Home Schooling

On September 11, 2001 religious fanatics of a backwards sect of Islam crashed four jetliners in an attempt to strike a blow for their God in the name of everything they considered holy. Some 3000 people died that day in the United States due to the action of 19 hijackers with a misguided and narrow view of religious duty. We tend to lessen the impact of the religious part of this equation in this country because we as a people don’t want to face up to the fact that it was a religious act to the 19 men who carried it out.

Most American’s ideas of religion have little to do with war or terror but history tells us that this is a willing misunderstanding of the true nature of organized religion. Throughout recorded history human beings have been slaughtering each other over religious ideas. This is an undeniable side effect of all organized religion. The Islamic fundamentalist holds neither a monopoly nor even a patent on religious terrorism. The seeds of religious terrorism go as far back as the beginnings of Judaism and have been an undeniable and indispensible tool of the leaders of organized religion since the very beginning of all three major western faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The power that goes along with leadership in organized religions has been shown again and again throughout our history to be corruptive and violent in extreme. In a country that prides itself on its humanitarianism and undeniably is a leader in this area of human endeavor, the US is also home to a large and seemingly growing base of religious fanatics determined to carry out a holy war against the infidels. Infidels in this case are defined as anyone who doesn’t agree with religious orthodoxy; the correct orthodoxy in their view but an untrammeled and ill conceived orthodoxy that is actually little more than ancient tribal hatred carried through 3 thousand years of power consolidation.

In this country we seem to be massively confused by common terms that are used as bulwarks against the spread of knowledge that could ameliorate these hatreds. We have an idea of religious tolerance that closely matches the “don’t ask, don’t tell” silliness that today is the official policy for gays in the military. If you wonder where such a silly idea could come from it is burned into our psyche from our confusion about what religious tolerance means. Tolerance is defined as:

"a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry"

Fair, objective and free from bigotry is one thing; it is not synonymous with blissfully ignorant or willingly confused. There is a quote from Thomas Jefferson that is often bandied about in support of our current understanding of religious tolerance:

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.

Unfortunately, this is the second of two sentences in his famous “Notes on Virginia”. The first sentence comes more to the point of our current problems:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others”.

Jefferson, one of our earliest and most ardent supporters of religious freedom, understood that there is in this freedom, as in all others, a dividing line between our individual freedoms and those of our fellow man. This point is the dividing line between liberty and tyranny, the point where your rights begin to infringe upon my own. While it is inherently necessary for us to give everyone a right to their own opinion it is also undoubtedly necessary for us to know where the line between opinion and danger to others exists. If your religious opinions include the idea that you are duty bound to kill others who don’t believe as you do we have crossed that line. I would further submit if your religious opinions include the idea that an apocalyptic bloodbath is inevitable in our future and that everyone must either ascribe to your views or be in league with the devil then we have also crossed that line. Ideas influence action. We cannot realistically separate our actions from our beliefs so it is imperative that we should re-examine our beliefs.

In my opinion we have obliterated that line with our current understanding of the term religious tolerance. We don’t ask the questions that point out the ludicrous nature of belief systems out of some misguided notion that it would be intolerant to do so. We don’t bring the dank ignorance of fundamentalist religion out into the light of logic because of this same misunderstanding of terms. The fundamentalist Islamic, the fundamentalist Christian, and the fundamentalist Jew hold ideas that are illogical, unreasonable, and dangerous to those of us who believe reason and discourse to be the guides to understanding but we don’t bring these ideas out into the open because we misunderstand the term tolerance. Tolerance doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discuss such things, it means we should give all ideas the same consideration and equal weight in discovering their veracity or lack thereof.

We don’t accept cold fusion because no one has been able to prove it but we routinely accept such silliness as virgin births, resurrection, and turning water into wine because it is written in some ancient tribal manuscript thousands of years ago by people who were neither there to witness it nor a part of that generation. Not only do we accept such lunacy, we use it as a root basis for our world view.

Can anyone deny that the US attachment to Israel is based on the ideas promulgated in the Bible? Seriously; a chosen people who have the right to displace another ancient tribe because an ancient set of books written by the founders of this tribe says it will be so?

How do we, as reasonable human beings possibly combat ideas that purport to come directly from an all knowing being?

Any argument that devolves into the hysteria of ancient manuscripts from violent wandering tribes or the unquestioned belief that an all knowing being commanded a chosen few is an argument for infantile children, yet we seem to accept it as an end to discussion when carried out in public in this country every single day. Ignorance can thrive only in the absence of knowledge. Organized religions have known this for centuries, which is exactly why Copernicus correct theories were ostracized and Galileo himself spent the latter years of his life under house arrest. Organized religion has always been against the spread of knowledge for the simple reason that many of its most basic tenets rest upon the ignorant utterances of its founders. Remove these props and the whole theory collapses; hence the leaders of organized religion’s historical fear of knowledge.

While it was undoubtedly retardant to the spread of scientific knowledge, the persecutions of the Christian Church against Galileo and Copernicus’ theories pale in comparison to the dangers presented by the Pandora ’s Box of fundamentalist violence that we see in the world all around us today. The Middle East is a powder keg of war and violence between Jews, Islamics, and Christians that is starting to spill over into Europe. Africa is much the same way yet we persist in ignoring the incontrovertible fact that organized religion is at the root of many of these conflicts.

We find the ideas of Islam that call for violence against the non-believers to be anathema yet we ignore the fact that Christianity and Judaism are rooted in the same ideas. Christianity itself is steeped in the idea that an unavoidable apocalyptic all consuming war is the future of mankind. While modern day Christians may preach tolerance and respect for all religions they hold at heart the idea that all must one day join with them or with the forces of evil. There is no real tolerance in these ideas, only a mild forbearance of the perceived ignorance of those not yet converted or indoctrinated in the faith. The very idea that one all knowing being revealed the truth to one set of people in one set of books is the antithesis of tolerance; rather it is the source of all intolerance. After all, if you truly have the belief that all mighty God has spoken it becomes sacrilege for man to question with his power of reason.

The only true solution to many of the problems in the world today requires that we as a people drop some of these ancient tribal superstitions and begin dealing with each other as human beings. Since most of these ideas are passed from generation to generation through the family it is imperative that we find ways to discuss them, to hold them up to the public light of reason. Every time we turn away in silence and bite our tongue in some misbegotten idea of tolerance, we allow ignorance to spread. Every time we avoid the subject when we are proselytized by the faithful we follow this same path. Conversation, reason, and understanding can only conquer ignorance if we attend to it by practicing their usage.

All of this leads to the reasons for this post. Recently, I read an article about home schooling. While most everyone agrees that public education in this country is at the nadir of effectiveness I am not sure we understand the consequences of mass home schooling or the reality as to why many groups are advocating it.

Unfortunately, home schooling in many cases has become synonymous with religious indoctrination. Without even going into the fact that it does little or nothing to prepare children for dealing with their peers, some of the curriculum being taught is narrow at best and flat out erroneous in many cases. We are all familiar with efforts to indoctrinate “intelligent design” into our public classrooms as some sort of pseudo-scientific alternative to evolution and I was not at all surprised to find that this is one of the basic tenets of many such programs but I was a little surprised at some of the other things that are being taught as factual.

“Under God” is one such textbook being advertised as an entry level study of government. The title gives this one away, but here is an excerpt describing its content:

“The purpose of this essential book is best set forth in the preface: “The goal of 'Under God' is to develop effective citizens within the framework of the Christian faith and Christian principles. To help students attain this goal, 'Under God' includes sound ideas about the foundations of constitutional government and the historical background of United States government. The starting point in teaching government is the basic conviction that God ordains it. He is the source of authority. That concept is the root of good government. The fear of the Lord is not only the basis, but also the motivation for good citizenship."

The starting point in teaching about United States government is the basic conviction that God ordains it? The fear of the Lord is not only the basis, but also the motivation for good citizenship? Of course what is not said but certainly implied here is that the Godless cannot possibly be good citizens under the United States government. This is about as far from the guiding principles put forth in our Constitution as one can possibly get. It is in fact advocating an all knowing dictator, the fear of whom is the true basis and motivation for good government. It is mind boggling that we could accept this as teaching literature from which to learn about US Government and I find it a little scary to think that this is how even a small part of the present generation is being taught. The book is further recommended with the following passage:

“Under God is recommended as a textbook for an 8th or 9th grade course in U.S. government. Its structure and presentation, however, make it a valuable text for high school students and adults who do not have a thorough understanding of our government and its roots. Originally published in 1966 by The National Union of Christian Schools (now Christian Schools International), "Under God" was periodically revised through 1990. We have been very pleased to take over this project and, under the direction of Mr. Hendricks, make the necessary revisions to keep this book current.”

I can agree that it would not be suitable for high school students and adults who do have a thorough understanding of our government and its roots because such people would recognize it as being diametrically opposed to the true basis of our government. Beyond that, it is unvarnished religious propaganda and would be instantly recognized as such in any open presentation of its views but that is kind of the whole point of this post. It is not being presented in an open environment where opposing viewpoints are available; it is being indoctrinated into children who don’t know any better. To add to that folly it is being done in most cases by the one person who the child trusts the most; their parent.

In the history section of the same website I found the following note in bold print at the start:

“History has not only been planned by God, but proceeds according to His purpose. For this reason all history - ancient, medieval, and modern - must be viewed as the sovereign rule of God over the affairs of men. It is more than a chronicle of names, dates, places, and events. A proper understanding of history is built around the key events of the Bible and should be understood in terms of Christ and the building of His Church”.

“For these reasons, this history program concentrates on the unfolding of world history with a special emphasis on the shaping of Europe and America. It seeks to trace the hand of God's providence in history as He used the efforts of Christians as they applied God's Word to their nations and cultures”.

All history must be viewed as the sovereign rule of God over the affairs of men? I suppose this is why the inquisitions happened and why the period where the Christian Church did largely rule over government in Western Europe is correctly known as the Dark Ages. Since the key events of the Bible hold the only correct understanding of history it doesn’t make much sense to reference anything written since. I cannot imagine the backwards and ignorant progeny of this type of education would ever achieve anything in this world beyond the furtherance of blind hatred, tribal prejudice, and endless war. It is in such confined and constricted corners of ignorance where the Bin Ladens of the world are spawned. One of the little noted parts of the 9-11 commission’s report dealt with the source of much of the same information that Bin Laden today espouses; the madrasses or schools that Saudi Arabia funded with oil money from the US fostered the widespread acceptance of such radical views throughout the Middle East. The same type of indoctrinatory teaching is today being peddled in home schools without opposing viewpoints. In my view, the worst thing we could do as a society is to perpetuate this type of one dimensional teaching by educating a whole new generation by this methodology in our country.

Another book that purports to be a good teaching source about American government for high school students is titled “America’s Christian Heritage”. This book is further described with the following:

“Not too long ago, the fact that America was founded as a Christian nation was self-evident just by looking at the original documents and overflow of evidence. But sadly, with the rewriting of America’s history and the concerted effort of academic circles and the media to downplay this fact, this basis for our government is being lost.

Noted Christian historian, Gary DeMar, answers these secular denials of America’s Christian heritage as he presents evidence from a broad range of historical sources and lets the record speak for itself. This readable account is an excellent supplement for any history curriculum and government/civics course.

The quality of production and full-color spreads make this an ideal “coffee table book” that can open opportunities for discussion and sharing one’s faith and ideals.”

Sadly, there are those today who are indeed trying to rewrite America’s history but most of them seem to be fundamentalist Christians with an ideology to promote. The original documents and indeed the original writings of most of the Founding Fathers on the subject are chock full of the idea that the US government should NOT be a proponent of any one religious faith. The only people who argue against this notion do it from behind closed doors or bully pulpits where theirs is the only voice heard because they know that a fair examination of the facts will bear this out. Again, this doctrine is not dangerous only erroneous. However, if this doctrine is the ONLY one espoused and there is no open discussion of its merits it can and will lead to erroneous understandings by its adherents that can and will be dangerous to the future of this country because the young students of today are the leaders of tomorrow. This is both the source of my concern and the reason why adherents of this type of indoctrination are so avid in their efforts.

Another offering for teaching US Government principles is titled “American Government” which sounds innocuous enough. The book is described as follows:

“American Government breaks down the principles and mechanics of a constitutional republic into information the student can understand. Emphasis is given to the responsibility of Christian citizenship. The Constitution, political parties, elections, pressure groups, citizenship, and more, are taught from a biblical perspective. Each branch of the government is studied in detail. This course can be covered in one or two semesters; the one-semester course would then be followed by Economics”.

I would love to quote from the book itself but am not going to spend the $38.50 required to do so. I can only imagine the idiocy that could ensue trying to describe the Constitution, political parties, elections, pressure groups, citizenship and more from a biblical perspective. What I can’t imagine is how anyone remotely familiar with the basis of US Government could possibly conclude that using the biblical perspective is a good way to teach it to enquiring minds.

There is a long list of books on “intelligent design” and the refutations of evolution but I won’t bother to go into those as I don’t believe they impinge as directly on the problems I started out this post trying to discuss.

All of this boils down to the point that organized religion has shown itself to be much more a cause of war and violence than a solution. Even a casual perusal of history will bear this out in spades. I believe we are coming to a point in human history where we will either have to set these ancient tribal superstitions aside or allow them to destroy us. It seems obvious to me that the first step in this process is a fair and open discussion of the facts where all viewpoints are considered equally. Unfortunately, home schooling is the polar opposite of this type of discussion and serves to further propagate the problem by providing insulated pockets of indoctrinated belief wherein the light of reasoned debate never shines. It seems to me that if we accept the premise that a solution is needed to the problems we face in the world today we must accept the realization that it has to start with each of us.

Idle Rich Founders?

Being something of an amateur historian I am constantly reading history. One of my favorite types of books to read is a biography. Good biographies give more insight into an individual’s thought processes and back grounds so that the history that person influences can more directly be related to the most human of emotions and processes. I find it interesting to read several different biographies on one particular person and then read biographies on the people that this person interacted with during his or her lifetime to see how these interactions affect the course of human history. After all, human history is basically the net effect of personal interactions, not a time line of political and military movements. The core cause of political and military action can always be traced to the personal interactions of its leaders. Any other understanding of history is necessarily a confusion of cause and effect.

Some years ago I undertook to read a biography of each American president. As I am very interested in Colonial history especially this has been an eye opening experience in many ways. The more I read, the more I find that I want to read to more fully understand this same set of interactions. I am often led to reading biographies of other people besides the American presidents just to get a feel for the other side of the issues they argued for and against. It is fascinating to read the antithetical opposing views from some of our founding fathers because it is the combination of these views that actually led to the formation of our Constitution and our form of government. The first thing that stands out in such readings is the fact that there was NO consensus opinion that all the American Founding Fathers agreed upon with the possible exception of the fact that they felt it necessary to declare independence from Great Britain and even this declaration was shaded in many hues of disagreement as to how complete this separation should be. The fact of the matter is that there was barely a preponderance of opinion that this separation should occur at all. The best estimates suggest that the colonies were roughly divided in equal thirds on the question. One third gradually coming around to pushing for independence, one third pushing for a continuance of the status quo, and one third caring not a whit one way or another until the problem manifested itself into a war in their front yard.

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that many of the leaders of colonial governments here simply picked up and moved back to England when the war started while others readily joined the Royal forces in opposing Colonial efforts at independence. By any honest account, there was no universal agreement that the Colonies should separate from the crown and Parliament and only a protracted and expensive war and the entry of France into this war managed to allow those pushing for Independence to have their way and form a new and independent government.
After the war was successful the United States very nearly collapsed completely because of a stubborn insistence that each and every new state was a sovereign entity, bound to decide for itself on all questions of taxation and reparations of the huge national debt that the country had managed to bring on itself in winning this independence. This spirit of independence amongst the states was finally forced to be stamped out by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 whereby the weak and unenforceable Articles of Confederation were replaced with a federal government with some teeth to its authority when it came to dealing with the individual states. Even then, with the country on the verge of internal collapse and bankruptcy, it was a hard fought battle to get the independently minded states to agree to unite under a Federal Government.

Every time I hear one of the latter day talking heads of conservative radio rail about the intent of the founding fathers as if it exists in one viewpoint on stone tablets I cringe at their actual lack of understanding of history. The history of this country has never, ever been the whim of one side of the political spectrum but has always been a compromise between the left and the right. The net result of any democratic based governmental system is always a centrist position. This is necessarily a result of the inherent basic concept of the system whereby the majority rules. The centrist position shifts over time with the sway of public opinion but at any one time the centrist position will ALWAYS be the only position from which any political party can expect to control policy. Unfortunately, in this country today we are seeing a manipulation of this public perception of this position by largely artificial means. Advertising dollars control the media and if anyone thinks that the advertising dollars are coming from any position other than the far corporate right they are hopelessly confused and economically ignorant. Dollars buy TV and radio time and dollars are in much higher supply on the far right than anywhere else in this country today.

Leaving that line of thinking for a moment it has occurred to me from some of my recent readings of historical biographies how little our founding fathers actually had in common with the great mass of people who populate this country; both in Colonial times and in present times. There was a class structure in the society they came from that was largely inflexible and pronounced. While it may indeed have been less structured than the ones that existed in Europe and Great Britain at the time, it was still a class structure that was much more pronounced than what exists in this country today. In large part, that is because of the foresight of some of these early leaders and their recognition that for a truly Republican government to be effective it would have to be immune from the control of this structure.

Still, almost all of the founding fathers were from the upper middle class. Many of them were second generation wealthy as in most cases their immediate forebears had carved a higher standard of living for their children through hard work and good fortune in equal measures. This led to a unique circumstance in which people who were largely a product of the working class were also the new leisured class who were able to devote long hours to study of history, philosophy, and government. This group formed the heart and soul of the Founding Fathers and their unique perspective formed the basis of the first Republican government truly of the people and by the people on the face of this planet.

A few examples are in order here. George Washington, whose father was a land speculator, planter, sheriff and first generation self made man of the ruling class is one example. Washington was educated locally in somewhat less than a classical method but was taught mathematics, history, and sociology as a necessary primer to the duties that he would inherit as a landowner, planter, and leader in the community. In many ways Washington was different than many of his contemporaries in that he actually worked at a trade for part of his early life. Washington was a surveyor for a short period but beyond that he was much more interesting in military advancement than anything else. It must always be remembered that all these interests were simply supplemental to his main income which came from being a large landowner and sometimes absentee planter.

John Adams was a small landowner and largely self made man as a lawyer and local politician. While he was not as rich as many of his fellow founders, he was quite a successful trial lawyer and businessman which gave him ample free time for his later political pursuits. He was classically educated and a veritable encyclopedia of knowledge on history, philosophy, and many other scientific pursuits besides.

Thomas Jefferson was a second generation planter and owner of large quantities of slaves. Jefferson derived a steady if insufficient income for his tastes as an absentee planter and landowner for much of his career. He too was classically educated and spent numerous years and endless hours studying all manner of history and philosophy in his young adulthood. While he was early and often a member of political bodies in Virginia at the time he spent the vast majority of his time in contemplation and never could be bothered to put a vast amount of work into either his law business or his many planting concerns. As a member of the House of Burgesses and later Governor of Virginia he was often absent from meetings and on more than one occasion had to be rounded up forcibly by the sergeant at arms to fulfill his duties. Jefferson was endlessly curious about a vast variety of subjects and routinely dropped matters of political or financial importance to rush headlong into the minute study of some new and interesting subject. Jefferson was probably one of the most educated men of his time in a wide variety of fields but his work ethic left much to be desired throughout his life.

James Madison was a son of the largest landowner in Orange County, Virginia. He too was educated in the classics. He attended Princeton University but spent countless hours reading history, philosophy, and political writings of basically every period since the beginning of recorded history. Madison was a practicing lawyer but spent the vast majority of his time in government service while living quite well off of the proceeds of his inherited lands and slaves.

John Jay was the wealthy son of a mercantile magnate in New York. The Jay family came to this country as French Huegenots when France forced the protestants out of their country after the Edict of Nantes. Jay was educated in the classics as well and became a practicing lawyer but the majority of his support came from inherited wealth which gave him the opportunity to immerse himself in politics and nation building.

Benjamin Franklin was not born wealthy but became that way through hard work and good fortune in the printing business. He was basically retired from business at a fairly young age which allowed his expanding interest in politics and the human condition to have free reign for most of his later life. Franklin, who lived much more frugally than most of the founding fathers, was also much more of a believer in the possibilities of the common man’s abilities. I suspect this had as much to do with his upbringing and early training as the relative idleness of most of the founding fathers’ early years did with their eventual outlook.

I could go on in this vein but in the interest of avoiding redundancy I will stop. As anyone can plainly see the one trait that all these men shared was a certain amount of idle time, time that was not an absolute necessity in forging a means of putting food on the table or clothes on their children’s backs. The truly interesting part of this observation is how much spirit of sacrifice and sharing these men shared. While there are of course traces of class distinction in their writings and actions, they were exceedingly liberal in their views on sharing the wealth and spreading prosperity for all. It seems that most of these men well understood the principle that education and economic prosperity for all is a necessary component to a republican form of government.

It really is sad that most conservatives today who espouse to follow the Constitution as written seem to have lost this part of the concept. Perhaps they would be well served to study the actual writings of our founding fathers without the preconceived notion that this country was founded on the principal of the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else. It is interesting how often such people tend towards self justification in all things. After all, if all you have is a hammer it is an unvarnished truism that everything soon begins to look like a nail.