Asphalt Adventist

BulkAmmo.com

2010-11-12T23:21:00.000-08:00

For those of you are interested in large amount of ammunition, you should check out BulkAmmo.com. The main difficulty in my getting trigger time is the cost of ammunition, and I have found BulkAmmo.com's prices competative with other online sources of ammunition.

For example, 1000 rds of 5.56 ammo by PMC is going for only $360.

Camoflaging your BOL

2010-06-11T19:00:00.001-07:00

If you can't find a BOL,build your own BOL

2010-06-11T18:49:00.000-07:00

Responses to Obama calling Palin a Pig

2008-09-11T19:35:00.000-07:00

Well, the democratic operatives (I'm a democrat) are out in full force doing damage control for Obama after he made the clear innuendo that he was referring to Palin as a pig.

Some commentators are trying to pan off Obama's comments as not being related to the post on the official DNC website which referred to Palin as a pig. After all, they argue, hardly anyone, including Obama, knew about this post.

Problem is, Obama's entire Palin/pig commentary was scripted from prior stolen material. It was stolen word for word from Tom Toles September 5 Washington Post political cartoon.

Here is Obama's commentary:

John McCain says he's about change too. Exce- and and so I guess his whole angle is - watch out, George Bush - except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington.

That's not change.

That's that's just callin' sumpin' the same thing somethin' different.

But you know, you can't, you know, you you can put, ah, lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

Now here is the cartoon:

Obama's comments were scripted from prior (stolen) material word for word, just like his essentially calling Palin a pig comment.

The Palin/pig post up at the DNC website was dated Aug. 30th, while the cartoon he copied from was dated Sept. 5th. Both are within a week of each other and it is obvious Obama was trolling for ideas from everywhere.

That's why the audience laughed; they knew what was going on.

Problem is, everyone else knows what is going on and now amount of backpeddling or spin is going to change it.

Did Obama Call Palin a Pig? You Decide.

2008-09-10T22:07:00.000-07:00

Did Barack Obama refer to Gov. Palin as a pig in the following clip?

Notice that when Obama made the lipstick comment, the audience laughed. If they understood Obama to be referring to "McCain's continued policies of Bush" with no innuendo or double-meaning, the audience would have applauded. But the audience did not applaud, they laughed.

Why did they laugh? Because they found something funny in Obama's lipstick comment. Obama was making a double-meaning, innuendo that compared Palin to a pig, in light of her own self-depricating humor lipstick comment during her speech. It was an inside joke. Why else did the crowd laugh? They knew what was going on.

Do I have any evidence of this? Yes. On the official Democratic Party website, there is a post entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig. It is dated August 30, 2008, which if after Palin's speech but before Obama's comments. This post compares Governor Palin to a pig.

The post is entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig, located here.

The post was written in such a way as to try to claim the lipstick on the pig is the "continuation of Bush's failed strategies," yet leave the clear innuendo that they are referring to Gov. Palin as a pig in light of her "lipstick" comment during her RNC Convention speech.

This is why the crowd laughed when Obama madehis lipstick on a pig comment. They all knew what he was referring to, the inside joke as you will. Otherwise, why would they laugh at a "non-joke"?

The text of what they said is below. I am adding emphasis to highlight what I mean.

Palin does not change one single thing of what the Republicans are offering which is four more years of George Bush. All that McCain did was to put lipstick on the Pig (the Bush Administration whose failed strategies have wrecked our nation). Nothing has changed except for an exciting and sexy dash of lipstick to freshen up their tired old face of more of the same.

The same people who do not like the Bush Administration for what it has done to this nation are not going to be fooled by the lipstick on the pig. And it they think that the American public are so stupid that they will rush over now and kiss their pig of a platform because it is wearing a fresh touch of lipstick, well I think they will be surprised.
Economically, the majority of Americans are at the breaking point. Most American families literally cannot stand another four more years of the same.
That is exactly why we had so many Republicans giving testimony at our convention as to why they were crossing over. The message was the same: They simply could no longer afford to vote Republican. Palin does not change that message. She is more of the same. Judging from McCains choice, he seems to think that our Democratic Campaign is built on the purpose of electing the first black man as President. That is not, nor has it ever been the purpose of the Barack Obama campaign.
The purpose and message of Barack Obama's campaign has always been CHANGE and it remains so--to change this country before conservatives totally destroy it with their tax breaks for the wealthy and for coporate America; to rebuild this nation by creating new jobs and restoring worldwide respect for our nation; to unite our country in a common purpose; to end our reliance on fossil fuel in the next 10 years--not to drill for more.
Palin changes nothing in terms of what the Republicans are offering. They are still offering a ticket of more of the same: more tax breaks for the weathy, more disdain for global warming, more war, more disregard for rebuilding our educational system in America, more continued privatization of our nation.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER AND NOT BE THROWN OFF OUR MESSAGE. THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SUCH SWELLING SUPPORT IS BECAUSE OF ECONOMICS AND THE WAR IN IRAQ--Palin represent more of the same. She changes nothing.
In a way a Palin is a good thing because now we can focus on the real issues. The REAL issues for Americans do not include whether we elect the first black president of our nation or whether we elect the first woman vice president .
AMERICANS HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE: CHANGE OR MORE OF THE SAME.
Democrats offer change. Republicans offer more of the same.
Palin is a red herring, lipstick on the Republican pig to distract Americans from the real issue that under the leadership of the Republicans the last 8 years, our country is falling apart.

Both Palin and McCain think that Americans are whiners. What do you think? Are you a whiner? Do you want more of the same? If you don't, then get out and register at least 5 people and tell them why they should vote a straight Democratic ticket this year.

Did the post directly call Palin a pig? No. It created a lot of plausible deniability, yet left the strong innuendo that they were referring to her as a pig.

This was the setup, the background understood by the crowd, for Obama's comments.

Was Obama referring to Palin directly as a pig? No, he left plausible deniability. Did he refer to her as a pig in a not too subtle, innuendo, "wink wink, nod nod" sort of way? Yes, he clearly did.

That is why the crowd laughed.

Here are the screenshots from the official DNC website:

The Greatest Man I Ever Met

2008-08-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-27T21:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-22T19:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-16T10:31:00.000-07:00

Simply amazing ...

Why I Was Never Late For School

2008-05-12T07:03:00.000-07:00

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

Criticisms of the Seventh Day Adventist Church

2008-05-10T22:03:00.000-07:00

... 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

2008-05-06T12:52:00.000-07:00

Hilarious!

I am a Liberal!

2008-05-06T09:42:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-04T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-03T18:27:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-02T14:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-26T13:56:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-25T12:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-23T21:04:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-22T08:41:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-19T13:25:00.000-07:00

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.)

2008-04-17T11:54:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-14T10:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-13T00:36:00.000-07:00

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

Jarrod:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gloria

The Trouble With The Elephant, II

2008-04-12T13:33:00.000-07:00

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

Gloria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trouble With The Elephant, I

2008-04-10T23:39:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Son Learns an Important Lesson

2008-04-10T16:03:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

2008-04-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

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

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

Homeschooling Poll

2008-04-08T14:26:00.000-07:00

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

Take the poll

Free Poll by Blog Flux

My Wife's A Shooter, part 2

2008-04-07T14:18:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Science versus Intelligent Design

2008-04-04T17:34:00.000-07:00

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

In his comment, Steve said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-04-04T09:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Parental Rights to Homeschool Children

2008-04-04T09:08:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

My Wife's a Shooter

2008-04-03T11:53:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The California Homeschooling Situation

2008-03-31T11:27:00.000-07:00

Okay so most everyone has heard of the recent California Appellate Court ruling in In re Rachel L. that has seemingly outlawed homeschooling in California. I have been asked to write an 1800 word article about it for Liberty magazine.

To those ends, I have been doing a lot of reading, mostly of the original decision, but I have been reading opinions by the Home School Legal Defense Association, the CA Superintendent of Public Instruction, etc.

One intelligent blogger, Mr Timothy Power at Sometimes I'm Actually Coherent, has commented on the situation in several posts, That Court Case, Homeschooling & Constitutional Rights, A Trio of Powerful Allies, and I'm Not So Sure I Like Where This Is Heading...

In A Trio of Powerful Allies Mr. Power commented:

After some initial shock on my part, I took the time to familiarize myself with the ruling and the facts of the case, and I've become a bit more sanguine about the situation. The ruling still appears to be pretty sour on homeschooling in general. However, I didn't actually see anything in the ruling that changed the system homeschoolers operate under. Under state law, private schools are not required to have their teachers credentialed. So if parents follow the laws to establish private schools--with themselves as teachers and administrators, and their kids as the students, they're fine. The ruling said this arrangement probably wasn't what the legislature intended; but it didn't explicitly go on to ban the practice.

Later, in I'm Not Sure I Like Where This Is Going... Mr. Power continues in the same line of reasoning:

Through this all I've been much more sanguine about the meaning of the In Re: Rachel L. ruling than many. To this day I read in newspapers and on the sites of other bloggers that the ruling "outlawed the practice of Homeschooling by parents not possessing Teachers' credentials", which is absolutely not the case. This misconception is very widespread, by people on both sides of the issue.

[...]

Now, after reading the decision myself, I'll say it's certainly possible that this is what the court intended to say; but that's not what the actual text comes out saying, when taken in context with the applicable laws. And as I mentioned above, the State Superintendent had a legal review done and concluded that the ruling did not outlaw homeschooling by uncredentialed parents.

Now, I want Mr. Power to be correct. He is certainly a smarter guy than I am, IMO. (I console myself with the fact that I am much better looking.) Even though I teach both in the K12 public school system and the Community College system, I plan on homeschooling my children.

However, I believe Mr. Power, and others have misunderstood what the CA Appellate Court said. For example, I believe the California Department of Education got the intention of the Appellate Court wrong.

In a careful reading of the Rachel L. case, the Court appears clear that it understood the intent of Legislature was not to allow homeschooling via registering the home as a private school. In dealing with case under review, the Appellate Court cites and applies the Turner case in rejecting the notion of parents registering their home school under the private school option in the CA Ed Code. The Rachel L. Court decision states:

Additionally, the Turner court rejected, and noted that courts in other states had also rejected, the notion that parents instructing their children at home come within the private full-time day school exemption in then section 16624 (now section 48222). The court stated that a simple reading of the statutes governing private schools and home instruction by private tutors shows the Legislature intended to distinguish the two, for if a private school includes a parent or private tutor instructing a child at home, there would be no purpose in writing separate legislation for private instruction at home. (Turner, supra, 121 Cal.App.2d Supp. at p. 868; accord Shinn, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d at p. 693.) (Bold supplied.)

After rejected the notion parents utilizing the private school option in order to homeschool, the Court continued to say the parents in Rachel L. didn't even meet this option anyhow. The enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School's independent study program, which is only permitted for public schools by the California Ed. Code.

The Rachel L. Court continued:

Moreover, even if being taught at a parent’s home could be construed as attendance at a private day school, the parents in Turner had not demonstrated that their home already qualified as a private school under the requirements of the Education Code. (Turner, at p. 869.) (Bold supplied.)

Earlier in the Rachel L. Court's discussion of the Turner case, it became obvious it considered a private full-time day school to be in contrast to a "private school" home school option. The Court rejected the parents attempt to homeschool via enrolling in Sunland Christian School's independent study program, which the Court strongly negatively referred to as a "ruse."

Such representation does not constitute a statement that the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles County Office of Education knowingly gave their stamp of approval to children being deprived of an education in a public or private full-time day school setting, or by a credentialed tutor, through the ruse of enrolling them in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent. (Bold supplied.)

Throughout the Court's decision, it kept comparing and contrasting children going to a full-time day school that was either public or private where the child actually attends vs. parents keep the child at home at tutor them themselves.Where the Court goes after this is hard to say. The Court's discussion was a bit hard to follow, but its intent in its published opinion becomes clear with a careful reading.

Mr. Power also commented that:

The court issues a broad decision whose language goes far beyond the needs of the immediate litigants--making sweeping statements about the intent of the legislature and appearing, at first glance, to outlaw homeschooling by uncredentialed parents.

While I am sure Mr. Power knew this (but didn't say it for space considerations), the Appellate Court in Rachel L. did not itself make sweeping statements about the intent of the CA Legislature, but cited the statements of the court in the Turner case, as well as in other cases referenced in Turner.

The Court regarded itself as not making a new decision in this instance, but agree with prior courts' decisions Pierce, Turner, Shinn, Yoder, etc (many of which are cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court) about compulsory education and homeschooling. The Rachel L. Court did not believe that it was outlawing homeschooling under the CA Constitution, but that homeschooling was not within the intent of CA Legislature in the CA Ed. Code, other Court cases clarified that homeschooling was unconstitutional, and the Rachel L. Court applied these prior decisions to the case at hand.

While I respect Mr. Power and want him to be right, it does not appear that is the case.

Upcoming Topics

2008-03-27T17:33:00.000-07:00

In the next few days I will be posting my thought both on the California Homeschooling situation, as well as the Jeremiah Wright situation with its implications about my voting for Barack Obama for president.

While I do not like the CA homeschooling decision that came out in the casde of Rachel L., I think many in the Christian community are mischaracterizing the situation. I recently head statements by Dr. James Dopbson and read an article by Mr Chuck Norris (or martial arts fame, and whose former home in Tustin, CA I lived in for 2 years) on Townhall.com that, while I agree with their basic conclusions, I disagree with their characterizations of the motives behind the Court that heard the caseor the teachers unions who like the outcome.

The radio broadcast of Dr. Dobson can be heard at http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000997.cfm

While I have not had a chance to listen to the audio yet, you might be interested in hearing the opinions of Law Professor Shaun Martin as the San Diego School of Law. His video opinion can be viewed at The Daily Case Report at http://www.dailycasereport.com/index.php?q=adv_sheet_by_case/3229

Sometimes I'm Actually Coherent: Homeschooling & Constitutional Rights

2008-03-10T12:08:00.000-07:00

Mr. Timothy Power has written a nice little article entitled Homeschooling & Constitutional Rights on his blog. You can access it at this link: Sometimes I'm Actually Coherent: Homeschooling & Constitutional Rights.

Ron Paul Racist?

2008-01-11T14:53:00.000-08:00

For a while, I was a bit intrigued by Ron Paul's ron for the presidency. While I never seriously considered voting for him because of his foreign policy views (i.e., essentially isolationist) and his oddball desire to return to the gold standard for currency, it is now all over the news that Ron paul has made (in the past) very serious, unacceptable, and immoral racist and anti-Semetic remarks.

According to the Houston Chronical (http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html) Ron Paul published a newsletter in the 80's and 90's referring to blacks as essentially criminals and made references to "Zionist" conspiracies.

According to a May 24, 1996 article by the Associated Press titled "Newsletter by Paul attacked" Ron Paul circulated a political newsletter to some 7,000 subscribers since 1985. The AP article noted that, in 1992 Paul circulated a newsletter that made comments of the sort

If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how
unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.

The AP artcile continued:

Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."

Such comments are not only racist and immoral, but are also just plain stupid. Such comments make him unfit for the position of Commander-in-Chief. I cannot vote for this man.

The Levitt Letter

2007-12-03T08:48:00.000-08:00

Recently, an anonymous Seventh-day Adventist wrote an objectionable letter to the Zola Levitt Ministries (http://www.levitt.com/). This letter was published (Adventists Are Now God's Chosen People!?) in the December 2007 Levitt Letter and 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) and left a message for Dr. Seif apologizing for what this guy wrote. Not satisfied with only a phone message, I decided to write Dr. Seif an apology email responding to the comments of the letter.

I am including both the letter and Dr. Seif's response below, and then I am following with the email I sent Dr. Seif. I have made minor editorical changes.

Adventists Are Now God’s Chosen People!?

Dear Jeffrey,
God has rejected the Jews because they rejected Him. I am a Seventh Day Adventist and our prophet Ellen G. White was told by God that the Jews would never be a Nation again and that Old Jerusalem would never be rebuilt. The Adventists are now God’s chosen people, “Spiritual Israel.” The Jews can come to Jesus by becoming Adventists.

You seem to be afraid of the Muslims, but it’s the Catholics you need to worry about. The Pope is the antiChrist and Sunday is the “Mark of the Beast”! The Muslims are nearest to the Adventist faith because they have a prophet, don’t eat pork, and go to church on Friday like we do. The Adventist Church in Europe turned all of their Jewish converts over to Hitler and most died in the ovens. God said they would—read Lev. 26. I’m afraid to put my name to this for fear the Jews may try to kill me.

Dear Whatever-Your-Name-Is—
I believe that your letter is loaded with an inordinate amount of fantasy. Saying that the Jews may try to kill you is absolutely absurd, as are other statements, like “Sunday is the ‘Mark of the Beast.’” I don’t want to sound cold. Honestly, however, I think your thought process leaps beyond the pale of reason. I would strongly encourage you to invest your energies in realworld pursuits; as a theologian, you are out of this world.— Jeffrey Seif

The Levitt Letter, December 2007, page 23.
http://www.levitt.com/newsletters/2007-12.pdf

From: bakupulu@hotmail.com
To: staff@levitt.com
CC: bakupulu@hotmail.com
Subject: Please Forward to Dr. Jeffrey Seif
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:48:40 -0800

Dear Dr. Seif:

At the outset, I want to apologize for the outrageous and reprehensible comments made by the Seventh-day Adventist who wrote the anonymous letter printed in your December 2007 newletter. To state or imply (and the author certainly did imply it), much less believe, that the mass murder of millions of Jews by the Nazi's is anything but an evil event in history, is shameful and unacceptable.

As an Adventist layman I am grieved and shocked to have read such comments made by someone ostensibly from my denomination. Such beliefs and comments do not come from the heart of a Christian (Matt. 12:35,-37; James 3:10).

The author's comments proceeded from being grossly and crudely stated, to comments that are flat out wrong, to those comments that are evil. I want to address some of these indiviually as they occur in the letter (below).

Adventists Are Now God’s Chosen People!?

Dear Jeffrey,

God has rejected the Jews because they rejected Him. I am a Seventh Day Adventist and our prophet Ellen G. White

The latter comment is a true but misleading and crudely stated comment. The official Adventist position is that, while we believe Ellen White had the gift of prophecy like that manifested in the New Testament church like Paul mentioned in Corinthians, Ellen White does not have normative authority. Her own writings, and the denominations statements, make it clear that "the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html)

Yes, it is true that there are those who have (unfortunately) treated her work as though it is equal to Scripture, but that is a problem within the denomination, not the position or desire of the denomination. An important and recent discussion on this topic can be found in Dr. Graeme Brandfor's new book More Than a Prophet: How We Lost and Found Again the Real Ellen White. I was one of the editor's for the published book and the entire book can be read online at http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/index.htm.

was told by God that the Jews would never be a Nation again and that Old Jerusalem would never be rebuilt.

In short, Ellen White was not speaking of whether or not it would be rebuilt in the sense of a political solution to a political problem. She was responding to those who thought they were forcing prophecy to be fulfilled in the 1850s by speeding up Jesus' return (in the 1850s) by rebulding Jerusalem. (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-d2)

The Adventists are now God’s chosen people, “Spiritual Israel.”

The official Adventist position, and mainstream teaching, is that salvation is not through denominational affiliation (including ours) and the majority of true Christians exist outside the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. Our official 27 Fundamental Beliefs state that "The church is the community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour" and "The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ ..." (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). Official Adventist teaching does state we are the "remnant," but not in the sense that "we are the saved" or that "we are the true Spiritual Israel," or that we are better than other denominations, but merely that we have a special job to do, namely:

"The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent." (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html).

The Jews can come to Jesus by becoming Adventists.

Wrong. You come to Jesus by coming to Jesus, not to any denomination. However, any and all are welcome to our denomination. We are willing to accept all the help we can get.

You seem to be afraid of the Muslims, but it’s the Catholics you need to worry about. The Pope is the antiChrist and Sunday is the “Mark of the Beast”! The Muslims are nearest to the Adventist faith because they have a prophet, don’t eat pork, and go to church on Friday like we do.

I have respect for all Muslims who behave decently. I am willing to live in civic and neighborly harmony with them. However, strictly speaking, those who are closest to Adventists are those whose beliefs are closest to our 27 Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html).

I am not saying those who are closest to Adventists (because they hold views similar to our 27 Fundamental Beliefs) are by definition somehow closest to Jesus. Those who are closest to Jesus are those who have the closest personal, living relationship with Jesus Christ of the Bible, not those who automatically adhere to the tenants of any church.

The Adventist Church in Europe turned all of their Jewish converts over to Hitler and most died in the ovens.

Like many churches in Europe at that time, much of the European Adventist Church did not live up to its Christian calling by resisting the Nazis and helping Jews. While this was not the position of the mainline SDA Church, nor something that the denomination as a whole wanted, much of this did occur. It was cowardly and evil. While words are not enough, it has been acknowleged and apologized for (http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=92).

God said they would—read Lev. 26. I’m afraid to put my name to this for fear the Jews may try to kill me.

Like I said at the outset, the author's comments and the implications that they contain are unacceptable. In my opinion and experience, this guy is a nut and does not represent the typical Adventist, much less the official Adventist Church position. Frankly, I hope this guy is not really an Adventist at all, and is someone who is playing a sick practical joke.

Further information can be found at the official Adventist Church website (http://www.adventist.org/) and the Adventist Biblical Research website (http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/). Respected and representative scholars are Dr. Jon Paulien (http://revelation-armageddon.com/ and http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/) and Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/).

Weight Training Gains

2007-09-18T14:41:00.000-07:00

Okay, I have been lifting weights for about a year now. One of my buddies at work started me on it by nagging my to get back in the gym. Well, after 10 years of sedentary married life and being very weak and too fat (I am also 5'6" tall), I have brought up my 1 rep max in each of the following:

Flat Bench Press = 315 lbs x 1

Deadlift = 365 lbs x 1

Squat = 535 lbs x 2

Not that the squat of 535 (two times) was not done free weights (I am too nervous for that yet), but was on the Hammer Strength Power Squat machine. I have been training as a powerlifter (though I am nowhere near their level of strength) not as a body builder. I am interested in maximum strength, not so much size and symmetry.

I made these gains following two different linear periodized routines, both of which I got from The Iron Dungeon (http://www.impulseadventure.com/weights/). One is a 6-session routine while the other is a 14-session routine. These routines were for bench press only, but I used the same percentages and repetitions, etc and applied them to deadlifts, squats, etc.

I just started doing Charle's Poliquin's 1-6 routine(http://www.wannabebigforums.com/archive/index.php/t-34687.html) and it is wearing me out, but I have been getting stronger as the routine claims.

For example, I was doing my first day of 1-6 deadlifts, and my max deadlifts increased from 365 to 370 to 375 lbs all in one session. I know this won't automatically mean longterm gains in themselves, but it is working.

My summer goals are to get my bench press up to 405 lbs, my deadlift to 500 lbs, and my (free weight) squat too 450 lbs. I now this is a lot to hope for, but I am gonna try anyway.

Science versus Intelligent Design

2007-09-04T10:41:00.000-07:00

Science versus Intelligent Design

I belong to a newsgroup called SDANet (http://www.sdanet.org/). In two posts to that newsgroup, I made the statement that “one must do mathematics and philosophy before one can do science.”

My purpose in those two posts was to drive home the point that scientists have certain philosophic assumptions before they even engage in scientific inquiry. In fact, the process of science itself is founded on certain assumptions about the world around us.

In this article, I want the reader to realize the scientific community disregards Intelligent Design as “religion and not science” because it violates their a priori philosophic presuppositions about what they believe science is. These scientists confuse their philosophy of materialism, methodological naturalism, scientism, what-have-you with science itself.

The purpose of the current article is twofold.

First, I want to point out how certain philosophic assumptions are embedded as the foundation of the Scientific Method. From this illustration, I hope the reader realizes the truth of “one must do mathematics and philosophy before one can do science.” I am not attempting to analyze or critique every philosophy of science (e.g., materialism, methodological naturalism, etc), but just to illustrate that philosophic presuppositions come before the scientific process itself.

The second part of this article is to illustrate errors with one common approach to scientific inquiry, namely Methodological Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism can be summed up (albeit a bit simplistically) as the assertion that only naturalistic causes are to be used as explanations of phenomenon that scientists investigate.

Methodological Naturalism is the philosophic assumption (i.e., it cannot be demonstrated to true by scientific investigation itself) that is very commonly used as an argument against Intelligent Design advocates. In other words, the scientific community argues that “since (we assume) science can only appeal to naturalistic causes, and Intelligent Design by its very nature does not restrict itself to naturalistic causes, then Intelligent Design advocates are not doing true science; rather they are doing religion in disguise.”

Please note, again, this is what the scientific community presupposes ahead of time what “science really is.” It is a position that is argued for and is not demonstrated through scientific investigation. Indeed, the scientific community cannot, and does not, justify Methodological Naturalism experimentally or through scientific investigation, but by appeals to what they consider sound reasoning.

Part 1: Presuppositions Embedded within the Scientific Method

Here I attempt to illustrate how using the Scientific Method is based upon certain inherent assumed views about the world around us. I am not attempting to prove these true or false, but to make it clear that scientific inquiry is based upon certain presuppositions.

Someone might disagree with my examples of the inherent assumptions in the Scientific Method and offer alternative ones. But this still illustrates that one has some philosophic presuppositions about the world before they even engage in scientific endeavors.

There are a number of ways the Scientific Method can be outlined, but one reasonable representation of it is as follows:

Observation --> Hypothesis --> Test Hypothesis --> Conclusions

All of these steps of the Scientific Method are based on the following philosophic assumptions.

A. The External World Objectively Exists – “The external world exists, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not.” If the world was merely illusionary and a figment of my imagination, it would be erroneous to investigate why certain phenomena occurred as it is merely my imagination.

Please note that one might not know the external world was imaginary and one might try to investigate this (illusory) external world anyway.

But it would still be faulty to do so because if the external world is a truly product of your imagination, there is no real need to investigate why things happened. They did not truly happen, you merely imagined it.

However, the assumption that the external world truly exists is why scientists make hypotheses to explain certain phenomenon, and why they need to test their hypotheses, i.e., we test our hypotheses because our explanation may not actually be correct, despite what we think.

In short, Reality is what you bump into when your beliefs are wrong.

B. The External World Is Governed by Consistent Laws – there would be no point in investigating the behavior of the world if the rules governing the universe were randomly changed without warning. Any discovery made today would be invalid shortly thereafter.

C. The Correspondence Theory of Truth – a true statement or true hypothesis is one that accurately describes the way the external world really is. Scientists are supposed to be in the business of determining what really is going on. Ultimately, I would argue that most scientists are not looking for an erroneous model that works, but what really is going on.

Again, Part 1 is not intended to prove the exact specifics of the philosophic assumptions embedded in the Scientific Method. It was intended to illustrate that all scientists, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, operate on certain a priori presuppositions about the world around us. They also operate on certain a priori philosophic presuppositions of what “science really is.”

Part 2. Problems with Methodological Naturalism.

One of the common assumptions about what “science really is” is called Methodological Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism asserts that only appeals to naturalistic causes are legitimate in scientific inquiry. Often they also claim to restrict this to repeatable naturalistic causes.

The first flaw with this approach to define what “science really is” is that it first assumed and argued for, not proven. One cannot demonstrate through scientific investigation and appealing to only naturalistic causes, that the only proper approach to science is Methodological Naturalism. I know of no experimental study that demonstrates the truth of the Methodological Naturalism assumption. I know of no scientists who propose Methodological Naturalism on anything other than (what they consider to be) sound logical grounds.

Regardless of whether or not their arguments for Methodological Naturalism are sound, it still demonstrates that it is philosophically argued for.

The second flaw with Methodological Naturalism is that before scientific inquiry even begins, it limits itself to only certain conclusions allowed as the product of this scientific investigation. Rather than employ the Scientific Method and then use inference to the best explanation, Methodological Naturalism rules in advance that certain conclusions are not permitted, despite the weight of the evidence and the reasonableness of the conclusions.

This is roughly equivalent to homicide investigators being told that, before the investigation even begins, they are not allowed interpret the evidence such that they conclude a woman committed the crime.

To illustrate further, suppose you placed a closed box in front of a biologist and asked her explain what is going on inside the box.
When the box is opened, the biologist clearly sees an Oreo cookie inside a glass of milk.

What would be the most reasonable way for the biologist to explain how the Oreo got in the glass? Would she restrict herself to Methodological Naturalism and only appeal to naturalistic causes? Or would she infer an intelligent cause for this phenomenon and conclude someone was putting her on?

Or, more to the point, here is a more realistic illustration. What would happen if a NASA satellite truly did intercept an electromagnetic signal from a star-system that is 500 light years away. This signal consisted of 1,000 prime numbers in the sequence, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, … etc.

Would it be appropriate to insist Methodological Naturalism is the only way NASA is permitted analyze the data? Must NASA therefore assume purely naturalistic causes for this sequence of numbers no matter the weight of the evidence to the contrary? Or would it be more appropriate to make an inference to the best explanation and suspect an intelligent cause for this sequence of numbers?

In both cases listed above, I suspect that scientists would assume intelligent causes rather than purely naturalistic causes. This is where Methodological Naturalism falters and Intelligent Design comes in. Any school-child would figure out someone put the Oreo cookie into the glass of milk. Also, once human sources were truly ruled out, any astronomer or cryptographer (or school-child) would be reasonable to raise the possibility of the signal being originated by an intelligent source outside our solar system.

However, it is very reasonable to ask, What is an appropriate algorithm for determining Intelligent Design? How can one reasonably infer Intelligent Design in an observed phenomenon? The method is based upon spotting a phenomenon that is (1) a low probability event and is, (2) specified in advance.

(1) Low Probability Event: Any event, no matter how low the probability (assuming not zero), will occur if given enough time. If I take a deck of cards, and throw them into the air, the exact order and location of how they fall on the floor is a low probability event. One would not be reasonable in inferring Intelligent Design from this. Given enough time (1 million years?) to throw the deck of cards into the air, you could replicate this event if you were patient enough.

(2) Specification in Advance: Any event specified in advance that is not of sufficiently low probability does not suggest Intelligent Design. For example, if I were to tell you the sun will rise tomorrow, you would not be impressed. If I told you there would be an earthquake in Los Angeles area in the next 50 years, you would not be impressed. Yes, I specified it in advance, but it is not exactly a low probability event.

However, both (1) and (2) combined can be used to indicate Intelligent Design.

For example, were NASA to intercept an electromagnetic signal that was a random string of 1,000 numbers, this would not imply intelligent design. Sure, the exact order of a random string of 1,000 numbers is a low probability event, but such things occur in nature (e.g., white noise).

Also, if NASA intercepted a string of the first 4 prime numbers, 1, 2, 3, and 5, they likely would not call SETI and announce contact with space aliens. Yes, it is a numeric sequence specified in advance, but the sequence is so short that it is not of sufficiently low probability to infer an intelligent source.

However, a string of the first 1,000 prime numbers is both a very low probability event, and also shows specification in advance. There is no known natural phenomenon that produces the prime numbers, much less the first 1,000 of them! I think by this time the NASA would feel confident in calling SETI and the President to report their findings. (Assuming of course, they *truly* ruled out a human source for the signal.)

In parting, I hope that I made it clear that the furor over Intelligent Design is not a conflict between empirical science and religion. It is a conflict between worldviews and what evidence is allowed to inform the discussion.

The author is deeply indebted to the folks at Stand to Reason (http://www.STR.org) and Dr. William Debski for man of the ideas and illustrations in this article. Any limitations are errors are mine alone.

Hung Gar Kung Fu

2007-08-23T23:06:00.000-07:00

I am also starting to re-train myself in Hung Gar kung fu, the martial art I learned when I was much younger. I am doing this for a few reasons. First, because I did not give it the time it deserved when I was younger, and this is something I want to do for myself as I approach the ripe old age of 40. Second, I want to be able to protect myself or my family if, God-forbid, something bad happens. Third, I learned such valuable lesson from Hung Gar, especially perseverance and martial virtue, that I want my son to learn the art when he is old enough. I hope to be able to take him to Sifu Bucksam Kong's Hung Gar school.

Currently, I am re-learning the Hung Gar set (sort of like a karate 'kata') Gung Gee Fook Fu Kuen from Sifu Wong Lam's resources. If you are interested in learning more about Kung Fu, including Hung Gar, you can check out the Wing Lam Enterprises website and forums by checking my links to the right.

I have also started training in Shaolin Iron Palm and hope to incorporate Tiger Iron Palm in a couple of years. After just a few months of training (on the beginner Mung bean bag), I can already tell a difference in the increased strength and dexterity of my hands.

Lastly, I have also just started the practice of Zhan Zheong qigong. I will more into this later.

Weight Training Again

2007-08-23T22:40:00.000-07:00

Well, I have started weight training again after letting myself get seriously out of shape. I started using a periodized weight training routine that I found on the Impulse Adventure Iron Dungeon website (see links). Since then, my strength has increased dramatically. For example, I have gone from being completely sedentary to bench pressing over 315 lbs in about 5 months! (I am only 5'6" tall.)

I will also be going on a nonlinear periodized weight training routine and will publish some book reviews on the topic.

Death Of A Hero

2006-03-23T21:29:00.000-08:00

Desmond T. Doss, Sr., has died at 87 years of age. He was the only conscientious objector to win the Congressional Medal of Honor during World War II and a long-time member of the Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Doss passed away Thursday morning, March 23, 2006, at his residence in Piedmont, Alabama. He is survived by his wife Frances, his son, Desmond T. Doss, Jr., and his brother, Harold Doss. He was preceded in death by his first wife Dorothy Schutte and his sister Audrey Millner.

Doss never liked being called a conscientious objector. He preferred the term conscientious cooperator. Raised a Seventh-day Adventist, Doss did not believe in using a gun or killing because of the sixth commandment which states, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Doss was a patriot however, and believed in serving his country.

During World War II, instead of accepting a deferment, Doss voluntarily joined the Army as a conscientious objector. Assigned to the 307th Infantry Division as a company medic he was harassed and ridiculed for his beliefs, yet he served with distinction and ultimately received the Congressional Medal of Honor on October 12, 1945 for his fearless acts of bravery.

According to his Medal of Honor citation, time after time, Doss’ fellow soldiers witnessed how unafraid he was for his own safety. He was always willing to go after a wounded fellow, no matter how great the danger. On one occasion in Okinawa, he refused to take cover from enemy fire as he rescued approximately 75 wounded soldiers, carrying them one-by-one and lowering them over the edge of the 400-foot Maeda Escarpment. He did not stop until he had brought everyone to safety nearly 12 hours later.

When Doss received the Medal of Honor from President Truman, the President told him, “I’m proud of you, you really deserve this. I consider this a greater honor than being President.”

Doss’ exemplary devotion to God and his country has received nationwide attention. On July 4, 2004, a statue of Doss was placed in the National Museum of Patriotism in Atlanta, Ga., along with statues of Dr. Martin Luther King, President Jimmy Carter, and retired Marine Corps General Gray Davis, also a Medal of Honor recipient. Also in 2004, a feature-length documentary called “The Conscientious Objector,” telling Doss’ story of faith, heroism, and bravery was released. A feature movie describing Doss’ story is also being planned.

A memorial service will be held April 1, 2006, at 3:00 p.m. at the Collegedale Seventh-day Adventist Church in Collegedale, Tenn. In Lieu of flowers, the Doss family requests that donations may be sent to the Desmond Doss Museum Fund at the Georgia-Cumberland Conference office (P.O. Box 12000 Calhoun, GA 30703).

Mommy, Can I Kill This?

2005-11-12T18:40:00.000-08:00

Opening Scene Imagine you are doing the dishes in your kitchen sink, up to your elbows in soap suds and water. Up behind you comes your five year old son. He asks, "Mommy, can I kill this?" Immediately, before you even have a chance to turn around, the first thought that flashes through your head is, "What the heck is it?!"

If it is an ugly, icky Black Window spider, you will quickly knock it out of your son's hands and kill it yourself. It is the neighbor boy's puppy, the answer is an immediate, "No! And just what were you thinking, even wondering if you can kill a puppy?"

We all know that, essentially, whether or not you are permitted to kill something depends upon just what it is you are killing. Or do we?

On the issue of abortion, I used to be adamantly and passionately pro-choice. It was none of my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. And it sure as heck wasn't the government's business to get into our private lives and tell us what to do either.

That was my passionately held view, hence I was pro-choice.

That was, until I began to consider just what it was that was being killed.

You see, both those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life essentially agree on morality. They both passionately agree that it is evil to kill children.

However, where they differ is on matters of fact, i.e., whether or not the unborn is actually a child/human being (or at what point the unborn becomes a child/human being).

I finally moved from being pro-choice to pro-life when I realized that the issue was not primarily women's rights, or government intervention, or opposition to fundamentalist, right-wing religious zealotry, or even a difficult moral issue.

I realized the fundamental issue is, just what is it? Once you resolve what it (i.e., the unborn) is, all the rest of the moral and legal questions resolve themselves.

If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is needed.

If the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is possible.

I have moved from being passionately pro-choice to now being adamantly pro-life and believe abortion should be outlawed in all instances, save when the life of the mother truly is in jeopardy.

My reasoning boils down to the following syllogism:

1. Major Premise: It is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
2. Minor Premise: The unborn is an innocent human being.
3. Conclusion: Therefor, it is immoral to intentionally kill the unborn.

Certainly both pro-choice and pro-life people agree with the major premise, i.e., it is immoral to intentionally kill and innocent human being. (And, certainly someone who believes it is not wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being can hardly complain about someone else forcing morality down their throat in making abortion illegal.)

The primary issue comes down to the minor premise, i.e., whether or not the unborn is an innocent human being.

I will address the minor premise in the next installment of Mommy Can I Kill This?

The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/thehand.asp

Reflections on the CA Proposition Results

2005-11-09T12:21:00.000-08:00

Obviously, good men can differ on how they felt about the propositons put forward by the governor. One such excellent blooger is Matt Heidt at Froggy Ruminations (http://haloscan.com/tb/cabana11/113152525096492201).

I support proposition 73, the prior parental notification if a minor (daughter) is going to get an abortion. I will be blogging about this later, as well as writing an article on my relatively newfound oppositon to abortion. (I used to be pro-choice, but have now moved to being pro-life).

If you read my posts below, CA Propositons 74 and 75 were both unnecessary and actually hurtful, especially propositon 74. That is based on the premise that what is going wrong in public education today is somehow the fault of the educators.

Folks, I don't get to pick my students, nor do I get to dismiss them. Nor can I force them to do their homework and their parents rarely watch over their kids and make them do their homework. If you want to blame a team's poor performance on the coach, you at least give the coach the right to pick his team and get ride of those players who either aren't up to it, or don't give 100%.

Teacher's are not afforded that luxury and until that time, it is rarely the fault of the educator.

CA Special Election Results

2005-11-09T09:58:00.000-08:00

The results are in and finalized. All the propositons went down. Here are the results from the CA Secretary of State website, http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

Why Teaching?

2005-11-05T09:22:00.000-08:00

Successful teaching can be defined in different ways. I consider positively impacting the lives of students as aspect of successful teaching to be at least as important as expertly imparting content to students.

When asked, What do you teach? my response invariably is students. In other words, I emphasize the fact that I am teaching people, as well as content. In that vein, my best teaching experience was the same experience that proved the tipping point for my going into teaching rather than professional engineering.

This experience occurred when I was a Teaching Assistant in Physical Chemistry at UCLA. About four weeks before the end of the quarter, one of my students met me at my office hours. He explained to me that he had failed to two mid-quarter examinations, and likely would not pass the course, and not graduate from UCLA on schedule. His only hope was his performance on the quarter final exam. He was quite depressed and obviously felt hopeless.

I was able to diagnose his situation in terms of his standing in the class. But more importantly, I was able to re-motivate him by helping him develop his study schedule and meet with him on a regular basis to get him prepared for the quarter final exam.

I did not know how he did on the final until he called my home. He explained to me how he had done so well on the final exam that the professor gave him a B in the Physical Chemistry course. Hence, he would graduate on schedule, and with good enough grades to move on to dental school.

Moreover, it was his verbalized thanks and the sound of heartfelt gratitude in his voice that made me realize the positive impact I had had in his life. This was not just a grade in a course, not was it graduating and moving on to a professional program, but he had undergone a sea change in his thinking about himself.

So did I.

I realized at that point that I wanted to be a professional educator because of this sort of impact I could have.

Since that time, I taught Physical Chemistry and Chemical Engineering courses as a TA at UCLA, taught Physical Chemistry at a small private Southern California University, taught basic Earth Science to high school English Language Learners, and have even taught arithmetic to learning disabled 1st and 2nd graders. It is not the content that matters to be, but the students.

I have had many other experiences in which my students have done very well academically, and have gone on to live successful lives. However, the teaching experience I described above was my most successful in that I then realized the impact I could have, and what my in life calling was.

Teacher Tenure -- CA Proposition 74

2005-10-31T22:14:00.000-08:00

California Proposition 74, the teacher tenure initiative proposes to change the California education code (i.e., CA law) to make it easier to fire K-12 public school teachers.

It is being touted in California as a reform in that it claims teachers need to work for a full five years (as opposed to 2 years) before K-12 public school teacher supposedly get "tenure" and thereby have a "job for life" wherein K-12 public school teachers cannot be fired, even if they are unprofessional and poor teachers.

I am a public school teacher in So. Cal. and want to point out we do not get tenure. This is not just a play on words, but we actually do not get tenure.

The Governor claims that Prop. 74 is needed because (a) the school are under-performing in significant part because of bad teachers, and (b) bad teachers cannot be fired because they have "tenure."

There is no such thing as tenure for K-12 public school teachers. For the first two years of our employment, we are on temporary, probationary status where (a) we can be fired mid-year without cause, and (b) our contracts expire at the end of the year unless the school district chooses to re-hire us.

However, if we pass our evalutations for those two probationary years and we are re-hired, we then get permanent teacher status, which only means our contracts do not expire every year.

Once we get permanent status, public school teachers can be (and are) fired for the following reasons according to the California Education Code (i.e., CA law) section 44932:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=44001-45000&file=44930-44988

(1) Immoral or unprofessional conduct.

(2) Commission, aiding, or advocating the commission of acts of criminal syndicalism, as prohibited by Chapter 188 of the Statutes of 1919, or in any amendment thereof.

(3) Dishonesty.

(4) Unsatisfactory performance.

(5) Evident unfitness for service.

(6) Physical or mental condition unfitting him or her to instruct or associate with children.

(7) Persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school, laws of the state, or reasonable regulations prescribed for the government of the public schools by the State Board of Education or by the governing board of the school district employing him or her.

(8) Conviction of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude.

(9) Violation of Section 51530 or conduct specified in Section 1028 of the Government Code, added by Chapter 1418 of the Statutes of 1947.

(10) Knowing membership by the employee in the Communist Party.

(11) Alcoholism or other drug abuse which makes the employee unfit to instruct or associate with children.

In addition, the only permanency we have to our positons is that, if we are to be fired, we are entitled to 90 days notice (cf. Ca Ed. Code section 44939) in which we are allowed to a hearing to determine whether such charges are actually true.

That's it. That's the sum total of teacher "tenure."

The Governor in proposition 74 wants to extend our propationary status from 2 years to 5 years, longer than any other civil servant, and then wants to remove our right to have a hearing before we are fired.

WHY?

CA Proposition 75 Paycheck Protection Act, An Analysis

2005-10-29T21:18:00.000-07:00

Proposition 75, the so-called Paycheck Protection Act claims to protect union members from having their union dues used for political purposes they do not agree with.

This is bahloney on the Governor's part.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld, repeatedly, that (a) unions (e.g., teacher's unions) cannot use member's dues for political purposes without prior consent, (b) members can withdraw consent at any time, thereby opting out of the unions using their dues for poltical purposes, and (c) if members opt out, the unions must provide a public accounting to prove they did not use those dues for political purposes.

If you don't believe me, ask the U.S. Supreme Court. Here are their decisons on the matter:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court, in International Association of Machinists v. Street, [367 U.S. 740 (1961)] found that such expenditures fall outside of the scope of reasons which justified union shop agreements.

2. In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court in Railway Clerks v. Allen reaffirmed that, under Section 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act, labor unions cannot, over an employee's objection, use exacted funds to support political activities which such employees oppose [373 U.S. 113, 118-19 (1963)].

3. In 1977, the Supreme Court, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, extended Street and Allen to encompass dissenting non-union public employees [431 U.S. 209(1977)] basing its decision, however, on constitutional grounds that were not at issue in the prior cases. While a labor organization can constitutionally expend funds for the expression of political and ideological views which are not germane to its collective-bargaining activities, it can only finance such expenditures from the dues of non dissenting employees [Id., 235-36]. Dissenting, non-union employees have a constitutional First Amendment right to prevent a labor union from using a proportionate share of their service fees for certain political and ideological activities unrelated to the union's collective-bargaining activities. [Id., 234. Cf., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 22-23 (1976) in which the Supreme Court held that contributions to organizations for the purpose of spreading a political message were protected by the First Amendment.]

4. In Ellis v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, the Court was asked to determine the validity of a rebate scheme, in which a labor union collected dues from employees and used them for certain political and ideological activities, later paying a rebate to employees who dissented from the political and ideological use of such dues [466 U.S. 435 (1984)]. The Court noted that under the rebate scheme the union obtains an involuntary loan for those political and ideological activities to which the dissenting employees object [Id., 443]. Since there were readily available acceptable alternatives to such union borrowing, such as advance reduction of dues and/or interest bearing accounts, the Court found that a union cannot be allowed to use the dissenting employees' funds even temporarily.

5. Two years later, in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson [475 U.S. 292 (1986)] the Supreme Court held that the constitutional requirements for the union's collection of agency fees from non-members would include: (1) an adequate explanation for the basis of the fee; (2) a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial arbitrator; and (3) the establishment of an escrow fund for the amounts reasonably in dispute while any challenges are pending.

In addition, the Congress has current proposals under consideration would mostly codify the Supreme Court's decisions in Street, Abood, Ellis, Chicago Teachers Union, Beck, and Lehnert. These decisions have interpreted the NLRA and the RLA as restricting the use of compulsory union dues by labor organizations, providing for the disclosure of union expenditures, and notifying employees of their right not to join a union as a condition of employment (the payment of agency dues or fees would be required). However, the various proposals tend to go beyond the Court's interpretations of the statutes. One major difference, which appears in several bills, is the provision that prohibits labor organizations from collecting any dues or fees not related to collective bargaining, contract adminstration, or grievance adjustment unless the employee has agreed, in writing, to pay such dues or fees.

[Sources and text above gleaned and adopted from The Use Of Union Dues For Political Purposes: A Legal Analysis, by John Contrubis and Margaret Mikyung Lee, American Law Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; Number 97-618. http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/crs/ascii/97-618]

In short, repeated U.S. Supreme Court decisions have decisively demonstrated that CA Public Employee Union members and agency fee payers (a) can allow their union dues to be used for political purposes, (b) can opt out anytime at a later date if change their minds and do not want the union to use their dues for political purposes, and (c) must be clearly informed by the union of both (a) and (b) above.

So then what's the real purpose of Prop. 75? It sure isn't to provide union members with the right to keep unions from using our dues for purposes we disagree with, we've already had that right for decades.

Rock on Freedom Rock!

2005-10-21T23:35:00.000-07:00

I got this pic in an email from a former high school student on mine (took my chemistry class) who is now graduating USC in Foreign Relations, or some such major.

The email he sent says the rock in the picture used to be a graffiti target all the time until it was painted by the artist seen here in the picture.

I hope I can get a few more of these pics posted here at it is a great piece of work. Rock On! God bless the men and women who risk their lives every day to keep me and my family safe. My brother is a firefighter/paramedic in Colorado. Every year I invite the USMC into my classroom to talk to my students. Wish I knew some better way to pay them back for protecting me.

Contientious Objectors to War

2005-07-06T20:22:00.000-07:00

I am watching the war in Afghanistan and Iraq unfold and what I find really disturbing is the lack of a loyal opposition by those who oppose the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I see many people who suffer from moral confusion (or moral retardation)and actually accuse an American president of being a terrorist and American war in the Middle East as being evil. Yet, all the while, they are completely silent about the evil that is being perpetrated by those who want to kill us all.

I do not believe these people are actually loyal to America but opposed to war because they think it is evil. They ignore the story of Desmond Doss, the only Contientious Objector in WWII to win the Congressional Medal of Honor.

You can read his story at:

http://www.medalofhonor.com/DesmondDoss1.htm
http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_doss.html
http://www.desmonddoss.com

In short, Doss believed it was always wrong to kill another human being, and he just did not have it in him to take another human life. Yet, while inducted into the Army, he was willing and happy to go and serve his country and fellow man. While he believed it was wrong to kill, he was willing to serve as an unarmed medic on the front lines of the war in the pacific. While in boot camp, his fellow soldiers believed he was a coward and tormented him, often throwing their boots at him at night while they slept in the bunk house. Not only would these men wake up in the morning to find their boots polished by the very man they assaulted, but Doss was also the same man who risked his life over and over to save theirs while on the battlefield.

There really is no excuse for not at least being a loyal opposition for those of you who believe the War On Terror. Doss served in a war, WWII, that is as morally clear as our current war on terror. He served his fellow man and was regarded by his men as as icon of gallantry and honor.

I strongly recommend the documentary about his life, The Contientious Objector, found at:

http://www.desmonddoss.com/

It is faith alone that saves, but saving faith is never found alone!

2005-07-04T13:16:00.000-07:00

When we get to know Christ, as is our privilege to know Him,
our lives will be lives of continual obedience.

Many people are confused as to the relationship between faith and works? I know I was when I was becoming a Christian.

Just how is one saved? “Believe in Jesus” is the common response. But how does one believe in Jesus? Is this an act of sheer spiritual willpower? Do you just force yourself to believe? Do I just grit my teeth and clench my fists and make myself believe the Bible?

I remember asking this question, “What does one do to believe in Jesus?” I was told as a response, “Give your heart to Jesus.” “How do I give me heart to Jesus?” I asked. “Come to the foot of the cross,” was the response. Frustrated with the metaphors, I asked “How do I come to the foot of the cross?” The circular answer was, “Give your heart to Jesus.” I am an engineer and like things concretely defined. Answering my questions with metaphors, much less a circle of metaphors, frustrates me to no end.

So, finally, after years thought, reflection, and advise from trusted counselors, I have come up with the following outline. Please forgive any theological nuances, as I am not a professional theologian.

1. All human beings (save Christ, the Eternal Son of God) are born sinners with a sinful nature that separates us from God. Even though a baby might be too young to willfully sin, they are still born with a sinful nature. In other words, it is your sinful nature that gives rise to sins. Your sins do not make you a sinner, they are just the evidence. As a result, we all need to be saved. This was accomplished through Christ's atoning, substitutionary death on the cross. (cf. Rom. 3:23 - 26)

2. Salvation is, and has always been, by grace through faith alone in the work and Person of Jesus Christ alone. I.e., salvation has always been through the gospel. In OT times they did not know the coming Redeemer by the name "Jesus Christ," but they knew the gospel in some form or fashion. (cf. Heb. 3:1 - 4:2) [I am not a dispensationalist.]

3. Grace means "unmerited favor." Faith means "trust, based on evidence, that result in action." As for the relationship between faith and works, John Calvin hit the nail on the head I think when he said "It is faith alone that saves, but the faith that saves is never found alone." That, in my opinion, is the best one-line resolution between Paul (cf. Rom 3:20) and James (Jas 2:24).

4. Salvation consists of three things: (a) Justification, (b) Sanctification, and (c) Glorification.

(a) Justification -- is going from being a condemned sinner to a saved sinner. It is the righteousness of Christ, none of our own, put to our account. In other words, it is Christ's imputed righteousness. It's function is to save us into heaven. It is obtained by grace through faith alone in the work and Person of Jesus Christ alone.
(b) Sanctification -- is typically called "spiritual maturity" nowadays. In short, it is growth in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, wherein, among other things, we overcome our sinful habits and we (hopefully) sin less and less as we become more spiritually mature. It is the righteousness of Christ, none of our own. It is the imparted righteousness of Christ. It's function is to bring glory to God (i.e., "so that they might see your good works and glorify your father in heaven"). It is obtained by grace through faith alone in the work and Person of Jesus Christ alone.

We do not earn salvation by our obedience; for salvation is the free gift of God, to be received by faith. But obedience is the fruit of faith. Hence, I strive to keep the Ten Commandments for this reason, i.e., as the result of my salvation, not the cause of my salvation.

(c) Glorification -- Is when Christ returns, raises the dead in Christ and takes both the raised and living saints to heaven in our immortal bodies. It is obtained by grace through faith alone in the work and Person of Jesus Christ alone.

Or, in short, Justification is freedom from sin's condemnation, Sanctification is freedom from sin's power, and Glorification is freedom from sin's presence ... all of which are accomplished by grace through faith alone in the work and Person of Jesus Christ alone. I can no more raise my self from the dead by my own efforts than I can justify or sanctify myself by my own efforts.

5. Lastly, how is this faith obtained? Do we just force ourselves to trust, gritting our teeth and clenching our hands? No! I like the following explanation.

Faith is a gift. It is not something you work on or work up. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Faith is not spiritual wishful thinking, or forcing yourself to believe by sheer willpower and turning off the intellect. Faith is trust, based on evidence, that results in action. Faith in Christ is trust in Christ, based on evidence, that results in action.

However, even though faith is a gift, is there any role the individual plays in faith? Yes, and here is the analogy I like (albeit it is imperfect):

How does one get to trust anyone? By getting to know them. And if that person is trustworthy, all you have to do is get to know them, and you cannot help but to trust them. Similarly, if that person is untrustworthy, all you gotta do is get to know them, and you cannot help but to not trust them. And one thing I find in my Bible is the premise that Jesus Christ is absolutely trustworthy.

So, how does one get to have faith (trust) Jesus? By getting to know Him. How does one get to know Jesus? Just like with anyone else. You talk to them. They talk to you, And you go out and do things together. You will then get to know them. How does one talk to Jesus? Prayer. How does Jesus talk to you? Bible study. How do you go out and do things together? Christian fellowship, church, mission activity, etc.

Or, as one of my favorite pastor's puts it: Prayer, fellowship, and tell someone else what you got out of the first two.

Why I became SDA.

2005-04-25T09:55:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my new blog. Let me introduce myself by telling you a bit of my history. I recently earned a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from UCLA. I have a bachelor's in Chemistry from Fresno State University.

I became a Seventh-Day Adventist after converting to Christianity in college. Before that, I was a Chan (a.k.a. Zen) Buddhist for about a decade. I became a Chan Buddhist (a religion I now respect, but disagree with) after spending a number of years studying Hung Gar Kung Fu under Sifu Mel Sakata, who was (if I understand correctly, a student of Bucksam Kong. (I owe Sifu a great deal and hope some day I can regain contact and thank him profusely.)

Hung Gar is a great martial art that does wonders for developing confidence, character, self-defense skills and is an art that can be studied for a life-time. If any of you have seen the Once Upon a Time In China movies (of Jet Lee fame), the movies are about physician and Sifu Wong Fei Hung. (For some basic info about Hung Gar, see http://www.kungfucinema.com/articles/2001-04-08-01.htm and http://www.wle.com/thePen/iskf.html).

However, while in college at Fresno State University (studying Chemistry) I became convinced that there was some sort of God after learning about hemoglobin in my biochemistry class. I guess it was the teleological argument that hit me. But hemoglobin seemed to well designed that I just figured it could not have been the result of natural selection.

That started me down the path to believing there was a God. However, I was not sure what kind of God there was. I had already left the Eastern religions because I no longer accepted a dualistic view of the universe where good and evil was just a matter of perception. (The thought that Hitler and his victims might have the same ultimate fate disturbs me morally.) So I was left with the so-called western religions.

I began studying the reasons for believing whether Islam or Christianity were true. Notice that I was not just studying the particular doctrines of Islam and Christianity and then picking the one I felt I liked the most, or made me feel the best, but I was trying to pick the one that was true.

(Part II later.)