SPEAK TO ME

I don’t think he’s a bad guy –– Dr. Wesley Scroggins –– when he advocates for the banning of books in Republic High School’s library and language arts curriculum, and his objections to teaching children about their bodies.

He’s simply another member of a small but vocal Christian conservative movement who is given too large a podium and too much credence for the insignificant minority his represents. Fundamentalism makes for headlines and controversies and dollars but it does not represent the average viewpoint.

I think Dr. Scroggins’ biggest problem is his perspective. The blinders of some factions of Christian conservatism and the ivory tower of academia can hide the real world from those with good but misguided intentions. He does not mean harm. In fact, I suspect Dr. Scroggins means to do good by trying to ban what he considers obscene from all persons, despite what might be in their very best interests.

For context, read Dr. Scroggins’ opinion in the Springfield News-Leader (which is only available for seven days because the News-Leader fails miserably as a news organization.

As an educator, I see everyday the words, deeds and thoughts of youth. My perspective is based on my real life experiences with young children, tweens and teens.

Fourth Grade Sex Education

Dr. Scroggins was aghast to discover that students in fourth grade are taught about reproduction. Students (pre-puberty and older) are not only aware of sexual intercourse and other sex acts, but some are actively engaging in the practice. This includes fourth graders. The reasons are varied but here are a few reasons that kids engage in various sex acts:

• Sexual abuse
• Peer pressure from older siblings or friends
• Need to feel like and act like an adult brought on by a need for control
• Early puberty
• Curiosity

It is the intention of educators, many of whom in this area are Christian, is to educate children so they make good decisions. What we want from our fourth graders is for them not to have sex or engage in sex acts. Teachers, understanding students behaviors first hand, know this cannot be the only approach because children do, much to our chagrin, have sex or sex-like activities. Our goal is to educate students so if they choose to engage in sexual activity, they can at least do so to avoid pregnancy and diseases.

A decade ago, I read an article in a magazine for Christian youth minsters about the increase of oral and anal sex among middle school Christians. The kids, you see, felt that because they had not had traditional sexual intercourse, they were not having “sex”. They were just goofing around. No one could get pregnant, therefore the parents would not find out. They were free to do what they wished. Since that time, the idea of indiscriminate oral or anal sex has only increased among our youth.

One is unaware of such trends, even among Christian youth, unless they work directly with real-world children in real-world settings. Kids do not talk about such things are church. These are very real issues facing kids. For those with harsh criticisms of kids and their feelings will not be privy to real conversations even if they associate with teens. Kids are smart and can detect judgmental adults. They will avoid real talk with those adults at all costs.

Middle School Sex Education

Dr. Scroggins is quite upset over the fact that high school sexuality discussions include: homosexuality, sexual intercourse, sex acts and prevention. I am not privy to Republic’s sex education curricula so I cannot adequately discuss the accuracy of his statements as to what is and is not taught. However, the editors noted that the school district’s primary focus is on abstinence. I can speak about schools in a general sense.

As state above, educators understand the real world of teens and act accordingly. It should not come as a surprise to Dr. Scroggins or anyone else that middle school and high school students are trying to come to grips with their own sexuality (straight, gay, transgendered). Teens are well aware of homosexuality and the discussion is nothing new to them. If this is a surprise to adults, then those adults are grossly out of touch with kids and teens.

When my wife worked at a mental health facility, she encountered a young, sexually active teen. The girl did not have the information she needed to make good choices. While we would hope she would choose to be abstinent, she disagreed. However, she tried to take steps to protect herself. Unfortunately, the teen was not adequately educated due in large part to people like Dr. Scroggins. The teen mistaken used grape jelly in the place of contraceptive jelly and her body had serious medical complications. If children and teens are taught appropriately, then they can make safer decisions even if they are not the decisions we would wish for them to take. Dr. Scroggins must be aware that even devout Christian teens sometimes have sex; use drugs, alcohol and tobacco; and use profanity.

Book Banning

Dr. Scroggins is on a crusade to ban books he deems inappropriate for high schoolers based on the language use or subject material. Slaughterhouse Five, Twenty Boy Summer and Speak are three he wants banned.

Christian, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist or undefined persons have all heard the f-bomb. It is not a new word and it is not outside the common lexicon of teens of any faith. The fact is, its exposure is not uncommon among tweens and children let alone it’s use. I have heard the female c-bomb screamed loudly in elementary. Tenured elementary teachers and principals are not at all shocked to hear a 7-year-old use such words, although we deal with it appropriately. It is sad, I agree, but not unusual or shocking.

As for his objections of the mention of the rape of a character as pornography, I can only shudder at his thoughts that rape be seen as sexually gratifying to anyone.

The fact is, too many students are disconnected from literature and reading because much of the canon does not engage them, connect with them, or resonate with them. Books that deal with human atrocities, while scary, powerful and emotional, are a part of our daily news cycle and life in general. We cannot, despite our good intentions, shelter teenagers from the world if we want to prepare them to work and live independently in the world.

Rape of teens and rape by teens occurs more often than I think Dr. Scroggins is aware. Real world teachers, juvenile officers, social workers, therapists and physicians are aware of the great harm that teens undergo at the hands of adults and other teens. Teens are also aware. It is of utmost importance to teach our young adults how to appropriately deal with and address the world around us. Literature is a safe way to engage students, teach students and cultivate empathy and ethics.

To that point, I offer this video by Laurie Halse Anderson, author of Speak. In it she reads a poem that uses the real words of teens who have been uplifted and helped by her book.

This poem by Laurie Halse Anderson was created using actual letters sent to her by readers. The impact of the story on students is obviously positive and powerful. The literary and emotional significance far outweigh any negatives.

I understand Dr. Scroggin’s attempt to make this a better world by sheltering our children from things. However, this approach does not work with real children. It simply makes students incapable of handling the events of the world when they encounter them. Banning books and refraining from teaching students authentically only serves to harm the greater society. I know it is hard for him because he is trying to purify our culture. It is a fruitless endeavor in so far as you cannot mandate purity or innocence. Life is what it is. Educators act and react to society and prepare children and teens to live in that society as healthy adults.

That is my perspective.

THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Damn. I am so mad that I missed the big announcements made by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Thankfully, due to the intersection of tubes and whatnot, I am able to stream them at my convenience. The boys, who in my opinion provide the best news coverage anywhere (although I like Rachel Maddow, too), use comedy to tell it like it is and shoot us straight in the irrational ass.

If you have not already, you should watch these videos:

• Rally to Restore Sanity (The Daily Show)
• March to Keep Fear Alive (The Colbert Report)

Here are some suggested rally signs/posters, thanks to Stewart:

• I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
• 9/11 was an outside job.
• I am not afraid of Muslisms, Tea Partiers, socialists, immigrants, gun owners, gays.

If you have ever called, labeled,  implied, suggested or even mentioned Hitler in the same paragraph as a given political party or it's leader(s) then you are in need of rational thought. Not that you are a bad person. It's okay. Everyone freaks. As Stewart said: "take it down a notch."

I've noticed liberals and conservatives linking to these videos (or news stories about these rally videos) all over Facebook and it gives me great comfort to know that there are people aplenty who desire rational thought above emotional and illogical hate-mongering.

A little peace does the soul a lot of good, whether it's given by God or your own intelligent mind.

OPPOSING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: A THOUGHTFUL ARGUMENT

Yong Zhao, Professor at Michigan State's College of Education, offers a thoughtful, respectful, well-crafted defense to the opposition toward No Child Left Behind. Anyone interested in America's educational system will find this engaging. Whether America agrees or not is left to be seen.

No Child Left Behind and Global Competitiveness from New Learning Institute on Vimeo.

IS GOD NECESSARY TO HAVE ETHICS AND MORALS?

I have come to the conclusion that I do not need external motivation to seek good, try to do good, or to do my damndest to be good.

I recently read an article about the human need (or lack thereof) for God. The pro side of the article stated, in essence, that human beings – society if you will – needs God to give us parameters lest we fall into a place where we do not know right from wrong and commit unspeakable atrocities. It is God, the writers contended, that gives us right and wrong. That ethics and morality are owned by God and given to us by the grace of God. I have always accepted such views (in previous decades) because the alternative, I was afraid, would lead to my immediate and painful destruction. 

Yet ... here I am happy, successful, content, and most importantly, flame retardant. I wasn't struck down by the almighty for not needing him to make me good.

The discussion, which I have enjoyed immensely, has been philosophized upon by persons much smarter than myself and hosts of articles, essays and books expound upon the spectrum of ideas. The whole thing reminds me of our constant discussion in education, i.e. student motivation and behavior modification.

Education philosophies are bubbling with how best to deal with students. Texts, movements and a host of professional development opportunities are aplenty. Do we offer external rewards to change student behavior and increase student motivation or should our efforts be focues on creating an internal locus of control for students so they study, work, and act appropriately because they want to not because we bribe them to do so? 

It may seem an easy question to answer but I offer that the questions are the same for both ethics/morality and school behavior programs. To be consistent, one who believes that God is required in order to have ethical and moral behavior should also believe that students require external motivation (bribes or punishment) in order to have appropriate behaviors. The the contrary, if one believes that goodness can and does exist in spite of the existence of a higher power (or belief in said higher power) then one should also support an internal locus of control (that's fancy education lingo for self-motivation) in students. 

I think I believe in the need and existence of both. That is to say, there are students (and humans) who will do good and be good and seek good for goodness's sake. They will study hard, listen closely, follow directions, and act appropriately because that is who they are. On the other hand, there are students who, despite your best efforts, richest rewards and deepest bribes, will poop in your eye. Most kids (and most adults) are somewhere in between. 

I suppose that means that some people need God to tell them what to do, how to act, and what to think because they are incapable or unwilling to do so on their own. Perhaps, like my kindergartners, they find peace and comfort in the predictability and comfort that knowing offers them. That is not to say, of course, that someone who needs God or finds peace in prayer is immature or juvenile. Perhaps I should say that I think we are all juvenile and immature regardless of belief. You choose whichever makes more sense to you. Others do not need an external force to define right and good and beautiful for they feel comfortable with not having concrete answers for the big questions.

WHO NEEDS BAPTISM, ANYWAY?

My daughter has been asking about baptism and our beliefs a lot lately. The baptism discussion spurred on by the book Are You There God, It's Me Margaret by Judy Blume; our beliefs discussion came about because we have been visiting another church. 

At this age of child development it is normal for a child to adopt the same beliefs as the family. Kids require a foundation of what they believe as it gives them peace and helps them make sense of the world. Besides, if kids do not have a foundation they can understand (religion, science, or some hybrid) they risk being caught up in any old cult or crazy belief that comes along. However, my wife and I –– despite the implication that we are imposing our will on our daughter –– feel that our daughter needs to be exposed to varying perspectives on life and religion so she can create her own theological beliefs. As her parents, it is our job to help guide her toward good and rational and nondiscriminatory belief systems.

We asked about baptism at our former church. Children must be in sixth grade and go through a class to prepare them for such a decision. Most choose baptism but some do not. I believe a class is important, even required, to help the children come to understand their decision. I think if a child is seriously asking they should be supplied the information and opportunity. I believe an arbitrary grade restraint serves only to push away an inquisitive child and is counter to most educational theories.

The real problem with baptism, in regards to our former church, is the credo that one must believe in order to be baptized. Here is the belief system that one must claim in order to be baptized in our former church, as quoted from the website forwarded to us by the current minister:

Baptism is a public act by which the church proclaims God’s grace, as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, through the use of a visible sign of God’s gracious initiative and the human individual’s response in faith. With other Christians we affirm that baptism is at once a divine gift and a human response.

Baptism, as a gift of grace, received by faith, expresses its meaning in a variety of images: new birth; a washing with water; a cleansing from sin; a sign of God’s forgiving grace; the power of new life now and the pledge of life in the age to come. The meaning of baptism is grounded in God’s redemptive action in Christ, it incorporates the believer in the community in the body of Christ, and it anticipates life in the coming age when the powers of the old world will be overcome, and the purposes of God will triumph.

1. This credo forces one to believe that Jesus was the human form of God on Earth. This is something we simply do not believe.
2. It assumes that we are sinners, evil, and in need of constant redemption. We do not put upon our daughter any guilt theology. 
3. This credo also requires a belief that God gives us some divine gift through a symbolic tradition. We do not believe that we got a job because God willed it, children with disabilities are born to sinful parents as a punishment from God, or that God opened up a parking space because I just prayed for it. (All of these are actual beliefs from actual persons I know directly.)

We spoke to our daughter about this credo and what it means. Upon discovering what she had to believe in order to be baptized, she was much less enthusiastic. For goodness sakes, a 10-year-old scoffs at the idea of a virgin miraculously popping out a baby (let alone a God) and she laughs at the idea of a whale swallowing a man only to spit him up later. She is quite aware of the acidic digestive system and the fact that whales have comb teeth.

Some Christian churches may not actually believe these things either, but they do not actively discuss these issues for fear of losing people and money. They present these issues from time to time, but they are introduced as subtext. Southern Baptism minister Clayton Sullivan wrote  about the division between orthodox Christianity and the post-Enlightenment Christian scholarship in his book "Rescuing Jesus from the Christians":

"Two groups, however, are negatively affected by the conflict between post-Enlightenment scholarship and entrenched orthodox Christianity. One group negatively affect are members of the clergy who received their theological training at seminaries where they were exposed to contemporary biblical scholarship (the kind of scholarship encountered at schools like Emory University in Atlanta and the Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge). Before attending seminaries they innocently assumed there was an obvious or normative Christian gospel. But after acquiring a seminary education, they ponder the question: What is the gospel? Discombobulated, they spend their entire professional lives in a quandry. They slip and slide when expounding the kingdom of God to their parishioners. In this regard they resemble pigs dancing on ice. While preaching on race relationships, they circumvent Jesus' opinion that Gentiles are dogs. While preaching about Jesus dying on the cross as a sacrifice for mankind's sins, they inwardly grope for an atonement theory that would make sense out of what they proclaim. Their mouths and minds are not connected. Unsure of what the gospel is, these pastors employ gospel substitutes."

I am not interested in going to a church that is too fearful of simply presenting other scholarly and religious ideas or paths to God. I want to speak about these ideas openly and discuss them and leave open the opportunity for multiple beliefs by different people. I want a more courageous and open community that will offer the congregation the seminary experience. I do not want subtext or hidden messages. I do not want to be forced to believe that Jesus is a God, nor am I willing to force my family to undergo guilt theology just to be baptized, even if that guilty theology is only presented during baptism. No one in our home believes in the inherent evilness or sinfulness of humans. We make good choice and we make bad choices and we live our lives in an attempt to do more good that harm and learn from our mistakes. Sin is fine for those who want it, but guilt theology (even in minute amounts) is not for us. 

So I guess she's decided that baptism is not for her. Or at least that is what she indicated this morning. She is 10, so that might change, but I suspect it won't. We will continue our religious education by learning about many different belief systems and continue to support goodness over all things and love as a foundation for those good beliefs and works. 

DECORUM

For the record, I do not care for filibusters on Supreme Court nominees. I find it unfortunate that the Dems opened up this can of proverbial worms. We would be better without it. I wonder if the Repubs can every let it go and put it all behind us?

THE WOOL MAKES YOUR EYES ITCH

A friend recently told me, "I'm wary of people who think they have all the right answers." This morning we flipped channels and found a religious program. We stopped to watch the train wreck. The program invited people to submit questions by Internet. The men would read the questions on air and then answer them using the Bible. 

To one person they commented that it does not matter what you think or believe. The only thing that matters is what the Bible literally states. 

I suspect two different people could hear that statement and come to very different conclusions. Refer to the first quote in order to infer what my response was.

GONE THE SHACKLES OF YOUR GOD

I left my church.

I am going to attempt to explain the journey that has brought me to this place. However, I offer my thoughts to those who choose to read –– not as an persuasive essay meant to convert or as a document whose merits are up for debate. This is my personal story and I invite all persons to share in my experience so as to illustrate such journeys to those who may or may not be familiar with paths.

Months ago I left my church and my family chose to come with me.

The church did nothing wrong, changed nothing. The congregation did not anger or damage me and I, as far as I know, did them no wrong either. I have journeyed to a place where I could no longer pray and worship as I have in the past. To do so further would constitute a fraud on the church, the friends, society, my family and myself. I chose not to live a dishonest existence and I refuse to fool myself any longer.

I have never been able to pray in earnest in the same ways others do it. It has felt contrived and unnatural to me from the beginning despite my attempts to find it an authentic experience. When I was a child, I went with my grandmother to her Church of Christ church. During the many prayer times there the men flowed from the pew, kneeling and crying and amen-ing while a man lead them in a talk with God, as only men can truly do. I kept my head bowed, but my eyes always crept under my brow for a glimpse of those men. I observed them and wondered: “What are they doing and why are they doing it?” I still have the same questions. The difference between then and now is that I am no longer forced to keep my head bowed and I can look around at those prayer-kneelers square on and ask the question openly.

In only one short period of my life has prayer ever felt self-compulsory. I took a religious notion during my late tweens and early teens. Not because God gave me peace, answers or understanding. I was scared of sin, mostly of masturbation and sexual feelings, which I was told lead me on a hell-bound train of suffering and disappointment. I could hear the whistle blow in my heart and head and I lived in circular pattern of feelings > thoughts > guilt > clemency > redemption and then back to those pesky feelings of sin again.

Women’s breasts were sinful satchels of gyrating trickery meant to lead me to an eternity of weeping, wailing and teeth-gnashing. To give in to my own right-handed desires was a thing of evil. Natural thoughts of sexuality were a disappointment to God. Questioning our beliefs led to Satanism and death.

I prayed, my friends, many times daily to make it all go away. It did not. I started each prayer with an eloquent beginning letting God know how awesome he was and ended each prayer with “in Jesus’ name”. It still did not. Nothing worked. The cycle continued until I could stand the constant feelings of inadequacy and remorse no longer.

I think the more it did not work and the more I questioned the more traditional I became in my beliefs, as if I was the problem and my beliefs were just not powerful or hungry enough. The more evangelical I became the more it did not work.

In my late teens I gave up the practice of prayer. I felt compelled to go to church, if for no other reason but for my parents and other adults (and perhaps myself) charged with my raising to continue thinking I was a good Christian boy. And so I smoked and drank and screwed around a bit, but I could not shake the guilt of it, especially the sexual activity.

Come college, I was done with church, but I still held onto many of my church-going ideals. I think I somehow thought that no matter what I did, if I still said I believed in the old time religion I would be okay. At the same time, I was exploring with some different views of religion, although they were all within the Christian realm. I was too scared of hell to venture too far or to openly ask too many questions. I kept myself tied to my dogma.

As is pretty consistent with many American homes, it was my wife that pushed me towards finding a church. We were married and she sought out that connection to God for us and for our future daughter. The funny thing is that I wanted a church much like what I grew up with. I find that unbelievably perplexing, as I hated everything my Baptist church taught me. However, I was still fearful and that fear drove my decisions. Even if I didn’t really buy into it, if I went and pretended, then all would work out in the end. I suspect this is the case for most Christians. The wife talked me into looking at other churches, some which might have other beliefs. I went along and we found a church that fit my changing viewpoints and even influenced some beliefs, to which I am grateful. It took a while. I did my duty for many years –– contributing to the church, tithing, volunteering. Prayer was out because it’s never worked for me.

Despite my church duty, there has been a nagging all these years, a voice of reason that has questioned everything since I asked my Baptist preacher why it was so sinful for us teens to go to the school dance. To which he retorted with the sinful gyration bit. That boy who knew then that Brother Bud was wrong about women’s bodies being intrinsically sinful has been clamoring at me for years, but I feared that voice too much –– too much. What would happen if that boy was right? What would I have then?

Turns out, nothing happens. For years now I have not prayed and yet I continue to be blessed, to use a Christian term. I don’t think God blesses me any more than I think he blesses the greedy, corrupt, corporate moguls or the atheists. Somehow, God-fearing or not, people continue to reap rewards in this life. It has nothing to do with the Christianity or God, although it makes followers feel better. I don’t begrudge anyone their good feelings.

The squabbles between a one-cup communion or mini-cups, unleavened bread versus hot dog buns, church on Sunday or Saturday, one being or a trinity, or what constitutes appropriate dress at church is now lost on me. In fact, many of those arguments have wounded me and have kept plenty of folks out of the pew. I have a friend whose church requires members and frequent attendees to wear a jacket and tie. Members who cannot afford it will be supplied one. For those like me who have an inner questioner, we receive the message –– usually unintended but sent all the same –– that we are not holy enough, good enough, righteous enough to hear their version of God. The arguments that divide religions and denominations are nothing but man-created dogma and actually have nothing to do with God. I have to fix myself to be accepted into their church fold. Some require you to be one of their own to take communion. Others reject if you are divorced or gay or are pregnant and unmarried. The message is all the same regardless of the circumstance and the wounds caused by it are deep and damaging. The atrocities and discrimination committed in the name of one God or another have devastated me profoundly. It’s all done because of fear of man’s misguided understanding of God.

I am no longer fearful. I do not believe that fear should be the foundation of any religious belief; however, I know that fear is the fuel for most Americans even if they refuse to acknowledge it as I have done for years. I have chosen to rid myself of the shackles of the traditional view of the Christian God in search of a better spiritual quest.

I am down with Jesus. He was a great leader and reformer. I dig his teachings, as I understand them. But I can no longer accept the perfection of a book most of which was written more than 100 years after Jesus’ death. A human was not really swallowed up by a whale and spat out later; a woman did not spontaneously conceive. All of humanity was not spawned from two humans who had boys as offspring. Such stories predate Jesus by millennia or more; they are simply old stories retold and repackaged for a different people.

We have such stories because humans looked at the world around them and tried to explain it. A Native American tribe in California did not have science to rely upon when they tried to explain earthquakes. They could only explain such occurrences through their own experiences thus they conceived a great catfish under the earth caused the tremors. A real understanding of the world –– science –– did not come along until thousands of years later. There is no way the framers of the bible could explain life in any other way but through mythological stories. Mythology and oral stories are humanity’s traditions, but they are not reality.

So many of us have questions about whales and conception and lineage, but we are unable to release the dogma for fear. I have a friend who, when provided with biblical evidence contrary to his belief he said simply: “I cannot believe that because then I would have to change other beliefs.” I get it. I understand that fear-based retort all too well and have clung to such dogma the majority of my life. It’s scary to change your beliefs.

Interestingly enough, once I stripped my life of religious dogma, I found myself free of fear and able to look at religion and spirituality in a much broader and deeper way. I am able to make observations and discover my own truth based on experience, research, and even science.

While many religious persons claim to have the answers and know the one true path, I have only one certainty: I do not have the answers and neither do you. I do not believe there is one path to spirituality or a connection to a higher power. I am amazingly content to not know the answers, and to continue to search for my own path toward goodness, beauty and truth.