Ham strikes again...this time he goes after SWB in earnest

[8circles]

At this point I would have your attorney contacting them/him. Not to sound all Doug Phillips about it but he needs to know what is and is not acceptable legally. Having an attitude is one thing, this is just taking it too far into waters I'm not sure he wants to tread in. What a jerkface. Sorry all this is happening. We all think you're awesome. :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

:iagree:Especially the bold. I almost can't believe this is happening it just seems so obviously wrong.

[Carol in Cal.]

You know, I hate to say this, but aligning themselves with AiG right now? They lost my business.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't quite read it as taking that strong of a position...

[LibraryLover]

lol I can't tell you how grateful I am to have a break from the cold! My sister said it was snowing the other day. I need to go back, but it makes me wonder why year after year I go back to the cold! What is wrong me with? ;)

 

I can pretend reality doesn't exist for the moment. It makes me sad to think good people are getting raked over the coals.

 

 

Vacations while homeschooling is melting down around our very heads?! Slacker! :tongue_smilie:

 

Drink a glass of wine for me later while you dangle your feet in? I still have snow on the East side of my house. :glare:

Edited April 4, 2011 by LibraryLover

[BarbecueMom]

This is what I mean about keeping clear heads and about hysteria building. Take a deep breath ladies.

 

I know there's a lot of emotion out there now, but this kind of talk helps no one.

 

We don't need to further divide, do we?

 

BarbecueMom, I don't think it's your place to decide who belongs here and who should feel comfortable here. I think the mods can do a good job of weeding out anyone here to make trouble or insult Susan. But many of us are old-timers here trying to thoughtfully and prayerfully find our way through this mess.

 

Lisa

 

:confused: I replied to a post that said this is a diverse group and most feel welcome. What I meant was that if *I* were one of those Facebook posters, tossing out Story of the World due this whole fiasco, *I* wouldn't feel comfortable posting here. No, I can't decide how anyone else feels... sure would make my day easier if I could.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't quite read it as taking that strong of a position...

 

:iagree:

 

It sounds like AiG (particularly Ham) and the CEO of Apologia had a disagreement which they resolved.

 

They agree on doctrinal issues. (So do I by the way).

 

They don't want to get involved in the kerfluffle.

[pdalley]

This is what I mean about keeping clear heads and about hysteria building. Take a deep breath ladies.

 

I know there's a lot of emotion out there now, but this kind of talk helps no one.

 

We don't need to further divide, do we?

 

BarbecueMom, I don't think it's your place to decide who belongs here and who should feel comfortable here. I think the mods can do a good job of weeding out anyone here to make trouble or insult Susan. But many of us are old-timers here trying to thoughtfully and prayerfully find our way through this mess.

 

Lisa

 

I didn't get that from BBQ Mom at all. What I thought she was saying was that if she felt led to purge SWB or Peace Hill Press due to her convictions on this matter then she'd feel uncomfortable here.

 

As far as dividing? I think Ham is doing a great job of that - not just dividing with opinions but cutting and pasting and taking things out of context to make his point. How many times have we been told that we can't take parts of the Bible out of context? How many news articles have we read blurbs of and then we read the whole article to discover that the article isn't anything like the blurb - really.

 

I wouldn't go post on AIG's board - for one reason they'd ban me for asking the questions I'd like to ask and for another I don't use their products. But I'd feel mighty strange if I was calling AIG/Ham out but posting on their boards.

[Xuzi]

Yesturday there was a link on KH's facebook page to the full-text of SWB's review of Peter Enns' book. It's not there any more.

[keptwoman]

After Ham's FB post today, it is now quite apparent why he is throwing Susan under the bus. They are offering discounts on this.

 

"Ever since I uploaded my blog post recently about Susan Wise Bauer’s endorsement of Peter Enns’ positions in favor of evolution and against a real Adam my Facebook page has had a stream of requests for my recommendation of a trustworthy, biblically accurate world history curriculum.

Our staff actually started seeking out the best possible author several years ago, and after a pretty intense evaluation of the various author’s existing materials, we entered a special publishing relationship with Diana Waring ."

I wonder how Diana Waring feels about this behaviour.

[KnitWit]

:confused: I replied to a post that said this is a diverse group and most feel welcome. What I meant was that if *I* were one of those Facebook posters, tossing out Story of the World due this whole fiasco, *I* wouldn't feel comfortable posting here. No, I can't decide how anyone else feels... sure would make my day easier if I could.

 

I understood you. :grouphug:

 

I am glad you feel welcome here.

[Joy at Home]

I didn't get that from BBQ Mom at all. What I thought she was saying was that if she felt led to purge SWB or Peace Hill Press due to her convictions on this matter then she'd feel uncomfortable here.

 

As far as dividing? I think Ham is doing a great job of that - not just dividing with opinions but cutting and pasting and taking things out of context to make his point. How many times have we been told that we can't take parts of the Bible out of context? How many news articles have we read blurbs of and then we read the whole article to discover that the article isn't anything like the blurb - really.

 

I wouldn't go post on AIG's board - for one reason they'd ban me for asking the questions I'd like to ask and for another I don't use their products. But I'd feel mighty strange if I was calling AIG/Ham out but posting on their boards.

 

 

I'm sorry, I didn't take her post that way. She said,

 

"I agree... sort of. I do feel like there are some people skirting around the fact that they agree not only with what Ken Ham said, but how he said it. If I was one of those people, I would feel unwelcome here too"

 

To me, the use of "skirting around" seemed to include those of use who are conflicted by our previous opinions of AIG and have tried to be fair to both sides and give Ham the benefit of the doubt (in the beginning, anyway). I agree that those who take a hard line against SWB materials and "purging their house of them" would not find a happy home here. There was nothing in her post or the post she responded to to indicate she was speaking only of those fringe. Sorry.

 

Thanks for your response, BarbecueMom. I, of course, take you at your word:001_smile:

 

 

Lisa

[stephanier.1765]

I wonder how Diana Waring feels about this behaviour.

 

Considering she answered questions in the follow up posts and directed people on how to educate their younger children in history sans SOTW, I can only conclude she must be okay with it.

[Joy at Home]

:iagree:

 

It sounds like AiG (particularly Ham) and the CEO of Apologia had a disagreement which they resolved.

 

They agree on doctrinal issues. (So do I by the way).

 

They don't want to get involved in the kerfluffle.

 

:iagree:

[Miss Sherry]

This post is a complete and total distortion of my review. Read the whole review here: http://www.susanwisebauer.com/blog/inspiration-and-incarnation-review/

 

In no way did I "endorse" any theory of evolution or any theory about Adam.

 

I praised the book for asking difficult questions and suggested that we should all do the same.

 

I have tried to contact AiG directly, since Mr. Ham has made such a point of talking about Biblical confrontation. I have so far been unable to even leave a message.

 

I am posting this publicly because this was a public attack.

 

To follow it with an endorsement for his own history curriculum: I don't even know what to say. I feel sick.

 

SWB

 

This makes me really sad. I haven't had time to read your link yet but the whole ordeal is just horrible. I just burst out crying when I read this, knowing you must be so hurt by all of this.

I don't understand why someone like Ken Ham and others think it is their place to tell everyone what to beleive. They just need to be sticking to presenting their beliefs when it is appropriate, maybe contrast that with some other teaching, but leave it at that.

Why homeschoolers want to rally around people like that I don't know. It's one thing to buy products and use them. But it's another thing to think of these people as your spiritual leaders. If you want a spiritual leader it seems to me, if you are christian, the place to be looking for that is in your churches, not from homeschool sales/convention people. Ken Ham and homeschoolers need to read the Bible and check to see how churches are supposed to be organized. Homeschool convention people/publishers, etc. are not supposed to be setting themselves up to be our spiritual authority figures.

[razorbackmama]

This makes me really sad. I haven't had time to read your link yet but the whole ordeal is just horrible. I just burst out crying when I read this, knowing you must be so hurt by all of this.

I don't understand why someone like Ken Ham and others think it is their place to tell everyone what to beleive. They just need to be sticking to presenting their beliefs when it is appropriate, maybe contrast that with some other teaching, but leave it at that.

Why homeschoolers want to rally around people like that I don't know. It's one thing to buy products and use them. But it's another thing to think of these people as your spiritual leaders. If you want a spiritual leader it seems to me, if you are christian, the place to be looking for that is in your churches, not from homeschool sales/convention people. Ken Ham and homeschoolers need to read the Bible and check to see how churches are supposed to be organized. Homeschool convention people/publishers, etc. are not supposed to be setting themselves up to be our spiritual authority figures.

:iagree:

[BarbecueMom]

I'm sorry, I didn't take her post that way. She said,

 

"I agree... sort of. I do feel like there are some people skirting around the fact that they agree not only with what Ken Ham said, but how he said it. If I was one of those people, I would feel unwelcome here too"

 

To me, the use of "skirting around" seemed to include those of use who are conflicted by our previous opinions of AIG and have tried to be fair to both sides and give Ham the benefit of the doubt (in the beginning, anyway). I agree that those who take a hard line against SWB materials and "purging their house of them" would not find a happy home here. There was nothing in her post or the post she responded to to indicate she was speaking only of those fringe. Sorry.

 

Thanks for your response, BarbecueMom. I, of course, take you at your word:001_smile:

 

 

Lisa

 

Yes, I was talking about the fringe side, mostly the "out there" Facebook commenters, not anything written on here or everyone who has used and supported Ham's materials. No hard feelings, this is a cruddy situation all around. :001_smile:

Edited April 4, 2011 by BarbecueMom
can't cook and type...

[justamouse]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't quite read it as taking that strong of a position...

 

Just my personal convictions. But them saying that the three, Phillips, Ham and the new owners are good friends and stand on doctrinal issues (that of patrocentricity that Phillips is pushing? that Ham has endorsed? (listen to thatmom's podcasts linked on these threads, they are highly enlightening at the history of all this that Ham and Phillips have been a part of) I refuse to support any of that with my $.

 

Ham was publicly admonished for saying what he did. He did not issue an clarification or an apology, he dug in and drew the sand in the line. Wilson joined in and further drew the sand in the line. Apologia adding their support now means not only that they agree with doctrine that Phillips and Ham are espousing, but doing so now wouild also mean that they agree with how this whole situation was handled.

 

Quoted from Ellie on the other board:

 

You must remember that Doug Phillips is a pastor in a church where women are not allowed to speak in the service at any time. At all. Where women cannot recieve communion of they don't have husbands or sons--even young sons--who can serve them. Where daughters are expected to live at home, serving their fathers, until they are married. Yes, really.

 

I can't support that with my $. Like I said, just my personal convictions. I've stayed far, far away from VF after listening to a few of their CDs years ago and if thier 'friends' line up doctrinally with that, they don't need my $ either. Edited April 5, 2011 by justamouse

[Jennifer3141]

To me, the use of "skirting around" seemed to include those of use who are conflicted by our previous opinions of AIG and have tried to be fair to both sides and give Ham the benefit of the doubt (in the beginning, anyway). I agree that those who take a hard line against SWB materials and "purging their house of them" would not find a happy home here.

 

Lisa

 

I have a question... why should anyone who purges their home of SWB or SOTW stuff need to feel "welcome" here?

I don't get it. As an atheist, I don't go to the conservative Xtian sites and hope I'm going to find a loving, peaceful internet home. Why would someone who is opposed to SWB expect to feel welcome on SWB's site? The name of this place is www.welltrainedmind.com. It's not like it's exactly hidden that this is SWB's wesbite.

If you're opposed to SWB, go someplace else. Why the drama? Why the sense of entitlement?

[kalanamak]

I feel sick.

SWB

 

May we be a little Pepto Bismol for the heart. :grouphug:

 

You will forget your misery. It will all be gone like water under the bridge. Your life will be brighter than the noonday. Any darkness will be as bright as morning. Job 11: 16-17

[StephanieZ]

I wonder if people would really continue to devote time and exert energy (mental AND obviously emotional) if it were not SWB and we were not on this particular forum.

 

 

Some people are like mama bears on this issue.

 

Like he said something offensive about somebody's mama.

 

(Oh no, he didn't!!)

 

 

 

 

SWB can hold her own.

 

Yes, of course, SWB can hold her own. But, even 'famous' folks who have authority, money, power in their own right (as I hope SWB has all in abundance, lol). . . anyway, even those folks are REAL PEOPLE with REAL feelings.

 

Just b/c you are a public figure to some degree does not give people the right to slander you.

 

Even those folk bleed red, bruise blue, and cry salt water.

 

I agree with PPs who think this is all about money. This fellow is enjoying the controversy, setting himself up as the anti-SWB, anti-Wile, anti-anybodywithaloyalfollowing. It's a way to get publicity, get sales, get speaking gigs.

 

I think he is showing himself as a not good person, IMHO. I trust that the wise hs'ing families of the world will make their own considered judgments in time, and I am confident SWB will 'hold her own', but I do think it is the duty of good people to stand up for the wronged, even if those wronged appear to be strong, independent, capable, powerful folk.

 

I *hate* it when people use personal attacks for profit, fun, or just plain random nonreasons. It is that kind of crassness and ugliness that is the foundational reason I homeschool. . . to allow my children to grow up in a bubble in which they can believe, for some short years, that people actually DO RIGHT and behave in an ethical manner, and that lack of morality is not actually a norm, but an error.

[amydavis]

Yes, of course, SWB can hold her own. But, even 'famous' folks who have authority, money, power in their own right (as I hope SWB has all in abundance, lol). . . anyway, even those folks are REAL PEOPLE with REAL feelings.

 

Just b/c you are a public figure to some degree does not give people the right to slander you.

 

Even those folk bleed red, bruise blue, and cry salt water.

 

I agree with PPs who think this is all about money. This fellow is enjoying the controversy, setting himself up as the anti-SWB, anti-Wile, anti-anybodywithaloyalfollowing. It's a way to get publicity, get sales, get speaking gigs.

 

I think he is showing himself as a not good person, IMHO. I trust that the wise hs'ing families of the world will make their own considered judgments in time, and I am confident SWB will 'hold her own', but I do think it is the duty of good people to stand up for the wronged, even if those wronged appear to be strong, independent, capable, powerful folk.

 

I *hate* it when people use personal attacks for profit, fun, or just plain random nonreasons. It is that kind of crassness and ugliness that is the foundational reason I homeschool. . . to allow my children to grow up in a bubble in which they can believe, for some short years, that people actually DO RIGHT and behave in an ethical manner, and that lack of morality is not actually a norm, but an error.

:iagree:

[KnitWit]

I have a question... why should anyone who purges their home of SWB or SOTW stuff need to feel "welcome" here?

I don't get it. As an atheist, I don't go to the conservative Xtian sites and hope I'm going to find a loving, peaceful internet home. Why would someone who is opposed to SWB expect to feel welcome on SWB's site? The name of this place is www.welltrainedmind.com. It's not like it's exactly hidden that this is SWB's wesbite.

If you're opposed to SWB, go someplace else. Why the drama? Why the sense of entitlement?

 

I agree with this, which is why it bothered me to think I was *recognizing* some people who were posting on Ken Ham's FB page. I just REALLY hope I was wrong. I was quite shocked to see one very vocal poster on KH's page boasting about a conversation on SWB's FB wall. I looked to see if her page is a *fan* page or not and it appears to be a regular page, not like there are 1000's of friends, which shocked me even further...that she would be someone close enough to be a FB friend and yet, be saying some of the things she was saying and steering folks away from her products. THIS is *tacky* stuff that leaves a distaste in my mouth. I feel for Susan as a *person*.

[Joy at Home]

I have a question... why should anyone who purges their home of SWB or SOTW stuff need to feel "welcome" here?

I don't get it. As an atheist, I don't go to the conservative Xtian sites and hope I'm going to find a loving, peaceful internet home. Why would someone who is opposed to SWB expect to feel welcome on SWB's site? The name of this place is www.welltrainedmind.com. It's not like it's exactly hidden that this is SWB's wesbite.

If you're opposed to SWB, go someplace else. Why the drama? Why the sense of entitlement?

 

 

Did you read my whole post? I stated that anyone taking that kind of hard line against SWB and her material probably wouldn't be happy here. No drama here.

 

What I was referring to earlier was my perception that anyone expressing any agreement with Ham on anything, or anyone grappling with conflicted feelings would not feel welcome. There's a big difference.

 

Understand?

 

Lisa

Edited April 5, 2011 by Momto5girls

[kchara]

We've homeschooled for 2 decades. This not the first time the Christian homeschooling community has worked hard to eat its own. Or the second. The difference between now and 19 years ago or 12 years ago is the internet and msg boards and the fact that the issue can be aired and seen for what it is vs. what one side or the other says about it.

 

Of course people can hold their own ...until they can't. One exfamous Christian homeschool leader no longer aligns herself with Christianity.

 

The young earthcamp has been publically calling fellow believers names for decades publically and going along like they are the way the truth and the light. Some witness.

The reality, if they are indeed Christian, is that they attacking people that they will be spending eternity with. Or not.

And just to get all fundy on everybody I think the enemy is having a riproaring hayday with this. FRankly, much of this behavior, which is indeed unprovoked attack, shames the name of Christ. I am embarrassed that people that I've been praying for for years align me with the kind of behavior that has been going on.

Please people. My 8 yo just finished a "manners" book and I'd love it if some of the so called adults invovled would just follow some basic rules of etiquette and professionalism.

And yea, to drag (I hope she was unwillingly drug) a class act like Dianna Waring into the fray. Uck.

 

Lisa/Laughing Lioness (suffering keyboard woes).

 

:iagree: Wholeheartedly. I was just telling my husband, I'm sure stuff like this has been going on for a LONG time, but it's new to us, in part because of the internet. I will NEVER be ashamed of Christ, of the Gospel, of the Scripture, but lately, I'm embarrassed to be associated with "Christianity."

 

And I'm a conservative... some would call me a fundie!! (My liberal dad does... daily. :D)

[oliveview]

I've been thinking about what it takes to step outside of the box and embrace the responsibility of educating our children. It seems odd to me that people would take that on and then blindly choose curriculum based on what one person would say. It's like you give up what you've just taken.

 

Interesting.

[kalanamak]

I've been thinking about what it takes to step outside of the box and embrace the responsibility of educating our children.

 

Perhaps just stepped from one box into another.

[Jenny in Atl]

I've been thinking about what it takes to step outside of the box and embrace the responsibility of educating our children. It seems odd to me that people would take that on and then blindly choose curriculum based on what one person would say. It's like you give up what you've just taken.

 

Interesting.

 

It's called fear...

[oliveview]

Perhaps just stepped from one box into another.

 

Exactly! It's like your giving over what you say you are desperately trying to hold on to!

[katilac]

Originally Posted by Karis

I wonder if people would really continue to devote time and exert energy (mental AND obviously emotional) if it were not SWB and we were not on this particular forum.

 

Of course the fact that it involves SWB means that people on SWB's forum are more likely to devote time and exert energy to the matter. Why would that be odd in the least? Numerous people who use this forum, and the various WTM products, obviously feel that SWB has earned both their respect and support. I certainly do.

[TheAutumnOak]

I agree with this, which is why it bothered me to think I was *recognizing* some people who were posting on Ken Ham's FB page. I just REALLY hope I was wrong. I was quite shocked to see one very vocal poster on KH's page boasting about a conversation on SWB's FB wall. I looked to see if her page is a *fan* page or not and it appears to be a regular page, not like there are 1000's of friends, which shocked me even further...that she would be someone close enough to be a FB friend and yet, be saying some of the things she was saying and steering folks away from her products. THIS is *tacky* stuff that leaves a distaste in my mouth. I feel for Susan as a *person*.

 

:iagree:

[rookie_homeschool_mama]

Ok, so getting back to the topic of Ham's post :)...I'm curious about the part where he is shocked that SWB would say the apostles weren't particularly skilled at exegesis. Why is that shocking? The scribes and pharisees were the scholars of that day, not the fisherman and other working class people. Why would Ham expect that they would be OT scholars and why is it such a terrible thing to say that they weren't?

 

Because orthodox Christians believe that all scripture is inspired by God, regardless of whether it was penned by a fisherman or not. From my daughter's First Catechism:

Who wrote the bible?

Chosen men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit

[*anj*]

I'm very conservative and Christian and I haven't felt that at all. I think the atmosphere is becoming hostile toward the variety of Christian who thinks it's ok to go after everyone else with guns blazing. I think the atmosphere is hostile toward one group trying to represent all Christians and doing so in a nasty manner. I feel pretty hostile toward that attitude myself.

:iagree:

[Free]

I agree... sort of. I do feel like there are some people skirting around the fact that they agree not only with what Ken Ham said, but how he said it. If I was one of those people, I would feel unwelcome here too.

 

I don't interact much on here, but I feel like I've found my people!

 

:iagree: I am very new to this board and have been lurking here for the past month or so. Having noticed the trend of posts on both sides, I believe this sums the entire issue completely.

[*anj*]

It seems odd to me that people would take that on and then blindly choose curriculum based on what one person would say. It's like you give up what you've just taken.

 

Interesting.

 

 

Well said.

[AuntieM]

:iagree: I am very new to this board and have been lurking here for the past month or so. Having noticed the trend of posts on both sides, I believe this sums the entire issue completely.

 

I respectfully disagree. This does not sum the issue at all, it's merely a comment on the reaction of some to the actual issue.

[IsabelC]

I don't need to read whatever Ken Ham has written. I know I don't trust him. ;) And from everything I have read of Susan Wise Bauer, I know that even if I disagree with her views, she is not in any way deserving of personal attacks.

[kalanamak]

I'm starting to feel more and more uncomfortable and unwelcome here. In fact, I already know of more than a few moms at our classical Christian group who no longer come here not because of the controversy, but because the whole discussion has degraded to the point where they no longer want to be a part of this forum at all.

 

Well, respectfully, perhaps people so distressed by a discussion over the controversy would really be more happy off the internet, or on "members only" groups where people who are less diverse or simply more placid are involved.

 

I see statements here every day that make me shake my head, but a certain turn-the-other cheek or avert-the-eye is needed to remain unflapped. Or perhaps thicker skin.

 

There are also people who inhabit only the K8 or other boards where no "back yard chat" takes place, and almost NO "controversy" at all. If they cannot be happy there, just knowing there is a general board over here that has this degraded discussion, well, as I said, perhaps they need an exclusive group, or to stay away from any medium that is not face to face, where tone of voice and look in eye are visible. I have an inborn tendency to assume the best of people until it is REALLY clear they don't mean anything good. So I have no problem here, even though I promise you I am much more of a minority here than you.

 

However, if you have a classical Christian group with "more than a few" who have already left this forum because of this controversy, there must be enough of you that support and ideas from these boards is not as crucial to you as it is to me, who speaks face to face with other homeschoolers only a couple of times a year, if that.

[AvasMom]

Because orthodox Christians believe that all scripture is inspired by God, regardless of whether it was penned by a fisherman or not. From my daughter's First Catechism:

Who wrote the bible?

Chosen men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit

 

That doesn't answer the question asked. :)

[bearnpurple]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence. At least as far as people commenting and blogging, not the actual people involved. Personally, I didn't see anything ANGRY in Hamm's blog post. I like a lot of Hamm's things. I like and use a lot of SWB's curriculum. I've heard bad things about both people, and honestly, it's just not that big of a deal to me. If everyone would stop complaining about what the other one said or did, the subject would lose steam, and we could go back to agreeing to disagree. Hamm disagrees with Enns and SWB. So what? Really, is anyone surprised that two people disagree on creation? Obviously most people disagree about creation! As for trumping higher degrees over lower degrees, I don't think degrees are the end all, be all. Someone can be an expert on a particular subject without earning a degree (as classical educators have themselves claimed). I'm just kind of over judgemental homeschoolers. Sorry, flame away.

 

There will always be disagreements! Black/White, God-believing/Atheist, Young/Old, Girl/Boy........that makes us who we are! It is how we disagree that gives us our reputation. While I agree and disagree with both parties - I also use different curriculum for different reasons - I have more than 1 reason I homeschool. We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and everyone practices that in America.....let it go. It may bother you but the more you think/say/write about it the less time you spend on other things.....I think there are alot of people who are making themselves "famous" or making "money" thanks to us homeschoolers. Sad, isn't it? I have been reading this because I like the Creation Science Museum but I don't necessary agree with all his "sayings" and this is where I can get information for future reference.

 

I also agree that higher degrees doesn't make a belief or knowledge any better or worse.....I have trained people with degrees higher than mine....

 

I also know that the unschoolers get nasty with classicals and classicals get upset with the "boxed curriculum" homeschoolers and some people homeschooling is not for parents without degrees......are any of them 100% right or wrong?

 

I will join MindyD in the flames! :)

[asta]

The US has freedom of speech. It does not have freedom from libel or slander.

 

 

asta

[pdalley]

Because orthodox Christians believe that all scripture is inspired by God, regardless of whether it was penned by a fisherman or not. From my daughter's First Catechism:

Who wrote the bible?

Chosen men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit

 

 

That doesn't really adresss the fact that the Apostles - with the exception of Paul - had no more than a lay person's grasp of scripture. Therefore they wouldn't be expected to be as skilled in exegesis. It in no way calls into question the inspiration by God of scripture. In fact it confirms it. Otherwise how could a lay person speak as one who is versed in the Word if not entirely powered by God? I believe the Bible calls it 'spoke as one with authority.'

 

I have a great issue with the idea that God cannot be questioned. The Bible is full of people who questioned God. God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts not our thoughts. He knew we would question. I'm sure He's not offended or surprised by our questions.

[Ester Maria]

I wanted to stay out of these debates, but I would like to add a word or two anyway.

 

To an almost complete outsider - culturally (not American), ideologically (not Christian), educationally (different academic tradition and school culture), plus the one who is writing this from another continent and could care less about curricula wars in America - SWB comes across as an articulate, intelligent, well learned woman who also possesses a lot of personal wisdom and grace in how she handles the situation she was drawn into against her will. Ken Ham, on the other hand, comes across first as unprofessional (for blundering what he shouldn't have in the context in which he shouldn't have) - but even if we might benevolently close an eye to that inopportune blunder - in continuing with this story (a completely wrong method to save his face) and attacks, he completely discredits himself. I barely knew who he was before this story, but now, I am having a really hard time taking his stance on anything - even if we were to talk about salad making - seriously. The way in which he allows himself to treat the ongoing situation publicly is, to my eyes, appalling.

 

This situation sadly somewhat reminds me of the Slifkin affair in the Jewish world some years ago, even though that was a different boat (evolution-based). But there are some similarities. There is a disagreement, an ideological and a professional one, and deciding you will not read / own / use a particular work... and then there are ad hominems, calls for banning one's books lest they "influence" somebody, using theological disagreements as a particularly distasteful pretext to promote a specific curriculum advising against the other ones, etc. A big difference. In the end, each one's scholarship speaks for itself and a mature reader will know how to assess what suits their situation the best, but so does one's comportment speak a lot about the person. IME, Ken Ham is way too old to be excused by fits, impatience or misdirected zeal of youth. His comportment is not correct.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

The US has freedom of speech. It does not have freedom from libel or slander.

 

 

Woke up thinking about this point. For the law savvy Hivers, when does a public disagreement cross the line into libel or slander? I'm speaking legally, not in the realm of public opinion.

[FO4UR]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence. At least as far as people commenting and blogging, not the actual people involved. Personally, I didn't see anything ANGRY in Hamm's blog post. I like a lot of Hamm's things. I like and use a lot of SWB's curriculum. I've heard bad things about both people, and honestly, it's just not that big of a deal to me. If everyone would stop complaining about what the other one said or did, the subject would lose steam, and we could go back to agreeing to disagree. Hamm disagrees with Enns and SWB. So what? Really, is anyone surprised that two people disagree on creation? Obviously most people disagree about creation! As for trumping higher degrees over lower degrees, I don't think degrees are the end all, be all. Someone can be an expert on a particular subject without earning a degree (as classical educators have themselves claimed). I'm just kind of over judgemental homeschoolers. Sorry, flame away.

 

 

 

I am one who may have spent a good deal of my HS budget over at AIG in the future, but will no longer even consider it. This is not b/c of anything SWB (or anyone else) has said about him. It is b/c of the things *HE* has been saying and doing.

 

RE the 2nd part I bolded; I see SWB posting full articles, Enns posting his full curriculum (!!!) to try and calm this issue pleasantly. It is Ham who keeps stirring this pot. I have to ask what he's gaining by keeping this controversy alive.:confused:

 

This isn't even about the Creation debate anymore. It's about how people behave.

 

Further, if we are talking theology, I truly believe that a person's *behavior* tells more about their theology than their logical (illogical:tongue_smilie:) explanations. We act only on what we truly believe. Looking through these posts, through the fb pages, , through blog posts, and I have a hunch if we ever get our hands on it - the tape from the convention, we can *see* how each party believes. Now, I think I have some major differences in theology than Enns...but if I'm going to dig into his curriculum picking apart points I disagree with, I'm going to do it in LOVE and expect some healthy questions directed my way as well...and I would NEVER even think of picking apart his curric if I had a competing product to sell (conflict of interest!!!).

 

Someone with a cool head, loving heart could probably start an interesting discourse on how Enns curric differs in theology from the major Protestant denominations (or doesn't). A topic I would be interested in is how is overall theology is communicated in the 1st grade curriculum. This kind of converstation needs to include Enns (obvious to me:001_huh:).

 

What Ham is doing is trying his hardest to keep this "converstation" one-sided...his side...the consequences are that he is showing us (homeschool consumers) what he truly believes (his true colors).

 

 

Off to teach my littles...

[Violet Crown]

Woke up thinking about this point. For the law savvy Hivers, when does a public disagreement cross the line into libel or slander? I'm speaking legally, not in the realm of public opinion.

A lot depends. State statutes differ, but in general, for it to be defamation it needs to be a false statement about you that causes you to suffer harm. You'd have to show that Ham's remarks were false, and that you suffered monetarily as a direct result of them. I have no idea of the current state of defamation law, but if you would be considered a public figure--which doesn't need to mean politician or celebrity, and can be someone who is "public" even in a fairly narrow sphere--your job as a plaintiff would be much harder, as the level of intent is much higher.

 

I admit I haven't been following this controversy closely, so I'm not sure what Ham has said about you that would rise to the level of defamation. Accusing you of not being a real Christian, or saying that you're teaching things that are dangerous to the Christian faith, aren't the kind of things that are generally considered defamatory. It's just the rough and tumble of public discourse. It's also not clear to me what damages you could claim.

 

ETA: I mean the lazy inclusive "you" of course. A better writer would write "one."

Edited April 5, 2011 by Sharon in Austin

[KnitWit]

Mindy,

 

I just wanted to point out that while, yes, some here have said they would never use AiG again, I have not seen anyone tell *anyone else* they should not use AiG's materials. Conversely, when I read KH's FB page, there are MANY folks telling others to stay away from PHP and OBB materials.

 

It might seem a small thing, but it really isn't. We are all free to express our *own* frustrations and feelings and to take action based upon them. The issue comes about when we try to tell OTHERS they should have the *same* frustration, feelings and actions and tie their religious faithfulness into it.

 

As far as the hatred and anger, I do try to *not* read emotions into the *written word* and choose to *believe the best* if it is unclear. However, there is a form of rhetoric that chooses *groups of words* that *portray* things. For me personally, it is the rhetoric coming from Mr. Ham and Mr. Phillips that I react to.

 

And again, it is FINE to disagree with people. I think it is quite obvious that this has gone far over the line of disagreement and as a person who DOES hold to a literal creation view, I am EXTREMELY disappointed in that.

[pdalley]

Mindy,

 

I just wanted to point out that while, yes, some here have said they would never use AiG again, I have not seen anyone tell *anyone else* they should not use AiG's materials. Conversely, when I read KH's FB page, there are MANY folks telling others to stay away from PHP and OBB materials.

 

It might seem a small thing, but it really isn't. We are all free to express our *own* frustrations and feelings and to take action based upon them. The issue comes about when we try to tell OTHERS they should have the *same* frustration, feelings and actions and tie their religious faithfulness into it.

 

As far as the hatred and anger, I do try to *not* read emotions into the *written word* and choose to *believe the best* if it is unclear. However, there is a form of rhetoric that chooses *groups of words* that *portray* things. For me personally, it is the rhetoric coming from Mr. Ham and Mr. Phillips that I react to.

 

And again, it is FINE to disagree with people. I think it is quite obvious that this has gone far over the line of disagreement and as a person who DOES hold to a literal creation view, I am EXTREMELY disappointed in that.

 

I am one who said I would buy nothing new from AIG. Well, I had already decided their materials weren't suited for us way before any of this happened. I do have one of their books and I don't plan on purging it. I certainly don't plan on telling others not to buy from AIG either. I believe every person has to make the choice for their own family themselves.

 

Too bad Ken Ham doesn't appear to feel the same. I am also extremely disappointed to read his two posts - one cutting and pasting and taking lots of things out of context in Dr. Enns' Bible curriculum and now taking an old review of SWB's and doing them same. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty to cut and paste and twist things around to prove your point. It also leads me to personally believe it isn't a valid point in the first place.

 

Ken Ham is not the only one I hold to that standard of leaving things in context. The major reason I do not trust any of the mainstream media is that they love to do this - take a blurb and make it sound horrible and then you read the actual article and it barely resembles the blurb. Its sensationalist and a cheap ploy.

 

Those are my objections - beyond the personal attacks he's engaged in (I'm basing this on his own words that I have read with my own eyes) - to Ken Ham though theologically I would probably agree more with YEC (I'm not rigid in that) than not.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

And Ken Ham has just announced on his facebook page that he'll be posting a blog later today attacking Enns and his supporters.

[stephanier.1765]

Originally Posted by MindyD

I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side

 

You know what? I am angry. Other secular homeschoolers have mentioned they don't have a dog in this fight but I do, SWB. I also lack tolerance. I lack tolerance for Ken Ham's attack on Susan's ability to earn a living, which for me has been the crux of the matter all along. At the conference where this whole kerfluffle began, he attacked her Christianity which in some Christian minds brings doubts pertaining to her educational materials then causing her to lose business. When she loses business, it becomes harder for her to stay in business. And then there was yesterday which could not have been a more blatant attack on her livelihood if there ever was one. If SWB cannot continue to provide educational materials to the homeschool world then we all lose (and that's beside the fact the harm it causes her and her family). I know I lose. I depend on her. She has been the backbone to my homeschool since the beginning. So yes I have a dog in this fight. And I'm angry. I'm intolerant. And I'm just plain fed up with Ken Ham and his ilk.

[Heather in WI]

I am one who may have spent a good deal of my HS budget over at AIG in the future, but will no longer even consider it. This is not b/c of anything SWB (or anyone else) has said about him. It is b/c of the things *HE* has been saying and doing.

 

RE the 2nd part I bolded; I see SWB posting full articles, Enns posting his full curriculum (!!!) to try and calm this issue pleasantly. It is Ham who keeps stirring this pot. I have to ask what he's gaining by keeping this controversy alive.:confused:

 

This isn't even about the Creation debate anymore. It's about how people behave.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I am so upset with Mr. Ham over this entire kerfuffle! We stopped and spent a day at the Creation Museum with the boys a few years back on the way to visit my grandparents in North Carolina. I have a couple of AIG books on my bookshelves. While I'm not planning on throwing them away, I certainly won't be giving his organization any more of our money!!!

 

The way he is treating SWB is sickening. And, to find out yesterday that he was involved a few years ago in getting Sonlight banned from the Colorado convention *and* he is promoting his own Bible and History curricula now makes my blood boil!

 

The entire thing is disgraceful. Susan's public reaction has spoken volumes about her character.

[kaylk in tx]

You know what? I am angry. Other secular homeschoolers have mentioned they don't have a dog in this fight but I do, SWB. I also lack tolerance. I lack tolerance for Ken Ham's attack on Susan's ability to earn a living, which for me has been the crux of the matter all along. At the conference where this whole kerfluffle began, he attacked her Christianity which in some Christian minds brings doubts pertaining to her educational materials then causing her to lose business. When she loses business, it becomes harder for her to stay in business. And then there was yesterday which could not have been a more blatant attack on her livelihood if there ever was one. If SWB cannot continue to provide educational materials to the homeschool world then we all lose (and that's beside the fact the harm it causes her and her family). I know I lose. I depend on her. She has been the backbone to my homeschool since the beginning. So yes I have a dog in this fight. And I'm angry. I'm intolerant. And I'm just plain fed up with Ken Ham and his ilk.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: especially with bolded