quote:

---

Davis: I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

---

quote:

---

Ill. Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago)
...
Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

Sherman didn't budge, continued his testimony related to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's oddly misdirected $1 million grant intended for Pilgrim Baptist Church, (story) and later told me he "felt like Rosa Parks."

---

I get a little nervous when lawmakers talk about (removing? ignoring?) my rights as a citizen. Or rather, his rights as a citizen in his country.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
I agree that the statement itself is disturbing, but what's the context? I can't figure out what they're arguing over.
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
Hi, I am Corwin and I'm an atheist.

Jokes aside, I go to a volleyball club that's part of a Christian association. I don't know the exact denomination. After training we sometimes talk about religious passages, and I'm usually bored because it doesn't seem like it's for me. But last time the trainer said something that I find interesting: you have to really know *your* religion if you want to convince someone else. And you have to accept it being put to the test. It seems to me like Davis was trying to cradle her religion lest something "bad" happens to it. That, frankly, won't convince anyone of its worthiness.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Christine: The audio is much longer. It sounds like Sherman is testifying about whether the city should provide funds for a church for repairs after a fire.
Judging from the linked article, there was might also be an issue that the funds were directed in a strange way, going indirectly through a fishy sounding school that rented space from the church rather than the church itself.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God...

---

It makes me a little sad that the delicious irony in this statement was apparently unintentional.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Yeah-- need context.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
Some context:

Sherman is an atheist and secular activist who worked with his daughter to fight against the 'moment of silence' law in Illinois recently.

Now he's arguing against the appropriation of $1,000,000 of tax money to a church, which is somewhat suspiciously being funneled through a school.

Something about Sherman apparently set Rep. Davis off.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Apparently the Govenor promised the state would help out the poor church that lost its roof in a fire.

Giving state money to a church is considered by some to cross the "Separation of Church & State."

Governor's solution, give it to a school that uses the church as their location.

Problem:

1) School owed thousands of dollars in state and federal taxes. The IRS amongst others were about to close the school down.

2) The school was a "For Profit" institution, so ineligible for the grant that the governor was going to use to give them the funds. The solution was to have all the paperwork done for declaring a non-for-profit status completed and approved in just one day. (My son's school has been trying to do this for over a year now, and is still waiting court approval).

3)The owner of the school was a convicted felon. That made him ineligible for the grant. The governor gave him a full pardon.

You have to love Illinois politics.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Part of the context that may be missing from this discussion is the historical, architectural, and cultural significance of Pilgrim Baptist Church. The church building has been important to the city in ways that are separate from the particular religious community that inhabits it.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/P/PilgrimBaptist.html

http://www.preservationchicago.org/risk/pilgrim.html
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I can think of plenty of things that could be termed a philosophy that it would be dangerous for my children to even know exists -- like getting into heaven by suicide bombing. Of course, the declaration that it's dangerous doesn't mean I'll be able to keep it from them. Another idea I'm not fond of would be "Jews are 'not saves", though the wording is a bit odd, the idea embraces a philosophy that has proven itself pretty dangerous.

P.S. I'd even say "deathbed repentance" is a philosophy to protect children from.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Becoming aware of different philosophies is typically dangerous. However, not becoming aware of different philosophies is far more dangerous, I'd think.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Especially when you're six years old.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Especially when you're a six year old living in Israel
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
When I first read this topic, the thing that went through my mind was a recent discussion I had with some home-schooling Christians whose primary concern with sending their children to the public schools was the influences there -- other people and other ideas.

IMO, one of the worst drawbacks to homeschooling is that children don't have to learn to deal with the influences of other people and ideas.

There are certainly some things that I'm not going to bring up with a 6-year-old unless they bring it up first...suicide bombing is probably a good example of that...but as they get older I'd prefer to prepare them for some of the things they may run into out there because, as someone mentioned, I think it's more dangerous for children not to be aware of some philosophies.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
When I first read this topic, the thing that went through my head was being told that it's evil and wrong for me to teach my religion to my children while they're children.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Ugh. Disgusting.
Religion has nothing to do inside government.
Davis is a lunatic.
 

---

Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
When I first read this topic, the thing that went through my head was being told that it's evil and wrong for me to teach my religion to my children while they're children.

---

quote:

---

But last time the trainer said something that I find interesting: you have to really know *your* religion if you want to convince someone else. And you have to accept it being put to the test.

---

quote:

---

IMO, one of the worst drawbacks to homeschooling is that children don't have to learn to deal with the influences of other people and ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
I've seen Pat Robertson with better moments!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
When I first read this topic, the thing that went through my head was being told that it's evil and wrong for me to teach my religion to my children while they're children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:


IMO, one of the worst drawbacks to homeschooling is that children don't have to learn to deal with the influences of other people and ideas.

---

quote:

---

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. But if you're referring to the essay that I think you're referring to,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanylass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:


IMO, one of the worst drawbacks to homeschooling is that children don't have to learn to deal with the influences of other people and ideas.

---

This statement is desperately crying out for a qualifier.

---

quote:

---

I wish I was in the Land of Lincoln.
They believe in God and not in thinkin'.
Look away, look away, look away Illinois.
In Illinois they guard their babies
From atheists and dogs with rabies.
Look away, look away, look away Illinois.

Then I wish I was in...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
I can think of plenty of things that could be termed a philosophy that it would be dangerous for my children to even know exists -- like getting into heaven by suicide bombing. Of course, the declaration that it's dangerous doesn't mean I'll be able to keep it from them. Another idea I'm not fond of would be "Jews are 'not saves", though the wording is a bit odd, the idea embraces a philosophy that has proven itself pretty dangerous.

P.S. I'd even say "deathbed repentance" is a philosophy to protect children from.

---

I'm curious why you think its dangerous for your children to know these philosophies exist?

Unless you consider being scared innately harmful, I just don't see how children could be endangered by knowing that some people believe they could get into heaven by doing a suicide bombing. Yes its scary, but suicide bombers are scary regardless of their beliefs.

Do you fear that mere knowledge of these philosophies might cause them to embrace them? I think that does children an injustice. I knew long before I went to kindergarten that many of our neighbors had different beliefs than we had. I knew that they thought it was OK to do things like that we did not. And as small child I never once felt tempted to embrace my neighbors beliefs rather than those my parents taught me.

That stage didn't come until I was a teenager.

[ April 04, 2008, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
When I first read this topic, the thing that went through my head was being told that it's evil and wrong for me to teach my religion to my children while they're children.

---

quote:

---

IMO, one of the worst drawbacks to homeschooling is that children don't have to learn to deal with the influences of other people and ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

IMO, one of the worst drawbacks to homeschooling is that children don't have to learn to deal with the influences of other people and ideas.

---

I agree this needs qualification. My kids will definitely be exposed to philosophies and ideas that we don't agree with; they already have been and they're almost-4 and almost-2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
When I first read this topic, the thing that went through my head was being told that it's evil and wrong for me to teach my religion to my children while they're children.

---

quote:

---

You sign your daughters up for karate lessons and they are having difficulty understanding the teacher perhaps because he's from a different culture, or maybe they are having difficulty relating with the other kids in the class because they do things your kids have been taught are wrong. Will you force them to stay in the class and learn to cope? Will you even know that the real reason they no longer want to do karate is because they are uncomfortable around people who don't share their ideas and values?

---

My kids regularly play with other kids who do things they are not allowed to. They realize that not everyone has the same "rules" we do. I think this is a decent foundation for learning to deal with others who are different (at their current ages.) We also have regular discussions about what we believe and that not everyone believes that, since they see my parents, for instance, drinking coffee and alcohol (and my dad likes to joke about offering it to them), and my sister lives with her boyfriend who she is not married to. I would not dream of not exposing them to my family because my family doesn't always follow our beliefs. (Well, right now I keep them away from my brother but that's because the things he was saying to them were frightening them and not age-appropriate for them to deal with. Eventually, if he doesn't shape up, we will talk to them about what he believes and says and why he acts the way he does and how to deal with that.)

In the situation you mentioned, first of all, my kids are exposed to different cultures at least as much as kids in public schools around here-- and they're not even school-age yet. I make a concerted effort to take advantage of living in L.A. and being able to attend cultural and religious events of all types in the communities around us. So I doubt it would come up. But they also understand that different people have different rules and values, and that we live by ours. They also know that when they are told to do something by an adult who has been left in charge of them, they are to do it unless it hurts someone (or is an inappropriate touch, etc.) and that different environments call for different behaviors (Aunt Mimi has different rules than us, when we are at her house we obey her rules; Grandma lets us do things that would not usually be allowed at home; we behave differently in the chapel at church than we do on the playground, etc.) I would expect them to stay in the class for at least the period we had signed up for, yes. And my kids are pretty good at telling me what is bothering them, so I would expect frank discussion of what they didn't like about the class.

I think that everyone HAS TO learn to deal with diversity if they go out in public on a regular basis. Some deal with it better than others, of course. But I think it is entirely possible for kids to learn to deal with others who are different from them without attending a school outside the home-- as long as you have community interaction, which my kids do, and parents present the right kind of feedback and messages about what the kids observe.

I should add that if my school-age child were invited to a religious event of another group, I would let her go if it sounded fun to her. She will be allowed to visit friends' churches, etc., and as I said we seek out opportunities to learn about the different cultures and beliefs aorund us. And so far I think my kids are getting the right message.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Lincoln was a self-avowed atheist in his youth, and only tempered those claims as he moved into politics. It's clear from his private letters and from discussions later quoted by his contemporaries that he retained a strong disdain for religion in general and Christianity in specific, although he was enough of a politician (and a cynic) to quote Scripture to advance his purposes. (Of his famous Thanksgiving address, he's supposed to have said, "Oh, that is some of Seward's nonsense; it pleases the fools.") In the last couple of years of his life, it's possible he came to a slightly different understanding of religion -- but he remained very determinedly non-Christian to the end."

It's entertaining that both he and Charles Darwin were born on the same day.
 

---

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
God must be sending a message
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
kq makes a good point. You're really only as used to diversity as you're around it. Citrus County had a 3% minority population. Leon is close to a quarter. There are situations I deal with now that I had no preperation for, public schooled or not. Heck, I was tickled to see African-Americans working normal blue and white collar jobs when I moved up here. It was novel for me.

Giving kids a good foundation for dealing with change is proably more important than making sure they're exposed to everything. There's always something new you'll be faced with. Taking it in with an open mind and deciding how it aligns to your values are probably the best coping skills you can have, in my very limited experience.
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I am reminded of a study I read years ago that compared social development in families with different numbers of children. The study found that it didn't really matter whether children had one sibling or many, but if they had no siblings there were some distinct failings in their social development in areas like conflict resolution. Involvement of only children in other social situations like preschools, church groups and so forth did not eliminate this deficit. When you have a fight with your brother or sister, you can't just take your toys and go home. You can't walk away -- you have to learn to resolve it. Only children never face that situation.

---

quote:

---

I'd say my personal experience of Trevor's family, as well as of my other close friends and their brothers, proves this study is teh crap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Lincoln was a self-avowed atheist in his youth, and only tempered those claims as he moved into politics. It's clear from his private letters and from discussions later quoted by his contemporaries that he retained a strong disdain for religion in general and Christianity in specific, although he was enough of a politician (and a cynic) to quote Scripture to advance his purposes. (Of his famous Thanksgiving address, he's supposed to have said, "Oh, that is some of Seward's nonsense; it pleases the fools.") In the last couple of years of his life, it's possible he came to a slightly different understanding of religion -- but he remained very determinedly non-Christian to the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
[QB] "One individiuals personal experience can not disprove a well designed study."

First, you need to learn how to spell "individual".

---

Resorting to ad hominem attacks on my typing ability?

Clearly your only child status didn't adversely influence your ability to deal with conflict.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Resorting to ad hominem attacks on my typing ability?

Clearly your only child status didn't adversely influence your ability to deal with conflict."

The study sucks. No amount of talking around that fact changes it, or, as my timpani teacher once said, "you can't polish a turd."
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
All you know of the study is my brief summary of the conclusion and the fact that you don't agree with the conclusion.

It is justifiable to consider the studies conclusions suspect until you know more about the details but if you think that you can conclude that the study sucks based on the very little you know, you aren't qualified comment.

Unfortunately, it was several years ago when I read this study and I haven't been able find it in an internet search.

Yes, pretty much all siblings fight. That doesn't contradict the results of this study, in fact I see it as quite consistent. People who've fought with their siblings but then had to keep on living and being friends with them have to learn how to cope with the situation. That experience can help prepare them for dealing with fights with their coworkers or spouse.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Right, because it makes them more able to take gut punches and keep on fighting? Sheesh.

If you had seen some of the thing's Trevor's oldest brother, Kyle, did to Trevor and the youngest two, and, for heaven's sake, even to me, you'd laugh at that. All I learned from Kyle was to stay out of his way. Now, looking back, I see that Kyle really was a psycho, and at this point, Kyle claims not to remember a lot of that stuff. Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's lying to create deniability. He was crazy. Trevor and I remember, though. There was no reasoning with Kyle, and I stress "NO" reasoning. He was crazy. Be ready for a random punch to the face, out of nowhere, for no reason. That's what I learned from Kyle, and he wasn't even as brutal to me as to Trevor. Girl, get it straight.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Speaking to the larger point, sure, I admit that having siblings teaches you how to work things out. I also realize that sometimes, particularly during the teenage and young adult years, it's better to tell your peers to shove their pot and booze, and go off on your own and get some work done.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Rather than overindulge only children, parents may tend to push them to high achievement and have elevated expectations,” says Falbo. “These children tend to score slightly higher in verbal ability, go farther in school and have a little bit higher self-esteem, and a lot of this just has to do with more parent involvement and uninterrupted time with adults. High hopes can rest on that one child—you’ve got your only chance for a musical math genius who also knows ballet and how to speak six foreign languages."

from this page.

Mmm-hmm. BAM!
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Rabbit:

I read a report a few years ago that China is having significant social problem which is a result of having an entire society in which virtually every child is an only child, precisely because of the dynamic your study describes.

I can understand why someone would be defensive about what they see as an accusation leveled at only children, but it's important to note that this isn't a matter of blame, it's a matter of circumstance.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"In China, couples are encouraged to have only one child in order to help curb population growth. These children, or "little emperors," as they have been called, are generally seen as spoiled monsters. However, research conducted by Falbo (Brophy, 1989), a psychologist known for work in the area of birth order, indicates otherwise. Falbo found that Chinese only children fared no worse in personality or achievement than their counterparts with siblings. However, only children are also often seen as high-achieving, motivated, and successful (Brophy, 1989, p.56)."

That's a direct quote from the article I linked above.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
From what I've heard of the school structure in China, blaming social problems on "only childism" seems like a rather naive conclusion for a research to make. Stuff like Chinese kids study, study, study, study seem like better explanations.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

I was quite interested in stereotypes, and the stereotype of the only child is a very powerful one,” says Falbo, an only child herself and the mother of an only child.

---

quote:

---

but it's important to note that this isn't a matter of blame, it's a matter of circumstance.

---

Rabbit didn't single you out. You singled yourself out by reacting to her reference to a study (just one out of many). You argue that you are in a position to provide valid anecdotal evidence that controverts the established stereotype of only children. Guess what? Some of the only children I've known have lamented their state of onlihood precisely because they fit the dominant stereotype, and they didn't like it.

In any case, what we're dealing with is generalities. And then, we're NOT dealing with generalities that are considered major character flaws. Some people are better at conflict resolution than others. Some children from large families are WORSE at conflict resolution than some only-children. But overall, there is a body of evidence that only children are (on average) not as good at conflict resolution as children with siblings. Big Deal.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
steven, are you seriously advancing yourself as evidence of how good only children are at conflict resolution?

That might be the funniest thing I've read all week.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
*giggles*

Of note, anecdotal evidence can be worth absolutely nothing, as sometimes there are more relevant factors influencing anecdotal situations. If you met my brother and assumed that because he's the only son and youngest of four all children with that birth order position were like him, you'd probably make a decree that all women who have three girls and then a boy are legally required to either have more children or kill the boy.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I think I'd probably rather spend more time and energy on projects I care about versus conflict resolution. I think I serve myself just as well in the long run that way.
 

---

Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
 
I posted about Lincoln and God here , and in the posts surrounding.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
I think I'd probably rather spend more time and energy on projects I care about versus conflict resolution. I think I serve myself just as well in the long run that way.

---

Typical only child attitude.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

I think I'd probably rather spend more time and energy on projects I care about versus conflict resolution. I think I serve myself just as well in the long run that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
My kids regularly play with other kids who do things they are not allowed to. They realize that not everyone has the same "rules" we do. I think this is a decent foundation for learning to deal with others who are different (at their current ages.) We also have regular discussions about what we believe and that not everyone believes that . . .

---

KQ, Its sounds like you a doing a great job with your children.
 

---

Posted by Broncey (Member # 11562) on :
 
Davis makes a valid point in the that we are willing to put our all into trivial things, when children are being shot up all over the southside of Chicago. She does get a little more passionate than she should, but Sherman is and always will be an opportunist, and a jerk. No one here is required to pray during that moment of silence.

What is next, preschool kids refusing to go down for nap time? The moment is not specifically for prayer. It is there for recollection. The same pseudo liberal "open minded" jerk that would automatically associate it with religous doctrine, is the same whack job that does underwater meditation yoga, and screams at kids around the pool for interrupting his Chakra flow and moment of silence.

Sigh. This place. But not to play devils advocate, but we have more important bills to pass that ursup the moment of silence act. Like the Federal Reserve Abolishion Act!

[ April 07, 2008, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Broncey ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
What's wrong with underwater meditation yoga?
 

---

Posted by Broncey (Member # 11562) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
What's wrong with underwater meditation yoga?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Care to explain? Is it the meditation, the yoga, the being underwater, or the combination that concerns you?

---

quote:

---

What is next, preschool kids refusing to go down for nap time?

---

If it's government mandated nap time, then I say yes!
 

---

Posted by Broncey (Member # 11562) on :
 
Without semantics, please explain to me the differentiating factors between governmentally mandated naptime, and governmentally appointed teachers who can make you shut your pie hole without a law? OMG!! PIE!!! BRB!!
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Broncey:
Without semantics, please explain to me the differentiating factors between governmentally mandated naptime, and governmentally appointed teachers who can make you shut your pie hole without a law? OMG!! PIE!!! BRB!!

---