We started back to school at the beginning of August, trying to tackle the rest of modern history before we bring on the science, the math, and whatever else it is we’re supposed to be doing. I grossly underestimated the amount of time this is going to take, but that’s okay, we’ve had some really good discussions and learning going on. I’m pleased to see the kids taking more of an interest in history. Finally.

This morning we started off by finishing reading an historical fiction book, “Witness” by Karen Hesse and discussing racism & the KKK in the 1920s, which is the main topic of the book. Our discussion drifted into the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, which brought us to watching Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have A Dream” speech on youtube. Coincidentally, that speech was given August 28, 1963 - 47 years ago tomorrow.

Earlier in the morning Chris O’Donnell had posted a link to this editorial cartoon on his facebook page and I couldn’t help but see the tie-in. I showed the kids and asked them what they thought it meant and what they thought of it, and showed them a Venn diagram I had posted a link to on facebook earlier this week. Both related to the current theme of hatred toward Muslims in America. All three could see the connection of everything we had covered in just a short time, and that prejudice is still alive and well in the United States of America.

We concluded that prejudice and hatred are an all too common theme in our history, which brought us to one of my favorite quotes:

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - Winston Churchill.

You’d think that was the end, right? The lesson was hammered home when an old classmate of mine (all through Catholic school, mind you) made a comment on a facebook “discussion” about letting “them” know they’re not welcome here (sorry folks, no link there. avert your eyes from the spectacle).

I couldn’t have written a better lesson plan that rolled all into one connected day if I had tried.

What have you learned today?

This article from NPR chafes my hide a bit. The author is trying to explain why she has remained a Catholic even in light of all the abuse scandals that have surfaced lately.  First, let me say that I don’t begrudge anyone the right to pick which religion they belong to, if any.  However, if you are going to write an article attempting to explain your reasoning, I hope you can come up with something better than this lame-ass piece.

The basic premise of her argument is: there is both good and evil in everything and everyone. Here’s a little sample:

But then, my country is the most generous and compassionate nation on Earth; it is also the only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

My government is founded upon a singular appreciation of personal liberty; some of those founders owned slaves.

My family was known for its neighborliness and its work ethic; its patriarch was a serial child molester.

OK, but your country, your government, and your family never claimed to have a direct line to God and have an infallible leader. The issue with the Catholic Church goes beyond a few rogue priests doing their own evil deeds. It goes all the way up into the hierarchy of the church; to the man who is now supposedly infallible in matters of faith. Apparently though he was pretty fallible when he knowingly covered up for priests who sexually abused children and even allowed the abuse to continue by not removing those priests from their duties.

If you want to be Catholic, fine. But don’t try to justify it by arguing a human standard for morality, when the Church is an institution that puts itself out there as a moral authority, and bases their morality on a divine standard.

Awhile back, I wrote about Nate Phelps, the son of the infamous Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, and an article on his escape from a life of abuse at the hands of his father.

If you’d like to hear more of his very moving story, in his own words, he has posted the transcript of a talk he gave a couple weeks ago.

I actually came across this story about two months ago, read it, and more or less forgot about it until I came across it again tonight. It’s the story of Nate Phelps, the son of the infamous Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church.

If you don’t recognize the name, Phelps and the WBC are famous for the website GodHatesFags.com (which I won’t link to), and for picketing the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq amonst others. They are an extremist bunch to be sure, and not representative of the vast majority of Baptists. They preach a message of hate, and apparantly Pastor Phelps is not above mentally and physically abusing his own children. It’s a disturbing story, but it’s good to know at least a couple of his kids got away from it, although it sounds like the psychological damage will never completely go away.

Oh yeah, and don’t miss the first comment to the story, from Shirley Phelps, Nate’s sister and one of the current ringleaders of the church.

If you don’t understand why someone could support doctor-assisted suicide, I recommend that you read this article, In Defense of Dignity, by Dan Savage.

Actually, even if you already DO understand it, I recommend you read the article too. It’s personal, emotional, powerful, and he’s exactly right.

Am I invoking Godwin’s Law if I start off a discussion with a comparison to the Nazis?

Tom Willis, author of this article, has some ideas that seem to parallel those of…yes…Hitler. He asks “Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?” It’s really a long, rambling and boring article and I couldn’t stomach the entire hate-filled thing, so I jumped to the punchline where he states that “evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land.” So here are some of his options for what to do with us:

• Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
• Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce “Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent - Potentially Dangerous.” I consider this option too dangerous.
• Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.

So we have labor camps, a means of public identification (similar to the Star of David the Jews were required to wear), and torture. The only thing he leaves out is the gas chamber. Although, in the early part of the article he does seem to take to delight in predicting that Muslims will kill all the evolutionists during the “end times”.

It is also interesting that he makes a distinction between Christians and evolutionists, as if it were somehow not possible to both be Christian and accept the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence for evolution. The Catholic Church officially recognizes evolution as being factual. I don’t know about the mainstream Protestant denominations, but since they tend to be more progressive than Catholics, I would assume they do too. Of course, I doubt that Tom Willis would recognize Catholics or mainstream Protestants as being Christians since they’re not his particular brand of Christianity.

Even though I’m no longer a Christian, I still respect Jesus’s message of love and compassion. It truly amazes me how people can read Christ’s words and then turn around and spew lies and hatred in his name.

The story of a severely neglected little girl and the family who adopted her. If you can read it without getting a little verklempt, you must be heartless.

Think waterboarding isn’t a form of torture? So did Christopher Hitchens. So when he was challenged to undergo the technique, he agreed. Guess what? He changed his mind. His new Vanity Fair column is titled “Believe Me, It’s Torture.”

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure.

In addition to chronicling his experience, Hitchens makes some good arguments why waterboarding should not be used for interrogation. Aside from the fact that it produces false information (victims will say anything to make it stop), there is the reality that use of the technique by the U.S. legitimizes the practice, and makes it fair game for others to use against Americans.

There is also a video of him being waterboarded. Before seeing this, I pictured it is being a big rush of water, almost like being strapped to a board and dunked. In the video you can see that they really only use a few ounces of water before he can’t take it anymore. And this is in a controlled environment, with safety precautions built in. I’m sure that the prisoners at Gitmo aren’t treated as well.

This, my second submission to the Thinking Homeschoolers dealy, will be much shorter than my first, because I don’t have that much to say. The topic is to write about the National Spank Out Day (April 30) or the National Day of Prayer (May 1).

Both Christine and I have both written about our views on hitting kids before, so I won’t repeat all that except to say, don’t do it. It’s not good for your kids and there are better ways.

As for the National Day of Prayer, I thought I was going to write about how it’s a violation of the First Amendment to have this event officially recognized by Congress. But I’m not.

Then I thought I’d write about how the original intent was that people of all faiths could participate together, but now the day has been taken over by evangelical Christians who actually make volunteers agree to a statement of faith that excludes all non-Judeo Christian groups (scroll down). But I won’t be writing about that.

Then I thought about writing about how the National Day of Reason (also May 1) is a better alternative in which to participate. But I’m not writing about that either.

What I do want to write about is Madeline Kara Neumann. She was the eleven-year-old girl who recently died from diabetic ketoacidosis because her parents thought that she would get better without medical help if they just prayed hard enough. I won’t go on and pontificate about what a tragic waste this was. I will however post the image that has accompanied most of the news stories about her. The image of this smiling, young lady haunts me. She reminds me of my own daughters, happy and full of life. Except that her life is over because her parents trusted prayer over reason. How very, very sad.

The Republicans in the Iowa legislature aren’t wasting any time this year on introducing their annual anti-gay marriage tripe. We’re just four days into the legislative session and a group of 16 Republicans has already sponsored SJR 2001, proposing an amendment to the state consitution banning gay marriage.

They’ve already attempted this for (at least) the past three years, without success. Realistically, this probably won’t pass because there is a majority of Democrats in both the house and senate, and we have a Democratic governor. If it did pass, it would have to be passed again next year, and then be ratified by voters in 2010, so the chances of it going anywhere are slim.

But this year could be different. Why? Iowa already has a law that essentially does the same thing - defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Last August, a district court correctly declared that law unconstitutional, but that ruling is now being appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. So now a certain segment of the population is afraid that the law will be permanently struck down (which it should be), and they’re rallying support for the changing the constitution instead.

What worries me is that it’s not just the Huckabee-supporting evangelicals that are pushing for this; it includes more mainstream groups too, such as the Catholic Church. Depending on how vocal these people get, some of the more moderate Dems could be persuaded to vote for the measure, so as not to disappoint the folks back home on the farm. So I’ve decided to let them know what I think, and I’d encourage others here in Iowa to do the same. (You can even contact them via email. Addresses are available here.) I’ll soon be sending the following letter to the sponsors of this legislation, and will follow that with a similar letter to the rest of the Iowa legislature.

Dear Senator:

I am writing today to express my disappointment in your sponsorship of Senate Joint Resolution 2001, calling for an amendment to the state constitution to recognize only heterosexual marriage.

I am a 39-year-old heterosexual male, happily married with three children. I have been a registered voter since the age of 18 and have voted in nearly every state and federal election in the past 20 years. Never before in that time have I felt the need to write to a state legislator regarding proposed legislation. However, I was dismayed to find that this amendment to the state constitution has been proposed.

I believe that the kind of intolerance responsible for such a proposal comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a choice; it is an inborn characteristic. A homosexual person has no more choice about being homosexual than you have over the color of your eyes or skin. To put it plainly, the attraction that a homosexual person feels for members of the same gender is the same as the attraction that a heterosexual feels for members of the opposite gender.

Many homosexual partners already make lifelong commitments to each other, raise families, and live and work in our communities. They are our friends and neighbors, and are a valuable part of our state. There is no reason why they should not enjoy the same rights and benefits that the rest of us take for granted. Many of these rights and benefits are derived from having a legally recognized marriage.

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa says: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights–among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” There is a reason that this is the first statement in the Bill of Rights. This statement contains the most basic truth upon which our state is founded. It is my belief that the proposed amendment stands in direct contrast to this, by attempting to limit the inalienable rights of certain citizens of Iowa.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider your position on this resolution.

Sincerely,
Donald A. Gookin
Altoona, Iowa

Judicial Watch has published its list of the ten most corrupt politicians for 2007. Guess what? Four of them are presidential candidates. Wow. I’m shocked. Who would have thunk it? Of course the list is not empirical in any way, so take it with a grain of salt.

Well, the great divide between the “secular” homeschoolers and the “Christian” homeschoolers is ever widening. I put quotes around secular and Christian simply because this division is entirely artificial. Many who are lumped into the secular group are actually Christian, but apparently not Christian enough for those who refer to themselves as Christian. And the group that refers to itself as Christian, is really only a subset of Christians, for whom a more accurate title would be evangelical, fundamentalist Christians. Many who fall into the group of evangelical, fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers do not, in my opinion, behave in a very Christ-like fashion.

At first I thought I would summarize all the issues between the two groups, but I think I would have to write a book to do that. Some of it centers around controversies that don’t matter that much when you look at the big picture, such as the Homeschool Blog Awards purposely excluding blogs that didn’t live up to their worldview. Big deal. They can have their flowery little homogeneous contest. Some of it centers around the Christian dominionists at HSLDA, and their attempts to be the voice of homeschoolers, even though there are many of us they do not speak for. That also may not make a huge difference in the long run.

There is another point of contention though, that does matter. About a year and a half ago, many of us (Christian and non-Christian alike) agreed to participate in a boycott of This Old Schoolhouse magazine, and HomeschoolBlogger.com because they accepted advertising from and supported the teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl. The Pearls are the authors of the book “To Train Up a Child”, which is a supposedly biblical-based parenting manual. Except that it advocates harsh corporal punishment, to the extent that it has been described as a child-abuse manual. In February 2006, a 4-year-old child named Sean Paddock was killed by his mother, who had followed the advice in the Pearl’s book. Fast forward to the present, when some of the evangelical, fundamentalist Christian bloggers are complaining that this boycott is an attack on Christians, while other, more moderate bloggers are saying that it is at the very least an overreaction.

But I beg to differ. When it comes to abusing children, complacency is not the answer. And the owners of the Old Schoohouse and HomeschoolBlogger.com are not just complacent. They have actively supported the Pearls by using their products in promotions, and issuing a press statement defending them. I have read To Train Up a Child (you can too; the full text is posted here) and I thought it was repulsive. I described it in a post back then, but I will repeat it now:
The authors of this book advocate hitting infants that try to get up during their nap time: “to get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down”. They describe hitting a child “with all the force she could possibly muster without standing for a wind-up” and hitting that same child so hard that “I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside”. They continually talk about “conquering the child’s will” and continuing until the child is “totally broken”. I simply can’t support any business that advocates that kind of behavior. And I don’t limit my opposition to just the above mentioned sites. We have on several occasions declined to purchase books from other (offline) vendors when they were also selling the Pearl’s book.

Bottom line: Yes, there is a division between the so-called Christian and secular homeschoolers. There are reasons for this, some of which are inconsequential, and others of which matter a great deal. No, I don’t care if the two sides are ever unified, and as long as the other side can’t understand our opposition to supporting child abuse, it will never happen.

I’m surprised that in the several years that we’ve been homeschooling, this story has consistently escaped my attention.

Back in 1999 Home Education Magazine published this account of the harassment of Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff by Christian homeschooling leaders. Some of the big names in the Christian homeschooling movement that were involved include Michael Farris of the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association, and Mary Pride, author of many homeschooling books and publisher of Practical Homeschooling magazine.

A basic summary of the events: Cheryl Lindsey was a prominent figure in the Christian homeschooling community in the 1990s. She published Gentle Spirit magazine and was a frequent speaker at homeschooling conferences around the country. There were ongoing problems in her marriage due to her husband’s “anger issues” when her husband left her and moved out of the state. She started a relationship with another man (whom she eventually married). After her former pastor disclosed confidential information about the relationship, various Christian homeschooling leaders intruded upon her personal life, harassed her, systematically drove her out of business, publicly chastised her, and negatively affected her mental health and her family relationships in the process.

hat tip: Unity-n-Diversity

Warning: long, rambling, navel-gazing post ahead. I wrote this several months ago, but it’s been sitting in my Drafts since then. After some comments I made over at Daryl’s today, I figured I might as well go ahead and post it.

Confession can be a pretty loaded word to someone who was raised as a Catholic. It used to strike fear into me like nothing else. Just to clarify for anyone not familiar with it, “confession” is the Catholic sacrament in which you admit your sins to god in order to be forgiven. I believe “Reconciliation” is the actual name of the sacrament, but it’s commonly known as confession. The thing I always hated about going to confession is that you had to tell your sins to the priest, who is sort of god’s proxy as far as forgiving goes. (Kind of like the mall Santas who stand in for the real Santa, because he can’t be everywhere, right?) This never really made sense to me. The question that always lingered in the back of my mind was “if god knows everything, and will forgive me if I’m truly sorry, why do I have to go tell someone else what I did in order to be forgiven?” As a teenager I voiced that question to my parents, teachers (at my Catholic high school) and even to clergy members themselves, but I never really got a satisfactory answer.

I mention this now because when I look back on my life and the way I’ve been influenced by religion, I realize that the questions in my childhood were just the seed from which more questions and doubts eventually sprang. Questions and doubts that I tried for years to eliminate, or at other times just pushed back in my mind and ignored. Its only been in the last few years that I started to really think about the possibility that these doubts might be something other than my lack of “faith”. And its only been in the last six months or so that I’ve been honest enough with myself to admit that I don’t believe in god. And its only now that I’ve gathered up the courage to admit this to anyone other than my wife.

I am a little afraid of the consequences of letting it be known that I’m an atheist. (Technically, I’m not sure whether I’m atheist or agnostic. It depends on whose definition you go with. That’s probably a whole separate post, too.) Will my mom read this and keel over with a heart attack? What will our friends think? Will they shun us? We now belong to a really great inclusive homeschooling group, and even though they don’t care about members’ religious beliefs, I still wonder if it will it cause them (even subconsciously) to look at us differently. On the other hand, the more rational part of me also realizes that for the most part, nobody really cares what I believe.

It is a little freaky admitting to my atheism after belonging to a religion for most of my life. Now I’m much more aware of the extent that religion (and particularly Christianity) pervades our culture. From “God Bless America”, to the pledge of allegiance, to Jesus fish emblems, to people saying to pray for good weather, to Gideon bibles in hotel rooms, it’s like there are scraps of religion everywhere that I never really noticed before. I’m not always sure how to react to it, either. We went to a funeral a few months ago at the church I grew up in. During the sermon, the priest was talking about how getting to heaven was our goal. He said that if there was no heaven, he’d just as soon be on the beach in Mexico, drinking Coronas. All I could think was how misguided that was. You see, I haven’t changed since I’ve realized that I don’t believe in god. I’m still the same person. I still have the same morals. I still love my family. I still make sacrifices for others. I didn’t turn into a self-centered, hedonistic idiot just because there’s no promise of an afterlife if I’m good. If anything, it has made me more appreciative of what I have now and more enthusiastic about how I spend my life. (And at least now I don’t feel guilty when I say “Jesus H. Christ” or laugh at the LOLcat Bible.)

I’m not even sure about how this changes things within our family. Christine and I have actually talked a lot about religion and god over the past couple years. I know Christine has issues with organized religion and, like me, her personal beliefs are changing. But I don’t think she’s in the same place as me, either.

What I’m really unsure about is how to introduce the idea to the kids. For the most part we’ve raised them Catholic. In past years we would go to church every week. At other times it was more sporadic. We stopped going altogether about a year and a half ago because we felt like hypocrites when we did attend. At the time, we explained to the kids that we didn’t really agree with all the things the church stood for. We told them that not going to church doesn’t make you a bad person; and let them know that if they still wanted to go, we’d take them. Then, other than a few short conversations with Jessica, we pretty much didn’t mention it again. But how do I approach them with this new angle? “Hey kids, I’ve decided that there is no such thing as god. So, ya’ want to go out and kick the soccer ball around?” I don’t want to push my beliefs (or lack thereof) on them. I want them to hear all the sides of the issue and when they’re old enough, to make up their own minds. I will have to continue to ponder this.

David Harsanyi has the story of school administrators at a Colorado High School who searched private text messages on students cell phones. The ACLU has pointed out to the school board that this is illegal, but the school board doesn’t care.

Schools are already allowed too much leeway on searching students’ bags and even what they carry in their pockets. They are allowed way more latitude than even the police get in criminal investigations, and they still go beyond that into what is clearly unreasonable. Why? Because school administrators believe that they are in control of the student, even beyond the role of the parents. They believe that their influence goes beyond the school and beyond the role of providing an education, and into the policing of behavior. And as a society, we generally let them get away with it. How many stories have we heard about schools assigning homework to parents, or suspending kids for blogging, or just about anything else they can think of? Maybe they should worry a little less about what is going on in the parking lot after school and a little more about what happens in the classroom.