So, now is not the time to be posting this AT ALL, given how tired I am. But after reading some party platforms on various websites today, I was struck with an idea for revolutionizing and improving the public school systems.
I. Reduction of federal involvement. As some group or another points out, states can bettter make decisions on many issues regarding their constituent towns, counties, etc. This includes matters of education. Federal oversight would be important for a couple things, however:
a. Making sure that no state Board of Education endorsed programs counter to federal statutes (e.g, no white supremacy classes or mingling of church and state).
b. Determining that the information taught in science and social studies courses are accurate (we lost in Vietnam, the Earth is not flat, etc), and that some sense of common identity with the rest of the country is included (not just regional literature, history, etc).
c. Laws would also need to be in place to prevent descrimination against students and teachers, and to provide for special education services for those who need them.
II. Decentralization of public school districts.
1. Obviously, one-room school houses will no longer do. But the older, smaller-district schools had many advantages:
a. nearby locations meant decreased transportation costs for families and schools (who didn't
need so many buses).
b. smaller schools were easier to find locations for, and cheaper to maintain.
c. smaller schools meant smaller class sizes, which were beneficial to everyone. Also, fewer
teachers would mean fewer costs as well.
2. Newer advantages, perhaps less realized in former days:
a. Parents would have more direct control over what their children were taught. It could be
more of a community-based model, and with the next school not so far away, transfers would
be easier if you were the one unhappy parent and wanted something different
b. More opportunities for unique curricula and innovation, and a willingness to adapt to the
students' needs and interests.
3. The big drawback--that poorer communities would have poorer schools--could be remedied
either through the simplified transfer system or through decisions made at a state level for
leveling the playing field there. The citizens have more of a voice at state level, and if such
ideas as No Child Left Behind had been introduced there, it probably would have failed.
Wouldn't this make sense? Why aren't we doing it?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
I am weary tonight, and not solely from the lateness of the hour. It's been a damn exhausting week. I want to feel like I can lay down my sword and stop fighting in all directions, stop trying to fend off attacks. On the one hand, a very exhausting argument with a friend who is an atheist and has spent the evening trying to ram that down my throat and coerce some kind of admittance that she's right about there being no God. On the other, over the past week or so, many, many Christians who have, knowingly or unknowingly, tried to push fundamentalism on me. And here I am in the middle, trying to just get by and practice my faith, exercise my beliefs, in peace.
Makes me kind of homesick. At least there I could believe what I believe without people always trying to argue the point with me. This has been a very tiring week. I pray (literally and idiomatically) that the next 365 days will make up for the past seven.
Makes me kind of homesick. At least there I could believe what I believe without people always trying to argue the point with me. This has been a very tiring week. I pray (literally and idiomatically) that the next 365 days will make up for the past seven.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Thoughts On William Penn...
One thing I find rather intriguing about reading William Penn is just how much more seriously people in his day took studying the Bible and its origins. He was a very knowledgeable man on those points, and a chapter I've been reading of late makes some very telling points against 21st century fundamentalist nuts.
Quakers, in those early years, were frequently attacked by other English denominations for regarding the Holy Spirit to be paramount over written Scripture. Penn counters that knowledge of the Bible's creation supports this idea, for a number of quite logical reasons.
One: The Bible was written over a period of hundreds of years. Therefore it is not a single revelation of God, but many.
Two: Different versions of various books known in Penn's time to exist or to have existed show such marked variation that it becomes clear that no one version can be declared superior to the others with any great certainty.
Three: The versions that are now commonly regarded as the infallible text were selected in various Catholic Church councils in the thousand years or so after these variations and books were written. In essence, the Bible as we (and as Penn's contemporaries) know it is the product of much human interpretation and selection, often motivated by political aim. Many books that are not inherently wrong or inferior to others were simply cast aside, and are now regarded as apocrypha rather than the "true" word of God (and the irony of his fellow Protestants defending the Catholic Church's decisions of inclusion and exclusion is certainly not lost on Penn). Yet all of this is the product of human activity, not of God's decrees. As such, we can not be truly sure that these selections and interpretations were infallible.
Four: From the texts of existing New Testament gospels, it is suggested that there were in fact several more gospels written, eye witness accounts of Jesus and his work. Yet we are left with only a handful. If the words of the ones we do have are to be accepted, then it would seem that many other gospels are missing, and not present in our current Bible. If this is indeed the case, then the Bible is also an incomplete and therefore imperfect record...
Something else which Penn points out in the course of discussing the Holy Spirit versus Scripture--many of Christ's teachings were in fact being advocated hundreds of years earlier by Socrates, Pythagoras, and many others. To Penn, this suggests that the Holy Spirit was properly in these people as well, tough Christ had not yet come--they knew the law inside their hearts, without a written record of it yet existing.
Myself, I can't help but wonder if it mightn't also be possible that, given that the Greeks and followers of Greek philosophy were among the earliest converts to Christianity, the words of these ancient sages were taken into account when the time came to put down in writing what Jesus said. Perhaps these philosophers' constant injunctions to "Love thy neighbor"--which appears quite frequently--were the actual source for that rule, that the historical Jesus said something similar, and so to attract new converts, the words of those earlier Greeks were placed in the Bible. Not saying that they didn't reflect the same point as what Jesus did say, but it seems altogether possible to me that the wording might have been borrowed to aid conversion purposes. Or, it's entirely possible that it happened just as Penn says--that they were simply led to the same conclusions by the piece of Holy Spirit within them, as it is in all of them. I'd like to think so. There's really no way to know, though.
It's refreshing to find a devout Christian who's willing to actually examine the origins of the Bible and admit to the reality of its construction and consequent imperfection. True, it might be the creation of human beings, led by divine inspiration. But it is nevertheless a human creation, and therefore always to be suspected of fallibility. Given the presence of similar laws and customers among the Gentiles prior to conversion, Penn says something which I think sums the whole thing up nicely: the Scriptures are a rule for faith and practice; they are not the rule. It is possible to follow the Light at least in some measure without them. They have their uses, but ultimately, they are not complete and perfect. The Holy Spirit is, however--a point brought up again and again by Jesus and the Apostles. It is the law written on the heart, not the law written on paper.
Quakers, in those early years, were frequently attacked by other English denominations for regarding the Holy Spirit to be paramount over written Scripture. Penn counters that knowledge of the Bible's creation supports this idea, for a number of quite logical reasons.
One: The Bible was written over a period of hundreds of years. Therefore it is not a single revelation of God, but many.
Two: Different versions of various books known in Penn's time to exist or to have existed show such marked variation that it becomes clear that no one version can be declared superior to the others with any great certainty.
Three: The versions that are now commonly regarded as the infallible text were selected in various Catholic Church councils in the thousand years or so after these variations and books were written. In essence, the Bible as we (and as Penn's contemporaries) know it is the product of much human interpretation and selection, often motivated by political aim. Many books that are not inherently wrong or inferior to others were simply cast aside, and are now regarded as apocrypha rather than the "true" word of God (and the irony of his fellow Protestants defending the Catholic Church's decisions of inclusion and exclusion is certainly not lost on Penn). Yet all of this is the product of human activity, not of God's decrees. As such, we can not be truly sure that these selections and interpretations were infallible.
Four: From the texts of existing New Testament gospels, it is suggested that there were in fact several more gospels written, eye witness accounts of Jesus and his work. Yet we are left with only a handful. If the words of the ones we do have are to be accepted, then it would seem that many other gospels are missing, and not present in our current Bible. If this is indeed the case, then the Bible is also an incomplete and therefore imperfect record...
Something else which Penn points out in the course of discussing the Holy Spirit versus Scripture--many of Christ's teachings were in fact being advocated hundreds of years earlier by Socrates, Pythagoras, and many others. To Penn, this suggests that the Holy Spirit was properly in these people as well, tough Christ had not yet come--they knew the law inside their hearts, without a written record of it yet existing.
Myself, I can't help but wonder if it mightn't also be possible that, given that the Greeks and followers of Greek philosophy were among the earliest converts to Christianity, the words of these ancient sages were taken into account when the time came to put down in writing what Jesus said. Perhaps these philosophers' constant injunctions to "Love thy neighbor"--which appears quite frequently--were the actual source for that rule, that the historical Jesus said something similar, and so to attract new converts, the words of those earlier Greeks were placed in the Bible. Not saying that they didn't reflect the same point as what Jesus did say, but it seems altogether possible to me that the wording might have been borrowed to aid conversion purposes. Or, it's entirely possible that it happened just as Penn says--that they were simply led to the same conclusions by the piece of Holy Spirit within them, as it is in all of them. I'd like to think so. There's really no way to know, though.
It's refreshing to find a devout Christian who's willing to actually examine the origins of the Bible and admit to the reality of its construction and consequent imperfection. True, it might be the creation of human beings, led by divine inspiration. But it is nevertheless a human creation, and therefore always to be suspected of fallibility. Given the presence of similar laws and customers among the Gentiles prior to conversion, Penn says something which I think sums the whole thing up nicely: the Scriptures are a rule for faith and practice; they are not the rule. It is possible to follow the Light at least in some measure without them. They have their uses, but ultimately, they are not complete and perfect. The Holy Spirit is, however--a point brought up again and again by Jesus and the Apostles. It is the law written on the heart, not the law written on paper.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Feck.
Facing a quandary that my recent examinations of morality just doesn't help. I think I know what I'm going to do, but I'm not completely sure it's what I should do. Maybe posting here will help me clear my head a little.
I've been living here just over a month. My roommate is a strange person, and further proof that people who categorize anyone as either good/bad, evil/pure, sinful/righteous, etc etc, is oversimplifying. It's true that he has been known to steal from thrift stores and sell his ill-gotten booty online. It's true that he sometimes shoplifts food for his dog, or switches price tags. It's true that he drinks most of his SS check, and doesn't keep up with the utilities very well. But dammit, he's also in many ways a very moral and upright person. He will not sidestep the truth to your face. He does not let hypocrisy slide. He strongly rejects the claims so many people he knows make about how hard their lives are and why they deserve a handout because they have problems (are black or adopted or have mild fetal alcohol syndrome). And he is generous and caring and all that. He believes in treating people with respect and compassion. He's a stalwart atheist, yet in many ways he reflects an idea central to Quaker beliefs, that we all have the capacity to understand and follow God's will toward the world. He believes in being good to those who need it most.
Anyway. we're losing this place around the first of October. The landlord has apparently been skipping his mortgage payments on a couple rental properties, and the bank is taking them. So, we have to move out soon.
Problem: Ethan needs a place to live.
Problem: Ethan has $50 left in Oregon, and maybe $200 in an account at home (being sent West soon).
Problem: Ethan needs to be able to keep his Tracfone supplied with minutes, and needs to be able to buy bus fare to attend interviews and (if hired somewhere) work. Without these two items, he will be unable to make more money.
Problem: If Ethan buys an hour of minutes for his phone, he will only have $30 left.
Problem: All Day bus passes cost $4.75. Ethan will therefore be able to buy 6 days' worth of bus passes.
Problem: Ethan will not receive any more bus fare assistance from OFSET until the 18th (10 days from now).
Problem: It takes at least 10 days to mail anything from Vermont to Oregon.
Cumulative Problematic Circumstances: Ethan has $50 to spread between phone, bus, and housing expenses for the foreseeable future (until first paycheck or arrival of last $200).
Solution 1: Find a new place to live with Don. Move there as soon as we have to vacate this one.
Perks: Remain on Don's good side; help him to afford a decent place to live after this one (thereby doing a good deed).
Drawbacks: A) no way to tell how much my share of rent would be or if I could pay it. Right now I'm paying $300/month; if I don't have a job by next week, I'll only have $200 to my name. And if I don't have a job by mid-October, I'll be completely broke and unable to stay in the new place. B) In any case, requires a definite hand-to-mouth existence even with employment, meaning no opportunity to save up for necessities like getting off food stamps, buying a real cell phone, etc. C) This would also require continued exposure to his friends, who like to make me feel like total shit whenver possible. They also enjoy engaging in rough S&M-type foreplay while Don and I are in the room (the guy keeps smacking the girl and she moans ecstatically for him to stop...it gets really disgusting--and this is in OUR living room, no less). D) Given Don's extra money-making activities, not to mention his two good friends' continual plans to rob the girl's parents, there's always the possibility that I could get dragged into something as a naccessory simply because I heard about it and didn't report it.
Solution 2: Move in with my cousin -once-removed's mother-in-law (in her 70s) before the end of September.
Perks: This lady is very friendly, with a penchant for bluntness, a repertoire of good stories, a history of helping those in need. Never charges more than $200/month, and is willing to reduce my costs further in exchange for some repainting and other chores. Would allow me to save up money from my hypothetical job and eventually get off government assistance. Ida has also promised to help me learn to drive.
Drawbacks: May screw up my friendship with Don, who as I mentioned has some definite good points. May also greatly reduce his ability to find somewhere to go himself. Ida is also, if at all like her son, probably not especially tolerant of many things that mean a lot to me (civic participation, grassroots-level organizing and change, well, tolerance). This could lead to some friction in the future.
So, yeah; at this point, I think Solution 2 seems most beneficial for me. But I can't help wondering if that just makes me selfish. What's going to happen to Don if I take off? Do the benefits of moving in with Ida justify the potential consequences? What about staying with Don, same question? What is the right thing to do here? The path I have chosen? Or that which places more trials in my own path?
I've been living here just over a month. My roommate is a strange person, and further proof that people who categorize anyone as either good/bad, evil/pure, sinful/righteous, etc etc, is oversimplifying. It's true that he has been known to steal from thrift stores and sell his ill-gotten booty online. It's true that he sometimes shoplifts food for his dog, or switches price tags. It's true that he drinks most of his SS check, and doesn't keep up with the utilities very well. But dammit, he's also in many ways a very moral and upright person. He will not sidestep the truth to your face. He does not let hypocrisy slide. He strongly rejects the claims so many people he knows make about how hard their lives are and why they deserve a handout because they have problems (are black or adopted or have mild fetal alcohol syndrome). And he is generous and caring and all that. He believes in treating people with respect and compassion. He's a stalwart atheist, yet in many ways he reflects an idea central to Quaker beliefs, that we all have the capacity to understand and follow God's will toward the world. He believes in being good to those who need it most.
Anyway. we're losing this place around the first of October. The landlord has apparently been skipping his mortgage payments on a couple rental properties, and the bank is taking them. So, we have to move out soon.
Problem: Ethan needs a place to live.
Problem: Ethan has $50 left in Oregon, and maybe $200 in an account at home (being sent West soon).
Problem: Ethan needs to be able to keep his Tracfone supplied with minutes, and needs to be able to buy bus fare to attend interviews and (if hired somewhere) work. Without these two items, he will be unable to make more money.
Problem: If Ethan buys an hour of minutes for his phone, he will only have $30 left.
Problem: All Day bus passes cost $4.75. Ethan will therefore be able to buy 6 days' worth of bus passes.
Problem: Ethan will not receive any more bus fare assistance from OFSET until the 18th (10 days from now).
Problem: It takes at least 10 days to mail anything from Vermont to Oregon.
Cumulative Problematic Circumstances: Ethan has $50 to spread between phone, bus, and housing expenses for the foreseeable future (until first paycheck or arrival of last $200).
Solution 1: Find a new place to live with Don. Move there as soon as we have to vacate this one.
Perks: Remain on Don's good side; help him to afford a decent place to live after this one (thereby doing a good deed).
Drawbacks: A) no way to tell how much my share of rent would be or if I could pay it. Right now I'm paying $300/month; if I don't have a job by next week, I'll only have $200 to my name. And if I don't have a job by mid-October, I'll be completely broke and unable to stay in the new place. B) In any case, requires a definite hand-to-mouth existence even with employment, meaning no opportunity to save up for necessities like getting off food stamps, buying a real cell phone, etc. C) This would also require continued exposure to his friends, who like to make me feel like total shit whenver possible. They also enjoy engaging in rough S&M-type foreplay while Don and I are in the room (the guy keeps smacking the girl and she moans ecstatically for him to stop...it gets really disgusting--and this is in OUR living room, no less). D) Given Don's extra money-making activities, not to mention his two good friends' continual plans to rob the girl's parents, there's always the possibility that I could get dragged into something as a naccessory simply because I heard about it and didn't report it.
Solution 2: Move in with my cousin -once-removed's mother-in-law (in her 70s) before the end of September.
Perks: This lady is very friendly, with a penchant for bluntness, a repertoire of good stories, a history of helping those in need. Never charges more than $200/month, and is willing to reduce my costs further in exchange for some repainting and other chores. Would allow me to save up money from my hypothetical job and eventually get off government assistance. Ida has also promised to help me learn to drive.
Drawbacks: May screw up my friendship with Don, who as I mentioned has some definite good points. May also greatly reduce his ability to find somewhere to go himself. Ida is also, if at all like her son, probably not especially tolerant of many things that mean a lot to me (civic participation, grassroots-level organizing and change, well, tolerance). This could lead to some friction in the future.
So, yeah; at this point, I think Solution 2 seems most beneficial for me. But I can't help wondering if that just makes me selfish. What's going to happen to Don if I take off? Do the benefits of moving in with Ida justify the potential consequences? What about staying with Don, same question? What is the right thing to do here? The path I have chosen? Or that which places more trials in my own path?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)