Author Topic: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.  (Read 61013 times)

me1

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #400 on: January 06, 2018, 06:26:16 PM »
No, actual religious people (of any religion) are a minority in America today. 
People who participate in Christianity in a minor way (i.e., celebrate Christmas and Easter but don't think much about God in between) and are not offended in any way by a public prayer, etc. are the real majority.

This is a very easy statistic to look up and you are wrong.  I don't think you get to decide whose level or type of religiosity measures up to your standards.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #401 on: January 06, 2018, 06:30:56 PM »
No, actual religious people (of any religion) are a minority in America today. 

This is a very easy statistic to look up and you are wrong.  I don't think you get to decide whose level or type of religiosity measures up to your standards.

It's the reason why evangelicals exist.  Christianity is such a clear majority religion in every aspect of American life that they've lost their ability to maintain group identity by commiserating in their shared feelings persecution.  It's a little TOO shared.  Solution:  claim you're not a real Christian unless you rededicate yourself to this new minority of the majority, reforming your in-group and excluding most of the people who were previously party of your majority.  Like magic, you get to feel like a persecuted minority again! 

And you didn't even have to change anything, you only had to be judgy about people who already share your beliefs in addition to all of the people who don't!  It's so easy!
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8352
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #402 on: January 06, 2018, 06:35:34 PM »
Could not resist - Countries can do quite nicely without any reference to religion on their currency.  Canada, for example.  Others?

If you all want to talk about religions, can you start another thread?  And label it U.S.A.-centric? Since from here up north, this discussion looks not only "Christian" but mostly "Protestant".  I grew up in a mostly Roman Catholic society that is now massively secular, and you are very different.  As in, reading this is weird.

It would be nice to get back to the home-schooling discussion, it was somewhat interesting.


The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #403 on: January 06, 2018, 06:53:46 PM »
No, actual religious people (of any religion) are a minority in America today. 
People who participate in Christianity in a minor way (i.e., celebrate Christmas and Easter but don't think much about God in between) and are not offended in any way by a public prayer, etc. are the real majority.

This is a very easy statistic to look up and you are wrong.  I don't think you get to decide whose level or type of religiosity measures up to your standards.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

In all seriousness (because I am not a Christian), doesn't Christianity teach that only God/Christ can judge what is in peoples' hearts? If that's true, how could Mrs Pete possibly know who is truly religious?

 Or did I misunderstand that teaching?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10869
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #404 on: January 06, 2018, 06:58:42 PM »
Yeah, that is the purpose of "The Life of Brian". It's very funny, but absolutely intended to insult religious people.

I'm not saying that people can't do that. It's allowed in Western countries and Christians in particular typically won't retaliate against it in any severe kind of way due to their peaceful religious beliefs. I know the population of United States isn't as overwhelmingly Christian as nations like Kenya and Namibia, but they do make up a solid majority.

I guess I'm just saying insulting the majority of people in the country where someone lives probably isn't going to help someone reach their goals. It's unwise.
I am not a fan of this attitude, that the minority has to submit to the will of the majority and shut up. Religious people are the majority in the US (a very powerful majority at that!), and the rest of us have to fall in line. If we point out how this is not fair, we are reprimanded. And the majority is presented as poor victims of jeering or whatever. It's really turning reality on its head. We live in YOUR world, and have to conform. And that's fine, there is more of you. But, can you at the very least grow a thicker skin?
It's the same way ethnic or gender or sexual orientation minorities are shot down all the time.
If you are going to be a majority in any way, a little compassion to the gripes of the minority goes along way towards being compassionate.  And my understanding of your religion is that it's supposed to be about compassion.

Like I said, since we live in a majority Christian country, it's highly unlikely that there is going to be severe retaliation against those kinds of insults, which is different than many other parts of the world. Luckily, most of the country is "thick-skinned" as you say, which means they will just use words against people who insult. Where I'm from, it's different as I've written about a few times in my journal, but I've gotten used to the way Flatlanders deal with things, which is why I'm simply and calmly telling atheists that the way they are doing things is counter-productive and won't help them reach their goals.

As we can see from the last presidential election's results, there's a massive section of the country that does not possess my level of calm. If you think that insulting over 70% of the country is going to get you the results you want moving forward -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- then by all means do as you will. But reality is what it is and it's not going to end well.

What about ethnic minorities, or gay people? Should they also just take it and shut up and be glad they don't live in "many other parts of the world." Because it's counter productive, to point out injustices?
Or do you reserve that opinion only for religious minorities?

And for the record, I don't see how I was being insulting (or counterproductive) to anyone by pointing out that making fun of a minority,
because you have had a bad encounter with a few people seems unkind and not very logical. And also pointing out how being offended and playing victim while being in a majority is ridiculous.

Well, what is more effective: screaming and shouting about how horrible Christian fundamentalists are to gays or doing what Ellen DeGeneres does and demonstrating to the nation that gays are funny, friendly, and kind neighbors who are just like you?

Which was more effective during the Civil Rights era: Holding rallies to denounce "white devils" and talk about using "any means necessary" or holding rallies to talk about dreams of little black kids and little white kids being able to live and go to school together in peace and harmony?

There's effective and there's ineffective and I think it's important to recognize that what is cathartic is not always the same as what is productive.

It would do you some good to revisit the Civil Rights movement. The aims of the actions of CR leaders were dependent on violence, and they used and invited that. You paint a picture of one single non-violent tactic that worked over time. That’s simply not the case, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that the success of the CR movement wasn’t the culmination of many tactics by many different people with different viewpoints. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” MLK Jr.

You are free to have your opinion, of course, but the nonviolent wing of the civil rights movement is the wing that actually accomplished their goals, not the violent wing.

When white Americans turned on the news and saw fire hoses being used on children who were peacefully marching, it horrified them and spurred them into action on behalf of black Americans. That's historical fact. MLK recognized that he needed the support of white Americans to accomplish the movement's goals, simply because there are FAR more white Americans than black Americans. That's why he and other peaceful CR leaders appealed to shared humanity and used peaceful civil disobedience to achieve their goals. It unified people and led to change.

So just a small point here.

Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of the importance of violence to his cause.  While he chose not to preach in favour of physical assault . . . screaming, shouting, and being confrontational was the reason that MLK Jr. accomplished anything.  Without it, the journalists covering the movement wouldn't have had the violent and egregious over-reactions of people like Eugene Connor to catpure.  These were essential to bringing white people on board with civil rights.

This is exactly the kind of action you've argued against as being useless.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #405 on: January 06, 2018, 07:06:12 PM »
Yeah, that is the purpose of "The Life of Brian". It's very funny, but absolutely intended to insult religious people.

I'm not saying that people can't do that. It's allowed in Western countries and Christians in particular typically won't retaliate against it in any severe kind of way due to their peaceful religious beliefs. I know the population of United States isn't as overwhelmingly Christian as nations like Kenya and Namibia, but they do make up a solid majority.

I guess I'm just saying insulting the majority of people in the country where someone lives probably isn't going to help someone reach their goals. It's unwise.
I am not a fan of this attitude, that the minority has to submit to the will of the majority and shut up. Religious people are the majority in the US (a very powerful majority at that!), and the rest of us have to fall in line. If we point out how this is not fair, we are reprimanded. And the majority is presented as poor victims of jeering or whatever. It's really turning reality on its head. We live in YOUR world, and have to conform. And that's fine, there is more of you. But, can you at the very least grow a thicker skin?
It's the same way ethnic or gender or sexual orientation minorities are shot down all the time.
If you are going to be a majority in any way, a little compassion to the gripes of the minority goes along way towards being compassionate.  And my understanding of your religion is that it's supposed to be about compassion.

Like I said, since we live in a majority Christian country, it's highly unlikely that there is going to be severe retaliation against those kinds of insults, which is different than many other parts of the world. Luckily, most of the country is "thick-skinned" as you say, which means they will just use words against people who insult. Where I'm from, it's different as I've written about a few times in my journal, but I've gotten used to the way Flatlanders deal with things, which is why I'm simply and calmly telling atheists that the way they are doing things is counter-productive and won't help them reach their goals.

As we can see from the last presidential election's results, there's a massive section of the country that does not possess my level of calm. If you think that insulting over 70% of the country is going to get you the results you want moving forward -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- then by all means do as you will. But reality is what it is and it's not going to end well.

What about ethnic minorities, or gay people? Should they also just take it and shut up and be glad they don't live in "many other parts of the world." Because it's counter productive, to point out injustices?
Or do you reserve that opinion only for religious minorities?

And for the record, I don't see how I was being insulting (or counterproductive) to anyone by pointing out that making fun of a minority,
because you have had a bad encounter with a few people seems unkind and not very logical. And also pointing out how being offended and playing victim while being in a majority is ridiculous.

Well, what is more effective: screaming and shouting about how horrible Christian fundamentalists are to gays or doing what Ellen DeGeneres does and demonstrating to the nation that gays are funny, friendly, and kind neighbors who are just like you?

Which was more effective during the Civil Rights era: Holding rallies to denounce "white devils" and talk about using "any means necessary" or holding rallies to talk about dreams of little black kids and little white kids being able to live and go to school together in peace and harmony?

There's effective and there's ineffective and I think it's important to recognize that what is cathartic is not always the same as what is productive.

It would do you some good to revisit the Civil Rights movement. The aims of the actions of CR leaders were dependent on violence, and they used and invited that. You paint a picture of one single non-violent tactic that worked over time. That’s simply not the case, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that the success of the CR movement wasn’t the culmination of many tactics by many different people with different viewpoints. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” MLK Jr.

You are free to have your opinion, of course, but the nonviolent wing of the civil rights movement is the wing that actually accomplished their goals, not the violent wing.

When white Americans turned on the news and saw fire hoses being used on children who were peacefully marching, it horrified them and spurred them into action on behalf of black Americans. That's historical fact. MLK recognized that he needed the support of white Americans to accomplish the movement's goals, simply because there are FAR more white Americans than black Americans. That's why he and other peaceful CR leaders appealed to shared humanity and used peaceful civil disobedience to achieve their goals. It unified people and led to change.

So just a small point here.

Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of the importance of violence to his cause.  While he chose not to preach in favour of physical assault . . . screaming, shouting, and being confrontational was the reason that MLK Jr. accomplished anything.  Without it, the journalists covering the movement wouldn't have had the violent and egregious over-reactions of people like Eugene Connor to catpure.  These were essential to bringing white people on board with civil rights.

This is exactly the kind of action you've argued against as being useless.

I don't think you are right about that. Here's a link to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Principles of Nonviolence: https://cpt.org/files/PW%20-%20Principles%20-%20King.pdf

eaknet

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #406 on: January 06, 2018, 07:54:01 PM »
Sounds like some people want to get back to the homeschooling topic. I’ll start.

My wife and I homeschool our four kids for a variety of reasons. One is the school districts we’ve lived in have generally shown poor performance in standard metrics. Another is we can see them excel and get ahead in certain subjects, and help when they struggle in some areas.

Because of my job, we have lived in four states over the last five years. Homeschooling has provided a consistency that would not exist if they had been pulled in and out of public (or private, for that matter) schools.

We have experienced a wide range of experiences with regards to state and local district oversight. The state we started in had basically no requirements other than telling them we were homeschooling, the education level of the teachers (us), and the number of students in the school. At present we live in a state that is on the opposite end of the spectrum; we register with the local school district, and the principal of that district has oversight of our academics. Each year we submit lesson/development plans which adhere to the state requirements, and this plan has to be approved by the district. We submit quarterly reports and grades in the various subjects, so the school keeps tabs on their progress. Even though it is not required every year, we pay for our kids to take standardized tests. They consistently test at least a year or two ahead of their grade level in most subjects, and in some areas they are at the appropriate grade level. We have been doing this for around ten years, and have never once had a standardized test show a deficiency of a below grade level score. I’m pretty confident in the academics. Some homeschoolers are afraid of government oversight of their teaching - for us it doesn’t matter either way. We do the same thing with oversight that we did when there was less oversight. This just creates a little more paperwork for us.

Regarding socialization, sometimes I consider this a red herring and sometimes it is a genuine question coming from someone who sincerely wants to understand more about the process. Back when we made the decision to homeschool, I was initially against the idea, being the product of the public school system and at the top of honors in a top 3 engineering program at a public university. However I eventually warmed up to the idea and began to give it serious consideration. I have to say my initial misgivings have been totally deconstructed as I watch my wife move in social circles. Our kids have hundreds of friends and acquaintances in several parts of the nation, spanning from LA to DC to flyover country to NY. They participate in league sports, take music lessons, and are adept in social situations. They’re outgoing and energetic, and have a self confidence that I never had at their age.

To address the other side of the coin, there are some parents who “homeschool” their children, and have absolutely (in my opinion) done a terrible job of it. I know of kids who struggle to reach even their grade level of academics, are sheltered from society, and turn out the worse for it. There are definitely legitimate arguments both for and against homeschooling, and we strive to provide the best education and the most opportunities for our kids. I know awkward homeschoolers, and I know brilliant, well-adjusted homeschoolers who go on to Ivy League educations. There’s an entire spectrum, and though we strive to provide the best cultural and academic environment for our kids, I’m sure we have blind spots and deficiencies as well.

The final reason I’ll address is worldview. We teach our kids from the perspective we believe in, but we also educate and encourage them to explore other belief systems and test them against what we believe. We find debates between various religious and atheist “experts,” and watch them together. We make it very clear that they have to make their own choices in what they believe, and we support open debate on controversial subjects. From our standpoint, we don’t judge others, be it race, creed, sexual orientation, belief system, or whatever other issue may be the talk of the day. And we don’t let our kids pass judgement one way or the other either. In regards to social subjects, our families think we are so far left of center. Politically we’re conservative, but that’s also a topic up for debate with the kids as they grow older and begin to learn about politics, history, and other things.

To wrap up this rather long post, we do the best we can for our kids. We sacrifice the income my wife could produce so she can be a full-time teacher and more. We have a lot of school-related expenses, but we suck it up and pay them. We don’t want money from the government, we support our local public school district through our (high) school taxes. Overall I think we’re doing OK. I’m confident we made the right choice in the beginning, and know our kids are blossoming in their individual ways. It’s what we do, and I thought I’d provide a bit of an insider’s view for the sake of this thread.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion, there are a lot of good points and insights posited here. Some things help me think about our path and even about adjusting our course in some areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 11:47:00 PM by eaknet »
If you'd like a free stock (and I'd receive one as well), use this link to sign up for the Robinhood app.  Robinhood provides free trades, and is a pretty nifty interface. 
https://share.robinhood.com/erick779

jfolsen

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #407 on: January 06, 2018, 08:14:31 PM »
Quote
For example, prayer is a lie. It doesn't work.
Why would a non-believer expect prayer to work? 
Prayer isn't like a vending machine or a wishing well.  You don't insert prayer /sit back and wait for a blessing.

When I was a boy, I asked my mentor (a Catholic priest) what the point of praying was since I never got any of the things I wanted from it like material goods and money. He told me that I didn't understand what prayer was for. He said that God is not a genie who grants wishes and God isn't an insurance salesman either. He told me that when I prayed I should ask for the strength to endure difficulty, the knowledge to understand God's will, and the serenity to accept that my desires and my outcomes may not necessarily line up. Most of all, he said that I should pray for these things for others and ask God to help my family, friends, neighbors, and even enemies find peace.

This opinion seems to directly conflict with the Catholic process of becoming a saint, in which you have to have verified miracles:
Step four: Verified miracles
To reach the next stage, beatification, a miracle needs to be attributed to prayers made to the individual after their death.
The prayers being granted are seen as proof that the individual is already in heaven, and hence able to intercede with God on others' behalf.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 08:17:03 PM by jfolsen »

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #408 on: January 06, 2018, 08:17:11 PM »
eaknet, thank you for this perspective.

Based upon many friends who had terrible experiences as students moving around from one school to another due to parents' employment relocations, home schooling sounds like a very good choice if you have the skills to do it and know you will be moving frequently.

One of my family members has gone the homeschooling route. Their children have physical disabilities that the local rural school system is not equipped to handle. The children do not have mental disabilities, and they have been able to thrive through home schooling. They speak multiple languages, take dance lessons, and play sports. In their situation, home schooling was the only logical solution.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10869
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #409 on: January 06, 2018, 08:59:28 PM »
Yeah, that is the purpose of "The Life of Brian". It's very funny, but absolutely intended to insult religious people.

I'm not saying that people can't do that. It's allowed in Western countries and Christians in particular typically won't retaliate against it in any severe kind of way due to their peaceful religious beliefs. I know the population of United States isn't as overwhelmingly Christian as nations like Kenya and Namibia, but they do make up a solid majority.

I guess I'm just saying insulting the majority of people in the country where someone lives probably isn't going to help someone reach their goals. It's unwise.
I am not a fan of this attitude, that the minority has to submit to the will of the majority and shut up. Religious people are the majority in the US (a very powerful majority at that!), and the rest of us have to fall in line. If we point out how this is not fair, we are reprimanded. And the majority is presented as poor victims of jeering or whatever. It's really turning reality on its head. We live in YOUR world, and have to conform. And that's fine, there is more of you. But, can you at the very least grow a thicker skin?
It's the same way ethnic or gender or sexual orientation minorities are shot down all the time.
If you are going to be a majority in any way, a little compassion to the gripes of the minority goes along way towards being compassionate.  And my understanding of your religion is that it's supposed to be about compassion.

Like I said, since we live in a majority Christian country, it's highly unlikely that there is going to be severe retaliation against those kinds of insults, which is different than many other parts of the world. Luckily, most of the country is "thick-skinned" as you say, which means they will just use words against people who insult. Where I'm from, it's different as I've written about a few times in my journal, but I've gotten used to the way Flatlanders deal with things, which is why I'm simply and calmly telling atheists that the way they are doing things is counter-productive and won't help them reach their goals.

As we can see from the last presidential election's results, there's a massive section of the country that does not possess my level of calm. If you think that insulting over 70% of the country is going to get you the results you want moving forward -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- then by all means do as you will. But reality is what it is and it's not going to end well.

What about ethnic minorities, or gay people? Should they also just take it and shut up and be glad they don't live in "many other parts of the world." Because it's counter productive, to point out injustices?
Or do you reserve that opinion only for religious minorities?

And for the record, I don't see how I was being insulting (or counterproductive) to anyone by pointing out that making fun of a minority,
because you have had a bad encounter with a few people seems unkind and not very logical. And also pointing out how being offended and playing victim while being in a majority is ridiculous.

Well, what is more effective: screaming and shouting about how horrible Christian fundamentalists are to gays or doing what Ellen DeGeneres does and demonstrating to the nation that gays are funny, friendly, and kind neighbors who are just like you?

Which was more effective during the Civil Rights era: Holding rallies to denounce "white devils" and talk about using "any means necessary" or holding rallies to talk about dreams of little black kids and little white kids being able to live and go to school together in peace and harmony?

There's effective and there's ineffective and I think it's important to recognize that what is cathartic is not always the same as what is productive.

It would do you some good to revisit the Civil Rights movement. The aims of the actions of CR leaders were dependent on violence, and they used and invited that. You paint a picture of one single non-violent tactic that worked over time. That’s simply not the case, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that the success of the CR movement wasn’t the culmination of many tactics by many different people with different viewpoints. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” MLK Jr.

You are free to have your opinion, of course, but the nonviolent wing of the civil rights movement is the wing that actually accomplished their goals, not the violent wing.

When white Americans turned on the news and saw fire hoses being used on children who were peacefully marching, it horrified them and spurred them into action on behalf of black Americans. That's historical fact. MLK recognized that he needed the support of white Americans to accomplish the movement's goals, simply because there are FAR more white Americans than black Americans. That's why he and other peaceful CR leaders appealed to shared humanity and used peaceful civil disobedience to achieve their goals. It unified people and led to change.

So just a small point here.

Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of the importance of violence to his cause.  While he chose not to preach in favour of physical assault . . . screaming, shouting, and being confrontational was the reason that MLK Jr. accomplished anything.  Without it, the journalists covering the movement wouldn't have had the violent and egregious over-reactions of people like Eugene Connor to catpure.  These were essential to bringing white people on board with civil rights.

This is exactly the kind of action you've argued against as being useless.

I don't think you are right about that. Here's a link to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Principles of Nonviolence: https://cpt.org/files/PW%20-%20Principles%20-%20King.pdf

That's kinda what's cool about MLK.  He was able to meet the spirit of what was written while still escalating things towards a violent conflict that would help his cause:

- In his own words, "The purpose of ... direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation".
- MLK arranged for public shaming and property damage (https://books.google.ca/books?id=CHmHDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=birmingham+hat+destroyed+boycotts&source=bl&ots=2i9LPPM6l2&sig=67a0Z1LRABjwYVh3yabRO8ZEX9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiairDv-MTYAhVM3IMKHaZVDqMQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=birmingham%20hat%20destroyed%20boycotts&f=false) against black people who ignored his mandatory boycott.  Campaign participant Joe Dickson recalled, "We had to go under strict surveillance. We had to tell people, say look: if you go downtown and buy something, you're going to have to answer to us."
- MLK arranged for Wyatt Walker to head up Project C, the detailed plan for confrontation with local police and city officials.
- MLK recruited as many children as possible as part of Project C, knowing that they would be imprisoned (good for his cause) and assaulted for breaking the law.

I'm a great admirer of Martin Luther King Jr. and the hard decisions he made to push his agenda.  Pretending that he didn't understand the power of violence, the need for escalation, and the benefits from sacrificing a few followers to create a better media message though is to reduce him to an unrealistic saintly caricature.  Had he not realized this, the civil rights movement would have failed.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #410 on: January 06, 2018, 09:19:22 PM »
Yeah, that is the purpose of "The Life of Brian". It's very funny, but absolutely intended to insult religious people.

I'm not saying that people can't do that. It's allowed in Western countries and Christians in particular typically won't retaliate against it in any severe kind of way due to their peaceful religious beliefs. I know the population of United States isn't as overwhelmingly Christian as nations like Kenya and Namibia, but they do make up a solid majority.

I guess I'm just saying insulting the majority of people in the country where someone lives probably isn't going to help someone reach their goals. It's unwise.
I am not a fan of this attitude, that the minority has to submit to the will of the majority and shut up. Religious people are the majority in the US (a very powerful majority at that!), and the rest of us have to fall in line. If we point out how this is not fair, we are reprimanded. And the majority is presented as poor victims of jeering or whatever. It's really turning reality on its head. We live in YOUR world, and have to conform. And that's fine, there is more of you. But, can you at the very least grow a thicker skin?
It's the same way ethnic or gender or sexual orientation minorities are shot down all the time.
If you are going to be a majority in any way, a little compassion to the gripes of the minority goes along way towards being compassionate.  And my understanding of your religion is that it's supposed to be about compassion.

Like I said, since we live in a majority Christian country, it's highly unlikely that there is going to be severe retaliation against those kinds of insults, which is different than many other parts of the world. Luckily, most of the country is "thick-skinned" as you say, which means they will just use words against people who insult. Where I'm from, it's different as I've written about a few times in my journal, but I've gotten used to the way Flatlanders deal with things, which is why I'm simply and calmly telling atheists that the way they are doing things is counter-productive and won't help them reach their goals.

As we can see from the last presidential election's results, there's a massive section of the country that does not possess my level of calm. If you think that insulting over 70% of the country is going to get you the results you want moving forward -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- then by all means do as you will. But reality is what it is and it's not going to end well.

What about ethnic minorities, or gay people? Should they also just take it and shut up and be glad they don't live in "many other parts of the world." Because it's counter productive, to point out injustices?
Or do you reserve that opinion only for religious minorities?

And for the record, I don't see how I was being insulting (or counterproductive) to anyone by pointing out that making fun of a minority,
because you have had a bad encounter with a few people seems unkind and not very logical. And also pointing out how being offended and playing victim while being in a majority is ridiculous.

Well, what is more effective: screaming and shouting about how horrible Christian fundamentalists are to gays or doing what Ellen DeGeneres does and demonstrating to the nation that gays are funny, friendly, and kind neighbors who are just like you?

Which was more effective during the Civil Rights era: Holding rallies to denounce "white devils" and talk about using "any means necessary" or holding rallies to talk about dreams of little black kids and little white kids being able to live and go to school together in peace and harmony?

There's effective and there's ineffective and I think it's important to recognize that what is cathartic is not always the same as what is productive.

It would do you some good to revisit the Civil Rights movement. The aims of the actions of CR leaders were dependent on violence, and they used and invited that. You paint a picture of one single non-violent tactic that worked over time. That’s simply not the case, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that the success of the CR movement wasn’t the culmination of many tactics by many different people with different viewpoints. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” MLK Jr.

You are free to have your opinion, of course, but the nonviolent wing of the civil rights movement is the wing that actually accomplished their goals, not the violent wing.

When white Americans turned on the news and saw fire hoses being used on children who were peacefully marching, it horrified them and spurred them into action on behalf of black Americans. That's historical fact. MLK recognized that he needed the support of white Americans to accomplish the movement's goals, simply because there are FAR more white Americans than black Americans. That's why he and other peaceful CR leaders appealed to shared humanity and used peaceful civil disobedience to achieve their goals. It unified people and led to change.

So just a small point here.

Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of the importance of violence to his cause.  While he chose not to preach in favour of physical assault . . . screaming, shouting, and being confrontational was the reason that MLK Jr. accomplished anything.  Without it, the journalists covering the movement wouldn't have had the violent and egregious over-reactions of people like Eugene Connor to catpure.  These were essential to bringing white people on board with civil rights.

This is exactly the kind of action you've argued against as being useless.

I don't think you are right about that. Here's a link to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Principles of Nonviolence: https://cpt.org/files/PW%20-%20Principles%20-%20King.pdf

That's kinda what's cool about MLK.  He was able to meet the spirit of what was written while still escalating things towards a violent conflict that would help his cause:

- In his own words, "The purpose of ... direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation".
- MLK arranged for public shaming and property damage (https://books.google.ca/books?id=CHmHDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=birmingham+hat+destroyed+boycotts&source=bl&ots=2i9LPPM6l2&sig=67a0Z1LRABjwYVh3yabRO8ZEX9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiairDv-MTYAhVM3IMKHaZVDqMQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=birmingham%20hat%20destroyed%20boycotts&f=false) against black people who ignored his mandatory boycott.  Campaign participant Joe Dickson recalled, "We had to go under strict surveillance. We had to tell people, say look: if you go downtown and buy something, you're going to have to answer to us."
- MLK arranged for Wyatt Walker to head up Project C, the detailed plan for confrontation with local police and city officials.
- MLK recruited as many children as possible as part of Project C, knowing that they would be imprisoned (good for his cause) and assaulted for breaking the law.

I'm a great admirer of Martin Luther King Jr. and the hard decisions he made to push his agenda.  Pretending that he didn't understand the power of violence, the need for escalation, and the benefits from sacrificing a few followers to create a better media message though is to reduce him to an unrealistic saintly caricature.  Had he not realized this, the civil rights movement would have failed.

Wait, what? I'm confused.

Are we talking about an episode of "The Flash" on The CW, where Barry Allen travels with Vibe to an alternate universe where Martin Luther King Jr. sneakily used violence to advance his civil rights agenda?

Was this episode before or after the one where they fought the alternate universe Nazi versions of Green Arrow and Supergirl?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8352
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #411 on: January 07, 2018, 08:24:00 AM »
Eaknet, that was interesting.  I used to teach an International Baccalaureate course.  The IB was founded for children of diplomats, etc. whose families moved around so much that there was no way they could have consistent schooling going to local schools.  After going through the teacher training for IB, I can say that it is managed so that there is great consistency no matter where in the world the course is given.  It is a good alternative for those who are considering homeschooling because of relocations.  It is also a well-thought out, challenging program.  Of course it won't be available everywhere, because it is resource intensive.

I know in many provinces of Canada there was "distance education" - if you were in a remote location that had too few children to have a school, there were educational materials sent to families, and I think evaluations were done centrally.  The concept was that there was lots of support for the parents doing the home-schooling, because they were not teachers, and were not expected to have teacher expertise.  I have no idea what is happening with this now, with the internet.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #412 on: January 07, 2018, 11:27:20 AM »
I know in many provinces of Canada there was "distance education" - if you were in a remote location that had too few children to have a school, there were educational materials sent to families, and I think evaluations were done centrally.  The concept was that there was lots of support for the parents doing the home-schooling, because they were not teachers, and were not expected to have teacher expertise.  I have no idea what is happening with this now, with the internet.

At school, I learned about how some children in remote bits of the Australian outback did 'school at home'. They'd be posted textbooks and lesson plans and homework to do and have to post them back. I think they had a telephone conference with an assigned teacher from a buddy real life classroom every once in a while, and would also be posted videos of "lessons" from the classroom that they could watch. I thought it sounded really cool - but again, no idea if that's still a thing now we have the internet.
Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/young-uk-little-money-lots-of-dreams/

Do I seem curt or like I've missed the point? Please forgive me - I've probably been typing attached to a baby.

jooniFLORisploo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4841
  • Location: In Nice Forum Joists
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #413 on: January 07, 2018, 11:36:49 AM »
Yes, this is still a thing in Canada. So now we have the following resources:

*administrative agency (an entity at the level between the govt and family; in some locations families can opt in or out of this)
*administering teacher via agency (in some locations families can opt in or out of this)
*in some locations, a dedicated building or classroom to host homelearners' activities and leaders
*books and other materials (videos, math manipulatives, games, science tools, etc) loaned via mail from agency
*online instruction (Khan Academy, Prodigy, BrainPop, etc)
*local facilitators (trained or untrained leaders in gym, personal training, lifeskills, all academics, art, therapies, counselling, etc)
*local groups (gym, STEM/STEAM, lifeskills, social, mountain biking, you name it)
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 02:08:13 PM by jooniFLORisploo »
I am well and happy, and doing a series of brief forum breaks as part of self-care :)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10869
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #414 on: January 07, 2018, 12:55:38 PM »
Yeah, that is the purpose of "The Life of Brian". It's very funny, but absolutely intended to insult religious people.

I'm not saying that people can't do that. It's allowed in Western countries and Christians in particular typically won't retaliate against it in any severe kind of way due to their peaceful religious beliefs. I know the population of United States isn't as overwhelmingly Christian as nations like Kenya and Namibia, but they do make up a solid majority.

I guess I'm just saying insulting the majority of people in the country where someone lives probably isn't going to help someone reach their goals. It's unwise.
I am not a fan of this attitude, that the minority has to submit to the will of the majority and shut up. Religious people are the majority in the US (a very powerful majority at that!), and the rest of us have to fall in line. If we point out how this is not fair, we are reprimanded. And the majority is presented as poor victims of jeering or whatever. It's really turning reality on its head. We live in YOUR world, and have to conform. And that's fine, there is more of you. But, can you at the very least grow a thicker skin?
It's the same way ethnic or gender or sexual orientation minorities are shot down all the time.
If you are going to be a majority in any way, a little compassion to the gripes of the minority goes along way towards being compassionate.  And my understanding of your religion is that it's supposed to be about compassion.

Like I said, since we live in a majority Christian country, it's highly unlikely that there is going to be severe retaliation against those kinds of insults, which is different than many other parts of the world. Luckily, most of the country is "thick-skinned" as you say, which means they will just use words against people who insult. Where I'm from, it's different as I've written about a few times in my journal, but I've gotten used to the way Flatlanders deal with things, which is why I'm simply and calmly telling atheists that the way they are doing things is counter-productive and won't help them reach their goals.

As we can see from the last presidential election's results, there's a massive section of the country that does not possess my level of calm. If you think that insulting over 70% of the country is going to get you the results you want moving forward -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- then by all means do as you will. But reality is what it is and it's not going to end well.

What about ethnic minorities, or gay people? Should they also just take it and shut up and be glad they don't live in "many other parts of the world." Because it's counter productive, to point out injustices?
Or do you reserve that opinion only for religious minorities?

And for the record, I don't see how I was being insulting (or counterproductive) to anyone by pointing out that making fun of a minority,
because you have had a bad encounter with a few people seems unkind and not very logical. And also pointing out how being offended and playing victim while being in a majority is ridiculous.

Well, what is more effective: screaming and shouting about how horrible Christian fundamentalists are to gays or doing what Ellen DeGeneres does and demonstrating to the nation that gays are funny, friendly, and kind neighbors who are just like you?

Which was more effective during the Civil Rights era: Holding rallies to denounce "white devils" and talk about using "any means necessary" or holding rallies to talk about dreams of little black kids and little white kids being able to live and go to school together in peace and harmony?

There's effective and there's ineffective and I think it's important to recognize that what is cathartic is not always the same as what is productive.

It would do you some good to revisit the Civil Rights movement. The aims of the actions of CR leaders were dependent on violence, and they used and invited that. You paint a picture of one single non-violent tactic that worked over time. That’s simply not the case, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that the success of the CR movement wasn’t the culmination of many tactics by many different people with different viewpoints. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” MLK Jr.

You are free to have your opinion, of course, but the nonviolent wing of the civil rights movement is the wing that actually accomplished their goals, not the violent wing.

When white Americans turned on the news and saw fire hoses being used on children who were peacefully marching, it horrified them and spurred them into action on behalf of black Americans. That's historical fact. MLK recognized that he needed the support of white Americans to accomplish the movement's goals, simply because there are FAR more white Americans than black Americans. That's why he and other peaceful CR leaders appealed to shared humanity and used peaceful civil disobedience to achieve their goals. It unified people and led to change.

So just a small point here.

Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of the importance of violence to his cause.  While he chose not to preach in favour of physical assault . . . screaming, shouting, and being confrontational was the reason that MLK Jr. accomplished anything.  Without it, the journalists covering the movement wouldn't have had the violent and egregious over-reactions of people like Eugene Connor to catpure.  These were essential to bringing white people on board with civil rights.

This is exactly the kind of action you've argued against as being useless.

I don't think you are right about that. Here's a link to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Principles of Nonviolence: https://cpt.org/files/PW%20-%20Principles%20-%20King.pdf

That's kinda what's cool about MLK.  He was able to meet the spirit of what was written while still escalating things towards a violent conflict that would help his cause:

- In his own words, "The purpose of ... direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation".
- MLK arranged for public shaming and property damage (https://books.google.ca/books?id=CHmHDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=birmingham+hat+destroyed+boycotts&source=bl&ots=2i9LPPM6l2&sig=67a0Z1LRABjwYVh3yabRO8ZEX9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiairDv-MTYAhVM3IMKHaZVDqMQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=birmingham%20hat%20destroyed%20boycotts&f=false) against black people who ignored his mandatory boycott.  Campaign participant Joe Dickson recalled, "We had to go under strict surveillance. We had to tell people, say look: if you go downtown and buy something, you're going to have to answer to us."
- MLK arranged for Wyatt Walker to head up Project C, the detailed plan for confrontation with local police and city officials.
- MLK recruited as many children as possible as part of Project C, knowing that they would be imprisoned (good for his cause) and assaulted for breaking the law.

I'm a great admirer of Martin Luther King Jr. and the hard decisions he made to push his agenda.  Pretending that he didn't understand the power of violence, the need for escalation, and the benefits from sacrificing a few followers to create a better media message though is to reduce him to an unrealistic saintly caricature.  Had he not realized this, the civil rights movement would have failed.

Wait, what? I'm confused.

Are we talking about an episode of "The Flash" on The CW, where Barry Allen travels with Vibe to an alternate universe where Martin Luther King Jr. sneakily used violence to advance his civil rights agenda?

Was this episode before or after the one where they fought the alternate universe Nazi versions of Green Arrow and Supergirl?

I see where your confusion is coming from.  When you indicated that you knew a lot about the civil rights movement I figured that you had read information and learned about it . . . Not simply got the gist of it from cartoons on TV.  Real life wasn't as simplistic as your 'education' has led you to believe.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #415 on: January 07, 2018, 01:57:02 PM »
Yeah, that is the purpose of "The Life of Brian". It's very funny, but absolutely intended to insult religious people.

I'm not saying that people can't do that. It's allowed in Western countries and Christians in particular typically won't retaliate against it in any severe kind of way due to their peaceful religious beliefs. I know the population of United States isn't as overwhelmingly Christian as nations like Kenya and Namibia, but they do make up a solid majority.

I guess I'm just saying insulting the majority of people in the country where someone lives probably isn't going to help someone reach their goals. It's unwise.
I am not a fan of this attitude, that the minority has to submit to the will of the majority and shut up. Religious people are the majority in the US (a very powerful majority at that!), and the rest of us have to fall in line. If we point out how this is not fair, we are reprimanded. And the majority is presented as poor victims of jeering or whatever. It's really turning reality on its head. We live in YOUR world, and have to conform. And that's fine, there is more of you. But, can you at the very least grow a thicker skin?
It's the same way ethnic or gender or sexual orientation minorities are shot down all the time.
If you are going to be a majority in any way, a little compassion to the gripes of the minority goes along way towards being compassionate.  And my understanding of your religion is that it's supposed to be about compassion.

Like I said, since we live in a majority Christian country, it's highly unlikely that there is going to be severe retaliation against those kinds of insults, which is different than many other parts of the world. Luckily, most of the country is "thick-skinned" as you say, which means they will just use words against people who insult. Where I'm from, it's different as I've written about a few times in my journal, but I've gotten used to the way Flatlanders deal with things, which is why I'm simply and calmly telling atheists that the way they are doing things is counter-productive and won't help them reach their goals.

As we can see from the last presidential election's results, there's a massive section of the country that does not possess my level of calm. If you think that insulting over 70% of the country is going to get you the results you want moving forward -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- then by all means do as you will. But reality is what it is and it's not going to end well.

What about ethnic minorities, or gay people? Should they also just take it and shut up and be glad they don't live in "many other parts of the world." Because it's counter productive, to point out injustices?
Or do you reserve that opinion only for religious minorities?

And for the record, I don't see how I was being insulting (or counterproductive) to anyone by pointing out that making fun of a minority,
because you have had a bad encounter with a few people seems unkind and not very logical. And also pointing out how being offended and playing victim while being in a majority is ridiculous.

Well, what is more effective: screaming and shouting about how horrible Christian fundamentalists are to gays or doing what Ellen DeGeneres does and demonstrating to the nation that gays are funny, friendly, and kind neighbors who are just like you?

Which was more effective during the Civil Rights era: Holding rallies to denounce "white devils" and talk about using "any means necessary" or holding rallies to talk about dreams of little black kids and little white kids being able to live and go to school together in peace and harmony?

There's effective and there's ineffective and I think it's important to recognize that what is cathartic is not always the same as what is productive.

It would do you some good to revisit the Civil Rights movement. The aims of the actions of CR leaders were dependent on violence, and they used and invited that. You paint a picture of one single non-violent tactic that worked over time. That’s simply not the case, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that the success of the CR movement wasn’t the culmination of many tactics by many different people with different viewpoints. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” MLK Jr.

You are free to have your opinion, of course, but the nonviolent wing of the civil rights movement is the wing that actually accomplished their goals, not the violent wing.

When white Americans turned on the news and saw fire hoses being used on children who were peacefully marching, it horrified them and spurred them into action on behalf of black Americans. That's historical fact. MLK recognized that he needed the support of white Americans to accomplish the movement's goals, simply because there are FAR more white Americans than black Americans. That's why he and other peaceful CR leaders appealed to shared humanity and used peaceful civil disobedience to achieve their goals. It unified people and led to change.

So just a small point here.

Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of the importance of violence to his cause.  While he chose not to preach in favour of physical assault . . . screaming, shouting, and being confrontational was the reason that MLK Jr. accomplished anything.  Without it, the journalists covering the movement wouldn't have had the violent and egregious over-reactions of people like Eugene Connor to catpure.  These were essential to bringing white people on board with civil rights.

This is exactly the kind of action you've argued against as being useless.

I don't think you are right about that. Here's a link to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Principles of Nonviolence: https://cpt.org/files/PW%20-%20Principles%20-%20King.pdf

That's kinda what's cool about MLK.  He was able to meet the spirit of what was written while still escalating things towards a violent conflict that would help his cause:

- In his own words, "The purpose of ... direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation".
- MLK arranged for public shaming and property damage (https://books.google.ca/books?id=CHmHDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=birmingham+hat+destroyed+boycotts&source=bl&ots=2i9LPPM6l2&sig=67a0Z1LRABjwYVh3yabRO8ZEX9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiairDv-MTYAhVM3IMKHaZVDqMQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=birmingham%20hat%20destroyed%20boycotts&f=false) against black people who ignored his mandatory boycott.  Campaign participant Joe Dickson recalled, "We had to go under strict surveillance. We had to tell people, say look: if you go downtown and buy something, you're going to have to answer to us."
- MLK arranged for Wyatt Walker to head up Project C, the detailed plan for confrontation with local police and city officials.
- MLK recruited as many children as possible as part of Project C, knowing that they would be imprisoned (good for his cause) and assaulted for breaking the law.

I'm a great admirer of Martin Luther King Jr. and the hard decisions he made to push his agenda.  Pretending that he didn't understand the power of violence, the need for escalation, and the benefits from sacrificing a few followers to create a better media message though is to reduce him to an unrealistic saintly caricature.  Had he not realized this, the civil rights movement would have failed.

Wait, what? I'm confused.

Are we talking about an episode of "The Flash" on The CW, where Barry Allen travels with Vibe to an alternate universe where Martin Luther King Jr. sneakily used violence to advance his civil rights agenda?

Was this episode before or after the one where they fought the alternate universe Nazi versions of Green Arrow and Supergirl?

I see where your confusion is coming from.  When you indicated that you knew a lot about the civil rights movement I figured that you had read information and learned about it . . . Not simply got the gist of it from cartoons on TV.  Real life wasn't as simplistic as your 'education' has led you to believe.

I forgot to wear my tinfoil hat again. Dammit! I always do that.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2875
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #416 on: January 07, 2018, 06:37:22 PM »
I know in many provinces of Canada there was "distance education" - if you were in a remote location that had too few children to have a school, there were educational materials sent to families, and I think evaluations were done centrally.  The concept was that there was lots of support for the parents doing the home-schooling, because they were not teachers, and were not expected to have teacher expertise.  I have no idea what is happening with this now, with the internet.

At school, I learned about how some children in remote bits of the Australian outback did 'school at home'. They'd be posted textbooks and lesson plans and homework to do and have to post them back. I think they had a telephone conference with an assigned teacher from a buddy real life classroom every once in a while, and would also be posted videos of "lessons" from the classroom that they could watch. I thought it sounded really cool - but again, no idea if that's still a thing now we have the internet.

Still a thing in Canada! This is how I did a lot of my schooling. Here's the distance education center for the area I lived in at the time, if you want to get an idea of how it works: http://www.scides.com/ Apparently now they have videoconferencing and other high-tech stuff that didn't exist when I did it. We had chat rooms and forums (moderated by teachers), and a school email system to talk with other kids, which seemed very fancy at the time.

I remember in elementary school you got to meet your teacher once or twice a year - they would go a road trip to all the remote communities and visit each student's house to chat a bit. That was pretty fun.

I don't remember how it worked in elementary school since it's been a long time, but in high school we would write exams at an "approved" place - you could do them at a local school or college, library, police station, fire hall, etc. We usually waited until we were due for a bunch for different subjects, then drove to the nearest city and wrote 4-5 in one day at the local college.
Blogging about frugality, travel, and Vancouver life - www.incomingassets.wordpress.com

I also have a journal! http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/the-zikoris-diaries/

lakemom

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #417 on: January 08, 2018, 07:46:28 AM »
Quote
For example, prayer is a lie. It doesn't work.
Why would a non-believer expect prayer to work? 
Prayer isn't like a vending machine or a wishing well.  You don't insert prayer /sit back and wait for a blessing.

When I was a boy, I asked my mentor (a Catholic priest) what the point of praying was since I never got any of the things I wanted from it like material goods and money. He told me that I didn't understand what prayer was for. He said that God is not a genie who grants wishes and God isn't an insurance salesman either. He told me that when I prayed I should ask for the strength to endure difficulty, the knowledge to understand God's will, and the serenity to accept that my desires and my outcomes may not necessarily line up. Most of all, he said that I should pray for these things for others and ask God to help my family, friends, neighbors, and even enemies find peace.

This opinion seems to directly conflict with the Catholic process of becoming a saint, in which you have to have verified miracles:
Step four: Verified miracles
To reach the next stage, beatification, a miracle needs to be attributed to prayers made to the individual after their death.
The prayers being granted are seen as proof that the individual is already in heaven, and hence able to intercede with God on others' behalf.


Your 'evidence' does not refute the anecdote from the quote.  In Catholicism God is not seen as a grantor of material goods....the boy didn't get what he prayed for 'because' he was praying for material good.  Had he prayed for perseverance to keep up with his school work, to get a scholarship, to get.... (you see where I'm going) he may have been granted his prayer.  However.....Sainthood is only granted to a deceased person after 2 miracles are granted to people who have prayed to the deceased and had their prayers answered.  Now I don't believe any miracle has ever been the granting of material goods they generally are granting of the return/acceptance of Faith (either for yourself or someone you care for) or the cure of a disease (usually an incurable/deadly one).  I could be wrong, there are thousands of Catholic Saints and I'm only in my 50's so certainly haven't read every single story of every single Saint.  If you're going to quote the Catechism at least understand what you are quoting.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #418 on: January 08, 2018, 03:17:41 PM »
Quote
For example, prayer is a lie. It doesn't work.
Why would a non-believer expect prayer to work? 
Prayer isn't like a vending machine or a wishing well.  You don't insert prayer /sit back and wait for a blessing.

When I was a boy, I asked my mentor (a Catholic priest) what the point of praying was since I never got any of the things I wanted from it like material goods and money. He told me that I didn't understand what prayer was for. He said that God is not a genie who grants wishes and God isn't an insurance salesman either. He told me that when I prayed I should ask for the strength to endure difficulty, the knowledge to understand God's will, and the serenity to accept that my desires and my outcomes may not necessarily line up. Most of all, he said that I should pray for these things for others and ask God to help my family, friends, neighbors, and even enemies find peace.

This opinion seems to directly conflict with the Catholic process of becoming a saint, in which you have to have verified miracles:
Step four: Verified miracles
To reach the next stage, beatification, a miracle needs to be attributed to prayers made to the individual after their death.
The prayers being granted are seen as proof that the individual is already in heaven, and hence able to intercede with God on others' behalf.


Your 'evidence' does not refute the anecdote from the quote.  In Catholicism God is not seen as a grantor of material goods....the boy didn't get what he prayed for 'because' he was praying for material good.  Had he prayed for perseverance to keep up with his school work, to get a scholarship, to get.... (you see where I'm going) he may have been granted his prayer.  However.....Sainthood is only granted to a deceased person after 2 miracles are granted to people who have prayed to the deceased and had their prayers answered.  Now I don't believe any miracle has ever been the granting of material goods they generally are granting of the return/acceptance of Faith (either for yourself or someone you care for) or the cure of a disease (usually an incurable/deadly one).  I could be wrong, there are thousands of Catholic Saints and I'm only in my 50's so certainly haven't read every single story of every single Saint.  If you're going to quote the Catechism at least understand what you are quoting.

Yeah, God doesn't care whether or not you win the lottery. He also doesn't care if the Patriots win the Super Bowl.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10869
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #419 on: January 08, 2018, 03:27:10 PM »
Quote
For example, prayer is a lie. It doesn't work.
Why would a non-believer expect prayer to work? 
Prayer isn't like a vending machine or a wishing well.  You don't insert prayer /sit back and wait for a blessing.

When I was a boy, I asked my mentor (a Catholic priest) what the point of praying was since I never got any of the things I wanted from it like material goods and money. He told me that I didn't understand what prayer was for. He said that God is not a genie who grants wishes and God isn't an insurance salesman either. He told me that when I prayed I should ask for the strength to endure difficulty, the knowledge to understand God's will, and the serenity to accept that my desires and my outcomes may not necessarily line up. Most of all, he said that I should pray for these things for others and ask God to help my family, friends, neighbors, and even enemies find peace.

This opinion seems to directly conflict with the Catholic process of becoming a saint, in which you have to have verified miracles:
Step four: Verified miracles
To reach the next stage, beatification, a miracle needs to be attributed to prayers made to the individual after their death.
The prayers being granted are seen as proof that the individual is already in heaven, and hence able to intercede with God on others' behalf.


Your 'evidence' does not refute the anecdote from the quote.  In Catholicism God is not seen as a grantor of material goods....the boy didn't get what he prayed for 'because' he was praying for material good.  Had he prayed for perseverance to keep up with his school work, to get a scholarship, to get.... (you see where I'm going) he may have been granted his prayer.  However.....Sainthood is only granted to a deceased person after 2 miracles are granted to people who have prayed to the deceased and had their prayers answered.  Now I don't believe any miracle has ever been the granting of material goods they generally are granting of the return/acceptance of Faith (either for yourself or someone you care for) or the cure of a disease (usually an incurable/deadly one).  I could be wrong, there are thousands of Catholic Saints and I'm only in my 50's so certainly haven't read every single story of every single Saint.  If you're going to quote the Catechism at least understand what you are quoting.

Yeah, God doesn't care whether or not you win the lottery. He also doesn't care if the Patriots win the Super Bowl.

He also doesn't care if soldiers from your country manage to kill the soldiers of another country . . . perhaps best stated in Mark Twain's 'The War Prayer':

https://warprayer.org/

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #420 on: January 08, 2018, 03:33:32 PM »
Quote
For example, prayer is a lie. It doesn't work.
Why would a non-believer expect prayer to work? 
Prayer isn't like a vending machine or a wishing well.  You don't insert prayer /sit back and wait for a blessing.

When I was a boy, I asked my mentor (a Catholic priest) what the point of praying was since I never got any of the things I wanted from it like material goods and money. He told me that I didn't understand what prayer was for. He said that God is not a genie who grants wishes and God isn't an insurance salesman either. He told me that when I prayed I should ask for the strength to endure difficulty, the knowledge to understand God's will, and the serenity to accept that my desires and my outcomes may not necessarily line up. Most of all, he said that I should pray for these things for others and ask God to help my family, friends, neighbors, and even enemies find peace.

This opinion seems to directly conflict with the Catholic process of becoming a saint, in which you have to have verified miracles:
Step four: Verified miracles
To reach the next stage, beatification, a miracle needs to be attributed to prayers made to the individual after their death.
The prayers being granted are seen as proof that the individual is already in heaven, and hence able to intercede with God on others' behalf.


Your 'evidence' does not refute the anecdote from the quote.  In Catholicism God is not seen as a grantor of material goods....the boy didn't get what he prayed for 'because' he was praying for material good.  Had he prayed for perseverance to keep up with his school work, to get a scholarship, to get.... (you see where I'm going) he may have been granted his prayer.  However.....Sainthood is only granted to a deceased person after 2 miracles are granted to people who have prayed to the deceased and had their prayers answered.  Now I don't believe any miracle has ever been the granting of material goods they generally are granting of the return/acceptance of Faith (either for yourself or someone you care for) or the cure of a disease (usually an incurable/deadly one).  I could be wrong, there are thousands of Catholic Saints and I'm only in my 50's so certainly haven't read every single story of every single Saint.  If you're going to quote the Catechism at least understand what you are quoting.

Yeah, God doesn't care whether or not you win the lottery. He also doesn't care if the Patriots win the Super Bowl.

He also doesn't care if soldiers from your country manage to kill the soldiers of another country . . . perhaps best stated in Mark Twain's 'The War Prayer':

https:///

Yeah, war and killing is actually the exact opposite of what God wants. God the Son -- Jesus Christ -- had a lot to say on that.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3486
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #421 on: January 09, 2018, 02:31:37 PM »
This is a very easy statistic to look up and you are wrong.  I don't think you get to decide whose level or type of religiosity measures up to your standards.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
No, but I can't help observing the large numbers of people who claim to believe ____ but don't belong to a particular church or participate in any events.  I've never seen pewforum before, but I suspect if you were to ask survey participants how much time they'd spent involved in the church in the last year, the numbers would decrease. 

Or did I misunderstand that teaching?
Yes, you did, but don't worry -- it's one of the most frequently misunderstood statements in the Bible. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #422 on: January 09, 2018, 02:53:28 PM »
Yes, you did, but don't worry -- it's one of the most frequently misunderstood statements in the Bible.

The hubris drips from your crucifix like the blood of martyrs.

When someone asks you if you follow the bible, you don't win over any converts by condescending to them about how yours is the only true interpretation.  If you have something to say then please say it.  There's no need to be cryptically smug about it.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would be appalled by this sort of behavior, but I fully expect you tell me I've misunderstood that part, too.
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #423 on: January 09, 2018, 04:09:28 PM »
you don't win over any converts by condescending to them about how yours is the only true interpretation.

Isn't that the the one belief that unites all Christians?

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5438
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #424 on: January 09, 2018, 06:33:12 PM »
Quote
No, but I can't help observing the large numbers of people who claim to believe ____ but don't belong to a particular church or participate in any events.  I've never seen pewforum before, but I suspect if you were to ask survey participants how much time they'd spent involved in the church in the last year, the numbers would decrease. 

I'm curious as to why this matters?

Do you have to belong to an organized church?  Is it fine to read the bible at home and go to bible study and volunteer and do "Christian things"?  What about having children who attend a Christian school and get involved there.

Does being involved in specific events or churches or organization what is required to be a "real Christian?"

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #425 on: January 09, 2018, 08:18:18 PM »
you don't win over any converts by condescending to them about how yours is the only true interpretation.

Isn't that the the one belief that unites all Christians?

All Christians believe that Christ is the one true path to salvation. However, Christians disagree about some minor things involving interpretation. Most Christians don't really make a big deal about it. The ones who do tend to get a lot of press, though, which can be a little embarrassing. And then you have the weirdos who are just completely off their rocker.

Christians tend to feel about the Westboro Baptist Church the way that I imagine the typical atheist probably feels about Richard Dawkins.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #426 on: January 10, 2018, 10:33:52 AM »
you don't win over any converts by condescending to them about how yours is the only true interpretation.

Isn't that the the one belief that unites all Christians?

All Christians believe that Christ is the one true path to salvation. However, Christians disagree about some minor things involving interpretation. Most Christians don't really make a big deal about it. The ones who do tend to get a lot of press, though, which can be a little embarrassing. And then you have the weirdos who are just completely off their rocker.

Christians tend to feel about the Westboro Baptist Church the way that I imagine the typical atheist probably feels about Richard Dawkins.

I'm not sure what a typical atheist is, but I guess I am one (maybe?) and I think Dawkins is awesome. Comparing the man to the lunatics of Westboro doesn't make any sense at all. He's brilliant and well spoken and brave. They are out of their ever loving minds!

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #427 on: January 10, 2018, 10:48:06 AM »
you don't win over any converts by condescending to them about how yours is the only true interpretation.

Isn't that the the one belief that unites all Christians?

All Christians believe that Christ is the one true path to salvation. However, Christians disagree about some minor things involving interpretation. Most Christians don't really make a big deal about it. The ones who do tend to get a lot of press, though, which can be a little embarrassing. And then you have the weirdos who are just completely off their rocker.

Christians tend to feel about the Westboro Baptist Church the way that I imagine the typical atheist probably feels about Richard Dawkins.
This comparison bothers me, and I am not even atheist.  You compare a hate group to what?  An out and proud atheist?  What harm, exactly has he done?  Why would you pick him?

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #428 on: January 10, 2018, 11:50:10 AM »
Why should I feel something about Dawson? It is not like we are part of the same group, share any beliefs, etc. We are both white, and have an education in science, i’ll give you that. But regarding religion; lack of something does not give us a common cause. If that was the case, I would be a very active member of the “not interested in sports” club, “does not own an elephant” group, and “does not have a child with blue hair” alliance.
Travelling to 71° Northern Latitude in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3302
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #429 on: January 10, 2018, 02:45:37 PM »
Wow this thread has multiple personalities............ 
" In life you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate"

PhilB

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #430 on: January 10, 2018, 02:50:44 PM »
Why should I feel something about Dawson? It is not like we are part of the same group, share any beliefs, etc. We are both white, and have an education in science, i’ll give you that. But regarding religion; lack of something does not give us a common cause. If that was the case, I would be a very active member of the “not interested in sports” club, “does not own an elephant” group, and “does not have a child with blue hair” alliance.
I don't own an elephant either.  Is there a way to find a local support group?

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #431 on: January 10, 2018, 03:51:23 PM »
This is a very easy statistic to look up and you are wrong.  I don't think you get to decide whose level or type of religiosity measures up to your standards.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
No, but I can't help observing the large numbers of people who claim to believe ____ but don't belong to a particular church or participate in any events.  I've never seen pewforum before, but I suspect if you were to ask survey participants how much time they'd spent involved in the church in the last year, the numbers would decrease. 


In all seriousness (because I am not a Christian), doesn't Christianity teach that only God/Christ can judge what is in peoples' hearts? If that's true, how could Mrs Pete possibly know who is truly religious?


 Or did I misunderstand that teaching?
Yes, you did, but don't worry -- it's one of the most frequently misunderstood statements in the Bible.

Well, crap. That was a teaching of Christianity that (I thought) I liked.

So what is the actual teaching about how Christians should judge others' hearts?

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #432 on: January 10, 2018, 06:01:20 PM »
This is a very easy statistic to look up and you are wrong.  I don't think you get to decide whose level or type of religiosity measures up to your standards.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
No, but I can't help observing the large numbers of people who claim to believe ____ but don't belong to a particular church or participate in any events.  I've never seen pewforum before, but I suspect if you were to ask survey participants how much time they'd spent involved in the church in the last year, the numbers would decrease. 


In all seriousness (because I am not a Christian), doesn't Christianity teach that only God/Christ can judge what is in peoples' hearts? If that's true, how could Mrs Pete possibly know who is truly religious?


 Or did I misunderstand that teaching?
Yes, you did, but don't worry -- it's one of the most frequently misunderstood statements in the Bible.

Well, crap. That was a teaching of Christianity that (I thought) I liked.

So what is the actual teaching about how Christians should judge others' hearts?

You and I had similar misunderstandings. Pope Francis, too.

"For this, being judgmental is very ugly. Judgment belongs only to God, to Him alone!” the Pope exclaimed.  It is for us to “love,” to “understand, to pray for others when we see things that are not good” said the Pope, inviting us to talk kindly to others so that they may learn from their mistakes:   “But never judge. Never. And this is hypocrisy, if we judge."

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/06/20/pope_francis_look_in_the_mirror_before_judging_others/1238522

Kmp2

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: Cowtown
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #433 on: January 10, 2018, 06:04:25 PM »
I have a few 'beefs'/concerns with homeschooling - note these are probably going to sound heretical to the USA crowd you were forewarned. My apologies I didn't get through the whole thread before posting - Christianity ahem.

When you homeschool because the local system sucks, you have abdicated from the public system. You have taken caring and involved parents out of that system, and your potential contribution to the public system is lost.  You aren't likely to pay attention (or at least as much attention as you would have) to school trustee elections, to school funding, to curriculum development, and this is a loss for the system and our community. Note: I feel the same way about private and separate schools and to some extent even special program schools like language schools.

In other words, if everyone must attend the public school system - you'd be damn sure to have great advocates for it in the form of the wealthy and educated.

Number 2) I dislike when parents choose homeschooling to protect or control the content of the children's childhood to limit their child's exposure to different cultures/values etc. My favourite parenting moments (and really the best part of public school so far) as been the discussions we have when my DD comes home and says 'So and So said this about Unions, or Capitalism, or said governing party'. I love those discussions, and whole heartedly believe that we are better off talking about our differences, and that it builds stronger core values in my kids by reinforcing our family values that way.
Note I definitely know that most homeschoolers still fully participate in the community culture just through swimming, or sports or art or whatever... so this doesn't apply across the board.
Note 2: I also think public transit, mixed class/race/religion schools and neighbourhoods also build safety and empathy - so clearly I'm a heretic but like I said you were forewarned ;)


brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
  • Age: 37
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #434 on: January 10, 2018, 06:14:57 PM »
Pope Francis, too.

In that case we’re just going to have to no-true-Scotsman away the religiosity of the pontiff too.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #435 on: January 10, 2018, 08:06:53 PM »
I don't own an elephant either.  Is there a way to find a local support group?

The first step is to get a bunch of bumper stickers proclaiming your lack of blue elephants.  The second step is to start telling everyone who has a blue elephant that you do not, personally, also have a blue elephant.   Step three is to for your boss to tell you that you're not getting promoted because you're just not the kind of blue elephant-owning person they think is best for the position.

Or, you know, you could just shut up about it and hope to go unnoticed.  At least until the blue elephant people start calling you an elephant murderer while you're celebrating blue-elephantsmas with everyone else on the federal holiday devoted to blue elephants.  How dare you persecute them like that?  Why do you hate blue elephants so much?  What has society come to, that people now have to say "Happy generic elephant ownership" to you at the store, instead of "Merry Blue Elephants Are The Best Elephants" like they always use to?
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #436 on: January 10, 2018, 08:48:37 PM »
you don't win over any converts by condescending to them about how yours is the only true interpretation.

Isn't that the the one belief that unites all Christians?

All Christians believe that Christ is the one true path to salvation. However, Christians disagree about some minor things involving interpretation. Most Christians don't really make a big deal about it. The ones who do tend to get a lot of press, though, which can be a little embarrassing. And then you have the weirdos who are just completely off their rocker.

Christians tend to feel about the Westboro Baptist Church the way that I imagine the typical atheist probably feels about Richard Dawkins.
This comparison bothers me, and I am not even atheist.  You compare a hate group to what?  An out and proud atheist?  What harm, exactly has he done?  Why would you pick him?

The Westboro Baptist Church is a hate group that spews homophobic nonsense but doesn't actually hurt anybody. Richard Dawkins is a hate monger who spews Islamophobic nonsense but doesn't actually hurt anybody. Seems like an apt comparison to me.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #437 on: January 10, 2018, 09:00:18 PM »
Richard Dawkins is a hate monger who spews Islamophobic nonsense but doesn't actually hurt anybody.

He's not so much opposed to Islam as he is opposed to people who kill other people in the name of ancient superstitions.  He's very much against hurting people.  Unfortunately, there are some adherents of some type of Islam who really like hurting other people.  He opposes that.  I don't call that nonsense.

If it were Jews or Catholics who were beheading people on the internet, he'd be opposed to that too.  That doesn't make him an Islamophobist.

And frankly it's more than a little bit disgusting that anyone would even try to make that false equivalence.  The Westboro Baptists hate people and promote violence.  Dawkins is literally telling people to hate less, and stop violence.  It reflects poorly on you if you don't see the difference.
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

eaknet

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #438 on: January 10, 2018, 09:19:09 PM »
Richard Dawkins is a hate monger who spews Islamophobic nonsense but doesn't actually hurt anybody.

He's not so much opposed to Islam as he is opposed to people who kill other people in the name of ancient superstitions.  He's very much against hurting people.  Unfortunately, there are some adherents of some type of Islam who really like hurting other people.  He opposes that.  I don't call that nonsense.

If it were Jews or Catholics who were beheading people on the internet, he'd be opposed to that too.  That doesn't make him an Islamophobist.

And frankly it's more than a little bit disgusting that anyone would even try to make that false equivalence.  The Westboro Baptists hate people and promote violence.  Dawkins is literally telling people to hate less, and stop violence.  It reflects poorly on you if you don't see the difference.
I think I have a small inkling of what some peaceful adherents to Islam go through when they’re lumped in with the Islamists like ISIS.

I’m a very peaceful Christian, and I abhor what the Westboro folks do. I want to distance myself from their rhetoric and methods as much as is humanly possible. IMHO their interpretation of Biblical concepts is so far from what I get from the same teachings. I don’t think most rational people in the US lump us all together under their banner, but I think they do such a disservice to the belief system as a whole. And they get a lot of press for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 09:21:21 PM by eaknet »
If you'd like a free stock (and I'd receive one as well), use this link to sign up for the Robinhood app.  Robinhood provides free trades, and is a pretty nifty interface. 
https://share.robinhood.com/erick779

jooniFLORisploo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4841
  • Location: In Nice Forum Joists
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #439 on: January 10, 2018, 11:19:08 PM »
When you homeschool because the local system sucks, you have abdicated from the public system. You have taken caring and involved parents out of that system, and your potential contribution to the public system is lost.  You aren't likely to pay attention (or at least as much attention as you would have) to school trustee elections, to school funding, to curriculum development, and this is a loss for the system and our community. Note: I feel the same way about private and separate schools and to some extent even special program schools like language schools.

Yes.

But many of us did quite a few years of that free public service before opting out. Our children deserve parents who are not only great advocates, passionate about community stuff...but also parents who are not exhausted and drained and stripped from a 13-year battle for basic services for the children (their own and others') in greatest need.

We do our service years for as long as we can -for everyone's benefit- and when we must, we move on -so that our children, too, can have happy childhoods.

...child's exposure to different cultures/values etc. My favourite parenting moments (and really the best part of public school so far) as been the discussions we have when my DD comes home and says 'So and So said this about Unions, or Capitalism, or said governing party'. I love those discussions, and whole heartedly believe that we are better off talking about our differences, and that it builds stronger core values in my kids by reinforcing our family values that way.

All the homeschooling families I know IRL feel likewise :)

For that reason, they also hang out at community events, use transit, play with whomever at the park, travel with groups, attend services of a wide variety of religions and nonreligions, attend conventions for all sorts of topics, get together with extended family members whose beliefs differ, read a wide range of authors and topics, etc.
I am well and happy, and doing a series of brief forum breaks as part of self-care :)

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #440 on: January 11, 2018, 06:09:57 PM »
Richard Dawkins is a hate monger who spews Islamophobic nonsense but doesn't actually hurt anybody.

He's not so much opposed to Islam as he is opposed to people who kill other people in the name of ancient superstitions.  He's very much against hurting people.  Unfortunately, there are some adherents of some type of Islam who really like hurting other people.  He opposes that.  I don't call that nonsense.

If it were Jews or Catholics who were beheading people on the internet, he'd be opposed to that too.  That doesn't make him an Islamophobist.

And frankly it's more than a little bit disgusting that anyone would even try to make that false equivalence.  The Westboro Baptists hate people and promote violence.  Dawkins is literally telling people to hate less, and stop violence.  It reflects poorly on you if you don't see the difference.

You must not be terribly familiar with the things Richard Dawkins says about Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. on a regular basis. He's pretty awful. Dawkins is the kind of person that Saint Francis of Assisi used to refer to as a "massive dick". At least, I think that's what Saint Francis of Assisi said. Don't quote me on that.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10869
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #441 on: January 11, 2018, 07:18:53 PM »
Richard Dawkins is a hate monger who spews Islamophobic nonsense but doesn't actually hurt anybody.

He's not so much opposed to Islam as he is opposed to people who kill other people in the name of ancient superstitions.  He's very much against hurting people.  Unfortunately, there are some adherents of some type of Islam who really like hurting other people.  He opposes that.  I don't call that nonsense.

If it were Jews or Catholics who were beheading people on the internet, he'd be opposed to that too.  That doesn't make him an Islamophobist.

And frankly it's more than a little bit disgusting that anyone would even try to make that false equivalence.  The Westboro Baptists hate people and promote violence.  Dawkins is literally telling people to hate less, and stop violence.  It reflects poorly on you if you don't see the difference.

You must not be terribly familiar with the things Richard Dawkins says about Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. on a regular basis. He's pretty awful. Dawkins is the kind of person that Saint Francis of Assisi used to refer to as a "massive dick". At least, I think that's what Saint Francis of Assisi said. Don't quote me on that.

Could you provide some quotes that indicate what you're referring to?

jeninco

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #442 on: January 12, 2018, 09:49:30 AM »
When you homeschool because the local system sucks, you have abdicated from the public system. You have taken caring and involved parents out of that system, and your potential contribution to the public system is lost.  You aren't likely to pay attention (or at least as much attention as you would have) to school trustee elections, to school funding, to curriculum development, and this is a loss for the system and our community. Note: I feel the same way about private and separate schools and to some extent even special program schools like language schools.

Yes.

But many of us did quite a few years of that free public service before opting out. Our children deserve parents who are not only great advocates, passionate about community stuff...but also parents who are not exhausted and drained and stripped from a 13-year battle for basic services for the children (their own and others') in greatest need.

We do our service years for as long as we can -for everyone's benefit- and when we must, we move on -so that our children, too, can have happy childhoods.

Jooni, I want to respond to this in general, but I'd like to start by making clear that I agree with your last sentence above, and by saying that I'm not intending to point this response at you in any specific or particular way.

This feels to me like the private school "debate": there are a very few kids with needs that absolutely can't be met in the public school system, and who have "legitimate" (in my eyes, which is a wholenotherballofwax) reasons to be going to private school. Unfortunately, the number of parents who think  their kids are "too advanced" for the public school system is much, much higher. 95+% of the kids I've met could be served pretty well in the public system, particularly if their parents devoted a fraction of the time, energy, and $$ they're putting into private education toward helping ALL students, or at least all students with needs similar to those of their own kids.

(That's pretty abstract, so here's a concrete example: one year I went in once/week to teach a pull-out math class so my kid -- and 7 more just like him -- could do a little more interesting/accelerated math.  This also served to pull 8 wiggly, bored boys out of the regular (advanced) math class once/week, so everyone else could focus a bit more easily, so win-win-win.)

And I get both sides -- we sent our older kid to the neighborhood elementary school for 3 years, (and we were heavily involved in a whole slew of things) until I sat in a planning meeting where I was told by a teacher "we have no obligation to provide a challenge to kids like yours because there are so many other students here with greater needs." At that point, I went to the Assistant Superintendent of our district (who was also at that meeting) and started the process of getting my kids transferred to another school. I realize that this worked for us because we had put in a lot of time and energy at that point, and because the district administration was fundamentally reasonable about it, and I get that there are situations where this might not work. But I think lots of people (not you specifically) don't even try.

I think my concern about homeschooling is the same as Kmp2's, with the added spice of  -- yeah, a very few kids absolutely can't have their needs met in their regular school district and should be pulled out. But MOST of the kids who are pulled out could be served OK, and it would be a great societal benefit for their parents to stay engaged and try to help not just their own children, but other kids as well.

I mean, sure -- most of us in this space have kids who would be better served by having 1-on-1 learning from their very bright parents. But that creates a world full of other children who are having their needs served less well, because their parents don't have the background, or time, or education, or money that we do. My experience is that it's mostly better to leave the kids in the school system, identify problems, and then go to bat for ALL the kids to try to make things better, rather then leaving the underperforming schools for some kind of underclass. Those kids will be citizens too, in a very few years!

...child's exposure to different cultures/values etc. My favourite parenting moments (and really the best part of public school so far) as been the discussions we have when my DD comes home and says 'So and So said this about Unions, or Capitalism, or said governing party'. I love those discussions, and whole heartedly believe that we are better off talking about our differences, and that it builds stronger core values in my kids by reinforcing our family values that way.

All the homeschooling families I know IRL feel likewise :)

For that reason, they also hang out at community events, use transit, play with whomever at the park, travel with groups, attend services of a wide variety of religions and nonreligions, attend conventions for all sorts of topics, get together with extended family members whose beliefs differ, read a wide range of authors and topics, etc.

Yeah, but there are plenty of parents around the US, at least, who homeschool to control what their kids are exposed to. Mostly for religious reasons. In particular, it's used as a way to keep girls from getting exposed to "ideas"...

Jooni, I'm not pointing a finger at you specifically -- I've read enough of your wonderful writing around here to get a sense of your situation. The problem is that there are lots of folks around with kids who are bright, or slightly "non-neurotypical" or otherwise challenged by stupid policies around how schools are operated (like boys who can't sit still), and the majority of those kids could remain in the system while their parents try to reform the stupid parts. In fact, I strongly believe that a child's parent(s) are their most important advocate, so when it's abundantly clear that their needs can't/won't be met, I support looking for other avenues. I just wish those parents would understand that as long as they're engaging with the school system they're actually advocating for other kids as well as their own. (A point which I'm confident you understand, so, again -- I'm not responding to your personal decision, more to the general issues you raise.)


Note: Number of children I've met who are too smart for my local public school system = 1. (And he's a sweet young kid who is a complete genius -- my kids are fairly bright, and this 3rd grader blows them out of the water.) Number of children I've met whose parents think they should be in private school because it's more challenging = I dunno, several dozen. Number of AP classes our High School offers = 32ish, though not all every year. Number of kids taking AP Spanish this year (I asked my HS Junior yesterday) = 100-120. So there are plenty of bright kids there being challenged.

jooniFLORisploo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4841
  • Location: In Nice Forum Joists
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #443 on: January 12, 2018, 10:14:35 AM »
Yeah, but there are plenty of parents around the US, at least, who homeschool to control what their kids are exposed to. Mostly for religious reasons. In particular, it's used as a way to keep girls from getting exposed to "ideas"...

Understood. We have that here too, but it's a minority. Most of our region's homeschooling families are the opposite, and it's important this is recognized in discussions. We can't continue equating homeschooling with isolating, as they're simply not one and the same.

Jooni, I'm not pointing a finger at you specifically -- I've read enough of your wonderful writing around here to get a sense of your situation.

Got it :)

...when it's abundantly clear that their needs can't/won't be met, I support looking for other avenues. I just wish those parents would understand that as long as they're engaging with the school system they're actually advocating for other kids as well as their own. (A point which I'm confident you understand, so, again -- I'm not responding to your personal decision, more to the general issues you raise.)

I believe that most parents advocating are aware their effort positively impacts other children in need, too. There's just only so much volunteer service any of us can do in our communities. Parenting an "outlier" can be incredibly taxing, and that's before we even get to the stupid school system's day. (We're also advocating in our communities for accessible child care, inclusive recreation, inclusive transportation, effective medical support, caregiver respite, disability support in their adulthoods, disability-supportive housing... All while working to feed our kids, implementing their therapies, etc. It's a lot, and it'd be nice if we didn't have to lobby for schools to be safe and relevant for them, too.)

i.e., We can see the importance -for all- of lobbying, while simultaneously recognizing that we can't do it all. I think many homeschooling parents understand a lot more than this thread gives them credit for.
I am well and happy, and doing a series of brief forum breaks as part of self-care :)

jeninco

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #444 on: January 12, 2018, 10:30:22 AM »
Yeah, but there are plenty of parents around the US, at least, who homeschool to control what their kids are exposed to. Mostly for religious reasons. In particular, it's used as a way to keep girls from getting exposed to "ideas"...

Understood. We have that here too, but it's a minority. Most of our region's homeschooling families are the opposite, and it's important this is recognized in discussions. We can't continue equating homeschooling with isolating, as they're simply not one and the same.

Jooni, I'm not pointing a finger at you specifically -- I've read enough of your wonderful writing around here to get a sense of your situation.

Got it :)

...when it's abundantly clear that their needs can't/won't be met, I support looking for other avenues. I just wish those parents would understand that as long as they're engaging with the school system they're actually advocating for other kids as well as their own. (A point which I'm confident you understand, so, again -- I'm not responding to your personal decision, more to the general issues you raise.)

I believe that most parents advocating are aware their effort positively impacts other children in need, too. There's just only so much volunteer service any of us can do in our communities. Parenting an "outlier" can be incredibly taxing, and that's before we even get to the stupid school system's day. (We're also advocating in our communities for accessible child care, inclusive recreation, inclusive transportation, effective medical support, caregiver respite, disability support in their adulthoods, disability-supportive housing... All while working to feed our kids, implementing their therapies, etc. It's a lot, and it'd be nice if we didn't have to lobby for schools to be safe and relevant for them, too.)

i.e., We can see the importance -for all- of lobbying, while simultaneously recognizing that we can't do it all. I think many homeschooling parents understand a lot more than this thread gives them credit for.

Alas, my experience with parents in general is that they understand what they want to understand. My sense is that you're pretty exceptional, both in the lengths you go to to create an appropriate environment for yourself and your son, and for your engagement in your community (-ies).

Also, my sense is that your son's needs are higher then average -- that leaves lots of us with merely normally exhausting "inliers" to push back on district-originated stupidity/lack of flexibility/whatever it is this year. Furthermore, if there are LOTS of parents sharing that load, it's less exhausting for everyone (and the district is more likely to involve parents in decision-making, because there are a butt-ton of them present all the time).

At least in my private school example, the thinking process seems to go "I have a really bright kid who can't have the best possible experience in the stinky public school system. Think I'll send him/her to private school."  Rather than "our schools need to provide more services to all the kids like mine. How can I help make that happen?" at least until it's crystal clear that my kid is not going to have his/her needs met.

TheContinentalOp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #445 on: January 12, 2018, 11:11:33 AM »
Could not resist - Countries can do quite nicely without any reference to religion on their currency.  Canada, for example.  Others?


Isn't the head of the Anglican Church on the C$20?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8352
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #446 on: January 12, 2018, 03:46:12 PM »
Could not resist - Countries can do quite nicely without any reference to religion on their currency.  Canada, for example.  Others?


Isn't the head of the Anglican Church on the C$20?

That is her side hustle in England.  That job here is held by the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, presently Fred Heltz, who has never appeared on any Canadian currency.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #447 on: January 12, 2018, 04:08:49 PM »
Richard Dawkins is a hate monger who spews Islamophobic nonsense but doesn't actually hurt anybody.

He's not so much opposed to Islam as he is opposed to people who kill other people in the name of ancient superstitions.  He's very much against hurting people.  Unfortunately, there are some adherents of some type of Islam who really like hurting other people.  He opposes that.  I don't call that nonsense.

If it were Jews or Catholics who were beheading people on the internet, he'd be opposed to that too.  That doesn't make him an Islamophobist.

And frankly it's more than a little bit disgusting that anyone would even try to make that false equivalence.  The Westboro Baptists hate people and promote violence.  Dawkins is literally telling people to hate less, and stop violence.  It reflects poorly on you if you don't see the difference.

You must not be terribly familiar with the things Richard Dawkins says about Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. on a regular basis. He's pretty awful. Dawkins is the kind of person that Saint Francis of Assisi used to refer to as a "massive dick". At least, I think that's what Saint Francis of Assisi said. Don't quote me on that.

Could you provide some quotes that indicate what you're referring to?

Here's  one article from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/short-history-richard-dawkins-vs-internet/312350/

"Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism." - Richard Dawkins

"Islam is one of the great evils in the world." - Richard Dawkins

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/307366714105032704

"I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. I've said so, often and loudly."

That's just one of the religions he hates and he hates them all. It took me exactly ten seconds to find this with Google. There is no excuse for not knowing what Dawkins is like.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #448 on: January 12, 2018, 04:29:59 PM »
There is no excuse for not knowing what Dawkins is like.

I know what he's like.

I just disagree with your characterization.  Islam is currently being used to justify videos of beheadings on the internet.  Is that evil enough for you?

I think there is a strong case to be made that Islam, like Christianity, has been used to support evil things while simultaneously being practiced in a non evil way by other people.  The non evil ones don't usually get media coverage, though.

And in this case his point is that religion, particularly fundamentalist and evangelical religions that dehumanize nonbelievers, are currently the single largest threat to modern society.  We had two entire wars over it, after all, one of which is still ongoing.  Americans love religion, and somehow fail to see the harm it is causing.

Dawkins argues vociferously against using superstitions to justify murder.  And you think that makes him the dangerous one?  Maybe it's the people doing all that killing who are being "dicks"?
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Prove to me why anti-homeschooling attitudes are OK.
« Reply #449 on: January 12, 2018, 07:55:40 PM »
There is no excuse for not knowing what Dawkins is like.

I know what he's like.

I just disagree with your characterization.  Islam is currently being used to justify videos of beheadings on the internet.  Is that evil enough for you?

I think there is a strong case to be made that Islam, like Christianity, has been used to support evil things while simultaneously being practiced in a non evil way by other people.  The non evil ones don't usually get media coverage, though.

And in this case his point is that religion, particularly fundamentalist and evangelical religions that dehumanize nonbelievers, are currently the single largest threat to modern society.  We had two entire wars over it, after all, one of which is still ongoing.  Americans love religion, and somehow fail to see the harm it is causing.

Dawkins argues vociferously against using superstitions to justify murder.  And you think that makes him the dangerous one?  Maybe it's the people doing all that killing who are being "dicks"?

Communism is an atheist ideology that led to the deaths of 100 million people, but you don't hear me telling everyone that atheists are members of an evil death cult. That's because I'm a reasonable person. Richard Dawkins is not. He's a dick.