Why I Oppose Homosexual Marriage

   Republicans and democrats have made a great deal of noise recently about the issue of gay marriage. Several pastors have even crossed over to a more 'tolerant' worldview in what some say is an effort to keep the church relevant to our world. I cannot resist commenting on the magnitude of this break. If Christians take their scriptures seriously, they ought to condemn homosexuality, there can be no denying this. When a religion or any movement suffers from such large internal divisions it must be coming near the end of its cultural and intellectual hegemony.


   But speaking to the point, the national conversation sounds a great deal like conversations in my ninth grade Mississippi Studies class: off topic and often bigoted. From the point of view of a homosexual couple, the system is against them. The heterosexual ruling class does not want to include them in the ranks of the socially respectable. A just criticism of a flawed system.
The first flaw is this: the very assumption that the government exists to create standards for social respectability. Republicans assume that this is one of the tasks of good government yet would never say it was also the role of government to create standards which determine what is or is not socially productive (i.e. interference in the world of business). We may give some credit to President Obama for consistently being on the same side of the issue, that is,  in favor of state regulation of both your marital status and your pocketbook.


   The appropriate policy transcends the stated positions of both parties. Homosexuals should not be prohibited from marrying nor should they be given marriage licenses by the state. In fact, the state should have nothing to do with marriage. In a society where people are free and possess individual rights, it is not within the proper mandate of the government to determine how its people associate with each other. Their should be no state sanctioned marriage simply put. This is true equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals: the freedom to associate with persons of their own choice free from state interference.


  It is important to realize the broader principle at stake here. The issue is not one which affects simply homosexuals. The great evil here is not the oppression of the homosexual class by heterosexual bigots. The issue is government interference in the lives of private citizens. Marriage licenses themselves date back to the European middle ages and gave the church certain powers to prevent or permit marriages. In the U.S., licensing was not employed until the mid to late 19^th century. In the early 20^th century, licenses were a way that states could prevent socially undesirable interracial marriages. Since their inception, marriage licenses have only hampered freedom and individual rights. It is thus with pride that I can say I oppose all government policies which seek to license marriage, homosexual or heterosexual.

The State of Reason

       We have come to a point in the history of the world as I see it where it would appear that reason prevails over faith. Looking to the past, reason has overcome a great many of its most deadly foes. Governments of the modern era are typically thought to be best if they are democratic, people are thought to be most intelligent if they are reasonable, but this is the extent of our progress. In the world we live in, most people rely on reason to make everyday decisions. Unfortunately, their application of reason often does not extend much farther into their lives. Let me offer some examples before touching on the deeper problem.

If for instance, a not very well educated (yet sane) person were attempting to wash their clothes only to discover that their washing machine was leaking or their dryer burning holes in clothing their immediate response would likely be to stop washing clothes and call a repair person or attempt to fix it themselves. A person in a pre-modern era faced with such a problem or a similar one, would likely call a priest to exorcise the 'bad spirit' from the machine. While humorous, the same situation applies to sick children, unhealthy animals or any other problem which people cannot immediately solve. Yet, there is a crucial difference between the two responses (aside from the fact that holy water never cured anyone). The difference is that the first, modern response relies on a system of reasoning. If the owner of the machine, child or animal cannot fix it they will find someone who can and it is based on their reasoning that they call in a repairman, doctor or veterinarian. The individual who calls the priest in does not rely on reason, they instead rely on faith. A faith, which is in this case based on an unreasonable premise (i.e. the existence of something unreal such as a spirit or demon).
        And here we strike at the central issue, the same sane person who called in a repair person and not a priest would not utilize their capacity for reason to approach bigger problems. More likely, they would cripple their reason by tying it to the faith which could not repair their washing machine or heal their children. Let us here proffer another example.
Let us have for example a man in the middle of his life who decides to open up his own business after years of working for other people. At first the business, a grocery for instance, is very successful, appealing to a niche market of consumers in a large city. Flushed with his early success, the businessman begins to take on employees who are not capable of high quality work or who are unwilling to do their job properly. He does this out of his desire to be altruistic and give them a chance. He ignores their incompetence for a 'higher cause.' Being a man of faith, the businessman makes frequent donations to his church on behalf of his business in the form of money food or other goods. The property is his and if he so chooses, there is no problem donating that money. Furthermore, if the business is doing well it likely will not be a problem. At church he meets a new supplier of fresh vegetables whose prices are higher but who is also a Christian and a 'good man.' He chooses to help this supplier out believing that his altruistic actions will benefit him in the end.
        As the years move on, the city expands and another store that appeals to a similar niche of customers opens up across the street. Our businessman believes that there is room for both stores in a city of this size and treats his competitor very cordially. Within a few months, our businessman discovers that his revenues have decreased drastically and many of his devoted employees, tired of working with incompetent people have gone to work at the other store. He concludes that the problem is a lack of ready money – clearly the other store has money to attract better employees – so he applies for a line of credit from the local bank for the expansion of his business. Based on his prior record of success and the value of his store, the bank grants him the line of credit. Our businessman pays his employees more money and even hires a new manager who he pays double the salary of the last manager. Thinking the problem solved, he uses a small amount of the money to take his wife on a month-long vacation. He returns to find his revenues steadily decreasing. The manager blames the employees, who cannot perform their duties despite their raise, and the owner blames the manager for not fixing the problem.
        It seems, many months later, that his business will collapse, the bank will not loan him more money and he cannot repay what he already owes. In desperation, our businessman prays to god for help. He reminds god of the frequent donations he made to the church which came directly from the business and begs god to fix the situation. In faith, he returns to work and manages the store himself though he changes nothing about his profit structure or employment policy – except to fire the manager. At the end of the month, he cannot make payroll or purchase stock. His employees, whom he was so kind to hire look for other jobs, the supplier will not extend him credit. His once thriving store in ruins, the businessman closes it down and begins working for other people as he struggles to pay down the loan he received. His faith has ruined him, his reason might have saved him.
This is the dilemma modern people face. It is a choice between reason and faith, rational self-interest and patronizing altruism. The primary purpose of action based on rational self-interest is not the well-being of society and yet all of society benefited from that businessman being in business. His employees, his customers, his competitors and his suppliers all benefited from his success.  Some people will try to say that one can act in one's rational self-interest and continue to be a person of faith, but the problem is that people are not segmented into little boxes. That is, the way they run their business or do their job will be affected by their reliance on either reason or faith. Unreason, i.e. faith is strongly linked to altruism and any attempt to mix altruism with reason will result in reason being overcome by faith. Whether it be faith in government or god, faith is the enemy of reason and those who attempt to combine them do so to their own destruction.

          What follows is my attempt at creating a primitive graph of my hypothesis that people tend to use reason to solve small problems but not large ones.

An Essay on Love, Relationships and Attraction

In William Gibson’s play The Miracle Worker, Anne Sullivan is hired to be the governess and teacher of the young, undisciplined Helen Keller. The play follows the real life story of Keller’s journey from a world where she is locked inside her own body and mind, sensible of only taste, touch and smell, to her triumph and mastery of communication through a series of hand signals made in the palm of her hand. Most people go through life blind. I do not mean that they are blind to the world as it is physically as was Helen Keller. Even an illiterate high school dropout can use his eyes to see objects and people and interact with them. The kind of blindness I refer to is a metaphysical blindness, a blindness to life as it is conceptually. Given the opportunity to learn, Helen seized on it. So also should the metaphysically blind seize on reason and drink deep, for as Alexander Pope reminds us: “a little learning is a dangerous thing.”
This metaphysical blindness occurs at many levels but today's post wishes to name this blindness as it manifests itself in terms of human relationships. Ayn Rand writes in her essay Selfishness Without a Self, that the metaphysically blind prefer those relationships which are obligatory rather than those relationships which are chosen. The preference for obligatory relationships is a product of metaphysical blindness. People, not knowing themselves and thus being incapable of knowing others, feel incapable of choosing their associations, that is their friends. Instead, they choose to associate only with those who share certain concrete qualities such as being from the same place, living in the same house, working at the same job etc... The family for such an individual, which he or she did not choose, becomes more important than friends, which he or she must choose from amongst voluntary candidates.
The reason such people choose family over friends is because family associations do not require the individual to make a choice about those with whom they associate they simply associate on the basis of some feeling that they are duty bound to do so. The real problem for these individuals comes when they are required to make decisions about who they will add to their family i.e. their group of people whom they associate with based on duty. For many,  this is the first and last choice they will make about those with whom they associate. At this point, the light of reason shines on most people and though not all obey it,  most are influenced by it somewhat. If people were to obey the light of reason in choosing their associations (in this case their mate), they would choose based on at least three categories: physical attraction, ideological agreement and equality of ability. Before I explain where most people go wrong, let me elucidate the reasons why I believe these three categories are important.
Physical attraction is important because the sexual act is part of how two people express their love for each other. Without this attraction, the love between two people remains the kind of love that friends can share. I think the human race will join me in validating this point.
Ideological agreement is also important because without it people cannot experience the joy of truly knowing each other. Furthermore,  the actions of a person follow from their thoughts so two people of differing philosophies will inevitably come into conflict,  especially if they dwell within the confines of a home. Now some people will argue that there ought to be some differences because it is out of a couple's conflict that the identity of their relationship is formed over time. This sounds sensible to those with some experience but is the most trite nonsense ever spun. It is true that the couple's identity will be formed but the individual's identity will be destroyed. The destruction of the individual is the antithesis of a productive relationship which ought rather to improve both individuals as part of its function.
The final element of a productive relationship is equality of ability. The relationship between a teacher and a student is one which is usually unequal,  the teacher knows and the student does not know. While human history is littered with plenty of examples of teacher-student relationships, they are all peppered with the taint of inequality. The Christian Bible even calls for women to be silent in church (a center of learning) and to learn at home from their husbands. Here feminists, is your patriarchy disabling women from self-representation. Such relationships are inevitably unfulfilling because they involve one participant worshiping the other. This is not to say that someone occupying the role of teacher and someone occupying the role of student cannot transcend this example. They might very well do so, if they are in fact, but not on paper, of equal ability. The products of an unequal relationship are feelings of resentment on the part of the student for never being able to repay the teacher and the same feelings by the teacher because they feel they have sacrificed and not received an equal reward to their sacrifice. Though the teacher in the relationship is often the one held responsible, they suffer equally with the student because the act of worship destroys the worshiper as well as the worshiped.
Now most people intuitively understand that they should benefit from their associations. Even the individual's membership in the family rewards them in exchange for their sacrifice of identity. So when choosing an association which will result in marriage, most people at least aspire to meet all three of these requirements. But here is the most common error: the assumption that the marriage relationship's identity will necessarily and appropriately replace the individual's identity. For most this assumption is unstated. Far worse off are those who marry without considering these categories. As an example, many marry because of the advent of a child i.e. on the basis of their sexual attraction which produced the child. Such a relationship, if not sustained by equality of ability and intellectual compatibility, will either make its participants miserable or simply not last. Worse off still are those who are shamed into marriage by a false ethic, in many cases a religious ethic. They have not even the necessity of caring for a child to unite them but only the assurance that they are ‘doing the right thing.’
In the first case of error (those who assess their mate but assume the loss of their own identity) the error is one of false premises. A whole life may be lived in marriage by two such individuals but there will be a persistent nagging feeling until the very end that despite what they have gained they have lost something irreplaceable (their own identity). Many associate this feeling with a nostalgia for youth (the last time they had an individual identity) and go looking for it when they begin to reflect on its loss (somewhere around the age of 40 or later). But many do not search for it – especially those who are reinforced by a philosophy or religion which upholds altruism as a noble value. This error is in some ways the worst error because an individual may live for years without knowing they have committed it.
In the case of the latter two errors, they are errors of action before thought. In such cases, marriage serves as a justification or rationalization for prior action. Though these individuals are worse off, the errors themselves are easier to avoid and many people are beginning to avoid making them. Nevertheless, religion continues to eclipse the light of reason in the minds of many modern people who are living according to an irrational ethic. Divorce has also provided such people with the option of undoing their mistake on paper though, admittedly, the mistake cannot be wholly reversed if there are children produced by the union.
So what is the proper ethic of marriage? Simply put, a proper marriage relationship grows from: 1) Both individuals consideration of their prospective mate based on the three categories above  (possibly more based on individual preference) and 2) Both individuals valuating their own identities as more important than the identity of the couple, which really has no identity without the identities of both individuals. Duty or, as it is often cast in certain circles of thought, ‘altruistic love’ must never enter the picture because any love which destroys those who are meant to share in its delight can be no love at all.

An Essentialist Feminist meets a Liberal Feminist or Why I don't think Feminists should play the Victim

E – Hi there, may I tell you about my movement?

L – Sure!

E – Women and men have their own set of essential qualities which define their respective sexes. For centuries, since the fall of the matriarchy, men have been glorifying their essential qualities (masculine qualities) while denegrating the essential qualities of women (feminine qualities).

L – That sounds horrible.

E – It essentially is.

L – Do you mind if I ask you some questions about all of that because I think I'm a little confused?

E – Sure!

L – Well, first what makes a quality essential?

E – That means it is associated with the entity in question, in this case the essential qualities of men are associated with men while the essential qualities of women are associated with women.

L – That's interesting. So how are these qualities associated with men or women?

E – Based on their use by one of the sexes.

L – So association is based on use?

E – Yeah, basically.

L – Are there some members of one sex that display the qualities associated with the other sex i.e. women that display qualities associated with men or men that display qualities associated with women.

S – Yes of course, there are lots of those types. A woman named Joan of Arc was a great military leader and even though King James I of England was male, he displayed many negative qualities which the patriarchy associates with women.

L – Was Joan of Arc considered a man because of her valor or King James I a woman because of his indecisiveness?

S – No, of course not that is silly.

L – So, despite their abnormal deviation from the set of essential qualities associated with their sex they remained members of their own sex?

S – Yes, isn't that obvious?

L – I'm the one asking questions. Why then are those qualities (valor and indecisiveness) associated with men and women respectively?

S – Because the consensus of history shows that generally speaking those qualities were associated with men or women.

L – Why does history say that when there are clearly exceptions to the rule?

S – Oh that's the good part. History is just this big cover up, as part of which men have striven to hide from memory those men who break the pattern and to suppress the memory of women who did not conform to their predetermined role.

L – Have men been successful in this cover up, because if so that would really suck?

S – No, because as we are aware of their attempt to do so and have acted to prevent its success or the continuation of the cover up.

L – Well that's good news. But is it possible that as part of this vast coverup they created a system of labels that associates certain preferred qualities with men and non-preferred qualities with women?

S – What do you mean?

L – It's kind of like they tried to deal us a bad hand in a card game by deliberately giving us bad cards to play with.

S – Oh yes, they definitely did that.

L – So then, should we accept this bad hand i.e. their attempt to label certain good qualities which lead to success as masculine and other qualities which do not lead to success as feminine?

S – You know what, those qualities that you're talking about, those are the qualities of men which they have glorified through the creation of a patriarchal hierarchy and a heteronormative society.

L – But are those qualities the essential qualities of men or is it simply that they would have us to believe that they are the only ones who can have those qualities?

S – It is possible that the male hierarchy has deceived us into choosing to use rhetorical tools (as well as display other qualities) which are inherently faulty. Tools such as rhetorical self-identification as the victim or rhetorical victimization which inherently place us in a subordinate role to the offending patriarchy.

L – How then should we respond when women self-identify themselves as victims (use the rhetoric of victimization) in the media?

S – With expressions of disgust. We are not subordinate to the patriarchy, we are equal to it and therefore we should not be constrained to using tools which only reinforce its power over us as victims.

L – So the logical conclusion of our conversation is that this whole system of essential qualities for men and women has been designed by men to trap us through the used of sex-based associations and labels?

S – Yes, we must reject the tools they have given us and take up the tools which they reserve for themselves.

L – But will the master's tools ever dismantle the master's house?

S – Haven't I heard that somewhere before? But the answer is that you have set up a false metaphor. It is not the master's house, it is the house if of all humankind who are created with equal rights to live in it and utilize the tools associated with it.

L – Just a thought: Is the logical conclusion of liberal feminism the abolition of sex based associations and the creation of a gender-blind society?

S – I think so, but honestly I am tired of thinking about all this. Let's go have a cigarette.

Fin

Sober Holidays

     Next week, I can look forward to the following: apathetic attitudes toward school work, repeated requests to watch Christmas films, quarrelsome questions about failing grades and a persistent preoccupation with the two weeks between Friday, December 16, 2011 and Tuesday, January, 2012. I will respond to all of these questions with the universally befuddling response: “I'm sorry, the computer says no...” But next week is really inconsequential, a symptom of a larger problem, that problem is that when the bell rings on Friday and my students leave the school, they will return to me more or less unchanged. Let me state clearly that I am not against Christmas as a religious or cultural holiday. But I am against the possibility of its acting as a giant “weekend” of relief for both my students and society at large in this nation.

     Economically, this nation is on the precipice of disaster. Our government has failed to address the real issues of our time, a few of which are: our nation's growing debt which we have no plan to repay, the completely disregarded impact our nation's industry has on the climate as well as our failed education system which public policy has failed to address. Americans have a tendency to behave like imperial citizens, many of us resign our responsibility to others who will “figure it out” but America is no empire, though its citizens often behave that way. Political discourse in a republic such as our own goes both ways: leaders shape public opinion and the public tells leaders what it wants to hear. The public has failed in its duty on these issues. On the left, politicians pander to the public on the dole which cares more about its benefits than the nation's economic prosperity. On the right, politicians pander to a public willfully blind toward climate change, which is symptomatic of the right's refusal to accept the conclusions of modern science.

     Underlying the first two problems is the third problem, one which I confront daily, our failed education system. Unless we first fix our education system, we cannot hope for a public discourse which meaningfully interacts with the real issues of our time in an effective way. The blame lies as much with parents, students and families as it does with teachers, principals and the system. If parents and students became more interested and involved in the educational process, we would be one step closer to a solution.

     This nation has not earned a vacation. We enter this holiday season with unresolved issues both at the societal and political levels and no one should forget that this Christmas. There are no bombers flying overhead or armies waiting to invade, but the same apprehension which loomed over London in December of 1940 should loom over us as well. The threat is not the same. The threat is that we habitually fail to recognize our own problems and often allow them to go unresolved to the point of crisis. So when you leave your job to celebrate Christmas, whenever that may be, ask yourself if you have earned the break, if you have accomplished anything worthy of reward. If your answer is yes then by all means have a merry Christmas relaxing with your family. But if not, I hope you accomplish something over the break and wish you the most sober of holidays.  

An Open Letter to Society

Humanity,

Forgive my melodrama, but I must confess a crime I committed against you. On May 14, 2011 I accepted a rather large bribe from the President of William Carey University. In exchange for my silence which began much earlier in the academic year I received one copy of a degree which I earned both through my academic achievements and through my silence.

It is to my eternal shame that I accepted the degree. To this day, it means nothing to me save what it signifies that I actually learned.

Some of you will not understand my confession, some of you could not care less. But to explain it, I must return to December 8. 2010, when I first came into open conflict with William Carey University's administration. Quite a few of the articles published on my blog (then rhaetor.wordpress.com) were critical of the university's policies and those that formulated them. I criticized the funds expended on founding the D.O. school, the University's censorship of the press and their poor logistical planning skills amongst other things.

--> If you linked here from facebook, start reading here <--

In an unpublished letter to the editor of The Cobbler, since lost, I advocated the dissolution of one man (Dr. King) ruling William Carey University. It was this letter which set events in motion. I was summoned to speak to Scott Hummel about the matter. At this point, I made my first mistake. After what I believed was an earnest conversation with him, I agreed to remove an article criticizing the D.O. school from the blog (this article has since been completely lost). I did so because he offered assurances, which could not be checked, that I had the facts wrong, I was naïve and stupid to bargain with such a one.

It was not long after this that I was ordered to remove two other articles from the blog, one which was critical of the university's censorship of The Cobbler (the irony!) and one which criticized the university's poor planning for parking. Both of these can be found republished for historical benefit at rhaetor1.wordpress.com. The orders were accompanied by a threat that the university would remove my scholarships if I did not comply. I was then summoned before Dr. Marilyn Ellzey who attempted, in a very brusque manner to persuade me to remove them, I was not impressed by her methods which seemed to run roughshod over the ideal of free speech. 

The university had wanted to contact my parents, even questioning whether my so called rebellion was the result of my coming a broken home. I am forever grateful that as a freshman I had not waived the rights guaranteed me by the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act. Nevertheless, I called my parents, who I thought would encourage me in such a black hour. They did not, in fact they discouraged me from continuing to resist. I was encouraged at times by dear friends and mentors, none of whom could provide me with the tangible support I needed to stay in school.

But this is my shame, that in tears I gave up. I surrendered and was complicit in silencing my own voice. This voice, the fire that burns inside every one of us should not be doused by the waters of religion, set adrift on a sea of social pressure or even covered by a veil made by money. I have kept my silence heretofore because I wished to disavow what I had done and to let the past be the past. I am equally content to allow the ghosts of the past the silence of sleep. I want no vengeance nor do I bear any malice but I must purge myself of my crime. I want no forgiveness or validation, only condemnation for my error.

I want no degree, I would rather have my fire back so that it might burn the more brightly now. I know that it will return to me, but it will be many years in the returning. Ayn Rand puts it best in her preface to the twenty-fifth edition of her book The Fountainhead:

“It is not in the nature of man--nor of any living entity--to start out by giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption... …Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing how or when they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, of abandoning one's values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential.”

I seek such a vision and if in finding it my losses are more tangible than my gains, my only hope is that I never grow bitter or forgetful of the importance of the fire. 

Yours, 

Thomas Duke

An Apology for my Methods

I recently taught a lesson on "Abraham and the Patriarchs" in my World History class. I chose to refer to the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as myths, which I told the children were "enduring stories told to convey ideas." This lesson drew considerable controversy, with many well-educated friends weighing in on my decision. But to all of you who did weigh in, I welcome the chance to respond to your thoughts and concerns. There are three arguments in my apology. The first concerns academic values, the second the why certain cognitive models are inapplicable with the final argument demonstrating why this method is best from the Christian perspective.

1. 

One of the very first arguments devised against my methods was that children are not cognitively developed enough to understand how a myth can be empirically false and yet true in a more abstract sense. I do not think this applies only to children, there are many adults who cannot make such distinctions. 

If therefore, people (children or adults) are incapable of making those distinctions should we merely let them proceed believing that events which are "regarded as historical although not verifiable" are grounded in the empirical reason used in academic settings. I should say not, in the absence of evidence which explicitly supports the existence of the patriarchs we can draw no conclusion about their existence based on reason and logic. It does no good to ignore the stories as they already know them. Therefore, we ought to teach such stories in school as 'myths' or possibly 'legends' but certainly not history. Even if people cannot grasp the distinction, secondary schools are designed to reinforce the individual's ability to reason not to reinforce cultural or religious values. Ideally, a teacher should also consider the various religious backgrounds of students in their class, though mine are quite uniformly somewhat christian.  

2. 

Bloom's taxonomic model, created in the 1950s and introduced to me by one of my critics, suggests that children start out learning by remembering, understanding and applying before proceeding to analyzing, evaluating and creating as represented in the following diagram taken from: edorigami.wikispaces.com.   

This seems simple enough but it fails in two ways. First, it fails to take into account the complex environment in which children learn. Children in High School are frequently asked to design projects and compose essays or other assignments. Categorically, these skills belong to the highest level of thinking - creating. By neglecting to teach them how to analyze and evaluate before creating we are by default reducing the quality of their creations. For a more detailed criticism of this model see: http://www.utechtips.com/2007/01/08/blooms-taxonomy-revisited/. In my case, it would be unfair for me to allow my students to construct a poster about the patriarchs if I had not offered them the information necessary to analyze the story and distinguish between important and unimportant "facts." 

Moreover, most students from the bible-belt already know the story of the patriarchs from churches and Sunday schools. For me to recite the stories would be redundant. If I offered them a slightly different way to look at and interpret the stories, education would take place. In fact, according to this model's approach we might move out of the lower categories and into the higher ones by basing the lesson on "facts" already in their minds and then offering a new way to look at them. 

3. 

Aside from the academic reasons I have for refusing to teach "Abraham and the Patriarchs" as historical fact, there are religious reasons for doing so as well. The present system encourages thinking about the world in terms of empirical facts and simply put, the Bible was not meant to withstand such scrutiny. Thus Christians who suddenly become aware of the "facts" have a tendency to, out of shock, reject the facts or reject their religion. Neither of these outcomes are desirable. 

Christian children do not need to be taught using a system of absolutes, it is no good in the long run to introduce facts now and introduce qualifiers later especially when it could affect a person's faith. Religious and philosophical truth have abstract characters and should be recognized as such.  

Bertrand Russell, one of Christianity's foremost critics argues that the only reason people become religious is because of indoctrination from an early age. Unfortunately, he is correct in more cases than he is not. That is why it is unconscionable to me to skip over the controversial bits (and so leave students in the dark) merely to prevent challenging their faith. I will not contribute to a system that essentially reinforces children's cultural and religious notions and results in their being good docile adult church members who listen to their priest and sing their mass in Latin... A person's faith is part of their personal journey which ought to be challenged at every turn not coddled and given the weak and unreliable support of empirical evidence. 

I know that many of you may disagree with me and please continue to do so, I find your comments enlightening, but I hope this post has served to justify to you my teaching methods.