Rather than hijack this thread to present something the meshes closely with it, I started another one. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=387899 The new one tells of twisting the textbooks of homeschooled youngsters and teaching indoctrinated young people how to take over the nation.
Indeed.
I wonder just how, for one example, a Southern Baptist would react if told that prayer would be restored to schools, but it would be taught and led by Catholic priests?
Would a Pentecostal parent embrace prayers drawn from the sacred writings of the Sikhs?
And so on.
Ahhhhh now you’ve qualified you statement. I won’t say I disagree.
I think many people believe what they are told and never really check it out fully. I don’t consider that lying.
Even with the leaders I wonder what part of the brain tells them they must be right. Is it a conscious lie or a subconscious one? I don’t know. It truly intrigues me and boggles my mind a bit how people I know who are actually very smart people can embrace beliefs, claim to worship the truth, and yet deny the plain and ample evidence before them on certain issues such as the Bible being the infallible word of God or creationism.
In my own case I realize when I believed certain things that I know longer believe it was in large part because I had no intellectual desire or emotional need to question them. My needs were being met by the group I belonged to and to question too much threatened those needs. I did wonder about some things but I pushed them aside thinking it all would become clear later. The sense of belonging to something good and greater than oneself is a powerful lure. The feeling of being part of important positive work is also present. So much so it seems to blind people in certain areas.
I hate those fuckin bigots and I think they should all be shot. 
Except for dopers who actually come here with the subconscious motive to have their ignorance lifted. :dubious:
I wonder that myself sometimes. As I said, what part of the brain does that? How do people look at GWB and still think of him as a Christian leader? The delusion of righteousness must be a lot easier than actually working at it.
UM…WOW ! really That is so accurate it’s scary.
But how is it that otherwise decent intelligent people who claim to worship a god and a son of god of love and truth, can avoid actually seeking it, and in fact, live in denial of it?
They called themselves “non-denominational” but it was actually Baptist in nature. Kids from many different denominations attended.
I think the assumption that religious fanatics can accommodate such a perspective is perhaps over-optimistic. The free marketplace of ideas has nothing to offer someone who is already convinced their beliefs are inerrant.
Oh, certainly there are other religions with different ideas-- but the important thing to remember is that* these religions are false!* If you worship the all-powerful One True God, why would you want to thwart His will by preserving secular government? It can’t offer you any protection, because the One True God is already on your side; He already protects you from all harm, except when He doesn’t, and if that happens it’s because you didn’t believe in Him hard enough. By definition, secular government can only offer comfort and protection to false creeds. God wants everyone to obey Him, and church/state separation prevents His rule from being fully enforced! The notion that servants of the Truth should offer any sanctuary to liars and idolators is an affront to God. And so on.
I was trying to be even to both sides, but I’d probably have to go back in time too far to do so. However, I don’t think that you can deny that there are groups that want to bring institutionalized prayer back into schools.
It is not illegal for an interracial couple to marry nor am I aware of any group trying to lobby such an issue. Gay marriage on the other hand is a very hotly debated topic.
Is this test fill in the blank or essay? 
I try to respond to the general content of the post and not specific questions, because frankly many seem to be rhetorical (including this one).
So it would be ok if there was another book entitled, “Heather Was Adopted And Not Aborted”? These kinds of families do exist and that’s a fact. How about, “Heather’s Daddy Brings Freedom To Iraq”? The war in Iraq is a fact.
Propaganda can deal with fact or fiction or opinion. What makes something propaganda is the intention to persuade people toward a particular viewpoint. “Heather Has Two Mommies” is not only propaganda, but it’s political propaganda. Political propaganda should not be taught by the government to young children in a public school.
My question to you and to everyone else is this: What criteria do you use when determining what elementary school children should and should not learn in public school? When do you know you’ve crossed the line? When can you be so sure that you are correct that its ok to make the government teach little children your view regardless of what anyone else thinks?
Ok we can agree that the kids are not being taught politics. We can agree that they are teaching kids to “Take back America”. The problem is that I don’t have any idea what that means. We could assume that there is a political agenda, but I don’t see any way to indoctrinate kids politically without teaching them politics of some sort. A picture of Bush simply teaches them to like Bush. He won’t be there when they reach voting age. To say that the camp is teaching them to vote Republican is saying that the kids are being taught politics, which we’ve already agreed they aren’t.
You’re telling me what my own point was. If that’s not putting words into my mouth than what is?
I was willing to let this drop, but when you brought it up again I foolishly took the bait. I’m willing to let it drop again if everyone else is.
I just want to add that your presentation of science comes across more like propoganda. When I read bold type in a science context I’d like to assume it’s a definition. Dogmatic presentations of science make me want to tune out, because I’d prefer to hear data and reasoning. If I hadn’t already known a fair amount about evolution before this thread then you’d be turning me away from it rather than toward it.
Thanks for the info. 
Most of the non-denominational churches I’ve encountered favor Baptist Theology and practices, so this would be fairly representative of Baptists. Most of the attempts I’ve seen to break down the barrier between church and state seems to be coming from that direction.
Pentacostals on the other hand, while I wouldn’t be surprised if they vote conservative, they don’t seemed nearly as concerned with political issues. Pentacostals focus much of their attention on what they consider to be manifestations of the Holy Spirit: speaking in tongues, convulsing on the floor, excessive crying, excessive laughing, miraculous healing, spiritual warfare, etc… I’m sure it seems weird to a lot of people, but in my opinion not as dangerous as seemingly normal people that want the government to represent their religion.
I assert that a group that seems weird to the majority will not be able to take over the government, because people are going to be naturally suspicious of them anyway. Weird groups are more likely to be the targets of intolerance rather than the perpetraitors.
There is no such thing as a dogmatic presentation of science. There are only accurate and inaccurate presentations of science. Creationism and ID are in accurate presentations. Evolutionary theory contains no dogma. You seem to think the statement that “evolution is a fact” is a statement of belief or opinion or “dogma.” It is not. It is a FACT that evolution is a fact. There’s nothing political, ideological or dogmatic about teaching scientific fact as scientific fact.
In order: The basic criteria that I use in determining elementary curriculum (which never includes evolution, as has been established. Right?) is whether it appears to teach that which is true. Since I also have a whole crapload of educators with learned and wise opinions, I take those into consideration.
When do I know I’ve crossed the line? Well, to date I haven’t. But I imagine that if such a thing were to happen, then the six other school board members would point out to me the error of my ways. And being the giving sort like I am, I would cheerfully point out when any of them do the same. We school board members, we are chockablock fulla the milk of human kindness. And Slim Jims. And black stuff.
Inre your final question, well, once more it’s yet to happen. Rest assured, though, that if I were to encounter someone who wanted to teach specious crap such as creationism/ID in a science classroom, then there is no need whatsoever to consider their point of view for even a moment. They are wrong. When can I be sure that it’s ok to make the government (and your continued use of this term tells me that you know precious little about how public schools work) teach my point of view? When it’s right. And inre creationism being taught in a science classroom, I’m right. Simple as that. Y’wanna teach it in comparative religion class? Have at! Hell, I’ll sit in on a comparative religion class. Beats hell outta algebra any day of the week.
Paraphrasing and reiterating what you just said. In addition to your ignorance of what a public school is and how it works, you probably ought to work on basic english comprehension. It will carry you far.
Well, then, if you hadn’t already known a fair amount about evolution beforehand, and you would be turning into the loving arms of mythology and nonsense due to someone telling you the truth, then you would pretty much deserve whatever you got. I suppose it’s fortunate for all concerned that you’re too smart to do anything that ridiculous.
I’m afraid I don’t see how that is relevant to the conversation at hand.
That is true. My point was that not too many generations ago there was a hot debate about interracial couples and many people did at that time, strenuously
object to interracial weddings. Networks were reluctant to show interracial couples on TV because they were afraid to offend viewers and lose sponsors. At that time a book in grade school showing an interracial couple would have gotten the same reaction that Heather has two Mommies is getting now. The irrational fear and prejudice that spawns the debate isn’t justified by that fact that it is hotly debated. Taking a stand against such prejudice is not a matter of a political agenda. If there are any and I mean any, supported facts to indicate Heather having two mommies or two daddies is somehow damaging to potential Heathers then let’s present it. That might be a legitimate reason to withhold the book. Otherwise it’s caving to irrational fears. A real debate requires some evidence.
That’s a handy tool for avoiding direct questions isn’t it?
The question should be “What are we trying to teach children?” “Does a certain book offer any legitimate valuable lesson?” A book about adoption might indeed be helpful to help adopted kids feel better and be more accepted. In a community like Fort Campbell, not too far from you or I, a book about Daddy being away from home might be helpful as well.
Then please be more specific. What viewpoint does that book try to persuade people of? In what way is it political propaganda rather than simply teaching children about diverse families. How is it different from interracial relationships? Is it only because one is now accepted even though it was hotly debated a generation or so ago? Is it simply the fact that it is a hot issue that makes it political rather than a matter of human rights?
It’s in thinking of the emotional and intellectual welfare of the children themselves.
Should I cave in to prejudice because it’s the popular viewpoint? If we do that how do we ever challenge or defeat prejudice? The argument against the books seems to be that they teach same gender couples are acceptable rather than perverse and nasty. These books are not about sex. They show that same gender couples exist and can be loving and supportive of their children. Please tell me how showing that is a political issue? You seem to be saying that because people object then that automatically makes it a political issue and wrong. How do you suppose prejudice is overcome? By quietly waiting for people to change their minds?
Then you need to think about it.
They are being taught through indoctrination to believe what the group believes and that the group has some inside track on truth and getting in good with God. Bringing out an image of Bush may not be politics directly but it is certainly laced with political suggestion. IMHO it is at least a prelude to politics and the same kind of narrow mindset that says that says “All good Christians vote republican”
Any evidence for this other than your opinion? Weird groups can certainly be the target of intolerance but I think their an equal chance they can also be intolerant.
KKK ring a bell? Al Qaeda? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? or even liberal groups such as Move On. Are these groups equally guilty of being intolerant as being the target of intolerance?
I’m not in the business of presenting science. You seem to be making the error of assuming that I’m suggesting teachers should just say, “Evolution’s a fact. Lesson over.” Of course not; there’s plenty of to be said on the subject as science and I’d certainly hope a teacher could come up with more than five words on it. I’m not going to present the evidence here in this thread because that is not what this thread is about. We’re not conducting science class here.
What I am saying is that science class should present, you know, SCIENCE. And evolution is true. It’s science. What else should science classes involve if not science?
And you’ve still not explained your claim that not praying in school is tantamount to teaching against prayer. Are you backing away from that position?
What’s been lost in all this…
As long as churches & parents aren’t teaching their kids things like to beat up gays in the streets & send Wiccans to concentration camps & blow up abortion clinics, THEY HAVE A RIGHT & A DUTY TO TEACH THEIR KIDS ANY RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL & MORAL BELIEFS THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE AND TO ESTABLISH SUMMER CAMPS TO REINFORCE THOSE BELIEFS!
It may not be appropriate to teach kids to “take back” America for Christ, only because it’s quite arguable how C’tian that America ever was, even at its most C’tian. It is appropriate to teach kids how to live their faith in Christ & how to
apply that faith personally, in the private sector AND in the public sector. I hope to see the day that a generation grows up who can apply Biblical principles (OT & NT) to society fairly & compassionately.
Thank you.
No one is objecting to this camp in that way. Of course they have a right to gather and teach their beliefs. I went to camp myself a time or two. It was a pretty positive experience. I would expect evangelical Christians to witness as well because of their beliefs. To them, sharing their “truth” is the morally correct thing to do. Nobody is disputing their legal right to do so.
The objection is that these Christians and perhaps some others feel it is their duty to force their religious beliefs on others through legislation. It has been an ongoing battle since this country was founded. Our Constitution says that’s a No No.
I know the film itself doesn’t come right out and say that but the indications are there. That’s why we’re discussing it and some are alarmed.
BTW the Biblical principles you speak of were around long before Jesus or the Bible. If you mean love, the brotherhood of mankind, compassion, honesty, mercy, courage, to name a few, then I too hope to see our future generations live accordingly. I prefer to see them as higher principles,* period.* Something for humans to strive for. They are Not Christian principles, Biblical principles, American values or any of that inaccurate rhetoric. It’s past time we realized that those aspirations need to be something humanity strives for together without getting lost in arguing about the superficial labels we put on them.
FWIW I think much of Christianity truly tries to teach these principles. So do other religions and philosophies. Let’s not confuse the name on the path with the destination.
I don’t agree to disagree. I agree only to be polite in pointing out what a ridiculous claim that is. Leading kids in prayer is not the government’s job: it’s not part of the government’s authority. Schools do teach kids about prayer: in social studies and literature classes. But not leading kids in prayer is NEUTRAL towards prayer, neither endorsing prayer nor denigrating it. You have to have a very high degree of Christian tunnel vision if you think that not praying at every second of available time is somehow anti-prayer or anti-Christian, let alone that leading Jewish kids in Christian prayer, or Hindu kids in Judeo-Christian prayers, and so on, is anywhere close to appropriate, let alone apolitical.
First of all HhtM is a pretty far stretch if you want to claim that public schools are as full of ideological indoctrination as Jesus Camp. The book was only rarely ever proposed as part of a curicullumn. Many places outright banned the entire book from the school library: which I assume you wouldn’t defend as ideological neutral, right?
But what is the message of HhTM? It tells the story of a girl that has two mommies: a story that basically just portrays them as functioning as a happy family: something that reflects an actual reality. People who claim that portraying this reality are forcing an ideology are people, essentially, who want to distort reality and pretend that gay people do not exist, cannot be happy, and do not have families with children. Who’s trying to mangle facts with ideology here?
If what I disagreed with were facts about the real world, or books that portrayed lives similar to those of real people, then I hope I would have the sense to call myself a fool.
Evolution is taught in science class. It’s not controversial in science.
Just in case there is still doubt about the Kids On Fire being politically indoctrinated, here is a quote from the website. It’s under the heading of “A History of Miracles” and at the end of a longer story about how the kids at camp once raised a baby from the dead (no joke).
Thanks. I missed that. So the kids are being led specifically to pray fpr certain issues and changes in the law based not on fact but on an interpretation of the Bible.
Nice.
Right. But as we’ve already been told:
Y’know, just in case you were confused.
In fact, interracial marriage was illegal in some states until about 40 years ago, when the US Supreme Court overruled those laws. There are still plenty of bigots around who condemn interracial marriage, and mixed-race children. As for Heather Has 2 Mommies, I have the impression that the Mommies are not married. I haven’t read the book. Families with unmarried parents (gay or straight) are not illegal in any US state. There is no shortage of bigots who condemn gay-parent families, either.