How Schools with God Can Better Comply with the 1st Amendment

Bonjou ou bonswa! 

I want to write an extension to my last post where I shared a realization of inherent racism in the theory of evolution or Darwinism. I also proposed a different approach to U.S. public school education that perhaps even better follows the First Amendment than current practices. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This means that the government cannot act in a way that promotes or inhibits any religion, which I argue that it currently does. We do not live in the U.S. so my opinions are not formed as a parent, but from my personal K-12 education as a student. 

First, let me say a few things about my previous post. After sharing it in a few public places and getting some feedback from a spectrum from creationists to evolutionary biologists, I maintain that there is absolutely no conclusive proof that humans came to be after millions of years of evolution from lower life forms. You would think if there was solid proof, someone who was annoyed at my claims, as some were, would have shared it in order to prove me wrong. No one did. You can't prove something that happened long before you have any witnesses. 

Some people mocked me a bit after just reading the first paragraph of the post because I wasn't specific about the documentary I was watching when it dawned on me that Darwinism contains inherent racism. Does it really matter what exactly we were watching? The point was that I had not thought of the issue from a racial standpoint before, but now do. And my suspicions were correct because I was able to quickly find that Darwin's famous texts are full of white supremacy and dehumanization of people of color. Dehumanization is actually the literal and accurate word. Fine, if anyone really cares, it was a documentary on Curiosity Stream, but I still like my kids to watch them, I just teach them to think critically about factual claims to things that happened millions of years ago. 

I wasn't suggesting that we throw out natural selection altogether, but that we simply don't go beyond what we actually know, that we remove Darwin from his pedastool, and condenm him for his scientific racism, just as other racism is being examined and erradicated. In claiming to know more than we can actually prove and see, you exercise faith, which isn't different than creationism, is it? With creationism, you do have witness accounts that continue to be strengthened with things like finding more original bible texts, and scientific evidence, such as the "fine-tuning" of the position and composition of the earth and atmosphere which allows it to support life, which I've also shared in a previous post. 

To reiterate this again and provide even more proof to support this case, check out this article by a scientist at MIT. One point I especially appreciate in the article is the idea of falsifiability introduced by Karl Popper in 1934. It says that scientific theories, which can be proven false, do not lie within the realm of science, but fall into the realm of religion, philosophy, or mythology. 

Another reader asked if I thought that all religions, therefore, should be taught about in schools? In the previous post, I compared religious representation to cultural and linguistic representation which is important to engage multicultural kids in school, as I learned when I was working on my M.Ed. and already

observed through the work I do. I argued that God should not be a taboo topic at school and removed completely, as I felt it was growing up. I suggested a secular prayer we use at English camp and mentioned the view of God used in the Alcoholics Anonymous organization as suggestions of how to include God or a higher power in a way that doesn't establish or inhibit any religion, but serves the purpose of not establishing the religion of atheism and not inhibiting all religions that do believe in a higher power. 

I also suggested three extremes to avoid, which left us with the idea of a loving, just God/positive higher power. To whoever would argue that any inclusion of God in school establishes a religion, (violates the Establishment Clause), I argue that excluding God completely inhibits the free exercise of religion more than including him establishes a religion, if done correctly. 

Should religious texts be studied in school? I wasn't necessarily suggesting that religion be taught in K-12 school. I was simply saying that God be incorporated a bit so as to not negate his existence and give the impression that God and intellect are mutually exclusive. I suppose texts could be studied to an extent that would not be seen as establishing a religion. I suggest that if they are, they stay within the three extremes I mentioned. Of course along the lines of linguistic and cultural representation, it would make sense that the religious backgrounds of the kids at the school be represented in any such study of texts, while making them aware of other beliefs if the student body is religiously homogeneous. 

However, if religious texts are not studied, then students should simply feel free and encouraged to incorporate their beliefs into their work or creations in school, rather than to keep their religion completely separate from school. I told the person who asked this that it seems strange that the whole system we have to number our years, making this year 2021, is based on Jesus' existence, but he's not even mentioned in history class. 

One person also mentioned the human genome project, saying that what was found there showed that there is no one race that is genetically superior or inferior. That is interesting and reflects the notion of all men created equal. It doesn't really support the theory of all men evolving equally, does it? Wouldn't that be a huge coincidence, sort of like the perfectly fine tuning of the earth to support life? The same friend who mentioned the human genome project in defense of the theory of evolution also agreed that scientific racism is an issue that needs addressing and provided this article with proof.  

Someone else also said that I'm anti-science. I don't see how. Are biologists like Michael Denton who writes books critiquing the theory of evolution anti-science? Not to brag, but I got an A in all of my pre-vet courses at Virginia Tech and I have the transcripts to prove it! I'm a dork who gets excited over math and science. I love bringing science alive to our students at our educational farm here in Puerto Plata. The fact that people who say they are Christians are calling me anti-science for critiquing Darwin I think says something big about, well, overreach. Something seems to have gone a little too far. If I am missing some conclusive evidence as to how critiquing the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is anti-science, please feel free to enlighten me! 

Does challenging evolution challenge Chemistry? Does it challenge Anatomy? Does it all the sudden take away our understanding of how bodily systems work or atoms form to produce molecules, cells, tissues, etc? Does it challenge the law of gravity? Does it challenge technology? No, no, and no. The fact that people think it does shows the pedastool Darwin has been put on over and over by choosing him over God. Some people argue it's not a show down between the two but, if you believe in absolute truth, it is.  

So what could be done? How could these changes be carried out? This link gives a good history of the legal battle to keep the theory of evolution out of schools or teach creationism alongside it. It also mentions prayer a bit. I mentioned in my last post that things may be different than when I graduated high school in 2003, but it doesn't look like they are from a legal perspective. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. The last few pages of that link provide an appendix with a summary of all the key court cases. Perhaps it's just the author's bias showing through in this document, but after reading through it, I can see how Christians can claim a little persecution. I said that that was a delusional thought in a previous post, referring to conspiracy theories, but when it comes down to it, I am jealous for my God...or better said our God since he is equally accessible to everyone. I see a bias and a preference in the history of these cases that doesn't seem to be based on any proven truth. And it's not just Christians that lose here, but everyone who knows and has faith in our loving God. 

On the other hand, I see why the courts are hesitant to budge on these cases as well, thinking that if people are given an inch, they'll take a mile. Again, I appreciate that hesitancy as well. I sat through two weeks of a volunteer group singing Christian songs loudly, warning repeatedly that I thought one or two of the group were not Christian, unable to calm their fevor and cringing the whole time at the thought of making another feel uncomfortable. After the trip, one member emailed me to say great things about the trip, but also mention that he is Muslim and all the Christian singing made him feel a bit out of place! First and foremost we are called to love. Love is sensitive and gentle to others. It is welcoming. 

However, I think the right way to manage all of this is not to call things that can't be proven science or to say that scientific evidence pointing toward creationism is not scientific. If the government is playing with the lines of what is and what is not science, you can see how some people struggle to trust the government to inject new concoctions into their body without having proof of long term effects. Go get vaccinated people! I'm not saying otherwise, just making a point. 

This bias shows through especially when the government now asks schools to call kids names and pronouns according to their gender identity, allows transgender youth to use bathrooms according to their gender identity, and even play sports accordingly. I thought we were teaching science in school, not religious world views. Where is the science in that? 

I, of course, condemn hate toward anyone, but why are these students favored in this way for a cognitive, unprovable issue? I popped out of a deep sleep when I was 14 years old after hearing an audible message that was important for my protection. This is a story I would love to share with anyone interested. But somehow that is different than someone experiencing gender dysphoria? Again, I express love for anyone struggling in this way and don't mean to say anything otherwise, but I am serious in making this comparison. It would've been cool to have been able to speak more freely about such things with others. It could've helped me to do so and maybe could've helped them too. Don't say that my parents should've home schooled me without saying the same about transgender kids. This experience I share wasn't something my parents taught me to do but something that happened to me, comparable to kids experiencing gender dysphoria.  

Perhaps the right arguments haven't been made yet. In 1987, the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard) ruled that creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is religion, not science. But what about scientific evidence pointing toward intelligent design like the issue of fine tuning? I see two cases (Peloza v. Capistrano in 1994 and Wright v. Houston Independent School District in 1973) that ruled that teaching evolution does not constitute establishing religion. However, it doesn't look like either of these cases made it to the Supreme Court. And even if they did, why not keep pushing? 

Also, what were the arguments made to convice the court that teaching evolution does violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Was an argument made that, in addition to evolution being taught, God and all things related are made taboo at school, and therefore, a strong message is communicated to students that God and intellect don't mix, thus promoting atheism or contradiction between intellect and faith? What about the benefits of saying a secular prayer every morning like the one we say at English camp? What about the purpose and hope some inclusion of God or a higher power could give to struggling adolescents? What about the scientific racism that Darwin promotes? 

I wonder if a charter school could be started with this alternative approach. It could be a type of experiment or prototype. I recently watched a Holy Post podcast where an English professor and author named Karen Swallow Prior talked about how she believes the biggest problem facing Christianity today is an impoverished imagination. I highly agree. With some imagination, I think implementing changes here could work! 

I don't understand Christians in general. We seem to see all these differences to critique and divide, but miss uniting on things we should unite on. I wish we would unite on this issue to show how much God matters just as people united in 2020 with BLM. The world saw how much black lives matter with that united effort. However, I don't think it would be necessary to take to the streets at all. Believers already have the majority. We just have to get smart, get organized, and put our differences aside. 

Please, no one be scared off by the mention of BLM. I think we should use social media to spread articles and memes and have passion and unity like BLM, but simultaneously be smart and consistent in the court room, like Equal Justice Initiave. Someone also responded to my last post by saying that he noticed that lots of lawyers are creationists. Perhaps it's because law school trains us to present evidence for a case in order to lead a judge or jury to the truth without using coercion, such as hearsay information, and therefore don't fall for such coercion ourselves. If it's hard to convince adults trained in fair presentation of evidence that this theory is true, is it good to teach it to youth as fact? Is that not coercion? We'll have to examine the coercion test another time, but it's a test sometimes used to detect First Amendment violations.  

I was very excited when I saw the news about the new dead sea scrolls found the other day, but no one else seemed to get excited about that! The latest political conflict will have everyone talking, but something like that that should go viral just gets looked over. I would love some more feedback. Please comment! God bless.  

  

First Dr. Seuss, Now Onto Darwin!

A New Realization (for me)

Now that Dr. Seuss' estate has properly examined their works and made changes in order to refrain from influencing kids' minds with racist content, we should expect that other influencers do the same, right? As I was watching a documentary with my kids the other week, I felt uncomfortable with something that was explained. A scientist or an archeologist, I can't remember which, and it doesn't actually matter which, showed a picture of a skull that was apparently found on the continent of Africa. It was believed to be the skull of something like a Neanderthall, similar to a human skull, but a slightly different shape.  

It rubbed me the wrong way because I knew where that observation led. I realized at that moment that the theory of evolution is inherently racist. It would attribute differences in human races to evolution and claim that certain races are therefore superior or "more evolved" than others. I did a quick Google search and what I found supported my intuition. If you search it yourself, you will see that there are endless articles on the topic, some pointing out Darwin's own words, mostly from his work The Descent of Man, that consistently speak of a white superior race and a black race of savages that he predicted would eventually become extinct. He says, "Savages are states between people and apes". This article does a great job of laying this all out there. 

Then there are other articles acknowledging this racism, while trying to defend it or brush it under the rug. Some say that regardless, his racist views don't affect his science. I'm not sure how not. His science completely supports notions that blame victims and remove responsibility from abusers, justifying claims such as African Americans are low on the household wealth scale and have high incarceration rates because of their own intrinsic inferiority, not because of systemic racism. This is apparently called scientific racism. Believing that a loving God created everyone uniquely with different strengths or gifts, in abundant variety that is reflected in individuals but also perhaps ethnic groups, and seeing people and people groups as reflecting the image of a loving God is a very different world view. 

Check out this chart which gives the racial breakdown of people in the U.S. practicing different religions. You can see that people who identify as black are underrepresented in the religion of atheism. 3% as compared to a national percentage of 12%. I have not conversed with any African Americans about this, but assume that this underrepresentation is not due to a lack of welcoming in the congregation or history of segregation as is probably the reason behind things we see in this chart such as the United Methodist Church being 94% white whereas the African Methodist Episcopal Church is 94% black. Atheism doesn't really have weekly gatherings as the majority of the rest of this list does, although all U.S. public school students are introduced to atheism. I would assume that this underrepresentation of African Americans as atheists stems from the fact that they know that they are not a less evolved race and that the theory of evolution (large scale evolution as an explanation for the origin of man, that is), is based on that argument. 

This article from The Journal of Negro Education, (a Howard University quarterly review), claims that this scientific racism that Darwinism promotes is a main factor in why people of the dominant group have found Darwinism so appealing, as opposed to actual scientific merit. This is serious stuff! "Science has often been used as a justification to propose, project, and enact racist social policies. The philisophical and political underpinnings of ideas associated with racial superiority and inferiority were first given scientific legitimacy and credence with the publication of Charles Darwin's (1859) revolutionary book, The Origin of Species." If society is to ignore this and continue to uphold Darwin and his teachings during this time where all of history is being examined, scrutinized, and cleaned out, then the hypocrisy will be too much to bear.  

The theory of evolution as the origin of man directly contradicts the statement in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", which is an important American doctrine. A few posts ago, I wrote about this topic. I argued that in an attempt for U.S. government to keep religion out of the schools, they are actually promoting the religion of atheism. There is not enough scientific proof to teach evolution as any sort of explanation for the origin of man. That itself is a faith based idea, not a scientific one. What is scientifically proven about evolution? What has actually passed the scientific method? Whatever has actually passed is what should be included in science class. 

More Doubts

Furthermore, as I watch these interesting documentaries with my kids, I find that many claims highly contradict much of what I learned in law school. Scientists make claims to things that happened tens of thousands or even millions of years ago as if they are fact. However, if you look at how evidence is presented in the courtroom to protect the discovery of the truth, stating that anything happened before any eye witnesses were able to give testimony highly contradicts the way we seek to prove things in the courtroom. Even with modern day forensics, you do not rely on pieces of physical evidence alone to figure out the truth. 

Someone might reply to that by saying that scientists know that such theories are not proven. Even if you hear them state something as if it's a fact, they recognize that there is a lot of guess involved. I would say that if they know it's a guess, then they should not ever speak of it as if it's a fact. Doing so hurts their accredibility altogether and may contribute to people not trusting highly important things that do have more proof, such as global warming.  

Another life experience that has caused me to have an even more critical view of such statements making claims to things that happened long ago is the fact that I've spent the past 13 years of my life immersed in the Haitian community in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic. One of the biggest differences between this life I have experienced and the life I experienced in the U.S. has to do with space. In the U.S., we often have a large amount of personal space. Haitians often live and interact in much closer quarters. It has an effect on so many aspects of life. 

In the U.S., I often engaged in conversations where people told me things that happened between others, gossip basically, and I assumed it to be true. I found Haitians to generally be more careful about making such claims. Children are often taught to say they don't know when questioned. Sometimes this is bad because perhaps they do know something but are afraid of getting in trouble, but I would say that more often than not, it comes from a more humble point of view that has developed from gossip reaching the ears of the subject of the gossip in a more direct manner due to living in closer quarters. The lack of space and distance between people creates a higher level of accountability and awareness of "the other side of the story". As I observed this way of interacting, I realized that I had probably believed all sorts of gossip throughout my life that either wasn't true or was only partially true because I had never heard the other side of the story. 

Therefore, after having gone through law school and learning in detail about the specific care taken by U.S. courts to protect the truth by objecting to things such as hearsay, and also becoming accustomed to a culture that is constantly reminded that there are two sides to every story, I react to these claims of things that happened millions of years ago with laughter. It seems ridiculous to me to even say such a thing as if it's proven. It also seems highly arrogant. 

Proposed Modifications in Schools

My experience with K-12 U.S. public school from a child's point of view is that God was a taboo subject. I graduated from high school in 2003 so perhaps things have changed somewhat. Nonetheless, kids spend the majority of their time at school and the fact that God is "not allowed" is saying a lot. I appreciate the separation of church and state and the reason behind it. I honestly believe that God appreciates it too as he never wanted to force anyone to follow him but gave choice. But I do wonder if in an effort to honor the separation of church and state in order to refrain from pushing a state mandated religion, the opposite extreme hasn't been taken. Maybe it's time to balance out a bit. 

I like the Alcoholics Anonymous approach to the topic of God from a human development perspective. As one of the steps to recovery, people going through the process have to put faith in God as they understand him. This is the second step, after they have admitted that they are powerless over the hold that alcohol has on them. 

I find this to be a religiously open and universally healthy approach. Looking back at the list of religions practiced in the United States. most do believe in a higher power or admit to not knowing whether or not a higher power exists (agnostic). This link gives the breakdown of percentages of Americans (regardless of race) that practice each religion. Looks like at least three quarters of the U.S. believe in a higher power. Why, then, would there be an agenda to reflect otherwise in U.S. public school curriculum? That doesn't seem to make sense. We run a summer English camp here called Change My Stars. During the school year, our students are used to praying each morning. However, camp volunteers come from different faiths, mainly from the U.S. and Canada. It was a non-Christian volunteer, if I remember correctly, who suggested we start each day with the following prayer which she found online:  

Thank you for the food we eat

Thank you for the friends we meet

Thank you for the birds that sing

We give thanks for everything

Amen.

I personally think that such an approach to spiritual life and child development makes more sense than removing all mention of spirituality altogether. I think engaging the intellect and spiritual life together is important. I myself sometimes felt like I was living a double life where my spiritual life was always a very real and important part of my life, but it was basically hidden at school, I felt. I can only assume that others experience or experienced a similar conflict and it could lead to a dichotomy where people feel like spiritual life and intellectual life are in opposition to one another. 

I remember being delighted in college when my Sociology textbook included a snippet about a study where two groups of cancer patients were observed over the course of some constant period of time. The independent variable was that one group was being specifically prayed for while the other group was not. They had no idea they were being prayed for, but the recovery rate of those in the group receiving the experimental prayers was significantly higher. 

We now know that the healthiest way to educate a multi-cultural group of children is to try to have representation of each children's culture and their family's native language in the classroom. We now know that it is better for parents who speak another language to continue speaking that language with their children at home rather than only communicate to their children in English, often at a lower level than they would in their native language. It's healthiest to celebrate those differences kids bring, rather than try to exclude their varying cultures and languages to promote a culture that only reflects majority American culture. This changes students from being disengaged, feeling as though part of them is unwanted and unwelcome, to feeling comfortable and able to engage at school. It's directly correlated to their success at school. I think the issue of spirituality can be viewed similarly. Rather than an approach that attempts to remove it or block it out, an all inclusive engagement may be best. 

Here in the Dominican Republic, God is referred to as common practice in every day language, unlike in the United States. I was corrected many times for saying, "See you tomorrow" or stating any future plans as if I hold the future, before I finally got into the habit of saying "God willing" or as it's directly translated from both Creole and Spanish, "if God wants" or "if God allows". I love it. I absolutely love it. You also tell someone to "go with God" as they leave or "stay with God" if you are the one leaving. You say "sleep with God" as they head off to sleep. 

As Albert Einstein said, "There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." Which view gives people more purpose and hope? Growing up, I had peers who committed suicide and family members of peers who committed suicide. During a short visit over Christmas, my brother told us about multiple neighbors of his who committed suicide recently. I have lived here full time now for over 13 years. I spent a few years before that in transition between the U.S. and here. As I reflect, I can only think of two men I know of who have committed suicide, and both were European men. There is much more to say about that, but as I pondered the subject, I found that to be a point worth mentioning. 

3 Extremes to Avoid

I personally think there are three extremes on this topic that should be avoided. I find these three extremes to be harmful religious beliefs that exclude others and cause conflict. I hope I don't offend anyone in saying this and that even if someone reading falls into one of these extremes, they are open to reading a critique, knowing that even if their beliefs or religion is critiqued, it is not a critique on them personally. 

One extreme is atheism. I think it is arrogant and closed minded to ignore the spiritual experiences of so many people simply because they haven't experienced them themselves. I've already explained the problems I have with the theory of evolution. I can fully appreciate those who admit to not knowing or not reaching a conclusion, agnosticism, but for those who have concluded that God does not exist altogether, I see that as a premature conclusion and wish they would keep their options open a bit more. 

The second extreme is any belief or underlying notion that God is working for you or your people. Christian nationalism is a good example. I would say that I've seen the same attitude in what I would call church going Haitian Christian nationalists. God is seen as being there to defend their personal cause and it doesn't seem to be considered that God may want them to practice more patience or understanding. God is weaponized. Prosperity gospel could maybe fall into this category as well.  

The third extreme is anything that uses spiritual forces to bring about harm. In 2006 I first came to Puerto Plata and ran a street census along with other volunteers. We collected information on 140 boys working in the streets of Puerto Plata, 95% of whom were from Haiti. We then began supporting a school for Haitian immigrant kids, started a program for those working on the streets, and began housing a dozen or so. My husband actually has this background and some of the boys in the program have become like family to us. You can see an interview I did with one of our closest friends here:

These stories that Willy is sharing are what I have heard endlessly throughout the years from dozens of boys, although this exact topic was actually new to me during the interview. Some admitted to being raised to give food offerings to Satan. I have kept note of direct references to Satan as some who study world religions try to convince that Haitian voodoo does not involve Satan worship. This might not be what you read when you study an anthropology summary of voodoo, but these are the stories I have been told from those who have grown up in this religion. All boys sleep with the light on all night, at least until they get comfortable, and have an intense fear of evil spirits. Adoptive parents of Haitian children in the US and Canada have reported the same in a Facebook group I am a part of. 

Pretty much any time a Haitian dies, family, friends, and acquaintances have an explanation or theory that ties the death to a voodoo attack from someone who didn't like the person. This is true whether the person died of sickness or a motorcycle accident. It is always attributed, at least in part, to spiritual warfare. Of course not all Haitians practice voodoo. Many are devout Christians. But even if someone does't practice voodoo, it doesn't mean that they don't suspect others who practice it. Therefore, there is always this division; these accusations and suspicions. People are always watching their backs and also have their guard up against others using magic to steal from them. I have found very little, if anything I would call good in all of this. If you watch Willy's interview, you'll see the fear he embodies over the subject and the gratefulness he shows having come to know God, a loving father, who he learned wants us to love others as we love ourselves. 

I realize that my testimony claiming that Haitians accuse acquaintances of murdering their loved ones through spiritual warfare on a regular basis may seem to directly contradict my previous claim that Haitians are generally more careful to spread gossip than compared to what I observed in the U.S., as the use of space creates a higher level of accountability. However, I maintain that they both are true observations. Haitians are a complex folk that cannot be understood easily. They are also incredibly intelligent and multiply and divide by five on a whim while doing money transactions in an imaginary money system. Read more about that here or here. I've been intrigued watching children vendors do this.  

Conclusion

Anyway, need I say more? I think we should stay away from those three extremes. Other than that, I would say that regardless of religious differences, we should be able to respect, appreciate, and unify. Separation of church and state means that no one religion is pushed by the state. It doesn't mean that most religions should be ignored or hidden by the state, because in doing so, the state is pushing atheism. 

That is my positively honest opinion about the subject of religion, faith, and spirituality in U.S. public schools. Now to all of us who believe in a loving God or have hope that he exists, let's cancel Charles Darwin!  

Also, did you hear that they recently found Dead Sea scrolls with texts from the books of Zacharias and Nahum? Pretty cool! Here's more info on that. 

Dr. Seuss vs. Mr. Potato Head

On Saturday, I wrote a little poem to share my take on the Dr. Seuss drama. I inserted it in a meme creator, and shared it on Facebook. In one group, I see it has been shared over 200 times and has about as many comments. Here it is. 

If you read my previous blog posts, you can see that I plea that everyone be sensitive to racial injustice and engage in humble dialogue on the subject. I do think that Dr. Seuss' family exemplified that by ceasing to print six of his sixty books that contain words and pictures that are likely to make some kids feel embarrassed or singled out because of their ethnicity. These words and pictures are also the very thing that reinforce norms that create and allow systemic racism. 

Imagine a jury made up of a white majority deciding the fate of a young black man on trial. Or a young white man. Somehow the young black man gets the death penalty for destroying the evidence of a heinous crime one of his fellow gang members committed. The young white man is considered in a different light, though his crime more severe. He has a bright future ahead of him, etc. These biases are indoctrinated into the minds of children and it is wise for us to take them seriously. I recently wrote a post about just this. 

There was much discussion trying to portray Dr. Seuss as a victim being persecuted, as though his name would now go down in history as a dirty racist! Dramatic much? 

Now, about a week before the Dr. Seuss memes started circulating, there was hype about a decision Mr. Potato Head made. The name is being changed from Mr. Potato Head to simply Potato Head and there is a new family pack coming out with two adult sized potatoes, a baby, and a variety of body parts to create your own family, basically. This announcement has a little video presenting the changes and new product. You can see the video says, "There's no wrong way to play".    

So I just want to talk about these two situations in comparison since they are being grouped together as if they are the same thing. I see them as two completely different issues, despite the fact that they are so often lumped together in American politics, which I think does the issue of racial justice a disservice. While racial justice should be a no brainer for people with Christian beliefs or anyone who believes that everyone is created equally, the issue of sexual orientation is highly controversial when held up to the bible and to nature, actually. I don't wish to get into it all here, but to say a few things about content made for children.

I was outside of the U.S. during all of the Obama Administration and Trump Administration. Here in the Dominican Republic, I cannot say that I know a local same sex couple. As for my friends in the United States who are in same sex marriages or transgender, the last thing I want to do is to make them feel like I have anything but love for them as my friends from our youth, and also as people made in the image of God. I do, however, have concerns for where this is all going. 

Although I have been outside of the U.S. during a time when a lot of changes have been made in the area of sexual orientation, I have been able to observe changes in children's content. My personal view is that, out of respect for our loving God and his word given to us through the bible, which is a book that has proven to be alive to me on endless accounts of which I'm happy to share if inquired, I would prefer that same sex couples and transgenderism is not present in the content that my children watch. I see it as an attempt to indoctrinate them to normalize something that the bible teaches as outside of God's will. Maybe I don't fully understand God's stance on the issue, but there is enough language to make me quite cautious. Now, the bible also clearly condemns other things that are normalized at times, like pride, and I think we should push against them all. 

Of course it is appalling to think of a parent that would reject or hurt their child if they came to them to say they were experiencing attraction to their same sense, gender dysphoria, or anything along those lines. But that doesn't mean that in avoiding exposure to your child at a young age, you are one of those parents. Even if I don't always understand why, trust and respect for God means that we don't always have to fully understand to obey. 

Of course I have the choice to regulate what my children watch and what they don't. The issue is that parents don't normally have to screen content that is made for children. You normally assume that it would be void of adult content because it's made for children. But these days, it seems as though content creators want to include homosexuality into children's content, perhaps in an effort to teach kids to be more inclusive. And here is where the problem lies. 

I have never been able to figure out how a real compromise can be reached on this issue. In fighting for the rights of a very small percentage, others rights are encroached upon. If boys who feel as though they are girls can play girls' sports, then girls are made to compete against biological boys. And these boys have a huge and unfair advantage. That doesn't seem to make any sense. Furthermore, by letting boys play girls' sports because of a cognitive measure rather than physical, you've defeated the whole purpose of even having gender organized sports. This is just what example of many. The point is that I find it to be a very controversial and difficult topic where I struggle to find a sensible solution. Where do we express sensitivity for the struggles of others, challenge gender norms which I agree deserve to be challenged at times, and where do we draw the line on catering to constructs that are cognitive and not physical? 

Sexuality is not a children's topic but a pre-teen and beyond topic. Therefore, it only makes sense to me that it not be brought up or portrayed in children's shows, movies, and books. Is that too much to ask? Yes, showing two women as a couple is not overtly sexual, but the explanation behind it is. Have you not realized that in so many studies, there is a stance taken on one extreme, then the opposite extreme, and the solution always seems to be blend? I'll throw an example out there. Everyone accepted that personality was a biological construct. Then, it is challenged, and the other extreme is taken. Everyone accepted that personality was a product of one's environment. Then some other smart guy comes along and says, "Hey! It's actually a blend of both." Have you noticed this pattern over and over again, especially in the social sciences? I suppose I feel as though we have gone to a bit of an extreme on this issue and may need to balance it out. 

No one should be targeted by hate. If anything has come out of these changes, I hope that that has been made more clear. But can we not accept some limits? Conservatives have been critiqued for not accepting science on certain matters such as global warming and the handling of the coronavirus pandemic. But what the heck is going on with intervening medically with teenagers who report going through gender dysphoria? Where is the science that supports that that is a good idea? You wouldn't ask a teenager to commit to a college major at that point so why in the world would you engage in such a big decision like changing your sex medically? Anyone doing so is placing a lot of faith in a theory on transgenderism and a diagnosis they were given.

I recently heard Preston Sprinkles in a Holy Post podcast discuss this topic. He introduced Keira Bell who sued in the UK because she was medicalized in this way. He also discussed one doctor's argument that girls could always have breasts put back on later in life if they regretted having them removed at ages as young as 13!! Do they think people function just like Mr. Potato Head or the Potato Head family pack? Do they think that there's no wrong way to play this game of life, as the video introducing the new Potato Head family pack says? 

He said that many are concerned about this practice, yet it's going on. I hope we can see that this is not just a matter of accepting and celebrating people for what they are, which is what racial justice is about. The issue of transgenderism seems to be the opposite. It seems to influence people to feel empowered to change who they physically are. Are we getting overconfident? Keira Bell's interview testifies to the influence of media over youth in this way. 

In my last blog post, I examined the two topics of hell and evolution. I argued that much is taught on both issues that is not conclusive and that we should simply stick to what we know and admit what we don't know. While listing certainties we know in science, I said, "Natural is healthy but we can intervene if need be." When I wrote that, the topic of LBGTQ was far from my mind. I just realized, though, how much these modern practices are in contrast to that. 

I'd also like to examine in a future post how the theory of evolution is inherently racist. I realized this while watching a documentary with my kids the other day. A quick Google search shows that many others already realized the same. Now that Dr. Seuss has been appropriately corrected, it's time to go after Darwin! And I don't see how Darwin will justifiably come out with just a small fraction of his work suspended when passed through the same test! Let's not be hypocritical. 

Hell and Evolution

 Hi. Here I am with thoughts swarming again that I need to share! So building off of the Buzz Words post I last shared, I have come to understand (remember, I've been out of the U.S. for quite awhile) that some Christians are worried about what is being called progressive Christianity and "wokeism". Others have been "deconstructing" their faith. What I understand this to mean is that people have grown up believing things that they thought were clear in the bible, come to find out they were more cultural teachings than biblical teachings. Or they were strong traditions but not necessarily strong biblical principles. Or they're not sure and are taking another look. So in order to weed those things out, you have to deconstruct what you know and reconstruct it again under a new lens. Others feel that questioning these teachings is a form of turning away from God. And if taken too far from scripture, it could be. But if scripture is held onto tightly, it should be a trusted practice.

If you really are a truth seeker, you should not be afraid to question what is man made or man discerned. If something is true and good and biblical, then when you search, you will find it. I do think there is value in not jumping on political bandwagons or modern bandwagons too quickly, but you should also not necessarily be afraid of them. We should be discerning and not afraid to speak up if we see something that seems out of line, but we should also be able to defend why it's out of line. 

This doesn't only apply to Christianity. In this post, I want to take a look at something taught in church and Western society, which is a hell that consists of eternal torment as punishment for not following God during one's lifetime, or as many believe, for not praying to accept Jesus. I also want to look at something that is taught in U.S. public schools, which is this: 

So let's deconstruct some religion and also science! 

I first heard about different biblical interpretations of hell from a few friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses about 10 years ago. I was very surprised as I assumed that the doctrine of a hell that is "eternal conscious torment" was very clear in the bible because it was so widely accepted. However, they argued that the word hell in the bible more likely means a final annihilation, as would literally happen if fire consumed something. They gave plenty of verses to support that theory.

This theologian, Preston Sprinkles, does an excellent job of examining all scripture on the subject. I honestly hadn't come across anyone else who preached this same interpretation who is not a JW until I stumbled upon this youtube video this morning. I did not search for this topic but it literally just popped up. I was actually just introduced to this theologian this past week as he was a guest on Phil Vischer's Holy Post podcast. If the video isn't showing up on your device, here is the link.

If you have time, I would highly suggest that you watch it. When I first heard this theory 10 years ago, I pretty much breathed a sigh of relief. I couldn´t actually pinpoint where and when I had learned about hell, which made me realize how highly accepted and woven into general Christian, or even American culture, that it is, or at least was when I was growing up. I had heard many non-Christian friends express disgust at a God that would punish people with eternal torture because they didn't know Jesus. I also was confused by it and couldn't comprehend it myself. It didn't add up. I never doubted God, his presence, his power, or his love, but the hell I understood didn't fit in with that. So to me, not only does the annihilation of people who choose evil make more sense than eternal torture for those who "grew up in the wrong religion", but it seems to have a LOT more biblical support. I can't argue that the interpretation of eternal torment is 100% incorrect, but I can argue 100% that it is not conclusive and should therefore be deconstructed.

I'm not saying this to make Christianity more pallatable to anyone. I'm not saying it because I have a problem with consequences or justice. I am saying it because I think it's sound. And I think examining this issue can make a really big difference in how we understand God and how we explain him to others. You can also tell from Preston's video that, one, he has studied this subject long and hard. He even wrote a book about it in 2011, which he is building upon in this video. He also says that this is a view that has been held throughout centuries, although the predominent view is "eternal conscious torment". But again, after seeing his examination of the scripture, I can't really understand why eternal torment is the predominent view, rather than it being presented as an alternative theory. Is it because we've found it easier to use fear tactics than to live by radical and sacrificial example as Jesus did? And what does the bible say about the subject of fear? Does it align with God´s character? That's a whole other topic!

Okay, now let's deconstruct science. A dear friend recently said that Christianity is the religion that is most promoted culturally in American schools. I had a strong reaction on the contrary. Of course different youth probably have different experiences at different schools and in different states, but as a Christian who attended public school through high school graduation, I felt as though anything related to God or Jesus were basically taboo at school. They were avoided and intentionally cut out. I understand that it's done to separate church and state since public schools are government entities. I understand and respect that. However, I argued that a different religion was actually being pushed, and that religion is atheism. I believe this because with God being made a taboo subject and evolution being taught in the way that it is, atheism is highly promoted as the intellectual understanding of the history of the world.

Now, I know that many people share this view and homeschool their kids for this very reason, but have those who perhaps share similar thoughts as my friend deconstructed their understanding of evolution? Have they deconstructed cultural understandings of science and let the scientific facts speak for themselves, or do they follow notions and cultural acceptance of theories without really digging in for themselves?

What has actually been proven in regards to evolution? Very little, actually. Yes, Darwin proved this:

Over time, birds with stronger beaks outlived birds with smaller beaks on an isolated island. The population naturally selected and converted into a species with stronger beaks. That is evolution. (Actually, I don't think that explanation was great but it gives the jist.). But how did we get from the bird beaks evolving within one species to the evolution of one species into another, from single cell to mutli cell, from water living to land living, flying, etc? What is the proof? Many people think, and I would argue that it is because of the way it is presented to them in school that they think that way, that the evolution of man from apes and less complex life forms before that is as trustworthy science as, say, the earth revolving around the sun. They understand or assume that it has passed the scientific method over and over again under different circumstances and has somehow been proven. And this is so far from the truth.

Let's look at biologist Michael Denton, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. In the year I was born (1985) he wrote a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. In 2016 when the book and I turned 31, he wrote a second book called Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis. Here is a quote from Amazon.

"He argues that there remains 'an irresistible consilience of evidence for rejecting Darwinian cumulative selection as the major driving force of evolution.' From the origin of life to the origin of human language, the great divisions in the natural order are still as profound as ever, and they are still unsupported by the series of adaptive transitional forms predicted by Darwin. In addition, Denton makes a provocative new argument about the pervasiveness of nonadaptive order throughout biology, order that cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism."

Denton is not the only biologist to be fired up and outspoken about this topic. And he doesn't call himself a Christian but an agnostic. I think that if science and schools want to truly remove religion from the curriculum in an attempt to honor separation of church and state, they must take an agnostic approach, not an atheist one. An agnostic approach would more humbly admit "we don't know" from a scientific standpoint rather than connecting dots all over the place to pretend like we know. Images and ideas like this:

are based on so much unproven theory, to the point that if shared in school, we're filling kids heads with something that is religion, not science. And in teaching kids that science has proven that they were not created by God, you may be teaching them something very wrong and bad. You may be guilty of kidnapping children from their loving father and creator. Will you listen to the testimony of someone who says they are trans-gender, a modern issue, but not listen to testimonies about the supernatural, an ageless issue? Why are all those testimonies that point to the supernatural disregarded? That doesn't sound scientifically sound.

Why do we teach something with so little proof in science class? Can you think of other theories that are so unproven but yet so highly relied upon? Maybe it's upheld because it appears scientific and attempts to explain a huge question, whereas supernatural activity cannot be contained in a natural science class. Supernatural activity cannot be explained through science, but evidence of it can. Anyway, just like history class is being "deconstructed", largely influenced by recent racial tensions, we should consider the same in science as well. The topics you teach says something. The author of the content you teach says something. How much time you spend on topics conveys something. How you teach it conveys something.

It's all indoctrination so in my positively honest opinion, you better be darn sure of the validity of the doctrine you are instilling, especially when the doctrine causes people to see that God regularly and mercilessly tortures outliers (eternal conscious torment) or is completely nonexistent (evolution). Church, culture, if you want to teach that God uses the protocol of eternal torture for anyone who doesn't pray the prayer to accept Jesus before they die, then you should really have some clear and consistent, undisputed evidence of that in scripture. That's a big claim! Does it say, "When you die, you either go to heaven or hell." Does it have a step by step handbook? Preston Sprinkles shows 50+ verses that say God destroys the wicked at the final judgment, but just three that seem to imply that he tortures them eternally. Then that concept is often tied into another verse that equates not praying the prayer to accept Jesus with wickedness, therefore sending someone straight to eternal torture upon death.

Schools, government, if you want to teach that man was not created in God's image but rather evolved from an amoeba, and if you want to continue putting that blasphemous image in kids' heads, you should be able to prove it like you can prove Newton's laws of motion. Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, believed that science and religion must be studied together. He wrote The New Atlantis where he mingled Christianity with the scientific method.  Albert Einstein is quoted saying, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God". 

In conclusion, let's be sure of what we teach, and if we're not sure, either don't teach them, or make sure uncertainties are highly evident when we teach and consider other uncertain explanations. 

"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." -James 3:1

"If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose his faith in me, it would be better for him to have a large millstone tied around the neck and thrown into the sea." -Mark 9:42 (GNT)

I would argue that teaching that God is merciless or even sadistic or that God is a fictional fairy tale are contributing reasons that many little ones lose their faith. I'm not knocking teaching these topics to mature audiences, but teaching them accurately. Drown in the sea? Those are harsh words, Jesus. However, I don't see a conclusive hint at eternal torment. 

What do we know for sure? Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love others as you love yourself. The bible says that pure and perfect religion is caring for widows and orphans. We should make disciples of people all over the world and teach them to follow Jesus, who embodied sacrifical love for the greater good and reunited fallen man to God. Let's stick to that. 

We know that the earth is round, it rotates on its axis, and evolves around the sun once every 365 days. Man's presence and actions has an effect on the health of the entire earth and all its inhabitants. Natural is healthy but we can intervene if need be. We know sooo much about the natural world: anatomy of every creature, physiology, chemistry, physics, ecology, math, etc. that we can travel the world and into space, transplant hearts, and communicate instantly across the globe. But we can't give or create life. We can manipulate living cells to an extent, but we can't give life to a cell or any creature. Let's also stick to that.