I sat with my daughter today watching 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' (yes...the good one. The original!). Of all my favorite scenes, the best are when a naughty child would be tossed off in this elementary precursor to 'Survivor' and the famous Oompa loompa's would appear and sing a song. At one point a very bratty spoiled child gets eliminated and then comes the wonderful midget singers chanting:

 "Who do you blame when your kid is a brat

Pampered and spoiled like a siamese cat

Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame

You know exactly who's to blame

The mother and the father"



Lightbulb!!! It occurred to me, the Oompa Loompa's had better parenting knowledge than a thousand modern-day writers, 

psychologists, and talkshow hosts. Think of the news reports on children bullying other children to the point of suicide, 

flash mobs of violent teen attackers, increased court convictions against youth offenders......etc!



The lyrics hint that if a child is out of order and foolish then the diagnosis will probably point towards mom and dad. 

Isn't it funny how thousands of years ago a very wise man penned the words: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, 

but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Of course the scripture is not hinting towards child abuse but 

one characteristic of children alluded to is that children are born with a wild side and indeed without purposeful attention, engagement, 

and correction, that wild side will sprout up like a weed and flourish.



Oompa loompa doompety de!

I should be eating turkey right now but I need to speak in 10 minutes or less......

Today as much as any recent day in post 9-11, the word 'radical' resounds with as much political and cultural taboo as 'kill', 'assassinate', and 'martyr.' I would dare say that in Western society, to the average ear, this word immediately brings to mind thoughts and pictures of middle eastern men with ak-47's and long beards, Osama Bin Laden, and angry rhetoric aimed at destruction. It has been equivocated in usage by many who wish to make a point that there are those who should be labeled "radical" because of an agenda. You may remember the View's Rosie Odonnel's hubristic use of the word when she uttered the statement "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." Now it is echoed by those who are seeking to find the equivolent of radical Islam in Christians. It is vitally necessary to examine our flashy use of the word "radical" in everyday usage as we wage ideological battles and try to see who can make a point.

There are quacks, cooks, and jerks of a conservative elk that use Christian terms, imagery, and even Bible scriptures to gain credibility for their cause. Unfortunatley, to create a brand called "radical Christianity" because of some individuals who skipped Bible study when they were young makes as much sense calling Barrack Obama a "radical secularist" for supporting abortion and not going to church on some Sundays. It's just a bad dichotomy.

Radical Islam is a real threat to America and other areas of the world. Even to those peaceful Muslims. It is grounded in ideas and a theology that is ancient. Hillbilly Jeb, on the other hand,  was angry, ignorant, and violent when he decided to borrow some scripture from sacred writ and scream "God hates fags"....and you listened to him! shame!

Remember that fateful legend about the huge wooden horse the Greeks presented as a gift to gain entrance into Troy? A large horse with a hollowed inside, full of soldiers waiting to destroy and rampage. The people of Troy, relaxed, many of whom were sleeping while others in a drunken stupor, accepted the gift and brought it into their gates. In short time the city burned, people slaughtered and a city humiliated.

Now another 'wooden horse' sits at the gates. This horse is beautiful and represents what so many of us esteem....comfort! We don't want to be argumentative nor do we seek to infringe upon people's supposed rights. Don't we say "People are free to believe and do as they feel, so long as they don't bother me." Well now, as we sleep, the horse is brought in.

A report in fox news earlier this month reported on a kindergarden teacher in California who distributed gay "ally' pledge cards to her young students. The stated idea behind this was to get children to agree not to slur or slander gays or lesbians. Wait! There was no curriculum, no teaching, nothing to raise any awareness of slur or slander in the school. As far as these children knew, they were simply pledging their allegiance.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, is represting one of the outraged parents in the current case against the school. Mr. Dacus states: ""[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude,"

Lets be clear, attacks, verbal or physical, on gay individuals and students is wrong. Proper measures should be taken to ensure safety and a good education for all. Thats not the issue here. The problem is people are attempting to offer a worldview to our children that will have profound repercutions. Whatever effort you have put into preparing your children and teaching them according to your values is potentially being undone. What will you do? Sleep is not an option. Wrapped up in that horse of complacency and compromise is a deadly combination of propaganda and immorality that will radically change family, society, and the world. Are you awake?

It is not a violation of separation of church and state to teach intelligent design in classrooms. Precedent and research demonstrates that in teaching intelligent design (ID) we have a duty to explore, or possibly mandate, which materials are allowed to be taught and what conclusions can be made within the context of the classroom. To be clear, intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism carries the premise that a divine creator acted and created the universe. By comparison, ID does not identify any creator but merely seeks to offer explanation and theory to the origin of complex life forms just as Darwinism or evolution does. ID is theory that can be researched, discussed, and tested in light of current evidence. I argue that if the particular organization or school teaching ID has a purely secular reason and the curriculum proves education for the students then it is within the law. In my argument I would like to cite two US court cases, Lemon v. Kurtzman and Edwards v. Aguillard.

Lemon v. Kurtzman is the classic Supreme Court ruling that many ID advocates and opponents refer to in critiquing any program that seeks to establish the teaching of ID in schools. When the court reached its decision in 1971 the “Lemon Test” was incepted in American jurisprudence. The Lemon test is regulatory clause that can be used to test the validity of any legislation supporting ID curriculum. The Lemon test consists of three mandates:

• The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
• The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

These guidelines can be used to support legislation that allows for a curriculum to be compiled that draws no religious or spiritual conclusion, is not affiliated with any religious group, and enhances the education of a body of students. In an article written by Jonah Avriel Cohen, a supporter of evolutionary theory, titled ‘Why Intelligent design theory ought to be taught’ (http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/why_intelligent_design_theory.html) he writes: “Fact: The theory of intelligent design goes back at least as far as classical Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then.  Our century is no different. Those who advocate intelligent design are not 'disguising' anything; they are not furtive men. They are offering for your consideration an idea that has intrigued the minds of everyone from Plato to Kant, an idea that possibly began when Socrates asked: 'With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?'

Regarding the argument that ID is creationism in disguise, as some assert, Jonah replies: “Now, because the design argument can be found in Plato's dialogues, we can deduce that the theory not only predates the theory of creationism — which was but one religious response to Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) — it is also not wedded to Judeo—Christian scripture.

Edwards v. Aguillard was a case that appeared before the Supreme Court in 1987. This case ruled that those teaching creationism that advanced religious thought was unconstitutional. According to the researchers at Ideacenter.org this trial provides the “framework under which a legislature might pass an acceptable bill regarding the teaching of science” (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1184). The case concluded “If the Louisiana Legislature's purpose was solely to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction, it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind. (Edwards at 588) (Emphasis mine). Therefore, teaching the theory of intelligent design is not pushing religion on our children, it is actually bringing them up to date with history’s greatest questions and research that has created some of the greatest minds ever known. To say that intelligent design violates separation of church and state is equivalent to saying that teaching evolution is hateful rhetoric that is offensive to those people of faith. It is not; it is theory based on science and research, nothing less.

For further research:

Foundation for thought and ethics- http://www.fteonline.com/

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center- www.ideacenter.org

Intelligent Design Network- www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

 

How many people do you know who majored in a subject that they were passionate about in college? How many friends of yours love the job they do? Better yet, how many people do you know who consider themselves 'HAPPY'? In a society full of economic ups and downs, family turns and twists, and not to mention the routine political merry go rounds, we have become a very pragmatic culture. Our thoughts, goals, and instincts have been curved toward the route that seems least painful, convenient, and quick. Even  higher institutions now design a portion of their marketing and degree programs as tools to empower the individual to make money, maintain stability, and all in a short amount of time. I do not consider this diabolical in any sense, I encourage the student who wants to better their life and empower themselves for a more sound future. My point is more a question than a statement; are we achieving exactly what education is meant to provide? In essence what I am asking is, beyond financial empowerment, is there more that we are meant to receive from education?

Historian and author, Carter G. Woodson said that "real education means to inspire people to live more abundantly, to learn to begin with life as they find it and make it better..."  I believe Dr. Woodson's teaching categorizes education as not just information that collects in the mind of the person so they can attain more but rather a process of challenging and uplifting where a person becomes a contributor to society more than a beneficiary. Education should be a catalyst. I assert that the measure of how educated someone has become is a measure of their maturity and self-lessness. This is a stark contrast to the mentality of students I know. Being a college student myself, I am sad to admit that a large majority (not all...thank God!) are takers. Our culture sets a mentality of self-centeredness. I mean this in every sense, emotional, moral, financial, political, etc.A breed of emotional and mental hedonism.

Among the 'educated' of our country there should be the greatest sense of discontentment. Each individual should realize that with the more he or she knows the more ignorant he or she really is. A truly learned person should be a learner.The word "education" in the latin means 'to lead out.' Lead out of what exactly...? IGNORANCE. The more we learn the more illuminated our minds should be to the void we really have. The so-called educated person should crave change. There should be a sense of growth in the educated individual that carries with it a profound sense of responsibility and stewardship. I speak now not of only college education but any impartation that brings a person's consciousness to a new height from where it may have been. In that sense education can be available from a vast array of sources ranging from the university classroom to the prison cell block. 

When all is said and done, is the world a better place because your education? What have you done with what you've been given?


“The one real object of education is to leave a man in the condition of continually asking questions.” ~Bishop Creighton

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

The overly fair and tolerant atheist Richard Dawkins is quoted as stating that: "if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid or insane"(emphasis mine). The sad posture of a 'post-modern' thinker whose call for a rejection of faith and labeling of religion as fundamentally counterproductive has resounded across Western civilization. Mr.Dawkins has remarked that, in this post 9-11 era, religion proves to be dangerous because it gives its adherents an "unshakable confidence in their own righteousness." However, Dawkins, among other supposedly 'enlightened thinkers, have demonstrated a fatal flaw and contradiction in their ideology. To infer that doubt, opposition, or questioning the belief in evolution identifies a person as "stupid" approaches the pinnacle of self-righteousness. It is to support  condescension and closed-mindedness just as religion is reported to do. This statement is devoid of dialogue, intolerant, and, at best hypocritical, at worst, asinine. The reknown objectivity and devoted research of the scientist in his or her endeavor to extract truth is not essential nor revealed in the atheist agenda. Instead, the mindset of many atheists reveals the maturity of a child and the patience of an overactive bladder. The big deal is not that atheists support the theory of evolution, its that they are hostile towards those who differ in views. To be sure, there are deists who believe in the theory of evolution; yet, the majority of these individuals are not heard sounding the battlecry against the opposition. It is the modern day atheist that has demonstrated intolerance, it is this atheist who does not wish to let go of this ancient text full of error titled 'On the Origin of Species', it is this atheist that holds to a refuted and scientifically challenged dogma.

Dawkins' crime is not being an atheist. It is a crime of arrogance, ignorance, and unfairness. Even Dawkins himself admitted in an article issued on his website (http://richarddawkins.net) that after appearing on various radio talk shows across the US he found that those who did not agree with the evolutionary position listened with "politeness" and "with interest", much to his surprise.He expects intolerance and bitterness because that is his own position.

I think it is safe to say that the syllogism follows:

• if a people claim a self-righteous monopoly on truth, they are dangerous
  
• if Dawkins' evolutionary position is correct, then all who disagree are "stupid" or inferior
  
• if Dawkins-type atheists are 'true', they are also dangerous
  

While I do not wish to draw a direct connection between Dawkins and extremist anti-religion persecutors and dictators such as Stalin, Hitler,Kim Jong Il, or Pol Pot, I do argue that this type of thinking, when drawn out, has birthed some of the worst killing,brutality, and oppresion ever recorded in history. It is common knowledge that a century of godlessness has produced more mass killing and destruction than centuries of  violence 'in the name of religion.' Ofcourse Dawkins has argued that while the tyrants of the 20th century were atheists none comitted their acts 'in the name of atheism.' How then do you explain the Pastors, Priests, nuns, and missionaries killed and currently persecuted simply for faith? Not militant faith, not dangerous fanatical faith, but simply faith that motivates them to serve their fellow man.

Where is the tolerance and 'enlightenment'?