The Eye of the Beholder

Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean,
Needs not the painted flourish of your praise:
Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye,
Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues.
- Shakespeare, Love's Labours Lost, 1588

Remember that episode of the Twilight Zone?

The Twilight Zone - "Eye Of The Beholder" 1960 @ Yahoo! Video

It was about a woman who wanted plastic surgery to correct her "horrible deformities", but the nature of her problem was so terrible that surgery was not indicated, but rather "experimental" treatments. The woman recounts how one of her first memories is of another little girl screaming at the sight of her. The whole thing is shot in the shadows. You never see any of the doctors or nurses, just hear their patronizing remarks about how pathetic and ugly she is.

At the end of the episode, we discover that beauty is, as the saying goes, in "the eye of the beholder".

So it is with just about everything.

People of good will earnestly disagree about many topics, especially politics and religion. Their position makes sense to them, they believe it to be reasonable, they may even believe they can back it up with facts.

That there are homeschoolers, pro-lifers and Christians who can support Obama for President on any level is incomprehensible to me.

But I don't want to talk politics today.

Just perception.

Politically, some people are "liberals", some are "conservatives". Some are "individualists", and some are "collectivists". Some are "constitutionalists", and some are "revisionists" What do those words even mean? People bandy them about, without realizing that they may mean something different to the people who are listening.

People believe a lot of things about God that I will not recount here. But for the purpose of this discussion, some people believe "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Others believe in the Big Bang theory.

Some believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men, and more specifically, that He intervened in the history of the United States. Some don't, and more specifically, the curriculum committee at the University of California.

I have written here at length about the lawsuit by Calvary Chapel Christian School against the University of California. In the sidebar, there is a list of prior posts about this topic. Some of them take the position that UC discriminated against the Christian students because they refused to accept certain texts that took the positions listed above. Several of them contain rebuttals by someone associated with the University. Finally, I was persuaded that the University was not mandating a secular education in order for a student to be considered to matriculate at UC.

The other day, I came across this document while looking at my Google Alerts about UC and this lawsuit.

I probably would never have written the original article from the perspective of Christian persecution had I read this first.

The eye of the beholder.

This document served as a reminder to me to be very careful to read all the opposing views and any source documents before taking a position about anything. All the articles I read that were written on this topic were heavily slanted one way or the other.

Which further reminds me in this political season not to believe everything I read or every out-of-context sound bite I hear - on the internet or anywhere else. Paul commended the Bereans for "they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)

How much more should we seek out the truth, in this "time of universal deceit."

Finally, a judge with sense in California!

"That God places prominently in our nation's history does not create an Establishment Clause problem requiring curettage and disinfectant of Johnson's classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God." - Judge Robert T. Benitez


For the last 25 years, math teacher Bradley Johnson has had a banner on the wall of his classroom measuring 7 feet by 2 feet, on which are inscribed the words "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," "God Bless America" and "God Shed His Grace On Thee." He has had a second banner for 17 years that quotes the Declaration of Independence by including the phrase, "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator."

Even though 4,000 students have passed through Johnson's classroom without a single complaint in 25 years, in January, Westview High School principal Dawn Kastner told him his banners were no longer permissible because they convey a Judeo-Christian perspective.

Right. Now I have heard everything - trying to ban a quote from The Declaration of Independence from a classroom. And this from a school district that allows other teachers to hang Buddhist, Islamic, and Tibetan prayer messages on their classroom walls.

The Thomas More Law Center sued on Johnson's behalf. The school district fought to have the suit dismissed, on the incredible grounds that "because Johnson was a teacher, he had no First Amendment protections in his classroom."

Only in California.

But this time, a judge got it right! Last week, Judge Robert Benitez strongly disgreed with the school district's argument, saying that it amounted to to saying that Johnson has no free speech rights at all because he is a government employee. He even quoted (the audacity!) a 1952 Supreme Court ruling, Zorach v. Clauson: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

This is a welcome ruling. While it doesn't specifically mention homeschooling, the events that prompted the lawsuit are not as few and far between as we would like to think, and are indicative of an increasing hostility on the part of the educational system to God or any suggestion that He had a hand in the blessing of our land.

Last month I posted several times in this blog about the suit pitting the University of California against Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murietta. The ruling in that case was in favor of the university.

One of the issues that was debated in the case was the use of texts that attributed historical events to divine providence.

I received several excellent comments on that one, including a very insightful one by "Mary", who is affiliated with the University. She actually presented a clear explanation of the university's position and how the particular restrictions on curriculum content in this case did not actually interfere with either Calvary Chapel's right or ability to teach alternative worldviews, or Calvary students' ability to take the required courses and be accepted into UC schools. I had to concede that the regulations did not discriminate against Christian students.

But she didn't seem to ever grasp my point about the Judeo-Christian worldview being increasingly under attack by those in the educational system, or my concern that the California ruling, which today is directed at specific students and their specific high school texts, could ultimately morph into some kind of monster statute that would penalize all Christian high schoolers, and Christian home schoolers seeking to enter institutions of higher learning in California. People who believe that "God created..." or "God shed His grace on Thee..." are currently marginalized, prohibited from attributing their academic success to Him in valedictory speeches, and taught that it is okay for them to believe that God created the heavens and the earth or that He governs in the affairs of men, as long as they understand that the "real truth" is what the secular schools teach instead.

This Westview High School case result is good news. But that the case existed in the first place is further evidence that my concerns about our worldview being under attack are not unfounded.

Utterly Off Topic Wednesday will actually be tomorrow, as I remember September 11.

If you missed the excitement, the other posts in the series about Calvary Chapel and UC are located below:

1. For All You Single Issue Voters Out There
2. California Dreamin'
3. Faith and Science - A Response to "Anonymous"
4. As I was Saying
5. "Anonymous" Revealed
   

Be sure to read the comments in order to really follow the rest of the posts.

"Anonymous" Revealed

Mary,

Your respecful reply is very much appreciated. You have succeeded where supposedly neutral journalists failed - to discuss what happened plainly and objectively.

You have a rather well thought out perspective as well as knowledge of the course approval procedure. Are you affiliated with the University?

You know, I could only go on what I heard from the sources I looked at. The articles I read on both sides were designed to persuade me that the other side is wrong, and of course, I brought my own opinion to the table.

A key element for me is the understanding about the "primary text". I guess as a homeschooler I don't always have a "primary" text.

Frankly, your explanation also clarifies for me why our online Christian school frequently includes secular offerings in its science and elective courses like sociology and psychology that seem out of character for its mission statement. But I was on the site today doing some planning and scheduling and noticed that the courses are accredited.

Can I have a light bulb, please?

I'm not a journalist, just a blogging mom who is concerned about this ruling being twisted in the future to further prevent the Christian worldview - including intelligent design - from seeing the light of day anywhere on college campuses, ever. Couple that with an innate distrust of home schooling on the part of some state schools especially, and you have the potential for increased discrimination against Christian home schooled students rising out of this ruling.

This concern is neither new nor unfounded. If you have never seen the discussion on this website about discrimination against homeschooled students on the part of colleges, I hope you will take a few minutes and read this discussion from The Chronicle of Higher Education from 2003.

Thanks again for your response - and for including your name. :) You still aren't quite revealed, but you are not anonymous anymore, either.

Best,

Susan

As I was saying...

Well, the LA Times suggested Friday the same thing I told "Anonymous" might happen.

If you missed the fun, I posted on 8/15 about the ruling in which the courts upheld University of California's decision to disqualify several classes offered by Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta for being "too narrow or not academically rigorous enough to fulfill UC's entrance requirements."

"Anonymous" chided me for ignoring reality regarding this subject which is clearly emotional for me.

My reply to Anonymous included my concern that even though this case was about specific students and specific texts, a victory for the University could open the door for other universities to step up their restrictions on texts written from a Christian worldview.

David Masci, a senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington, D.C. agrees with me. The case could influence admission practices at public colleges nationwide. "No one is questioning the right of Calvary Chapel to teach what they want to teach. But what the case says is that when you do that, there may be consequences," Masci said Tuesday.

Historians testifying for the university said that a history class titled "Christianity's Influence on America" failed to teach critical thinking and relied on a book that attributed historical events to divine providence. The book also contained inadequate material about non-Christian groups, the historians said.

So why isn't the reverse true? Christianity's influence in America has been all but excised from texts from K-12 and beyond. Today's elementary school children are taught more about Sojourner Truth than about the faith of George Washington. I once had a conversation with my niece that revealed that she was taught that Thanksgiving commemorates the Pilgrims giving thanks to the Indians!

Are you serious?

I am not objecting to school children learning about strong women in history or Sojourner Truth's specific importance to the abolitionist movement. Neither am I opposed to a balanced and realistic treatment of Indian relations with whites or with the US Government. I am a Chickasaw Indian, among other things, and had family members who knew up close and personal about exploitation by whites AND the Government.

But please, let's not ignore or suppress the Pilgrims' beliefs about God or their acknowledgment of His favor in our zeal to be politically correct.

I doubt that Feminine Roles in Literature or Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature, books that were approved by UC, contained much in the way of words of wisdom from dead white males, or information about Exodus International or PFOX, except in the most negative terms.

Well, of course not. And, more to the point, you wouldn't expect them to.

So why were they approved when the Christian book was rejected in part for not containing enough material about non-Christian groups?

This is kind of where I was going the other day with my Santa Claus remarks. Would you not find it patronizing and insulting to have what you believe regarded as being on a par with believing in fairy tales? Through the use of statements like "teach what they want to teach" and "a book that attributes historical events to divine providence fails to teach critical thinking", they are patting us on the head and saying "There, there. If you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is OK with us."

For the record, we do actually believe God is in control, and that historical events can indeed be attributed to divine providence.

This does NOT mean we hide the fact that some other people may think the chronology of events was different from what we are teaching.

It does not mean that we teach about other cultures and religions without according them respect.

It does not mean that we ignore those individual players on the stage of history who were the agents of change, or consider their contributions and motivations, even if we do not agree with them.

It also does not mean we refuse to use the History Channel and other aggressively secular resources as supplementary materials that can challenge our students to think through why they believe what they believe.

ADDENDUM: Here is an old link from the Calvary Chapel Christian School website showing an article from the Wall Street Journal about this lawsuit when it was first filed in 2005. This article is dated Oct. 28, 2005. So far I have linked to articles from parties rooting for the university. Here is a WSJ reporter who comes down on the side of Calvary Chapel, and presents a lot of what I would like to say, but more eloquently.

California Dreamin'

As I mentioned the other day, the University of California has decided students who have been educated in a Christian worldview that rejects evolution and relies on the Bible renders them unfit for matriculation at any UC school.

This week, a federal judge agreed with them.

The ruling declared that the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, according to the article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

Failed to teach critical thinking? Do you have any idea how important we Christian homeschoolers consider it for our children - indeed, ourselves - to be able to explain why we have considered the historical or scientific "evidence" and rejected it in favor of believing in God and the Bible? In this unbelieving day and age?

So it is interesting to me that a judge and a bunch of academics have decided that students who attended a school that taught something THEY don't believe is true are not worthy to attend UC schools.

Funny thing is, they probably taught their children to believe in Santa Claus - something that they knew in advance was not true.

Not only that, nobody can actually prove that the thing they believe instead - evolution - is true. A lot of people believe it, but that doesn't make it true.

The object of your faith is more important than the intensity, or even the sincerity of your faith. Intensely and sincerely believing that a nice old fat man lives at the North Pole, knows what I am doing all year, comes down my chimney once a year after circling the whole world in a flying sleigh powered by reindeer, one of which has a light bulb in his nose does not make it true.

I can remember being criticized when my children were small for not teaching them to believe in Santa Claus. "They have to have something to believe in," they sniffed.

They DO have something to believe in.

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:24-29 (NIV)