posted
There are probably too many religiously themed threads on Hatrack, but this just makes my blood boil.
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the statement itself is disturbing, but what's the context? I can't figure out what they're arguing over.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Becoming aware of different philosophies is typically dangerous. However, not becoming aware of different philosophies is far more dangerous, I'd think.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Absolutely. I get increasingly impatient with members of my own church who say studying doctrine is not worthwhile, it's more important to study how to do evangelism. My response - if you don't know what you believe and why, then how in the heck do you suppose you could convince someone else to believe it too?
While Christine said:
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.
Could not agree more.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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, there are some nuances in that you're glossing over.
I would also note that as pooka quite aptly noted, there are certainly *some* specific religions that are quite evil to teach to children. The question as to whether *other* religions are harmful to teach (and the degree of harm) to children is a matter of debate and is also highly dependent on the tenets of the specific religion.
Of course, I think the whole thing is a bit of a red herring. A hearing as to whether public funds should be alloted to a church (or a church via a school) would not the right place for this kind of debate, let alone a random tirade from an elected official.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Not the "labelling of children" controversy? I have no idea what you're referring to, maybe a link would be helpful.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Such as "one of the worst drawbacks to homeschooling to avoid the influences of other people and ideas is that children don't have to deal with the influences of other people and ideas."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: NVM then. For the record, I don't really doubt that you've heard such a sentiment. However, I have read other ideas that have been misinterpreted and spun to mean something very similar, so I was curious.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The phrase "Land of Lincoln" has got me whistlin' Dixie .
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...
And that's about all I can come up with off the top of my head.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Me too. I wonder if that indicates an excess amount of pessimism.
Tom: What has lead you to conclude that Lincoln was an atheist?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
I don't think that exposing your children to philosophies and ideas they don't agree with is equivalent to "having to learn to deal with the influences of other people and ideas".
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.
I think something analogues goes on in a school where you are forced every day to share a room with people who have different ideas and values. In that situation finding a way to deal with those differences isn't a choice, its a must. Certainly not everyone finds a healthy way to deal with it, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm not sure how that experience can be reproduced in a home school environment without sacrificing most of the reasons people homeschool.
Consider the following situation. 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?
I'm not saying that its impossible to teach your kids to deal with diversity in a homeschool -- but I think it is extemely difficult if not impossible to create an environment in a homeschool where kids "have to" learn to deal with diversity. And just like the only children who never "have to" resolve a conflict with a sibling, I think home schooled children who never "have to" deal with diversity are less likely to learn to deal well with it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
I don't think it's evil or wrong. The thing is - and there's no way to put this un-offensively - I think your religion (and religion in general) is wrong. I wish religious people understood this, and formed a more 'real' philosophy; but I think going about it with interdictions is the wrong way to go. Education being the right way. But I understand the need for a parent to teach his kid his own philosophical/religious system, as he understands it. Or for anyone to teach anyone else a system that they think is 'real'.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
I don't know who does these studies. As an only child, I can assure you that I was put in situations at a young age where I had to learn to deal with conflict in ways besides by "taking my toys and going home."
Who says only children "never face" situations in which they have to resolve situations rather than walking away from them? I might not have had siblings, but neither was I raised in some hothouse environment where I never had to deal with other kids.
It sounds to me like whoever did that study had some serious preconceptions (and misconceptions)about how "all" only children are raised and then found what they expected to find.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It sounds to me like whoever did that study had some serious preconceptions (and misconceptions)about how "all" only children are raised and then found what they expected to find."
I am an only child.
I admit my experience is a little skewed, since pretty much all my lifelong close friends and neighbors are boys who have brothers and no sisters, but the only conflict resolution I ever saw (for instance at my friend Trevor's house, with 4 brothers, no girls) between siblings was somebody getting physically assaulted, followed by hurt feelings and/or tears. The only thing that usually nipped the violence in the bud was parental intervention. So I got in less fights that Trevor. What does that prove?
Really, though. 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. I got in fewer fights than they did, period. I did not "resolve conflicts" when I was a kid; neither did they. The bigger, stronger kid wins. That's the story.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Any chance you could point me in the direction of your sources that show his self avowed atheism and this transition to cynical scripture quoter and finally sympathetic non-christian theist?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, every book about Lincoln I've ever read (even ones written in the 50s) at least touch on the fact that he was not religious...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"One individiuals personal experience can not disprove a well designed study."
First, you need to learn how to spell "individual". Second, the study does not confirm anything I've ever read about only children from other studies. Third, I think most people's childhood memories include a sizable dose of sibling fights, either their own, or ones they've seen. It doesn't seem to matter, IME, whether you come from a religiously devout family or not...most of the time, kids will fight.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least this time Sherman has witnesses. The Bush library still "neither confirms nor denies" Bush senior's comment to him.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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." Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
