Straight paths through crooked roads

Necessity is the "Mother of belief": Reasons why we would want to believe - or not.

I believe that there are fundamental reasons why people choose to believe in God, in Jesus Christ, in another form of religious or philosophical belief.  A fundamental reason why people believe in the God of the Bible (Jehovah) and in Jesus Christ in particular is that they have a level of humility that will allow them to believe in something or Someone greater than they are.  That would also account for the sincere belief in another deity such as Allah or Hindu gods, etc.   This humility looks for one greater than itself so as to find strength, resource, reward, wisdom, even eternal life.  This is a necessity.

 

A fundamental reason why people, more and more of them in modern Western societies, are choosing to not put their faith in a deity is a pride that asserts itself in the concept:  "I am the master of my own fate, I am the captain of my own soul."  These folks will look to just about any form of belief that allows them to retain that sense of self determination.  These folks want to have no guilt for their choices to not believe in a God.  They must do away with a sense of accountability and do so in a logical and acceptible manner.  This, for them, is a necessity.

 

In fact, all of us choose what it is we choose to believe.  That way, we can be held accountable.  We have no grounds to say that our beliefs were forced upon us.  We have the choice to accept or to not accept what is presented to us.  The choice, however, is unavoidable.  Some choice will be made either actively or passively.  This creates necessities in choices as to what to believe.

 

There is no visible, tangible, undeniable deity standing on the mountain top saying, "Believe in me." That is, unless you subscribe to the modern day messiahs who self proclaim their deity.  There is likely going to be more of these creatures presenting themselves in the near future as the answer to great problems that are looming on the time horizon.  But, I digress.

 

The current society in the United States has and is fostering a sexual climate in which young girls are being socialized to believe that sexiness is a major key to social approval.  Young boys are being socialized to believe that the more sexual conquests of girls a boy can achieve the more "male" he is. These are being touted as positives in the media and even in academia in some quarters.  We have members of Congress parading about on social networking sites wearing tiger costumes or showing off their abs.  This is ludicrous.  It is also self destructive.  It is a necessity for society to deal with this.

 

To reverse this situation, rather than challenging what people believe, it may be more helpful to ask them why they would want to believe such a thing.  What if we could convince people that they don't have to give things up but rather trade them in.  That way, rather than making a sacrifice of something desirable but that has sorrows with it, instead, they can trade things in for other things that have benefit without the sorrow added.  

 

I know this is not a new idea.  However, it is an under-used idea.   If we could say to the young boy, rather than making new sexual conquests to prove your manhood, how about choosing one girl to cherish.  If she chooses you in return, you can then choose to lovingly devote yourself to her.  What you gain is the fulfillment as a man of receiving deep and obvious respect from the girl.  You gain the knowledge that you are now vitally important to someone besides yourself and thus you have grown in both stature and maturity.  You avoid sexual diseases, the responsibility of fathering a child that neither you nor the girl are prepared to raise, and the chains of habits you will regret for a lifetime. If you are choosing to be a faithful and devoted man, you are now genuinely being honored.  Being respected and even honored by a woman is, I believe, a fundamental need (now being dismissed by many).

 

If we could say to the young girl, rather than expose your most personal and intimate self to whoever is out there, rather than put up with all the undesirables who are going to respond to your exposure and put pressure on you to do things that are disgusting and unhealthy, how about trading in that attention from many for devoted attention from one special person?  You don't have to expose yourself to find him.  You can avoid attracting most of the undesirables and you can find the someone worth your devotion by being your attractive self and putting yourself in positive social activities where you will meet desirable men.  You can avoid the obvious risks of sexual diseases you may never be rid of, of giving conception to a life destined for great risks.  Being cherished by a faithful man is, I believe, in fact a woman's fundamental need (now being dismissed by many). 

 

This is only one example of many that need to be applied to the principle of "why should I believe" in something.  Necessity is called the "mother of invention".  I am suggesting that it is also the "mother of belief".

Teaching Values (with Thinking Skills) Come, let us reason together.

Could we teach values in such a way as to support the basic goals of education?  Like functional literacy?  Could we help students understand important principles worth valuing?  Could we encourage teachers to express their faith in principles they deeply value and thereby give them fulfillment in teaching?  I certainly believe we can.

A new course is being developed at Fresno Pacific University.  It should be ready by this summer (or even earlier) for online learning.  The introduction of concepts of the course will be video taped and put on Youtube by January 31, 2012. 

The goals of the course are the very questions that opened this post.   One of the basic goals of education is to promote functional literacy.  If a person cannot follow a list of instructions, they are not functionally literate.  (I know, I know, try to follow the directions to put together a toy at Christmas time.)  However, think about it.  A job description is a list of instructions to an employee as to what they are to accomplish on that job.  If the employee cannot or will not comply with these instructions, they cannot function as an employee in that position. 

In the Teaching Values course, the students are presented with a story to illustrate a fundamental principle which is the theme of the short story.  This is followed by a "check for understanding" exercise that begins by taking the principle of the story and transforming it into a learning objective. (What the student should be able to do at the end of the exercise.)  Then, a format is introduced with main ideas being written on the left with matching analysis questions written on the right.  (This is a Cornell Note style of format.)  These open ended questions engage students to investigate the fundamental principle in the story in such a way that the answers shed light, step by step, on the meaning and value of the principle.  At the bottom of the format is a horizontal line.  On the left is the word "closure" and on the right are two or three statements students write to express either evaluation or synthesis of what they have just analyzed.  This is followed by a creative next step on how students would do a new thing to implement the principle in some way. As the students follow each step, they are exercising two things at one time.  First, they are using the upper levels of the cognitive domain: analysis, synthesis/evaluation, and creativity.  Second, they are following a detailed set of instructions.  They are practicing and applying functional literacy.

At the same time, students would be applying reading, writing, speaking, and listening to ways of thinking (paradigms) of learning.  These paradigms are divided into two categories.  First are ways of thinking, values connected to principles, that encourage a learning relationship between student and teacher.  Second are those which encourage ethical choices which will result in improved, trustworthy relationships between students and anyone else in their lives.

Some examples of fundamental principles might be:

What is the relationship of truth inside my head to the truth outside my head?

Why should I care about treating other people the way I would like to be treated?

Why are relationships important to achieving things?

How do I determine actual justice?

Why is compassion important?

Why is faithfulness valuable?

Are there teachers and parents, members of the media and government, and concerned citizens out there who have a concern for our younger generation, for their functional literacy, for their trustworthy relationship to society?  I truly believe so. 

Come, let us reason together.

 

Is it now a crime to be a Christian? What does separation of church and state really mean?

The word church can mean a building, an organization, or it can mean anything non-christians choose.  It may mean any person who ascribes to a Christian way of thinking.  In that case, separation of church and state would be definitive persecution.  That is because you would be driving the Christian from gainful employment for acting out their faith.  If a person cannot be refused a job because of religious beliefs, then how shall one be fired for expressing those beliefs on a personal computer in cyberspace?

What state?  by State do you mean a governmental bureaucracy?  Or, do you mean a person who draws a government paycheck even when they are off duty?  Do you include separation to mean to separate the person from their freedom of speech?   Do you expect to separate the person from what they believe?

In a recent incident where a teacher spoke his mind on an internet social network, he was dismissed by his school administrator.  He had been restricted at school from saying explicitly spiritual statements which were his deeply felt religious beliefs.  So, he went on the internet and expressed his faith in specific terms.  Because he was a public school teacher, he was dismissed.

One can be accepted on the job no matter what their belief as long as they do not act it out on the job.  We even prevent those who believe in making animal sacrifices from doing it in society.  However, everyone who goes to work must relate to others at the job site on the basis of what they believe about relationships and about being a productive person.  It is actually impossible to separate faith from state on that basis.

However, expression is a gray area.  If a person is in the military where life and death are at stake in conflict, if a soldier does not trust his officers, he had best be silent and carry out orders.  The military does not work on a democratic basis especially in combat.

However, education is not the military.  Education is all about what people believe children should or should not be taught. Therefore, education by its very nature is political and has many controversial aspects.  There will be educators and administrators of various faiths.  While the expression of these faiths may be constrained in the presence of children, professionals are free to discuss their faiths with other adults on school campuses.  To deny adults the right to express their Christian faith is to deny the free expression of religion guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. 

Then, why is it permissible to deny the free expression of religous freedom on the public internet?  Is that not un-constitutional?  Is that not religious persecution?  Have we come to the point that a person can be criminally convicted of being a Christian in the United States of America?

What if someone were coming to kill you, Christian?

Imagine with me that you are in a war, in a battle at this moment, and that a thousand men are lined up across a field.  They are an enemy unit coming with guns to kill you. This is war.  But, you also have a thousand men on your side. So, you have a fighting chance.  Nevertheless, this is a serious danger you might not survive.

Remember that we are discussing this from the standpoint of being a Christian.  By that term I am not referring to a general meaning of Church member, or desencent of people designated as "Christian".  Christian here is used to mean a person who has at some point in time decided to surrender their life to Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord and who maintains an ongoing spiritual relationship to Him according to the teachings of the Bible. Please read Romans 8:1-16.

Now suppose that rather than a thousand people coming to kill you, there is only one.  And, you no longer have a thousand fellow soldiers.  You are on your own.  But then you notice something strange.  The person coming to kill you is yourself, or rather, a special part of yourself. 

It is the carnal, "fleshly", selfish nature you have that has been your downfall in so many ways.  It is that part of you that prompts you to be selfish, lustful, deceptive, or even harmful to others.  And your carnal nature is coming to kill another part of you.

The part of you which the carnal nature is coming to kill is the spirit within you that is alive to God.  When you were first "born again" this spirit within you was revived with joy.  This spirit is in love with your Savior.  This spirit creates a desire in you to read the Bible, to pray, to tell others about Christ.  This spirit enables you to love difficult people.  It rejoices in worship.  This eternal spirit is the part of you that has a ticket to Heaven.  It is also the part of you that agrees with scripture that the carnal nature must be destroyed.

The point is that there is a war going on within the Christian between the carnal, fleshly nature which is the worst part of us versus the living spirit which is the best part of us.  The individual temptations we face are weapons in the hands of our carnal nature.  And this evil aspect of us is actively trying to destroy the eternal spirit born again by the Holy Spirit. 

The carnal nature has very powerful allies: Satan and our weaknesses.  However, our spirit has an all powerful ally:  the Holy Spirit.  Our soul, that is made up of our mind, our will, and our emotions, has choices to make.  Are we going to choose to allow the carnal nature to tear down the relationship we have with our Savior and even threaten our eternal destiny?  Or, are we going to stand with the Holy Spirit to destroy the work of our carnal nature, to bring it into subjection to God?   As we rid ourselves of the chains of the carnal nature, we are free to be able to grow in the relationship we have with Jesus Christ. 

This conflict within the Christian could lead to fear that the battle might not be won against the evil within us.  We know that if we are merely trying to live by the laws of the Bible, we are weak and forever in trouble.  However, "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2, New American Standard)  And, "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you (the Holy Spirit), He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:11, NAS.) This would mean a power to live in agreement with God's will.

Remember, it was Christ Himself who told Peter in Mathew 18: 21-22, that a person should be forgiven not only once, but, if necessary, many times.  If we have fear that keeps us from coming back to Christ because we have sinned again, we need to decide to come anyway for fresh forgiveness.  This is not to be "excused" for falling short.  It is rather to allow us to genuinely repent and put the failure behind us so that we can move forward in the way we should have been going with God in the first place. Proverbs 24: 16 (NAS) says that "a righteous man falls seven times and rises again..." God is faithful when we are not.

Place your trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to keep you strong, to overcome the carnal nature, and to preserve your relationship to Jesus Christ.  "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1, NAS)

So, guess what?  You and the Holy Spirit will overcome the carnal nature within you.  It will be a struggle and not necessarily always successful.  But, more often than not, you will bring thoughts captive to the Lord. You will experience success by the Holy Spirit's power.  You will gain in steps of faith to reach the hope of a greater relationship to Christ.  Because, "greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world."  (I John 4:4 NAS)

"Now, to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless and with great joy, to the only God our Savior through Jesus Chrsit our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forevermore. Amen. "3 John: 24, 25 NAS)

 

Classroom issues for Christian teachers in public school: faith IN the state

There are four issues this post will introduce that are important for all teachers in grades Kindergarten through 12th grade.  However, they are especially vital for those of committed faith to Jesus Christ. The first is the changing rights and responsibilities of committed Christians in public school.  The second issue is the use of paradigms (ways of thinking to explain or predict) that validate the faith in God of students without crossing the line into establishing religion in the view of the education code. The third issue is the Christian view of earning the right in students' eyes to lead them in the classroom. Finally, there is the issue of working relationships with administrators, colleagues, and parents or care givers.

Yes, books have been written about each of these topics.  They have been the subject of college courses.  The unique feature of these four issues is that they can all be related to the living faith relationship between a Christian teacher and his or her Lord and Savior.  In the public school there is a hostile environment to "religion" and the expression of religious belief.  It is possible to separate the appearance of religion from state, but it is impossible to separate faith from state.

It is impossible for the Bhuddist teacher in public school to think and act other than as a Bhuddist for an indefinite period of time.  They may not invite pupils to their place of worship, but they act upon what they actually believe every waking moment of their day.  The same is true of the Muslim teacher, the conservative Jewish teacher, the agnostic or athiestic teacher, and of the committed Christian teacher.  How could it be otherwise?  It is in fact impossible to separate faith from state and if it were attempted by law, then the law would be a form of genuine persecution that violates the US Constitution's first amendment:  "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or denying the free exercise thereof."

Therefore, the rights and responsibilities of Christian teachers as well as of other religious faiths, has been outlined in law.  All teachers should be aware of these.  However, the issue here goes beyond the concept of agreement of law and the subject of religion.  The issue presented here goes to the way of thinking a teacher expresses in the classroom to their students.  Law may be used to direct teachers to teach contrary to their faith.  How shall we address this aspect of the issue?  The answers are not easy but need to be explored.

The issue of using paradigms follows from the first issue. This has been going on from the begining of formal education.  The communists of the 19th century identified the major role of public education to be "socialization" of students.  The Puritans of Massachusetts had in mind to teach children to read for the purpose of reading the Bible. All societies wish to pass more than facts and skills to their children. They also want to teach values.  What values?  Ah, the values in which we have faith.  In today's pluralist American culture, there is conflict among these values.  How can ways of thinking (paradigms) be used to support faith in God without teaching "religion"?  The answers are not easy but need to be explored.

The most difficult issue for any teacher is often discipline in the classroom.  We educators know that learning cannot be optimized in an unruly class environment.  Teachers have legal authority to carry out their responsibilities.  However, they also need the moral authority that comes from the willingness of the students to be led.  Fortunately, the Bible has the ways of thinking to avoid much rebellion and to supply much bonding.  These too, need to be explored.

Finally, it is my contention that Dr. Dobson and his colleagues are correct when they have said that we can only do two things during our waking hours.  We can either relate to some one or we can achieve some thing. I believe that all achievement can somehow be attributed to relationship to another person.  That is the essence of education.  And, that principle is the basis for the absolute need for teachers to know excellent ways to relate to their administrators, colleagues, and the parents/care givers of their students.  Thank the Lord, there is the "paradigm of other"  This paradigm needs to be explored to get the best answers on this issue.

Obviously, more explorations on these four issues will follow.

Truth to a child: teaching by paradigm to little ones.

Kids, little ones, are so trusting of a person who cares for them. They have a natural desire to learn. They have humility to accept new information without criticism. So, to help them understand the truth, to use it to explain and predict, they need a paradigm, or way of thinking about what truth is.

The definition of truth can be summed up in what kids call, "real." They need to know that truth exists outside of us and also a different kind of truth exists inside our head. We need to try to make the truth inside our mind match the truth outside of us. So, we tell a story to explain.

"Let's pretend we are all grown up. And, you know what a street light is. The light is on top of a big steel pole that comes up from the ground. And let's pretend that we are driving a car. Now, the truth is that there is a street light pole by the side of the street where we are driving. But it is very foggy. We can not see the street light pole. We are driving very slowly because the fog makes it hard to see what is ahead of us. Then, suddenly, a little dog runs in front of our car where we are going. We don't want to hit the dog, so we turn the wheel to steer the car away from it. But, by accident, we go off the side of the road and hit the pole of the street light.

In our mind, we did not know the truth that the pole of the street light was there. While we were driving, what was real in our mind did not know about the danger from the street light. We were driving by what we thought was true.  So, what we did made a new thing happen.  We made the accident when we hit the pole.  The accident was a new truth that came from the mistake in our mind.

The truth outside of us was that the street light pole was there.  It did not change because we did not know about it. The truth outside of us (objective truth) did not match the truth inside our mind (subjective truth). However, when we had the accident, the two truths became the same to us. 

So, what we think of as true inside our mind is important and so is the truth outside of us.  We need to try our best to learn all we can.  That way, the truth inside of us will be closer to the truth outside of us. This is important so that we don't have accidents and so that we don't make mistakes. 

If we learn from other people and if we learn from our mistakes, we can help our minds find truth that matches the truth outside of us. This will avoid sorrow. And, it will help us build happiness.

Mr. Knepper, what do you think of artificial inception?

She was very pretty but her face seemed "hard".  It appeared that she had been through a lot of emotional trauma for a seventeen year old.  Her personality hinted that she was a "party" girl.  She was also my student for US history.  It was the last period of the day at our high school. It was a very warm spring afternoon.  And, my other students had just left the classroom.  She suddenly posed the question, "Mr. Knepper, what do you think of artificial inception?"

My response was a suprised but quick answer.  "I know what it is but not very much about it.  So, I don't really have much of an opinion.  Why do you ask?"  She said, "Well, I want to have a baby but I don't want anything to do with a man."

I have repeated that story to my US history students for about ten years. The idea is to not merely present a moral issue of contemporary society, but to use US history, an academic subject, to teach students about the important results of different ways of thinking, which I specify as paradigms.  Paradigms are simply ways of thinking we use to explain or predict.  We all have them. They help us form first impressions of other people.  We use them to shape our own behavior because we expect others to react to what we do in certain ways.

For the Christian teacher in a public school this concept of the paradigm offers ways of teaching in a Christian way of thinking without referring to scripture.  It is important and it is also legal because, while the laws attempt to separate church from state, it is impossible to separate faith from state.  This is necessarily true because everyone who teaches has some form of faith.  It may be agnosticism, or Bhuddhism, or Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity.  And these faiths all shape the way we look at our students, our society, and our way of teaching.  We cannot help but express who we are and what we think as we teach in a classroom.

So, in my situation as a teacher of 11th graders, I can refer to the content of the textbook when it tells us that the "hippies" espoused "love", "peace" and "freedom".  I can then say that today's society has accepted in large part the paradigm of the hippies that to them love means affection but not necessarily with commitment.  It is common today, I tell them, that something like the following happens to a girl of 11, 12, or 13.  She is going through changes in her body and emotions when a boy tells her that she is pretty.  She is suddenly obsessing about boys.  She wants to have a relationship with a boy.  Before long, some boy propositions her to have sex.  She will probably have inhibitions against having sex.  She may be told by her girl friends, who have already had sex, that "It isn't that big a deal." Or, "Don't be a virgin."  She may engage in sex with the boy so she can have a relationship with him.  However, the boy soon goes away.  The girl feels empty.  She is hurt.  But, she may again find herself in relationship with another boy and sex is now begining to be a regular event.  She finds herself feeling more and more empty.  Like the girl who was interested in artificial inception, she is deeply hurt and angry.

Then I tell the students that there was a society before the hippies came.  It was not perfect.  However, the paradigm that was common before went something like this.  Love between a man and a woman will involve sex but since this is how children are created, and since the woman is the one primarily at risk, then the male must respect her enough to not ask her to have sex until they are in a commited marriage.  I explain that the paradigm includes an understanding of the female's desire for being cherished and that sex is a natural aspect of this devotion.  The man needs respect from the woman, but being unfaithful to the woman to pursue other women destroys his wife's respect for him.  Thus, there is an exchange of commitments.  They voluntarily choose to devote themselves to one another in order to be fulfilled not only physically but emotionally with each other.

I asked my students what "husband" means.  They don't know.  I explain that it means "caretaker".  They are surprised.  I ask them, "What is a husband-man?"  They don't know.  I explain that this is another word for "gardener".  This helps to form a picture in their minds.  The man is to plant, fertilize, cultivate, prune, and harvest, while always caring for the garden.  This is the picture of what a man should be to his wife and his children.

So, if you look at the competing paradigms, the hippie paradigm of love is easy, gives pleasure to a certain level, but ends in emotional harm, and perhaps results in a pregnancy or STD's.  The traditional paradigm of love, delays the sexual pleasure but provides a father for the children, a cherishing for the woman, and respect for the man.

I also repeat often the reminder to my students that my job is not to tell them what to think, but it is my job to get them to think.  So, I am giving them these alternatives.  What they choose is ultimately their own.

There is much more that could be said.  I wish a different way of thinking could have been taught and accepted by the party girl who wanted a baby.  Perhaps, younger teachers can provide such help for many others who are facing this part of life.

 

 

People are more important than things: why public education is breaking down.

People are more important than things in that things should serve people and not the other way around.  Organizations are things.  Public education is an organization that has, like other organizations, come to serve itself more than the pupils for which it exists. As a result, public education fails to prepare great numbers of students adequately to function as they should and as public education was originally designed to provide.  For public education to be effective for our children, our parents, our society and economy, the original priorities need to be re-established.

The unions are not the ultimate culprit in the mess which public education suffers today.  The administration of the school districts are not the ultimate culprit either.  Nor are the parents and certainly not the students are not the ultimate culprit.  However, all of these share in the reasons why public education is not providing the sufficient number of graduates capable of lifting society to a better place.

Finger pointing of one group against another must turn the finger of accusation around and point to self.  Each one must give up the mantra "give me" and embrace a new mantra "what can I do?" The paradigm to success is as effective and well known as the principle of gravity.  It is the "golden rule".  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  It is repeated in different ways in different belief systems, but was originally a quote from Moses and promoted by Jesus Christ.  Even so, it works perfectly well in a variety of secular settings, including public education.

The unions can begin by understanding that the professionalism they claim for teachers to be independent from administrators is only partially useful.  It is useful to allow teachers to have independence of thought and creativity.  However, there is a boundary to that liberty.  When that freedom from interference goes to the extreme, it becomes freedom from accountability.  Teachers must be accountable to administrators such as school principals who share with the teachers the responsibility for the accomplishments of students.  The effort by unions to be more than a bargaining unit for compensation and benefits and working conditions should end with the freedom of teachers to be free of politically or immorally motivated pressure from administrators.  That much is useful. But to try to gain access to management including the shielding of ineffective teachers from discipline for academic failure, is to place the union organization and its membership above the reason for the existance of public education. It is to place the organization of the union above the people their members are hired to serve, the students and their parents.

The administrators from the superintendent down to the assistant principals and counselors must understand the nature, the source, and the proper use of authority.  Administrators recieve authority from the board of education.  The board receives that authority from the power of the public vote.  The responsibility that goes with that authority goes to serve the public that elected the board.  The original premise upon which public education was founded was something called "in loco parentis".  It is Latin and it means, " in place of the parent."  Parents were to trust their children into the hands of public educators and the welfare of the children and the educational process was to be entrusted to "trustees" who would represent the public and the best interests of the children and the parents who sent them to public school. 

Thus, it is that administrators (and teachers) have responsibility passed down to them from the district board of education. They are also have given to them the authority that exactly matches their responsibility. They have no authority beyond any aspect of their responsibility.  Their authority and responsibility are very much like the two sides of the very same coin.  Administrators are human and as such are tempted to use their authority over funds and capital assets and personnel for their own personal benefit.  Then again, there are those who feel the pressure of doing a good job and find that they are held responsible for things well beyond their reasonable ability to control, therefore, beyond their authority.  Much would be solved if administrators of good faith were to encourage others of good faith in working reforms within their sphere of influence or control.  These reforms would center around giving up those things that serve the organiation or selfish motives at the expense of doing what is really more in the interest of students.  An example would be to take budget for administrative perks and return it to a budget area that directly serves the classroom.  Another would be to move away from seeing the school district as being superior to the interest and concerns of parents who entrust their children into the care of the school district.

It would be useful for teachers and administrators, with the support of unions, to encourage parents to take a more active role in the education of their student.  Many parents were not successful students and are thus not motivated to support the school as they should be.  Outreaches to parents have been successful is some areas and should be evaluated and used to encourage parents everywhere.  I believe it would be a great boon to the success of students at many levels. 

Students need to receive a teacher's outreach to them in the classroom.  If teachers were to understand that the essence of formal education is the learning relationship between the teacher and the student, then, they might make an effort to first of all, bond with each student.  Learn their names as soon as possible.  Let each and every one know that they are cared for.  Ask students about things outside the classroom like goals in sports, or favorite things to do.  Students like to know that you would like to know more about them.  While teachers need to maintain the role of teacher, not homey (friend), they need to engage in certain aspects of parenting.  Even high school students need some element of nurturing. These efforts will establish in the minds of the students, the right of the teacher to discipline.  It is important that students know that the teacher does not arbitrarily assign grades but that the student creates their own grade as a result of their level of accomplishment.  This gives students the motivation to succeed.  And, success without learning relationship is impossible.

This is a lot to do.  However, it can and should be done one step and one day at a time.  A change in direction is vital for our public education system.  Rather than pointing the finger of blame, rather than defending our vulnerabilities, we public educators need to reach out and do for our students and parents what we would wish for them to do for us if the situations were reversed.

 

Reconciliation or compromise: America and Islam

Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, taught that religious faith, education, and politics are all one.  Christianity and Judaism see government as essential for the environment of faith, but not as the expression directly of religious faith.  The concept of shariah law is to express faith in Allah in actions of power that come from the thoughts of Allah.  Furthermore, Christianity and Judaism see education as necessary to understand the sacred writings of their faith. However, education in Islam is the culmination of the thoughts of Allah expressed in the minds and speech and actions of its students.

That is why schools in Muslim countries are attached to the local mosque. That is why shariah law is vital to so many Muslims. 

In America we have a tradition of compromise.  To the ardent muslim there can be no compromise of the thoughts of Allah with the world of the infidel.  Political power must be expressed in shariah law and the young must be trained in the way of Allah.

The "cultural center" proposed in New York is not and could never be for the purpose of compromise. It can only be directed to the purpose of reconciling America to Islamic faith.

The two definitions of homosexuality and their importance in public schools

Public schools are being directed these days to treat homosexuals and homosexuality upon the basis of the definition of being homosexual as meaning the following: you are homosexual if you have strong attractions to members of the same sex.  However, up until a few years ago the definition of being a homosexual person was the following:  you are a homosexual if you practice homosexual acts. Therefore, if a person has attractions toward another person of the same sex but does not act upon them, they are not homosexual.  This definition is still used by many persons today.

The reason why homosexuals may wish to use the first definition may be that if attractions to another person of the same sex are part of nature, there is no guilt. If these attractions are a matter of nature, like being African American, or Hispanic, then homosexuals could qualify to be a legal minority with minority rights.  If homosexuality is a matter of nature, then, once one is found to be homosexual, then they can never really alter their nature and they will always be homosexual.

If a person is homosexual only if they commit homosexual acts, then they can be logically responsible for making the choice to do so.  They would not qualify to be a minority with minority rights. And, they could change their minds and no longer be homosexual.

There is a dilemma in the public schools because the first definition is the operating one.  Therefore, on campuses across the country, student clubs that honor homosexuality are active.  And, they promote the idea of "coming out" among the teenagers.  However, this may be extremely dangerous for mental and emotional reasons.

First, according to a PhD in psychology, a person whom I could identify but choose not to at this time, youngsters going through puberty have both androgens and estrogens in their body.  Many, many may naturally feel attractions to members of the same sex. But, as they mature, these attractions will tend to disappear and their natural attractions to members of the opposite sex will take over. Some may continue to have strong attractions to the same sex.

If the youngster is encouraged to exercise their political right to "come out" before these attractions are settled by their own natural maturity, then they may experience unnecessary emotional trauma. Their families may also.  My understanding is that many teenagers who consider themselves homosexuals are also plagued with thoughts of suicide.

Some years ago I was an elected member of the Fresno County Board of Education.  I attended a State conference for boards of education at which a PhD psychologist and an avowed lesbian was holding a "table talk" discussion on homosexual issues in public schools.  She was an advisor to the Los Angeles Unified School District board of education.  During the discussion, she mentioned that she had a daughter and said that she hoped her daughter would not become homosexual. Her reason was that being gay was traumatic.

Second, if the matter of being homosexual is one of nature rather than choice, a person is destined to be homosexual forever. If a youngster feels that there is no way out of this extreme trauma that they are experiencing, then suicidal thoughts may become part of the trauma.

This does not have to be the case.  If school boards can consider the professional statements, if legislators can do the same, and change laws, then, this does not have to follow. The chances of this happening in California are slight. 

However, if students and their families can become aware, one person at a time, of the differences between these two definitions and their results, then healthy lives can be restored and trauma be reduced. Rights, as perceived by the State, do not have to be altered. I firmly believe they should be altered. However, individuals can  believe as they wish.

P.S. You may wish to research a recent statement regarding this topic by the professional association of Pediatricians (doctors of children).