The Greatest Man I Ever Met

I count it one of the greatest honors of my life to have (briefly) met Pfc. Desmond T. Doss, Medal of Honor recipient.

If you admire courage, conviction, patriotism, and self-sacrifice, you need to see the documentary The Contientious Objector. Here is a brief clip I found on Youtube.

DC v. Heller Roundup -- SCOTUS Blog

I have been reading up on the DC v. Heller 2nd Amendment decision and found some good posts and links on SCOTUS blog about the topic. Here are some excerpts with links:

SCOTUS Blog -- Court: A Constituional Right to a Gun

The opinion can be downloaded here. Relevant quotes from the majority opinion can be found here, and a replay of our LiveBlog can be found here. Tom’s commentary is here.

Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” it added.

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.” [Read the rest of the article here.]

SCOTUS Blog -- DC v. Heller Roundup

Not surprisingly, yesterday’s decision in DC v. Heller (07-290) has generated a lot of interest in both the media and legal blog communities. Below, we’ve linked to a number of the substantive articles and posts currently available.

Nina Totenberg’s coverage on NPR can be accessed here.

Lyle’s broadcast report for WBUR’s Here and Now program is available here. The Washington Post’s in-depth coverage includes Robert Barnes’ summary of the decision and its implications, as well as this article by Dan Balz and Keith Richburg. Today’s Post also includes a piece on community reaction within the District, as well as this poll indicating that 70% of its readers agree with yesterday’s decision (as of 9:00 am). Monica Hesse offers this recap of the “duel” between yesterday’s majority opinion and dissent authors.

Op-Ed columnist Colbert I. King offers this opinion piece, and columnist Marc Fisher provides his take in Raw Fisher. [Link to entire article here.]

SCOTUS Blog -- Commentary: So What's Next on Guns?

If the Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gun rights brings about, as the dissenters said, “a dramatic upheaval in the law,” perhaps that was enough of a task to perform for one day. And, in fact, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the Court conceded that the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller was but a first step, saying: “Since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” And it definitely did not.

Still, it is remarkable how much was left undecided, and, therefore, how wide-ranging the post-Heller litigation is going to be. It is already apparent, from comments that the National Rifle Association was circulating among the news media Thursday, that the Nation will not have to wait long for those lawsuits — probably a flood of them — to begin. Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s dissenting opinion lists a wide array of gun control laws now in force that, one suspects, the NRA will soon challenge. Breyer, in fact, suggests that “the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.” [Link to entire article here.]

Oh Yeah? Here's What I Think of the U.S. Military

I know I have not posted for a long time, but I have spent a lot of time watching the situation with the Marine Corps recruiting center in Berkeley, CA. I finally got fed up and decided to tell the US Military exactly what I think of them. So, if you're a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine, here's exactly what I think of you ...




And if thet is not enough to make it perfectly clear what I think of them, you can see where put my money here. Afterall, talk is cheap.

F-22 Raptor Airshow -- Astonishing

Simply amazing ...

Why I Was Never Late For School

Buddy sent me this and I just had to post it.

Criticisms of the Seventh Day Adventist Church

... or any other Church and/or religion.

Back in 2007 an anonymous Seventh-day Adventist wrote a letter to the Zola Levitt Ministries which was published on page 23 of The Levitt Letter as Adventists Are Now God's Chosen People!?

Dr. Jeffrey Seif rightly responded to the objectionable contents.

Embarassed and offended by what this anonymous Adventist wrote, I called Zola Levitt Ministries (25 Nov. '07) apologizing for what this guy wrote. Not satisfied with only a phone message, I decided to write Dr. Seif an apology via email and published the apology on my blog as a post titled The Levitt Letter. You can read my response here.

Just yesteday a reader, J. Trade, responded to my post with the following comment:

I believe it was a little naive to believe that the letter to Jeffrey Seif was actually from a Seventh-day Adventist. First clue is that it was ANONYMOUS! Secondly, the remarks appear to be intentionally inflamatory (intended to get a negative reaction towards Adventists). Thirdly, the content of the remarks do not reflect what the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches. Put it all together, I would be probably more correct in accessing that it was written by a bitter person who may had some association with Adventists in the past or an enemy of the Adventist church whose intent is malicious.

I agree with you J. Trade and want to add some further comments.

While it is perfectly acceptable, IMO, to critique the views and doctrines of any church or religion, it is NOT acceptable to use deception or mis-characterizations in doing so.

From a Christian point of view, the Holy Spirit does not use lies, deception, innuendo, misrepresentation, or any under-handed means. It is not a mark of being under the influence of Christ to intentionally lie about, or misrepresent anyone.

If someone is a Christian and they are worried a friend is going down the "wrong path" or in the "wrong religion", the Christian (myself included) is not allowed to use anything but fair and honest discourse if they want to dissuade their friend from the "wrong path."

I saw this happen on more than one occasion. For example, I remember back in 1999 (or was it 1998?) when I was teaching at La Sierra University. There were several students on campus who were members of a different (locally popular) Christian denomination. Adventist colleges typically admit students from other faith traditions so long as they abid by the student code of conduct, e.g., no smoking, drinking, etc. However, these "undercover agents" would consistently approach relatively new adventist converts, misrepresenting themselves and their intentions, and use innuendo and deception to try to lead the new converts from the Adventist church.

Mind you, I have no problem with someone being straightforward and honestly representing themselves and telling any Adventist that the SDA church was wrong, and then to honestly argue why one should leave the Adventist church. That is called intellectual discourse and is perfectly fine in my book.

However, that is not what these individuals were doing. They were deliberately using dishonest and/or misleading methods. It even reached the point that these "undercover agents" vandalized campus property as well as papered trhe cars in the parking lot with false and inflammatory material about the SDA church.

To make matters worse, I contacted the pastor of the church the agents attended and informed him of what was going on and what had happened. He said he knew who they were and refused to identify the individuals involved. Basically, he covered their tracks for them. (I eventually figured out who these individuals are, but it was not until about 8 months later, after they had already graduated.)

I am sorry, but if any one tells lies about Mormons, Jehovah's Witnessess, Buddhists, etc. or uses any other form of deception, then your master is not Jesus Christ.

You are using the methods of a different master.

Hilarious

Hilarious!

I am a Liberal!

Yup, that's right, I am an unabashed, unashamed Classical Liberal.

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.[6]

Unfortunately, the term liberal has been highjacked by those who are not (Classical) liberals at all. I refuse to give up the term.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. President John F. Kennedy, Inagural Address.

Personal Preparedness, part 3 -- Getting a Trunk Monkey

I have found an excellent all around piece of personal preparedness equipment for my car. I think everyone should have one. It is called The Trunk Monkey and you can see a demo of it in the video below:




I think we all need to have one of these.

Personal Preparedness, part 2

For those of you are interested in personal preparedness, you will be interested in Survival Blog. The author is Mr. Jim Rawles who describes himself as:

... a survivalist author and lecturer. I'm a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and technical writer. I now work as a full-time blogger and freelance writer. SurvivalBlog is my creation ...

... I am a Christian, and hold to Reformed doctrine. My view of history is of the geographical determinist school. My view of economics is of the Austrian school. Politically, I am a conservative/Constitutionalist libertarian.

I am including Survival Blog as one of my links.

BTW, I note that you served in the Army. Thank you for your service Mr. Rawles.

Distinctions Between Terrorism, War and Crimes of War

A few years ago I read Dore Gold's book Hatred's Kingdom while reading up on terrorism and Al Qaida.

The book eventually lead me to the paper by Auther H. Garrison entitled Terrorism: The Nature of Its History (Criminal Justice Studies, 2003, Vol. 16(1), pp. 39-52).

It is a summary of the nature of terrorism, as well as the history of its causes, and its rise and spread until today. I am often confused by those who make a moral equivalence between terrorists and the soldiers fighting them. I am sorry, but it is just not true that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Here is a (lengthy) quote from Garrison's paper that I found enlightening and thought I would share it:

Distinctions Between Terrorism, War and Crimes of War

Terrorism should not be confused with traditional warfare. In war, a target is selected because it has military value and will achieve a specific military objective. In modern warfare, a specific target is attacked or destreyed because the action serves a specific military necessity, achieves a specific result (utility) and leads to a specific goal (objective) while limiting colateral damage (proportional use of force) to the civilian population. In terrorism, the target is of little interest, per se. What is important is that the target will realize a certain reaction on the part of the greater society. The terrorist group that plants an altitude bomb on the plane does not target the 270 passengers on the flight. The intended effect on the world when that plane is destroyed over a populated area is what makes the act terrorism. Conversely, an Israeli jet dropping a bomb on an apartment building to assassinate a specific person, for example, a senior officer of Hamas, is not an act of terrorism. The specific goal of the attack was to assassinate the Hamas leader, not to cause fear in order to change behavior in Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinians. The other people killed were collateral casualties. Terrorism is not defined by the fact that life is lost in an act of violence or the amount of life that is lost. Terrorism is defined by the intended effect of the use ofviolence and the purpose of the terrorist act. There is a difference between the use of violence on a target because the target has an intrinsic and specific value, and the use of violence on a target that has no intrinsic or specific value, but is attacked in order to effect the larger audience watching the attack. The former is an act of war; the latter is terrorism.

Some researchers do not agree that there is a distinction between terrorism and war, and assert that terrorism is warfare against civilians, a tactic that has a long history (Carr, 2002). Carr, for example, asserts that terrorism is part of the development of war: Terrorism, in other words, is simply the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable” (Carr,2002, p. 6).

This formulation makes no distinction between acts committed in war to cause an enemy to surrender and acts committed to intimidate and cause policy change. For example, there is a difference between General Sherman’s march through South Carolina (to cause the surrender of the Confederacy and divide the south in two, thus separating Lee’s army from supplies and aid) and Osama bin Laden sending 19 men to hijack four planes to crash them into the World Trade Center. The former was committed to bring an end to a war and prevent a city from aiding an enemy force; the latter was to cause death and destruction. The 266 passengers and crew on the four hijacked planes were not the targets of the attack, nor were the estimated 2500 people inside World Trade Center building. The goal was to cause massive loss of life and property, and to send a message to the United States and the world, to force policy change in the United States.

There is also a difference between terrorism and war crimes. An example of a war crime is an army invading a town to purge it of enemy forces, and while doing so intentionally killing unarmed civilians and non-combatants. Although this action is both immoral and criminal, it is not terrorism. In this example, people were killed because members of the army lost control of themselves, not to intimidate other towns or the society as a whole to achieve a political objective.

Personal Preparedness

I didn't used to think of myself as a survivalist of any sort, but with the California wildfires that came so close to my home last year, as well as the dramatic increase in food and energy prices, I have decided to do a bit of preparing in case something bad happens.

In case there is another wildfire and I have to evacuate my family, or the economy really takes a downturn and I lose my job, I want to have just enough supplies on hand that my family can be self sufficient without relying on government aid. (Anyone remember the hurricane Katrina fiasco?)

I won't go into the details of everything I am working on, but for those of you who are interested, I found an nice resource on preparedness and want to make you aware of it. It is the LDS Preparedness Manual and can be downloaded for free by linking here.


While I am not Mormon, this is an excellent resource. It includes everything from monthly shopping lists to develop a year supply of food, to practical discussions on how to be self-reliant in case of a natural disaster.

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