suddenly assumes the status of a miracle. 
     I'm a clergyman. I believe in God and spend a lot of time talking about him. I also spend a lot of time trying to comfort grieving people. And I find that much of the talk about God that feels so good for a fortunate few actually intensifies the pain of those not so fortunate. 
     If God could save Domingo Pacheco by flattening his tire, couldn't he also have flattened dozens of other tires? Were the others less worthy of God's help? Less important in his overall scheme? 
     Ironically, the seeming goodness of God in sparing one person's life dramatically heightens the seeming callousness of God in failing to spare others. Crediting God with narrow escapes makes those whose loved ones didn't escape feel abandoned by God. But it also can set up the fortunate ones for greater spiritual anguish later on. 
     If God gets the credit for miraculously saving someone from certain death now, who is going to get the blame if, one month from now, that same person discovers that he or she has a terminal illness? 
     Either it comes from God--be it good or bad--or it doesn't. We can't have it both ways. 
     Understandably, we want to believe that the universe makes total sense and that God always rewards good people. Yet the Bible states: "The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all" (Ecclesiastes 9:11). 
     If King Solomon felt uncomfortable with the seeming unfairness of life's outcomes, then surely we should be cautious lest we read too much about God's will into the events that transpire around us--be they to our advantage or disadvantage. Whether events turn out the way we want or not probably tells us little about God's involvement. 
     Even the Bible acknowledges that "time and chance" play a major role in life--and probably in death, too. 

James Coffin is pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church in Longwood. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, January 1, 1997) 
Adventist Minister Scorns Anti-Catholic Publication

by James Coffin

This past Sunday when I went to the curbside to pick up my morning paper, I discovered another newspaper-type publication nearby. All my neighbors had received it, too. 
     A quick glance revealed that it was a negative expose of the Roman Catholic Church. I was quite certain it had been produced by a group of Seventh-day Adventist laymen, operating independently. When I saw it, my mind went back to an experience I had several years ago. 
     In a religious publication I came across an article entitled, "Leaving the Darkened Room." It was the story of a Seventh-day Adventist pastor who had left the Adventist Church. His experience in the church had been so negative that he compared it to living in a darkened room. But when he left the church, he felt as if he had stepped out of darkness into bright sunshine. 
     As a Seventh-day Adventist, and as an Adventist minister, I found myself bristling at the clearly hostile nature of the article. Certainly the Adventist Church is far from perfect. But many of the allegations made by the former pastor were patently false or, at best, only half-truths. He wasn't talking about the Seventh-day Adventist Church I knew and loved. And I was angered that someone would print such biased material. 
     Similarly, I imagine many Catholics in my neighborhood were angered by the publication left at their curbside. What they read didn't harmonize with the Catholic Church they know and love. I fully appreciate how they feel; I also understand why some people disseminate such materials. 
     Protestants earned their name because they protested against certain practices and beliefs in the Catholic Church. The protests were long and loud until at least the early part of this century. In generations past, debate and denunciation were common. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was formed in that era of no-holds-barred public confrontation between denominations. 
     Seventh-day Adventists have disagreed with and still disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on a number of major theological points: which day is the biblically mandated Sabbath, the role the scriptures should play in determining faith and practice, the authority of the pope, and much more. 
     Yet even when public debate and invective were the order of the day, Ellen White, one of the founders of the Adventist Church, and the one who most comprehensively articulated the differences between Catholic and Adventist belief, said that Adventist ministers should not "follow their own impulses in denouncing and exposing" the beliefs of others. "Upon these themes," she wrote, "silence is eloquence.... Let Jesus Christ be exalted. Keep to the affirmative of truth." 
     If civilized restraint about theological differences was called for when pitched verbal battles between denominations were commonplace, then restraint is called for even more so today. 
     There's no problem with disagreements. But there's major problem with mass-distributing material that will inevitably be perceived as a public attack on those with whom we have points of disagreement. That, I believe, is inappropriate. And I think the overwhelming majority of Seventh-day Adventists would fully agree. 
     Unfortunately, a small number don't. 

James Coffin is pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church in Longwood. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, August 23, 1998) 
Yes, a Rough Week, Mr. Clinton

by James N. Coffin

I know it's been a rough week, Bill. Thursday, you had that tough decision about whether to retaliate or not in Africa and Asia. Monday, close to home, the question was much different. 
     Having that pit bull Ken Starr sniffing around the private areas of your life must have been pretty frightening. And I'm sure that being cloistered with Hilary and Chelsea for two full weeks is no picnic in the Oval Office. 
     But cheer up. You've got it made. Seriously. Because America loves bad boys. 
     I've got to hand it to you, Bill. First you barely survive Gennifer's accusations. Next, Paula tries to drag you into court. Then, at the very moment the public is scrutinizing your sex life, you start getting it on with Monica. And you do it right in the White House. 
     You obviously understand how it works: Go in boots and all. Sin big and sin brazen. So here's the plan. 
      It doesn't make much difference whether you're forced to resign, are impeached or simply smell up Washington for the next two years as a dead duck. The fact is, you must continue to be a bad boy. 
     One word of caution, though: Don't lie about what you're doing. The public loves illicit sex but hates lying. So do judges and juries. So, next time, just come right out and tell us what and who you're doing. Maybe even when, where and how. If legislators don't have the backbone to call you to account when you're clearly guilty of a crime, they're certainly not going to do anything when it's just blatant immorality. 
     Once you're out of office, you absolutely must write a tell-all book about Monica. The steamier the better. And speaking of Monica, it's imperative that she write her story, too. Actually, if you can ensure that there are major discrepancies between your account and hers, it will increase reader interest and sales. 
     You mustn't forget that new bad boys are going to appear on the scene and set new records for badness. So what will you do when you're just an also-ran? I say, get religion. As I told you, everybody loves bad boys, religious people included. 
     When you're wallowing in depravity, they love to look at you from afar. Voyeurs. Vicarious sinners. Titillated but not tainted. They smite their breast and look toward heaven, thankful that they would never stoop to the moral lows that for you are commonplace. 
     But religious people are even more fond of converted bad boys. They sit captivated as these speakers regale them with tales of debauchery, concluding with a brief description of how conversion turned them around. 
     Ironically, some of the most influential people in religious circles today earned their credibility by how bad they once were. Obviously, once you're converted, your value as a religious speaker, writer and thought leader is inestimable. 
     OK, I grant you that I've made some sweeping generalizations. But what really scares me is that there's a lot of truth in what I've said. Too much. Certainly a lot more truth than in anything you've told the public this year. 

James N. Coffin lives in Altamonte Springs. He says the bizarre nature of current events sometimes causes him to take equally bizarre flights of fantasy. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, April 22, 1999) 
Should It Take a Massacre to Move Us?

by James N. Coffin

When at least 15 high-school students are massacred by fellow students in a seemingly trouble-free "Mainstreet USA" school, it captures the nation's attention. 
     When the initial shock wears off, we ask the obvious: What could have been done to prevent it? We next ask: What can be done to prevent a recurrence? 
     Undoubtedly, stiffer laws will be enacted. More school security guards will be hired. Students may have to arrive half an hour early simply to get through the security check before class. 
     Human tragedies of the magnitude seen in Colorado invariably galvanize the public and lawmakers into action. But often the response, though well-intended, is unwittingly hypocritical. 
     Note the following: 
     * It's ironic that we're most likely to clamor for extreme corrective measures when the events are bizarre and when the corrective measures make life more complicated for only a small number of people. 
     For example, throughout the United States there are nearly as many youth killed in traffic accidents on an average day as were murdered in Littleton. Further, traffic fatalities could all but be eradicated--if we were willing to put up with the inconvenience. 
     If speed limits of 20 miles per hour in cities and 40 mph on the open road were approved and enforced, vehicular death would all but cease to exist--particularly if all motor-vehicle occupants wore helmets. 
     But in our rat-race, freedom-loving society, we choose to sacrifice lives daily for the sake of convenience. Who wants to take "forever" to get to one's destination, and who wants to wear a helmet in a car? 
     Yet each year thousands of people end up in the morgue as a result of our hurry and unwillingness to don protective gear. 
     * Closely connected to the preceding is our continued unwillingness to limit the availability of deadly weapons. 
     We have our constitutional rights to protect, we argue. And if the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, we won't relinquish that right under any circumstances--not even if the ready availability of weaponry is contributing to an increase in violent crime. And not even if today's rationale for personal-arms possession is no longer what the Constitution's framers had in mind. 
     * Finally, we easily fall into the trap of expecting legislation to remedy everything. 
     It can't. 
     At its most fundamental level, the problem in Littleton was a moral-values issue that no legislature can adequately address.  Moral education is the responsibility of parents, of churches, synagogues and other providers of spiritual instruction. It involves community role models who demonstrate what it means to respect God, self and others. It involves you and me. 
     Tighter security measures may help. But most security measures are predicated on the assumption that the would-be criminal doesn't want to be incarcerated and desires to remain alive. 
     The purveyors of death in Littleton has no such moral values. 
     Whatever their delusions, they were willing to lay down they own lives for the sake of depriving others of life. Human quick-fixes just aren't adequate when the problem becomes that deep-seated. 
     God help us. 

James N. Coffin is senior pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church in Longwood. 

(The Orlando Sentinel, August 25, 1999)   

Creation and evolution: Both explanations fall short

By James N. Coffin

Philip Terzian (ãMonkey trial remembered,ä last Thursday) suggests that, at the ãScopes Monkey Trial,ä the loser won. I suggest that everyone lost÷because the exercise perpetuated the myth that itâs possible to know empirically how life forms originated. 

Terzian states: ãScientists agree about the validity of the theory of evolution--that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor through a process of natural selection.ä

I disagree.

Not all evolutionists--let alone all scientists--believe Terzianâs assertion. In fact, the theory of evolution has become increasingly fragmented during the past few decades since 1960, when evolutionist G. A. Kerkut, then a professor of physiology and biochemistry at the University of Southampton in England, wrote the book The Implications of Evolution.

Kerkut stated: ãThe theory of Evolution as presented by orthodox evolutionists is in many ways a satisfying explanation of some of the evidence. At the same time I think that the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence.ä

He argued that orthodox evolution is based on seven assumptions that ãby their nature are not capable of experimental verification.ä Even if it were possible to mimic in todayâs laboratories the events that are assumed to have happened, ãall it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place....ä It doesnât prove the events did take place.

Granted, Iâm a creationist.  However, I readily admit that creationist models fail to adequately answer myriad questions adequately. For example, if only a few thousand years ago God created a world where lions grazed with cattle, how do we explain the tooth structure (for flesh-tearing), musculature (for pouncing on prey) and the digestive system (definitely carnivorous) of lions today? 

But do evolutionist models fare any better?

Take sexual reproduction, for instance.

As the theory goes, inert matter sprang to life. Single-cell, self-replicating organisms became multi-cell, self-replicating organisms/creatures.

At some point, one line of creatures began to develop a nonessential protrusion while another line developed a nonessential indentation. With the passage of time, the nonessential protrusion developed into a conduit for nonessential sperm. Simultaneously, the nonessential indentation developed a womb to receive a nonessential egg. Yet throughout, both lines remained self-replicating.

Then one day the two lines of creatures chanced to discover the pleasurable complement of the protrusion and indentation--and self-replication became a thing of the past! Keep in mind, however, that the interdependence of sexual reproduction actually placed the creatures at greater risk--no partner, no offspring, no survival.

So, why this commentary?

For the same reason the evolutionist Kerkut wrote his book: ãIt will have succeeded in its task if it ... brings back to light many assumptions tidily packaged and put away as being no longer open to question.ä

James N. Coffin is pastor of the Markham Woods Seventh-day Adventist Church in Longwood.

(The Orlando Sentinel, September 17, 2000)

Other roads also lead to Rome

By James N. Coffin

  Charley Reese's column "Scrap public education altogether" last week calls for a "genuine debate about education" and urges us not to "confuse education with the public-education industry."

Reese makes a great start but should go even further.

Whether public or private, education today is part of a monopoly. Like all monopolies, its primary concern is self-preservation. Only secondarily does it focus on finding the most effective and most efficient way to educate.

Rarely does it opt for the most economical. And almost never does it scrutinize its own presuppositions and modus operandi.

Granted that it's impossible to know the entire body of human knowledge, educators should seek to ground the student thoroughly in the three R's, teach how and where information can be found and provide the analytical skills necessary to assess the validity and import of the information discovered.

Twelve years should be more than ample to teach such skills and instill a love of learning. But education should be expected to continue for a lifetime.

The existence of much higher education is a monument to the system's failure. Clearly, the system hasn't so equipped students that they can be turned loose. Instead, we have to oversee and direct their study through college and right on through doctorates.

As long as we can perpetuate the myth that even well-grounded students are incapable of wholesale learning on their own, and as long as there is only one avenue for acquiring the paper credentials necessary to function within a given profession, the education system's existence is assured.

Education currently is more committed to a process than to a result. For example, if by self-directed study I'm able to pass the bar exam, why shouldn't I be licensed to practice law?

The real answer: Because the education system would then face open-market competition. People might realize that there are faster, more flexible and far-less-expensive methods of acquiring knowledge and skill.

Of course, a number of subsidiary monopolies have grown up in the shadow of the education monolith. For example, the initials SAT, ACT and GRE strike terror to the hearts of students everywhere.

Why?

Because these tests are the monopoly turnstiles into the monopoly system.

And we mustn't overlook the monopoly accrediting bodies that determine whether institutions will be allowed to remain a part of the monopoly. Thus, educational institutions can't be radically creative or they jeopardize their "franchise."

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for education. I just happen to believe that it can be acquired in a variety of ways. And I think it's high time the public demanded acknowledgement of that fact.

  James N. Coffin, 48, lives in Altamonte Springs. He acquired most of his college education in England.

(The Orlando Sentinel, December 20, 2000)

By James N. Coffin

J.P. Morgan said that people have two reasons for what they do: one that sounds good, and a real one. Americans have recently seen the truth of Morgan's statement graphically demonstrated.

Vice President Al Gore had a constitutional, sound-good reason for his post-election actions: He wanted to ensure that every vote was counted. His real reason: He wanted to gain enough additional votes to win.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush also had a constitutional, sound-good reason for his post-election actions: He wanted to ensure that every voter received equal treatment under the law. His real reason: He wanted to retain his lead and win.

Fortunately, both Gore and Bush eventually realized that, at some point, the good of the nation must take precedence over all else.

Unfortunately, the news media have been slower to catch on. So now, thanks to Florida's Sunshine Law, several news-media outlets are considering a hand recount of Florida's votes.

Their sound-good reason: The public has the right to know the truth.

The real reason: Such an exercise would guarantee millions of readers, listeners and viewers.

But what about the good of the nation?

Suppose, as many assume, Gore ends up with more votes than Bush. Would there be a court battle to remove an already-inaugurated president from office? What effect would such a move have on national morale? The stock market? Our international image?

Or would the information simply be used to remind Bush at every turn that he and the Republicans don't deserve the presidency?

Suppose, on the other hand, the count doesn't go as the Democrats expect. Would party diehards ever accept the count's validity?

What would such a finding mean to Al Gore and his party? Would Republicans throw it up to them at every turn that they created a constitutional crisis just because they were sore losers?

Isn't the information, whatever it is, going to increase rather than decrease rancor and division?

And what standard would the news media use in a recount? Would all votes be recounted? Or just the undervotes? What about the overvotes? Would dimpled chads be in or out? Would the news media have to calculate by several alternative standards? If standard A or B, Al Gore wins; if standard C or D, Bush wins.

In the biblical story of the fall, the "knowledge of good and evil" was there for the taking. Adam and Eve just couldn't resist the temptation to know, however harmful such knowledge might be.

In the present-day story of the 2000 presidential election, the information on some 6 million ballots is there for the taking. Will the news media be unable to resist the temptation to know?

Or will they be astute enough to recognize that some things are best left unknown?

(The Orlando Sentinel, February 7, 2001)

by James Coffin

Excuse my cynicism, but I don't have a lot of faith in President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. Either God or the government is going to get short shrift. And it may be both.

For starters, the government doesn't÷and shouldn't÷hand out money willy-nilly. There are always strings attached. And the strings aren't merely matters of procedure. Often they derive from social and moral values.

A case in point: Bush has declared that overseas family-planning programs can wave bye-bye to U.S. financing if their counseling presents abortion as an option. So how will the President relate to those faith-based organizations that present the possibility of abortion?

Are all faith-based entities equal in the eyes of the people who participate in the opinion polls that drive the politicians who make the laws?

I doubt it.

For instance, how many Americans would want the Church of Satan to be a government-financed distributor of charity? And what about those cults accused of brainwashing? If you've just spent a few thousand dollars to get your kid deprogrammed, do you want the government handing the offending group a few million dollars to aid in its humanitarian work? Would an atheist organization qualify as a faith-based entity?

After all, both atheism and theism require faith.

Inevitably, the government will have to draw the line concerning who qualifies as a faith-based organization. And it doesn't take a prophet to predict that 1. the organizations receiving the governmental thumbs-down aren't going to take it well, and 2. lawyers are going to relish the myriad court challenges that will be filed.

Sadder still, a lot of faith-based organizations are going to lose sight of their real raison d'etre and make whatever compromises are necessary to win Uncle Sam's money.

But we've looked at only part of the picture. The reality is, the driving force behind almost every church activity is the retaining or gaining of adherents. The seemingly secular activities are, I would suggest, bridge-builders to put church members in touch with non-members, to break down prejudice and to get names, addresses and phone numbers of potential members.

Only in theory can the spiritual and secular ministries of faith-based entities be separated. In reality, they're so intertwined that government financing of one is inevitably financing of the other.

Which means that every recipient is spiritually advantaged, and every non-recipient is spiritually disadvantaged. And that takes us perilously close to violating the First Amendment's no-establishment clause.

The church where I'm pastor could certainly benefit from having a few million dollars pass through its hands. And it might even save the government some money.

I'm just not so sure our democracy can afford it.

However you slice it, Elianâs father gets cut

By James N. Coffin

For Charley Reese, the solution is simple: Elian Gonzalez should stay (ãIf heâs returned to Cuba, Elian will not belong to his father,ä Reese wrote last Thursday).

Why?

Here heâll be ãfree to choose his own beliefs, both religious and political; free to pursue whatever career his predispositions tell him; and free to think for himself without fear that his thoughts will get him executed or imprisoned.ä

I donât disagree with Reeseâs observations about Cubaâs government. I would, however, point out that those who would find the right answer must first focus on the right issue. Reese hasnât.

          Letâs assume, for purposes of discussion, that Elian Gonzalezâs father is a card-carrying communist.

Letâs assume that, when newborn Elian let out his first scream, his father dreamed that one day that little voice would be shouting, ãLong live the Revolution!ä

Letâs assume that, to Elianâs father, belief in God is anathema, and children must be shielded from such destructive foolishness.

Letâs assume that Senor Gonzalez is the antithesis of everything most Americans stand for.

Should that disqualify him from fatherhood?  Should that be the basis for depriving him of his child?

As Charley Reese himself declared: People in America are free to think for themselves. And isnât the essence of freedom the right to be wrong?

Now letâs try another set of assumptions.

Letâs assume that Elianâs father hates communism and its impact on children.

Letâs assume that Senor y Senora Gonzalez agonized over whether they should have children at all, granted the Cuban governmentâs policies.

Letâs assume that they eventually decided, despite the risks, that they wanted a child to love and care for÷even though they knew that the child might be wrested from them some day.

Letâs assume that Elianâs father truly loves his child, even though the father canât offer the freedoms or the material advantage afforded the average American child, let alone one who has become a cause celebre.

Letâs assume that Elianâs father knows about the social problems we have in the United States÷drugs, falling test scores, illiteracy, delinquency, violence.

Letâs assume that, bad though life in Cuba may be, Elianâs father feels that his child would be better off facing Cuban adversity under fatherly guidance than facing American affluence under the guidance of distant relatives and strangers.

Are we going to let our commitment to freedom deprive such a father of the freedom to raise his own son as he wants?

Decades ago the Australian government ripped newborn Aborigines from the arms of loving mothers because the children wouldnât have many of lifeâs opportunities if raised by Aborigines that they would have if raised by white Australians. The children got the worst of both worlds. Today, that misguided charity is seen for what it was all along. Sadly, history seems to be repeating itself.

The options arenât great. One way or another, a government will probably rob Senor Gonzalez of his son. I just happen to believe that the father should have the right to decide if he would prefer that the freedom-denying Cuban government, rather than the freedom-demanding U.S. government, be the one to inflict the pain.  

James N. Coffin lives in Altamonte Springs. Believe it or not, he still declares himself a fan of Charley Reeseâs writing.

(The Orlando Sentinel, September 25, 2001)

by James N. Coffin

The Sept. 11 terrorist assault on the United States was conceptually simple. But it has left U.S. leaders with a damnably complex set of response options, all of which have a downside.

Something must be done. But what? How can we ensure that our actions won't exacerbate rather than eradicate the problem?

Our response must be so reasoned, so balanced, so measured that it elicits a resounding "Yes" to each of the following questions:

1. Can our collective national conscience live with it?

More than once I've fired off a letter in the heat of passion and indignation÷only to start regretting it the moment it was in the mail. Similarly, our current rage is justified. Absolutely. But we mustn't let even justified rage lead us into action we'll later regret.

2. Is our response assured of widespread, sustained support from the U.S. public?

Remember Vietnam. Our country can't afford another protracted conflict with high U.S. military casualties, heavy collateral damage to "enemy" civilians, ill-defined goals and a minimal chance of achieving victory. It doesn't take many visual images of mayhem and mutilated U.S. military personnel for public sentiment to turn.

3. Will our traditional allies support us?

The United States may be the only current superpower, but it doesn't have unlimited power. We can't face this challenge on our own. With the right approach, we won't need to.

4. Will many current fence-sitters come down on our side?

The more belligerent and bellicose our approach, the more off-putting to those who, while perhaps dubious about the United States, are unequivocal about terrorism. Handled correctly, many unexpected allies may step forward.

5. Will our response truly be a deterrent? Or will it merely be gas on a fire? A red rag to a bull? Spit in the eye? Will it engender hatred and spawn zealotry? Or will it actually make terrorism less likely?

These and many other such questions must be pondered before we act. Deterrence must be our goal. Although retaliation may temporarily assuage our primal hunger for revenge, retaliation brings back no lost lives. Diminishes no pain. Undoes none of the horror of what has already happened.

Further, our response must be directed toward the true enemy. And that enemy isn't every person÷here and abroad÷whose worship, dress, speech, customs and ethnic heritage are different from America's majority.

Our enemy is that misguided, minusucle minority whose followers commit atrocities in the belief that they're fulfilling a higher purpose and pleasing a Higher Power. More correctly, our enemy is the mind-set that leads to such actions.

That's what makes this war so hard to wage. Because such a mind-set knows no national or religious boundaries.

None whatsoever.

(The Orlando Sentinel, December 1, 2001)

By James N. Coffin

First, the disclaimer: What I'm about to say isn't for atheists and agnostics--although they're welcome to listen in. My comments are for believers. Christians. Jews. Muslims. Those sorts.

Now some facts: I'm a Christian. A preacher. But, surprisingly, I'm not altogether happy about some of the ways God's name has crept into public discourse since Sept. 11. Let me explain.

As the dust of devastation settles, heartening accounts of survival continue to emerge. Traffic jams, family interruptions, even the decision to buy a bagel--all are part of the saga of lives spared.

Then there's the other side. People at a new job for the first day, security officials incorrectly announcing that a building is safe, police and firefighters just doing their jobs--all are part of the saga of lives lost.

So when I hear the survivors praise God for looking out for them, I cringe on behalf of those to whom fate dealt a different hand. If God put it into the mind of one person to buy a bagel, couldn't he have put it into the minds of airport guards to detain the bearers of box cutters?

In our gratitude to be alive, and in our desire to give God the glory, we too often fail to consider the implications of what we're saying.

In my denomination, we have a fund-raising program we call "Investment." The concept is simple: A person commits to God the income from some venture, inviting him to bless it.

Back in the mid-1980s, a man promised God he would give 25 cents for every extra shave he got from his Bic disposable. To his amazement, he began getting 80 and 90 shaves instead of his usual four or five. Other men from his church joined in, with similar results.

At the time, I was an editor for a denominational magazine. We thought the story inspiring and published it. On the cover we featured the participants--all lathered up and holding aloft their razors. What a miracle.

But the readers didn't all share our enthusiasm. One poignant letter went something like: Yesterday a young mother of three learned she had terminal cancer. Yesterday a little boy chased a ball into the street and was killed. Yesterday millions went to bed hungry. And where was God during all this? He was busy sharpening Bic razors.

How do I explain the sharp-razor phenomenon now? I can't.

There are some things for which satisfactory explanations elude us. But I do know that such stories, when viewed in the broader context of world suffering, not only add to the pain of those who already suffer, but raise disturbing questions about the character of God.

There are times when the most appropriate response--for the sake of our fellow humans and even God--is to simply be grateful for any good that comes our way and to refrain from opining about ultimate causes.