OK, where are all these public schools that push religion? [Archive]

View Full Version : OK, where are all these public schools that push religion?

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 08:18 AM

I have just read yet another reference to schools that gloss over the theory of evolution, or do not teach it, that push religion in the classroom, that sidestep scientific fact in an effort not to offend the religiously faithful.

I went to elementary school in Texas and Arizona, junior high school and high school in Georgia, and college in Texas, and I don't remember ever having such an experience (although I did have an anthropology professor who was pretty woo.) In fact, my high school offered classes, with excellent teachers, that many people I met later never saw until college.

My first grade experience was even at a Baptist private school, and the only religion I remember was the Christmas pageant. At my other schools, I will admit, we did have invocations prior to sporting events and ceremonies such as graduation, but so what? It was at most five minutes out of our lives, and didn't happen in the classroom.

My stepchildren both went through public school in Texas, and from what I could see of their education without actually sitting through class with them every day, they also received zero religious indoctrination.

Since my education took place in what would seem to be the epicenter of the fundamentalist movement, I have to ask: where are all these religious fundie schools and teachers?

I know, there are idiots like the people in Dover, Kansas, but they were the school board and a few parents, not teachers, and they got their comeuppance.

So why all the snide remarks?

Thanks.

Radrook

12th April 2008, 08:39 AM

The public school I attended did have the reciting of the Lord's prayer in the auditorium every day before we pledged allegiance to the flag and sang the Star Spangled Banner.

I don't recall anyone being offended by this nor anyone feeling that his rights were somehow being violated. In fact, we all enjoyed that pre class experience as far as I can remember. Beyond that all I can recall is that the biology textbooks available in the school library all putting forth godless evolution and discrediting the biblical account. So in terms teaching policy the godless evolution Idea was given priority. Whether this caused intellectual or emotional conflict in the children who were being taught religious ideas at church or not I don't know.

What I do know is that the children's possibility of confusion due to this double policy and the discrepancy between what they were being taught at church and what the school wanted them to believe wasn't being taken account of. It was either the churches and parents were liars or the evolutionist atheist scientists were liars and children were being forced to make a choice of who the liars were. Of course once parents are tagged as liars then parental authority is reduced. Or once scientists are tagged as liars then their authority is diminished in a child's eyes. Since both are essential to the proper emotional intellectuial development of children, then, the issue should have received priority. Obviously it did since prayer was prohibited in schools in order to supposedly prevent Constitutional rights from being violated and preserve the separation of church and state. However, despite the claimed motives-one suspects that the reasons are a bit more complex than that. In short, as a child I felt more systematically pressured to be an atheist than a theist at the public school I attended. However, compared to the constant systematic pressure to become atheists that kids experience today, what we were subjected to then was nothing.

Lisa Simpson

12th April 2008, 08:54 AM

My youngest son's school (California) teaches evolution, much to the dismay of his fundy classmates. When they started the section on evolution, his teacher told the class something along the lines of "I don't care if you believe this or not, but I'm going to give you the information."

My only problem with religion being taught in the classroom occurred last year when his social studies class learned about ancient civilizations, including ancient Hebrews. The class was taught as if the Bible were an accurate historical source, ie, Noah's flood really did happen, etc.

juryjone

12th April 2008, 09:06 AM

I know, there are idiots like the people in Dover, Kansas, but they were the school board and a few parents, not teachers, and they got their comeuppance.

So why all the snide remarks?

Thanks.

Elizabeth, I think you got your response from Radrook. They don't feel they got thier "comeuppance". To people like Radrook, everything is black and white. Either something is religious, or it is anti-religious (which he labels atheism). Since science has nothing to say on the religious topic; since it is based on the scientific method, which follows the evidence, and is not faith-based, then it is to be eliminated. Pardon me, not eliminated - just put on an equal basis with fables and statements for which there is no evidence.

If you look at their wedge strategy, it doesn't take much. For example, here in Georgia, where you went to high school, Cobb County tried to get a sticker placed in the biology textbooks that stated evolution was just a theory. What's wrong with that? It doesn't state anything overtly religious, and evolution is a theory. But it's the pretended naivety that is the problem. A scientific theory is not like how the word is used in everyday language. In everyday language, a theory is a guess. In science, it is an idea which brings together all the facts in evidence. Gravity is a theory to the scientist; it is a fact to the layman. The same credence should be given to evolution, but this strategy makes it seem to the layman that scientists are making guesses, so all guesses should be treated equally.

Once other guesses are allowed to be taught, what will we get? Intelligent design, of course, which is just the Christian creation myth disguised as science.

There doesn't have to be a school in your area explicitly teaching ID for the problem to exist. All they need is a tiny crack, a precedent, and they can force science classes to teach guesses instead of science. They are perfectly aware of that. That's how cdesign proponentists came up with ID in the first place. Slow and steady wins the race.

Igopogo

12th April 2008, 09:22 AM

When I was in public school (in the 60's), we had to stand each morning in the classroom thru 2 national anthems, then the lord's prayer.

We had to stand thru "Oh Canada" and "God Save the Queen" because adults couldn't agree on which should be the anthem. Before the lord's prayer came up, the teacher had to ask certain kids to stand in the hall while the rest of us stayed.

Did we gain anything by adults putting us thru this pointless ritual? -Maybe patience at best, it was always the boring waste of time that none of us looked forward to, (and would do anything to get out of).

Was there a bad side? - I wouldn't want to be one of the kids who was singled out to to stand in the hall, & therefore there was something 'different' about them, (though I envied them then, I always figured they were out there playing). Did the kids in the hall suffer any long term effects from being singled out every morning? I don't know, by why what's the point in continuing the stupidity.

godless dave

12th April 2008, 09:24 AM

shadron

12th April 2008, 09:35 AM

Exactly as juryone says - it seems to me that Radrook was taught science, without supernatural explanations, and he, with his family's religious background, interpreted (indeed, still interprets) it as atheism. He (and they) don't see science as a-religious, they see it as anti-religious because of the with-'em-or-against-'em mindset that is the essence of religious evangelism, (IMO).

My own experience: I was brought up attending catholic elementary, high and graduate college at standard parochial Catholic institutions in Colorado. I did not experience creationism (as a serious study, as opposed to fairy tales - honestly, that is what I believed about them) until after grad school I encountered the first creationism in my life on the usenet (a precursor of internet) at the age of 30. I specialized in science and math in that time, and was taught both religion and biology by nuns of St. Joseph, Christian Brothers and Jesuits, and there was not one serious mention of creationism that I remember. Evolution was not emphasized (as much as I now think it should have been) but it was taught, in about the same way that gravity was taught in physics. The history classes were much more slanted in Catholicism's direction than the science was.

Now it was also true that I got my last science class before high school in second grade, the last time I was in public school. From then to sophomore year in high school, there was no further peep about science as a study. I attribute that to the conservatism of the schools I attended; the three R's were big. It became very odd in 4th grade when the Glen L Martin Co. (later Martin-Lockheeed) won the Titan contract and moved a plant to close spitting distance from our town, and the school tripled in size with engineer's kids, but still no science.

We said the pledge as a body in the school yard (we even had a student trumpeter, who did a quite good "To the Colors" as the flag was raised, even though there were no music classes); we prayed briefly three time a day in class. We had people of other faiths there (and perhaps some without, though I don't know) who showed respect but weren't expected to join, and afaik there was no retribution shown, even from us snotty, "well-off" Catholic kids. We religiously watched the world series in class on a B/W television every year (I am today astounded about that).

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 09:40 AM

Elizabeth, I think you got your response from Radrook. They don't feel they got thier "comeuppance". To people like Radrook, everything is black and white. Either something is religious, or it is anti-religious (which he labels atheism). Since science has nothing to say on the religious topic; since it is based on the scientific method, which follows the evidence, and is not faith-based, then it is to be eliminated. Pardon me, not eliminated - just put on an equal basis with fables and statements for which there is no evidence.

If you look at their wedge strategy, it doesn't take much. For example, here in Georgia, where you went to high school, Cobb County tried to get a sticker placed in the biology textbooks that stated evolution was just a theory. What's wrong with that? It doesn't state anything overtly religious, and evolution is a theory. But it's the pretended naivety that is the problem. A scientific theory is not like how the word is used in everyday language. In everyday language, a theory is a guess. In science, it is an idea which brings together all the facts in evidence. Gravity is a theory to the scientist; it is a fact to the layman. The same credence should be given to evolution, but this strategy makes it seem to the layman that scientists are making guesses, so all guesses should be treated equally.

Once other guesses are allowed to be taught, what will we get? Intelligent design, of course, which is just the Christian creation myth disguised as science.

There doesn't have to be a school in your area explicitly teaching ID for the problem to exist. All they need is a tiny crack, a precedent, and they can force science classes to teach guesses instead of science. They are perfectly aware of that. That's how cdesign proponentists came up with ID in the first place. Slow and steady wins the race.

Those are parents. They are the school board. They are not teachers. They are not schools. And it looks to me like when sneaking creationism into the curriculum is tried, and people find out about it, there's a pretty solid opposition.

Will there always be ignorance to fight against? You bet. Will there always be narrow-minded bigoted uneducated people to bring up the same old argument yet again? Yep. Do we have to be ready to take the fight right back to them? Yes. As you said, slow and steady wins the race, and that's true for the TOE as much as for ID or creationism or "creation science."

And my point is that, whether in Georgia, or Texas, or Kansas, or California, or you name it, there always are people ready to go right back to the fight.

And my other point is that ignorance and bloody-mindedness are no more endemic in Texas or Georgia than they are in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts.

Ichneumonwasp

12th April 2008, 09:41 AM

I don't think there are religious fundie public schools, but I have seen small examples of the influences in my daughters' education.

It seems to be very teacher-dependent. My oldest daughter is 17 and when she was in 7th grade her 'science teacher' (this woman is an idiot, sorry, and not because of her stance on evolution -- she is a terrible teacher) started off the evolution unit with "I don't believe any of this, but you have to learn it" and specifically told them not to read the very short paragraph in the book about the Miller-Urey experiment because, and I quote her, "I don't believe this at all." Her chemistry teacher last year, at the end of the last quarter, tried to engage some of them in a last day of school debate about how evolution is all wrong. No one wanted to argue with him -- the kids just thought he was nuts.

My youngest, who is 12 and in 7th grade now, has a terrific science teacher (same school) who took them through their evolution segment (I don't think it was ever called 'evolution', but it's clear what they were learning) professionally and very well. But this teacher is great -- she has them doing lots of extra work, where they must perform different experiments on their own (student's choice) or read science articles and comment on them.

Achán hiNidráne

12th April 2008, 09:43 AM

Was there a bad side? - I wouldn't want to be one of the kids who was singled out to to stand in the hall, & therefore there was something 'different' about them...

You mean like this (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3164811&page=1)?

Nicole said that once she told peers at school that she was an atheist, her relationship with the other kids changed. "You know they would call me devil worshipper. I'd walk down the halls, people would laugh at me. They would look at me really weird and stare me down."

Then, according to Nicole, the teachers also began harassing her, one going as far as to say, "This is a Christian country, and if you don't like it, get out."
And

School administrators said Nicole was bad for team morale and that she'd stolen another student's sneakers, so their reasons for kicking her off were fair. Nicole claims the charges they made were unfounded.

A year later, Nicole was allowed back on the team. This time, when the prayer started, she stayed outside the circle. "I just stood outside of it and said the Pledge of Allegiance … Without the 'under God.'"

The next school day, Nicole was suspended -- this time, she was accused of threatening to kill a team member. But according to Nicole, she never said that.

godless dave

12th April 2008, 10:09 AM

Those are parents. They are the school board. They are not teachers. They are not schools.

School boards exert a lot of control over the schools and over teachers.

We hear about the cases where the rational people fight back. There may well be cases where that doesn't happen. I'm not going to assume they exist, but neither should you assume they don't.

bokonon

12th April 2008, 10:28 AM

I have just read yet another reference to schools that gloss over the theory of evolution, or do not teach it, that push religion in the classroom, that sidestep scientific fact in an effort not to offend the religiously faithful.

[...]

I know, there are idiots like the people in Dover, Kansas, but they were the school board and a few parents, not teachers, and they got their comeuppance.

So why all the snide remarks?

Thanks.
I don't know what "yet another reference" you read that prompted this post, or what snide remarks you're objecting to, so pardon me if my response misses the mark.

My own snide remarks are inspired by idiots like the people in Dover, Kansas, because legislators and school boards set policies which teachers are required to follow. Did you know that one of the expert witnesses for the school board which was responsible for saddling Dover with a $2 million judgment moved to the Pacific Northwest, ran for the school board there, and won? It remains to be seen whether he (and an ally who also ran and won, against what I gather was an unpopular incumbent slate) intend or will be successful in introducing an "Intelligent Design" policy in the district. There are people paying attention, so it won't be something that slips in unnoticed.

Those are parents. They are the school board. They are not teachers. They are not schools. And it looks to me like when sneaking creationism into the curriculum is tried, and people find out about it, there's a pretty solid opposition.
Teachers and schools are controlled by school boards and parents. You've seen other posts in this thread about teachers who are being forced to teach evolution even though they openly attempt to sabotage and undermine such instruction. It goes the other way too: teachers (like those in Dover) who invoked a state law to defy the requirements the local school board was attempting to impose.

Will there always be ignorance to fight against? You bet. Will there always be narrow-minded bigoted uneducated people to bring up the same old argument yet again? Yep. Do we have to be ready to take the fight right back to them? Yes. As you said, slow and steady wins the race, and that's true for the TOE as much as for ID or creationism or "creation science."
So what is your objection? That "snide comments" should not be part of the fight?

Anti-evolution legislation is currently pending in Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri. Seven of the fifteen members of the State Board of Education in Texas are opposed to the teaching of evolution; a potential eighth (and majority) member was recently defeated. Christian schools in California are suing the University of California system for discriminating against students from schools which teach fairy tales instead of scientific theory. Was that last comment too snide?

juryjone

12th April 2008, 10:35 AM

Those are parents. They are the school board. They are not teachers. They are not schools. And it looks to me like when sneaking creationism into the curriculum is tried, and people find out about it, there's a pretty solid opposition.

Will there always be ignorance to fight against? You bet. Will there always be narrow-minded bigoted uneducated people to bring up the same old argument yet again? Yep. Do we have to be ready to take the fight right back to them? Yes. As you said, slow and steady wins the race, and that's true for the TOE as much as for ID or creationism or "creation science."

And my point is that, whether in Georgia, or Texas, or Kansas, or California, or you name it, there always are people ready to go right back to the fight.

And my other point is that ignorance and bloody-mindedness are no more endemic in Texas or Georgia than they are in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts.

I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood you. I thought the point of the opening post was that, since public schools are not teaching fundamentalism, then why are people getting bent out of shape? My response to that was that the schools don't need to be teaching fundamentalism for there to be a problem. Any old wedge will do.

As Ichneumonwasp said in this thread and others have said in other threads, it's teacher-dependent. Even if it is not policy, and therefore something that can be attacked directly, you have science teachers that refuse to teach science. And I, for one, will continue to make "snide remarks" about this refusal.

slingblade

12th April 2008, 10:37 AM

Ichneumonwasp

12th April 2008, 10:39 AM

Just a minor quibble, but isn't Dover in Pennsylvania? Kansas is a whole other kettle of fish. They tried the same **** in Ohio, but thankfully it was stopped before things got very far.

bokonon

12th April 2008, 10:45 AM

Yes, Dover is in PA. I was lazy and echoed the phrase, but it should be Dover and Kansas (or Dover, Kansas, and Tennessee) rather than Dover, Kansas.

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 10:57 AM

Just a minor quibble, but isn't Dover in Pennsylvania? Kansas is a whole other kettle of fish. They tried the same **** in Ohio, but thankfully it was stopped before things got very far.

Yes, Dover is in PA. I was lazy and echoed the phrase, but it should be Dover and Kansas (or Dover, Kansas, and Tennessee) rather than Dover, Kansas.

My mistake - I did somehow conflate Dover, Pennsylvania, and Kansas. Apologies.

And you are all missing my point, which is NOT that ID or "creation science" is science and deserving of the same respect and teaching that biology and TOE are.

So what is your objection? That "snide comments" should not be part of the fight?

My point is that idiocy is idiocy wherever you find it and no place has a monopoly on enlightenment, or on ignorance. As Bokonon points out, one of the idiots from Dover moved to the Pacific northwest and won a seat on a school board. Are we all now going to start making rude remarks about the ignorance and backwardness of the Pacific northwest? Should we all talk about how stupid people in Pennsylvania are?

Ichneumonwasp

12th April 2008, 11:06 AM

My point is that idiocy is idiocy wherever you find it and no place has a monopoly on enlightenment, or on ignorance.

Gotta agree with that. Except for the Dutch, of course.:)

bokonon

12th April 2008, 11:08 AM

So you just don't want the Bible Belt being singled out for criticism? No problem.

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 11:26 AM

So you just don't want the Bible Belt being singled out for criticism? No problem.

You see? Smug, self-satisfied, complacent sense of superiority.

I GREW UP in the "Bible Belt," daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter of small-town Baptists and yet, oddly enough, still managed to get a much more than adequate education and hear "enlightened" viewpoints.

You want me to tell you about the family of my former brother-in-law that I met visiting in El Paso on their FIRST TRIP ever off Manhattan Island? (Their oldest son was sixteen at the time.) The ones who didn't know that Mexico was the country on the southern border of the U.S.? That same oldest son who, as his first act during a trip to Juarez, bought a switchblade to "protect" himself?

Or how about the medical student from New Jersey I met who didn't know that, in most of the country plowing was still done with mules during the Depression?

Or the people from Wisconsin visiting Yellowstone Park who asked how many trees there were? Or the family from New Jersey visiting Yellowstone Park who stopped at the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, announced that they didn't see all that much to be impressed with, and, when informed that THE Grand Canyon was in Arizona, said, "Oh. Well, we drove past that one because we thought the Grand Canyon was in Yellowstone."

Boy, those Yankees are dumb.

bokonon

12th April 2008, 11:51 AM

You see? Smug, self-satisfied, complacent sense of superiority.
I'm definitely self-satisfied enough not to lose any sleep over your assessment of me. I suppose I even feel superior to people who can't seriously consider other viewpoints, and admit when they're wrong, especially those who feel justified in censoring other opinions or lying to bolster their own. I suppose my confidence in my ability to assess opinions, weigh evidence, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion in the majority of cases might even qualify me as smug. Sue me.

I GREW UP in the "Bible Belt," daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter of small-town Baptists and yet, oddly enough, still managed to get a much more than adequate education and hear "enlightened" viewpoints.
I grew up in the Bible Belt too. I don't think it gave me super powers, or a chip on my shoulder, though I have dropped the southern accent. Some people assume the speaker is not too bright when they hear one, and I found it easier to adapt than to disabuse them of their prejudices. For much the same reasons, I don't wear my lack of belief on my sleeve.

You want me to tell you about
Not really, but thanks for sharing.

Achán hiNidráne

12th April 2008, 11:54 AM

Just like the epithet "millitant" gets plastered on even the most milk-sop of atheists, any non-believer who has the guts to speak out in this society will be deemed "smug."

If anyone is playing "holier-than-thou" Lizzy, it's you.

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 11:56 AM

boojum

12th April 2008, 11:59 AM

Here's another data point for you Elizabeth. About four years ago my grand-daughter came home from 1st grade in a local (western North Carolina) public school and mentioned that her teacher started each day with a prayer. This is a public school. It make me angry, but I settled for complaining to the principal at the school and having the prayers stopped; I imagine I could have made a much bigger deal of it.

Skeptic Ginger

12th April 2008, 12:04 PM

My friends moved to Tennessee about 10 years ago. The dad took a college professorship there in a public university. All meetings started with prayers. There was still corporal punishment in the elementary school. My friends lasted one year and fled to California to get away from the overwhelmingly fundie population.

And it isn't hard to find schools teeming with Christian rhetoric in the South, particularly around the Bible belt. There are parents who look down on kids who are atheist. I think you may be shocked to find out how extensive it is in schools in some parts of the country to teach evolution with a sarcastic manner and slip intelligent design in.

Dr Hall from TAM, a professor in Sacramento, said when he gets new kids in his biology classes and evolution comes up some lay their heads on the desk and/or sigh loudly. He has to work with kids like this all the time.

Eugenie Scott has developed a continuum to show kids first, where they are in terms of not taking the Bible literally, so she can address their refusal to even listen to evolution theory. In other words she shows them they reject other Bible stuff in order to get them to accept rejecting the Biblical Creation myth.

slingblade

12th April 2008, 12:05 PM

I did one of my student-teaching stints in a classroom where the teacher had a Prayer-A-Day calendar placed prominently on her desk, and turned to face the students.

She had a wood carving on her desk of the name Jesus.

She told the students during a study of Anne Frank that Chanukkah was the Jewish holiday that celebrated the birth of Christ.

She told the students that the first Chick-Fil-A fast food joint had just opened up in town, and they should go there to eat because the owners are Christians.

I suppose it was smug of me to want the hell out of that classroom, since I knew there was nothing I could do to stop her lying and her preaching?

Skeptic Ginger

12th April 2008, 12:10 PM

You see? Smug, self-satisfied, complacent sense of superiority.

I GREW UP in the "Bible Belt," daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter of small-town Baptists and yet, oddly enough, still managed to get a much more than adequate education and hear "enlightened" viewpoints.Is this supposed to prove there are no schools teaching with a fundie slant?

You want me to tell you about the family of my former brother-in-law that I met visiting in El Paso on their FIRST TRIP ever off Manhattan Island? (Their oldest son was sixteen at the time.) The ones who didn't know that Mexico was the country on the southern border of the U.S.? That same oldest son who, as his first act during a trip to Juarez, bought a switchblade to "protect" himself?

Or how about the medical student from New Jersey I met who didn't know that, in most of the country plowing was still done with mules during the Depression?

Or the people from Wisconsin visiting Yellowstone Park who asked how many trees there were? Or the family from New Jersey visiting Yellowstone Park who stopped at the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, announced that they didn't see all that much to be impressed with, and, when informed that THE Grand Canyon was in Arizona, said, "Oh. Well, we drove past that one because we thought the Grand Canyon was in Yellowstone."

Boy, those Yankees are dumb.I don't get your point here. Again no one is claiming anything about where all people are dumb, all schools do or don't teach evolution, so what is your point?

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 12:10 PM

Skeptic Ginger

12th April 2008, 12:14 PM

Those are parents. They are the school board. They are not teachers. They are not schools. And it looks to me like when sneaking creationism into the curriculum is tried, and people find out about it, there's a pretty solid opposition.

Will there always be ignorance to fight against? You bet. Will there always be narrow-minded bigoted uneducated people to bring up the same old argument yet again? Yep. Do we have to be ready to take the fight right back to them? Yes. As you said, slow and steady wins the race, and that's true for the TOE as much as for ID or creationism or "creation science."

And my point is that, whether in Georgia, or Texas, or Kansas, or California, or you name it, there always are people ready to go right back to the fight.

And my other point is that ignorance and bloody-mindedness are no more endemic in Texas or Georgia than they are in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts.I'd say that opposition was hit and miss. If it were "pretty solid" consistently everywhere, then it would seem these cases would stop showing up as teachers got the word none of them could get away with it. There are areas of the country where Christian beliefs are extensive and it is reflected in the public schools. I'll web surf you up some examples later tonight. Sun's out, gotta go.

kev

12th April 2008, 12:17 PM

I teach Biology, and I know that the person who taught before me (for 30 years) skipped or glossed over everything that had to do with evolution. He did not really insert creationism or anything else, just skipped it all together. This was in a public school. He did it because of his, personal religious beliefs. He never really made an issue of it, no one else ever brought it up, it was just a nonissue of sorts. When I took over, I obviously included it. Not only do I teach the chapters, I center the entire class around the concept - as one would expect with a central theory in an area of study. No one has ever said anything one way or another since I changed what was being taught.
I think that is often what happens. There is not usually a battle taking place between science and religion - one just silently trumps the other and no one notices. Unfortunately, all too often, it is evolution that is getting left out, or inadequately addressed. It is too bad, because not only is it extraordinarily important to the class, it is probably the part the kids find the most interesting and intriguing. That is critical for getting kids excited and interested in science.

godless dave

12th April 2008, 12:18 PM

dupe

Achán hiNidráne

12th April 2008, 12:18 PM

Sad to see that even skeptics have their sacred cows.

Tu quoque, Lizzy.

godless dave

12th April 2008, 12:24 PM

So you just don't want the Bible Belt being singled out for criticism? No problem.

You see? Smug, self-satisfied, complacent sense of superiority.

Bokonon's comment was none of those.

I GREW UP in the "Bible Belt," daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter of small-town Baptists and yet, oddly enough, still managed to get a much more than adequate education and hear "enlightened" viewpoints.

Is anyone implying otherwise?

You want me to tell you about the family of my former brother-in-law that I met visiting in El Paso on their FIRST TRIP ever off Manhattan Island? (Their oldest son was sixteen at the time.) The ones who didn't know that Mexico was the country on the southern border of the U.S.? That same oldest son who, as his first act during a trip to Juarez, bought a switchblade to "protect" himself?

And this is relevant how?

Or how about the medical student from New Jersey I met who didn't know that, in most of the country plowing was still done with mules during the Depression?

And this is relevant how?

Or the people from Wisconsin visiting Yellowstone Park who asked how many trees there were? Or the family from New Jersey visiting Yellowstone Park who stopped at the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, announced that they didn't see all that much to be impressed with, and, when informed that THE Grand Canyon was in Arizona, said, "Oh. Well, we drove past that one because we thought the Grand Canyon was in Yellowstone."

And this is relevant how?

Boy, those Yankees are dumb.

Oh, I see, you object to people singling out the Southern US for criticism. You could have saved us all a lot of aggravation if you had said so in your first post instead of talking about something completely different. You might also consider linking or quoting the posts by others that are singling out the southern US for criticism. I haven't seen any so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 12:28 PM

Tu quoque, Lizzy.

See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I have been on this forum for a couple of years now. Mark and Articulett have seen (or at least could have seen) my posts in any number of subfora, none of which have supported religion, or creationism, or anti-science in any way. Hell, Articulett and I wasted a good deal of time (that neither of us can ever get back) arguing with Matteo Martini in the "Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution" thread.

However, let me object to a widely-accepted - and condescending - way of referring to the diverse population inhabiting a huge stretch of this diverse nation - where I happen to live - and suddenly I'm Tammy Faye Bakker. Similar to the reaction of the fundies who scream "Satan!" when they hear "atheist."

Elizabeth I

12th April 2008, 12:39 PM

I'm definitely self-satisfied enough not to lose any sleep over your assessment of me.

Gosh, then why did you feel compelled to tell me how little my opinion of you matters?

Not really, but thanks for sharing.

A sterling example of open-mindedness and willingness to consider other viewpoints! Thank you for sharing.

bokonon

12th April 2008, 12:43 PM

However, let me object to a widely-accepted - and condescending - way of referring to the diverse population inhabiting a huge stretch of this diverse nation - where I happen to live - and suddenly I'm Tammy Faye Bakker. Similar to the reaction of the fundies who scream "Satan!" when they hear "atheist."
I think you have a chip on your shoulder. I haven't seen anyone express condescension toward the Southern US in this thread. I agree with you that such condescension is commonplace, but the attitude isn't a JREF phenomenon. As I said, I dropped my southern accent because of it, but not to fit in with skeptics. It may be that the general reluctance to view southerners as intelligent is exacerbated by the general tendency in this forum to view the religious as deluded, but they're two separate things.

bokonon

12th April 2008, 12:53 PM

Gosh, then why did you feel compelled to tell me how little my opinion of you matters?

A sterling example of open-mindedness and willingness to consider other viewpoints! Thank you for sharing.
I read what you wrote. The idea that there are non-southerners who lack education doesn't represent "other viewpoints," as it's one I suspect everyone you're shrieking at in this thread already shares. Is it smug of me to presume to speak for others? Fine, it's one which I already shared.

I think your problem isn't with me.

boojum

12th April 2008, 01:03 PM

Why do you say you "settled"? You did exactly what was appropriate and proportional to the offense. I applaud your action.

I say "settled" because at the time (and even now) I felt that the teacher involved probably deserved stronger consequences than just having to stop her prayers -- consequences like having to apologize to the class and parents involved, or having her inappropriate behavior reflected in her employment history. The lightness of the response I asked for makes me fear that the teacher may have returned to her former behavior in later classes. I have no way of finding out so I can only speculate.

MattusMaximus

12th April 2008, 01:06 PM

In reference to evolution-creationism and the movie Expelled (which some on the thread mentioned), I just want to spread around this website...

http://www.expelledexposed.com

Beth

12th April 2008, 08:04 PM

Sad to see that even skeptics have their sacred cows. Yes, they do. Just as some Christians aren’t very good examples of a religion that claims to put loving others as the highest priority, some skeptics aren’t very good at recognizing that others find different conclusions regarding god as rational as their own. They feel that such theists or agnostics are not applying skepticism to their beliefs, regardless of how ‘god’ is defined or how much critical thought the person has given the matter.

Also, some atheists have had serious problems as a result of being open about their beliefs to others. They can be quite bitter about it if the personal cost of doing so has been high. Others feel they were lied to by the people they trusted most as children. I can understand that. At any rate, some of them take it out on anybody here who states an opinion that religion has some good points. They consider this their safe haven where they can bash christians and other religious believers without consequence.

I put most of those folks on ignore. Even if I read their comments, and I often do, it reminds me that I’m not interested in being berated by them for having a different opinion on the matter. But there are also people who are willing to discuss things civilly. For example, Tricky and Piggy hold similarly emphatic opinions on the matter, but neither one of them has ever said a mean word to me about my holding a different opinion. We can debate without acrimony. Folks like that make the forum worthwhile for me.

quixotecoyote

13th April 2008, 12:11 AM

UnrepentantSinner

13th April 2008, 02:17 AM

They consider this their safe haven where they can bash christians and other religious believers without consequence.

Which is unfortunate because any religious believer that is interested in skepticism or considers themselves a skeptic will be driven away in a short time or face a continual fusillade of hostility.

This is JREF forum - "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way". If they want that sort of safe haven, there's IIDB and a number of other forums for that.

bokonon

13th April 2008, 05:54 AM

Ben Stein was in Kansas City the other day supporting a law in Missouri that would force universities to prove they are allowing creationist viewpoints. It has widespread support after an incident where a student studying to be a social worker was docked points after refusing to sign a letter stating she would support the rights of gay people.

Unfortunately the universities are probably going to just roll over. I suggested to the PR director that they get a science professor to speak about why the legislation is bad, but I was told to "Be careful now, I'm a creationist you know."
I don't see any connection between "creationism" and "gay rights," except that some people who support one are likely to oppose the other.

And while I support gay rights myself, I don't think a college professor has any place requiring his students to write or sign letters to legislators expressing such support. What valid academic purpose can there be in requiring the student to endorse a political position which is not her own? If he wants to require the students to write to legislators expressing their personal views on pending legislation, that's okay (though still, IMO, of dubious academic value), but requiring someone to march in lockstep with the professor's own political views or be penalized is just wrong.

When it comes to evolution, students can be expected to know current scientific thinking or be penalized, even if they themselves disagree with that thinking. They should not be required to sign "loyalty oaths" pledging support for evolution. In my opinion, they should not be penalized for questioning evolution in the classroom. While I might oppose the bill (http://www.house.state.mo.us/content.aspx?info=/bills071/biltxt/perf/HB0213P.HTM) myself if I was a college professor or administrator, just because of the extra paperwork it seems will be required, I do support the free exchange of ideas in college classrooms and on college campuses. Academic standards need to be maintained, but I think the free speech rights of college students need to be protected too.

Safe-Keeper

13th April 2008, 07:15 AM

OK, where are all these public schools that push religion?In Norway.

Elementary schools did, and still do, require students to collectively say a short five-seconds prayer before they eat their lunch, and also force students to attend church come Easter, Christmas, celebration of St. Lucia, etc. The only way students can be exempted from this is if they bring a note from their parents. This despite the fact that only one million of the 4.7 million people in Norway are actually Christians.

When challenged, the Christians call on '1000 year long traditions', how Christians would feel alienated if there was no prayer in schools, etc. Funnily enough, they, like US fundies, feel they are the ones under attack when we in reality merely try to remove their religion from where it never belonged in the first place.

My personal experience: I remember the prayer in school as something I'd say at high speed just to say them and the church visits as the most boring thing in the world.

PrincessIneffabelle

13th April 2008, 07:48 AM

While I wouldn't say that my school "pushed" religion, they certainly encouraged and supported Christianity. At my high school (small town Florida, mid-1980s) we had organized Christian prayers at the sporting events, practices, and graduation. Even the speaker at my graduation was a Christian preacher. It didn't bother me at the time; I was a Christian and it was widely assumed that everyone else was, too. I didn't know any better.

I'm glad to report that none of that is going on at my son's school -- although he still isn't allowed to join the BSA, which they do endorse. Small deal.

UnrepentantSinner

13th April 2008, 08:02 AM

I'm glad to report that none of that is going on at my son's school -- although he still isn't allowed to join the BSA, which they do endorse. Small deal.

I am so with you on this. I really enjoyed my few years involvement with Cub Scouts and Webelos and I'd be pissed it my (theoretical) atheist son couldn't join or continue on to Boy Scouts. I begrudgingly accede that BSA is a "private" organization, but they still serve a general civic purpose and should either accept all citizens as potential members or strip themselves of such trappings.

The military does not require one to make an oath to "God and country" so if BSA wants to fashion itself as a pseudo-military organization, it should get rid of the three fingered salute and have members place their hands over their hearts or it should drop the restrictions against atheists.

articulett

13th April 2008, 08:11 AM

xL3LY09PP_Y

My son's chemistry teacher Mormon, started a sentence with, "if you believe in evolution..."

A lot of schools let people come in and hand out bibles or have prayers that other teachers are "encouraged" to join in on. I've personally seen a public school speaker mention Jesus dying on the cross as though it were a historical fact--(used to manipulate kids in their behavior) and had a computer teacher tell my students that the computer program I was having my students do that mentioned the age of the earth was not "proven"-- and "science can't contradict anything in the bible". I said nothing, because I fear consequences.

kev

13th April 2008, 09:41 AM

[quote=articulett;3615704]xL3LY09PP_Y

My son's chemistry teacher Mormon, started a sentence with, "if you believe in evolution..."

You know the thing that always gets me about this, and demonstrates the rediculousness of it as well, is the fact that this thinking is always very specific to evolution. I am sure that the chemistry teacher would not be nearly as receptive to your son pointing out that he did not believe in atomic structure, or states of matter, and so forth.

The same with Ben Stein demanding that other "theories" must be taught in college. Is he also arguing that those who "theorize" that the holocaust never happened recieve equal time for their "theory."

It is so utterly rediculous how specific these individuals can focus their thinking in order to justify their own insecurities about the positions of humans in the universe.

PLEASE let us find evidence of life on another planet. I can't wait to see what that will do to disturb their sense of human significance in the universe.

Metullus

13th April 2008, 10:09 AM

I was an Army brat. I attended schools on post and in the community in Georgia, Alabama, Illinois, California, Korea, and Germany. Except only when I attended a German Catholic school I do not recall any religious issues coming up. I cannot recall ever having to recite the Lord's Prayer in school; neither were the Ten Commandments on any curriculum. In Alabama (public school) we were expected to pledge allegiance to both the US and to the State of Alabama, but that is hardly religious.

My 6th grade science teacher was a Catholic nun. She was a terrific teacher and taught us evolution without a hint of reluctance. I have no idea as to what her personal beliefs of the matter might have been.

My daughter is attending public school in California. The only times that questions of religion have arisen have been when religious themed Christmas carols were removed from the annual holiday concert and the change from "Easter vacation" to "Spring break."

quixotecoyote

13th April 2008, 10:26 AM

I don't see any connection between "creationism" and "gay rights," except that some people who support one are likely to oppose the other.

I agree completely. The problem is that the gay rights issue was a motivator that moved many people to support the legislation which promotes 'intellectual diversity' meaning universities must support both anti-gay and creationist thought.

And while I support gay rights myself, I don't think a college professor has any place requiring his students to write or sign letters to legislators expressing such support. What valid academic purpose can there be in requiring the student to endorse a political position which is not her own? If he wants to require the students to write to legislators expressing their personal views on pending legislation, that's okay (though still, IMO, of dubious academic value), but requiring someone to march in lockstep with the professor's own political views or be penalized is just wrong.I haven't seen the letter myself as it is not publicly available, so I'm tentative in my opinions regarding it. If it was, as you suggest, a letter to politicians pushing a public opinion, then I tend to agree with you.

On the other hand, the student was in a social services class, so the letter could very well have been an affirmation that social services need to support gay people as well as straight people. If that is the case, then I disagree with you and have no sympathy for her. A good social services worker does not discriminate based on personal prejudices, so it is relevant to her studies in that field that she wanted to.

In either case, the legislation is another wedge-like attempt to slide religion into education as I'll elaborate on below.

When it comes to evolution, students can be expected to know current scientific thinking or be penalized, even if they themselves disagree with that thinking. They should not be required to sign "loyalty oaths" pledging support for evolution. In my opinion, they should not be penalized for questioning evolution in the classroom. While I might oppose the bill (http://www.house.state.mo.us/content.aspx?info=/bills071/biltxt/perf/HB0213P.HTM) myself if I was a college professor or administrator, just because of the extra paperwork it seems will be required, I do support the free exchange of ideas in college classrooms and on college campuses. Academic standards need to be maintained, but I think the free speech rights of college students need to be protected too.Here are some highlights of that bill, whose goal is to promote 'intellectual diversity'.

As used in this section, "intellectual diversity" is defined as the diversity of ideas that provides the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, religious, and other perspectives, when such perspectives relate to the subject matter being taught or issues being discussed. As used in this section, "free exchange of ideas" includes intellectual pluralism and students' right to learn in an environment that exposes them to an abundance of new knowledge, different perspectives, competing ideas, and alternative claims of truth.Note the lack of any truth values or evidence attached to those 'competing ideas.' If you hold a different opinion, Missouri law requires the university expose other students to it. No exceptions for creationism, 9/11 trutherism, or holocaust denial. No provision for simply debunking it, those issues must be faced under the paradigm of 'alternative claims of truth.'

Universities must:

b) Incorporate intellectual diversity into institution statements, grievance procedures, and activities on diversity;Remember kids, critical thinking is great unless it runs up against 'intellectual diversity,' which deserves respect on the same level of things like racial diversity.

Encourage a balanced variety of campus-wide panels and speakers and annually publish the names of panelists and speakersCan I get a flat earther on that 'balanced panel' on mantle/crust composition? A moon hoaxer on the next astronomy panel? Now I can't, so let's vote yes on 213!

It gets worse.

Develop hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that protect individuals against viewpoint discrimination and track any reported grievances in that regard;Remember that creationist that got fired from the biology lab and sued? If the university failed to hire him on similar grounds he could sue them and win.

Establish clear campus policies to prohibit viewpoint discrimination in the distribution of student fee fundsStudents Against Holocaust Mythology can now get university funding. So can Campus Christians Against Lying Scientists. For all I know they can already, but I'm sure they don't need the extra help.

All in all, I say we could do without this bill. There's a few good bits calling for the elimination of codified anti-free speech policy, but even that is questionable in context.

articulett

13th April 2008, 10:44 AM

[QUOTE]

You know the thing that always gets me about this, and demonstrates the rediculousness of it as well, is the fact that this thinking is always very specific to evolution. I am sure that the chemistry teacher would not be nearly as receptive to your son pointing out that he did not believe in atomic structure, or states of matter, and so forth.

--Ha! that's what I told my son. I said to follow up his lecture with "... that is if you believe in "atomic theory", right?"

Nova's program Judgment Day did a very good job at handling this imagined "controversy".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Anybody trying to keep church and state separate as the law intends is seen as a rabble rouser. People can and do violate church state separation wantonly because they can get away with it.

DRwgvzg-wA4

Theists do this weird thing like everything secular is teaching the "atheist viewpoint" and therefore they need to have their say. Secular means religion neutral--not favoring any religion or lack of it. But in their head, they see it as "the other side" so that their side should be taught. I'd like to see every wacky religion begin demanding the rights the Christians demand for themselves-- the wiccans, the FSM, Scientology, Moonies, Muslims. If they want to keep religion in the classroom, it can't just be theirs.

To me, they are clearly asking for rights they don't demand of others because they see their "belief system" as "more valid" and true than all those other beliefs. If the bill passes, I will test encourage the testing of it with truthers, holocaust deniers, flat earthers, Raelians, YEC, etc. Let the kids learn that some adults truly are crazy and worth mocking.

articulett

13th April 2008, 10:55 AM

I always phrase my exam question as, According to Darwin...

Or Carl Sagan says...

Or according to DNA analysis...

What sorts of things can we learn from studying the DNA of organisms...

Which chromosome shows a fusion from primate ancestry in modern humans?

You don't need to require people to "believe" anything to be able to state the facts.

I don't ask people to "believe in" anything... just know the material... read the article... be able to understand what it's saying.

I also emphasize that the controversy is between various religious beliefs that require their members to believe a certain way and science-- not between the scientists themselves. People have been making up creation stories for years.

slingblade

13th April 2008, 12:03 PM

"Viewpoint discrimination?" Good sweet Ed, that sounds like people trying to propose that all "viewpoints" are equally valid.

Welcome to American education, where to be fair is more important than to be correct.

This is just like giving gold medals to all the kids on Field Day, because "everyone's a winner!" What the heck encourages you to do your best, if you're going to get the same reward as the kid who sits on his duff?

Safe-Keeper

13th April 2008, 12:46 PM

Theists do this weird thing like everything secular is teaching the "atheist viewpoint" and therefore they need to have their say. Secular means religion neutral--not favoring any religion or lack of it. But in their head, they see it as "the other side" so that their side should be taught. I'd like to see every wacky religion begin demanding the rights the Christians demand for themselves-- the wiccans, the FSM, Scientology, Moonies, Muslims. If they want to keep religion in the classroom, it can't just be theirs.
Exactly. They don't see secularism as no religion "winning" - they see it as atheists winning.

porch

13th April 2008, 01:55 PM

Here in Canada: That teachers must keep mum on the topic of evolution is not the official policy of the Kativik School Board, and they strictly enforce it.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/05/23/nor-evolution-salluit2.html

To me, this is a particularly perverse form of cultural relativity. I understand wanting to respect the culture of indigenous people, but what that article didn't mention is that, while Salluit is a predominately Inuit community, the prevailing religion is Pentacostal! This is going on at the same time that natives across the country are seeking reparations for their treatment in residential schools. Besides the phsyical and sexual abuse that was common in these church-run schools, complaints also include that students were stripped of their language, culture and religion.

The natives get screwed again . . . and again.

UnrepentantSinner

13th April 2008, 07:27 PM

In Alabama (public school) we were expected to pledge allegiance to both the US and to the State of Alabama, but that is hardly religious.

I attended mostly DODS schools until I was in the 11th grade when I attended public High School in Alabama ('85-86) and we didn't even have the pledge in my school district at that point.

ponderingturtle

14th April 2008, 04:58 PM

Yes, they do. Just as some Christians aren’t very good examples of a religion that claims to put loving others as the highest priority, some skeptics aren’t very good at recognizing that others find different conclusions regarding god as rational as their own. They feel that such theists or agnostics are not applying skepticism to their beliefs, regardless of how ‘god’ is defined or how much critical thought the person has given the matter.

Well they are not. That is simply true. Now sure everyone has beliefs that are not supportable by evidence. It is claims that are contradicted by evidence that are truly the only ones that can be said to be anti skeptic.

And the thing I don't get is why is everyone so against the creationists regardless of if they make evidential claims or not? So as there is nothing must demarcate a creationist from any other theistic belief. But who often when someone talks about a biblical literal creation do people wait and see if they make evidential claims?

linusrichard

14th April 2008, 09:01 PM

My school did a Pledge of Allegiance thing, don't remember if it was daily or weekly. I stopped standing after a while. It was less about the "under God" deal, and more about the fact that the Pledge doesn't have an expiration date, so why should I have to renew it daily or weekly? I've already pledged my allegiance (which they told me to do when they knew full well I didn't understand the nature of the words I was even saying, the fascists), so why should I have to pledge it again?

Anyhoo, story aside, my teacher always yelled at me to "stand up!" during the pledge, even though I suspect he knew that he couldn't really compel me to.

Now, you can say that this isn't a huge deal. You can say that the school can't force you to do it. You can say that it's just two little words. You can say that it didn't hurt me any. And all of that is true. But what you can't say is that it's not an example of a public school pushing religion. Because it is.

"Under God" is not the worst thing in the world. It's not going to hurt our kids and our country like "intelligent design" will. But if you want an example of public schools pushing religion, there you have it, and I bet it happens at nearly every school in the country.

Dancing David

15th April 2008, 05:46 AM

Hiya Elizabeth I, all hail the queen. I am a Windsorfarian after all. :)

I would say something about the bible belt and the 'south', it extends way far north into 'yankee' territory.

here in central Illinois, the Mason Dixon line runs right through the middle. Kind of strange but the 'south' covers about half of Illinois. (It almost runs through Decatur) So you can find Dxie right here in Illinois, even though we are not so close to Kaintuckey or Miszurah.

As I have stated in other thread, it is a cultural phenomean that prevades the Midwest, this religion thing, and it does not have to have the militancy of the case in Kansas for the pervasive culture to effect the teaching of science. I am glad you got the edjumacation that you got, that is great.

But this pervasive culture is still present and in many cases just bends things all over the place. It does effect the way that biology is taught here in Illinois, it does effect how much is in the text books across the nation. The effects can be very subtle and if one is not from outside the christian church, then it is not as apparent as if one is.

So while I do not see the militancy of fighting evolution that happened in Kansas there is a subtle force which keeps the theory of natural selection through reproductive success from being taught as openly as I feel (just a personal belief) that it should. It is strange to me that in a seventh grade curriculum that empasize color theory of light, the biology section (based upon quarters) gives only a paragraphh or two to the theory of natural selection (out of about 175 pages).

And I live in a rather large, heavily academic town.

Safe-Keeper

15th April 2008, 06:14 AM

Upchurch

15th April 2008, 06:48 AM

In either junior high or maybe early on in high school, the minister of our local life tabernacle church came into, I think, our English class. He warned us all about the dangers of backwards masking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backmasking).

He did that talk every year and I had some older friends so I knew what to expect. I remember trying to ignore what I was told I was supposed to hear and actually listening to the tape. Instead of "worship the devil" or some such, I heard "we like peas."

ntropy

15th April 2008, 07:06 AM

If there was only one school in the entire country endorsing a religion, I would be worried and so should everyone else. It's like waiting for an illness to become much worse and only then treat it.

UnrepentantSinner

15th April 2008, 07:18 AM

Uppy, I can't remember which comic it was in (perhaps Bloom County) but recall two seperate strips critical of "backmasking" where one joked that they said "Go to church. Say your prayers" and another said "No matter how thin you slice it, it's still bologna".

If there was only one school in the entire country endorsing a religion, I would be worried and so should everyone else. It's like waiting for an illness to become much worse and only then treat it.

Ummm, are you including parochial schools or did you forget to limit your comment to public schools because the last time I checked the 1st Amendment was still part of the Constitution?

Upchurch

15th April 2008, 07:30 AM

I'm glad to report that none of that is going on at my son's school -- although he still isn't allowed to join the BSA, which they do endorse. Small deal.

I am so with you on this. I really enjoyed my few years involvement with Cub Scouts and Webelos and I'd be pissed it my (theoretical) atheist son couldn't join or continue on to Boy Scouts. I begrudgingly accede that BSA is a "private" organization, but they still serve a general civic purpose and should either accept all citizens as potential members or strip themselves of such trappings.
I went through the BSA ranks and reached Eagle Scout. The religious aspect was not an issue for me since I didn't come into my explicit atheism until near the end. Before that, it was an extremely minor aspect of my experience in BSA. It was negligible to the point that I couldn't even tell you how it played a part, per se.

I believe the BSA discriminatory policies are a somewhat recent development and counter to Powell's original intent for Scouting.

PrincessIneffabelle

15th April 2008, 09:27 AM

I went through the BSA ranks and reached Eagle Scout. The religious aspect was not an issue for me since I didn't come into my explicit atheism until near the end. Before that, it was an extremely minor aspect of my experience in BSA. It was negligible to the point that I couldn't even tell you how it played a part, per se.

I believe the BSA discriminatory policies are a somewhat recent development and counter to Powell's original intent for Scouting.
I think you're right. My brother was a Scout in the '70s, and I don't remember him talking about any religious stuff in connection with the BSA. Also, I seem to remember another poster here talking about how the Boy Scouts in the UK apparently don't have quite the same discrimination.

I know they have every legal right to exclude undesirables "certain" people, but I still think it's a shame that they push the "fun with friends" and "any boy can join" in their colorful school-distributed leaflets, only to turn around and tell my little boy, "Oh, no, we didn't mean YOU. You certainly aren't welcome here." We can't even get past the screening -- I mean, application. I don't understand how an organization which supposedly values honor so highly has no problem with acting in such a dishonorable manner -- and they're, like, proud of it! They think it's a good thing.

:con2:

Anyway, we'll be checking into Scouting for All and Camp Qwest, instead.

PrincessIneffabelle

15th April 2008, 09:47 AM

BTW, here's my kind, sweet, smart, active little "undesirable":
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_148374804dae636884.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11764)
He'd be an asset and productive member of any group ... too bad he's not good enough for the BSA.

Sandy M

15th April 2008, 09:56 AM

Funny...seems there was less religion in my parochial school than in some public schools. I'm old enough that we said the pledge without "under God" until such time as that was added, then we said it. Whatever. We only prayed at specific assembles, never in class. We had Religion Class (and in lower grades, catechism), but church history (i.e., Old Testament) was taught as being metaphoric and/or allegorical and by no means an accurate historical document. In High School biology, evolution was taught, and in my high school religion classes, we were taught there was no incompatability between the theory of evolution and Catholic beliefs. Of course, my mother was Episcopalian-cum-Buddhist and I "learned" my catechism by rote, never believing a word of it. Just said what they wanted, got my grade, and thought what I wanted. Never pressured by my parents either way (father pretty much a lapsed Catholic). By highschool, I was pretty much an unbeliever, but still mouthed back what they wanted in religion class and went on my merry way. One gal who's uncle, interesting, was a Jesuit was more argumentative in class and I did support her, and there was never any "retribution," just a LOT of discussion. Of course, this was in San Francisco. Perhaps it was some sort of aberrant liberal Catholic school. LOL

bokonon

15th April 2008, 09:57 AM

Anyway, we'll be checking into Scouting for All and Camp Qwest, instead.
I really think that's the way to go. "Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, and Clean" ought to be good enough to satisfy anyone but a damn fool.

Upchurch

15th April 2008, 10:00 AM

Anyway, we'll be checking into Scouting for All
I almost mentioned Scouting for All in my last post, but it has been a while since I checked them out. My understanding is that it includes a group of current Scouts and Eagle Scouts that are lobbying to change the BSA from the inside.

ntropy

15th April 2008, 10:07 AM

Ummm, are you including parochial schools or did you forget to limit your comment to public schools because the last time I checked the 1st Amendment was still part of the Constitution?
Last time I checked this thread was about "public schools that push religion." If you're going to be aIf you're going to post here, try to be polite at least.try to be entertaining at least.

ceo_esq

15th April 2008, 10:32 AM

As a child, I also had to say the Lord's Prayer every morning. So did the only Jewish kid in our class. Except, he refused, and so was made to stand in the corner every morning as punishment for not praying with us.

That's interesting. I wonder if he or his parents had theological objections. As many Jews have pointed out, the "Our Father" is fundamentally a Jewish prayer, and observant Jews often speak admiringly of it. That's one reason it's used so often at Christian-Jewish interfaith celebrations.

slingblade

15th April 2008, 11:45 AM

That's interesting. I wonder if he or his parents had theological objections. As many Jews have pointed out, the "Our Father" is fundamentally a Jewish prayer, and observant Jews often speak admiringly of it. That's one reason it's used so often at Christian-Jewish interfaith celebrations.

Of course, that's what's wrong with anecdotal evidence. :D

I was a small child then. I remember very few details, and didn't even know some of them. All I can remember of it is what I related.

It's possible the parents didn't object to the prayer itself, but to it still being said after the law said it couldn't be done in that way anymore. It's possible they recognized that those who made us say the prayer were "pushing" Christianity, and didn't want that association. And it's possible they felt religion was personal and they didn't want their son performing a religious act in a public, secular venue.

I honestly do not know. I can only remember that he wouldn't say the prayer, and he was daily punished, and when we asked him why one day, he said "I'm Jewish." And I remember that it made a big impression on me, to the point I remember it some 43 or so years later.

But yeah, anecdotes are crappy evidence for most things. Concedo.

ceo_esq

15th April 2008, 12:16 PM

It's possible the parents didn't object to the prayer itself, but to it still being said after the law said it couldn't be done in that way anymore. It's possible they recognized that those who made us say the prayer were "pushing" Christianity, and didn't want that association. And it's possible they felt religion was personal and they didn't want their son performing a religious act in a public, secular venue.

Reason enough for me.

GreyICE

15th April 2008, 01:36 PM

ceo_esq

15th April 2008, 01:38 PM

The military does not require one to make an oath to "God and country" so if BSA wants to fashion itself as a pseudo-military organization, it should get rid of the three fingered salute and have members place their hands over their hearts or it should drop the restrictions against atheists.

I'm not sure that BSA wants to be a pseudo-military organization. But if there is a military organization that inspires it, of course, it's not today's U.S. military but rather the British Army circa a century ago, an institution the ethos of which drew heavily on theism.

I believe the BSA discriminatory policies are a somewhat recent development and counter to Powell's original intent for Scouting.

I'm a little skeptical of that, although the Scouts' really caring about this sort of thing may come and go periodically. In the original 1908 edition of Scouting for Boys, B-P wrote "No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion."

I don't understand how an organization which supposedly values honor so highly has no problem with acting in such a dishonorable manner -- and they're, like, proud of it! They think it's a good thing.

Why specifically dishonorable? In other words, what's the traditional honor code that the organization is transgressing here?

Upchurch

15th April 2008, 02:09 PM

I'm a little skeptical of that, although the Scouts' really caring about this sort of thing may come and go periodically. In the original 1908 edition of Scouting for Boys, B-P wrote "No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion."
I'll admit that I don't have any more specific counter example than this bit from Scouting for All's FAQ section:
It also must be noted Lord Baden Powell, the founder of the World Scouting movement in 1907 never excluded atheists from scouting. In his writings he made it very clear that he believed through the scouting experience a young boy or girl would hopefully find their own spirituality and possibly a belief in "God." He never said to exclude children from scouting if they did not believe in "God"

ceo_esq

15th April 2008, 02:33 PM

I'll admit that I don't have any more specific counter example than this bit from Scouting for All's FAQ section:

Well, that could be true too. Officially encouraging every scout to have a religion doesn't necessarily translate into excluding potential scouts who don't. I don't know what the original admission policy was.

Dancing David

15th April 2008, 07:10 PM

Here is the deal about being a social worker, if you are in private practice and you don't want to provide services to homosexuals, that is your right, more power to you.
If you work for any sort of agency, school or semi private agency partly funded with public money that is not cool.

Please remember that Catholic Charitees and Lutheran Social Services receive big money from states to provide services to families in need , usually because of a child being taken into state custody. It would be unethical as all get out to refuse services to any one when you receive public funds. And most likely illegal to boot.

And then there is the whole ethical issue of self determination, when you are a helping professional, it is a huge wrong thing to impose your values upon an individual who is your client. You are to help them reach their goals, if you provide substance abuse services you can not refuse to treat someone because they are an atheist, if you provide mental health services you can not refuse services because you disapprove of their friends, you are not to try to impose your cultural mores on your clients.

The point when you are a social worker is to help people reach the goals of the situation that you are paid to provide services for. If you are helping someone find housing, that is the goal, if you are helping them quit drugs, that is the goal... you can not pick and choose who your clients are unless there is a physical risk to you. Now if you are in private practice, that is your issue.

I worked as an outreach social woker for ten years providing services to people living with persistant and severe mental illness. My job was to help them develop insight, improve medication complaince and stability in living. Period, it was not my job to change thier politics, religion or sexual orientation.

Now when we afflitaed with a Catholic hospital it got a little dicey, i mean really puttting a condom on it helps prevent HIV transmission and birth control is a good thing if you can't care for children. So we had to stop giving away condoms and drop out clients off a block away from Planned Parenthood.

Many of my clients were hyper religous and had some very stange beliefs, it would have been totally wrong for me to try to tell them about atheism or scepticism.

slingblade

15th April 2008, 07:20 PM

Elizabeth I

15th April 2008, 07:22 PM

Dancing David

16th April 2008, 04:46 AM

One of the funniest things I ever heard was the wife of a Baptist seminary student explaining to me very earnestly that if you played Jimi Hendrix's songs backward they told you to use drugs.

Priceless.

And the wind cries epodekoms...

It just doesn't sound the same.

Dancing David

16th April 2008, 04:49 AM

Netflix now has BS season 4 up on Watch Instantly. I just got done seeing the Boy Scouts episode.

One of the more interesting comments was made by a woman whose son was excluded from the BSA because he's atheist. Paraphrasing, she said the Boy Scouts act like a public organization when they want money (especially Federal money) and private organization when they want to exclude.

I didn't know the Mormon church had pretty much kidnapped the BSA.

And I DO NOT like it that scouts meet in public schools. My taxes help fund public schools, and I don't like this exclusionary religious publicprivate organization using my tax dollars to promote bigotry, hatred, and exclusionism.

Oh, GRRRRRRRRR! Just grrrrrrr.

I agree, however you can host a prayer and bible study group after school as well.

The real thing i hold against the scouts is that they have taken the scout handbook and at the Cub Scout level they have ruined it, it costs more money and is worthless.

The empasis is no longer on scouting, ie camping and prepering for the military. I liked the camping part, I laughed at the military part.

PrincessIneffabelle

16th April 2008, 08:37 PM

Why specifically dishonorable? In other words, what's the traditional honor code that the organization is transgressing here?

Perhaps I can illustrate more clearly:

Let me come to your son's school -- specifically a classroom full of 5 and 6 year-olds. Let me pass out full-color leaflets that feature boys of all ages, skin-color, and abilities having loads of fun doing things that nearly all little boys just love to do -- camping, fishing, campfires, swimming, woodworking, canoeing, sports, etc -- and just generally having a great time with lots of friends. Let me tell them that "any boy can join" and encourage them to sign up. Let your little boy come home and, with a huge smile and barely contained excitement, pull this leaflet out of his backpack and race over to you and start ethusiastically pointing out all the cool stuff. Can you imagine how your kid is almost vibrating with excitement?

Okay, now imagine that you have to tell him that he isn't allowed to join. You have to tell him that even though I said it was for "any boy", we will not let him, or anyone like him, join. You have to explain that even though all his friends can join, he is not welcome. You have to stand there and see your precious little boy's face crumple and redden. You have to comfort him and help him accept the fact that my awesome organization, which actively seeks and receives endorsement and special privileges from our public schools AND is presented during class, doesn't want him because we won't tolerate something very basic and very integral (and very natural, IMO) about him personally. I won't even sully my hands by accepting your application. You and your son just aren't "the right sort" for us.

Does that sound honorable to you? Does that sound respectful, mature, tolerant, or even how good citizens should behave? Sounds a bit Sneechy, if you ask me. Hell, we weren't even honest in our initial presentation. That is not acting with honor, traditional or otherwise.

FYI: I am not anti-BSA. I am not anti-theist-organization. I was a Brownie and a Girl Scout. My brother was a Webelo, Cub Scout, and almost made Eagle Scout. We loved those organizations and have many wonderful memories of them. If they didn't specifically exclude us, my son would already be a member. We are currently members of our local YMCA, and my son participates in several of their useful and fun programs and classes.

I fully accept that the BSA has won the legal right to systematically discriminate. It's just real hard not to take it personally when they use my son's school to keep rubbing our faces in it. It's hard not to take it personally when my sweet, smart little boy throws himself on the bed, sobbing uncontrollably because now he thinks he's somehow defective, undesirable, or just plain not good enough for this exclusive organization.

The only "good" thing about all this is that it does give me a perfect example to show him why discrimination and exclusivity is harmful. It also gives me an opportunity to reinforce the priciples of personal honesty and integrity -- we don't lie to get what we want or to make life easier. In my house, we endorse tolerance and honesty ... apparently more so than the BSA.

slingblade

16th April 2008, 08:53 PM

I agree, however you can host a prayer and bible study group after school as well.

Your point is taken; however, I can't see atheist kids being upset they can't join a prayer group or a bible study. ;)

Some of the gay kids might want to, and would maybe be excluded, but maybe not. Some folks are more tolerant than others.

But a bible study group is a local group. It probably isn't affiliated with a nationwide organization that uses or accepts tax dollars, but excludes the kids of the taxpayers.

The real thing i hold against the scouts is that they have taken the scout handbook and at the Cub Scout level they have ruined it, it costs more money and is worthless.

The emphasis is no longer on scouting, ie camping and prepering for the military. I liked the camping part, I laughed at the military part.

That is such a crying shame.

My dad was a scoutmaster. My brother is an Eagle Scout. Being the scoutmaster's daughter, I often got to go along on campouts and to meetings, and the pancake suppers (fund-raisers). I love scouting, or at least, I love what it used to be.

The people who are doing this...well, the words that describe them can't be used here, I'm afraid.

Dancing David

17th April 2008, 05:09 AM

Pointy headed fools?

I love camping. I am adjusting to going to something other than a tent site however, since I now like to use a CPAP machine. Had a great time in Canada this summer. Hope to return to Colorado this summer.

I remember when i was a kid scouts had fun at the pack meetings, my son sure didn't, might have been the leaders.

CriticalThanking

17th April 2008, 02:25 PM

About 20 years and a career or 2 ago, I went to a statewide educators' conference in San Marcos, TX. There was a session on biology and some teachers asked how to deal with what we would now call "the issue of creationism" - something I had never even heard of back then (I was young and still fairly new to TX). Their anecdotes all talked about clearly threatening questions from principals about their religious and biology beliefs. They were being told to at best, "soft-sell" evolution. Did I ever encounter it during my time as a student or teacher? No. But apparently it does exist on the periphery.

YMMV,

CT

Skeptic Ginger

17th April 2008, 10:29 PM

This is from Expelled Exposed (http://www.expelledexposed.com/). You have to watch it through to get the point if you are in the 'Expelled' mindset when you see the beginning of it.

sQacQy1KJ9M&eurl

ceo_esq

18th April 2008, 03:49 AM

Perhaps I can illustrate more clearly:

Let me come to your son's school -- specifically a classroom full of 5 and 6 year-olds. Let me pass out full-color leaflets that feature boys of all ages, skin-color, and abilities having loads of fun doing things that nearly all little boys just love to do -- camping, fishing, campfires, swimming, woodworking, canoeing, sports, etc -- and just generally having a great time with lots of friends. Let me tell them that "any boy can join" and encourage them to sign up. Let your little boy come home and, with a huge smile and barely contained excitement, pull this leaflet out of his backpack and race over to you and start ethusiastically pointing out all the cool stuff. Can you imagine how your kid is almost vibrating with excitement?

Okay, now imagine that you have to tell him that he isn't allowed to join. You have to tell him that even though I said it was for "any boy", we will not let him, or anyone like him, join. You have to explain that even though all his friends can join, he is not welcome. You have to stand there and see your precious little boy's face crumple and redden. You have to comfort him and help him accept the fact that my awesome organization, which actively seeks and receives endorsement and special privileges from our public schools AND is presented during class, doesn't want him because we won't tolerate something very basic and very integral (and very natural, IMO) about him personally. I won't even sully my hands by accepting your application. You and your son just aren't "the right sort" for us.

Does that sound honorable to you? Does that sound respectful, mature, tolerant, or even how good citizens should behave? Sounds a bit Sneechy, if you ask me. Hell, we weren't even honest in our initial presentation. That is not acting with honor, traditional or otherwise.

I have say, that with the possible exception of actual dishonesty - which I find somewhat debatable in this context - what you're talking about doesn't seem directly to implicate honor in a traditional sense, which has almost always been linked to bravery, chastity (at least in women), group loyalty, and willingness to submit individual inclinations to the group. I think it's distinguishable from morality or ethics (which might yield such qualities as tolerance and forth); they might overlap with honor in a given situation but they might actually conflict with it. Cowardice, treachery or failing to stand up for oneself would be dishonorable qualities; intolerance as such might be immoral or wrong but not conventionally dishonorable as such.

I'm not persuaded that failure to admit everyone to a group is necessarily evidence of intolerance in some sort of unethical sense, though. Obviously, many forms of discrimination and exclusivity are not predicated on some kind of malice towards other people, which is something I hope you'd point out to your son as well, lest he get the idea that such groupings (whether the AARP, a religious denomination, or a million others) are inherently wrong or elitist.

slingblade

18th April 2008, 04:16 AM

Honor's only a group concept? If that's what you've said, I disagree. Individuals have honor, to uphold or cast aside.

When you tell students that "any boy can join" and you know there are at least two firm exceptions to that invitation, you've been dishonest and dishonorable.

Failure to admit every boy into a group that you said any boy can join is discriminatory and unethical. If you don't mean "any boy," don't say it. If you have exceptions, list them during the presentation.

To be honorable in the scouting sense (in any sense, I'd dare say) is to be honest. In DM's experience, the presenter was not honest, and so, was not honorable.

ceo_esq

18th April 2008, 06:18 AM

Honor's only a group concept? If that's what you've said, I disagree. Individuals have honor, to uphold or cast aside.

Individuals may have honor (though not a priori), but that doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally a group-related concept. As scholar James Bowman notes in Honor: A History:

At its simplest, honor is the good opinion of the people who matter to us, and who matter because we regard them as a society of equals who have the power to judge our behavior. This is what [Cambridge] Professor Derek Brewer has called the honor group. Obviously, this definition includes an important variable term, since the people who matter are different for every individual.

Thus, honor "is by its very nature relative to a particular social context" (Bowman again). Honor is fundamentally something that is accorded, or imagined to be accorded; the development of the concept of "honor" (the noun) is inextricably linked to the concept of "to honor" (the verb). That, at least, is the understanding of honor that is required in order to make sense of its cultural significance (regardless of the particular deeds and qualities that contribute to it within a given honor group).

When you tell students that "any boy can join" and you know there are at least two firm exceptions to that invitation, you've been dishonest and dishonorable.

Failure to admit every boy into a group that you said any boy can join is discriminatory and unethical. If you don't mean "any boy," don't say it. If you have exceptions, list them during the presentation.

I have two observations about this. First of all, why isn't it dishonest and dishonorable (and I trust I can say this without contradiction) for, say, the Methodists to suggest that "anyone can join the Methodist Church"? Or for any group that pledges itself to particular values to say that anyone can join it? These are certainly true in what strikes me as an unobjectionable sense, but it doesn't seem far from the sense in which the Cub Scouts might say "any boy can join". If any person can join a religion, than any person can join a group made for people who profess a religion.

Second, the sort of thinking in which you're engaging would seem to lend itself to ludicrous expectations. Imagine, say, a book on elementary cookery that advertises "anyone can do it", or a game that advertises "anyone can play". Well, no, probably not literally everyone. False advertising: the author is dishonest and dishonorable! Er, no. What if the Cub Scouts dropped the criterion DmKrispin is concerned about? Could they then honorably advertise that "any boy can join"? Not by your standard; every time they said that, they'd have to mention in the same breath that this does not technically apply to boys who are too old or young, or whose families do not pay the registration fee or give their consent, or for some reason profess an unwillingness to abide by the organization's other rules, etc., etc. But do ordinary ethical standards dictate that all of these things - or the religious aspect - must be fully explained in a flyer or broached in a quick pitch to a six-year-old by a stranger in order not to be dishonest and deceitful? (They're disclosed on the application, and additional information is provided to parents, after all.) I don't think that anyone without a prior subjective interest in raking the BSA over the coals for the no-atheists policy itself can honestly answer "Yes" to that one.

Ichneumonwasp

18th April 2008, 06:45 AM

I have two observations about this. First of all, why isn't it dishonest and dishonorable (and I trust I can say this without contradiction) for, say, the Methodists to suggest that "anyone can join the Methodist Church"? Or for any group that pledges itself to particular values to say that anyone can join it? These are certainly true in what strikes me as an unobjectionable sense, but it doesn't seem far from the sense in which the Cub Scouts might say "any boy can join". If any person can join a religion, than any person can join a group made for people who profess a religion.

Second, the sort of thinking in which you're engaging would seem to lend itself to ludicrous expectations. Imagine, say, a book on elementary cookery that advertises "anyone can do it", or a game that advertises "anyone can play". Well, no, probably not literally everyone. False advertising: the author is dishonest and dishonorable! Er, no. What if the Cub Scouts dropped the criterion DmKrispin is concerned about? Could they then honorably advertise that "any boy can join"? Not by your standard; every time they said that, they'd have to mention in the same breath that this does not technically apply to boys who are too old or young, or whose families do not pay the registration fee or give their consent, or for some reason profess an unwillingness to abide by the organization's other rules, etc., etc. But do ordinary ethical standards dictate that all of these things - or the religious aspect - must be fully explained in a flyer or broached in a quick pitch to a six-year-old by a stranger in order not to be dishonest and deceitful? (They're disclosed on the application, and additional information is provided to parents, after all.) I don't think that anyone without a prior subjective interest in raking the BSA over the coals for the no-atheists policy itself can honestly answer "Yes" to that one.

When an advertiser says "anyone can do it" we have learned, generally through experience, that the claim is only partially true. That phrase is usually translated in most consumer's minds to "look, it's easy".

That is not the case with the Boy Scouts. The phrase "any boy can join" should mean that any boy can join, with no discrimination. Any boy can join in the 1920s meant any white boy could join.

Is this a double standard? Yes. I hold the BSA to a higher standard than an advertiser of widgets or cookbooks.

Honorable, dishonorable, who cares what we call it?

A Christian Sceptic

18th April 2008, 08:17 AM

Public High School Biology class was the only time (outside of my college courses) where evolution came up. It was dealt with very quickly. My reaction was "Oh, so that's how He did it. Cool." (Interestingly - that class was one of the reasons I came to believe in God. Particularly what moved me most was when I was studying cells and drawing them. Some people in past threads have pointed out this is a non-sequitor - so don't bother repointing it out. :) )Other classmates had different reactions. Most didn't care one way or another. That year was the first time I came across Creationists and the fascinating comics and books published by the Creation Research Institute or some such place. We had some interesting discussions at lunch that year. There's nothing like young punk kids who think they know better than everyone having theologocial and philisophical discussions during school lunch. I miss those days sometimes. haha.

Ichneumonwasp

18th April 2008, 08:30 AM

We could start a food fight if it would make you feel better.:)

slingblade

18th April 2008, 12:55 PM

Individuals may have honor (though not a priori), but that doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally a group-related concept. As scholar James Bowman notes in Honor: A History:

Thus, honor "is by its very nature relative to a particular social context" (Bowman again). Honor is fundamentally something that is accorded, or imagined to be accorded; the development of the concept of "honor" (the noun) is inextricably linked to the concept of "to honor" (the verb). That, at least, is the understanding of honor that is required in order to make sense of its cultural significance (regardless of the particular deeds and qualities that contribute to it within a given honor group).

Sorry, this is too confusing for me. I'll try to address it later, perhaps.

I have two observations about this. First of all, why isn't it dishonest and dishonorable (and I trust I can say this without contradiction) for, say, the Methodists to suggest that "anyone can join the Methodist Church"?

Do they say that? Do they have unspoken exceptions, in that case?

Does the Methodist church go out into the community to drum up new membership? Do they send representatives into the public schools with flyers and speeches and active recruiting? If not, the analogy is flawed.

It's one thing for me to go to any group and ask to join, only to be told I don't meet the criteria. It's quite another to be approached by the group and encouraged to join, only to find out later the invitation didn't really apply to me.

To answer the question put, however: yes, if they say anyone can join without exception, but they have unspoken exceptions, it is indeed dishonest and dishonorable.

Or for any group that pledges itself to particular values to say that anyone can join it?

This would hold true for any group that recruits. Not necessarily for groups you approach on your own initiative.

Dishonesty is saying something you know isn't true. So yes, to say "anyone can join us," while knowing full well you have firm and specific exceptions to that invitation, and further, to not mention your known exceptions in your sales pitch, means you've been dishonest. And especially when it's about children, who lack the discernment or the experience to suspect they're being lied to.

These are certainly true in what strikes me as an unobjectionable sense, but it doesn't seem far from the sense in which the Cub Scouts might say "any boy can join". If any person can join a religion, than any person can join a group made for people who profess a religion.

Then they should say that! Any religious boy can join. ANY BOY does mean gay boys, atheist boys, agnostic boys, handicapped boys, Down's Syndrome boys, ANY. BOY.

Second, the sort of thinking in which you're engaging would seem to lend itself to ludicrous expectations. Imagine, say, a book on elementary cookery that advertises "anyone can do it", or a game that advertises "anyone can play". Well, no, probably not literally everyone. False advertising: the author is dishonest and dishonorable! Er, no.

Not the same thing. Flawed analogy.

What if the Cub Scouts dropped the criterion DmKrispin is concerned about? Could they then honorably advertise that "any boy can join"? Not by your standard; every time they said that, they'd have to mention in the same breath that this does not technically apply to boys who are too old or young,

Oh, but they do outline that; it isn't hidden.

"If you are between the ages of 6 and 17, you can join the group appropriate to your age: Cub Scouts, Webelos, or Boy Scouts." Now, consider that these pitches are made in schools where the students are already the right ages. Scout recruiters don't go to pre-schools and chat up the two-year-olds.

or whose families do not pay the registration fee or give their consent, or for some reason profess an unwillingness to abide by the organization's other rules, etc., etc. But do ordinary ethical standards dictate that all of these things - or the religious aspect - must be fully explained in a flyer or broached in a quick pitch to a six-year-old by a stranger in order not to be dishonest and deceitful? (They're disclosed on the application, and additional information is provided to parents, after all.) I don't think that anyone without a prior subjective interest in raking the BSA over the coals for the no-atheists policy itself can honestly answer "Yes" to that one.

If Scouting holds restrictions of any kind, they can and should be outlined. It doesn't take forever; just a few seconds.

"If money's an issue, it's possible to remedy that in this way, etc." I think scouts do have support for low-income members. Suspension of dues, or dues scaled to fit income. After all, low-income, at-risk kids are the very ones Scouting should be trying to reach. They'd benefit from it, as would their society.

If the parents won't give consent, that's not on Scouting, but the parents. All it takes is a second or two to say "You must have your parents' consent," and while I haven't heard such a pitch in decades, I'm relatively certain it's mentioned at least once. In fact, if one can consider joining the scouts a form of contractual agreement, children cannot enter into those, and the law likely requires this be specified to the children. I see it on TV all the time for call-in type contests: "must have parental consent."

The same for abiding by the rules of scouting. That's usually a problem that arises after the boy has joined, but there's no reason it can't be mentioned in the pitch. "In order to be a Scout, you must agree to abide by our rules..." Simple, quick, and probably something you should be telling kids who, again, often have to have things spelled out to them more fully than experienced adults would need.

I see your argument as a slippery slope fallacy. My specific argument is that if your organization, regardless of its nature or type, comes to a school to recruit a captive audience (a term used in and by schools to describe the student population, as my education in Education taught me), you have a moral obligation to spell it all out to them.

"With certain restrictions, almost any boy can join the Boy Scouts" is not an unreasonable thing to expect. A blanket open invitation that isn't true is deceptive. Deceit is dishonorable.

I cannot imagine why these particular exceptions aren't made known by them, and with pride. Are they ashamed they exclude gays and atheists? No? Then they should say so in the pitch, and not try to hide it until later, when the child who believed the open invitation finds out he was lied to, by omission.

I was taught a lie by omission is still a lie. An organization that purports to uphold honesty and honor has no business being less than honest.

slingblade

18th April 2008, 01:19 PM

I want a separate post for this point:

If the BSA considers itself a religious organization, it needs to STOP recruiting in public schools during school hours, where the students are a captive audience and must stay to listen. It violates separation of church and state. Let them hold recruiting events in churches, where they belong.

Gazpacho

18th April 2008, 02:20 PM

Elizabeth understands, I hope, that one school pushing religion all by itself can be grounds for litigation, regardless of whether the same thing is happening "everywhere."

Madalch

18th April 2008, 03:18 PM

He'd be an asset and productive member of any group ... too bad he's not good enough too smart for the BSA.
Fixed it for you.

He's almost as cute as my sons.

Elizabeth I

19th April 2008, 09:39 AM

Since I started this thread and then haven't posted in it, to try to avoid the label of troll, I'd like to say that I was really mad (in case you couldn't tell) at the time, and that's why I said what I said with the attitude.

I have lived most of my life in the southern tier of U.S. states, from Arizona to Georgia, have visited lots of other places, and have found people to be pretty much the same. There are some smart people, some stupid people, some educated people, some uneducated people, some tolerant people, some bigots...

No geographic area has a monopoly on one kind or the other, and I have to say I think the South gets unfairly stigmatized. For example, someone in this thread talks about working to get rid of [his?] Southern accent because some people thought it made him sound stupid or uneducated. But do you ever hear someone say they worked to lose their Bronx or South-Philly-Italian accent for the same reason? "Dese," "dem", "dose" and "youse guys" don't sound like mellifluous Shakespeare to me, but I do understand that the way people pronounce words doesn't say a thing about their intelligence, and it would be the height of arrogance for me to presume it does.

What I'd just like to say, and what I meant to say with my first post, is, please lay off the generalizations. I like where I live and the people who live here. There are a lot of smart, funny, well-educated, creative, kind, tolerant, hard-working people here. My city in particular is wonderfully multi-cultural. (well, maybe more bi-cultural :)) Creationists, IDists, homophobes, racists, and the whole ilk are sometimes dangerous and always idiots, but they don't inhabit one area of the globe exclusively. Please throw a sop to this concept occasionally.

p.s. This is not to say that an area should not be singled out when there is a specific threat, controversy, or issue, as in the case of the Texas school textbook fights or the firing of the state science education coordinator. But if you're tempted to roll your eyes and say, "Oh, those Texans," or, "Oh, those Southerners," please remember Dover, Pennsylvania. Remember where Scientology keeps its headquarters. Remember where Focus on the Family can be found. Remember where Laura Schlessinger was born, and where she lives now. No monopoly on "stupid" anywhere.

Skeptic Ginger

19th April 2008, 01:16 PM

Since I started this thread and then haven't posted in it, to try to avoid the label of troll, I'd like to say that I was really mad (in case you couldn't tell) at the time, and that's why I said what I said with the attitude.We can tell. :rolleyes: And now that you have calmed down, you might find a discussion of your pet peeve more productive.

I have lived most of my life in the southern tier of U.S. states, from Arizona to Georgia, have visited lots of other places, and have found people to be pretty much the same. There are some smart people, some stupid people, some educated people, some uneducated people, some tolerant people, some bigots...

No geographic area has a monopoly on one kind or the other,I think most of us know that because a particular group or a larger majority of the population in some part of the country have a particular quality, (mainly religious fundamentalism but occasionally patriotic right wing fundamentalism or lingering racism), it does not mean there aren't normal people in those geographic areas as well.

I really think it is the chip on your shoulder that is causing you to perceive comments about people in your neck of the woods a little more personal than is called for. I suggest calling people on specific over generalizations rather than assuming everyone is too ignorant to know that populations are not normally as homogeneous as you think we believe.

Skeptic Ginger

19th April 2008, 01:37 PM

and I have to say I think the South gets unfairly stigmatized. ...However, this I would argue with.

With all due respect, of course, to the wonderful Ann Richards and Molly Ivins who I assume represent persons more like yourself, you do have a particularly nasty branch of the Republican Party in Texas. Don't they represent the majority there? And I know this is a bit astray from just the educational angle, however there is specific reference to teaching of "alternatives to evolution" in the Texas Republican Party platform.

George Bush emerged from the Texas Republicans. Tom DeLay infamously spearheaded the unprecedented gerrymandering of the Congressional Districts in Texas (which was the real reason the Republicans took control of Congress, not a major shift in the majority view as most people believe).

Then there is the influence of the religious right wing on the Republican Party in Texas, not that Texas is the only place this is occurring, but it is particularly severe in your state as evidenced by the Republican Party platform over the last couple elections which included more fundamentalist language that other Republican state party platforms as far as I know.

Republican Party of Texas: Firmly Controlled by Christian Right (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258039.htm)

2006 Republican Party of Texas Platform (http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_platform)2. We believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God. ...

5. We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between a natural man and a natural woman. ...

“We pray God Bless Texas. God Bless the U.S.A. God bless us all!"Not too shocking, not sure why they felt the need to signify 'natural' gender, ... until you get to the details. OMG! I was going to copy the stuff I recalled from the 2004 STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM (http://www.yuricareport.com/GOPorganizations/TexasRPTPlatform2004.pdf), but what is in the newest version is over the top. I'm going to have to start a thread on this when I get a bit more time.

The full document from 2006, the latest version until the 08 convention. (http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001) I apologize for the length of this quote, but it was all so extreme. Believe it or not I snipped the bulk of it and then snipped it two more times to pare it down to the most outrageous stuff. To see that it isn't cherry picked go to the original document. They have the entire Evangelical right wing point of view on just about every subject spelled out in detail in this platform.Preamble
...The embodiment of the Conservative Dream in America is Texas. ....

Free Speech for the Clergy – ...Internal Revenue Code to be changed to allow a religious organization to address the vital issues of the day without fear of the organization losing its tax-exempt status. Further, we call for repeal of all provisions requiring religious organizations to send government any personal identification information about their contributors....

Remedies to Activist Judiciary – We call on the Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges.
1. Impeachment - ..
2. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, ...

AWOL Legislators – We encourage the Texas House and Senate to formulate rules to compel the attendance of absent members, ....[A reference to the Democratic attempt to stop the unethical gerrymandering of Congressional districts.]...

Honoring the Symbols of Our American Heritage
Ten Commandments – We understand that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition. ...
Pledge of Allegiance – ... We decry any unconstitutional act of judicial tyranny that would demand removal of the words “One Nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. We also demand that the National Motto “In God We Trust” and National Anthem be protected from legislative and judicial attack.
American English – We support the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America....[American English?]...

Celebrating Traditional Marriage
Family and Defense of Marriage - ..definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, .. we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. . ..Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. ...denies recognition by Texas of homosexual “unions” legitimized by other states or nations....

Marriage and Divorce.... rescind no–fault divorce laws. For these reasons we support Covenant Marriage, ...[not sure what that is]
Marriage Licenses - We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple.
Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God,...Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to .. marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Protecting Innocent Human Life
Party Candidates and the Platform on Protecting Innocent Human Life - We urge the Republican Party of Texas to support, financially or with in-kind contributions, only those candidates or nominees of this party who support the entire platform on protecting innocent human life. ...
Partial Birth Abortion - ... We call on The Congress of the United States to eliminate from the jurisdiction of each and every federal court any and all cases involving challenges to state and federal laws banning Partial Birth Abortion.
Right To Life - All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse making clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children....[yadda yadda]...

Choose Life - ... "Choose Life" license plates.
Parental Consent - We call for the electoral defeat of all judges who through raw judicial activism seek to nullify the Parental Consent Law by wantonly granting bypasses to minor girls seeking abortions, ... such reports shall be made available to the public. We call on the Legislature to require parental consent for emergency contraception (referred to as the Morning After pill)....

Protection of Women’s Health - ... we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. .. requiring abortion providers, prior to an abortion, to provide women full knowledge of the physical and psychological risks of abortion, the characteristics of the unborn child, and abortion alternatives. ...

RU 486 - We urge the FDA to suspend approval of RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturer and/or distributor’s liability because this abortifacient drug has proven to be physically dangerous to women.
Morning After Pill – We oppose the sale, use, and dispensing of the “Morning After Pill”, also known as emergency contraception, ...
Gestational Contracts - We believe that commercial surrogacy is a legal and ethical free-fall and the rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder. ...
Unborn Child Pain Protection - We support legislation that requires doctors to provide information to a woman who is twenty or more weeks pregnant about the nervous system development of her unborn child, information about the unborn child’s ability to feel pain, and to provide pain relief for her unborn child in the tragic circumstance that she wishes to continue with the abortion.
Unborn Victims of Violence Legislation - ... We urge the State to ensure that the Prenatal Protection Law is interpreted accurately.

Conscience Clause - We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including ... and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. ...
Fetal Tissue Harvesting - We support legislation prohibiting experimentation with human fetal tissue and prohibiting the use of human fetal tissue or organs for experimentation or commercial sale. ...
Stem Cell Research - We commend the President for banning most government funding of human embryo stem cell harvesting. ... We encourage the adoption of existing embryos. ...
Human Cloning - Each human life, whether created naturally or through an artificial process, deserves protection.... We seek a ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is implanted in a womb and the human clone is birthed). We also seek a ban on research cloning .. Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings. No government or state funding should be provided for any human cloning.

Gene Manufacturing – We support a ban on research that alters human DNA in living human beings at any stage of life, including the altering of artificial, manufactured, and natural genes and chromosomes....

Age of Consent - We support raising the age of consent for consensual sex for all children to 18 years of age ...

Child Support and Visitation - ...We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.
Adoption –...We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption of children by homosexuals.
Foster Care - We support eliminating bureaucratic prohibitions on corporal discipline and home schooling in foster homes to help alleviate the shortage of foster parents. ...

AIDS / HIV - ......however, behavior has personal and social consequences. ... We oppose the needle exchange and bleach kit programs. ...
Americans with Disabilities Act - We support amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.
Immunizations - We believe all adult citizens should have the legally protected right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves or their minor children without penalty or discrimination for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any medical record computer database or registry that would store personal identifiable records on citizens without their written consent. [So no needle exchange but it's OK to spread vaccine preventable infectious diseases]
Educating our Children....
U.S. Department of Education – The Federal Government has no constitutional jurisdiction over education. We call for the abolition of the U. S. Department of Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency....
Sex Education...we support the requirement that schools teaching sex education must teach directive abstinence until heterosexual marriage with an uninfected person as the only safe and healthy means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies among unwed students. We believe programs should teach the physical and emotional risks of abortion specified in State law and rules. We oppose programs that advocate or legitimize pre-marital sexual activity, advocate condoms and birth control use by unmarried minors, advocate abortions, and condone homosexual, bisexual, and transgender acts and/or lifestyles, and elevate minors’ rights to make sexual and health care decisions equivalent to their parents. Sex education classes, if conducted, should be separated by sex. We oppose the use of any materials from Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S (SIECUS)....

Classroom Discipline – ... We urge the Texas Legislature, Governor, Commissioner of Education and State Board of Education to remind administrators and school boards that corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas....

Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal and its political and economic systems.
Multiculturalism –We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences between racial and ethnic groups....

Bilingual Education – We demand the abolition of bilingual education as it currently exists in Texas. ...
Educational Entitlement – We encourage legislation that prohibits the enrollment and education of children whose parents are unlawful residents in the United States. We do not believe there is any entitlement for these children to receive pre-school, elementary, secondary, or post-secondary educational services paid for by American taxpayers.
Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We support and strongly urge Congress to pass a Religious Freedom Amendment, which provides: “Neither the United States nor any State shall prohibit student–sponsored prayer in public schools, nor compose any official student prayer or compel joining therein.” ...
Theories of Origin – We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; ...
School Health Care – We call upon Texas legislators to prohibit reproductive health care services, including counseling, referrals, and distribution of condoms and contraception through public schools....

Equality of All Citizens – ... We urge the immediate repeal of the Hate Crimes Law, ...
Child Abuse – We recognize the family as a sovereign authority over which the state has no right to intervene, ... we oppose actions of social agencies to classify traditional methods of discipline as child abuse....

Unborn Victims of Violence – We believe a person who injures or kills an unborn child should be subject to criminal and civil litigation, whether the child dies in the womb or is born alive.
Sexual Assault – We believe that rape is a heinous crime for which punishment options should include death....

Addictive Behaviors – We recognize that addictive substances and pornography are dangerous and affect all of society.... Faith based rehabilitation programs should be utilized in place of incarceration when possible. ...

Faith-Based Charities – We oppose any restrictions by the IRS or any other government rules on taxpayer contributions to faith-based charities. ...

[B]Energy vs. Radical Environmentalism - We support cooperative regulation and rulemaking that preserves jobs and the economy while promoting responsible conservation of our natural resources. ...

Restoring American Sovereignty and Leadership
...Illegal Immigration – No amnesty! No how. No way.
With growing impatience, the American people in overwhelming numbers have asked our government to secure our borders......[couple pages of the usual stuff in this section]

International Relations
China – We strongly recommend the removal of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Communist China (formerly “Most Favored Nation” status) until such time when:
1. there is a formal peace treaty between North and South Korea;[I take it they blame China for N Korea's government]
...
3. there is freedom of religion, specifically that China ceases their persecution of Christians.
...
We further urge the imposition of trade sanctions against communist China for interfering in United States political campaigns.
Cuba – We support strengthening the Cuban embargo. ...
Taiwan – We recognize Taiwan as a long-time ally of the United States ...
Israel – We believe that the United States and Israel share a special long-standing relationship ... We believe that the US Embassy in Israel should immediately become located in the capital city of Jerusalem. In our diplomatic dealings with Israel, we encourage the continuation of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but oppose pressuring Israel to make concessions it believes would jeopardize its security, including the trading of land for the recognition of its right to exist. ... In summary, our policy is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.
Hamas – Because Hamas is a terrorist organization and does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, ...[lots of condemnation of the Palestinians]
Iraq – We commend President George W. Bush, his administration, and the U.S. Armed Forces in their strategy and execution of the War in Iraq. ...
Iran – Because the State Department identifies Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and the Iranian president has repeatedly called for the complete destruction of Israel, and because a nuclear armed Iran would destabilize the entire Middle East, we encourage the President to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring or developing atomic weapons. [IE another blank check since they think Iraq is going so well]
Afghanistan – Because America has sacrificed her children to bring democracy to Afghanistan, we admonish that country to uphold the fundamental human rights of her own people including freedom of religious conviction. ...

One World Government Organizations – We oppose a one world government which is in direct opposition to the basic principles of the United States of America eroding our sovereignty and our goals for leadership in world affairs.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) – We urge Congress to stop funding the IMF and any other international financing agencies, because such agencies give American taxpayers’ money to international bankers. We believe these funding agencies should be eliminated. ...

United Nations – We believe it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we [B]immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations....[snip all sorts of right wing anti-UN rhetoric] We urge Congress to evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation....

The 2006 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM (http://www.wsrp.org/About/Default.aspx?SectionID=81), for comparison contains some of the basic religious language, but nothing as extreme as what is contained in the Texas platform.Our Republic was founded as one nation under God on principles clearly set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in our Constitution....

• Protection of innocent human life, pre-born or born, through all stages of life, sickness and disability.
• Existing Washington State Law that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.
• An amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman....

• Sex education programs that promote abstinence before marriage.
• A policy that public schools not promote or identify homosexuality as a healthy, morally acceptable, or alternative lifestyle....

Ours is a nation created not by force, but by unifying ideals. People came here to be free to worship God as they choose without State restriction. ...

• Protecting individuals’ first amendment right of religious expression in our public schools does not conflict with the Establishment Clause....

We strongly support and wish to promote and protect the continued use of the phrase “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance....

Dancing David

20th April 2008, 05:35 AM

SG, those people are verywhere, they permeate the Midwest as well, they just are a little more sly about it. But they do turn a blind eye when the football player rapes the girl, or smashes the car into a tree, or when someone slashes the tires of someone who dates a dark skinned individual,... it goes one and on.

Stupid people are evenly distributed throughout the universe. Somedays the concentrations are higher than others.
(Fern's Law: except the words is anus not stupid people)

articulett

20th April 2008, 09:25 AM

I'm not sure the stupid is evenly distributed...
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

Ignorance is bad for you... and there's more of it going on in the bible belt than other places in the U.S. It's subtle, but pervasive.

Example: sTRDRP2n4Sk

Elizabeth I

20th April 2008, 11:10 AM

However, this I would argue with.

With all due respect, of course, to the wonderful Ann Richards and Molly Ivins who I assume represent persons more like yourself, you do have a particularly nasty branch of the Republican Party in Texas.

Well, actually, I thought Ann Richards was a pseudo-folksy, consciously "Texan," pretentious politician. But that's not to slight her in particular, because I have a good opinion of very few politicians, of any ideology. I would have thought the same of her had she been a Republican if she had behaved in the same way.

Molly Ivins I loved specifically because of one column she wrote about a friend of hers, a former beauty queen whose motto was "Better dead than Miss Congeniality." And I admired her fight against her cancer.

Don't they represent the majority there? And I know this is a bit astray from just the educational angle, however there is specific reference to teaching of "alternatives to evolution" in the Texas Republican Party platform.

More people in Texas may currently vote Republican than Democrat. However, it's not so long ago (25 or 30 years, maybe) that anyone running as a Republican here might just as well have ordered his coffin and lain down in it to wait to die - it would have taken less time than waiting to get elected. And you should know how little attention anybody outside the inner core of the party powerful pays to the official platform.

George Bush emerged from the Texas Republicans.

Yes, he did, and I can tell you that a whole bunch of people who supported him and voted for him feel shocked and betrayed (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-675456/The-man-who-isn-t.html) by his administration once he got into the White House. His performance as governor of Texas led many to believe that he would live up to his campaign rhetoric - he was a "uniter, not a divider," winning the admiration and trust of the Speaker of the [state] House of Representatives, a Democrat (and the holder of the most powerful elected position in the state. The governorship is not worth, in the words of another Democrat, "a bucket of warm spit.") Politicians and elected officials on both sides spoke of him with approval and were willing to work with him.

Tom DeLay infamously spearheaded the unprecedented gerrymandering of the Congressional Districts in Texas (which was the real reason the Republicans took control of Congress, not a major shift in the majority view as most people believe).

Tom DeLay is a power-hungry bastard and would be no matter what party he said he belonged to. If this were still the days of the Democrats' "Solid South," he would have been the yellowest-dog Democrat you ever saw. His interest is purely personal power and only incidentally ideology.

And you can't have it both ways. Either conservative Republicans are a majority:

you do have a particularly nasty branch of the Republican Party in Texas. Don't they represent the majority there?

Or they really aren't and everybody else has just been cheated out of their vote by DeLay's maneuverings (which I wouldn't argue with. I just think your two hypotheses are mutually contradictory.)

Then there is the influence of the religious right wing on the Republican Party in Texas, not that Texas is the only place this is occurring, but it is particularly severe in your state as evidenced by the Republican Party platform over the last couple elections which included more fundamentalist language that other Republican state party platforms as far as I know.

See my remarks above about how few people in either party pay any attention to what the platform says. And that may be an indictment of the electorate, but if it is, it's an indictment of Reps and Dems both, and in every state in the Union.

My mother's family, from deep South Texas, were hard-shelled Baptists, Biblical literalism and all. And they would have thought it was a SIN to vote for a Republican. And they weren't unique.

All I can tell you is that, regardless of what you may read wherever, Texas as a whole is pretty much like anyplace else. There is a mix of people of all stripes and ideologies. Is the far right wing particularly loud and shrill here? Yep, but they are loud and shrill everywhere.

And for that matter, the Hillaryites I saw at my district convention were pretty shrill themselves.

Damien Evans

20th April 2008, 10:54 PM

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2008, 12:15 AM

...
More people in Texas may currently vote Republican than Democrat. However, it's not so long ago (25 or 30 years, maybe) that anyone running as a Republican here might just as well have ordered his coffin and lain down in it to wait to die - it would have taken less time than waiting to get elected. And you should know how little attention anybody outside the inner core of the party powerful pays to the official platform.
....
And you can't have it both ways. Either conservative Republicans are a majority:

Or they really aren't and everybody else has just been cheated out of their vote by DeLay's maneuverings (which I wouldn't argue with. I just think your two hypotheses are mutually contradictory.)

See my remarks above about how few people in either party pay any attention to what the platform says. ...

All I can tell you is that, regardless of what you may read wherever, Texas as a whole is pretty much like anyplace else. There is a mix of people of all stripes and ideologies. Is the far right wing particularly loud and shrill here? Yep, but they are loud and shrill everywhere.

And for that matter, the Hillaryites I saw at my district convention were pretty shrill themselves.What a delightful post from you when you aren't mad at everyone for overgeneralizing about your neck of the woods.

I'm always pleased to talk to people informed enough to know about DeLay's redistricting and Ivins' writings.

If you will forgive a few more overgeneralizations, I do believe the South swung right when the Democratic President Johnson invaded their segregated lifestyles with tanks and armed guardsmen. So it doesn't surprise me Texas was included. I heard an interesting hypothesis from a poly-sci professor at the U of WA just last week that the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority sprung up from the move to desegregate places like Bob Jones University, not because of the Roe V Wade decision in '73. Falwell and LeHaye just used Roe v Wade to garner the support of the masses. The discussion came up at one of a 4 part lecture series I'm in the middle of attending. It has been comparing the influence of religion and the economy on politics in the US. The auditorium has been packed and the lectures excellent so far.

Faith and Finance: The Twin Pillars of American Politics (http://www.washington.edu/alumni/cal/calendar.html)

It is very perceptive of you that gerrymandering implies one wouldn't have a majority otherwise. Point taken. I do hope you realize that of course there is a mix of people everywhere. I have been trying to say that overgeneralizing has its place in a discussion, but I have been around the world and around the country many times so I am well aware of reality.

Still, you cannot deny that there are some regional differences. The red and blue states for example differ on a couple of telling things. You could not get corporal punishment approved in a public school in a blue state. And the platform I quoted from, regardless of who reads it or what the actual majority feels, was nonetheless, like night and day compared to the WA State Republican Party platform. To say Texas' platform is extreme is an understatement.

The film clips on the news showing Texas Democratic caucuses this year did indeed include all sorts of shrill people. I started a thread on the hostility of the WA State caucuses this year which I had never seen anything like before. But I have to say where I was, the big difference was Obama supporters. They were downright hostile at my caucus. But that thread has run its course.

Elizabeth I

21st April 2008, 06:49 PM

What a delightful post from you when you aren't mad at everyone for overgeneralizing about your neck of the woods.

If you will forgive a few more overgeneralizations, I do believe the South swung right when the Democratic President Johnson invaded their segregated lifestyles with tanks and armed guardsmen.

Um...I think it was Republican President Eisenhower in 1957 in Little Rock.

Just for the record, every school I went to, from Texas to Arizona to Georgia, was integrated. And, while I would prefer not to state my age, I will say that I started school a while back.

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2008, 10:22 PM

Do you know the history of desegregation in Texas? School Desegregation in Texas: The Implementation of "United States v. State of Texas." Policy Research Project Report Number 51. (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED231027&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED231027)In "United States v. State of Texas," a federal judge in 1971 handed down a statewide desegregation order affecting over 1,000 Texas school districts, to be enforced by the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

Brown vs the Board of Education did not result in desegregation instantly across the county. Busing to desegregate schools was a very big deal and came much later. Roe V Wade was in 1973.

The Moral Majority was formed afterward and became significant by the 1980 Presidential election in which Reagan won.Moral Majority was initiated as a result of a struggle for control of an American conservative Christian advocacy group known as Christian Voice during 1978. During a news conference by Christian Voice's founder, Robert Grant, he claimed that the Religious Right was a "sham... controlled by three Catholics and a Jew." Paul Weyrich, Terry Dolan, Richard Viguerie (the Catholics) and Howard Phillips (the Jew) left Christian Voice. During a 1979 meeting, they urged televangelist Jerry Falwell to found Moral Majority. This was also the beginning of the New Christian Right.[1][2]

Moral Majority was an organization made up of conservative Christian political action committees which campaigned on issues its personnel believed were important to maintaining its Christian conception of moral law, a conception they believed represented the opinions of the majority of Americans (hence the movement's name). With a membership of millions, the Moral Majority was one of the largest conservative lobby groups in the United States. During the 1980 presidential election, the Moral Majority is credited with giving Ronald Reagan two-thirds of the white evangelical vote, over Jimmy Carter.[3]

Moral Majority Timeline (http://www.moralmajority.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=29)

They never professed to be in support of segregation and the only evidence I have at the moment for this is from Professor Domke's lecture. He is a credible authority on the matter.

Here's his bio from the lecture link above.David Domke is a former journalist and author of the recently published book, The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America. He is an associate professor and head of journalism in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington.

I know desegregation was a big deal in California in the 70s so I think just saying you went to an integrated school denies some historical facts.

I told you, I get it. You think people are overgeneralizing. Of course they are and I admitted it. It doesn't mean I don't recognize the overgeneralizing. But you are essentially saying all of it is a false perception of reality. No it isn't. I traveled in the South in the early 70s and bigotry was alive and well. Maybe it was less prevalent in the big cities, but they did not like us in the rural areas. As a car full of long haired hippies on our way to and from Mardi Gras, we drew a lot of attention.

I also drove across the country and down through the Appalachians, through the Carolinas and through Georgia and Florida in the late seventies. I lived in my little cab high camper and spent a number of weeks just seeing the real country. There was a lot of segregation. In Georgia they had 2 public beaches. There was a particularly high fee for the time to get in. I was told that kept the blacks out.

In the book, "Miles from Nowhere" (http://www.amazon.com/Miles-Nowhere-Round-Bicycle-Adventure/dp/0898861098), it is an account of two people who rode bicycles around the world. They were run off the road in rural Florida and it was not an isolated incident.

Clearly there are regular people everywhere and bad people everywhere. But you sound like you are denying there has been any exceptional racism in the South compared to the rest of the country since the 50s as if it just faded away. That is not credible.

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2008, 10:43 PM

Politics of Texas

The rebirth of the Republican Party in Texas could be traced back to 1952, when Democratic Governor Allan Shivers clashed with the Truman Administration over the claim on the Tidelands, which subsequently led to his work in helping Dwight D. Eisenhower carry the state. Beginning in the 1960s, Republican strength increased in Texas. Nationally, Democrats became increasingly liberal and Republicans became increasingly conservative. Starting with the Dixiecrat movement in the 1950s and 1960s conservative Southern Democrats began to leave the party and join the Republicans. This trend continued through the 1990s. For example, current Texas Governor Republican Rick Perry became a Republican in 1990.

John Tower's 1961 election to the U.S. Senate made him the first statewide GOP officeholder since Reconstruction. Governor Bill Clements and Senator Phil Gramm (also a former Democrat) followed. Republicans became increasingly dominant in national elections in Texas. The Republican nominee won the state's electoral votes in presidential election in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s except 1976.This still correlates with the civil rights movement among other things.

And I have no issue, Texas borders the South it isn't the South. So clearly there would be a mix in Texas rather than a solid Southern pattern of attitudes.

Akhenaten

22nd April 2008, 05:56 AM

Sorry to have to say it, but this thread is starting to confirm my suspicions that the so-called bible belt starts at the Canadian border and stops at Mexico.

I'm certainly glad I live in a place where being known as an atheist is about on par with being known as a tea drinker.

Please don't throw too many rocks. I think the US and USians (hmm) are kewl, and getting kewler as the fundies continue to lose ground.

Okay. Start the stoning.

ETA: It doesn't actually stop at Mexico, does it? Oops.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd April 2008, 09:03 PM

You are correct, Ak, that there are many more god believers in the US than there are in other Western countries.

But the demographics of the country are still not uniform throughout.

Regional differences in religion identity in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Religions_by_State.PNG)

Regional differences continued (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Religions_of_the_US.PNG)

Religious Adherents data (http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/adherents.gif)

Leading Church Bodies (http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif)

Link to maps of specific denominations (http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo200/religion.html)

social explorer interactive map (http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?&g=0)

The last one has a huge data base of everything from education, race, income, and so on. There are some maps showing more homogeneity across the country and some showing large differences. I don't see how you can look at the social demographics and claim the country is as socially uniform as Elizabeth believes.

MaryCBW

28th April 2008, 02:26 PM

I made my son's 2nd grade teacher cry. She sent home a note asking the parents if they objected to her saying a prayer every morning. DH and I were the only ones to say "yes"
in almost 30 years.

MaryCBW

28th April 2008, 02:39 PM

We have upset teachers when they wanted to force our son to stand for the pledge.
One teacher told him that he, the JW child, and the Muslim child would have to stand outside in the hall while the other children said the pledge. The info below was handed to the teacher and the two principals the next day.

In 1943, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that government schools couldn't force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. Schools get around this ruling by asking but not forcing students to recite the Pledge monthly, weekly, or on a daily basis.

MaryCBW

28th April 2008, 02:41 PM

articulett

28th April 2008, 07:19 PM

How inappropriate for the teacher to put you and your child in that position--

Is this a public school??

I've had a couple of incidences at a former school I was teaching at-- I was doing a computer lab on the age of the earth and the computer teacher said that scientists couldn't prove it was as old as they say... and they couldn't disprove the bible.

Another a motivational speaker came and he was very pro military and pro flag saluting and he mentioned Jesus dying for "us"-- as though it was a historical fact... I was offended, but I was the newest employee, so I didn't say anything.