Politics

Phil Paper: Should Intelligent Design be taught?

/ toseealife / 1 Comment

This is my Philosophy Paper about Intelligent Design being taught. I cut out the title page and formal argument, I figured no one would want to read that, this is just the body of the paper, and the Works Cited, if anyone wants to double check my facts. The post follows the structure of a introduction, terms defined, three premises, and a conclusion. Enjoy 😁👍

Introduction

From the late 1800s people have been debating whether Intelligent Design (ID) or Evolution should be taught in public schools, and since the 1960s, the debate has veered in favor of Evolution. Intelligent Design has been entirely eliminated from most public school curriculum.  Though not considered scientific by the majority of people, Intelligent Design is widely believed as an alternative to Evolution, and I will argue that it should be taught, and at the very least explained to students.

There are valid reasons to teach Intelligent Design. First, I will argue that teachers and school districts have the right to choose their own curriculum. Second, I will argue that many of the parents of children in the public school system do not want their children to be taught to believe Evolution. Thirdly, I will argue that since Evolution is not scientifically verified, teaching it is no different than teaching a religious perspective.

I will now begin by defining a few terms.

Terms Defined

Intelligent Design: the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent. Abbreviation: ID (dictionary.com)

 Evolution: Has 6 meanings, all of which relate to my subject

 Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”

Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen

Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds

Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter

Macroevolution: animals and plants change from one type into another

Microevolution: variations form within the “kind” (Creationtoday.com)

Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed (dictionary.com)

Natural Law: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature (Merriam-webster.com)

Now that I have defined some of the key terms in my paper, I will proceed to argue that Educators have the freedom to choose their curriculum.

Teachers and School Districts have the Freedom to Choose Their Curriculum

         The right to free speech, or Freedom of Expression, is one of the founding principles of America as a society, and is meant to extend to all its areas of politics, education, religion, etc.  It is simply not constitutional to demand that many teachers, professors, principals, and other educators, teach as truth an opinion they do not believe in. It is in effect making them lie to their students, and denying them their right to free speech.

  Some might be skeptical that teachers really are required to teach evolution and not ID. It is true that teaching Creationism has been outlawed by the Supreme court since 1987 (Wapshott 36-37). ID has not been prohibited by the Supreme Court. However, because many people claim that ID is just Creationism repackaged, it is coming under the same scrutiny. Whether the ruling against Creationism makes it also illegal to teach ID is a subject of great debate, but it is easy to imagine how it might intimidate any teacher who does wish to present it as an alternative. 

  The problem is not in telling students that Evolution, the alternative to ID, is considered the scientific explanation for how things came to be. The problem is in refusing to allow teachers and schools to freely admit they do not accept the theory, or present any counterarguments to the theory that they may find worthy of consideration. I as a student, can freely express disagreement with evolution, but my professors are not supposed to, at least during class time, teach an alternative perspective even if they believe it.

  While a teacher may not get fired for speaking against Evolution, it can be easier to simply not risk it, and even if the head of the school might not have a personal problem with ID, they may enforce the rule anyway, sometimes because parents insist on it. I found one case that went to a federal court in Pennsylvania over the issue: “Dover’s school board ordered that a short statement be read at the beginning of biology classes, which pointed to ‘gaps’ in Darwin’s theory of evolution and endorsed intelligent design as an alternative. Eleven parents filed suit against the district, claiming that the statement violates the required separation of church and state in lessons” (Brumfiel,  607; Sparr, 719-720).  Though this is only one incident, the fact that it went to federal court meant the outcome set up a precedent for the middle district of Pennsylvania. I looked up the case results, and the judge ruled in favor of not teaching ID, which will apply to the whole middle district of Pennsylvania (Sparr 719-720). 

I found out more about this case, “By analyzing the arguments of one of the most prominent and respected ID supporters in the country, the Kitzmiller court’s opinion went to the heart of the ID movement and created an analytical roadmap for other courts to follow” (ibid). In other words, since this case was decided, it has been referred to by educators as a reason not to present ID. What’s interesting is that the Dover School District’s statement did not actually say ID was true.  “Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence… Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind” (Sparr 719-720). The school also left an option for parents to sign a release for their child to not have to read the statement if they did not want them to (ibid).

I am not arguing that parents should not get to object, but in this case their reason for doing so is weak. I will address the separation of church and state more in my counter argument section, but for now, I want to point out that acknowledging gaps in Darwin’s theory and supporting ID as an alternative was not bringing any one religion into the school district, but simply being honest with the students about possible problems with the curriculum and offering them a possible solution. Furthermore, it was an option, not a requirement. Encouraging the students to keep an open mind and making an alternative perspective available would be fulfilling the right to Freedom of Expression.

Now that I have defended a teacher or district’s right to choose their own curriculum, or at least express disagreement with the school’s openly, I will argue that the current curriculum does not reflect the beliefs of many of the parents.

Public Education about Evolution does not Reflect What Many Parents Want Their Children to be Taught to Believe.

I already mentioned that parents got involved in the case I detailed before, but what is notable is that only eleven parents were involved in the issue (Brumfiel  607). This case ended up in the federal court because of eleven parent’s objections, not to the curriculum, but to the disclaimer. However, is it right to assume that their opinion, in one school district and one area, represented the general wishes of parents in the state of Pennsylvania, or the rest of the country? I would say that there are some good statistics that would say otherwise. 

According to the 2014 Gallup Poll, the percentage of people nationally who believe in Evolution is now at 47%. While the percentage of people who believe in Creationism (which falls under the ID category) is at 40-47% (Bradshaw).  Also according to the poll 79% of Americans who believed in Evolution reported being familiar with Evolution, familiarity with Creationism at 76%. The results for this Gallup poll were based on telephone interviews conducted May 8-11, 2014, with a random sample of 1,028 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. The landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday. The samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to correspond to the national demographics of gender, age, race. 

If we infer that these percentages represent the country with some accuracy, then it is clear that a sizable chunk of the adults (meaning parents) in this country do not accept Evolution as truth. Their beliefs are not reflected in the public school curriculum. I am not arguing that we treat truth democratically, that is what I am arguing against. We are split almost 50-50 currently in what we accept. Yet the state gets to decide what curriculum is approved for its public schools and that decision can be in the hands of a single judge, or a council. I argue that with something as important as a worldview, the state should not be deciding by itself or by majority rule what to instill in our children. This goes against the First Amendment, which is supposed to keep the state from establishing any one worldview. I would argue that the right to Freedom of Expression also means the right to not have your children be taught something you do not believe in, at least until they are old enough to be expected to think critically.

I argue that the better solution would be to do what the Dover district attempted to do, and present both perspectives. It would represent the wishes of more parents, though I think they should be allowed to exempt their children if they do not wish them to be taught both sides. Parents can opt their child out of gym for approved reasons, why not extend that to other classes? I would even go a step further, and argue that the Origin of Life would be better left out of grade school curriculum entirely. If students could wait until College to pursue the topic, they could choose which perspective to learn about.  However, I do not think that this solution is likely to be adopted, so I am proposing at least teaching a more balanced view that would better serve the needs of all the parents, not just the ones who believe in Evolution.

Now that I have argued that an exclusively evolution based curriculum does not reflect the wishes of many parents, I will proceed to argue my last point, that Evolution is not proven, so teaching it is no different than teaching ID.

Evolution is not Scientifically Proven so Teaching it is on the Same Level as Teaching Intelligent Design

 There are some guidelines that have to be met for a theory to be considered scientific, I found them in the book Are Creationism-Intelligent Design Writings Scientific? “Overton defined science as such: ‘1. It is guided by natural law; 2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative; 5. It is falsifiable’ ” (Overton quoted in White’s, 318). 

However, Evolution is not a proven theory by these standards, it has been tested to a small extent. For example, the creation of a few amino acids (which are the building blocks of proteins in your DNA) under highly controlled conditions that would not be found anywhere in Nature, where Organic Evolution allegedly took place (gwu). These tests did not explain how Organic Evolution could happen without those extremely controlled conditions. In the end the article concluded that Earth must have had different conditions, like no oxygen, when life originated. That is a hypothesis that has not been proven, as all testing of the air from crystallized amber reveals that there was more oxygen in the past few thousand years, and the size of the animal and plant skeletons we find also suggests a richer environment in the past (Livina 97–106) . That does not disprove Organic Evolution, but the fact remains that it is still a hypothesis. 

The only Evolution that can be proven to be guided by natural law is Microevolution; all the others are purely theoretical. To be clear, my argument is not that Evolution should not be taught; I already argued that Teachers are allowed to teach what they believe is the best explanation, and many believe Evolution makes sense. The reason I have laid this out is because Evolution is claimed to be scientifically proven, while ID is claimed to be a religious worldview ( Brumfiel, 607; Furigay; Manis). However, the evidence for ID is on par with the evidence for Evolution. That is, it is interpreting the observable things in the natural world as coming from an unobservable cause that cannot be proven, because we were not there. I define proof, in this case, as being able to demonstrate something happening in today’s conditions that would not require Man intervening in order to make it work. 

For clarity, I will give one example of the way in which Evolution and ID are equal. The foundation for Evolution is the Big Bang Theory, the theory that the matter in the universe came from a central location, exploded, and then expanded (see Terms Defined) into what we see today. The foundation for ID is that this was set in place be a designer, or designers, if you are a polytheist. Some intelligent life form, on consciousness. For many people, of course, it is God. The similarity between these two theories is this: No one knows the cause. 

If we take the Evolution perspective, we do not know where the matter came from, or what set off the explosion, or what made the laws of physics take effect. If we take the ID perspective, we do not know where the Designer came from, or why they chose to make our universe, and why they made it the way they did. All either of us have is the observable facts, and our theories. The evidence for both depends purely on interpretation of the facts. This is only one of many examples, but I am not arguing the pros and cons of the theories.

 Now that I have argued for ID being equal to Evolution in terms of proof, I will address two counter arguments to my claims.

Counter Arguments:

Counter argument #1: Intelligent Design is just Creationism repackaged, making it a religious worldview. It is unconstitutional for  government funded schools to teach a religious viewpoint. It violates the principles of freedom of religion, that there should be a  “Separation of Church and State” (Furigay; Manis).

Refutation: The words “Separation of Church and State” are not in the constitution, but in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. What the constitution says is the government should not establish a State Religion. The government should not insist that any one viewpoint be taught in every public school, or rule that presenting an alternative viewpoint is unconstitutional. ID is not a single religion. It is a summary of what all religions usually claim, except for the humanist ones, such as Evolution, or Existentialism. Therefore, instructors endorsing ID cannot be endorsing a state religion, because it is not one. Within the broad category of ID you can believe in anything from Greek Mythology to Aliens visiting the planet, and it is all technically intelligent design. While it is true that many ID endorsers are Creationists, they are not all one religion. Islam is a Creationist religion, so is Hinduism, so are any number of tribal religions. ID is an inclusive worldview, while evolution is exclusive.

Counter Argument #2: ID does not represent the population as a whole so it should not be taught to the public (Manis).

Refutation: Truth is not democratic. Public opinion is not a reliable source for what is and is not right. This is an example of the fallacy known as ad populum. This is also a weak argument because plenty of subjects that are taught in public school are not necessarily representative of the majority’s opinion/knowledge, such as higher math, yet they are still accepted as accurate. Evolution was not accepted widely for hundreds of years, and statistics vary as to whether it is the most popular opinion even now. Moreover, ID is a far less exclusive view than Evolution, because ID includes any and all religions that believe in God or in gods, as part of the category, and Evolution does not. To represent the population as a whole is impossible. The only truly fair option would be to remove any explanation of the origin of the universe at all from public education.

 Conclusion: 

In summary, instructors have the right to present ID if they want to do so, parents have the right to choose what their children learn, and Evolution and ID are both unproven and should be presented as equally valid theories. Therefore, we should be allowed to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution.

            

                                                                    Works Cited

Bradshaw, William S. “A Longitudinal Study of Attitudes Toward Evolution among Undergraduates Who are Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 11, 2018. ProQuest

Brumfiel, Geoff. “School Board in Court Over Bid to Teach Intelligent Design.” Nature, vol. 437, no. 7059, 2005, pp. 607. ProQuest.

Furigay, Jane. “Pence in 2002: Intelligent Design should be Taught as Science in Public Schools.”   Targeted News Service, Aug 05, 2016. ProQuest.

Manis, Karalee. “Karalee: Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?” University Wire,  Jan 02, 2020. ProQuest.

Martin, Daniel; McKenna, Helen; Livina, Valerie. “The human physiological impact of global deoxygenation Journal of  Physiological Science. 67(1): 97–106. 2017. Online. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Simon, Neal G. “Freedom to Express Unscientific Ideas.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol.   52, no. 9, 2005, pp. A63. ProQuest.

Smith, G. M. “Creation and Evolution.” Choice, vol. 48, no. 4, 2010, pp. 700. ProQuest.

Sparr, Phillip.  “Special ‘Effects’: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), and the Fate of Intelligent Design in Our Public Schools.” pg 719-720.   2007. Online. digitalcommons.unl.edu 

Unknown Author. “The Origin of Life.” Not Dated. https://www2.gwu.edu

Wapshott, Nicholas. “A NEW AGE OF UNREASON.” New Statesman, vol. 18, no. 881, Oct 17, 2005, pp. 36-37. ProQuest.

White, David J. “Are Creationism-Intelligent Design Writings Scientific? A Content Analysis of Popular Evolution, Creation, and Intelligent Design Texts.” University of South Dakota,       Ann Arbor, 2011. ProQuest.

Thanks for reading–Natasha.

An odd Thanksgiving Post.

/ toseealife / 1 Comment

Being homeschooled is the best, you completely miss big controversies till weeks after they happened.

I heard about this Kanye West thing, but didn’t know what it was about till today.

And, taking my cue from BlimeyCow, one of my favorite YouTubers, I don’t really see it as imperative that I comment on Kanye West’s personal life.

I might listen to the album though, I like rap and Gospel both, so who knows, maybe I’d like them together. (Roll your eyes all you want people over 30.)

But, I couldn’t help noticing some things popping up that I notice a lot with controversy and identity politics and stuff, and since Kanye West’s reception is simply a microcosm of it, I think I can comment on that using this as an example.

This whole thing has brought out the best and worst in the Black Christian Culture, from what I can see, and the White…and anyone who cares.

I read of one person criticizing West’s political standpoints by saying their blackness and their religion (Christianity) were tied too closely together, and he disrespected that. (By supporting Trump, I suppose.)

All political opinions aside…what…?

In the New Testament, Paul declares that there is no race, no gender, no slave nor free, in Christ. ( Galatians 3:28)

That passage does not mean that race, gender, and freedom do not matter at all, it means that when it comes to God, there is no favoritism. Whatever you are, you inherit the same thing in Christ. all of us pray, all of us receive help from God, all of us are called to the same mission, that supersedes all the other differences.

Of course, if someone discriminates based on race, gender, or freedom, then do something about it, Christianity is the best basis for equal rights. Anyone is able to be a Christian, and Christians do not focus just on the free and respected people.

Ours is a religion of going to remote tribes, prisons, jails, ghettos, gangs, slaves, junkies, hospitals, mental institutions, new civilizations, old civilizations, anywhere and everywhere we go.

Christians stand before kings and culprits alike, and do not care. It’s historical as well as doctrinal.

For this very reason, if someone is tying religion to their race, history, or gender, I already have to wonder about what they believe. Certainly, it’s not the Bible.

Now, there are plenty of religions that allow for the superiority of one race…but Christianity is not one of them.

Though it has been used that way but that was when it was mixed with other ideas and what was actually in the Bible was ignored.

Look, I’m not trying to insult anyone, but is Jesus only the savior of black people? Or is He the Savior of white, Latino, Asian, and every other race under the sun. Heck, if a race of people lived underground their whole lives, He’d be their Savior too.

When white people regrettably brought slaves to my country, it wasn’t right (though, it also wasn’t just the white people, the Africans sold each other too.)

But oddly enough, even as cruel as we were, we shared the most important thing of all with the slaves: Our faith.

Strangely enough, this things that matters most, that is the key to life, is the one thing we weren’t holding back from them.

It’s not really a thing to brag about, because strangely, this is a common theme in history. People can be cruel to each other, but, somehow, a lot of the more organized empires have always stressed sharing religion as the most important thing.

To share truth, and God, is rather strange, because God may take pity on the people you’ve conquered, and decide to help them…so why tell them who to ask?

Yet, it’s all over. From Rome to Babylon. I won’t say the religions were always good ones, but the fact that humans are so adamant about sharing what they think is the real God with each other it really rather a strange phenomenon, we’re so selfish about most things.

Religion was used against black people, but it ultimately was the main reason they were freed and makes the best case for Civil Rights. Also, many slave holders, contrary to what you might hear, treated their slaves better when they believed the most in the Bible. Because it says to treat slaves well, not all masters were terrible people.

I also find is rather ironic to say that your blackness is tied to your religion, and its history, when the Bible doesn’t actually condemn slavery…

Nor does it say it’s exactly right. But that’s another story.

Now, I’m not just picking on black people here, this happens all over the place. This incident highlights one place is all. Identity-based religion and politics always ends up compromising some of the religion or politics itself, just for the sake of affirming one’s identity.

Gratitude:

I want to be thankful to the many people who refuse to be stereotyped or to use their race or gender as leverage.

I’d personally give Kanye West credit for at least not being intimidated about it, if nothing else.

I”m grateful for the readers who don’t give me hate comments for stating these opinions, I’m aware I would be ripped to shreds on many other blogs just for daring to say that black people can mishandle these issues at all.

Also, I spent 6 years of my life going to an almost all-black church, the pastor like to say there was no such thing as a black or white church.

I can say the style is different, and often the doctrine is different too. I didn’t like it overmuch but it’s not like I never have issues with white churches either.

Really, I think it has more to do with the faith of the people and not what color they are. There are black people at my mostly white and Hispanic church, so clearly, it’s not a race-based difference.

I could spend a whole post comparing the pros and cons of each, but does it really matter?

Anyway, I guess my main point was, if we’re going to criticize people, it needs to be for a real reason. And more importantly, Christians should never ever act like they own their religion, like they have the only right way of expressing it, and like they have more of a right to God because of their history.

In the history of human suffering every race has its share of hard periods, but I think the Jews have the worst of it overall. They don’t even get to be left alone in their own country. (And I am part Jewish.)

I do not say this to minimize anything, but to give the proper respect to all people. We all have it bad, we all have it good. We all suffer, yet God takes care of all of us.

And God himself suffers.

So, today, I’m just grateful to worship a God who won’t turn away anyone who seeks Him for help.

Until next time, Happy Thanksgiving, –Natasha.

Homophobia?

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Homophobe: a person with a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

homo-man + phobe-fear.

Boy, does this term get thrown around a lot.

You know I’ve never liked it because I think it suggests that every person who doesn’t support homosexuality is afraid of gay people. That’s like saying everyone who doesn’t support abortion is afraid of doctors or women… oh, yeah, people do say that.

Not sure how that works if you’re already a woman, but…

I know I’ve written about this subject before, I’ve encouraged people not to compromise with what the world says about it. I would never encourage hate for anyone, whatever their sexual orientation might be, but I do think we need to stick to our guns,

As I’ve said before, if you claim to be a Christian, you need to obey the Bible.

I think someone might ask me “Well do you obey the Bible all the time?” And I’d reply “I try to.” Of course I sin still. But there’s a difference between sinning and living in sin. Living in sin means it’s a cycle, an ongoing theme of one or two sins in particular, that you aren’t really trying to stop. Not that you slip up now and again.

Lately it’s starting to look like anyone who says anything against gay content of any sort, no mater how outrageous it is even by their own standards, is going to be hung out to dry. Especially if they are a man.

The tables have sure turned, it used to be being man meant more protection by law, now being a woman means you have a huge advantage. I don’t think it was right when there was a bias against women, but I don’t think this is right either. Equality means justice for both men and women.

Am I gong to sit around worrying about it? No. And I’d urge men not to either. I’ve come to realize something over the past year: The world will do what the world does. All throughout history, the world has supported one sin or another. Racism, sexual sin, sins of cruelty, sins of neglect, much much worse if we go to before Christ’s era. And directly afterward. (Gladiators and Colosseums anyone?)

C. S. Lewis once observed in The Screwtape Letters that it would seem the devil always encourages societies to the morality they should be more guarded against. That is, stingy societies are warned against spending too much, strict societies are warned against too much freedom, and promiscuous societies are warned against being too legalistic. It’s not wrong to not want to make these mistakes, but it becomes popular because it’s what we are least likely, as a culture, to do at the era of time.

You can always trust the culture to reflect what people want to hear. It’s what sells, and we are warned about in 2 Timothy 4: 3 when Paul says people will have itching ears and turn to those who will tell them what pleases them.

I was curious about how this whole LGBT thing was affecting television, so I Googled it,  and I found an article (linked at the bottom) about how ABC’s LGBT shows have gotten the lowest ratings of any of their recent shows. And Moonlight was the lowest grossing film to win an Oscar. If you take a look at the shows that bombed in this way, it;s not hard to figure out, even a homosexual person would probably dislike the attitude in these shows. Which is blatant hate and bitterness toward heterosexuals.

Can I take a second to point out the startlingly obvious? Without heterosexual couples reproducing, no homosexuals would ever get here…so yeah…uh..hate your parents. That’s a good message. *Eye roll.

Look, I know a lot of homosexuals have issues with their parents, and I understand that can be hard. But it doesn’t excuse that kind of hate. I also understand that people have done terrible things to homosexuals. Which was wrong. And is wrong. Sin cannot be beat out of someone. I may think you’re sinning, but I’m not going to sin against you just to prove a point, that makes no sense.

I do have a problem with expressing my beliefs being classified as a crime against homosexuals. When you can ruin someone’s career over something they said one time and stuff they supposedly did ten years ago, then my saying one thing is not going to do you any real damage.

Honestly, who is the real victim here? People can drag not only the offender, but their entire family through the mud over the smallest thing, and yet somehow I’m supposed to feel sorry for them?

Well, I won’t change anyone’s mind by arguing.

I will say this much, I think these shows are not doing well for two reasons: One, though very few people will protest gay content now because they know they’ll be massacred for it, not a whole lot of them actually enjoy it. Even fewer enjoy the most blatant, in your face examples of it. IF they like it at all, they like it low-key.

Second, there’s a lot of people who don’t believe in it still. You’ll never hear them covered by media or polls. Because no one wants their opinion to get out there. It would hurt the image that everyone now supports this.

Newsflash, whole countries of people would still say this is an unhealthy lifestyle. Now, that proves nothing. But it’s kind of delusional to assume you are in the majority just because one country won’t ever cover the opposition’s side. I don’t assume most of the world is Christian just because I see churches everywhere. Most of the world is not, actually, christian.

In fact, this delusion seems to have spread thanks to fictional portrayals of LGBT, according to another article I found:

“Indeed, research suggests a correlation between acceptance of same sex marriage
and LGBT representation in mainstream entertainment media, particularly prime-time television. Research also shows media representation can have a positive effect on members of the LGBT community,
especially among adolescents, by providing role models and a sense of community.”

See full article here: https://scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=honors-theses

I will never say homosexuality is biblical. Other than it is mentioned int he bible. But I am sorry about the way it has been handled by the Church, which usually either is very harsh toward it, or way too lenient.

This won’t make some people happy, but I think, if you have to err one way, it is always better to err against sin. Harshness is not good, but it’s worse to tell people it’s okay to destroy their lives. You are better off at a church that might be too judgy than one that refuses to stick to any unpopular opinions at all.

Ideally find somewhere that encourages both kind love and tough love.

I’ll say this, Jesus did not condemn homosexuals. He defined marriage as between man and woman, but he never said homosexual was the unforgivable sin. In the end, sins of the body are still easier to stop doing than sins of the heart.

People have been delivered of homosexuality, one of the big lies of the movement is that it’s permanent. It’s not. It can be changed. (Read A Strong Delusion for one man’s story about this.)

I believe some of the kids who identify as LGBT do it because they think they can’t help it. That’s not rue. There is a way.

Honestly, all of us have done things with our sexuality we’re not proud of. Even me, and I’ve never been with a man, lust is something everyone has to deal with. You can escape it.

I know that will make some people mad. I’m okay with that. Because if there’s the slightest chance someone who’s really searching for alternatives to the world’s way is reading,t hen i’s worth it to me. If they choose to throw out what I say, then it’s not on me.

One last thing, someday these opinions may get me banned from certain places, and ostracized and hated. I’m not that popular now, but that could change. And I will accept that the world hates truth. Being hated and rejected is something Christians, men and women, should expect. Don’t take it as a sign you did the wrong thing. Jesus was hated too.

I don’t care if that sound arrogant to some people. I believe what I believe because I know that I know that I know it’s true. And if it’s true, I had better stick to it.

Well, thank you for reading this really long post, until next time–Natasha.

Link to first article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lgbtq-ratings-flop-americans-keep-rejecting-gay-programming

How it feels to be white in America.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

So ready for some controversy? Good.

I am feeling a little discriminated against by…the system!

Nah, too dramatic.

Still, for all I read and hear about what it’s like to be in a minority group, I wonder.

Okay, it’s not like this bothers me every single day of my life or anything…it just occurred to me at school today when I did something mildly nice for an Asian student. I had the thought “What would my actions be construed as by the wrong person?” Any number of things i suppose, but with the blatant hostility I read about sometimes, I had to wonder. Would my help be seen as some psychological need on my part to absolve myself from the charge of prejudice? To show that i don’t see myself as a cut above non white students? Or above foreign ones.

Anyway, what really bugs me is tokenism. Which targets minority groups. It works like this, by stressing how excluded a minority is, and then including one or two members of that minority in your project, you make it seem like you’re on their side.

However, it’s kind of bizarre to make a point out of including someone just for their race or gender. Isn’t that basically the same as saying they are different? That different rules apply?

And if you should choose not to work with those people, you get accused of being bigoted. Though you could have legitimate reasons not too. I don’t choose that myself, but I know business owners who’ve been burned plenty of times by minority group members. Just because you’ve been discriminated against doesn’t make you a good employee.

That’s kind of the problem. Just as someone can’t lack worth because of a their race, neither can they gain worth. Black lives don’t matter more than anyone elses. All lives matter.

Being born one color doesn’t grant superiority, inferiority, amnesty, or guilt.

I think most of us would be surprised how many people got turned into racists simply because they were accused of being so. Maybe our idea of what racism is changed, or maybe our idea of ourselves changes if enough people say bad things about us. White people have been as much a victim of that as anyone else.

How it feels to be white living in America now is something that people don’t talk about very often. Even saying white can be a trigger word. Now, I’m sure, I’d make some eyes roll if I said being white can be hard now. Well sue me. (Not literally.) It can be kind of rough.

I hate  having to ask the question if I do things because I am kind, or because I feel guilty. Now, I don’t really entertain that thought, but the fact that it’s even come to mind is kind of sad.

I remember as a kid I used to be kind of uncomfortable around black people. I didn’t know any personally for years. I guess there weren’t that many where I lived. (There still aren’t come to think of it.) But I never considered them as inferior. Just different. On the outside.

You know, the madness has gotten to the point where my even feeling that way would be twisted by some people into saying that racism is just part of being human and I couldn’t help myself. And white supremacy, blah, blah, blah.

You now the black people I do know now are all more well off than my family is, so much for white middle class pride.

I’d be glad enough to think that when I pass a black person at school they don’t look at me and think “racist” or assume I’m privileged. Or that somehow I have advantages they don’t.

If you took race out of it, just assumed race has nothing to do with success, then the difference between me and them is…not outward.

It’d be a fair guess that most of them weren’t homeschooled, based on what I know of young people, a lot of them don’t like to read, they probably don’t really like school most of them.

That’s what I’ve seen from all students, race isn’t important. Even the Asians who are reputed to be the brainy, honor roll, geniuses complain about classwork. The few white students in my classes actually yap the least in general about the teacher. They tend to be quieter too. I can’t say if that’s race, environment, temperament, or all three.

But, here’s the thing. If I succeed academically and then at a career, it’ll be assumed by a large amount of the population that I was given preference over these other students. “Of course she did well,” they might think, “the system was rigged for her.”

It’s slippery when you can convince everyone that the system is rigged against one group, and secretly rig it against another.

Here’s a little trivia for you. Guess how many groups I can be a part of just because of my race? Guess what scholarship opportunities and clubs I get to join because of it? Guess what kind of discrimination claims I can file if I don’t get selected for something?

If you answered none to all of those, then you’d be right. Can you imagine, even in the midwestern part of this country, someone starting a white pride club?

It’s laughable isn’t it. Now this will be hard for some people to understand but bear with me…If you can’t start a club about how proud you are to be your race because that in itself would be considered racist…that’s a double standard.

“I’m painfully white,” “I’m too white,” “I’m so white, people need shades when I’m at the beach.” What kind of talk is this? And who made it okay for white people to disparage their skin color, but shameful for black people or Latinos to. (Not that they don’t still. Anyone can have this problem, it’s just how its viewed by society.)

I am not saying white people can’t make jokes at our own expense, I just don’t like the underlying shame in the tone of these jokes. We aren’t proud to be this way…we feel unable to change it.

What saddens me is that some very bitter people (not all by a long shot) in minority groups would say this is what we deserve after years of doing it to them. How does it feel?

Well, how does it feel? Guess what, my roots aren’t all in the oppressor. My grandfather’s family was the oppressed. They had to leave Europe. Now, who’s had it worse? I’m sure either side could make an argument.

But because I look white and american, no one will ever think just be seeing me “her grandpa got persecuted for his race. Her great grandparents got forced out of their homes by a corrupt government.” Just like African Americans. What is the blooming difference?

That I’m white.

What stings is not that I want payback for it all. I don’t. I don’t even want to talk about it. It’s in the past. Things change. We change with them. And maybe, dare I say, Jews understand this a little better because we are so universally despised. We adapt though we hold on to tradition.

No, what stings is the assumptions. Again, some Africans I know have a less brutal history than my family does, even if you go back a few generations. Not all of them, and probably not most of them if I’m honest. But what will be assumed?

To restate the old adage “you can’t judge a book by its cover.”

Why do we keep on focusing on what divides us? I’m not the first to ask, and I won’t be the last. If they don’t care, I won’t either. But I’m not living my life feeling guilty for something I didn’t do.

That’s all for now, until next time–Natasha.

RAGE!

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Okay, I normally stay away from two things when I blog: Politics and outright reprimands.

But I’ve had it!

This is not about Judge Kavnaugh, though that whole mess is partly what got me to thinking about this, but also what I’ve been reading about in my Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric book. It has a whole chapter devoted to how we justify our own bad ways of thinking.

The whole book has a liberal slant, but its not wrong.

But  my problem is not just with politics, but with how we as a culture and as a people are handling conflict. And I mean this is extremely personal, because I find it in myself. I see it in the people around me. Slapped on slogans, broadcasted over talk radio, and good gracious the  news network! For crying out loud, it’s even in our superhero movies and teen dramas.

That thing can be put into one word: Rage.

“Oh, it’s well beyond rage”–William Wallace, Braveheart.

Just take a minute and think about it, what word would you use to describe the way people talk about each other? The way they talk about policies?

What I hear and feel when I see the news is rage.

It’s mindless too. And I’ll admit my own political party is nearly as bad as the Left (clearly we’re not rioting and sending death threats.) I am disgusted by Conservatives who spend all their time blasting the left. While I wholeheartedly believe the left is wrong, and I can’t help but think they act abominably as a whole, even if as individuals I know plenty of decent liberals, but I have never felt the appropriate response was to return in kind.

Pointing fingers is not helpful, maybe we’re right, maybe we’re not, but playing the  blame game will not leave anyone innocent. In fact, it’s stupid for human beings to play this with each other.

It’s like how Adam and Eve pointed fingers in the Garden, both of them did wrong, did it help to blame others? We can argue for hours on who was more guilty, but it won’t change the past.

We can’t change the past.

I’ll tell you one thing, if tomorrow every democrat I knew of had a change of heart and started doing the right thing and standing up for the truth, then it wouldn’t matter to me what the party had done in the past. I don’t freaking care what the Clintons did, or Obama, because it’s in the past. What I care about is the future, if democrats were doing what I honestly thought was best, then I would vote for them.

My identity is not in my political party name, it’s in my morals. Conservatism lines up with what I believe in, that doesn’t mean conservatives always do things I like. I don’t support the party because I like all the people in it, but because I think the bad ones do less damage, and the good ones do more good overall.

Fixing the politics in this country would take a number of miracles, and both the left and the right are holding us back. I’m not ashamed for my party’s ideals, but I’m ashamed of the way we uphold them,

Rage is a virus. It’s contagious. And it’s all about returning in kind. The Left has been awful to the Right, no mistake, but being awful back…this bickering, name calling, mocking, and whining…I consider it beneath us.

Look, I’ll get frustrated with liberals just as much as the next conservative, but I do not hate them. I don’t consider them all to be the worst of humanity. (Some yes, but you’ll find those in every party.) I may get mad at what they do, but I do not want to let myself be consumed by rage every day. It has to be exhausting to do a talk show on politics.

Now, I know there would be protests here. Some would argue that conservatives have to be more aggressive because we own so little of the networks. True enough. I’m not against showing initiative. But, if we’re really as better at politics and morals as we claim, then we shouldn’t have to stoop to yelling and verbal jabs. Or generalizations.

What are we so mad about anyway? That evil exists? That in our mind it’s represented by the opposition? That people can be liars, thieves, abusers, backstabbers, accept bribes, and be unbelievably biased (the ironic thing here is that for some of you I just described my own party.) Did it surprise anyone? Why is that making us angry?

The Bible says not to fret over evildoers, and to not give way to wrath or let anger consume us because it only leads to harm.

I challenge you, whether you’re right or left, to take a long hard look at how your party acts toward the opposition. Ask yourself, is that how I believe people should be treated?

I admit, no. There, I said it.

I especially implore you college students and teens, many of you are liberal, and it’s easy for young people to feel anger over causes (I ought to know, I am one.) But, is this the legacy you want to leave? Rage? Ten years from now, will you be glad of what you did out of rage, or what you did out of mercy?

I’m not letting conservative young people off the hook, how cruel can we be to the others? What kinds of things do we call them on social media.

If there’s one thing I do agree with liberals on, it’s that human rights include not being disrespected and then having it justified because of prejudice. But that goes for them too. If you believe racism is wrong, stop labeling everyone who disagrees with you a racist…because that’s still being bigoted. Does that make you better than us?

Conservatives, stop accusing liberals of destroying the country. We’re all doing it. It’s not just them. And it’s not really the wisest way to change their minds either.

Lastly, everyone for your own sanity and relationship’s sake, please, for the love of all things holy, let go of your rage. It’s blinding us all to the truth. Blame is a waste of time. It doesn’t matter. At the very least, Christians should be comforted by the thought that God will judge in the end who is to blame. He won’t play favorites.

Until next time–Natasha.