Message 37 of 230 (77612) 06-22-2005 12:39 AM

Reply to: Message 32 by TimChase 06-21-2005 9:11 PM

I'm not interested in conversion attempts I am very interested in learning about your views. I think it's a good thing to have various viewpoints expressed here and discussed or debated. I think Spinoza or quasi Spinoza views and Eintstein's views are views we need to hear more about. So please don't be reticent. Share!

lfen

Message 65 of 230 (77640) 06-23-2005 12:38 PM

Reply to: Message 53 by Brian 06-23-2005 8:14 AM

Brian,

In the US physical, sexual, and emotional abuses as well as neglect of children are a well documented problem and in a very few cases this has a religious cast although in those cases I believe it's generally due to mental illnesses of the parents that take a form of religious mania such as trying to literally beat a "devil" out of child.

Your notion of "psychological abuse" is one that seems to violate the separation of church and state and also naively assumes life should be fair. I have worked in a number of different schools that represented different demographics. One of the biggests factors for children are if there families are intact and functional. Socio economic and educational factors also have an impact. I've found far more behaviour , emotional, and learning problems when dealing with children from more chaotic families than with children from intact loving supportive families, and I'm not talking about anything that would qualify as abuse just differing levels of skillful child rearing and attention.

When we mature most of us generally make changes to what we believed as children. To try and restrict freedom of religious expression in the US is something that would be found unacceptable to myself and most Americans. Nor given the truly life threatening problems of child abuse it makes no sense to lump "intellectual abuse" into child abuse.

I know someone who was raised in a fundamentalist Christian tradition and taught there were demons out to trick him and evils were seen everywhere. He know longer believes that. His choice was to convert to Judaism. That wouldn't be my choice but as an adult he opted out of the religion he was raised in. We all might wish our childhoods were different in one way or another but we can't enforce our beliefs on others. I too would wish a good education for all children and the US doesn't do a good job of this. Some school have more money, better behaved groups of children, better teachers, etc than other schools. Some children are fortunate because of their parents and other unfortunate. We don't seem to have the resources to adequately deal with the really bad abuse.

On the other hand there are community colleges and other access to education if someone wants to learn science or history etc. I don't think home schooling is generally a good idea but it can be very good in some circumstances, average in others, and sometimes, yes an educational disaster, but US schools are sometimes educational disasters.

lfen

Message 73 of 230 (77648) 06-23-2005 2:19 PM

Reply to: Message 71 by jar 06-23-2005 1:55 PM

We teach them about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and then later reveal that it was a compassionate lie. Many of the parents teaching factual errors believe it. Remember when the government agencies were pushing margarine over butter? And now it turns out the transfats in mararine are far worse than the natural saturated fats in butter.

What is factual does change. I strongly oppose teaching ID in public schools. Oregon allows home schooling. I've known children to be successfully home schooled for a number of reasons none related to religion, but I don't want the government to interfere to that extent. Is it right for a child to have a Daddy who leaves his family, tells his child he is going to visit on a vacation and then cancels at the last minute? No way. I don't approve of much of the religious teaching going on, but no way am I going to advocate interfering with it unless as in the case of Christian Science it is putting a child at grave risk of dying or suffering horribly. There are far worse things to overcome than being taught the earth is 6000 years old. People even on this list have testified they believed that and changed their beliefs just as people have testified they believed science but converted to YEC. It's simply not an issue I want the government enforcing. There are lots of rights and wrongs that the government either can't enforce or shouldn't enforce.

lfen

Message 104 of 230 (77679) 06-23-2005 10:07 PM

Reply to: Message 76 by GDR 06-23-2005 2:46 PM

I'm not going to try to define ID beyond saying if it's called Intelligent Design but it's not what biologist are doing then leave it out. Just teach the biology that biologists are doing at University levels. Teach current science. As the science changes the ciriculum changes. ID is a political attempt to slip religious concerns into a science class. That topic should be in a philosophy of science class or something but not in a biology class.

lfen

Message 108 of 230 (77683) 06-23-2005 10:22 PM

Reply to: Message 77 by Brian 06-23-2005 3:16 PM

My main concern is that children learn to read, write, and understand mathematics well enough to deal with modern life. As to exclusive education I think that is very rare. There are the Amish communities that might have that kind of control because they won't have television or radio. But I'm at this point unconcerned. As far as I know they do a good job of raising children.

In modern society there are all the media channels, television, radio, magazines, books, other people. Choices are available and people will make them. If someone is teaching a child 2+2+5 they are failing at teaching them basic math. If they are teaching them the earth is 6000 years old they are failing at teaching them science. But I will hold they are not failing to teach them basic science. Lots of people have only a vague understanding of geology and dating for example and don't need any more. They should understand germ theory and why hand washing and nutrition is important etc. but no I don't think it's abuse to teach a child the false idea that the earth is 6000 years old.

We have more important concerns that I believe take precedence and the error is correctable. I agree it is not ideal but failing the ideal, failing even a high standard is not abuse and doesn't warrant enforcement. I don't agree with fundamentalism but I'm not willing to forcefully or legally limit their practise of their beliefs unless the life or health of the child is in jeopardy such as parents denying life saving surgical or medical interventions because they believe prayer should be sufficient. People have a right to believe the earth is 6000 years old even if it isn't.

lfen

Message 110 of 230 (77685) 06-23-2005 10:36 PM

Reply to: Message 86 by jar 06-23-2005 6:50 PM

It's done all the time out of ignorance because we humans are fallible and of limited knowledge. A YEC is not deliberately teaching falsehoods. They believe they are right.

I've recently been trying to improve my nutrition as my blood numbers could be better, i.e. lower cholestral etc. Well, I've discovered that nutrition is almost but not quite as controversial as politics and religons. Very knowledgeable Ph.Ds and M.D.s disagree over the role of cholestral in heart disease, over whether people should or should not eat animal food, over vitamins, on and on. I don't believe any of these authorities are deliberatingly providing false information. Not all of them can be right, at least not for everyone all of the time, and some of the things they say must be wrong. But which things?

I see a value in diversity in the gene pool and the opinion pool.

It is not a matter of conscious. All of these people I think have good conscious. They disagree. It happens all the time. Now I think drug companies, the American Dairy Association, and other organizations such as these do act and promulagate falsehood in bad conscious out of the profit motive. But I don't think YEC parents are acting in bad conscious. And I don't really get who you are asking this question of?

lfen

Message 111 of 230 (77686) 06-23-2005 10:43 PM

Reply to: Message 95 by jar 06-23-2005 7:53 PM

Jar,

I'm concerned also but I don't think they can succeed. I've just not seen people being able to turn back the clock. The church couldn't keep science in check when it was beginning. Now so much is dependent on research and technology all of which require clear highly educated thinking. The attempts to force through their agendas are misguided and in some cases dangerous, I'm thinking of Bush not taking global warming seriously, but I don't see how these people would be able to return us to the middle ages.

lfen

Message 114 of 230 (77689) 06-23-2005 11:13 PM

Reply to: Message 112 by jar 06-23-2005 10:49 PM

I agree that 6000 years is wrong. But freedom of religious belief is an important value that I think is very important to accept and I'm thinking it's much more important that people have that freedom than that sometimes children are taught false things. It's inevitably that children get taught false things. I don't think it's a crime, or abuse, and I willing to allow the process of living to correct or not the false information, beliefs, whatever. It seems far preferable to compelling non essential education and I don't think it would work frankly. I think the child will either agree with the parent or choose as many do to rebel or disagree whether or not the state intervenes. But I don't want the state to do this. I see that courses as involving more bad than good.

lfen

Message 121 of 230 (77696) 06-24-2005 1:24 AM

Reply to: Message 107 by Faith 06-23-2005 10:21 PM

Bottom line is I see no necessity at this point to teach it in biology classes. We need to be teaching about cells, molecular biology, ecology, the way organisms are related.

lfen

Message 122 of 230 (77697) 06-24-2005 1:29 AM

Reply to: Message 117 by bobbins 06-23-2005 11:49 PM

I appreciate you delurking. A very well stated first post. I look forward to reading more.

lfen

Message 124 of 230 (77699) 06-24-2005 1:44 AM

Reply to: Message 117 by bobbins 06-23-2005 11:49 PM

I would like to know more about UK and other European govenments and societies such as Sweden, Norway, Netherlands. I am disappointed that the US still does not have adequate national health care for example. I'm not sure if European countries face as great a span of cultures as the US does. They may be somewhat to a lot more homogeneous and that may make social policy a bit easier. I am just too ignorant about Europe.

My specific disagreement with Brian was his characterization of the teaching of YEC fundamentalism as child abuse. I just don't accept that. I think it's unfortunate but I don't think it is abuse in any proper sense of the word particularly when we have to deal with real physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect. Nor do I believe that government should step in to force the education of children. I think that can be corrected when they are mature and capable and free to make their own choices.

Though changing religion can be traumatic I don't think religious training qualifies as brain washing. It can be a strong conditioning but I've known several people who left the Catholic church and it is regarded as having one of the strongest methods of indoctrination of any religious group. It was difficult for them, but there are lots of things difficult for people. Life is like that.

lfen

Message 154 of 230 (77729) 06-24-2005 9:51 AM

Reply to: Message 126 by TimChase 06-24-2005 2:05 AM

Which world are you referring to here? The entire biosphere of earth? The entire earth, core, mantle, crust and biosphere? Or just our human species and societies? Or just civilization?

And then what is the wrong and right it has or could have gone?

lfen

Message 163 of 230 (77738) 06-24-2005 9:51 PM

Reply to: Message 160 by GDR 06-24-2005 11:30 AM

lfen

Message 172 of 230 (77747) 06-25-2005 4:11 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by GDR 06-24-2005 10:03 PM

Interesting you think it fits. I don't think it fits at all. To me the important thing about Buddha was that he wasn't a prophet. He wasn't representing any God and refused to comment on whether there was or was not a deity. His teachings were not based on a mystical revelation but on insight into his nature that culminated in a revolution of consciousness which he said was available to anyone to affirm. Very different from Abrahamic religons where you either believe the story or don't but have no way to experience the truth for yourself. Well, until you die.

I don't see how Christ would complete Buddha's teachings as he seems to be saying that egos will be given eternal life and that many egos will suffer. Mahayana Buddhism at least denies those things. There were Buddhist missionaries in the Near East about the time of Christ so there could have been an influence but there doesn't seem to be any documentation to speak of just a few references.

lfen