I’m now doing my blogging over at ethervescent.wordpress.com. If you follow my posts, I hope you’ll come along with me. 🙂
Michael Farris of HSLDA should give up Facebook for his own good. It doesn’t look good for the person running the campaigns for the ‘Parental Rights Amendment’ and against the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to repeatedly defend and promote known child abusers. At some point, the other side – the side I support – is going to take notice and stop inviting him to testify before Senate committees.
By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator
Several days ago, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) issued a statement on their involvement (or lack thereof) in allegations about a widespread cover-up of physical and sexual child abuse in the Christian homeschooling community. The child abuse is alleged to have involved the children and a relative of Paul and Gena Suarez, owners of the popular homeschool magazine The Old Schoolhouse.
HSLDA’s statement, which you can view in entirety here, was that “HSLDA does not get involved in conflicts between families or individuals” and their mission is “not to be the police force of the homeschooling movement.” In response, I pointed out that not only does The Old Schoolhouse remain an HSLDA-suggested resource promoted to HSLDA members at a special discounted rate, but HSLDA is currently sponsoring The Old Schoolhouse. In terms of finances, therefore, it’s not difficult…
View original post 319 more words
I would love to see America’s education policy incorporate the lessons learned from this teen-led initiative at public Monument Mountain Regional High School.
“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” ~ Proverbs 22:6
You see that verse? Probably every homeschool parent heard that verse too many times to count throughout their homeschooling years. It was engrained in us. We did not want our children to depart from “the way they should go” and the solution was to “train” our children. At least that’s what they told us.
Ever since my spiritual abuse journey, I have been trying to figure out what led our family to that spiritually abusive church and pastor who sued us in an attempt to discover who our primary influencers were over the years. I found that the…
View original post 956 more words
Today I need to wash and sell my car (light blue 2008 Toyota Yaris with 40,000 miles, anyone?), get an official copy of my birth certificate, and finish packing for the movers coming tomorrow, among other things, so I don’t really have time to make a blog post or sit down with a cup of tea. But I think that’s part of the experiment of this tea blog: write daily, even when there doesn’t seem to be time.
The tea box said Tension Tamer. It’s nice, a little minty.
I want to start writing about altruism today. I don’t know if I’ll finish the post today or if I’ll have to go on tomorrow.
One morning a few weeks ago I was walking from my friend’s house to the train station in York, suit cases in tow. A lady in her front yard stopped me. She told me about a new short cut to the train station that would cut five or so minutes from my journey. I thanked her and went on. (And took the short cut.)
This lady did not receive anything from me by helping me. I was clearly leaving – she would not see me again and helping me would not raise her profile in the community. Yet some people would tell me her action was not altruistic. They’d point out that helping me made her feel good, so it was a selfish act. Then they would smile smugly as if what they’ve just said matters and haven’t they stumped me now with their brilliant analysis of how altruism does not exist.
In reality, the fact that helping me made her feel good is a very important point. There is every difference in the world between a selfish consequence that depends on a quid pro quo (esteem in the community, monetary renumeration, the expectation that others will treat you well in return, etc.) and a selfish consequence which is intrinsic satisfaction with the act itself. Helping someone for the joy of helping someone is like having a cup of tea for the joy of a cup of tea or a massage for the enjoyment of the massage – or even painting because you like to paint or programming for the joy of programming. It’s different from going to your job because you want a pay check or bringing your neighbour cookies because you need to build a relationship with them so that someday they’ll buy a house from you (yes, some sales theory rubs me the wrong way).
Why does this matter? When we talk about ethics we’re faced with the questions of why people behave ethically and why people help each other. Some argue that people help each other only because they want something out of it. But intrinsic satisfaction with ethical behaviour or with altruism doesn’t count as a quid pro quo.
A psychopath is someone who doesn’t receive intrinsic satisfaction from helping others or behaving ethically. All of his actions are calculated towards achieving what’s in his best interests. But we are not all psychopaths. In fact, by some calculations only 4% of the world’s population are psychopaths (and since this is a tea blog I don’t have to find the reference for you).
The other 96% of us are different because we feel good when we help someone or treat them well (or bad when we don’t). We do it not because we want anything from them or from society. We do it because of an arational emotional reward (or punishment) in the brain.
So is there merit to altruistic behaviour if we receive an emotional reward for it? Who cares? What is important is that some – most – people behave ethically and altruistically without need for structures of external punishment and reward.
I’ve finished the tea, but I hope to follow this up with some reflections on the religious implications of what I’ve said here.