Rattle Snake Heaven

Well, today my son and I were in our backyard checking up on the garden. I am growing cabbage, peas, garlic, tomatoes, bok choi, collards, and have just recently planted corn.

While walking back to the house, a rattler let us know he was right nearby under our storage shed. We were less than 10 feet from him. I took my son in the house and proceeded to get the shovel to take care of the snake. This is the fourth rattle snake or so I have had to kill, either in my yard or a neighbor's yard.

I finally found him in our neighbor's carport. I am not a big fan of killing anything. However, I have a 4 year old son and the neighbors are elderly, so I had to send the snake to rattler heaven.


Turns out I must have hit him a bit harder than I needed to. The shovel handle broke in my hands as I whacked him a good one. It even broke a third time as I decapitated the snake. Now I have to buy a new shovel.

Here are some vids from the event.

This is just after I let him have it and my shovel initially broke.



After I went in to decapitate him, the shovel handle broke again.





My wife just doesn't like snakes. Even dead ones? Dunno why. Dead snakes are the safest snakes in the world to be around. She couldn't take much of a video of me holding the snake.

At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church

The New York Times printed an article At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church wherein Russia has shifted attitudes yet again and is showing heavy favoritism for the Russian Orthodox Church. You can link to the article here.


Protestant denominations such as Lutherans, Methodists, and Seventh-day Adventists are being harassed. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been singled out for special harassment.


The article says:

Here in Stary Oskol, 300 miles south of Moscow, the police evicted a Seventh-day Adventist congregation from its meeting hall, forcing it to hold services in a ramshackle home next to a construction site. Evangelical Baptists were barred from renting a theater for a Christian music festival, and were not even allowed to hand out toys at an orphanage. A Lutheran minister said he moved away for a few years because he feared for his life. He has returned, but keeps a low profile.

(I am indebted to Mr. Steve Timm of SDANet for bringing this to my attention. This posted is adopted from his original email on the topic.)

Next Season on Survivor

Next Season on Survivor

Have you heard about the next planned "Survivor" show?

Three businessmen and three businesswomen will be dropped in a high school classroom for 1 school year. Each business person will be provided with a copy of his/her school district's curriculum, and 5 classes of 36 - 40 students.

Each class will have a minimum of eleven learning-disabled children, three with A.D.D., one gifted child, and four who speak limited English. Three students will be labeled with severe behavior problems. The remaining students will have an average GPA of 1.35.

Each business person must complete lesson plans at least 5 days in advance, with annotations for curriculum objectives and state frameworks... And then modify, organize, or create their materials in order to adjust for the legal accomodate of the eleven learning disabled students, the gifted student, and the four limited English students.

They will be required to teach students, handle misconduct, implement technology, document attendance, write referrals, correct homework, make bulletin boards, compute grades, complete report cards, document benchmarks, communicate with parents, and arrange parent conferences. They must also stand in their doorway between class changes to monitor the hallways.

In addition, they will complete fire drills, tornado drills, and [Code Red] drills for shooting attacks each month.

They must attend workshops, faculty meetings, and attend curriculum development meetings. They must also tutor students who are behind and strive to get their 2 non-English speaking children proficient enough to take the Stanford, Terra Nova, Diagnostics and MCAS tests. If they are sick or having a bad day they must not let it show.

Each day they must incorporate reading, writing, math, science, and social studies into the program. They must maintain discipline and provide an educationally stimulating environment to motivate students at all times. If all students do not wish to cooperate, work, or learn, the teacher will be held responsible.

The business people will only have access to the public golf course on the weekends, but with their new salary, they may not be able to afford it. There will be no access to vendors who want to take them out to lunch, and lunch will be limited to thirty minutes, which is not counted as part of their work day. The business people will be permitted to use a restroom, as long as another survival candidate can supervise their class.

If the copier is operable, they may make copies of necessary materials before, or after, school. However, they cannot surpass their monthly limit of copies. They most likely will have to spend $100 per month out of their own pocket to pay for supplies and paper. The business people must continually advance their education, at their expense, and on their own time.

The winner of this Season of Survivor will be allowed to return to their job, the losers will continue for 3 years as teachers in their local school district.

The Trouble With The Elephant, VI

This is part 6 of my series The Trouble With The Elephant. Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 can be found be found by clicking the links. In this post, I am responding to Gloria's comments found in part 5.

Gloria:

I claim to know nothing. It's just my gut feeling, so to speak. I do not question the existence of God. I question the extent to which he directly influences "our" lives.

Okay.

And to answer your question in an oversimplified manner: Evil is the presence of ill-will or harm done to other living beings for the pure selfish satisfaction or gain without the presence of necessity.

For example, the natural food chain dictates that a killer whale eats a sea lion in order to maintain survival. I believe this to be not evil because it is necessary. The death of your son during a robbery is unnecessary because it ends in the gain of the robber of your money or property. Now obviously this is flawed because the argument can be made that perhaps the robber was attempting to gain the monetary means in order to feed and clothe him/herself for survival. Hope that makes sense!?

Yes, it makes sense. Would it be fair to say that evil is when things morally are not as they should be?

You see, when people claim there is evil in the world, deep down they mean these things are objectively evil. "Hey man, that's wrong!" When something is objectively evil, that means at least two things. First, the "objective" part means that it is not up to human opinion. For example, the reformers who fought against slavery typically argued that despite the fact that whole societies believed it was right, even if the whole world thought it was right, then the whole world was wrong.

I think it safe to say you and I would have no disagreement and no problem in delcaring the entire world wrong if the entire world decided torturing children for fun was a good pasttime.
The fact that we call it objective evil means that not only is it not up to human vote, but that it is violating some moral rule that is not up to humans to change.

In fact, I would go even further are argue that deep down, we both actually believe some things are immoral even if no one got hurt by them.

For example, imagine you are a young college coed taking a shower in your apartment. Just for the sake of argument, suppose the guy in the apartment across from you peeps on you taking a shower. And just for the sake of argument, also pretend that (a) you would never find out and therefore never be psychologically hurt, (b) he will never, ever hurt you and so you will never be harmed, and (c) no one else will ever, even find out. Would what he did still be evil? Yes, even though no one got hurt, he violated a moral rule and did an evil.

Yes, I know that it is very possible he might hurt you, or humiliate you if you find out, or other people will find out and snicker behind your back. But just for the sake of argument, we both know that if none of those things happened, he still did an evil.

Deep in our guts, we know this is true.

And objective moral rules are objective moral oughts. Humans ought to do this and ought not to do that, and we humans don't get to change the rules. We might violate them and do evil things, but we cannot change the moral rules.

The very fact we consider many things as objectively evil means implicitly there is an objective and transcendant moral code. And this list of moral oughts comes from a Moral Oughter, a transcendant and Personal Source that demands adherance to this moral code. Nature, or matter, cannot give a list of moral oughts. It must be Personal, as natural law can only tell you the way things are, not the way things ought to be.

When people complain, How come God doesn't stop the evil in the world?, the are usually complaining about the evil that other people commit. But if God is going to forcibly stop the evil in the world, He is going to stop all the evil in the world, not just the pet evils of others we want stopped. People want God to stop the murder and rape, but also want God to ignore their adultery, or crushing gossip, or lies, or stealing, etc.

I know we think that you and I are basically decent people, but if we got ticketed every time we committed a little evil, and a judge were to look at the whole long list, it would add up to a very serious matter.

Evan the Dalai Lama or Mother Theresa, two people whom I consider FAR better people than myself and near paragons of virtue, are humble and honest enough to admit that their list of misdeeds is far longer than they care to admit, or would want public.

Fact is, if God we to properly deal with evil at 12 midnight tonight, where would you and I be at 12:01 am?

Fact is, God has dealt with the problem of evil in a manner that allows Him to be both perfectly just and holy, and merciful at the same time.

And yes, as you get older you must suffer many labels. Respectable is hardly the worst of them.....

Man, in college I never thought the day would come when I would be labeled respectable.

In any event, I won't bore you with anymore of my diatribes unless you ask.
Jarrod

P.S. Happy new year!

The Trouble With The Elephant, V

This is part 5 of my series The Trouble With The Elephant. Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 can be found be found by clicking the links. In this post, Gloria is responding to my comments found in part 4.

Jarrod:

I claim to know nothing. It's just my gut feeling, so to speak. I do not question the existence of God. I question the extent to which he directly influences "our" lives.

And to answer your question in an oversimplified manner: Evil is the presence of ill-will or harm done to other living beings for the pure selfish satisfaction or gain without the presence of necessity.

For example, the natural food chain dictates that a killer whale eats a sea lion in order to maintain survival. I believe this to be not evil because it is necessary. The death of your son during a robbery is unnecessary because it ends in the gain of the robber of your money or property. Now obviously this is flawed because the argument can be made that perhaps the robber was attempting to gain the monetary means in order to feed and clothe him/herself for survival. Hope that makes sense!?

And yes, as you get older you must suffer many labels. Respectable is hardly the worst of them.....

Remember that I have low patience and am very melodramtic. When I appear to be near tears, unfortunately, I may have done something to contribute to these existing factors and other incidences have occurred that also influence my reactions.

No one likes to hear their faults. It's a very hard pill to swallow. But the more I come to the realization of my faults and how they affect others, I can work on improving myself and my contributions to lives of those around me.

Response from Senator Battlin on Homeschooling in California (In re: Rachel L.)

In reponse to the California homeschooling decision (In re Rachel L.) that appears to have effectively outlawed homeschooling in California (see my post here), I contacted Senator Jim Battlin by email.

In this email I asked him to support Assemblyman Joel Anderson's resolution asking the Legislature to call on the California Supreme Court to reverse the Second Appellate Court's opinion.

I got what appears to be a nicely worded personal and supportive response from Senator Battlin's Chief of Staff.

I am including both my email and the response below.

My email:
Dear Senator Battlin:

(First, before you read this Senator, I want you to know that this is a peronsally composed letter, not a form letter. If you are in doubt, you can call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.)

I want you to be a co-sponsor of Assemblyman Joel Anderson's homeschool resolution wherein the California State Legislature calls on the California Supreme Court to reverse the opinion of the Second Appellate Court in Los Angeles.

In short, as a public school K12 teacher (who holds a doctorate degree), I agree that the State has a compelling interest to ensure that children are well educated, but the State does not have a compelling interest to dictate the manner of this education. The Second Appellate Court's decision casts too wide a net and represents over-reaching by the State.

In their opinion in the 28 February 2008 case In Re: Rachel L., the Court concluded that homeschooling parents Jonathan and Mary Long must stop homeschooling their children. The Court went further and ruled that parents in the State of California cannot homeschool their children, stating that children must be (a) in a "public full-time day school," or (b) a "private full-time day school," or (c) be "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The Court ruled that the Jonathan and Mary Long's "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates the First Amendment Rights." In short, the family's religious beliefs were not sufficiently important to the Court. In fact, Justice H. Walter Croskey of the Court wrote that "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

Again, want you to co-sponsor of Assemblyman Joel Anderson's resolution calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the onerous decision of the Second Appellate Court in Los Angeles.

Sincerely,

Jarrod J. Williamson, Ph.D.


The Chief of Staff's Response
Dear Dr. Williamson:

Thank you for contacting Senator Battin regarding home schooling in California, and for taking the time to craft a very personal message. He very much appreciates you taking the time to share your thoughts with him on this issue.

As you probably already know, on March 11, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell announced that the California Department of Education completed a legal review of the February 28 California Court of Appeal ruling regarding home schooling. State Superintendent O'Connell issued a statement supporting the right to home school in California and indicated that the policy of the Department will not change as a result of the ruling.

However, in an effort to strengthen the rights for parents to home school, Senator Battin is indeed also a proud co-author of ACR 115 (Anderson). This bi-partisan resolution calls upon the California Supreme Court to reverse the opinion that home schooling without a teaching credential is not legal. Senator Battin represents a large constituency of home schools and share your concern with the ruling. He fully supports and respects the dedication of the families who choose to educate their children at home. In fact, one of his staff members has chosen to home school within their family, so this is an issue near and dear to the Senator’s heart.

Finally, I would like to invite you to subscribe to the Battin NewsNet – a daily informational email service that is provided to ensure community leaders and concerned citizens like you are kept abreast of the many critical issues impacting our State, region and local community. Additionally, Senator Battin often sends out updates on subjects like the state budget, transportation, education and other issues of concern. If you do not already subscribe, I would encourage you, your friends and colleagues to sign-up for this free service today. You can do so by simply going to www.BattinNewsNet.com.

Thank you again for your email. If you have any other state related concerns, please contact Senator Battin’s office again.

Kim Glassman
Chief of Staff
Office of Senator Jim Battin

The Trouble With The Elephant, IV

This is part 4 of my series The Trouble With The Elephant. Part 1, part 2 and part 3 can be found be found by clicking the links. In this post, I am responding to Gloria's comments found in part 3.

Gloria:

Wow....okay...on my way to packing our bags for Florida but definitely wanted to share my thoughts.

Oops, sorry. In my defense, you did ask. :-) I know I talk (write) too much.I agree with a lot of what you have said.

I still firmly believe in Buddhism for many reasons. The main one being that it does not depend on an entity such as God as a source of happiness and well being. I've spent most of my time in the past few years trying to better understand the Four Noble Truths (which I'm sure you already know revolves around suffering and enlightenment from the suffering.) There is a lot of logic and reasoning (to me) regarding understanding the root of suffering and its relationship in the world.

In brief, Buddhism essentially sees the root of man's problem to be suffering caused by desire/attachment. Obviously, I am leaving out a lot of stuff with a one line summary, but I think I am being fair.

I personally find it hard to believe in the all-powerfulness of God (no personal offense to anyone intended) when I see the level of suffering in our world. Logically, if God is loving and caring for us all, how do we explain the wars, poverty, terminal illnesses, etc. as well as the intolerant understanding of the different religions and homosexuality that is so prevalent in our worlds. No, I do not thing "he" is neglecting us nor do I think that "he" is merely allowing us to make our way to "him".

In short (and I would love to go into this further), the existence of *evil* is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a transcendant, personal God who demands goodness.

If you don't mind my baiting the hook and asking you to swallow, would you please give me the definition of evil? I don't mean give me *examples* of evil (war, murder, etc.), but the *defintion* of evil. No, I am not playng a word trick or debate tactic on you, but am trying the socratic method to demonstrate that when we use the word evil, we have something specific in mind. I don't want to give away too much right now.

Again, I am not playing a game nor am I trying to "win" by using fancy arguments to twist anyone into knots.

The Problem of Evil is a very important one that deserves careful consideration. However, I must state in advance that there is a big difference between fairly resolving the issue on a logical/rational level, and resolving it on an emotional level. For the sake of argument, I may have the correct rational answer to the problem of evil and the existence of a good, loving, omnipotent God and still have a very difficult time with the same issue on an emotional level when my mother died of colon cancer (Friday, 10:46 am, April 26th, 1991).

Both are extremely important, but for different reasons. Once understood (and it isn't difficult, despite what modern philosophers claim), the existence of evil is one of the most powerful reasons to believe on a powerful, loving God, but if my son were to be killed for whatever reason, I would have almost insurmountable problems. (Hence the wise Buddhist blessing that says, basically, "May you die before your children, and may your children die before their children.")

On the flip side, I also know that miracles of all sorts happen and they cannot be explained by the level of technology and knowledge that we have today. This is my crossroads. If there is something or someone out there "watching over us", how, why and when does "he" chose to help on only specific occassions and not on other occassions that are of equal importance?

The most difficult thing I struggle with, and I believe Jesus rose from the dead with the same certainty I believe George Washington was our first president, is why does "God" seem to intervene in one situation, but not intervene in another that is just as worthy. However, coming from my perspective the real difficulty (for me, at this point) is not God's existence, but God's character.

With Buddhism...I work on myself and how to help those around me. One of the first steps advised by the Dalai Lama to achieving enlightenment is "helping others. If you cannot help others then at the very least you can do no harm to others."

And that is reason 10,927 why I would like the Dalai Lama as my nextdoor neighbor. Not only is he a great guy, but he seems like the kind of guy who enjoys these sort of discussions I like to have.

Obviously, I still have a lot to work in that realm. One of my largest offense being devisive talk.

Join the club.

Mind if I mention something I learned from a Rabbi? No, you don't mind. Great! Thanks!

The Rabbi makes the point that the saying, sticks and stones may hurt your bones, but words will never hurt you is a big fat lie and everyone knows it.

Gloria, I can guarantee that unless I am physically attacked someday, the worst pain I will receive in my life will be from soneone's words. I am pretty sure that is true for nearly all of us. (Of course, I am excluding physical attacks.)

Then the Rabbi mentioned that when he counsels married couples, he asks them, "If I truly did offer you 1 million dollars to curb your mean speach to each other by 50% for the next six months, do you think you could accomlish that?" When the couple answers Yes (and they all do), then the Rabbi asks, "But you won't do it for a relationship that is worth far more than 1 million dollars?"

I agree with you. I do not want to use religion as a crutch....I want it to be part of who I am. I have made decisions, good and bad, for many years now without the assistance of religion as a reason for my choices. Logic and common sense have been my motivators. Emotion has been my catalyst. I defintely don't presume to say that I fully understand any religion or that any one religion is right.

Understood. I know and understand exactly where you are coming from.

That's why I really don't understand waring countries that fight over religion. Why can't they coexist?

Since I don't believe all religions teach the same thing (they don't), I don't have a problem having reasoned disputes with other people. That's called discussion and persuasion.

But to murder in the name of God is, from the perspective of Judaism and Christianity, is the height of blasphemy. In fact, in the ten commandments, the commandment to "not take God's name in vain" is not a prohibition against swearing using God's name, but means to not "bear God's name in vain" and is a prohibition against doing evil in God's name. In fact, this commandment declares that God will not forgive someone who does this.

This does not mean that if a bunch of Christians formed an army to make war on the Nazi's and free Jews from extermination, that they have violated this commandment. It does mean, however, that Christian Inquisitors or Muslim sucide bombers are in a great deal of trouble on Judgment Day.

One should not pose any harm or ill-will on any other. Agree to disagree, right?

Naturally you and I don't agree on everything. If you and I agreed on everything, one of us would be unnecessary!

I'm sure you've read this email and found many fallacies, flaws or lack of understanding within it.

Even if there were, I am not interested in logic tricks to twist people into knots. I am not interested in spiritual king-of-the-hill. As though somehow I find a fancy argument that you haven't considered and then I can declare myself the winner. That is not how Jesus behaved, so I hardly have license to do so either.

Personally, I don't mind. I'm open to what you have to say, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will "win me over" to your beliefs.

Totally understood. When I mentioned that at the beginning of my last email, it was not as though I expected any such changes to happen. I did that in the interests of full discloser and honesty.

Just that it's nice that we agree on the necessity of the logical side of things and that we are both mature adults enough to agree to disagree when we don't see eye to eye. Will that change the way I view our friendship? Sure....I've gained a lot more admiration and respect for you over this past week.

Oh good lord, now I have gotten to be "respectable." Now I am getting old!

I think I've gotten to know you just a little bit better and understand you a little bit more. I've truly enjoyed it. So, please....tell me more.....

P.S. Regarding the elephant....I do not agree with the Raj that all men are only partially correct. Based on the information that they have, they are correct.

I get your point, but certainly there is a limit. For example, both atheists and theists cannot be right?

We know very little of the origin and validity of the Bible, but it is the center of so many religions. Based on the information we know and that we have, it is a valid text of God and is treated as such. Whose to say we are wrong? No one can prove it.

There are over 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament that verify the validity and accuracy of the text. No other, and I mean no other text of similar antiquity has anywhere near the supporting evidence and reliability as the NT documents. In fact, the entire histories of Alexander the Great, Cesar Augustus, Roman Wars, etc., stuff that historians take for granted to be true, rest on less than 5% of the evidence available for the NT.

In my opinion, we have no Raj in our world that can tell us one way or another that the truth that we now know is whole or incomplete.

If you know this, then you are the Raj!

Jarrod -- Our truth changes with each new fact we learn.Truth is subjective just as happiness and understanding are.

Is that an objective truth claim I see? An objective truth claim that claims there is no objective truth? (Not a word trick here.)

The Trouble With The Elephant, III

This is part 3 of my series The Trouble With The Elephant. Part 1 and part 2 can be found be found by clicking the links. In part 3, Gloria is responding to my email in part 2.

Jarrod:

Wow....okay...on my way to packing our bags for Texas but definitely wanted to share my thoughts.

I agree with a lot of what you have said. I still firmly believe in Buddhism for many reasons. The main one being that it does not depend on an entity such as God as a source of happiness and well being. I've spent most of my time in the past few years trying to better understand the Four Noble Truths (which I'm sure you already know revolves around suffering and enlightenment from the suffering.) There is a lot of logic and reasoning (to me) regarding understanding the root of suffering and its relationship in the world.

I personally find it hard to believe in the all-powerfulness of God (no personal offense to anyone intended) when I see the level of suffering in our world. Logically, if God is loving and caring for us all, how do we explain the wars, poverty, terminal illnesses, etc. as well as the intolerant understanding of the different religions and homosexuality that is so prevalent in our worlds. No, I do not thing "he" is neglecting us nor do I think that "he" is merely allowing us to make our way to "him". On the flip side, I also know that miracles of all sorts happen and they cannot be explained by the level of technology and knowledge that we have today. This is my crossroads. If there is something or someone out there "watching over us", how, why and when does "he" chose to help on only specific occassions and not on other occassions that are of equal importance?

With Buddhism...I work on myself and how to help those around me. One of the first steps advised by the Dalai Lama to achieving enlightenment is "helping others. If you cannot help others then at the very least you can do no harm to others." Obviously, I still have a lot to work in that realm. One of my largest offense being devisive talk.

I agree with you. I do not want to use religion as a crutch....I want it to be part of who I am. I have made decisions, good and bad, for many years now without the assistance of religion as a reason for my choices. Logic and common sense have been my motivators. Emotion has been my catalyst. I defintely don't presume to say that I fully understand any religion or that any one religion is right. That's why I really don't understand waring countries that fight over religion. Why can't they coexist? One should not pose any harm or ill-will on any other. Agree to disagree, right?

Naturally you and I don't agree on everything. I'm sure you've read this email and found many fallacies, flaws or lack of understanding within it. Personally, I don't mind. I'm open to what you have to say, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will "win me over" to your beliefs. Just that it's nice that we agree on the necessity of the logical side of things and that we are both mature adults enough to agree to disagree when we don't see eye to eye. Will that change the way I view our friendship? Sure....I've gained a lot more admiration and respect for you over this past week. I think I've gotten to know you just a little bit better and understand you a little bit more. I've truly enjoyed it.

So, please....tell me more.....

P.S. Regarding the elephant....I do not agree with the Raj that all men are only partially correct. Based on the information that they have, they are correct. We know very little of the origin and validity of the Bible, but it is the center of so many religions. Based on the information we know and that we have, it is a valid text of God and is treated as such. Whose to say we are wrong? No one can prove it. In my opinion, we have no Raj in our world that can tell us one way or another that the truth that we now know is whole or incomplete. Our truth changes with each new fact we learn. Truth is subjective just as happiness and understanding are. Frameworks and thoughts tend to shift (somewhat resistantly) with each new piece of information that comes to light. Hence...science.

Gloria

The Trouble With The Elephant, II

This is part 2 of my series The Trouble With The Elephant. Part 1 can be found be found by clicking the link. Here, in part 2, I am following up with Gloria's request for more information.

Gloria:

Okay, I spent a good portion of today, off and on, writing this especially for you.

I will be honest and upfront. I think that I am right and everyone else should think basically like I do. But, if you really think about it, that is perfectly reasonable and rational because no one walks around thinking their religious views (or lack thereof) are wrong and still keeps those views.

Most everyone is motivated by a combination of emotion and reason. I tend to first be motivated by mostly logical arguments, and then my emotions. Some people it is the other way around. I don't know what motivates you best when it comes to these matters, but I am hoping that you will come to the same conclusions that I have. Since I don't know you well enough to tailor my arguments to your personality, I am just going to keep going with the autobiographical sort of self-dialog I have started.

When it comes to religion, I eventually became concerned with what is true. A belief, hypothesis, or proposition about reality is true if and only if it accurately describes the way reality really is.

Many people view religion as a sort of spiritual hobby, hence the adage “find something that works for you.” They see it as something that can give them meaning in life, something that they find they agree with, something that appeals to them, something to provide a framework for ethics and some sort of spiritual comfort, as well as some kind of hope of life after death. I cannot tell you the number of times I used (and heard) the phrase, “all religions teach basically the same stuff, to do the right thing.” (Often people will have no religion because they see it as a crutch and they don't need some religion to tell them the right thing to do.)

This was part of the reason I became a Chan Buddhist. I was a martial arts student for a while (Hung Gar Kung Fu) and was introduced to the religion that way. It appealed to me because I liked how it described the world, the ethics were great, and over all it was beautiful and provided meaning for my life. It also helped provide some inner peace.

In addition, it is very tolerant. For example, it did not claim that you had to be a Buddhist to go to heaven. Just keep doing the right thing and eventually you will get there . . . if there is such a place. Actually, Chan practitioners never really bother themselves with questions of god, heaven, hell, afterlife, etc. Those things are just not of interest. I didn't need some god to bribe or threaten me to get me to do the right thing. Such things were, at best, a crutch.

Many people also view all the different religions as different perspectives of the same basic idea, i.e., do the right thing. That was my view. Either “god” revealed “himself” in many different forms, or people are expressing their view of god differently. Live and let live, as far as I was concerned. Just don’t mess with me, or I’ll put my Hung Gar Kung Fu mojo on you.

You probably have heard the story of the Indian Raj who saw three blind men feeling an elephant. One blind man felt the tusk and declared “An elephant is just like a spear!” Another blind man felt the tail and declared “No, the elephant is like a rope.” The third blind man felt the elephant’s side and declared “No, an elephant it truly like a wall.” However, the Raj saw that each man only perceived a piece of the truth and the men had to basically combine their views to get the correct picture.

This is often said about the world’s religions and that people are intolerant for saying others religions are "wrong" because we all are only feeling part of the elephant. We should not be so intolerant and declare our way to god/heaven the only right one. The nerve of those bigots! Besides, who cares what people think, as long as they do the right thing and don't hurt others. That is how I felt?

However, I eventually realized there is a problem with the elephant. On further reflection, it turns out this story is really just poor thinking and is a self-refuting line of logic. It is sadly is used as a cliché.

Here is the trouble with the elephant – the Raj was not blind and was in the privileged position to see the truth and declare what the truth was. Only someone who can see and has access to the truth is able to declare the other men wrong and state what the elephant is really like. (Also, what if the elephant could talk and tell us about itself? I am not being silly here, but am making a metaphorical comment about "revealed" religion.)

However, those who use the elephant story with respect to religion are claiming that everyone is wrong and each religions, like each blind man, only have part of the truth. But if everyone is wrong, then they are wrong too and can make no such claim. They are blind just like us.

However, if they are right in their claim that we only perceive part of the truth, how is it that they (like the Raj) are in the privileged position to see the truth? How is it they can see (the truth) while the rest of us are blind, as they claim?

This is not just a fancy play on words or a word trick, but reveals a fundamental and fatal flaw in their thinking. Their claim is logically self-refuting and cannot be true or of value.

In addition, often those who claim that sincere religious believers are intolerant “fundamentalists” because these fundamentalists think other religions are wrong, are the same people who use the elephant story to say everyone is wrong and they happen to see the truth.

They are exhibiting self-refuting intolerance that they vociferously condemn in others. (Many people believe that good thinking is using the wittiest clichés quickly. All that is really happening is a rapid fire tossing of valueless clichés! Take just about any non-science college course.)

I realized that not everyone can be right about religion. Either there is a God, or there isn’t. Hence either atheists or theists are right. There is no middle ground. They cannot both be right. If there is a God, there is either one God, or more than one God. Hence monotheists are right, or polytheists are right. They cannot both be right. God is either personal, or not. Hence either Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. are right, or Hindus, Taoists, etc. are right. They cannot both be. God is either separate from man, or not. God is either transcendent, or not. God is either triune, or not. Jesus is either God, or he was not.

It is possible for everyone to be wrong, but with all the mutually exclusive religious views around, it is not possible for everyone to be right.

I wanted to know what the truth was, not what made me feel good. I realized that there are times when the truth is the most important thing, and what makes you feel good can be fatal. Metaphorically speaking, if I had cancer and was fighting it with chemotherapy drugs, I would be a fool to walk into my doctor’s office and tell her, “You know, this chemo stuff makes me sick and I don’t feel so good. So I am going to substitute chocolate syrup and fight the cancer that way.” (Notice I sensitively used a female authority figure … no sexist here!)

This was not a dispassionate exercise of logical reasoning, I was actually pretty worried. Just like when I look both ways before crossing the street, I figured I better know what is going on rather than blithely walk into spiritual traffic. Jeez, what if the Muslims are right? Allah might be upset and I don’t want to get blind-sided by that.

This line of thinking started me down the path to wondering two things, (1) Is there a God?, and (2) Does it matter?

In any event, I will stop here for now. If you want more, let me know. Please feel free to ask questions. Remember, I want to persuade you to my point of view and I can hardly do that if you are not asking questions. (Once again, being transparent here.)

The Trouble With The Elephant, I

I am starting a series titled The Trouble With The Elephant. In this series, I am reporting actual correspondance with a friend, Gloria, why I left Buddhism for Christianity.

Dear Gloria:
Regarding the concept behind Yin and Yang. First, I am oversimplifying in my response. The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.

Second, it represents not only the concept of "balance" we can all agree with, e.g., balancing work and fun, family and private time, food and exercise, etc., but it also represents a basic monistic view of the world/nature/existence.

Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things. Tao produced the One. The ten thousand things carry the yin and embrace the yang, and through the blending of the material force they achieve harmony. Tao Te Ching, Chpt 42.

Ultimately when you boil things down to their essence, this view teaches, and the Yin Yang symbolizes, all positive and negative, creative and destructive, moral and immoral are just opposite sides of the same coin. In fact, the positive even has some of the negative inherent in it, and the negative has some of the positive inherent in it too. Hence the white "eye" in the black part, and the black "eye" in the white part of the Yin Yang symbol.

It teaches that, in reality, good and evil are opposite sides of the same coin, they are both co-equal and co-eternal, and the only real difference between them is our perception. This view teaches that the real problem lies with our perception, not with the existence of evil, because, after all (as the cliche' goes): "how could you know good without evil?", "how could you have good without evil?", etc.

Please note that I am not talking about what humans might have perverted the view to hold, but what the view itself (as expressed in the I-Ching, Tao Te Ching, and Taoist/Budhhist scholars) actually does teach. Morality and immorality, good and evil, and not fundamentally different, but actually different aspects of the same thing and it is our perception that makes them different. All is illusion, our individual minds are illusion, we are all just splinters of the one and a monistic view of the universe is supposed to be the ultimate reality.

I also want to be very clear that I am not saying Buddhists or Taoist are somehow immoral or believe it is acceptable to behave in an evil fashion. This is not the case. A classic example are the Tibetan's patient and gentle suffering, exemplified by the Dalai Lama's life, under the oppression of a foreign conqueror, the Communist Chinese government. Would only the mainline Christian world take their cue from the Tibetans.

I eventually reached the point where I did not believe good and evil are only different in perception, nor co-equal and co-eternal. The torture and murder of 6 million Jews, or the torture and murder of your or my child is not only different because of perception. I do not believe good and evil are opposite sides of the same thing.

If you are interested in more (I hope you are), I will explain. But I don't want to bore you too much.

Dear Jarrod,
I am definitely interested in more. Growing up, my parents left religion in our hands. Religious beliefs and scripts were up to us to investigate and decide what we believed in and what faith we chose for ourselves. I feel the most "at home" with the buddhist religion and my brother feels at home with christianity. My parents are fine with both. It wasn't until after we had made our choices that my parents told us that our family was indeed buddhist. So what you told me was little of what I already knew and a little enlightening as well. I don't remember where I first heard it, but it made sense. Anything else you want to share, I welcome.....Please....continue....

My Son Learns an Important Lesson

This past weekend we celebrated my father's 71st birthday and my grandmother's 90th birthday. The wife and I were excited to visit them on their ranch, but not nearly excited as my son. For nearly a week before going to the ranch, my son was asking every minute "Are we leaving now? When do we get to see Grampa Jelly?" He loves helping 'Grampa Jelly' on the ranch.

Naturally I was proud to see my son learning some of the same lessons I learned on the ranch, especially the lesson about awareness of your surroundings that occurs around 17-20 seconds into the video.

Ohio bill would require parents to volunteer at school or pay fine

Just got this from an NEA MorningUpdate. It's about time.

Ohio's Plain Dealer (4/9, Gonzalez) reported, "A bill introduced in the Ohio legislature would require parents to donate at least 13 hours to their school district each year or pay" a $100 fine. "And, if parents failed to pay up, the fine could be deducted from their state income tax refunds." The bill would also require that school districts "report parents who [do not] volunteer to the Ohio Department of Education" and provide mentors for students. Furthermore, "mentors would have to undergo criminal background checks and complete an annual training course developed by the district." Rep. Stephen Dyer (D) acknowledged that the bill "may have to undergo revisions in committee," but said, "Ensuring that parents play a vital role in their children's life is the reason I signed on to it."

Homeschooling Poll

I have added a poll to get your opinion of the recent California Homeschooling decision. Please let me know what you think. I am not sure if the poll is working properly. If not, please leave a comment and let me know.

My Wife's A Shooter, part 2

As mentioned in my previous post, I mentioned that my wife was a volunteer student at AllSafe Defense Systems' NRA Pistol Instructor course.

This course is designed to train experienced shooters the techniques necessary to teach the basics of Pistol marksmanship.

In order to do this, the class needed novices who would volunteer to be taught by the student-instructors. There were approximately nine student volunteers; my wife was one of four women in the group.

We arrived at 8:45 for the 9 am course. When we entered we were promptly greeted and given name tags by a friendly woman who was a student-instructor. As volunteer-students, we were given seats in the front for the classroom portion of the day. (Thereafter we were to go to the range to test the student-instructor's ability to teach us.)

(Note: technically, as I had some prior firearms experience I was not a volunteer-student, but accompanied my wife. We agreed ahead of time that I would watch the whole time, but Mr. TJ Johnston was very kind and allowed me to be involved in some of the lessons. Hence, when I say we in this post, I really mean the student-volunteers with me watching nearby.)

Most of the classroom portion of the day was spent with each student-instructor given 3 minutes to teach us an aspect of the lesson. As a professional educator, I really appreciated the designed format for the instruction. None of the student-instructors were permitted to teach anything via giving us a lecture. Rather, they continually asked questions of the volunteer students, guiding the questions they were asking and our answers to help us discover for ourselves the lessons to be learned.

This is a classic example of student-centered instruction, resulting in an active learning environment. The students discovered for themselves (under careful, rigorous supervision) the elements of gun safety, proper stance, sight alignment, sight picture, breathing, trigger control, etc. This is in contradistinction to the type of direct-instruction that leads into instructor-centered learning and a passive learning environment. (E.g., remember college and hours of rapid note-taking?)

The student-instructors then quickly moved us into actually handling (unloaded) Ruger semi-automatic .22 pistols to review and apply the lessons we learned under the careful eye of the student-instructors and the head instructor.

Thereafter we went to the Orange County Indoor Range to practice our skills. I watched intently and noticed that the student-instructors were primarily interested in the volunteers gaining proficiency while having a good time, as opposed to pushing the volunteers to do well so the student-instructors would look good in the class. Like good teachers, they put their students first and wanted them (us) to develop a love for the sport rather than merely doing well themselves ... which is why the student-instructors did so well with their volunteers.

In fact, my wife at the beginning was starting out too tense and not performing as well as she could. She was nervous that if she did not do well enough, that her three student-instructors might not pass the class. They quickly put her mind to rest and told her just to relax and enjoy what she was doing, not worry about them. It was obvious to her that these three men meant exactly what they said, and she immediately began to relax.

Consequently, her performance improved to well that, despite being a total novice who never held a gun before scored a 78 on the rapid fire portion of the drills. The student-instructors were genuinely so please with her performance that one of them gave me a thumb-up and whispered to me "Whatever you do, don't make her mad." An obvious reference to her newly acquired skills.

Thereafter, the class ended with a debriefing session wherein the student-instructors evaluated their volunteer's performance and how they (the instructors) could improve the volunteer's skills. The volunteers also gave the head instructor (TJ Johnston) honest feedback on the student-instructors' strengths and weaknesses. I watched intently as the student-instructors paid careful attention to the feedback with the purpose of improving their teaching skills.

I won't go into all the details here, but I want to end with one closing observation. Mr Johnston also was very careful to appropriately ask each female volunteer if they felt talked down to, made to feel uncomfortable in anyway, or treated negatively due to their gender. It was obvious to me that he really meant this and wanted to be sure no one was treated differently due to being female. Every woman volunteer answered that they were treated just fine and did not feel discriminated against because they were female.

The only down side to our day with AllSafe Defense Systems is that now I am going to have to spend even more money ... buying my wife ammunition. She has really developed a love of shooting and has gotten the bug.

Thank you Mr. Johnston and the student-instructors at AllSafe. It was a really positive experience for the two of us.

(And for those of you student-instructors who are law enforcement or military, Thank you for your service. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.")

Criticism of Science versus Intelligent Design

I recently received a criticism of my article Science versus Intelligent Design by "Steve." I appreciate the criticism and am glad he left the comment.

In his comment, Steve said:

Spoken like an true Adventist and creationist. What you have succeeded in doing is simply regurgitating the Discovery Institute's arguement that science should change its essential methodology to accomodate your religious longings.

As pointed out by Intelligent Design advocate Dr. Michael Behe at the Dover trial - by allowing supernatural explanations into the realm of science one might just as well replace astronomy with astrology and chemistry with alchemy.

I'd rather not return to 13th century mysticism, thanks.

My first question is in response to Steve's initial statement.

What you have succeeded in doing is simply [arguing] that science should change its essential methodology to accomodate [sic] your religious longings.

Steve, there is more than one prevalent philosophy of science. Examples are materialism, methodological naturalism, naturalism, scientism, etc. All of these, to my knowledge, are argued for philosophically (or even theologically) and are a priori to scientific inquiry. They are not demonstrated to be true, or to be the correct methodology for scientific inquiry, by any scientific test that I am aware of.

If that is the case, then why am I not allowed the same opportunity to philosophically argue a methodology of science that I believe accurately describes the way the world really is?

allowing supernatural explanations into the realm of science one might just as well replace astronomy with astrology and chemistry with alchemy.

Why? Is it because one is concerned that, rather than looking for natural laws that explain the physical world, science will devolve into a mere "because God said so"? That is fine if you wish to argue the case, but please realize that you are not demonstrating any of this to be true via any actual use of the scientific method. You are arguing for it philosophically, but than are barring me from the same avenue of reasoning.

I'd rather not return to 13th century mysticism, thanks.

Neither would I. However, I don't believe that is the only available alternative to naturalism, materialism, what-have-you. I believe this is a false dichotomy.

Steve, I don't mind the criticism at all, but please show me where I am wrong.

California parents arrested — Caught Home-schooling their children without a teaching credential

Sacramento, California - A three-judge panel from the 2nd District Court of Appeals made it illegal on February 28 for any parent to home school their child, unless they have a teaching or tutor credential. Upon hearing the ruling, school districts officials began demanding that police take immediate action. So yesterday, throughout the state, judges secretly began swearing out and signing arrest warrants for any parent who was suspected of home-schooling their children without a teaching credential.

Setting up a special task force virtually overnight, SWAT teams and truant officers armed with arrest warrants and automatic weapons began rounding up wayward parents, and against their will placing their child in protective custody and enrolling them in public schools throughout the state.

Originally thought to be a logistical nightmare, distinguishing home-schooled children from that of the public school system, officials quickly learned they could gather up a list of suspects from [you can read more about it here]

Parental Rights to Homeschool Children

The folks over at Life, Liberty and Family posted today (Parental Rights to Home School Children) that, in response to the In re Rachel L. decision which effectively outlaws homeschooling in California, Congressman Howard McKeon (R-CA) introduced a resolution (H. Res. 1076) into the House supporting the rights of parents to home school their children.

The resolution, with 32 co-sponsors, calls upon the California Court of Appeals to

"... uphold United States Supreme Court precedent which recognizes the fundamental and constitutional rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children."

The Resolution can be found here by typing H.Res. 1076 into the bill search box.

My Wife's a Shooter

I am a member of Front Sight Firearms Training Institute owned and operated by Dr. Igantius Piazza. Front Sight has the greatest firearms training facilities open to the public in the world, in my opinion.

Well, a while back I decided that I wanted my wife to learn to use a handgun in order to protect herself. Despite the bias against guns, especially the canard that a gun in the home increases the likelihood it will be used against the family, current statistics show that approximately 500 women use a gun to prevent a crime against themselves every day.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. --Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Given that I love my wife dearly, I want to be sure she is taken care of if I am not around. Hence, I signed her up for a special free gun offer by Front Sight which, for $1200, included not only a 4 Day Defensive Handgun course and a number of other goodies, but also included a Springfield Armory 40-caliber XD.

I consulted with several female members of Front Sight about the best way to prepare my wife for the 4 Day Defensive Handgun Class. In addition to the kind of gear she would likely need, they suggested that I take my wife to the range to get her used to firing a gun.

The best advice came from both Kim and Bob that I should take my wife out to AllSafe Defense Systems run by TJ Johnston to take a course before she goes out to Front Sight.

I will write more about my wife's experience with AllSafe in the next post, but it was an excellent experience overall. The only downside to the course at AllSafe is now my wife is going to get expensive considering all the ammunition I am going to have to buy her in the future.