Gun Violence & God: Let's Make a Deal

 On Monday, we learned that Tuesday would be the last day for two students in the afternoon English program at my kids' school. Their paperwork is ready and their Dominican mom is taking them to live in the U.S., where their stepfather is from. I asked where in the U.S. they were headed and they told me Texas. Another student says he'll be moving to Queens this summer and not returning for the next school year. 

My kids felt a bit sad at this news and pondered about how so many want to move to the U.S., unlike us. Yenilove said, "Sure, there's lots of pollution here and lots of things are better there, but there's also lots of po po po over there." She held her hand like a gun when she said po po po. I told her that was a good point. 

On Tuesday, after English, we sat waiting for our van's tire to be fixed before we could go home from school. My friend Crystal sent me a whatsapp message, asking if I had seen the news of the shooting in Texas. I had not. I quickly did a search and learned that 14 students and a teacher had been killed at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. We were shocked to see that so quickly following Yenilove's comment, there was such an event in the very state the boys are moving to. As I read up, unable to sleep in the middle of the night, I see news sources now report 19 children and two adults have passed. 

I realize that sleep won't be possible for me tonight until I pour my thoughts out here. I've written about this topic many times in different posts and shared that I was on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007 when it made history in that horrible way. There's an idea I've been pondering quite a bit over the past year or year and a half that I'd like to share. 

Observing U.S. politics from afar, it's obvious how polarized things are. As a Christian, I strongly believe that there are issues that the right supports that best align with the Christian faith and there are issues that the left supports that best align with the Christian faith. I feel the same is true in many ways for those who don't identify as Christian, but simply hold the Christian value that we should love one another. 

And therefore, I think it's way past time that everyone gives in a little. I think it's time to make a political compromise. My suggestion is that the right submits to tighter gun laws, whereas the left submits to some public school curriculum changes concerning God. I truly believe that U.S. public schools currently represent an atheistic worldview and to truly comply with the First Amendment, should take an agnostic worldview. 

I truly believe that executing such a compromise would be an active attempt to change the climate that breeds these tragedies. As far as gun laws are concerned, I don't know what to say about it, other than it's just flat out sick that people would be so unwilling to give in. Many good people defend this stubborrness and excuse it because it's coming from the political party they identify with. I think it's a prime example of groupthink and everyone who has ever found themselves justifying the unwillingness to make changes in gun laws in any way should do some deep reflection. We should take an honest and thorough look at policies in other countries around the world and take serious action, for Pete sake. 

About God in schools, I'll try to be concise as I've written some long-winded posts on this topic already. However, I think it demands more attention than gun laws as it's a more complicated topic. 

I believe if you really, objectively examine the theory of macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of man, you will see that it does not have enough value to justify the controversy it causes. We teach kids the scientific method, which requires observation, altering variables, and running an experiment several times before the experimenter's eyes before drawing conclusions. Yet in the same class we call science, we find it necessary to teach about a theory that can only rely on observations such as fossil records and radiocarbon dating, that are undubitably unreliable and unconclusive, to explain something as important as the origin of man, which no one can actually observe. I didn't used to feel so strongly about it, but the more I look into it, the more I am convincted that it's flat out wrong. 

If you really ponder the actual scientific benefits that the theory of macroevolution has brought us, you have to ask why it is deemed necessary to teach in K-12 science class. Has it saved any lives? Weren't people breeding animals for select traits long before Darwin observed those bird beaks and started making racist theories that black people were creatures evolving between apes and white people? Yes, if you read his original work, it's quite racist. Such issues should not be brushed under the rug when you look at ongoing white supremacy as portrayed in the Buffalo, NY shooting that was just 10 days before this one. 

Now look at the risks of teaching the theory of macroevolution in K-12. It flat out negates the existence of God, opposes the religious texts of the world's two largest religions, which make up over half of the world's population, and untruthfully claims to have scientific proof to do so. Maybe that would be something necessary for people to reckon with if it had more scientific basis itself, but the truth is, it doesn't. Do you see anyone arguing about gravity? About how reproduction works? About photosythesis? Cell structures? No. Why can't we stick to such certain and non-controversial things in science class?  

I'll share a little story that causes our students and teachers to gasp when they hear it. In this country, most public and private school days are typically opened with prayer. God is referred to in a reverent way in everyday, common language. It's not considered church language, but it's society's language. 

"See you tomorrow, God willing."

"I'm fine, thanks to God." 

"Go with God."

"Stay with God."

The last two are ways of saying good-bye. Of course it's a much more homogenous country than the US, and I understand why there are certain practices in the US to protect everyone's freedom of religion, but again, I think the best way to protect everyone's freedom of religion is for public schools to take an agnostic approach, rather than an atheistic one. Agnosticism says, "we don't know". Atheism says, "we can prove that God does not exist, we have done this on our own, and we can do this on our own". In reality, as everyone who has gone through a 12 step program to fight addiction knows, we can't do this on our own. I don't think it's the best mental health strategy to suggest anything otherwise. 

So here is my story. When I was in first grade, my teacher was calling on each student to share a word that had to do with Christmas. She wrote each word on the board. I listened to my classmates who talked about presents and Santa Claus, surprised that no one had mentioned that it was Jesus' birthday yet. I looked forward to sharing my thought, knowing it was the correct answer! 

When it was my turn, I said, "Jesus' birthday". She stopped, paused for a moment, said nothing, wrote nothing on the board, and called on the next student. I remember my heart sunk as I knew I had the right answer, but the teacher didn't seem to like it. She didn't like it so much that she didn't include it on the board with the thoughts of all my classmates. 

That was my first lesson in, "We don't talk about Jesus or God at school." Again, I understand the reason behind it. My teacher was a government agent doing her job as she was instructed to. But I think it's an irrational approach and we can do better. Christmas literally is to celebrate Jesus' birthday. If we can't talk about that at all in school, then we better exclude Christmas altogether. Do you know the history behind Valentine's Day? St. Patrick's Day? They have such beautiful stories, rooted in strong faith. The most academic thing we could do is to learn about them in school when we celebrate them. 

Why do we say we are in the year 2022? Why did time start 2022 years ago? Is that not an important topic to learn about? I don't think it goes much further in public school than explaining what the acronyms B.C. and A.D. stand for. We just exclude that whole topic that was important enough to mark the start of time as we know it, and find it important to put a picture of Charles Darwin and drawings of macroevolution in textbooks? That just doesn't make sense. 

Perhaps I'm going on too long with this. Check out Michael Denton. He's an agnostic biochemist and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He's a proponent of intelligent design and has been writing about the topic for decades. I think his work is a great start for anyone looking for an objective, non-religious, scientific discussion on the matter, should you think that macroevolution is accepted among all scientists, only challenged by those who feel it debunks their religion. 

Shouldn't we teach that in science, we admit what we don't know? I think presumptuous science is a dangerous thing. 

For a little gun humor, I'll close with something that happened tonight that had our whole family rolling in laughter. Let me preface by saying that we have a neighbor who shoots his gun into the air most nights to keep away thieves, he says. 

Six of us sat on one bed. It's a queen sized bed and we all were squooshed in, hanging out and talking. Gabriel, who is five, raised his hands, lifted his head slightly, and called, "Everyone! Everyone!" Somehow he got us all to be quiet and attentive. He then commanded, "Hear my fart." 

We all waited to see what he would produce. No sound came from him, but a gunshot sounded in the distance. We couldn't contain ourselves. Wevli, who has special needs, came running in from the other room to join in on the fun, laughing and hooting, but he didn't actually know what had happened. This made us laugh even harder. 

It'll be interesting to see what happens after this second case of elementary school children have been killed at the hands of a gunman, 10 years after the first incident. Are we ready to make sacrifices? We can all probably give in a little.  

Strategy to End Scientific Racism

Let's all say thanks to Percy Lavon Julian who, 
together with others, invented/developed chemical birth control 
and cortisone.

If you've read my past two posts, I've been pondering the subject of scientific racism, as well as a different U.S. public school model to combat scientific racism. I honestly believe that if done correctly, this would better follow the First Amendment than current practices. I'll try to get my remaining thoughts out in this post. While this post focuses strictly on scientific racism, I've shared many thoughts on systemic racism in the criminal justice system and in the hearts and minds of people who create and influence systems here and here. However, I now think that scientific racism may be the sneakiest form of all, from my understanding. 

If you haven't heard the term scientific racism before, it's using scientific findings or claims to support supposed superiority or inferiority among races. It is sometimes used to justify the mistreatment of one group of human beings by others due to the other group's said biological inferiority. Charles Darwin shows much evidence of this type of thinking. It's actually quite disturbing if you look at his racist text in his work The Descent of Man, as I did two posts back. This can also play out in medical interactions. This study found that, in the U.S., African Americans are less likely to receive care by a cardiologist while admitted to the ICU for heart failure. There is much more evidence to such inequalities, which one can research. 

Check out this Smithsonian Magazine article about scientific racism today. Here are the main points I want to highlight. The author claims that:

1. Results of research are influenced by the biases of people conducting the research. 

2. Most scientists refrain from comparing races scientifically after seeing how it was used to fuel and justify hate, such as in Nazi Germany. 

3. The genetic make up of all humans is extremely similar, no matter what racial differences are visible, leading to the saying that race is a social construct. 

4. Some scientists still do study and publish "race science", often used to reinforce white supremacy, which is frowned upon, but hard to contest, as proving something wrong scientifically takes time.

5. Scientific racial differences should not be ignored completely, but should be examined responsibly, and stereotypes should be avoided. 

After much reflection, what I want to say about this subject is that the danger in viewing human beings through simply a scientific lens is that science is the study of the natural world and equality does not actually exist in nature. Months ago, my friend Martine sent me a video where Charles Barkley and a civil rights attorney Gerald Griggs interviewed Richard Spencer, who is the leader of the white supremist political group Alt-Right. You can see that Spencer is unashamed in his desire for white dominance and racial segregation. 

When asked if he believes in equality, Spencer called the idea "bullsh#t" and went onto say, "There's no equality in nature. There's difference." If the video isn't working for you, here is a clip on YouTube, but it cuts off before he says that line. 

I've come to realize that everyone who views the world primarily through a scientific lens realizes this last part that he said. Most believe that no one should discriminate against another, but I don't know that they believe that everyone is created equal, because they realize that natural selection and evolution does not create equality. So applying this to human society is social Darwinism, which was Hitler's basis. This is what the Smithsonian Magazine article linked and outlined above explains is frowned upon. 

Whether it be white superiority, black superiority, brown superiority, or what have you, it is always a possibility when you look at humans through a scientific lens. We are taught to not look for hierarchies in that way when dealing with our fellow humans, but scientifically speaking, they are natural and possible. You may say that race is a social construct and studies such as the human genome project show that there is no biological superiority or inferiority among races, but to me, that seems like the whole "color blind" approach. 

Some people psychologically deal with racial differences by saying they are color blind. They don't see race. But race difference is a quite visible thing so that hasn't turned out to be the best approach either. This study from the Association of Psychological Science discusses that. 

"The allure of color blindness is that it seems to offer a relatively simple framework for managing issues of race in contemporary society: If people do not notice race, then race will no longer matter. Yet as the research reviewed in this article shows, color blindness is far from a panacea, sometimes representing more of an obstacle than an asset to facilitating constructive race relations and equitable race-related policies."

I especially appreciate this woman's call to be color brave, rather than color blind. Here is the link to her TED talk, in case the video isn't popping up on your device. 

I mentioned that the claim that it has been scientifically determined that there is no inferiority or superiority among races compares to the color blindness approach. People can see right through it. As long as there is difference, there can potentially be inferiority or superiority. And there is not just difference in appearance, but other physical differences, such as sickle cell anemia and keloids, which affect some of my family members of African descent, as well as our students and their families, but I did not see them in my predominantly white circle in Virginia growing up. As the lone white person in my circle, I am physically affected by things that others around me are not, like skin infections in the summer months. I suppose you could argue that that may not be tied to my race, but the point is, there is difference correlated to race and it goes beyond physical appearance. This article shares a study which found whites are more prone to irregular heart rhythms.   

So we could continue on as we are, knowing that there are scientific differences between races and ethnicities, but trying to influence everyone to not go down the path of inferiority and superiority. However, I think there is a much better solution. And in order to give this solution a shot, we'll have to use our imagination and put aside some things from the past. We'll have to also rethink the First Amendment. 

My suggestion is that we bring God back into schools. Am I suggesting that we revert back to the Dark Ages, as one person said? No, not at all. I am suggesting that we include this very important topic into our public education because it is just that: a very important topic. I am also not claiming that this will be a cure for all, but if done correctly, a definite and necessary step in the right direction. 

 I understand that belief in God does not have to do with how educated or intelligent someone is. It has to do with what someone has experienced. Some are taught to look for and communicate with God from the time they are little and therefore have different experiences than others who are not taught that. Some who are brought up believing in God stop believing later in life because of their experiences, or lack of experiences. Others who were raised to not believe in God become strong believers and proponents of their belief because of experiences they had. Similar to those who experience racism, we should not judge someone else's experience because we have not experienced it ourselves. We should be open to listen and consider. 

I think that harm has been done in trying to block God out of schools completely. I am sure that there is a way to include him that does not establish or inhibit any religion. True, atheism will be challenged more under this model, but atheism and the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life as we know it actually challenges all supernatural activity. If supernatural activity is presented as false or not important enough to include in school in any way, shape, or form, one can surely argue that this practice inhibits all religions other than atheism, while simultaneously establishing a religion or world view. We have to keep in mind that kids spend the majority of their young lives at school, so removing a topic completely is making a big statement. 

I am not suggesting that we teach religion or even study religion in public schools. I am suggesting that we recognize a higher power or creator or the possibility of one and define him as love. We should teach or at least recognize the possibility that he created all men equal, as is written in the Declaration of Independence. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." 

That beautiful phrase which our country is founded on doesn't quite make sense if you replace creator with a scientific explanation, does it? Some will see that line and say that our forefathers did not intend it to include races other than their own, but it says what it says. It says all men. You can try to replacing creator with a scientific explanation, but our smart, critically thinking kids and adults will be able to see through it. Richard Spencer sure did. We have evolved into a species that recognizes that we all have certain unalienable Rights? It doesn't hold the same power, if you ask me. It seems like wishful thinking. We have evolved into a species where all individuals have evolved equally? Now, that's just contradictory through and through. 

When you look at humans and different ethnicities through the lens of a creation, created by a loving God, you can see or argue that God created variety, just as siblings have variety among them, but all are of equal importance to loving parents. There is no inferiority or superiority, but different strengths, weaknesses, and combinations. Earthly parents may make mistakes and kids might not feel equally loved, but omnipitent, omnipresent, loving God does not. Inequality we see in the world is the result of the decisions of people, who have free will, not God. If people practiced more love, like God wants, the inequality would disappear. This would go beyond just fighting scientific racism, but injustice in general. 

Not only would promoting this world view at school work to end scientific racism, but it would work against any faulty teachings at home or in places of worship that teach people that God cares about their cause to the point that they could harm another for it. As it is, perhaps too much is left in the hands of religion. Does the First Amendment mean that the government can give no teaching of God's character at all, but it can negate his existence? Are God and religion the same thing? 

I shared in a previous post a prayer we say every morning at summer English camp. It was a compromise between camp counselors from the U.S. who grew up in and/or worked in public schools where prayer was not allowed, and students here, where prayer is the way each school day begins. Someone found it online and we all liked it. 

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

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, who can argue with giving thanks? It recognizes the possibility of a higher power, shows humility, and teaches gratitude. We all found it non-controversial, and I think U.S. public schools could too. Under this model, I believe teachers, when questioned, could be advised to take the optimistically agnostic approach, as opposed to atheistic. They can be taught to maintain certain limits and tell kids that the school does not provide answers beyond that. While they may personally hold further beliefs, they can't share them at school. Period. I don't think it's a huge change from current practices. The biggest thing is that it gives some power and authority to the idea of equality and the principles of sharing and caring, which we seek to teach kids.  

When questioned in science class if the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of humans and all life forms contradicts the loving God they are simultaneously taught about, the answer would be that some things do contradict each other, and we can't actually prove, scientifically or historically, anything that happened from time periods before we have witnesses. To say that they do not contradict each other is a lie. To argue otherwise would be to argue the idea of absolute truth, which may not be beyond an infinite God, but is beyond our capacity as humans. We are wading into murky waters if we try to argue absolute truth, because we have to teach kids the difference between truth and lies. We should surely teach kids to consider different points of views and complex issues, but absolute truth cannot be compromised.

Therefore, it's important to be clear and humble that we cannot prove the answer there. We can only observe patterns in nature, read historical texts for as far back as possible, and create theories. However, I think we should seriously reconsider the way evolution is taught, knowing that the texts that first raised the idea were blatantly racist and dehumanizing to certain ethnicities, while simultaneously tempting to white supremists. It would be hypocritical to do anything but that during this time of awakening, where everything seems to be under deconstruction in order to be reconstructed in a better way. 

I am not suggesting that we forget the idea of natural selection and evolutionary biology altogether, but that we move away from Darwin as a person, The Descent of Man, and The Origin of Species. We must ask ourselves what Darwin has done for us, really? Has he taught us anything about open heart surgery? Depression? World poverty? Climate change? Vaccines? Environmental sustainability? Engineering? Technology? Has he actually taught us anything about Genetics? Scientists can feel free to enlighten me, and I know he made contributions, but my point is, I don't think we'll really be missing out without him. 

Do most people know who Cecilia Payne is, who apparently discovered the composition of stars? Male scientists apparently stole her fame. Or perhaps even more relevant, what do you know about the scientists who first synthesized and mass produced steroids from plant compounds? (Ex: birth control & cortisone). Check out Percy Lavon Julian. 

So how will such change get implemented? My thought is that a charter school, or several charter schools, should be started as a trial. My previous post discusses thoughts about the legal arena there. I am rooting for a special person to act as a spokesperson for this change, but I don't know if he's reflecting on my several emails, or whether he has paid them any attention, although his administrative assistant is nice enough to reply and thank me for the attempts. He may think I'm simply getting dopamine surges from making connections, but I think this is something God would appreciate us acting on. This special person is Phil Vischer, who was able to bridge the gap between secular and religious education/entertainment through his creation of Veggie Tales, a cartoon that teaches about God's love without coming off as threatening to parents who hold varying beliefs. 

Although I'm rooting for Phil and the Holy Post podcast which he co-hosts, I would think many people would be interested in such an endeavor. But it should be done right, so as to not go down in the books as another unfavorable ruling by the courts for any mention of God in schools. I believe that the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few, as written in Matthew 9:39. Therefore, I am asking the Lord of the harvest to send out the workers so we can all enjoy the harvest together.   

I'll finish by sharing a few videos of my daughter when she was four years old. She was chosen to say the school prayer in front of her entire school here in Puerto Plata, which goes up to 12th grade. Even this prayer, which is longer and more involved, could be seen as religiously neutral, yet socially awesome. "Teach us to work without rest in order to fight always in favor of justice". In case the videos aren't popping up for you, here she is saying the prayer with English subtitles and here she is saying it in front of the whole school as they repeat.