Sunday, October 4, 2009

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 6: baiting the race-baiters

While Moby Logic was floundering on the beach, Keely Emerine-Mix also gave me a response that was sincere and halfway intelligent. Coming after so much idiocy from other respondents, it was almost refreshing to read. Her remarks are quoted in my reply shown below.

(Please note, although I meant every word of it, I was deliberately writing in a way designed to elicit a quintessential Intolerista response from someone that will help demonstrate one of my key points. As we shall see in the next post, Joe Campbell was kind enough to oblige.)
Keely Emerine-Mix wrote:
{{ laughing at . . . "Ise Yo' President" while adding another joke . . . about the President's assassination a mere 20 min. after Inauguration -- does tend to convict you. }}

That is one of the most intelligent observations I have read in this V2020 thread. Mrs. Mix is like a breath of fresh air in this discussion. In retrospect I can see why somebody would be offended by both of those jokes and I acknowledge that I was lacking in sensitivity. Please allow me to make amends with the following new joke --

President Obama was visiting an elementary school. One class was in the midst of a discussion about the meanings of words. The president readily agreed when asked if he would like to take a turn leading the discussion, and our great leader requested that the class give him an example of "tragedy."

One boy stood up and volunteered, "If my three-year-old cousin, whose family owns a farm, is playing in the wheat when he is struck and killed by a combine harvester, I think that would qualify as a tragedy."

"No," said Obama, "that would be called an accident."

Next was a little girl's turn: "If a bus full of children careened off a precipice, killing everyone, certainly that would be a tragedy."

The president shook his head. "I can't agree -- that would be called a great loss."

The room fell silent, and nobody else offered an answer.

Obama scanned the room. "Come on, kids, can't any of you give me an example of a tragedy?"

At long last, from the rear of the room a teeny tyke gingerly raised his hand. In a small, hesitant voice he said: "If Air Force One flying with president Obama on board was blasted to bits by a 'friendly fire' missile, that would be a tragedy."

"Excellent example!" effused Obama. "You are correct. And can you explain why that would constitute a tragedy?"

"Well," the boy replied, "it could only be a tragedy, because it sure wouldn't be a great loss and it almost certainly wouldn't be an accident either."

======================

Mrs. Mix continues:
{{ Why don't you . . . condemn Kinism? . . . In fact, why not join millions of other Christians in lamenting the existence of any racism at all, anywhere, at any time? . . . I'd love to know you join me in hating racial prejudice and acknowledging its cancerous effect on this nation. }}

Mrs. Mix, my overriding concern is first of all to be found pleasing to God. I wish to conform my thinking to God's will as revealed in Scripture. I do have a genuine secondary concern to avoid giving unnecessary offense to other people, whether they be inside or outside God's covenant. There is a definite order of priorities there, and I think you and I are in agreement that those priorities are correct. Our job is not to be conformed to the thinking and ways of this world, but rather to be conformed to Christ. Christ was not concerned with winning any popularity contests among the ungodly, but rather was concerned with the truth and with doing His Father's will. Our focus should be the same.

A Christian sect can have some "nutty" features while remaining within the framework of orthodoxy. Kinism, and perhaps some (though definitely not all) of the groups subsumed under the rubric of "Christian Identity," have two important distinctive features that require fellow Christians to deal with them very carefully. First, they seem to manage to stay within the bounds of historical Christianity as regards the great theological and Christological controversies of the past. Now I put the qualifier "seem" in there because there is always an intimate connection between theology and anthropology, so if our doctrine of man is screwed up it will almost certainly tend to be accompanied by a corresponding theological problem, at least implicitly, and it may be that on closer inspection I will be able to discern problems that were not visible at first. Second, they seem to be trying hard to peg all their positions to Scripture, and they try to deal with the entire Bible. Any Christian who wants to criticize them needs to get deep into exegetical and hermeneutical issues.

There was a long time when I would have considered the eschatological position known as Full Preterism (or Hyper-Preterism) to be within the pale of Christian orthodoxy. I am less inclined to do so now, since over time some of the more pernicious implications of their hermeneutic have been coming out. Sometimes problems that are present implicitly come out over time, and sometimes they do not. One could say that by implication both Roman Catholicism (with its praying to Mary and the other saints) is polytheistic. One could say that about Dispensationalism too. However, there are no signs that either Roman Catholics or Dispensationalists are actually drifting into polytheism. Accordingly, it would be unwise to attack either of those groups as polytheists. So I think we need to be a bit patient when dealing with theological controversies. God will make everything clear in due time, and I am working, within my limited capacity, to make things as clear as possible with regard to Kinist doctrines.

In a certain sense, it would be easy to just go along with the world's sense of outrage at such people and condemn them as "haters." But I can't in good conscience do that. I think they are wrong, but I feel it is incumbent upon me to attempt a thorough and decisive refutation that deals with all the pertinent aspects of Scripture. It's a big project. If someone with the wherewithal to do so were to undertake such a project, in the end, I think that neither the Kinists nor the world's popular wisdom concerning racism will be vindicated. However, God would be vindicated. And that is what all parties concerned should be desiring -- that God would be vindicated, always.

Mrs. Mix, you could help me (and many others too, I'm sure) a lot by providing a biblical definition of racism. Not necessarily by pointing to a definitive proof text but at least by drawing on a network of texts to show how God defines racism. Even looking at the Wikipedia article makes it clear that people can't agree on what constitutes racism. Of course, one person (or even no person) plus God is an absolute majority, so if we can get our definition from the Bible, we're good to go. Surely if millions of Christians are lamenting racism, we can biblically define what it is we are lamenting. You know, like the way millions of Christians can define the evil of, say, abortion.

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 5: the "Logician" pulls rank

Joe Campbell couldn't of course actually bring himself deal with the content of anything that I wrote, as he would have to acknowledge that he's wrong. His whale of an ego, and his inability to use simple logic, show through loud and clear in the way that he chose to respond.
You can't tell me, on the one hand, that your monkey jokes aren't offensive and, on the other hand, that you're interested in RATIONAL DISCOURSE. You're interested in pissing people off, period.

As for rational discourse, 250 folks signed up for my logic course at WSU this fall. How many signed up for your class?

Let me know when you want to run up to Spokane and test whether your jokes are offensive or not. I'm ready when you are! Until then, we can assume that you know they are offensive, which is WHY you tell them.

If hiding behind privilege in an effort to insult and harrass minorities doesn't constitute racism, what does?
I let Mr. Campbell, this self-described "logician," know how much I thought of his fallacious reasoning:
Joe Campbell wrote:
{{ You can't tell me, on the one hand, that your monkey jokes aren't offensive }}

That, right there, can be Exhibit A if any of the 250 suckers who signed up for Mr. Campbell's logic course should decide they want to sue him for false advertising. Based on his interactions with me here, I have to conclude Mr. Campbell can't even read a sentence. After committing multiple genetic fallacies and abusive and circumstantial ad hominem errors, as well as association fallacies, Mr. Campbell then turns around and boasts about the number of students in his logic class. Somebody owes 250 ripped-off consumers a full refund.

Now please feel free to move your lips if it aids comprehension in reading this. First of all, I don't have monkey jokes. I don't even have one monkey joke. The monkey joke belongs to Roy Blunt. I am not Roy Blunt. Apparently the joke was a favorite of Mr. Blunt even before Obama became president, which I suppose proves that Blunt's racism is not a recent phenomenon. He must have danced a little jig when Obama got elected because finally, after all these years, he had a real living target in his sights upon which he could discharge his vile racist joke. The moral of the story is, never mention monkeys in a joke, because monkey=Negro and Negro=monkey. That IS your point, is it not, Mr. Campbell? (Proverbs 26:4-5)

{{ If hiding behind privilege in an effort to insult and harrass [sic] minorities doesn't constitute racism, what does? }}

I know it's not polite to answer a question with a question, but if shearing billy goats in an effort to intimidate and frighten Holstein cows doesn't constitute speciousness, what does? I stand guilty as charged, your honor. Off with me head!

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 4: Mixing it up with Moby and his "chum"

Continuing the saga of my online encounter with the intolerant, bigoted mind of Joe Campbell, I answered Ol' Baitbreath here:

The main thrust of my reply was that in today's America, race-baiting and race hustling by people who want to bash whites is a far bigger societal problem than white racism, and I deplored the hypocritical double standards being employed such that racism is virtually by definition a sin that only whites are capable of committing.

In typical Intolerista form, Mr. Campbell simply refused to acknowledge facts that refute his view.

I answered Mr. Campbell and Tom Hansen, another denizen the Vision2020 Pond who had jumped in to help slander with a stupid, baseless comment, as follows --

Joe Campbell wrote:
{{ Sorry for trying to communicate with you. I won't make that mistake again! }}

If you call that diatribe an attempt at communication, It explains a lot. Anytime you are interested in RATIONAL DISCOURSE, just let me know. Next time you might want to focus less on "communicating" and more on writing something that rises to the level of an argument.

Tom Hansen wrote:
{{ Apparently what [he] is trying to say is that it isn't racism if you don't use the N-word. And to paraphrase a supreme court justice . . . "I may not be able to define 'racism', but I know it when I hear it, read it, or smell it." }}

Tell us what racism is, Tom. My Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (1930), despite being large and certainly one of the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language at that time, does not even include the words "racism" and "racist." That's right, the words weren't even in the dictionary as of 1930, despite the fact that today the label "racist" is apparently one of the worst things that can be applied to someone. Today if you label someone a racist you apparently gain the right to look down on that person in scorn, dismissing not only everything that he might have to say, but even dismissing him personally as a human being. And yet, when our parents were children, the word didn't even exist, at least not such that it would qualify for a spot in the dictionary.

Go check out the Wikipedia article on racism.

There are so many competing and conflicting ideas of what exactly constitutes this greatest and most heinous of crimes that it is pretty ridiculous.

I am NOT convinced that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and NOT convinced that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. I am NOT convinced that any one ethnic or racial group is particularly loved or hated by God on account of their physical attributes, and NOT convinced that racial integration is against God's will. I AM married to a person of another race and I would not be surprised if it turned out that I have had far more close contact with poor black people in the United States than anyone criticizing me here has -- since I was actually living under the same roof with some of them prior to leaving the United States -- and yet somehow I'm a "racist."

I'll tell you why I'm a "racist." First of all, I actually have an open mind and am not afraid to give politically incorrect ideas a HEARING. (As opposed to embracing them, mind you -- God gave me a mind and I intend to use it to think for myself.) Second, I do not suffer fools (such as you) gladly. I don't hesitate to point out the hypocrisies and inconsistencies rife throughout the thinking of people who seem to have given up thinking altogether, perhaps because they harbor a fear of being seen as politically incorrect. Pointing out such hypocrisies and inconsistencies is not difficult in today's world. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Something is very wrong when an entire society can be gripped by a nebulous fear and loathing of something that they can't even define, and which just a generation ago did not even exist in the public consciousness. George Orwell had a term for this sort of phenomenon; he called it the "Two-Minute Hate."


I'm well aware that it is often "racists" who are accused of living in such a world, but I think a strong case can be made that people ready to hurl accusations of "racism" at the drop of a hat are no less victims of that very hate-filled mentality. "Who are they?" asks the video. "They" are the racists, apparently. Shout and scream at the screen all you like, Tom. I don't care.

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 3: Moby Dork, a whale of an Intolerista

Picture of Joe Campbell from his faculty page at the WSU website (used without permission)

It turns out that Andreas Shou was just a sideshow act; it took Joe Campbell to really demonstrate the degree of idiocy required for someone to be an Intolerista of the first rank. As you read his comments, remember that these are the words of a professional philosopher who claims to be able to speak with authority about epistemology and logic.
I don't think you'll get very far with the "I'm not a racist" theme if you can't see that jokes about African-Americans being monkeys are not funny. Suppose a joke began with the following. "Darwin was walking with some monkeys -- and by the way, all the monkeys were Christians . . . " I'm sure you'd be offended. And rightfully so. And we're not even mentioning why it might be even more offensive to blacks, given the history of racism in America. So I don't think you are going to convince many people that you're not a racist by defending those monkey jokes. To anyone but your white friends (and maybe your wife), those jokes are clearly racist. That you defend them only shows that you are either racist or clueless. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll have to suppose you're an idiot.

And it won't help if you say that anti-Christian jokes don't bother you. Of course they don't. You want liberals to be offensive, for in your sick little mind they only justify your own insults. But of course that's just the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Nothing justifies your insults.

Give it up. If you're not a racist, you might as well be since you certainly look like one. Go up to Spokane and run around telling those jokes and we'll see how far you get. Let's test your confidence.

Wwjd? He'd tell black monkey jokes!?! Holy crap!
The multiple layers of beetle-browed arrogant stupidity manifested in virtually every sentence of the above rant are the sign of one deeply imbued with the Intolerista spirit.

Who said Roy Blunt's joke was about African-Americans being monkeys? That "fact" is purely a fabrication of Mr. Campbell's mind. The example Mr. Campbell offered to elaborate his point is simply ridiculous: 'Suppose a joke began with the following. "Darwin was walking with some monkeys -- and by the way, all the monkeys were Christians . . . "' That bears ZERO similarity to Roy Blunt's joke. I'll tell you what would have been analogous to the situation surrounding Roy Blunt's joke: Roy Blunt's joke. If we had just elected a conservative Christian to the White House, and some politician had stood up and told Roy Blunt's joke, word-for-word the same, and Christians took offense at that as being an insult to Christians, that would be exactly analogous to actual situation. For a scholar who claims to be well-informed about epistemology and logic to offer a radically different example in an analogy, and for him to simply assume as fact that which needs to be proven, is nothing short of amazing. And it is equally amazing that from beginning to end, nothing Mr. Campbell says in his entire exchange with me is able to rise above that level. How on earth did he manage to get a Ph.D. in philosophy? Based on what he has shown me, the guy would deserve to flunk out of entry-level college courses on epistemology and logic. And yet he's teaching such courses. With such gross incompetence manifested even among college faculty, is it any wonder that many college educations in America today are so substandard that they would be a poor value even if they were given away for free? Life is too short to be wasting four years of it on such junk.

Mr. Campbell writes, "To anyone but your white friends (and maybe your wife), those jokes are clearly racist." First of all, we are not talking about "those jokes." We are talking about ONE joke told by Roy Blunt -- a joke that he was fond of telling even before Obama was elected president. Second, monkeys are probably the type of animal most commonly used to razz politicians in general. A Google image search on the words Bush and monkey turns up more than 2.7 million hits! There is absolutely NO reason to assume any sort of a racial slur was intended by that joke. So contrary to Mr. Campbell's baseless assertion, I would suggest that anyone who hears racism in that joke is seriously in need of spiritual counseling.

As utterly ridiculous as Mr. Campbell has been up to that point, he manages to make things still worse:

"And it won't help if you say that anti-Christian jokes don't bother you. Of course they don't. You want liberals to be offensive, for in your sick little mind they only justify your own insults. But of course that's just the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Nothing justifies your insults."

How about that? He doesn't even need me to say anything in order to engage in a "conversation," because he already knows what I'm thinking. And he has the nerve to tell me I'm guilty -- based on words that HE stuffed in my mouth -- of committing a logical fallacy! Is this guy a piece of work or what? And he harps that "Nothing justifies your insults"; note also that the insults he's referring to are insults that exist only in his mind -- they are insults that he imagines me saying and he excoriates me for them. And this guy is teaching a college course in logic? The mind boggles.

He says, "If you're not a racist, you might as well be since you certainly look like one." In other words, I'm a racist because he thinks I'm a racist.

He concludes his tirade with "Wwjd? He'd tell black monkey jokes!?! Holy crap!"

It's not very holy but it sure is crap. Repeat, for the benefit of college professors with bullet-proof skulls, THE BLACK MONKEY EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR MIND, BOZO.

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 3: the smearbund continues

Not content that I should be smeared only as a racist, Mr. Shou then further upped the ante with this little gem accusing me of anti-Semitism:

To that I responded as follows:

Mr. Schou,

Speaking for myself, I want to try to criticize other people on the basis of positions that they actually hold, rather than attacking straw men. I do not want to violate the ninth commandment when I criticize other people. I don't doubt that I have fallen short of the mark in that department on occasion, but at any rate that is how I try to approach people I disagree with. If you are only interested in insulting and slandering people you dislike, then please feel free to ignore the rest of this post; go ahead and assume whatever you like, putting words into my mouth, misconstruing my statements and my motives, etc. However, if that's not the case -- if you want to actually understand where your opponent is coming from -- then please read on.
  1. I acknowledge that in today's world, charges of racism (whatever that might mean) or sexism (whatever that might mean) or even anti-Semitism whatever that might mean) can be hard to refute because subjective feelings of offense held by an offended party virtually constitute proof of the objectively offensive nature of the behavior. The following link provides one recent example, although many more could be cited.
  2. Apparently the fact that I read and comment at a Kinist blog is taken as evidence that I am a racist, even though I explicitly reject Kinism. According to that sort of logic it would make just as much sense to lump me together with Keely Emerine-Mix. For the record, I visit that site primarily to ask questions and try to understand their whole system, without embracing it. Let me add that although I strongly disagree with much of what they say, they also not infrequently make some very good points. In my opinion, the sort of treatment that David Thompson was subjected to by EGC (the example in 1. above) is simply crazy. The Kinists can provide a seemingly endless list of examples of such Kafkaesque situations relating to race in America today. If the Kinists are wrong on race-related matters, it does not automatically follow that people who oppose Kinists are correct on race-related matters. The whole subject of race is one of the most difficult areas to discuss rationally in America today; everybody is dragging around so much baggage that it is really rare to find clear, dispassionate thinking on race-related issues. As a Christian, I'm still trying to figure out where "race" fits into God's scheme for things; I am acutely aware of the need to keep an open mind and consider various views on the subject. I'm not going to reject out of hand EVERYTHING a politically incorrect person says simply because some of what they say is wrong or because the source of the information is "tainted."
  3. As to the charge that I am a racist, I wonder whether you are aware that I am married to a person of a different race. I have been advised by Kinists that if I ever want to become a Kinist, the first thing I need to do is divorce my wife and send her and the mongrel kids "away."
  4. Since I never mentioned it, there is no way you could be aware that in a previous life I operated a shelter in the middle of a poor black neighborhood that took in troubled (mentally ill, destitute, etc.) people referred to me by the city's social care workers. I lived under the same roof and broke bread with black people (along with people of other races), some of them with really serious issues, more or less continually over the course of two years.
  5. As to the charge of anti-Semitism, for whatever it might be worth, I should point out that I have close relatives who are Jewish; we get along just fine and I am not aware of harboring any animosity toward Jews on account of their Jewishness. I do have serious misgivings about Zionism, but then so do many Jews. Your accusation that I think "Jews are the enemy of God" is simply false; I emphatically deny thinking that Jews are THE enemy of God. I believe that ALL MEN who have yet to come to faith in Christ are in a condition of enmity with God. That would include Jews but not in any special sense. I view the apostasy of Christians, such as my own mother, with far more concern than I do any Jew.
  6. Because of point 1. above, I am aware that points 2. through 5. may mean nothing: I could still be a "racist, sexist anti-Semite" because somebody else took offense at something I said. Frankly, I gave up caring a long time ago. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.
  7. As an example of 6. above, perhaps somebody might have taken offense that I said the Nazis got a bum rap. Please note well, that is not the same as saying the Nazis did not do any of the things they have been accused of. (I made that quite clear in the statement you misquoted.) However, it remains true that the Nazis have been widely accused of things that they never did. For example, for nearly half a century they were accused of having massacred something in the neighborhood of 25,000 Poles in 1940, when in fact that was actually committed by the Soviets. The USA and the U.K. were deliberately complicit in hiding the truth until the Soviets themselves finally admitted the truth in 1990. And that is hardly the only example of lies that have been told, and continue to be told, about the Nazis. I rejoice that Hitler is and shall always be tormented in eternal damnation. He deserves every bit of his eternal punishment. But I fail to see why it is necessary to perpetuate lies and distortions about ANYONE, including the Nazis. They were plenty bad enough for what they actually were, and what they actually did, without any need to paint them as worse than they really were. I also think it is disgusting that some Jews have produced fake Holocaust memoirs that they attempt to pass off as factual, and that some Jews have managed to turn the Holocaust into an industry from which they make a very nice living indeed, thank you. The Nazis were human beings JUST LIKE US and that should scare all of us. One reason why fastidious adherence to the truth, without embellishment or exaggeration, is so important is that failure to do so can play into the hands of genuine haters who want to paint the Nazis as "the good guys" and who think that all the world's problems would somehow just disappear if every last Jew could only be killed.
  8. Regarding Qaddafi, I never said that I agree with him. I do not agree with him. However, given that the police work surrounding the JFK assassination was so terrible as to be criminal in its own right, and given that the Warren Commission's investigation was somewhat of a fiasco, we really cannot say with any confidence that JFK was assassinated the way the Warren Report claimed it was. Under the circumstances, Qaddafi's guess is as good as anyone's. We have the U.S. government to thank for that.
  9. Regarding Iran's nukes, I was glad to see that Obama got rid of the missile shield over Poland that was ostensibly supposed to be protecting from Iranian missiles. That whole thing was an unwarranted provocation of the Russians and the fact that the shield project was dropped simply proves that it never had anything to do with Iran in the first place. However, I worry that as part of the deal Russia may have agreed to allow Israel to take some sort of military action against Iran in the near future. This prospect really bothers me; I consider the United States and Israel to be the two big trouble-making bullies on the block, not that any other country one might care to mention deserves our praise as a paragon of national virtue. Relatively speaking, however, we can say two things. 1) Iran has been repeatedly shat on by the USA. Considering all the harm that we did to their country, the Iranian people as a whole are remarkably amicably disposed toward the American people. Pat Robertson and his ilk could learn a thing or ten from the Iranians. 2) In matters nuclear, Iran is playing by the rules. It has signed the NPT, has informed the IAEA of its nuclear facilities (which are entirely legal in the context of international law), and is allowing inspections. Contrast that with Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them anywhere in the Mideast, has never signed the NPT, and has refused repeated requests from the IAEA and the United Nations to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran is playing by the rules and Israel is not.
So if this be racism/sexism/anti-Semitism, then I say make the most of it. Let the people who take offense over words like "niggardly," or over political monkey jokes that have been told for years and suddenly become off limits because we've got a black president in the White House, etc., stew in their own juices. I agree with the sign at the Tea Party: "It doesn't matter what this sign says; you'll call it racism anyway."

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 2: a typical Intolerista smearbund

One of the hallmarks of an Intolerista is that key rules of argumentation, necessary for civilized discourse, are tossed out the window. There will be serious illogicality, hurling of abusive insults, lack of impartiality, resentment of those holding opposing views, egotism, ignoring (or downplaying) of areas of agreement or areas deserving approval, use of generalizations without substantiation, and failure to define key terms. Indeed, rather than making a sincere attempt to interact with someone's actual views, or indeed even to ascertain them, the Intolerista will frequently try to smear an opponent as crazy and/or evil so that he can be summarily dismissed. Any "sound bite" or any "factoid" that can cherry-picked and misconstrued without regard for context is gleefully presented as evidence that the opponent is a person whose views are beneath contempt.

We see all of the above in the recent posts attacking me (and Rev. Wilson, and by implication the other members of Christ Church) on Vision2020.

Andreas Shou kicked off the smearbund by saying that googling me would turn up a "gold-mine of racism." As evidence of this, and alleged "proof" that I am a Kinist, he offered:

"This is one white man who can do just fine without swastikas . . . I have to reject those symbols as somehow representative of me as a Christian white man because of their connections with the Nazis. Although the Nazis have gotten a bum rap there was far too much in Nazi ideology that is detestable for the Christian."
and
"I don't know if I'd call 'em "niggerisms" [i.e., the ridiculous, even sacrilegious things some Christians do in worship] but whatever they are I'm praying for a total meltdown of the electrical power grid in their part of the country every time they gather for "whoreship."
In other words, the "gold-mine of racism" offered as evidence that I'm a Kinist are the following:
  1. The fact that I made comments at a Kinist blog
  2. The fact that I said the Nazis got a bum rap (by which I meant they have been charged with doing things that they didn't do, such as the Katyn Forest Massacre)
  3. The fact that I quoted, without approval, another person's use of the word "niggerism"
The fact that I explicitly rejected Nazi ideology as detestable to Christians is apparently not a mitigating factor in Mr. Shou's eyes. Even more serious than that, however, is Mr. Shou's decision to omit the following comment by me at the same blog:
"I'm still waiting for someone to invest the effort required to do an adequately nuanced critique of various "racist" perspectives. That's one reason I hang around here and ask questions . . . I should hate to think that I'm the only person in Christendom who is critical of Kinism and yet willing to take the trouble to actually identify my target before squeezing the trigger. "
What kind of a person ignores a statement like that in order to describe the target of his criticism as a Kinist? An Intolerista, that's who. It's a standard modus operandi of the Intoleristas: if there is any evidence that clearly contradicts your attempted smear of your opponent, simply ignore it.

I should add that Mr. Shou's statement "Wilson ended up disclaiming 'kinism' when it got politically inconvenient, but it looks like some kinists keep running around defending him" reveals more about Mr. Shou's lack of character than about either Rev. Wilson or myself. Doug Wilson has always had problems with Kinism and to suggest that he only distanced himself from Kinism as a matter of political expediency is to lie.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Palouse whale sightings

The resident pod of bottom-feeding Intolerista whales has been seen surfacing lately in the polluted waters of Vision2020 Pond. Even from a safe distance they can be readily identified -- visually, aurally and olfactorily -- by their characteristic spouts of bellowing bilgewater directed at the “racism” and “hate-mongering” they perceive among any and all creatures different from themselves.

Recently one particularly large and aggressive bull, a prideful beast that has been given its own taxonomical name of Philosopher macrogluteus var. Joecampbellii on the suspicion that it might be a separate species, has been bemusing observers by antics that seem, frankly, to be downright retarded. To varying degrees such bizarre behavior tends to be characteristic of all Intolerista whales; no doubt part of the cause for this peculiar behavior is found in the polluted waters that Intolerista whales favor as their habitat. Indeed, the more the Intolerista whales remain in any one area, the more polluted the waters become, and eventually the buildup of toxins apparently leads to serious brain damage in these fetid cetaceans.

My next few posts shall be devoted to a description of the recent sightings and observations of these strange creatures and their pathologies.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Thoughts on homeschooling

This post is in response to a query from a correspondent. I’m going to throw out some random, perhaps somewhat rambling, thoughts on homeschooling. I’m sure that other people’s mileage may vary but I hope these thoughts are found to be of some help.

  • No-brainer: homeschooling not for everyone, but for most it beats government schools handily

I don’t think homeschooling is a panacea; almost everyone I know who has done homeschooling has been successful with it, but I do remember meeting one family doing homeschooling where I thought the kids were likely to turn out messed up. However, I never did any follow-up with them so I can’t say for sure. Even if the children of that one family did turn out messed up, my personal experience and observations tell me that the success rate with homeschooling is extremely high -- close to 100% (depending on how you define success) -- and statistically speaking it is a far better bet than gambling your kids’ future on government schooling. Part of that may simply be a reflection of the fact that parents who homeschool are a "self-selected" group which tends to have attributes that give their kids an advantage where educational matters are concerned. I think there is that aspect but I think there is also more to it than that. I think that generally speaking the homeschooling environment is inherently healthier for children than the kind of environment a child is likely to encounter in the government-run schools.

(I’m talking primarily with Christians in mind because I don’t have any non-Christian acquaintances who homeschool. I’m sure the number is growing but I have not had a chance to get to know any of them yet.)

  • Every educational system has as its aim the creation of a certain kind of adult. What kind of an adult do you want your child to become?

For the Christian the primary objective of education is to pass on the faith to the next generation. For the Christian, if we fail in that department then everything else is pretty irrelevant. (For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?) Of course, the modern American government school is just about the worst environment for a Christian to put his kids in if he wants to see them educated from a Christian perspective. Here in Japan, where I live, the government-run schools are not nearly as bad academically as America’s have become, but the main problem from the Christian parent’s perspective remains the same: the schools have a very insidious ability to undermine a child’s Christian faith.

The reason for this insidious ability is not because the schools openly attack the God of the Bible. Rather, it is because they simply ignore God. In ignoring God they claim to be preserving religious neutrality. However, the Christian faith itself is largely irrelevant if it is even possible to give a child a proper education without continually bringing God into the picture. There ought to be distinctly Christian perspectives on every aspect of learning, and when a Christian child goes through the government school system where just about everything is taught without any reference to God, the child is powerfully imprinted with an unspoken message that is seriously harmful to maintenance of the Christian faith: "Child, your religion is for the most part irrelevant to living in this world – see, we can do ALL THIS STUFF without God!" As a result of going though such an education, almost all Christian children become CINOs -- Christians in name only -- at least as far as their thinking and activity on a day-to-day basis in this world is concerned. I have seen numerous reports over the years all giving jaw-dropping numbers on the rate at which children of evangelical Christians fall away from the faith by the time they reach adulthood. Some have said the number is as high as 80% -- nearly eight out of ten Christian children turn away from the faith by the time they become adults. Such things are not entirely unheard of among homeschoolers, but the rate is far lower.

That’s the main reason why my wife and I decided to homeschool our children in Japan, even though the academic level of Japanese schools is not bad and the language was not a problem for us (I’m American and my wife is Korean but Japanese is her first language and my Japanese ability is near native speaker level.) Other, secondary factors entering into our decision included 1) the fact that by homeschooling we could give them a more bilingual education than would have been possible in most schools, and 2) by homeschooling we would be able to afford to raise a larger family.

  • Homeschooling without government interference: grateful for relative freedom in Japan

Because we are foreigners, the Japanese government could care less how we educate our kids. Total freedom! Believe me, every time I read about how homeschoolers around the world are abused by their local governments I thank God that we were able to "fall through the cracks." (Anyone with an opportunity to fall through the cracks should do so. Get in that crack and stay there! Happy is the man who lives beneath the government’s radar.) Despite the fact that homeschooling is technically illegal in Japan, my Japanese friends who homeschool have had experiences with local school and government officials that range from "only mildly annoying" to "totally cool." I think one of the worse cases was that of one of my friends who is fined 1,000 yen per child per year for failing to send them to an approved school. 1,000 yen is roughly US$10, so it is basically a symbolic slap on the wrist. I have no idea how that was decided; I think it was an entirely discretionary, arbitrary act on the part of some petty local official. A typically Japanese solution . . . whilst American bureaucrats might be sticklers for enforcing the letter of the law, Japanese bureaucrats are often happy to treat rules with some flexibility and as long as nobody loses face in the process, people will be left with a considerable degree of freedom to go their own way.

  • The United Nations and hostility to homeschooling

Governments are weird -- Japan is a country where homeschooling is technically illegal and yet apparently just about anyone can do it with only minor annoyances; contrast that with the situation of the Johannson family in Sweden, whose son was taken away by the police despite the fact that homeschooling is supposedly legal there. Generally speaking, Japanese police and bureaucrats are not nearly as noxious in the way they deal with individual people in the society as their Western counterparts are. (I used to own several guns in Japan -- legally -- and when I decided to relinquish my firearms license a few years ago the local police argued with me, trying to get me to change my mind and continue owning guns!)

Because the legal situation surrounding homeschooling in each area can vary, anyone contemplating homeschooling should familiarize himself with the current legal status of homeschooling in their area. One might decide to homeschool even if it is technically illegal, as here in Japan, but one needs to make an informed decision based on the circumstances that actually apply in his own situation.

Some United Nations’ documents that might be of interest:

Convention on the Rights of the Child (especially articles 28 and 29)

Convention against Discrimination in Education

I’m not a legal expert, but it is my understanding that in Japan, the concept of compulsory education is such that THE GOVERNMENT is seen as having an obligation to provide every child with an education (up to the age of 16). In other words, every child under the age of 16 has a legal claim on the government whereby he can demand that the government provide him with an education at no charge. The implications of this for the homeschooling parent include the fact that if the parent decides to homeschool a child even though the child WANTS to be attending a conventional school, the government’s position is that the parent is violating the child’s right to avail himself of the government’s educational services.

The flip side of this, however, is that if it is the child who rejects the government’s educational services (preferring instead to do homeschooling), the parents cannot be said to be violating the child’s rights by doing homeschooling.

In other words, it is my understanding that in Japan the "compulsion" in "compulsory education" is on the government rather than on the child. Up to the age of 16, the child has a right to avail himself of government schooling but no obligation to do so. The state has an obligation to make government schooling available to the child but no right to demand that the child partake of it.

I heard the above from Japanese homeschooling parents who were trying to legally adopt a child who had been placed in their care after his Chinese parents decided not to take the child (then just a baby) back with them to China because China’s one-child policy meant they would be subject to severe penalties upon returning to China from overseas with a second child. The family court judge in charge of the family’s case advised them to withdraw their request to adopt the boy until he became older, and the reason given was the fact that they had decided to homeschool the boy. The judge told them that if he was forced to issue a judgment he would have to judge against them because the fact that THEY rather than the CHILD had opted to do homeschooling, the parents were violating the child’s rights. He added that if it had been the child who refused to go to school and insisted on doing homeschooling, he would be able to judge in the family’s favor and grant the adoption because they could not be said to be in violation of the child’s rights.

I mention that because the judge in question was apparently basing his views upon the way Japan interprets the two United Nations’ conventions referred to above, and since the USA is a signatory of those conventions as well, this perspective may be relevant.

I take it as self-evident that homeschooling will be more likely to succeed and less likely to run into trouble with the local authorities if not only both parents but also the children involved are unanimous in their support of the decision to homeschool.

By the way, I have never met a homeschooled child who struck me as lacking in social skills or "socialization" or whatever people care to call their worry that homeschooled children might somehow lose the ability to function effectively as members of a group, on account of having been homeschooled. I can cheerfully confirm that that is a myth and not something that anyone needs to worry about. Numerous studies have been done and none of them found any difficulties in that department. (The single family whose future prospects for success with homeschooling that I worried about had kids with pretty atrocious social skills, but I suspect they would have been no better in that department if they had been attending conventional schools. Some people are just like that.)

  • Major approaches: "Enrolled distance learning," independent use of pre-packaged curricula, "roll your own," local/online tutors, self-study . . .

For the most part, a would-be homeschooler in the USA has numerous advantages over homeschoolers in Japan. There is now a full-fledged homeschooling industry in the USA with many curricula from which to choose. In fact I think the range of materials and options available to homeschoolers in the USA can be rather daunting. Japan does not have that yet, but that lack is partially offset by Japan’s cram school industry. Basically, these schools serve as tutors to help students pass standardized tests and the entrance exams for various schools and universities. There are many nationwide chains as well as smaller local operations and probably every student in Japan is within an easy commute of such a school. Many of the schools have correspondence courses where the student studies on his own and answers the assigned questions which are emailed or faxed to the school for grading. There are also many video and DVD courses, and even Japan’s government-run television station, NHK, has numerous educational television programs to augment conventional school courses. Every major bookstore in Japan has a section where the texts for the private-sector and public sector "cram school" materials are sold. So basically there are numerous ways for the Japanese homeschooler to skin the cat of getting an education. Some make heavy use of curricula in English from overseas, some make heavy use of the materials available in Japanese, and some combine the two.

  • For the Christian homeschooler, the Bible is the starting point of all education

My wife and I decided to just "wing it." For us as Christians, we felt very strongly that homeschooling is a very "natural" and "organic" extension of family devotions, whereby we pray and sing and study the word of God together as a family each day. The Bible gives us our basic frame of reference for pretty much everything else so it formed the core and starting point of our education.

Deuteronomy chapter 6 provides what I consider to be the most fundamental verses in the Bible concerning education of children.

The whole chapter, from beginning to end, is relevant. It is not long. It is rich in insights into education, from various angles. Note who is doing the saving -- God, and God alone -- and there is no mention of the State as savior anywhere. Indeed, God is presented as saving His people FROM the divinized State in the form of Pharaoh. There is no mention of the State as having a legitimate role to play in education -- none at all. Now in case anyone might be inclined to dismiss that by saying something like "Well of course not -- the ancient world had yet not been enlightened enough to see that the State has an important role to play in education, and as a pre-industrial society they didn’t need much in the way of an education in any case," let me refer such a reader to Daniel chapter 1 which disproves that entirely. The major step in enslaving any people is the enslavement of their minds.

Indeed, in the ancient world, the divinized State, or its god-king, was seen not only as the source of education but of all sorts of social welfare, as represented by the image of Daniel chapter 4 of the god-king as a great tree beneath which all the creatures under heaven gather for shade and to receive sustenance from the fruit therof:

And yet that same chapter shows the one true living God revealing that god-king to be "beastly." And this is affirmed again in Daniel chapter 7; what the god-king Nebuchadnezzar had seen in Daniel chapter 2 as a glorious vision of a mighty man is seen from the biblical perspective in chapter 7: the divinized State is presented as a series of beasts emerging from the sea to ravage the inhabitants of the earth, until they are finally defeated by the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, who establishes His never-ending kingdom based on His personal righteousness.

History, and hence education, is largely a war of competing stories. True stories versus false stories, our stories versus their stories. There is power in our stories; God is the ultimate story-teller; He is the one that everyone else has to imitate, and to the extent that their false stories are able to wield influence, it reflects the degree to which they have managed to imitate Him. As a Christian parent, it is hard to imagine any little kid coming up to me, tugging at my sleeve and saying, "Tell me again the story of how we emerged from the primordial slime." In my opinion, that is a great story to tell if you want to destroy your children’s future.

Here is a great quote from Allan Bloom (writing, ironically, as an unbeliever) from The Closing of the American Mind where he explains the role of the Bible in maintaining cultural cohesion over time:

"My grandparents were ignorant people by our standards, and my grandfather held only lowly jobs. But their home was spiritually rich because all the things done in it, not only what was specifically ritual, found their origin in the Bible's commandments, and their explanation in the Bible's stories and the commentaries on them, and had their imaginative counterparts in the deeds of the myriad of exemplary heroes. My grandparents found reasons for the existence of their family and the fulfillment of their duties in serious writings, and they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material, not from outside or from an alien perspective, but believing as they did, while simply going deeper and providing guidance. There was a respect for real learning, because it had a felt connection with their lives. This is what a community and a history mean, a common experience inviting high and low into a single body of belief.

"I do not believe that my generation, my cousins who have been educated in the American way, all of whom are M.D.s or Ph.D.s, have any comparable learning. When they talk about heaven and earth, the relations between men and women, parents and children, the human condition, I hear nothing but cliches, superficialities, the material of satire. I am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have myths to live by. I mean rather that a life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides the material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things. Without the great revelations, epics and philosophies as part of our natural vision, there is nothing to see out there, and eventually little left inside. The Bible is not the only means to furnish a mind, but without a book of similar gravity, read with the gravity of the potential believer, it will remain unfurnished."

  • High-quality K.I.S.S.

And this brings me to an important point. You don’t need a large number of books to get a good education. A small number of books will do just fine if they are the right books and they are used properly. The library of Harvard University began with just 400 volumes, three-fourths of which were theological works. I’m sure that in many respects, those first students at Harvard, in the late 1630s and 1640s, were better educated than the vast majority of us today. Whilst they could think very clearly, many ostensibly highly educated people today suffer from extremely muddled thinking, despite having access to far more books as well as information through other media.

At its largest point my personal library was about 5,000 volumes but I have downsized it considerably and now I doubt I have more than 2,000 volumes. But actually only a few hundred books have been directly important to our homeschooling.

Each family’s homeschooling is going to be different. I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest to anyone that they must do homeschooling in a certain way, except to point out that for the Christian the Bible must be the most fundamental book in the children’s educational life.

  • How we were led to an approach heavy on self-study, with some assistance from tutors

We drew a great deal of inspiration from the family of Dr. Arthur Robinson, and anyone interested in homeschooling would find his website to be a valuable resource.

Basically, he stressed the fact that all learning is ultimately a self-teaching process, even if supervised by a teacher. The sudden and totally unanticipated death of his wife left Dr. Robinson with a large family of kids needing to be homeschooled, but he was in no position to spoon-feed them so he decided to have his kids study mostly on their own. The approach worked just fine and he decided to share his approach and his curriculum with other people interested in doing homeschooling.

We purchased his curriculum but ended up using very little of it. What we did use was his basic methodology and for that alone the curriculum would have been worth many times the purchase price, at least for us.

We chose not to use most of his curriculum for a few reasons. First, English is the second language of my children, not their first, and we were able to find some materials in Japanese that were of higher quality than their English-language counterparts. (The English materials would have been just fine if we had not had the Japanese materials available.) Also, as Dr. Robinson is a scientist, his curriculum tends to be better for people interested in getting an education geared toward a career in science and engineering. However, all seven of my children are strongly interested in careers as performing artists (classical music), so we decided to gear their educations accordingly.

  • Sometimes, go with the flow: your life circumstances may indicate the best approach for your family

That brings me to another point: in many families the children will, due to hereditary factors or life circumstances, tend more naturally toward certain types of education than toward others. Don’t ask me why my kids all turned out to have a penchant for music; there are musicians in both our families but neither my wife nor I are particularly musical. (Especially me. My wife does have a very good ear and "sense" for music, and I think that with the right education she might have been able to do a lot musically.) But be that as it may, living in a city like Tokyo, if one gets bitten by the bug to pursue musical studies, the opportunities to study music are truly vast. There are many excellent teachers of virtually every instrument in the orchestra within commuting distance for a child, as well as for voice and instruments associated with early music such as the harpsichord, lute, viola da gamba, recorder, etc. I’m sure this is a characteristic of the larger metropolises in the advanced countries of the world. Probably one could find situations of comparable or maybe even greater musical richness in and around major American cities like New York and Chicago, but for someone like me, having grown up in a small town in the USA, the superabundance of good music teachers came as a very pleasant surprise. Life in the city lends itself very well to certain types of education, while other educations are better suited to life in the country. So the kind of education that you can give to your kids will depend a lot on your particular life circumstances. I am firmly convinced that almost any parent, anywhere, can give his or her kids a good education of some sort or another through homeschooling.

  • Even people from disadvantaged backgrounds can successfully homeschool !

If you come from what might be considered (either by your self or by others) to be a disadvantaged background, you might be tempted to think that in your case, government schools are a better choice than homeschooling. After all, they are "free." (Hah!) I'm reminded of a Japanese saying: "The most expensive things in life are 'free'." The last thing a person coming from a disadvantaged background needs is to further compound that disadvantage with government-run education.

I remember 12 years ago we took in a Japanese woman with four children whose husband had abandoned them; while they lived under our roof for one year I helped her get set up as a translator (I have my own translation company) and after they moved out one year later she was not only able to support her family as a translator and English teacher, working out of her home, she was able to successfully homeschool all four of her kids. Today one child works for a major international real estate company, helping foreign companies locate appropriate office and retail space around Japan; one maintains the computers and computer network for an American company in Japan, one is in medical school preparing to become a doctor, and one is majoring in economics at a leading Japanese university.

I mention her case because I think it shows that at least some people can successfully homeschool even under extremely disadvantaged circumstances. This is especially true if one remembers that homeschooling is not necessarily about you sitting there spoon-feeding your kids a complete education all day long. There are also many very successful homeschoolers basing their approach around self-teaching.

My blog post of the other day recommended that South African students plagued by a serious shortage of good teachers should turn to self-study using the Khan Academy, and I am convinced that if a student was eager to learn and had access to the Internet, through Khan Academy virtually anyone anywhere in the world could get an excellent education (or at least a large part of one -- the Bible study would still need to be done separately) free of charge.

Americans considering homeschooling might be interested to learn that I know several Japanese families that have opted to homeschool their children using English curricula, so far with apparent success. In fact, one family, despite the fact that the parents have limited English ability, decided to ban the use of Japanese in their home (although they made sure the kids kept up in their Japanese studies and gave the kids opportunities to speak Japanese outside the home). I lost contact with that family for a few years but a couple months ago I ran into them at a concert and was absolutely stunned by the children’s competence in English. Meeting them for the first time, never in a million years would you suspect that they were not high-level native speakers of English. The two oldest kids are now attending college in the USA and I bet they will both graduate at or near the top of their class.

Perhaps many people worry that they might not be able to homeschool their kids, due to a lack of academic credentials. Homeschooling does require that the parent invest time, but as long as a parent has the willingness and ability to invest that time, even a parent who knows next to nothing about the subjects to be taught can lead children in homeschooling. The sole requirement for a homeschooling parent to teach his or her kids is that the parent learn the same material that the kids are learning, staying one step ahead of them the whole time. Basically, that’s it in a nutshell! This means that even if you’re an unedjumacated ignoramus due to being a product of American government-run education (i.e., if you are a typical modern American), you can still homeschool. Not only that, it means that you can finally give yourself a decent education at the same time!

  • But what if . . . ?

The previous paragraph notwithstanding, it must be admitted that if your kids advance far enough in their education, sooner or later they are going to reach a point where you can no longer teach them. For example, most people who got good grades in calculus class in high school will not be able to teach their own kids calculus. That’s because you tend to forget calculus pretty quickly if you don’t use it. Don’t let that dissuade you from beginning. There is always a solution. Always. Don’t worry about it; just cross that bridge when you come to it. You can use Kahn Academy, or hire a tutor for the "tough" subjects, or even put your kids in a conventional government-run high school. Mind you, I do not like the conventional government-run high schools one bit, and I think it would be preferable to avoid them completely, but even homeschooling just through the elementary and junior high school levels is definitely preferable to enrolling the kids in a conventional government school from day one. I think homeschooling through the junior high school level is within the technical capacity of the vast majority of parents out there.

(By the way, if a parent happens to be able to afford conventional PRIVATE schools, I certainly do not object to the parent considering them -- with the caveat that private schools taking fundamentally anti-Christian approaches to education should not be an option for Christians, any more than the government-run schools are.)

There have been times with all seven of our kids when they were lagging behind in a certain area. It is hard to make generalizations but I think that PROVIDED THE CHILD HAS A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IN THE FUTURE, in most cases even a fairly large learning gap in a particular subject area can be overcome in a relatively short time because the child has a clear idea of what needs to be done to get to where he wants to be. Not that all children have a clear idea of what they want to do in the future, of course. All of my kids did have a clear sense of career calling by the time they were in their early teens -- which makes everything a lot simpler for the parent -- but even among homeschoolers it is not uncommon for children to lack such a clear sense of calling and it's not something to worry about.

  • You can lose battles and still win the war

Anyone contemplating homeschooling needs to come to grips with the fact that even successful homeschooling has plenty of little failures. Homeschooling is a form of warfare (primarily warfare that we wage against ourselves), and you don’t need to win every single battle to win the war. Space would fail me if I tried to share all the anecdotes about the ways in which our homeschooling and the homeschooling of people we know has experienced minor breakdowns and setbacks, and everyone experiences their share of worries and doubts. Every homeschooling "expert" started off as a rank amateur and made plenty of mistakes along the way, I can assure you.

  • Real-world education through work, and through observing a working parent

If a parent is able to work out of the home, or is able to bring his children into his work situation, that is ideal. It is even better if the children are able to be directly involved in the family business! Anyone working out of their home or running a family business should be seriously considering homeschooling as these are a natural match, complementing and augmenting each other very well.

Kids learn most by observing their parents. Even single-parent families can consider homeschooling, but certainly one of the most valuable educational experiences for any child is to be able to see than his mother and father love one another. Children need to be loved, but even more than that they need to see that their parents love one another. Additionally, if the parents manifest a life-long enthusiasm for learning (and in the case of Christians this includes learning God’s word), that example will impact the children powerfully. And finally, children who are able to observe their parents working will be greatly blessed thereby, especially if they can work alongside their parents. (Although work can actually provide a child with some of the best educational experiences of his life, parents who put their children to work need to be careful to do so in a way that avoids leaving the parents open to charges that they are economically exploiting their own children in a way that interferes with the children’s education.)

  • Happy discovery: the other generation is NOT the "enemy" !

Teenage rebelliousness is not unheard of among homeschooled childrern; however, as a societal phenomenon it is not nearly so serious a problem as among children going to government-run schools. The government-run schools tend to drive wedges between children and parents, and expose the children to unhealthy peer pressures. Homeschooling families tend to realize much more intergenerational harmony and more faithful continuity of received traditions, beliefs and values. It is sometimes said that the society which cuts itself off from its past has no future, and we can see that what Allan Bloom described above in The Closing of the American Mind is a process of societal self-disinheritance. The government-run schools have played a huge role in this disinheritance process. However, through the simple act of withdrawing one's kids from the government schools (or never sending them there in the first place) and educating them at home, any parent can make a meaningful contribution to the reversal of this process.The government either has not caught on, or has caught on but does not know how to stop it, but homeschoolers are already engaging in a form of guerrilla warfare against Leviathan. May Leviathan die the death of 10 million cuts!

For the person who is concerned about the government’s constant encroachments on our liberty, it is important to remember that in a very good way, homeschooling is one of the most subversive things that anyone can do. The divinized State is monolithic. If we can defeat the monolith decisively at the point of education, we can defeat it entirely because the myth of its divinity and omnipotence are destroyed through the widespread success of non-government alternatives -- even as the government-run schools continue to fail. People come to realize, "Yes, we can! -- without the State." Homeschooling is one of the great hopes for the future of freedom from government because this is the easiest and most natural area for us to launch a successful attack. Leviathan wants to inherit our children, but we can prevent that. We can inherit our own children, and they can inherit all that we have received from God and from our forebears for millennia, in turn passing it on to the next generation as a legacy . . . all without any help from the State, thank you.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Two very different perspectives

Speaking of schism and the divisive use of insulting language, here are two very different views on these with regard to how God's covenant people are to relate to each other:

I will not employ sarcasm, dismissiveness, meanness, or insult toward those who do not identify as Christian . . . [b]ut what I believe is the prophetic . . . nature of my writings is, by definition and intent, to be directed toward the Church.
-- Keely Emerine Mix

[Confronting Wilson] is an exercise in endurance and self control -- a baptism of filth, no less necessary for the horror it stirs in me.
-- Keely Emerine Mix

Wilson, et al, are the objects of scorn because Wilson, et al, behave badly in the public square, and any other community, not just a community of "washed up hippies," would learn to despise a man who delights in offering it a stiff middle finger.
-- Keely Emerine-Mix

While I don't see a lot of love for his congregation gushing out of Wilson, I do see a font of a different sort poured out in contempt or indifference when it comes to the great unwashed outside his doors.
-- Keely Emerine-Mix

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there Yahweh commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.
-- Psalm 133

These six things doth Yahweh hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-- Proverbs 6:12-19

Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.
-- Proverbs 10:12

A froward man soweth strife: and a whisperer separateth chief friends.
-- Proverbs 16:28
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another . . . be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love . . .
-- Romans 12:5,10

For He is our peace, Who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
-- Ephesians 2:14-22

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
-- Ephesians 4:29-32

Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
-- Phillipians 2:2

Gene Robinson is not just any gay guy

Keely Emerine-Mix does not like it when Doug Wilson refers to apostate dog (to use biblically accurate terminology) Gene Robinson as a "poofter." Her rationale, in part at least, is that such language immediately alienates the very people that the church needs to be reaching out to.

Okay, I concur that we do not want to give unnecessary offense to people outside the church. The gospel is plenty offensive enough to the man outside of Christ, and if someone -- anyone -- leading a life of gross wickedness is interested in learning more about the Christian faith, or expresses an interest in coming to church, that person is definitely not somebody that we want to drive away by referring to them in insulting terms. And we should want to share the gospel with such people at every opportunity. After all, such were some of us: but we are washed, but we are sanctified, but we are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. And one thing that we can cheerfully affirm is that none of us who are in the church and currently unencumbered by gross sexual sin are where we are because of anything inherently deserving in us. We can cheerfully and gratefully affirm that if God dealt with us solely with strict justice, we would be looking forward to an eternity in the Lake of Fire. We have found salvation purely by grace, entirely on account of Christ. In fact, without going into any details, I never lose sight of the fact that prior to being brought to faith in Christ, I did some things that God excoriates in the Bible using language hardly less harsh than some of the things said in the Bible about homosexuals.

But Gene Robinson is not one of the two young men living in sin in an apartment down the hall. He is one of the people spearheading the drive to transform the church into a harlot. Gene Robinson is the ECUSA's willing "strap-on tool" being driven forcefully into the Bride of Christ with the intention of defiling her and making her say, "Yes! this is how I like it." And they don't care if they split the church in the process.

Dante would not have put them in the seventh circle of Hell with the sodomites. He would have put them in ninth Bolge of the eighth circle together with Mohammed and the other schismatics.

So when we consider people in the grip of homosexuality, we really do need to draw two distinctions. First we need to distinguish between those whose consciences are troubled by their own behavior and those who are defiantly unrepentant. And even more importantly we need to distinguish between both of the first two groups and those who insist that unrepentant homosexuals are welcome just as they are at the Lord's table, that they should be able to get married in the church and that they should be able to lead the church.

It is to be expected that people outside the church will act the way that they do. But we inside the church are to be washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. When those of us who lay claim to the name of Christ are clearly involved in any sin, and we refuse to repent of it, the rule is discipline, which means denying access to the Lord's Table (excommunication) and, in the case of church leaders and teachers, stripping them of all authority in the church.

If Gene Robinson dies without repenting of his sins, when he goes to stand before our Lord's judgment seat he will hear things said that are much harder to bear than "poofter."

Mrs. Mix criticizes the notion that "one's homosexuality is about all you need to know of someone before you attack them." Not necessarily. If the person is an unrepentant homosexual activist in clerical garb, there is not much more that one needs to know. The Bible says that a man like Gene Robinson is worthy of death on multiple counts.

"Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness." Gene Robinson represents an example of one of the first men that should be taken away in any society concerned with righteousness.

Guitar licks make strange bedfellows

Whoda thunk? I wonder if this means Keely Emerine-Mix is a racist? You know, six degrees of separation and all that . . .

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The New 21st Century Multicultural Translation of the Bible

Since Mrs. Mix and I share a passion for Indian and Thai food, an experience at breakfast this morning inspired me to revise Proverbs 25:16 for the 21st century:

"Hast thou found bhut jolokia peppers? Eat so many as are sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit them."

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

These Kids need Khan, not a NYT pity party

This sad story suggests (to me, not to the story's author, who apparently has failed to see the obvious solution) that future generations of South Africans will see things go from bad to worse unless they stop waiting for the government to come bail them out. These kids don't need a teacher to teach them in the classroom, especially since the average level of teachers in South Africa seems to be even lower than that of teachers in America's government schools (if such a thing is possible).

No, these kids already have all the teacher they need in the form of Salman Khan. If they can get onto the Internet, they can get a great education for the investment of their time -- and the time is something they would need to invest even at a conventional school.

And then they can even go on to study at MIT, again entirely for free.

Most of them probably don't even know that things like these exist, but if they did know, any of them serious about getting an education could get a very good one without waiting for the government to come and spoon-feed it to them.

And for that matter, so could grossly under-achieving blacks in America's inner cities, as well as kids at the many other government schools all over the USA that are seeing performance continue to slide year after year.

Ironically, by providing seriously substandard education at an exceedingly high price, America's government schools are all too often contributing to the perpetuation of poverty and disempowerment rather than their elimination.

I agree with Keely Emerine-Mix that education is crucial to overcoming poverty. Although schools definitely have their place and attending a good school can be a wonderful experience, we don't need the government to make education happen. We don't even need a school!* There are so many things that can be done right now toward achieving genuine solutions to society's problems that don't require government involvement at all. These are things that we should be actively encouraging.

(*UPDATE: There is one thing for which a government school is still indispensable: teaching children to worship the State as their savior.)

South Africa's online population is still not high -- less than 11% of the population as of 2008, although that is apparently expected to rapidly increase. However, even at current levels of Internet access, it might be possible to make extensive and effective use of the Internet to help kids who want an education obtain a very good one.

Back in 2005 there was a push to develop cheap computers for developing regions, and this tells me some progress is being made (the incidental vulnerability to cybercriminals notwithstanding). So the educational future for these people does not have to be bleak -- if they find solutions that they can implement largely on their own, without requiring government assistance.

Education is largely a process of self-study anyway, even if you attend elite schools built around small classes, such as Exeter or Harvard.