More homeschooling nonsense

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by SireofSuns, Feb 14, 2018.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    It's a big topic, but I will just say a few points.
    1. In most cases, people with whom your views more align with, will seem more "open" to new ideas you present. This is for 2 reasons: 1, you two already see each other as allies, and 2, your world views align better, thus your "other" ideas are also more likely to align.
    2. Disagreement is not the same as "not open." In fact, unwillingness to debate or discuss is actually the opposite of open, but in many cases, just because a person disagrees, they are seen as "close minded."
    3. Many people on this "indoctrination" bandwagon don't seem to care when the "indoctrination" is teaching something they agree with (for example, religion)
    4. Many religions' entire basis is that they are right and everyone else is wrong, this is dogmatic on the base level. Compare to scientific inquiry, which by definition is based on observable experimentation and conclusions can change. But for a theist, "God exists" and many other things are never debatable and can never change.
    5. I am not even sure what qualifies as "indoctrination." It seems like for many people, this is the new "I am a free thinker" argument where instead of debating the issue, you just attack the person and say they have been "indoctrinated."
    6. There is also a hypocritical approach to this. Basically, one example of this is with stuff like "Christian values." When everyone largely aligns with Christian values, a Christian might say, "This community has good moral character." But if everyone largely aligns with other POV, then a Christian might say, "Godlessness is destroying this community." Basically, it's not about "indoctrination" or how many people have that view, it's about whether one AGREES with the views that determines how those views are interpreted.
    7. The left is often accused of using their "power" to "suppress" speech, but I never see the same outrage when the right does it (for example, the Delta Airlines/NRA thing, or Tennessee reducing Memphis' budget for taking down Confederate statues). Instead, these actions are hailed as righteous.
    8. My wife is a science teacher in public school, and in her courses she teaches reading data, graphing, analyzing arguments, etc. There is an entire section devoted to plate tectonics (a controversial idea back in the day) whre the students get to play different sides of the argument.
    9. She also tutors, mostly homeschooled children. So we have a lot of experience on both sides of the aisle. Homeschooled children in both CA and AZ (where we have lived) are overwhelming very Christian. Perhaps it's changing, but it's slow if it is.
    10. Just because someone isn't accepting of ONE of your viewpoints, doesn't make them intolerant of everything. In fact, it could be that they are open to a lot, just not that one. The reality is that most people have some things they aren't going to budge on, whether it is "the planet is round" or "God exists" but the fact that people have these positions doesn't make them close minded by default.
     
    Alakhami likes this.
  2. SireofSuns

    SireofSuns I need me some PIE!

    (I wish you had quoted my points, it'd make it easier to know which parts you're responding to, oh well, more reading for me I guess)

    1. I agree with that in general.
      In most cases, the people that debate (and therefore critique) my ideas/bias/perspectives in person, I usually end up finding out later that they're homeschoolers.
      The people that tend shy away from meaningful discussion, or drop out of it when it gets at all tense (again, in person), I usually end up finding out that they went to public schools.
      From what I've found from those people, when I asked them, is that they had similar experiences. That's mostly my experience from the New England, mid-south, and mid-west areas of the US.
    2. See above. I also consider those that simply get angry, throw insults, etc. to also be "not open". As they don't seem actually willing to discuss things.
    3. That is true on all sides. I get frustrated with homeschoolers that seem completely unwilling to talk much about other view points besides their own (religious and non-religious ones). I also don't consider indoctrination to be "only teaching one side", I consider it to also include "excluding/specifically countering something". That's sorta the flip side to it.
    4. I'm not sure what you're responding to here, I thought the definition of indoctrination was fairly clear. Sure, some people use it incorrectly.
    5. Within science, you have to base everything on assumptions, which are based on observations, which are then attempted to be proven.
      Similar things actually happen in religion, or at least used to happen, but it looks much different and most religions have gotten to the point where they no longer feel the need work on such things.
      So, (most) religious people take the assumption that "God exists", and work from there.
      I've also noticed that most people that decry religion and cling to "science", seem.. Quite dogmatic about it. A human tendency, to be sure. I've also noted that, science isn't a "thing", or it isn't supposed to be (some treat it like it is). Instead it's supposed to simply be a way of analyzing things. That's not necessarily "against" religion, despite many thinking it automatically is.
    6. I don't know if I'd call that hypocritical really.
      A "moral society" can only be declared moral or immoral if there is some standard to compare it to. Science and atheism don't readily or sufficiently provide that (humanism is more amoral than moral), so many people end up using various religions as a baseline. Christianity happens to be the most consistently successful in regards to maintaining stable and progressing societies. Most prominent scientists during scientific revolutions and "revelations" have been "Christian", even during some of the most oppressive times. (there have been ones from other religions, as well as atheist and agnostic ones, obviously, and they may not be as well known because their other views were not conducive to winning support from their community at the time).
    7. I just had to look up the Delta Airlines/NRA thing, not really surprising at this point to me. And... Isn't that the "left" "suppressing" free speech? Delta punished employees for attending an NRA conference? And Georgia legislators got angry at them for doing that? So... Are you saying Delta Airlines has the right to punish employees for using their free time supporting groups that Delta Airlines corporate doesn't like? What? I'm confused.
      Whether towns, municipalities, etc. have/should have the freedom to remove historical monuments is something I'm not sure on.
      I'm generally against the removal of historical monuments, even ones I personally hate. Like communist monuments in Poland. Those need to stay, as much as I and others don't like them.
      Whether that's a "free speech" thing, and whether towns should be allowed to do that, I'm not sure.
    8. Good on her. It may not be one of the most controversial things now, but at least it's some exercise in debate.
    9. Hmm, is she tutoring on her own time, or is still associated with the public school system? That may seem like a small difference, but legally and in regards to politics over homeschooling, it's a big difference.
      I'm not really surprised. AZ is heavily religious if I recall, and most people that have enough drive to homeschool in CA are Christians (because they have more reasons to want to do so). CA, if I recall, is... Not very friendly towards homeschoolers.
    10. I'm not sure what this in response to specifically, or if it's just a closing point. I think I generally agree with that.
     
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    To explain this a bit:

    Delta didn't punish anyone. They had a DISCOUNT program for NRA members that was used a handful of times a year that they decided to discontinue.

    ~

    In short, a PRIVATE BUSINESS decided to do something that affected very few people and stop giving SPECIAL TREATMENT to a specific subgroup.

    Georgia legislators then decided to retaliate against a PRIVATE BUSINESS with PUBLIC POLICY.

    This is also fairly common now in Red States... a Blue City/District within the state will try and enact a left-wing law or ordinance, and the Republican legislature will draft a law saying they can't do that or that if they do it they lose X money. All the while these same legislators argue against Federal overreach and say that things should be kept local...
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    Geressen likes this.
  4. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    I don't understand this question. There is no tutoring of homeschoolers in the public system. She tutors as a second job.
     
  5. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    I do. If you say one thing in one situation and another in a different situation, even though the principles remain the same, then it's hypocritical. It doesn't matter how you justify it.

    If you say, "This is great! We share values! This isn't indoctrination!" when everyone agrees with you and then when people don't, you say, "This sucks! People are being indoctrinated!" Then your definition of "indoctrination" seems to be "do I agree with what is being taught."

    (I don't understand the relevance of your tangent here in the rest of that reply and disagree with your implication that Christianity is somehow responsible for those things.)
     
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    I just find it funny that the public education system literally teaches logic, how to debate, and even different viewpoints on a topic that is basically settled/proven, but people call it "indoctrination" and "close minded" largely because it doesn't just push their religious beliefs.

    I am not even sure what they mean by "indoctrination" except "you aren't teaching things in a way that always pushes my personal beliefs."
     
  7. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    The difference is that a religious person basically says, "My religion is the ONLY truth."

    While a science person says, "This allows me to verify my belief."

    Sure, some people can be dogmatic about a particular subject (say, Climate Change), but they are not being dogmatic about science then. And when they start discussing stats/data etc. relating to that subject, that's not dogmatic, that's the scientific process which can, in fact, turn it the other way if the data/process shows something else. I have changed my mind more than once on a subject while researching it and realizing the data does not support my hypothesis. There's also the fact that the method itself might be flawed, and we are seeing more and more debate about the validity of certain kinds of scientific studies/data in the modern world. For example: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

    But discussing religion doesn't have that. The bible isn't gathering new evidence all the time, and when you quote John 3:16 to me, it isn't offering you new information or asking you to re-examine your hypothesis of "God exists." Nor is the quote even something that can be verified in any way by anyone else.

    Perhaps the best illustration of the dogmatic nature of religious beliefs is the multitudes of denominations within the Christian community. When someone says about new about Christianity, they are almost always outcasted immediately and prosecuted (e.g. Joseph Smith) and it's a combative affair with each side clinging to their own interpretation.

    And while science can often have the same "clinging" it's also a process of finding the truth, as various people work independently to try and verify or prove things. So with the tectonic plate issue, the initial resistance was largely because it was an unproven theory with very little backing based on their current understanding. But eventually the theory was championed and changed the way we think about the world, and there is no "sect" of science that says otherwise, clinging dogmatically to the pre-tectonic understanding of the world.

    Keep in mind I am not against religion as a rule, I just think that the right's false equivalencies are annoying in this particular discussion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
  8. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    some people want the closest aproximation to the truth about the world/universe/natural processes/physics they can get and like a system which provides theories about this and updates its theories when new information/evidence becomes available.

    and some people want fairytales with improvable and improbable hypotheses and try to twist their evidence to suit their fairytale.

    the second type of people keeps lying to the first, secondly they lie to children and others whom we can best class as [undecided]

    does this explain it in a satisfactory manner @SireofSuns ?
    or do you not understand that science is a logical process to get the best possible explanation for things in a manner that can be reproduced or otherwise shown to be accurate but is open for invalidation or updating of information based on new evidence.

    as opposed to religion which uses circular logic to try and grant athority unto itself, for instance some people believe the bible is true, why do they? because the bible says it is, and says they should.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
  9. SireofSuns

    SireofSuns I need me some PIE!

    Aha, I totally misread the articles then.

    In that case, I'm against any government intervention into the matter.


    That answers the question.

    I suppose it depends on how you look at it.
    I don't think it is because the view being taken isn't necessarily inconsistent. From any one standpoint it might be totally reasonable to say that people are only "good" if they agree with you.
    If you take a view wherein everything is subjective, then hypocrisy will seem to exist in almost everything.

    Essentially it was meant to say that Christianity as a self practiced ideology did not prevent its members from thinking outside of the box. Certainly the organizations often tried to prevent it, but I see that as more of a human government thing than any specific ideology thing.

    That can be debated. You must have a really great experience with the public school system.
    Also, as long as what is being taught aligns with your beliefs and bias, it will appear as though it is teaching logic, how to debate, etc.
    In many public schools, specific religions are pushed, such as Islam. There have been plenty of instances of kids being "encouraged" to practice Islam for a day, as well as entire weeks where the students are expected to dress and behave in ways acceptable/commanded by the then being taught religion. Wicca and Buddhism have also been done. On the other hand, things like Catholicism are actively excluded. No Bibles allowed in schools, no praying in public/openly in schools, etc.
    I live in a very "blue" area of the country. I have to avoid being too open about my personal religious beliefs, for fear of getting fired, not getting jobs, losing friends, etc. I don't know about you, but it sure seems like the public schools in my area have done a good job indoctrinating a lot of people to hate people like me.

    Which, of course, is only wrong if you disagree with them.

    Perhaps I should be more specific: Evolutionary theory.

    Actually... Do you remember the Dead Sea Scrolls event? That kind of stuff continues to happen. At the very least, there's plenty of confirmation for the vast majority of stuff in the Bible.

    Christianity as a whole has worked long and hard to define what is and is not "canon" and or "true" regarding its practices and beliefs.
    Sometimes someone comes along and says something that doesn't line up with those things, and is questioned regarding their statements. Those statements are tested against the established beliefs. If they fail the test, they're rejected. There's been plenty of instances where the established beliefs were wrong, and each time those have been dealt with in varying amounts of time.

    Joseph Smith founded the Mormon church. Many people seem to think of them as "Christians". They've very different in beliefs, enough to be a totally different religion. It'd be like saying Islam and Catholicism are the same.

    Tell that to the Flat Earthers.
     
  10. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    The evidence is pretty overwhelming and grows each year. Doesn't mean it hasn't changed though or that future evidence couldn't completely debunk it all. That said, the theory and its details have evolved (hehe) quite a bit throughout the years, but the general premise has remained largely the same.

    From the perspective of human history, it's still a relatively new idea, so I am sure there's plenty of discoveries to be made in this area. I also think the current work on neural networks is showing us that it's possible to design/create a system that "evolves" which some Christians call "evolutionary creation."

    Evolutionary theory is also a great illustration of how science works - prior to this, there were a number of competing theories and many different ideas, each with their own set of evidence and proponents. As things like paleontology and botany evolved, along with the ability to travel to many different parts of the world to study other species, more and more evidence pointed the scientific community towards the evolutionary side of the answer, rather than the idea that each species had their own, immutable, characteristics.

    The fact that through evidence, and debate, thought and theories eventually converged despite there originally being many different schools of thoughts shows us that science, at least in this example, was not dogmatic at all.

    (I should clarify too that when I talk about religious dogma, I am talking about average adherents to the religion. People who study religions in academic settings tend to be much different and are open to a lot more debate about the beliefs, even when they, as is often the case, are adherents themselves.)

    My degree is in Economics/Religion, of course I know what about the Dead Sea Scrolls :)

    On the other hand, I doubt you know much about the sources/theories that discredit the idea that the Bible is a divinely inspired document, or documents that contradict the events in the Bible, or documents/stories/religions that predate the Bible's version of the same stories/events. But let me know if I am wrong, and we can happily discuss things such as Source M and Source Q, and how the linguistic differences in Ecclesiates show that the later sections were written by a different author.

    On the contrary, Joseph Smith was prosecuted and killed by a mob of anti-Mormon Christians and his followers chased to the west where they settled many parts of the Western US. He was not considered Christian by most.

    A Methodist preacher wrote: "War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! To ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!"

    Basically, he referred to the early LDS members as "infernal devils" and called upon each other rise up and eradicate them, taking their property by force with "powder and ball." And this POV wasn't isolated to this one man, as the prosecuting and violent mobs would show.

    Even recently, Romney's Mormonism was a concern for many when he ran in 2012, and a Pew Research poll in 2007 showed that 31% of people do not consider Mormons "Christians."
    http://www.pewresearch.org/2007/12/04/public-opinion-about-mormons/

    While yougov's poll during the 2012 election showed 50% said Mormons aren't Christians:
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/pol...2012/07/26/are-mormons-christians-half-say-no

    Meanwhile, Protestant Pastors to a large extent do not consider them Christians:
    https://www.charismanews.com/us/32136-poll-pastors-say-mormons-not-christians

    Of course, a pastor's understanding of what constitutes Christianity is different than lay person's, and there are good arguments for why Mormons aren't Christians from a theologian's perspective, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

    Is that why there are so many sects of Christianity, many of which still exist today?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

    Do you think they will eventually converge like scientific theory tends to do? Or do you think that Protestants and Catholics, etc. will continue to be dogmatically divided as they have been for so long?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  11. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    is this a "I do not understand evolution" or "I do not understand the word theory in a scientific context" problem?

    do you want it explained to you?

    do you grasp the differences between the big bang, abiogenesis, star/planet formation, nucleosynthesis and evolution?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  12. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    So I have a toddler (and a 3 month old) as you all know, and we get presents sometimes. Now, they are usually the standard stuff, but there is a subgroup that gives our impressionable children a particular kind of stuff: the very religious.

    Instead of Dr Seuss or books about animals or hugs, this group gives us bibles and books about how Jesus loves you.

    Instead of stuffed animals that make animal sounds, this group gives us a bear that when you press it, says a prayer to God.

    Instead of baby clothes that says "I am awesome," this group gives us ones that says "God loves me."

    Instead of birthday party invites, this groups gives us pamphlets that invites us to their church meetings.

    But yes, keeping telling me that it's ATHEISTS that are about indoctrination.

    (Again, I am not anti-religion - my wife is Roman Catholic, and I used to be one myself, but instead of indoctrinating her on a SINGLE religion and worldview, I plan on bringing my daughters to various services that allow visitors and exposing her to the world's many religions and perspectives. If she decides she wants to be Roman Catholic or whatever, I will support her in doing so, but before she does that I will make sure that a specific version of the Christian God isn't the only one she knows anything about.)
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
    Geressen likes this.
  13. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    That's exactly how some of my in-laws are. My 3 year old has a dozen childrens bibles in his room because my wife thinks it would be rude to get rid of most of them since they were gifts. I'm happy to keep one to give him exposure to Christianity, but this is excessive.
     
  14. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    then maybe she should tell her family you are all set for kid bibles. aparently they think you are burning them for heat.
     
  15. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I have't followed this thread and I already know who I suspect said this, but really? did someone actually say this to you?

    thinking about it I guess it makes sense that someone indoctrinated into the church would see anyone talking against that point of view as indoctrination.
     
  16. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    I mean people on this forum disrespected Stephen Hawking in the thread about his death by posting "he knows the truth now" and pretended to not understand how that was a wrong thing to do.
     
  17. Alakhami

    Alakhami I need me some PIE!

    You're erroneously extrapolating the monotheistic religions on all religions. Paganism and the Oriental religions in general are much less dogmatic and more agreeable when it comes to different religions and perspectives on God and what not.
     
  18. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    LOL

    Natuurlijk komt die Rus mieren neuken over taalgebruik en brengt hij paganisme zonder historisch perspectief en een foutief beeld van de Oostere religies om zijn door drugswaanzin verkregen waanbeelden over spiritualiteit te verdedigen..
     
  19. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    You are correct. However, we are mostly talking about American Christianity here in this discussion since we are discussing homeschooling in the US.

    For what it's worth, if I were to be religious, I'd probably go with Shinto.

    An interesting thing about Chinese people though, is that many would consider themselves "Buddhist" but very few actually know the "tenets" like you would study in religion classes. It's more of a cultural/ceremonial thing than a religious thing from that perspective.
     
  20. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    Hinduism is a particularly interesting example. Often called the "Umbrella Religion," Hinduism has historically just subsumed all local myths/beliefs as its own, leading to dozens of contradicting stories/myths... and it's fine.

    One consequence of this that's funny is when European missionaries arrived in India to proselytize, they were initially extremely pleased at how readily Christ was accepted.

    This turned to dismay when they discovered that many simply put their image of Jesus that had been given to them up on their altars adjacent to any number of other Hindu Gods. Rather than converting, the Hindus had simply subsumed Jesus into their faith.

    As the Supreme Court of India puts it:

    Unlike other religions in the World, the Hindu religion does not claim any one Prophet, it does not worship any one God, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does not follow any one act of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not satisfy the traditional features of a religion or creed.
     
    Dagda likes this.

Share This Page