#FreeHaiti: NGO Dependency

Adventures of SonSon - Part 2

This is the second post about the #FreeHaiti movement that will be looking at how NGO dependency and the mentality of Haitians is a barrier to their freedom from chains that bind the country. To learn more about the #FreeHaiti movement, check out the first post. I am doing a series of posts to discuss the different problems the Free Haiti Movement has defined as holding Haiti down. 

The other day, I noticed a Facebook post by a former Virginia Tech football player, who I know from tutoring and mentoring athletes throughout my time at VT, a job which I thoroughly enjoyed. Sergio often uses Facebook to speak out about issues. I asked him if I could share his thoughts from the other day in this post to make a comparison to the mentality of Haitians, although the situations are quite different. He agreed. 

His friend Joshua commented below and said: 

"I am glad you're sick of it bro. We need to keep having these conversations so all people can understand. Yes other privileges are prevalent, but none in comparison to white privilege. The big thing is making people aware that it is not an attack on them, they can't help the privilege and no one is negating hard work. 

Yes, let's continue to work hard when doors are closed but let's also continue to have this conversation no matter how sick we are of it. Good post, though. Happy Friday bro." 

Now, I'm not trying to claim that the advancement of African Americans to the country of Haiti are the same, as the situations are very different, but I do want to look at the mentalities that these comments represent. Sergio's words show a victor or fighter mentality. They show independence. He says that challenges only make him stronger and encourages others to have the same mentality. 

His friend Joshua applauds his mentality, but reminds him that even if you are sick of talking about injustice, you should talk about it until it's unnecessary to talk about. Sergio says that "those things will never change, sadly", but Joshua believes that they will if we keep talking about them. Misunderstandings will fade away and better solutions will be implemented.  

I highly appreciate the mindset of both of these men. I believe that Sergio wants to forget that injustice exists or take away its power as a way to plow over it and get beyond it. Joshua wants to point out injustice so that it can't hide or be accepted and thus continue. I talked about this very topic in this post as well. 

So how does this apply to the Haitian mindset and NGO dependency? Ezili Danzo, the founder of the Free Haiti Movement, says "We are enough". This is the strong and independent mindset. This is the victor mindset. It means that they don't need to wait for a foreign country to provide aid and they don't need to automatically make plans to move to a foreign country as soon as the opportunity arises. I have noticed over and over again that our teachers who graduated from high school in Haiti have a strong pride over speaking foreign languages, but generally a lack of understanding in the natural sciences. It seems as though the very school system favors the idea of making foreign connections over problem solving and communicating amongst each other internally.  

This leads me to the meaning behind our English camp called Change My Stars. The message we tell kids is that we are not teaching them English so that they try to go to the United States, Canada, or any other foreign country. We believe that English can give them job opportunity right here at home and that additionally, English can allow them to learn from visitors from English speaking countries who do not speak Spanish or Creole. It can also allow them to learn from resources in English. But we encourage them to use their education to create change at home. We oppose the brain drain where the majority of educated people leave their home country. Who, then, will develop the home country? Sure, they can send money back, but does money alone create development? 

Change My Stars - Camp Prayer

We NGOs can strongly influence this mindset by the way we interact with Haitians or members of any developing country. It's a dance between sharing and caring while also empowering beneficiaries to be independent. It takes an intentional team effort. There are entire books on this topic, but I'll share a few things we do. We ask that short term volunteers plan with us before giving out any gifts to students or community members. We try to plan it in a way that rewards school attendance, participation in a workshop, or something that promotes growth. We do it in a fair and non-political way, directly correlated to participation or performance. Sometimes aid is given to a family facing particular struggles, but this isn't usually something short term volunteers are engaged in, and they don't typically have that discresion. 

When I talk to volunteers about what to do if they are requested 10 pesos or something, I tell them just to say, "No puedo", which means "I can't" in Spanish or "M pa kapab" in Creole. When you say "I can't" you are also sending the message "You can". It doesn't mean that you don't want to help, but you are helping in a systemic way, teaching men to fish, rather than a momentary way of giving a man a fish, which might distract them from learning to fish.

I have started following the #FreeHaiti Facebook group more than Twitter, now, and see mention of dekolonizasyon mantal, which means mental decolonization. Even if Haiti became independent in 1804, they argue that mentally, it's still a colony, and that needs to be broken. While I don't agree with many sentiments that are common in this group, I definitely love their focus on creating a healthy mental state among Haitians, and in seeing that as a needed element that will lead to their flourishing. 

We also tell volunteers that because they come from a country where they have access to much more, (not that I personally think that is always a good thing or a sign of superiority), something that seems very small to them could have a large effect on the community here. One might think it's a small act to give their watch to their favorite child before they leave, but do they realize that doing so might encourage a large group of kids to come and request watches from the next volunteer that comes? Planning and working as a team to use such acts of generosity in a strategic way that promotes growth and development is best. 

As some parts of the world enjoy more and more developed technology, comforts, and conveniences, the understanding of needs versus wants continues to alter. A friend once told me that the way my family and I live is basically what many Americans would consider camping. I remember another friend, when she saw we were moving into our small house on the mountain before it had electricity and running water said, "So you're really gonna Little House in the Prairie it here?" I personally couldn't feel more grateful. There are little things we would like to improve, but all in all, we lack nothing. We are blessed, while living below the poverty line by U.S. standards. 

I recently saw a video of Ron and Johanna Melchiore. Ron says he moved from the city to build his own off-the-grid homestead in the 1970s during the Back-to-the-Land movement in the 1970s, which I had never heard of. He's been living as such, sometimes in remote places where the nearest human is a plane ride away, for forty years. I was amazed and excited to see this video as it confirmed something I had been thinking about. 

As we become more dependent on technologies, comforts, and conveniences, are we getting stronger or weaker? Observing the psychology surrounding the coronavirus, I felt like I could see this conundrum first hand. I am in a country where minimum wage is the equivalent of $200 US per month for a 44 hour work week and people were saying things like, "We can make money later. What's important now is our health". On the other hand, social media posts I saw coming from the US regarding the economic challenges were much more dramatic. 

With this perspective, do us expats have something to give in this sense when we go to countries like Haiti, or something to learn? And when we learn lessons or gain experiences from interacting with the severely impoverished, observing their lives, what does it leave them with? This is the ethical question. I am primarily referring to short term volunteer or mission teams here, but I suppose it could also apply to long term folk as well. Does our very presence leave children with a sense that they are lacking, whereas they may have never thought as much prior? And if it does, is that a step in the right direction? 

Of course we have so much to give by means of education, organization, resources, and more. I in no means am trying to suggest that short term service teams are bad! I am only pointing out unwanted side effects if care is not taken, if sensitivity is not practiced, and if strategy and teamwork are not implemented. 

Adventures of SonSon - Part 2

During law school, I was surprised to learn that if you try to help someone experiencing a problem but end up putting them in a worse position than they already were in before you intervened, you are liable for the position they are in. For example, if you find someone stuck on a tree branch and in trying to help them, you push them further out on the branch, closer to their doom, you now have responsibility in their position and are liable. I was convicted by this. I first thought, well it's better to try to help than to not try at all. While that is true, it's important that when you try to help, you carefully consider the effects of what you do. So if the person you're trying to save gets pushed further out onto the branch, you cannot walk away at that point. You now have the responsibility to do whatever it takes to get him back to safety. 

How many Americans go through places like Haiti and the biggest effect they may have is being the living embodiment of a place that seems better and has more? And how many, after having pushed people further out on their branch in that way, so to speak, leave and never look back?

Dominicans sometimes told me early on, while helping teenage boys from the streets, that if you feed them, they won't want to work anymore. I didn't want to remove anyone's work ethics, or ignore their suffering, but there is truth in what they said. It doesn't mean that you should never provide meals, but any support should be in balance with the reality of their lives. It's a topic that should be highly considered, especially among short term groups. I'm not trying to deter people from going on short term trips, but I do think they should be viewed as a long term commitment to the people, even if you're only in the country for a short period. We do our best to build short term trips in such away that make them a contributing part of an ongoing effort that takes these issues seriously, but a lot still lies in the hands of the groups themselves. Some do an excellent job of taking all of this into account. 

Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below. I'm not claiming expertise by any means, but I've definitely not given up, and I don't plan to do so. Check out my commitment statement from 10 years ago in this post about a scene in the movie Finding Nemo: Swim Down Together. The net has not broken yet. We still have brothers and sisters caught up in it. So I'm still in the net swimming down. Let's swim down together! #FreeHaiti

   

The Space Between Us

I mentioned in my last post that I got onto Twitter in order to check out the #FreeHaiti movement. I also have mentioned that I enjoy watching the Holy Post podcasts each week. The hosts and all of the guests always mention Twitter so those were the people and groups I started to follow. While I enjoy reading people’s thoughts, I can only take so much of it, as there seems to be little call to action but lots of philosophizing and book sales promoting. I enjoy it, but in small doses.

Truthfully, the main call to action I’ve been observing is the call of one organization for Black Christian leaders that is encouraging Black Christians to leave churches that are “white dominated” or multi-ethnic. They say that this is important to protect their dignity. They seem to be encouraging Black Christians across the country to stop taking the abuse that they assume they are enduring in these “white dominated” churches by leaving.

Another call to action came from Skye Jethani who assigned his followers to read a Christianity Today article by Timothy Dalrymple that talked about the fragmented church. Although reading is a passive action, it is a call to action. Here is that article.  

It talks about the political divide in the evangelical church and contributing factors like media sources that give completely different points of view and information, causing there to be alternative realities. A few quotes had me strongly agreeing as they articulated something that had been bothering me.

“Rather than withdrawing into communities of common loathing, the church should be offering a community of common love, a sanctuary from the fragmentation and polarization, from the loneliness and isolation of the present moment.”

“Hatred is a poor imitation of purpose, celebrity a poor replacement for wisdom, and political tribes a poor comparison to authentic Christian community. “

In addition to the political divide, the call for action I presented above shows an apparently continuing racial divide. It causes me pain. Perhaps what increased this pain was the remembrance of the Virginia Tech shootings last Friday, which marked 14 years. Many of my friends and classmates shared their memories on Facebook of where they were that day and what they remember. I joined in and shared the following:

Today us Hokies remember the tragedy that happened on the Virginia Tech campus 14 years ago. I myself was in lock down in the coliseum. As we reflect on this today, the news is full of more senseless gun violence. Can we talk? Who would like to talk?

What about a political trade off? God gets brought back into schools (not Christianity or the Bible but the promotion of the intellectual possibility of a loving God) in exchange for serious changes in gun laws. I personally think that would be a compromise and also two big steps toward a solution. Much love to you all.

I also shared this sample site I created that embodies a movement that I think would bring about serious, necessary change in the United States. Here it is. I’m looking for a church or group to adopt this project, as I certainly am not in a position to run with it, but would love to see it take off. I would love to support it, advocate for it, network, and do supportive research.

I am doing remote work for an adult computer school in Indianapolis. I meet with students online throughout the day. On Friday, April 16^th, as we remembered what happened 14 years earlier, I learned about what had happened in Indianapolis the night before. Eight people were shot and killed at FedEx. Others were injured. The news reported 45 mass shootings in the past month. I couldn’t shake a feeling of depression and spiritual conviction.   

I feel as though I have always been a peacemaker. I am not afraid of conflict. I embrace it and can be enriched by it. However, I feel very unsettled when it lingers and no action steps are taken to resolve it. I feel unsettled when people aren’t willing to compromise and come to a common understanding. I have felt frustrated as I observe “communities of common loathing” forming or continuing, mostly in regards to politics, and am refreshed by the truth that “hatred is not a common purpose”.

About the organization for Black Christian leaders and their encouragement for Black Christians to leave white led churches, I have many thoughts. First of all, I love their mission of supporting, training, and funding Black Christian leaders, and I have shared their website on different occasions. But it’s also concerning to see them produce work like an article titled “Why Haven’t You Left yet?” which seems to be promoting church segregation. Is this a protection of dignity or a situation where hatred is being masked as a common purpose? I think on a case by case basis, this decision can surely be made as a protection of dignity, which is so very important. However, is it wise to apply to all Black Christians in the entire country? Is that honoring to the kingdom of God? Is this call to maintain an “us versus them” mentality and promote church segregation a good thing?

Whatever it is, it’s surely sad. I will not conclude that this organization is wrong in taking this stance. I have very little insight into the topic. I don’t live in the United States, although I grew up there, and have not had these conversations pertaining to the segregated church in America. The history and topic of race is viewed and treated very differently where I live, along with many other differences that make it hard to compare. I have only become aware of this particular issue through watching Holy Post podcasts. I can conclude that this situation is not God’s will. However, I cannot necessarily blame this particular organization for taking this stance either. Perhaps they could tweak their approach some, but perhaps the white led churches they feel hurt by should reflect seriously as well. I imagine that many are reflecting, or at least I hope so.

One main reason I conclude that segregation is not a solution is because we know that the only way to learn about each other and grow closer together is to listen to one another and speak with one another. Obviously that is not going to happen if we separate. We can separate to show the other that we are upset, in hopes that they will try to reconcile, whether that be apologizing or explaining misunderstandings. But if it doesn’t lead to reconciliation, then we are at a sad point. If I were the hurt party who felt the need to leave, and reconciliation never came, my competitive spirit might take over. I would want to impress the other party by doing something better than them. That’s just me personally.

So what is the solution? I suppose the solution is for white led churches to take this exile seriously, first. Second, I suppose a solution is for white people who desire reconciliation to go to Black led churches. I appreciate the idea of church membership, but I also like being a church hopper in order to avoid any feeling of division and embrace the body of Christ rather than a particular church. I do hope that this organization stays on the correct side of a fine line they are walking, where assumptions or prejudgments about people and churches because of their racial composition still does fall into the category of racism, regardless of patterns observed.    

If you love to discuss racism but shy away from the examination of the explicit racism in Darwin’s foundational works and how racist groups like the Alt-Right use his logic as their base, I would argue that you are not fully looking for a solution, but are being hindered by politics. If you love to discuss the evils of racism but practice it yourself then we know that that is hypocritical, not innovative or solution based. You can’t eradicate something that you practice yourself, although I surely understand the desire to fight back when one feels under attack.

There’s so much talk about white privilege, but I don’t hear any talk about American privilege. There’s an unfortunate hierarchy in the U.S. and we want it to level out. We want equality for all. But please don’t forget about the unfortunate global hierarchy and work to level it out as well. Even if you find yourself low on the U.S. hierarchy, you’re near the top of the global one. 

Sometimes I listen to class struggles in the U.S. with compassion as the history of race relations was always something that brought about much compassion in me. However, other times I hear things that, to me, show how people are really looking at the glass half empty and forgetting how much more level the playing fields have become, despite there still being work to be done. I sometimes relate it to fighting for the position of king of the world. Prince of the world just isn’t satisfying, it seems. Or does the prince not realize what he is? While it’s admirable to want the best, who would feel very sorry for a prince? (Not that anyone is looking for pity, but in referring to a glass half empty mindset). Princes should use their position to do good and know that they may become king one day. So that’s just another perspective coming from outside of the U.S. of A. If you didn't get the analogy, I'm calling "white America" king of the world and "Black America" prince of the world.

The organization on the matter of racial justice over this past year has been amazing. The fact that incidences are taped and made public has allowed for much more accountability. Change is hopeful with the April 20^th verdict of the Chauvin trial. However, it seems as though the public seeing these incidences also creates more fear and rage. It’s important that we keep things in perspective and do not let fear dominate. While we want police reform, just as us women can’t live in fear of men because abuse to women happens, people of color should not live in fear of police because these incidents happen. The United States is a huge country and these things are comparably rare when you look at it that way.

Cariol Horne

One way I believe such incidents could be further reduced is if there were more minority representation in the police force. I was so pleased to hear the story of Cariol Horne as it serves as proof of that claim. Minorities in the police force create change. It also shows that this has been discouraged historically. Why not make that part of the battle field as well?

Lastly, serving others can be refreshing and empowering, while simultaneously humbling. I invite anyone reading this to consider volunteering with us down here on the island of Hispaniola. Spending time here would give you a different insight into how race is perceived and experienced and also show how privileged you are to be an American citizen!   

Check out this interview with Ivenson, one of the young men who has spent years growing up in our group home. He shares a bit about the issues in Haiti and Cite Soleil, where he is from. I would love to see the Black Lives Matter movement include Haiti. The history of the Haitian Revolution embodies racial justice and dignity, yet so many innocent lives are still in bondage there. At the same time, in some ways, it is an absolutely magnificent paradise. I wish Black Lives Matter and everyone who is sensitive to the cause would help #FreeHaiti. Here's the link to Ivenson's interview in case it's not showing up for you.  

Let’s keep working at this. He has a solution. Iron sharpening iron does not feel comfortable, but it does make us all better over time. Let’s not give up. Let’s not go backwards. Let us not forget that we all have a common enemy and his work is easier when we are divided. Have a blessed day. 

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

 
We have a problem with not knowing. Some say that religion is something people believe because it makes them feel better, basically. It gives them an answer. I would say the same exact thing about the theory of evolution. I recently learned about Ken Ham, a creationist who has an organization called Answers in Genesis. He actually built a life size Noah’s ark in Kentucky, among other things!

One item that quickly popped up for Ken Ham in a Google search was a debate he did with Bill Nye the Science Guy in 2014. Bill Nye the Science Guy videos were shown to me throughout public schooling in the U.S. I was very excited to discover and watch this debate! I also learned a lot. So many of the thoughts and ideas that I had formed on the matter were confirmed with the arguments that Ken Ham presented. The biggest point he articulated over and over again was something I had fumbled to say in many more words. He said that the word science has been hi-jacked to include both observational science and historical science, lumping them together and calling them science.

Historical science isn’t really science, or at least it's important to distinguish. When I think of science, I think of the scientific method with a hypothesis, independent and dependent variables, where we can observe that if you try to grow a plant in the dark, it does not work, thus concluding that it needs sunlight to grow.  We can see it, observe it, isolate the variables, and determine a truth about nature. That is science.

In all of my reflections on the matter, I have seen clearly that it is arrogant to make claims to things that happened long ago while only dealing with very limited information and having no witness accounts. To call such conclusions truth is to go completely against the way our court processes work. I’ve also seen that evolution lacks contribution to the scientific advancements we’ve made in medicine, engineering, technology, etc. I'm not claiming to be a young earth creationist. I'm not entirely concerned about the exact age of the earth, but I am surely a creationist. I also don't see that the young earth creation theory has been concluded impossible. 

What does the theory of evolution actually do for us? In all honesty, it seems to primarily be a theory that contradicts creation and the existence of God. It gives an alternative explanation and serves as an option for people who don’t believe in God. That’s its main purpose, not helping us to improve our living conditions, reduce physical or mental disease, or improve efficiency in any way. It seems to have caused lots of conflict during its 150 years and not much help. If anyone has a good argument that goes against that, I would love to hear it. If we stop viewing the world primarily through the lens of an evolutionist and open up the possibility of intelligent design, will our scientific advancements stop? Will they be affected? How so?

On the other hand, we can look at what the Bible does. Christians are not the only religion that believes that the Bible is the word of a living God and surely not the only religion that believes in the supernatural. The Bible, whether you think it was stretched along the way as Ken Ham claims in relating it to a tall tale, is a historical document and witness account. The theory of evolution was simply formed from the thoughts of Darwin after observing bird beak variations, and reported in two books that are filled with white supremacy and the dehumanization of human beings, who I would argue, alongside Ham, are image bearers of the living God. As Ham said, there is much greater variety in dog breeds than there were in the finch beaks Darwin observed, but we have yet to see one of those dog breeds convert into a separate species.

Many will claim that religion has been the cause of all sorts of horrors, and it is true that it has been a source of conflict. However, I would invite those same people to take a look at the country of Haiti. Millions of children have no access to schooling and kidnappings are currently happening on a daily basis. Check out the clips in my last post where I interviewed Jerry Floreal. He spoke about the school he went to as a child and the surrounding schools in the area. All are Christian schools supported by different churches. He also mentions support from World Vision, a Christian organization. This is the truth in Haiti and I believe other parts of the world as well. So the next time you hear someone talk about the bad that religion has done, don’t forget about these teachers being paid and kids being fed day after day, month after month, and what the motivation is for this service.  

Toward the end of the debate, the moderator read questions from the audience and they had a short amount of time to answer. This section really showed to me a strong difference in the two mindsets of these men. I saw Bill Nye display an insecurity in not knowing, a strong need to know, and excitement as well to research and find out. For example, when asked how matter gained consciousness, he said that no one knows! It’s one of the great mysteries! The way he spoke was intense as if not being able to give a scientific explanation was an urgent problem, one that must continue to be addressed until an answer is present. As Ham spoke, especially during the last part of the debate where they answered questions from the audience, Nye’s face was a bit intense and almost angry or at least stressed.
Ken Ham’s face and stature, on the other hand, was calm and cool. When he spoke of not knowing something, he didn’t seem stressed. He spoke of what he did know, gave biblical explanations to match scientific observations, and calmly admitted when there was not yet an answer on a topic.

At one point, they talked about the observation that the stars are getting further and further apart. Bill Nye excitedly explained to the audience that maybe if we knew the answer as to why that is the case, then it would be helpful in figuring out other things! He then went onto tell them that NASA does a lot of research in this area, paid for by their tax dollars.
And here is where I’ll rest my case. When I see that Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon, is investing his billions in developing a rocket ship experience where people can fly into space like tourists, I see pure heartlessness. Yes, it’s his money and he can do what he wants with it, but how can someone invest in something so unnecessary like that when our planet is full of urgent need still. I suppose it’s no worse than investing in expensive cars, clothing, jewelry, etc. It’s all pretty heartless.

My biggest heart cry is that every child on this island of Hispaniola where I live would have access to free, nurturing education delivered in their mother tongue. I’m sure funding the new schools that would be needed to do that wouldn’t be much for Jeff Bezos. It wouldn’t be much for many other people or for groups of people. If all kids could attend a nurturing school at least up to sixth grade, we know that Haiti would see the change it longs for. And it’s more than just investing money; it’s a project that takes smarts, planning, and dedication. But it’s apparently not as fun and exciting as developing space tourism or sending robots to Mars, so why invest in something like that?

Evolution has been studied for 150 years now. What have we found? What has it done for us? Ham gave an example of a rock and piece of wood found next to each other under the earth’s surface and with radiocarbon dating, one dated 45,000 years old while the other dated 45 million. Nye replied that the wood probably just slid on top of the rock. That was literally his response. This is what we’re calling science? Ham also argued several times that there are dozens of dating methods and most do not support the millions of years theory, which I did not hear Nye reply to throughout the entire debate. 

When do we stop with research for the sake of hopefully finding out something important and instead dedicate time, resources, and brains to proven solutions that just need to be implemented. It’s okay not to know everything. It’s not okay to have the means to help others who live in situations that no human should have to live in but waste your means on sheer pleasure or a desire to know everything. I think we have it backwards.    

 
There are a few other observations about the debate I’d like to make. Nye kept critiquing Ham, saying that his model could not predict anything that would happen in the future. It seemed a bit unreasonable that Nye doubted Ham’s Bible based theory, which does not seem to contradict science other than inconclusive evidence such as the radiocarbon dating example, which again is historical science, when he obviously had never studied the Bible. If he did, he would see that the Bible is far from a simple tall tale. It is so very intricate, diverse, wise, and I have many accounts of how it has been alive in my life, as do many others. It is also full of prophecies that were fulfilled, and to this day, people can share revelations that did let them know something about the future. Don’t let the Trump prophets be your only representation of prophecy! I talked about a video from Transformation Church in this blog post. It is the second video in the post and if you watch it, it shows proof of a small prophecy fulfilled right there.

Another point I’ll make is that Nye shared images of skulls found under the earth that were not human nor monkey on a few occasions. Ham did not address that. To be fair, they had limited time to speak at each opportunity and he must not have found that that was the most important point he wanted to use his time to make. I’m sure his organization has published information on the matter. But I have many thoughts on the matter.  The main point is that it’s not reasonable to draw conclusions with so little information.

Have we dug up the whole world in order to study everything everywhere, or just some spots here and there around the world? Do we really expect to be able to tell an accurate tale of history from archaeology? We have a hard enough time telling an accurate tale of history when it’s full of eye witnesses! Have we been able to observe what happens to bone underground over long periods of time under all sorts of conditions? How do we know that it doesn’t change shape? I’m not saying that I think it does, but I am just saying that we have no idea of all the variables. What explanation of dinosaur bones do we give when we realize that dinosaurs are not present on earth now? We say they went extinct. So why do we not think that perhaps some of these skulls were from creatures that are now extinct, if they are no match to any living creature?

Did the Bible say that God made the earth in a certain way? How do we know that he didn’t form the Grand Canyon? Why do we assume that the earth was a certain way and then formed that way over millions of years? So much of what Bill Nye argued was with the assumption that God could not intervene. Does the Bible say that God created in six days, then wiped a lot out with a flood and it grew back from there, but that all of his creation was limited to those six days? Nye’s whole thought process is very limited by a disbelief in God and then in any attempt he made to consider a creator, he put super limits on God.

The Bible has a consistent message throughout, reiterated hundreds of times. “Fear not”. Now, that doesn’t mean to ignore observations and neglect stewardship of the beautiful earth and its creations. It doesn’t mean that God controls everything as he certainly does not. He is powerful enough to but he did not create robots to control. And we have work to do! So much work to do! But I would rather have a calm and steady disposition like Ken Ham when it comes to where the ultimate control lies over Bill Nye’s stressed out, insecure look any day. Nonetheless, it’s so awesome that these two men came together to do this debate. I respect them both so much for that.

I almost forgot one last point I wanted to make. Throughout the debate, Bill Nye kept turning to the Kentucky audience, feeling like he had to motivate them to become involved in the field of science and warn them that if they didn’t, the U.S. could lose its stance as world power. He said this several times and didn’t use those same words, but did say that the U.S. will fall behind or that it will be harmed economically, etc. This concern reminds me of Richard Spencer’s interview I shared in a post about scientific racism. It’s fear, and this fear makes us see our others as enemies. This fear and attitude does not come from the Bible, but from an atheistic worldview. This doesn't mean that Christians don't adopt it sometimes too, but it does not come from the Bible. 

I would love to know what you think. Please comment below.  Thanks for reading.

#FreeHaiti

Illustration from Adventures of Son Son - Part 2

The first time I traveled to Port-au-Prince was days after the January 12, 2010 earthquake. If it was just for the earthquake, we wouldn't have gone. On the same day as the earthquake, we received news that one of the boys from Project Esperanza, Anol, had passed away. He was diabetic and had gone to visit family in the north of Haiti. We just had to go. We also had a friend that had been sending daily updates from Port-au-Prince so we ended up bringing care packages. 

We brought a Haitian friend who really wanted to serve with us. We stayed with his family in Gonaives the first night, then with Jeres' family in Canape Vert, Port-au-Prince. We ended up pitching a little house made out of wood and plantain leaves in the tent city set up on Plas Mozole. The plan was for our friend to stay there and use it to help set up a sort of government in the tent city that would organize distribution of any aid that came in and just organize life in general. Our efforts were super last minute, as no one knew the earthquake was coming, obviously. We planned on the drive over and stopped at a print shop to make letters in English and Creole, explaining our plan and purpose to any groups we ran into. We slept in the little house on Plas Mozole the last night in Port-au-Prince as an act of solidarity, and then headed up the crazy mountains to the north in the morning. 

I have gone through many bouts of insanity throughout my years and when I regain sanity later on, I can't believe that I did that. This was one. I'm not talking about sleeping in the little house in the tent city on Plas Mozole. I'm talking about going up those mountains with huge potholes, no guardrails, treacherous cliffs, with vehicles going way to fast around the corners! As for staying with the people in Plas Mozole, I wish I could do more of that. 

That night, a group of women talked to me. They were a women's organization fighting for women's rights. I explained to them what our plan was, and when I said our friend was staying in the house to serve, one of them asked, "A man?"

"Yes."

"A Haitian man?" 

"Yes," I replied again. 

"Volo!" A few of them yelled and repeated volo, which means thief in Haitian Creole. My heart sunk a little as they went on to criticize all Haitian men. I ended up asking what they were doing to change things. They replied that they treat their boy children and girl children as equals. If the girls haul water, the boys haul water too. The next day I would travel to my mother-in-law's house for the first time and see more of the gender inequality in how kids are raised in some households. As they spoke to me passionately about this, there was one twelve-year-old boy among them; the son of one of the women. 

They were so passionate and strong. I was honored to be talking to them and honored that God had given me the opportunity and the ability to speak and understand their language. As they talked, there was a rumbling of noise coming from the road. We were in the middle of sea of tents and little scrap houses so we couldn't see the road, but could hear the noise getting closer. As I realized it was people marching and singing, it was time for the chorus of the song and they joined in, with one woman in the middle holding her arms out as if she was worshipping or submitting. 

They sang, "Ayiti pa kapab soufri anko", which means, "Haiti cannot suffer anymore". 

As if it were planned, the singing continued and the woman who had had her arms out now looked directly at me and began preaching in a loud voice. She pointed her finger and declared that, "Ayiti pa kapab soufri anko. Haiti cannot suffer anymore. We have suffered too much. There was a child who died in Carrefour because he thirsted for water!" 

This was one of the most powerful moments for me that I can remember. I was in awe and grief. I wanted nothing more than to help these women. I had no resources beyond what we had spent. Their sons that they were working hard to raise to be responsible... were they able to go to school? Were they drawn into gangs despite their mother's efforts? Or draw in in what they felt was necessary to protect their mothers? I hope not. 

I actually wrote about this short lived Port-au-Prince effort in the first post of this blog in 2010. We tried, and hopefully we helped out some, but we were not equipped for the job.  

In a post I wrote in January called Haiti Cheri Part II, I shared that although there is still much political turmoil in Haiti, it is not at the state that it was in 2019 when schools could not even function. However, since writing that, there has been more conflict about President Jovenel Moise staying in office, saying he's violating the term set out in the constitution. I didn't understand that completely, but our cousin Jerry explained a bit more in the video below. You can see it's a bit ambiguous because the president's term is five years, which he has served four of, but a year was lost between the last president and him. 

I have seen news where the Biden Administration has taken a stance on the issue, saying that Jovenel should not be thrown out immediately as some want, but arrangements for an election should be made. Others conclude that this is simply the power hungry opposition supplying vulnerable youth and men with guns and sending them to the streets to wreak havoc. 

Whatever it is, it's sure sad. We have had boys in our program report that police (I believe it was) had given them guns to do harm with. One of these boys returned to Haiti several years ago when he was ill and ended up passing away. The second boy only came to the program a few times. It was the other boys who confessed this for him. Both boys were quite tiny. 

On March 14th, I posted this in Project Esperanza's Facebook group. 

Here is the article linked in that post. You see it mentions that this sparked #FreeHaiti that is flying around on Twitter. I blew the dust off of my old Twitter account and checked it out. It seems to be started by Ezili Danto. Here is her website.  From her tweets and her site, it looks like she sees the biggest issues that keep Haiti in bondage as foreign interference in Haitian politics, UN/US occupations, corruption among politicians, and the mindset of Haitians themselves, including NGO dependency. I do not see anywhere on the site where this is stated clearly, but I am gathering this from what is posted and from her tweets. She is all about mentally empowering Haitians to lead themselves. She says, "We are enough" meaning that Haitians shouldn't expect help from others, and they don't need it. They are enough.  

I can agree with all of those issues being problematic for the most part and I highly respect her for organizing. And I don't have to agree 100% to be supportive. I am not Haitian, myself. Jerry and I talked about things for over two hours. He ended up concluding that he thinks foreign interference in Haitian politics is 100% bad, but he does appreciate NGO support by means of education. He said that lots of support is wasted. He sees money come in, people drive around in cars, and don't get a lot done. But he went to elementary school at a Methodist school in Grisongarde, Haiti, as did my husband, where their tuition was reduced by World Vision, from what he said. He appreciates that and knows that support is a big part of the solution. 

I was glad that he concluded this and tried not to push him to do so, but let him talk and asked questions. I am glad because this is a solution that I believe with all of my heart. I'm not glad that education is not already provided by the Haitian government, but am glad to be a part of the solution in that way. I believe that a main focus must be providing nurturing education for all children in the country and that there are plenty of Haitians in the country who can teach. I hope we can be of support. As I said in Haiti Cheri Part II, we are channeling funds for Met Dev's school in Maroquee, which we mention in the above video.  

Over a series of posts, I'd like to share more thoughts about the chains that bind Haiti that Ezili Danto proposes, as well as share a few additional ideas. We humans... we have figured out a lot. We have explored space, figured out how to clone, and even have self driving cars. Do you think we can collectively figure out how to free Haiti? Let's not give up. Let's work together as one. 

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. 

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.