Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking

I am upset, frustrated, disappointed and bordering on angry. I know I should not let emotion into this, but it is hard to watch my fellow conservatives make donkeys of themselves. The braying I refer to is about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for education. I have written about this before, but I must do so again in response to an article that floated onto my Facebook wall today.

I have been following a news service called the Tea Party News Network (TPNN). They certainly lean toward the right fringe, but much of what they say has been worth reading -- until today. The article in question by Jennifer Burke reports that a school in California following Common Core standards asked students to write a critical analysis of the holocaust deniers. At least, that's the way I see the assignment. Burke sees it quite differently.

Burke went ballistic calling the assignment openly anti-Semitic. According to the article, students were told to weigh the evidence from history using whatever legitimate sources they could find against the argument presented by the deniers. I think this is a wonderful assignment; what better way to convince young people that the deniers are full of hooey. Apparently, Burke does not believe the truth will be evident in an open debate of the facts. I want to ask Ms. Burke how she knows the holocaust is true and the deniers false. I suspect she would claim it is an opinion based on real evidence whereas the opponents' argument is conjecture and contrived conspiracy theories.

The spokesperson for the district involved in the kerfuffle, Syeda Jafri, defended the assignment with a logical assertion: "Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship." Amen. Using this method on the TPNN article reveals that they are on shaky ground rhetorically and logically.

First, I say again that the Common Core State Standards are not curriculum. The school did not get the assignment Burke decried from CCSS. Each district, each school, each classroom teacher makes decisions about what curriculum to use to meet the standards. In this case, the standard calls for teaching critical thinking. The assignment in question is perfect for this: it is current; it is controversial; it has plenty of coverage in terms of source material. 

Elsewhere in her tirade Burke criticizes "Common Core based anti-American lessons that have been reported across the country." These undoubtedly do exist, but they cannot be blamed on CCSS; liberals pervade our education system, so the lessons they teach will appear frequently. Given the freedom CCSS gives to local entities to come up with curriculum, Ms. Burke should be calling on conservatives everywhere to get involved in their local schools. (Ironically, CCCS actually requires the teaching of our country's founding documents, one of the rare curricular demands.)

Second, Burke displays the very weakness the CCSS are trying to strengthen: the lack of critical thinking skills. Besides confusing standards with curriculum, she peppers the article with loaded language (anti-Semitic) that begs the question: the assignment is only anti-Semitic if you assume the students could correctly side with the deniers. Is the truth of the holocaust so fragile that it cannot stand up to critical analysis? I don’t think so; Burke implies that she does.

Sadly, the district succumbed to pressure brought by a contrived media campaign and had Jafri announce, “This was a mistake. It should be corrected. It will be corrected. We all know it was real. The Holocaust is not a hoax. … I believe our classroom teachers are teaching it with sensitivity and compassion.” Burke then blasts Jafri for saying the school's critical thinking approach to the truth has no "sensitivity and compassion." I beg to differ with Ms. Burke; it is terribly insensitive and dis-compassionate to give our students facts but not the ability to distinguish truth from error.

As believers we are called to test the spirits, to judge the fruit, in short, to be critical thinkers. I believe part of the reason so many young people are disinterested in the church today is because they were told for a generation or more NOT to question the faith. They were spoon fed a diet of doctrine which may have been theologically correct, but they were reprimanded for asking questions or "experimenting" with new ideas. I say, give them the tools to do good critical thinking (in this case, good Bible study methods) and let them at it. I know the case for Christianity can stand up to scrutiny. I wonder what Ms. Burke is afraid of.

The Cold Facts of Packing Heat

This morning while I drank my second cup of coffee I stumbled across a blog by Nathan Roberts debating whether a Christian should exercise the "right" to self defense using deadly force. Stand your ground, the Castle doctrine and concealed carry debates swirl around every news report of the latest shooting incident. The debate over the godly response in these situations dates back to the aftermath of Cain v. Abel, I imagine. So what is a Christian supposed to think?

Roberts fell into the trap of letting one verse control his thinking on this issue. I do not believe the command to “love thy enemy” extends to allowing my enemy to exercise his evil schemes without constraint. Tasers and pepper spray may be non-lethal substitutes for a firearm, but they are also less effective, in some cases ineffective. I too once thought I should allow God to protect me and my family from evildoers without my assistance. I have changed my view. I now see Romans 13:1-4 as a license to provide self defense against evil. Who is to say I am not the “minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”? And it is not solely out of fear that I do this as Roberts supposes; it is also as a wise watchman seeking to keep his city safe (Psalm 127:1).

One of the comments on Roberts’ blog points out that on a larger scale this issue becomes the debate over just war theory. When is it right for a nation to “execute wrath” upon another nation that is perpetrating evil on others? Should the Allies have “loved” Hitler and allowed him to continue to exterminate Jews? Some would say that only nations or governments in general have the Romans 13 right to execute wrath. The text only says that God has ordained that some authority exists, and that authority has the right to “wield the sword.” I believe the state delegates that authority when it issues concealed carry permits to lawful citizens, or when it upholds the stand your ground or Castle doctrines.

Roberts is correct to observe that we serve a God of love who commands us to love; but he seems to forget that our God is also a righteous God who seeks justice and employs human ministers to execute that judgment. Our understanding of God’s love must be informed by the recognition of his wrath. I am prepared to be that guy in the audience attempting to take down the crazed teenager with an AK-47 and saving Nathan Roberts’ life and maybe dozens of others. I do not hope for that situation to occur, nor would I relish it. But I would do it if I had to. If you want to pray for me, pray that I will shoot straight. I will take my chances with the Judge when I see Him.

Social In-Security

I have become a welfare case, and I am not ashamed. I did not change my opinion of the entitlement culture the American welfare system has spawned. I still think people who are young and capable should work for a living as much as possible. I don't even object to short term unemployment "benefits" to tide one over a period of looking for work. This is actually a form of insurance that an employer partially pays for on behalf of employees; it can be considered part of the worker's wage. I am not in favor of the federal government turning unemployment insurance into a welfare program as it has recently. I also think the system needs to be revamped so that a person could work part time and still collect unemployment benefits, but that is another subject.

The subject here is my welfare -- literally. I have reached the statutory age at which Social Security Retirement benefits are available. And I am happily collecting my fair share. I use the word "fair" intentionally because it is only fair that I should get a return on my "investment" in the Social Security system that has been confiscating my wages for 46 years. When I started weeding the fields at Weller's Nursery at 16, the federal government began taking a portion of my paltry $2.50/hour earnings and stashing them away for my eventual retirement. (OK, I know the money was never "stashed away;" it was spent as soon as they got their hands on it, but let's pretend.)

Here is how my "investment" in Social Security might typically look. If I had earned an average of $30,000 per year over my 46 year working lifetime and invested 13% (SS contribution) at 5% interest, I would have an account balance today of approximately $553,344 (based on annual contributions, not monthly -- that would be a higher number). If I invested that amount as a lump sum at age 62, I could draw $27,667 every year if my investment earned the same 5% for the rest of my life. When I finally die, my heirs would still get $553,344 in my estate.

My Social Security retirement benefit is less than half of $27,667. The odds are I won't make it to 92, so I won't collect anywhere near what I have "invested," and my heirs cannot inherit any remaining "balance" of my Social Security "investment." In other words, I am not sponging off the system taking money I haven't earned; rather, I am being short-changed, and so are my children.

As a Christian, I subscribe to the biblical principle that senior citizens should eat of the labors of their own hands. I do not think it harsh that the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians that one who would not work should not eat. I contend that I have worked for the bread I now eat, even though it is paid for from my Social Security benefits. I earned those benefits and then some. I am sorry that our government turned the system into a giant Ponzi scheme by spending instead of investing my contributions and those working today are funding my retirement from their earnings. In a way, even that arrangement reflects a biblical principle that the younger should care for their older.

I regularly thank the students in my classes for endeavoring to improve their lot and earn better incomes. (Yes, I work part time to supplement my meager benefits; but I must take care not to earn too much or my benefits will be reduced even more.) My advice to anyone under the age of 50 is to save and invest every dollar that can be allotted. All Ponzi schemes eventually topple, and the one known as Social Security is quickly headed for a fall. Young people who are not investing for retirement are violating another biblical principle: look to the ant, grasshopper.