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.

Scots, Scotch, and a little Irish

One of my part time interests is Scotch; not the tape but the whisky. Scotch is as varied and diverse as the people who make it. Scots invented several things I find interesting as a matter of fact; maybe not practical but interesting nonetheless. Scots invented golf, bagpipes, and scotch whisky. I once read that golf is to sports what bagpipes are to music. I would say this is an apt comparison as both are alternately silly and frustrating while still hauntingly interesting.

For several centuries the Scots were the pit bulls of the world. No army worth its salt was without its Scots. The Scots have historically owed allegiance to no one but the clan and had a strange sense of honor that suggested serving as hired cannon fodder, shock troops, and soldiers of fortune in wars around the world was infinitely preferable to bending one’s knee to any man. On battlefields around the world the sound of the bagpipes meant the shit was getting ready to hit the fan and a lot of people were getting ready to meet violent ends. Fleeing poverty, a rigid class system, and perennially bad weather the Scots as soldiers of fortune were both efficient and feared wherever they appeared, and they appeared on battlefields the world over for a couple of centuries.

The Scots have historically been a pain to the rest of the world’s population. Obstinate, unyielding, clannish, and completely unfathomable to most every other race or group; the Scots have long been both the butt of jokes and the point of the sword. The English who are actually a bastard race of Angles, Saxons, Welsh, and Normans have on numerous occasions been so perplexed with what to do with the Scots that their best solutions have usually involved exporting them. First, they exported them to Ireland in an effort to repatriate that island with an English influence. This actually served to kill two birds with one stone; it got many of the Scots out of Northern England and it gave the Irish someone else to fight with besides the English. There is an old Irish saying that the only reason the Irish are still fighting amongst themselves is because they can’t find any other worthy opponents. The Scots seem to be an exception to this rule as Northern Ireland was emigrated with Scots by the English. The idea the English had was similar to the modern method of dealing with fire ants. One way to do this is to take some ants off of one hill and dump them on a nearby but separate hill. The fire ants will instantaneously begin to try to wipe each other out. While it seemed a good idea and is still actually bearing fruit in Northern Ireland as the Catholic and Protestant factions still fighting there today are actually the descendents of the Irish and the Scots respectively. To the horror of the English the two groups started to intermarry and produce a hybrid batch of even more fierce and obstinate fighters; the Scots-Irish.

The Scots-Irish were many of the earliest settlers in the North American Southern colonies. Pennsylvania, the Carolina piedmont areas, and later Georgia were their starting points in this country. Pennsylvania welcomed them until they found they were impossible to control as they spread ever westward onto new lands and began causing numerous problems with the Native American Indian tribes the colony had historically cooperated with. Spreading quickly across the unsettled western lands of the colonies, they were historically on the forefront of the frontier, unwilling or unable to abide by rules not of their own choosing they pushed all the way into Georgia where many of them came in as indentured servants released from debtor’s prisons in return for a term of servitude. They steadily progressed across the southeast and out to the western United States, always on the edge of civilization. Violent, vindictive, and unyielding they have historically been at the forefront of American armies and the leading edge of new settlements. Anyone who has ever felt a chill at the sound of bagpipes may have some of that blood coursing through their veins. Marked by an abundance of pride and a tendency towards vigilantism the Scots-Irish often became the face of frontier America.

Several years ago I began to take an interest in Scotch Whisky. I don’t claim to be an expert but I do claim to be an avid consumer. The first thing to understand about Scotch is that there are many different grades, flavors, and types. Single malts are made entirely of barley malted entirely from one distillery as opposed to blended Scotch which is often blended from several different vats. As a rule of thumb, single malts are usually better in quality and taste.

Scotch is somewhat like wine in that it tends to take on the flavor of the land from which it springs. Water and soil mixtures flavor the barley from which it is distilled as well as the water which is used to make the whisky itself. It is something of a matter of personal taste as to what it good scotch vs. not so good scotch but I will list a few of my favorites and not so favorite.

1) Oban- Oban comes in several different ages as do most Scotch Whiskeys. Oban is from the west coast town of Oban. It comes from one of the smaller distilleries with only two pot stills on site. If you want to taste a good single malt, I recommend Oban highly. It is a little pricey but you get what you pay for with this one.

2) Aberlour- Aberlour comes in several different agings and several different types of casking combinations. The twelve year old variety is my favorite so far and is a little less pricey than Oban; but with the same kind of distinct flavor. Aberlour comes from the town of Aberlour near Speyside, Scotland where the rivers Lour and Spey cross. The uniqueness of the climate and water makes for a smooth and distinct flavor; well worth the cost and a pleasure to drink.

3) Famous Grouse- Famous Grouse is a blended scotch, made primarily from a combination of Glennrothes, Highland Park Single Malt, and Macallan Single Malt. It is a very interesting blend; relatively inexpensive but smooth and easy to drink. Maybe it says something of my own Scots-Irish nature that my standby every day Scotch is a cheaper blended whisky but this is a good one if you are on a budget.

4) Macallan Single Malt- Macallan is a premium single malt that I personally think is something less than good. I much prefer the Famous Grouse above to its more expensive ingredient of this single malt. Somewhat of a fruity taste and a harsher alcohol taste are it’s signature as far as I can tell.

5) Balvenie- Another Speyside Single malt. The distillery is based in Dufftown, Scotland. If you are going to buy a single malt I wouldn’t recommend this one. A little less fruity than the Macallan’s but without the smoothness of Aberlour, I would say it is a little better than Macallan’s and a little worse than the Famous Grouse…. But then I don’t claim to be an expert.

6) Glen Moray- Another Speyside Single malt. Glen Moray started life as a brewery and was later converted to a distillery. It fell into disrepair and hard times as the owners concentrated more on Aberlour but was at some point purchased by Glenmorangie. I recently bought a bottle at a bargain price and would recommend it highly. Not as good as Aberlour or Oban, it is nonetheless better than many of the more expensive single malts listed above.

7) Glenmorangie- A single malt having the distinction of the tallest stills in Scotland. Glenmorangie is made in Tain, Rosshire, Scotland whatever that means. It is a smooth whisky with a somewhat fruity taste. I would rate it lower than it rates itself but if you like a fruitier taste it would probably be an excellent choice.

8) Speyburn Single Malt- I recently purchased a bottle of this single malt at a bargain basement price. I was rewarded with what was described as a full bouquet smell of apple when I opened the bottle. If you want to smell apples go to the farmer’s market. If you want a bouquet buy flowers. Speyburn resembles many things; unfortunately one of them is not Scotch. I actually tried to carry it back and when they wouldn’t take it back I told them to just pour it out. Paint thinner might not have its bouquet or “nose” but it probably tastes as much like Scotch.

Focus on the Family?

There seems to be a lot of commotion about an upcoming TV commercial on the Super Bowl. In the first place, I can hardly see why there is such interest in a commercial at all, much less one that will be shown during the Super Bowl. We have already been inundated with commercials during this spectacle that pretty much prove that American advertisers have both a dearth of originality and writing talent so it seems that one more bad commercial isn’t going to really hurt anyone. This particular commercial however seems to be stirring up quite a controversy. It seems that Tim Tebow and his mother have made a commercial for the Focus on the Family group. Rumor has it that the Tebow’s commercial will push the pro life agenda.

As far as I know, no one has seen the commercial yet but there isn’t much doubt about the message. The Tebows are well known and unapologetic fundamentalist Christians so it is hardly surprising that they would make such a commercial with such a well known right wing fundamentalist group. They have every right to push their agenda and if a wealthy activist group like Focus on the Family wants to bankroll them in this effort more power to them. Since one of the more recent commercials during the super bowl featured a horse farting into the face of two occupants of a carriage behind him, I think we can hardly rule out anything on the basis of good taste as far as the Super Bowl commercials go.

In the interest of putting the proper descriptive term to the Focus on the Family Group I decided to do a little research on the group itself. Some of what I found explains why so many people are getting upset at the idea; it isn’t the message as much as it is the messenger. In the first place the name Focus on the Family is a misnomer to start with as their own website points out:

Mission Statement:
To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.

While it could be argued that this mission statement at least contains the word family it seems that the “focus” is actually on the Holy Spirit and sharing the Gospel. The “family” in this case only exists because God ordained it to be so and is secondary to promoting biblical truths worldwide. In modern times the Church is often seen as the sponsor of marriage but this is in fact a fairly recent development as the Christian church for much of its history deemed marriage to be at best a secondary institution that was both spiritually less fulfilling and less pleasing to God than celibacy. Reading the writings of Jerome and Augustine it becomes obvious that the early church saw marriage as something of a lesser sin, a necessary evil; but the Church itself didn’t stoop to dirtying its hands with marriage vows until much later. As a matter of fact up until the ninth century marriages were not church involved in any way. It wasn’t until the thirteenth century that vows were exchanged in a church building and religion itself was interjected into the marriage ceremony sometime after that so it is plain to see from history that the Christian church is not the source of marriage or the family.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a truth that Focus on the Family is either unaware of or desperately seeking to cover up. At any rate, the focus of this group on family is secondary to its focus on spreading the gospel. If you doubt this consider the following quote from their website:

Guiding Principles:
Since Focus on the Family's primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a practical outreach to homes, we have firm beliefs about both the Christian faith and the importance of the family.

Remember this is how Focus on the Family defines their principles, it isn’t my interpretation. It seems that the cat gets out of the bag pretty quickly when you read their literature. Focus on the Family is an evangelical group with a decided political involvement which is probably why so many of the Free Choice groups are a little upset that they are advertising during the Super Bowl, no matter what particular message they are pushing in this commercial. Maybe it would be interesting to see how Focus on the Family has used their considerable influence in the past to see what their real agenda might be.

Focus on the Family is the brainchild of James Dobson who created the organization in 1977. Mr. Dobson is an author whose earliest work, “Dare to Discipline”, was a work that glowingly praised the use of corporal punishment at a time when most child experts were calling for more lax methods of discipline. The success of this book led Mr. Dobson to retire from his position as assistant professor at USC and write full time. Soon after he found a way to reach a wider audience and formed “Focus on the Family” with himself as the founder and chief executive officer. At the end of 2008 this organization had a 160 million dollar a year business and Mr. Dobson’s political influence was a well known fact as he worked closely with the younger Bush during his glory years and regularly supported and pushed for even more right wing agendas amongst national candidates.

As a 501 3c tax exempt corporation Focus on the Family is not supposed to directly advocate any particular political candidate even though their magazine, Citizen, is exclusively devoted to politics. Focus on the Family headquarters is based in Colorado Springs, Colorado on an 81 acre complex which has its own zip code. Dobson employs some 1300 people and sends out over 4 million pieces of mail each month. He is heard on some 6300 radio stations worldwide every day with an audience estimated at 200 million people. He is seen on some 80 television stations in the US every single day and sends out news alerts to over 104,000 activists each day through his Focus Citizen’s Link email system. Clearly, Mr. Dobson’s organization is influential, both within his listener base and within the political parties that he lobbies. While he has predominantly worked for the election of conservative Republicans they can sometimes feel his wrath as well.

In 1996 six contenders for the Republican nomination visited Colorado Springs in search of Mr. Dobson’s support. Dole, who was eventually the Republican candidate that year, incurred Mr. Dobson’s wrath by attempting to soften the anti-abortion plank in the platform at the convention. Mr. Dobson reacted by throwing his support behind Howard Phillips of the US Taxpayer party. Phillips’ campaign statements ranged from the misinformed to the patently absurd during the campaign. He suggested the Clintons were guilty of murder, linked the deterioration of the American family to “the liberation of the wife from the leadership of the husband”, and finally compared Reagan’s treatment of the Soviet Union to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany. Presumably, anything short of an all out nuclear blitz would be coddling of the commies according to Mr. Phillips.

In 1998 Mr. Dobson wrote a letter to one of the candidates he had helped put in office, Rep. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma listing his legislative demands: cutting off government funding to Planned Parenthood and other “pro-abortion organizations,” eliminating “so-called safe-sex and condom distribution programs,” passing parental consent laws pertaining to both abortion and contraception, banning human cloning, ending funding of fetal tissue research programs, and defunding the National Endowment for the Arts. He also voiced support for government funding of religious education via school vouchers, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, and a ban on so-called “partial-birth abortion.” As ridiculous as much of this sounds, it is worth noting that the GOP agreed to hold floor votes on these issues that same year.

Also in 1998 Mr. Dobson appeared in a political commercial and officially endorsed Randall Terry in his bid for a seat in the US House of Representatives. Terry is the founder of the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. His sterling character that Mr. Dobson admires so much was on display during a 1989 rally against a Boulder, Colorado family health clinic when he publicly prayed for the assassination of the clinic’s doctor. In a later speech Mr. Terry further expressed his views by threatening abortion providers in this excerpt from one of his speeches:

“When I or people like me are running the country, [abortion providers] better flee because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you.”

Presumably, Mr. Terry would wait until after such a possibility becomes the law of the land but one never knows for sure when dealing with people of his ilk who propose to know the will of God. Let us hope that “people like him”, and I am including Mr. Dobson in this generalization, never get to the point where they are running the country.

Mr. Dobson also seems to have a predilection for homophobia which displays itself in various ways in both his writings and those of the candidates he prominently supports. In his 2004 book “Marriage Under Fire”, Dobson likens proponents of gay marriage to the Nazis:

“Like Adolf Hitler, who overran his European neighbors, those who favor homosexual marriage are determined to make it legal, regardless of the democratic processes that stand in their way.”

Really? While this is kind of a world winning stretch of logic from most reasonable people’s point of view seeing that Hitler was bent upon founding a superior race, conquering the world, and eliminating a whole race of people from the face of the earth while the people Mr. Dobson are referring to are simply asking for equal rights under our system; it is fairly typical of much of the logic one will find in his writings. Presumably God whispered this in his ear one night when he was fervently praying for the survival of the family or maybe it was the same night God told Bush to take Hussein out; one can never be sure about such things unless he is a religious zealot in direct contact with an all knowing being.

Since the early 2000’s this predilection seems to be at the center of many of Mr. Dobson’s efforts. He has put great effort into pushing for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Unfortunately, he seems to have been otherwise occupied while classes concerning what the Constitution actually contains were being held at the learning institutions he attended. Perhaps he was listening to a voice from above at the time but he seems to have missed the point of how responsibilities are divided amongst the three branches, judicial, legislative, and executive. Otherwise he probably wouldn’t have made the following statement at an October Mayday for Marriage rally on the Mall in Washington, DC. In an attempt to explain to tens of thousands of supporters that day how marriage could be saved by means of a housecleaning in the US Senate he uttered the following:

“We can’t get our hand on the courts…. They’re out of reach. They’re unaccountable. They’re un-elected. They’re arrogant. They’re independent. They are imperious and they think they rule this country… We can’t reach the court, but we can reach the Senate, and we can do that on November the second. I urge you to remember in November… We must change the make-up of the Senate. We must get the Senate to limit the power of the court, one way or another. We must turn out the vote.”

I am at a loss as to what he meant by getting the Senate to limit the power of the court but then again I am not privy to daily revelations from an all knowing being. He is right about one thing. The court is un-elected. After that I am afraid his speech kind of degenerated into the same kind of logic that equates homosexuals to Hitler. Mr. Dobson has a special affinity for candidates who agree with this agenda. As a matter of fact, they seem to have a kind of one-upmanship quality to their speeches in describing the horrors contemplated by gay people who dare to ask for equal rights under the system. Witness this excerpt from a speech by Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn at a meeting of GOP leaders:

“The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power…. That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sex partners? That’s a gay agenda.”

Infiltrated? How do you suppose they did that? By getting elected? Those decadent gays are the rationalization for abortion as well it seems. I wonder if Mr. Coburn would think it is ok to abort gay babies; especially since they are the greatest threat to freedom we face today. If that is the case, the world can breathe easier and we can quit worrying about communists, terrorists, and global warming and just euthanize the gays to protect our freedom and make the world safe for democracy, the family, and Mr. Coburn.

Not to be outdone, Mr. Dobson soon released a speech in support of Mr. Coburn’s assertions that contained the following:

“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage… It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”

Top that Mr. Coburn. I double dog dare you.

Tea Party of the Religious Right?

Being unusually interested in the idea of government of the people, by the people I sometimes find myself drawn to movements who purport to express such sentiments. I would basically define my political leanings as moderate to libertarian, depending on which particular issue I happen to be pondering at the moment. I reserve the right to be proven wrong and jump at the chance to learn something new with the reservation that I don't like smoke being blown up my ass, no matter what particularly fine blend it might happen to be.

Recently I have noticed some excitement over a grassroots movement known as the Tea Party Movement. Portraying itself as a movement of the "we're mad as hell and not going to take it any more" type I have noticed it has a decided leaning to the right of the political spectrum judging by its loudest proponents but as it defines itself as a movement of the people I found the idea interesting. Anything that can stir the American public beyond its lethargy of an American Idol Dancing with the Stars induced coma could be a step in the right direction. Of course the original Tea Party which illegally dumped what in today’s terms would amount to some one million dollars worth of private property into the sea can be construed many ways depending on what perspective you have. Still, it is a little ironic that so many right wing conservatives with their mantra of private property rights would seize upon an incident whereby private property was randomly destroyed to make a political point as the fulcrum upon which to leverage their arguments.

On a recent edition of a local morning talk show that I sometimes listen to I was interested to hear two of the founders of the Tea Party Movement here in Huntsville discussing their movement. One of the basic tenets they were espousing that day had to do with trying to force candidates for office to stand on their principles. In other words, the representative of the group on the show was asking that politicians simply stand up for what they believe in rather than pander to whatever idea seems the most likely to get the most votes. I have long held the opinion that this would be a marked improvement over the way elections are currently carried out so I was interested to learn more about this movement. I was directed to their website to further my education about their purpose.

The website proposed that the purpose of the group was to promote their core principles in each and every level of government:

“fiscal responsibility, limited government, individual freedoms, and the free market system”

I found these principles to be much in line with most of my own core principles so I did a little more perusing of the website. It occurred to me that these principles are about as vague and general as one could possibly get but I liked them just the same. Still, I wonder if a group that is interested in getting a candidate for political office to stand up for his principles would accept these as a statement of his purposes. I decided that if the group was incredibly naïve and vacuous they probably would but most intelligent individuals would require more information about a candidate before deciding whether to throw their support his or her direction. Maybe there is a difference in a candidate and a political group as far as how specific they should be in espousing their principles but I suspect there probably shouldn’t be.

One of the sections of the Huntsville Tea Party website listed books that presumably would further the reader’s understandings of what the movement’s core principles are. After all, if I am being asked to contribute money and support to such a group I would like to know what I am contributing to in a little more detail than such a vague statement of values. An alarm bell went off when I saw some of the books on the recommended reading list. “Original Intent” and “America’s Godly Heritage” by David Barton were the first two that seemed to be noticeably out of place on a website considering “individual freedoms” to be one of their main tenets. I am pretty familiar with Mr. Barton and his ideology. Mr. Barton is founder of a movement known as “Wall Builders” which is dedicated to tearing down the wall between church and state in our constitutional government. His movement seeks to inculcate Christian ideology into our school systems through the means of historical revision and outright deception by numerous dubious and disproven claims among which one is how the Supreme Court has misquoted Jefferson in making its separation of church and state a part of our legal edifice. Mr. Barton himself claims that he received a message from God to study SAT scores and compare the decline in said scores with the removal of religious prayer in public schools. Evidently, God is punishing us for no longer praying in school by making morons out of our children. I presume all the locusts and frogs were too busy elsewhere or he was too busy causing earthquakes in Haiti to punish them for making deals with the devil to remove the French so he just decided to make our children stupid instead. Besides, it would be a more directly cause and affect relationship so that such brilliant oracles as Mr. Barton could more easily make the connection between the terribly devastating effect of removing prayer from school and the fact that our education system is failing. Forget all that stuff about more money and better teachers; just start praying in school again and we will instantaneously turn a failed system back into the shining example of education it was in the good old days.

As far back in history as you care to look you will be hard pressed to find many instances where conservative religious leaders have been champions of “personal freedoms” and it doesn’t appear that they are today either. Mr. Barton’s group lists their goals as follows:

WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.

I suppose this could be construed as championing personal freedom; provided of course you either don’t understand anything at all about what either term actually means or you are simply so ignorant of history that you never heard of inquisitions or dark ages.

The second author on the list is a man named H. L. (Bill) Richardson who is the founder of Gun Owners of America amongst other things. Mr. Richardson is an ex Senator from California who is also the author of “Slightly to the Right” which is somewhat of a conservative primer for taking on the Communists and Socialists amongst us. In June of 2009 he posted the following in a blog in response to a question as to what could be done to correct the political problems we have today:

“No matter what the response, I have to tell them anyway. Why? Because the Scripture tells me that if I know the answer, I should give them an ear full. In Ezekiel 3:18, the prophet Ezekiel was told to inform the people to shape up or else. The Lord commanded him to tell the impudent and stubborn children, both the good and the bad ones, to repent and ask for forgiveness. God told Ezekiel that if he didn't tell them, their blood was on his hands. What was good advice for Ezekiel was meant for all of us today. If we know and don't tell, the blood is on our hands as well.”

Presumably, this message was delivered from something less than a burning bush but with no less authority. Mr. Richardson later in the same blog goes on to describe Darwin as “thoroughly discredited and debunked my modern science, logic and time.” I would surmise that he is also a proponent of the same “intelligent design” theories that Mr. Barton is pushing so hard to have inserted into our public school system. Once again, an agenda that seems somehow diametrically opposed to the core belief of “personal freedom”.

I was concerned to find such rabid Bible thumpers on the Tea Parties recommended reading site but more concerned that the group itself couldn’t seem to recognize the disparity between what they say they promote and the thoughts contained in their recommended reading section so I contacted the local leader of the group via email to point out these discrepancies. This leader was kind enough to respond to my email with an email that included the following:

“The purpose of the Huntsville Tea Party is not at all to promote specific religious agenda. It is to teach, promote, and secure our core principles: limited govt, fiscal responsibility, individual rights, and free market.”

She explained that she hadn’t actually read any of these books but the “core leadership” of the group recommended them. Because this seems to be very much where I started in researching their site I responded by asking how it is possible to promote such an agenda while simultaneously recommending literature which is diametrically opposed to one of these basic principles. I have yet to receive a reply to my last question but I will be glad to pass it on when I do.

It seems that the Huntsville Tea Party is pretty good at saying one thing while simultaneously doing something else. Maybe they should run for office. No wait… I have a better idea; they shouldn’t actually run for office or put an agenda out there so that everyone knows what they stand for because they could easily gain more power by simply telling everyone else who to vote for while simultaneously hiding their own agenda.