Damn, we've been found out; the prospect of banning the Bible

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Damnitt Peoples!

Jeez Louise, peoples.

Weird, fogbank, Joe,

Atheists never wanted to drive prayer out of schools. Only MANDATORY prayer. Believe me, you can bow down toward Mecca in the middle of English class if you want to and the teacher will be heavily punished if he/she tries to stop you. You can call loudly in praise of Jesus. Sure, the narrow-minded of the class might taunt you for the display but it is by no means banned.

The right has gotten a lot of mileage out of "prayer is banned in schools". They all take it to mean that their child is being denied the ability to worship their faith. That is hardly the case. People are allowed to express their faith, start clubs to spread their faith, recruit other kids into their faith, have lunch time prayer circles in the middle of the halls, whatever.

The only thing Warren did was make it illegal for a school official to force you to pray, for a teacher to start off a class with a daily prayer, to be punished for not praising Jesus. These things became outlawed. The panicky sectors of extremist Christianity were quick to denounce this as part of an atheist attempt to force the schools to become atheist.

Furthermore, there is a misunderstanding between the ideas of secularized and atheist. Secular institutions like schools exist to educate, not to foster or inhibit spiritual growth. They are not their to change your religion, help you make peace with God, or fulfill a spiritual quest. They exist to teach people, make them educated in the maths, sciences, and critical thinking neccesary to survive in an adult world. This is not the same thing as atheist.

Believe me, God has not been "expelled" from the schools. School funded prayer groups and clubs, religious symbols, and (especially during big tests) ferverant prayers to God abound in the schools even to this day. Believe me I know.

On a caveat, I am religious, just not in a religion you suspect. School did not "hinder" my spiritual growth any more than it "helped" it. In other words, it left that shit all to me and me alone.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Damnitt Peoples!

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Atheists never wanted to drive prayer out of schools.

Not entirely true... I have personally known some that have wanted that very thing.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Re: Damnitt Peoples!

Not entirely true... I have personally known some that have wanted that very thing.

Sorry, sorry, damn clarifiers.

Most atheists don't want to drive prayer out of schools.

 

[Pure]

Luc: Atheists never wanted to drive prayer out of schools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe: Not entirely true... I have personally known some that have wanted that very thing.

I doubt it. The phrasing is ambiguous. I think they wanted *to drive out school prayer*: no teachers leading prayers, no prayers being led for classes or assemblies, nothing of prayer that appears school endorsed or led, and nothing (of prayer) that because a group is doing it, puts pressure on kids to join or leave (i.e., in my day, if you didn't want to be part of a class prayer, you could--joyous freedom--go stand in the hall).

I dare you to produce one sane atheist who wanted to make an individual student's offering, on his/her own, privately-- e.g., in a far corner of the playground--a silent prayer, into some kind of school offense!

I believe Luc is entirely right, virtually unqualified.

IT must be remembered that, for many Christians there is a duty to promote the faith, a positive duty, as it were. Hence a 'neutral' establishment is not satisfactory, and is, in a sense, making something neutral attacks its promotion of Christianity.
To respond to Jesus 'follow me' with 'I'm neutral' is to say, 'no I'm not following you. i reject following you.'

The Christian complaint is not unlike the businessman who says, "I'm in terrible shape financially, my profit is not up at all over last years. Still it's 15%." He bewailing the failure to gain; he's not exactly going broke.

This isn't to deny the schools becoming secular, and neutral as regards religion, in so far as their official capacity, leadership, and activities are concerned. If I may use an analogy, a baseball game or a grocery store are secular too, but private, non verbal prayer is not prevented or penalized.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
I doubt it.

I don't. But that's only because I knew them.

I dare you to produce one sane atheist who wanted to make an individual student's offering, on his/her own, privately-- e.g., in a far corner of the playground--a silent prayer, into some kind of school offense!

Sane atheist? So, we're qualifying things now? Well, I can only say that they appeared sane. Acted without disorder or insanity. All those things. But nevertheless, they felt that religion was inherantly dangerous and misguided and responsible for an uncountable many flaws in the world, the only way to get rid of it was by making solid policy against it. They believed that.

Now, I think they were irrational--to some degree--and essentially wrong about the reasons for their goal (the whole "dangerous" and "misguided" and "evil" stuff), but were they sane? Sure.

I believe Luc is entirely right, virtually unqualified.

I don't. For the reasons stated. Because not all atheists are as he says. He even admirably admitted as much.

 

[snooper]

... Sane atheist? So, we're qualifying things now? Well, I can only say that they appeared sane. Acted without disorder or insanity. All those things. ...

If you exclude being a novelist and visiting Lit, I hope I am generally considered sane.

... they felt that religion was inherantly dangerous and misguided and responsible for an uncountable many flaws in the world, the only way to get rid of it was by making solid policy against it. ...

I do believe that. Most religions have a God who is omnipotent, with varying degreees of benevolence towards mankind. Why an omnipotent God should allow some of the things which happen in the world, I cannot fathom. (In the biz it is called the Problem of Evil.)
If the God is a truly vicious bastard, then (s)he might fit into the observed universe quite well, but I haven't found a modern religion which thinks that the only way to have a half-way decent world is continuous appeasement of a malicious deity.

I wonder sometimes if Marlowe had it right when he has Mephistopheles say of the mortal world, "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it."

 

[Weird Harold]

I dare you to produce one sane atheist who wanted to make an individual student's offering, on his/her own, privately-- e.g., in a far corner of the playground--a silent prayer, into some kind of school offense!

Private, silent, and in the far corner of the playground -- or better yet off publicly-owned property entirely -- is the goal I perceive in the effort of the minority of "fundamentalist atheists" have pursued in the courts.

Aside from their successful attempt to ban "school sponsored prayer" from the schools, and varying degrees of success in banning religious displays of any kind in parks and public buildings, there have been failed attempts to block football teams from praying before games because they requested the coach to led the prayer, Student requested and led prayers at school events, and school-funding for extra-curricular student groups with a religious "taint."

Court cases hve ben brought against schools renting space for small congregations to meet on school property, or allowing non-school-funded student groups from meeting on school property.

It is NOT "All Atheists" that are trying to push all religious expression into the shadows. It is a small, well-funded, minority who are attempting to pervert the Consitution's "no establishment" clause into a "no religion in public" clause.

It offends me that there are people out there who would be offended by (and try to prohibit) the fact that my senior class CHOSE to follow my school's tradtion of catering to the religious make-up of our school district and chose to invite a representative sampling of religious leaders to speak at our graduation ceremony.

We, the students, had the choice to NOT have religious speakers -- although that possibility wasn't given much consideration, given the demographics of my hometown and senior class.

The record of court cases (successful and unsuccessful) over the last 35 years clearly indicates that there are people with enough money and anti-religion fanaticism around who would prefer that we, the students, had NOT had that choice.

I'm now a fairly areligious person -- a "pantheistic agnostic" to be precise -- and I can see a need to fight against the rabid minority of people using the courts to "protect me from religion."

I'm unsurprised that people who are more closely connected to their religion are even more aware of the problem and willing to believe that the "godless atheist liberals" are capable of attempting to ban the Bible.

 

[GingerV]

Wow...tough topic. Many branches. I keep coming back to the thread, failing to find a way to say what I want, walking away again...only to find the thing MORE interesting and complex when I come back. Odds are, I probably won't press send at the end of this one either...but let's see what I come up with.

What it boils down to, I guess, is that it strikes me how much everyone feels like they're under attack.

The Christians (and I've heard it from my friends of all religious stripes) feel persecuted and judged.

My athiest/agnostic friends (and me with them) feel marginalized and judged.

My Republican friends feel misunderstood and judged. They're neither greedy nor heartless.

My Liberal friends feel misunderstood and judged. They're not elitist, nor stupidly optimistic.

Being called intellectual is an insult these days, which makes academics feel judged and despised.

But it's wierd, because if you call someone non-intellectual, they feel like you're calling them stupid and worthless.

Divide humans up any way you like, they feel like they're under attack...and it's therefore no surprise that they become defensive. What I'm left puzzled by, is if we're all marginalized...who's in the middle? Is it just a wierd phenomenon, an optical illusion based on point of view?

I imagine every single one of us has had a moment of screaming frustration because we know that we aren't who they seem to think we are. I'm liberal...so I must think Christians are ignorant. Nope. Sure, I know people who do....but the most outspoken athiest I know (in terms of born-again bashing) is Republican. I actually admire their faith, I'm jealous of it at times, and I think they've just got a different filter through which to view reality. Put another way, I think there are probably just as many untruths in my athiesm...they just suit my personality better.

None of which is on topic, because we're not talking about me. This is the part of the program where someone chimes in and says, "I didn't mean you...I meant most." Or some. Or many. Or the ones I know. Or the ones that are shouting loudest. Or the ones that are the problem. But that IS the problem, because the people we're feeling persecuted by...well, sometimes they don't even exist. No-one wants to ban the Bible. YES, I know, people feel like it's what someone wants. And I'm sure it's a damned effective propaganda tool. But it's not true. From my perspective, it's a shameless attempt at trying to manipulate a group that feels marginalized. From theirs, I imagine it's a battle cry (metaphorical or not).

But from either side, it's an extreme representation of a real issue designed to feed the shouting...not the conversation. There are examples of this sort of campaign on all sides of most issues. And maybe, to my mind, THAT'S the problem. Rampant, national insecurity. Of which we are all guilty, and for which we are all at fault.

I'm guilty. I feel persecuted. It's probably just unlucky timing...I think I probably stepped in at a point of non-left wing (can't say it's right wing, cause it aint ) backlash. But I definately feel unwelcome here. But I'm also guilty of creating the atmosphere of persecution for others. Hopefully, not through action more than my just having and stating an opinion can help, but most definately through inaction. I didn't write a letter to the editor, or mouth off in any other way, in defense of the substitute teacher who lost her job for wearing a cross to school (long before I turned up on your door here...but it's a case in point). I probably should have, it was many many steps too far, and I strenuously disagreed with the action. But I fear the thin edge of the wedge, so I kept my mouth shut. I didn't trust religious folks to not try to erradicate evolution from the text books if I let them keep their crosses. My bias, and my mistake. I've regretted it.

At the moment, I don't know what the answer is...but I'm starting to suspect that it's ironic. It's ignorance of each other that makes the problems. It's a failure to find out what the REAL agenda is on the other side. We accept the republican's characterization of democrats, or vice versa, much too easily. We don't know, any more, what we have in common because we're so focused on our differences. And the answer may well be inviting religion (and politics, and all the other taboo, partison, divisive topics) back into the schools. Not as a school sponsored thing, I still feel strongly that the schools shouldn't take sides. But maybe they're a place to have the debate. Or at least the experience of each other. I like the image of the graduation service WH described. It seems like a place to start. We'll just have to deal with sex ed, and evolution, and all the other issues that WILL crop up as independent issues. We can't solve all the school's problems with one overwhelming rule. The issues involved just aren't that simple.

2cents...my God, I may even hit send this time

G

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Damnitt Peoples!

Jeez Louise, peoples.

Weird, fogbank, Joe,

Atheists never wanted to drive prayer out of schools. Only MANDATORY prayer. Believe me, you can bow down toward Mecca in the middle of English class if you want to and the teacher will be heavily punished if he/she tries to stop you. You can call loudly in praise of Jesus. Sure, the narrow-minded of the class might taunt you for the display but it is by no means banned.

The right has gotten a lot of mileage out of "prayer is banned in schools". They all take it to mean that their child is being denied the ability to worship their faith. That is hardly the case. People are allowed to express their faith, start clubs to spread their faith, recruit other kids into their faith, have lunch time prayer circles in the middle of the halls, whatever.

The only thing Warren did was make it illegal for a school official to force you to pray, for a teacher to start off a class with a daily prayer, to be punished for not praising Jesus. These things became outlawed. The panicky sectors of extremist Christianity were quick to denounce this as part of an atheist attempt to force the schools to become atheist.

Furthermore, there is a misunderstanding between the ideas of secularized and atheist. Secular institutions like schools exist to educate, not to foster or inhibit spiritual growth. They are not their to change your religion, help you make peace with God, or fulfill a spiritual quest. They exist to teach people, make them educated in the maths, sciences, and critical thinking neccesary to survive in an adult world. This is not the same thing as atheist.

Believe me, God has not been "expelled" from the schools. School funded prayer groups and clubs, religious symbols, and (especially during big tests) ferverant prayers to God abound in the schools even to this day. Believe me I know.

On a caveat, I am religious, just not in a religion you suspect. School did not "hinder" my spiritual growth any more than it "helped" it. In other words, it left that shit all to me and me alone.

Schools used to exist to educate. Now they see their primary job as socialization. The shift from educating to socializing is part of a liberal agenda that has been, sometimes zealously applied to public schools. Religion is part of a child's socialization.

As to people using the schols for church meetings, etc. Last time I checked, schools are bought, maintained, and funded through taxes. I don't know if it's like this everywhere, but here in NY the scool is public land once clases are out. People often use the elementary school near me for cookouts and get togethers on weekends when the weather is good.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Luc: Atheists never wanted to drive prayer out of schools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe: Not entirely true... I have personally known some that have wanted that very thing.

I doubt it. The phrasing is ambiguous. I think they wanted *to drive out school prayer*: no teachers leading prayers, no prayers being led for classes or assemblies, nothing of prayer that appears school endorsed or led, and nothing (of prayer) that because a group is doing it, puts pressure on kids to join or leave (i.e., in my day, if you didn't want to be part of a class prayer, you could--joyous freedom--go stand in the hall).

I dare you to produce one sane atheist who wanted to make an individual student's offering, on his/her own, privately-- e.g., in a far corner of the playground--a silent prayer, into some kind of school offense!

I believe Luc is entirely right, virtually unqualified.

IT must be remembered that, for many Christians there is a duty to promote the faith, a positive duty, as it were. Hence a 'neutral' establishment is not satisfactory, and is, in a sense, making something neutral attacks its promotion of Christianity.
To respond to Jesus 'follow me' with 'I'm neutral' is to say, 'no I'm not following you. i reject following you.'

The Christian complaint is not unlike the businessman who says, "I'm in terrible shape financially, my profit is not up at all over last years. Still it's 15%." He bewailing the failure to gain; he's not exactly going broke.

This isn't to deny the schools becoming secular, and neutral as regards religion, in so far as their official capacity, leadership, and activities are concerned. If I may use an analogy, a baseball game or a grocery store are secular too, but private, non verbal prayer is not prevented or penalized.

Marxist communists are by and large, atheistic. It is not so much a religious belief as it is a political statement, but the two or three I knew in college were well within the fringe that wanted all religion removed from life, public and private.

When you are atheistic as a personal spiritual choice, you probably aren't concerned much with other people's religion. When you accept atheism as a tennet of your political outlook, you are probably anti-all-religion.

The few I knew were probably sane by the DSM-IV.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

Colleen? Schools have always been a place for 'socialization'.

It just depends on the type of 'socialization'.

Back when I went to school the 'socialization' consisted of sorting kids into the categories of 'normal' and 'stupid'. I wasn't normal. I'm still carrying the scars of that experience.

As regards the original thesis of this thread, there are too many on both sides of this question who are more concerned with being right, rather than concerned with being good. They are more concerned with satisfying their own agendas than wondering what might be best for the most people possible.

Belief after all, is much easier than thinking.

GingerV? Good one. In my opinion, humanity's biggest problem is it's inability to imagine 'the other'. They cannot, or more often will not, make the effort to think about what people outside their own identity group might feel.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen? Schools have always been a place for 'socialization'.

It just depends on the type of 'socialization'.

Back when I went to school the 'socialization' consisted of sorting kids into the categories of 'normal' and 'stupid'. I wasn't normal. I'm still carrying the scars of that experience.

As regards the original thesis of this thread, there are too many on both sides of this question who are more concerned with being right, rather than concerned with being good. They are more concerned with satisfying their own agendas than wondering what might be best for the most people possible.

Belief after all, is much easier than thinking.

GingerV? Good one. In my opinion, humanity's biggest problem is it's inability to imagine 'the other'. They cannot, or more often will not, make the effort to think about what people outside their own identity group might feel.

Rg,

When I went to school, socialization wasn't the agenda, drumming math, English, science and history into our skulls was. Often accomplished with the aid of a paddle or ruler across the knuckles.

Bitter fight up here not too long ago between the state and the teacher's union. With the union publically, and apparently ignornant of the irony, proclaiming that testing teacher's skills wasn't a fair accessment of their fitness to teach. Read a little further and the new agenda, as they see it becomes clear.

Kids don't fail up here, because that would stigmatize them. The stuff the kids get in Senior history up here is a very watered down and PC version of what I got before I left Jr. High. I can only assume math, science and english have been just as diluted. They aren't being educated, at least not as I understand it. At the same time we pay more in property taxes to support these schools than you would believe.

These kids ar being set up to fail and most of them do. They have been socialized, exposed to diversity, yadda, yadda, yadda. What they haven't been is educated.

While the proper functioning of Schools would be a whole nother debate, the liberalizing of the schools, emphasising socialization is application of a liberal agenda.

In the context of this debate, religion is as much a socializing factor as learning to accept folks with different colored skin, or different ethnic background is. Yet while liberals preach socialization, exposure to diversity, etc. they fight tooth and nail to keep religin out.

Intelligent christians draw on this hypocracy in the opening moves of almost any argument that deals with education, from home schooling to vouchers to prayer in school.

While the most intelligent will privately find the idea of the bible being banned as fanciful at best, there are many who see this as a war, and like gunowners, pro-choicers and other one issue voters, they adopt a give nothing away strategy because they percieve their opposites as fanatical and capable of trying any ploy to advance their agenda.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

2cents...my God, I may even hit send this time

G

I'm glad you did hit send. You made some points that needed to be made.

What it boils down to, I guess, is that it strikes me how much everyone feels like they're under attack.
...
Divide humans up any way you like, they feel like they're under attack...and it's therefore no surprise that they become defensive. What I'm left puzzled by, is if we're all marginalized...who's in the middle? Is it just a wierd phenomenon, an optical illusion based on point of view?

I'm not sure I'd call it an "optical illusion" but the problem of intolerance is definitely a matter of persepective. Far too many people are seeing intolerant trends that seem to threaten them and react with intolerance of their own.

But from either side, it's an extreme representation of a real issue designed to feed the shouting...not the conversation. There are examples of this sort of campaign on all sides of most issues. And maybe, to my mind, THAT'S the problem. Rampant, national insecurity. Of which we are all guilty, and for which we are all at fault.

The tactic that started this thread is just one exmple of the sad fact that people will mobilize against something they fear more than they will for something they desire or something they feel is the "right thing to do."

The "science" of advertising -- or propaganda, if you prefer -- has taken over the political process in the US. Our consumer oriented society has provided far too much information on how to manipulate the masses for any campaign to survive without using that information.

I'm not sure how we can remove the taint of advertising from our society, let alone from our political process, but it seems to me education on how to resist advertising would be a start.

We don't know, any more, what we have in common because we're so focused on our differences. And the answer may well be inviting religion (and politics, and all the other taboo, partison, divisive topics) back into the schools. Not as a school sponsored thing, I still feel strongly that the schools shouldn't take sides. But maybe they're a place to have the debate. Or at least the experience of each other.

I think what we've lost in the court battles over what is and isn't allowed in schools is the principle of "community values" and "local control" of education.

I'm not sure that the loss of "local control" is necessarily a bad thing, but the loss of "community values" is definitely a bad thing.

[/B][/QUOTE] I like the image of the graduation service WH described. It seems like a place to start. ...[/B][/QUOTE]

The forms and traditions that resulted in the ecumenical representation at my graduation were the result of community values. For my hometown, it was a logical solution the the amicable religious diversity in the town as whole.

In a southern one-church town, or a school in the midst of a predominantly Amish or Mennonite community, it wouldn't work nearly as well.

There is some merit in ensuring that minorities aren't punished for being minorities, but schools don't necessarily have to be isolated from the religious dynamics of the communities they serve.

There is also a lot of merit in the argument that education should be standardized throughout the country so that students from one community aren't at a disadvantage in higher education to students from another community with more realistic educational policies.

I don't know what the ultimate solution to the spread of intolerance and fear in our society is -- it might be mandated school policies and it might not -- but we, the people, need to find solution soon.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm glad you did hit send. You made some points that needed to be made.



I'm not sure I'd call it an "optical illusion" but the problem of intolerance is definitely a matter of persepective. Far too many people are seeing intolerant trends that seem to threaten them and react with intolerance of their own.



The tactic that started this thread is just one exmple of the sad fact that people will mobilize against something they fear more than they will for something they desire or something they feel is the "right thing to do."

The "science" of advertising -- or propaganda, if you prefer -- has taken over the political process in the US. Our consumer oriented society has provided far too much information on how to manipulate the masses for any campaign to survive without using that information.

I'm not sure how we can remove the taint of advertising from our society, let alone from our political process, but it seems to me education on how to resist advertising would be a start.



I think what we've lost in the court battles over what is and isn't allowed in schools is the principle of "community values" and "local control" of education.

I'm not sure that the loss of "local control" is necessarily a bad thing, but the loss of "community values" is definitely a bad thing.

I like the image of the graduation service WH described. It seems like a place to start. ...[/QUOTE]

The forms and traditions that resulted in the ecumenical representation at my graduation were the result of community values. For my hometown, it was a logical solution the the amicable religious diversity in the town as whole.

In a southern one-church town, or a school in the midst of a predominantly Amish or Mennonite community, it wouldn't work nearly as well.

There is some merit in ensuring that minorities aren't punished for being minorities, but schools don't necessarily have to be isolated from the religious dynamics of the communities they serve.

There is also a lot of merit in the argument that education should be standardized throughout the country so that students from one community aren't at a disadvantage in higher education to students from another community with more realistic educational policies.

I don't know what the ultimate solution to the spread of intolerance and fear in our society is -- it might be mandated school policies and it might not -- but we, the people, need to find solution soon. [/QUOTE]

Tolerence is neither a conservative or liberal concept. It's a moderate concept, embracing those nearer the center in both camps. In a country as polarized as we are right now, finding a moderate is as difficult. There are so many flashpoint issues over which we radically differ in opinion.

A long time ago our politicians worked for compromise. An old saying is a good compromise leaves eveybody mad. It's very true, because the essence of compromise is giving up some of what you want to get some of what you want.

Compromise also presuppose some common ground, even if that common ground is only the incere desire to work things out. In this climate, the desire isn't to reach an amiable peace, it's to win. The pro life movement will not rest until what they see a the murder of children is halted. When you choose usch an unyeilding position, you force you ropponent, who might be less hard headed, to shoose and equally radical stance. They can't compromise with you because in your eyes a compromise isn't the end, it's just a new position to work from. the same goes for guns, gays, the flag, or whatever else you choose.

The lunatics are runing the asylum. If you aren't for us you're against us has become the universal battle cry. A moderate stance is just as bad as being fully opposed to the agenda, whatever it may be.

Normally, when an issue is very contentious, you wait for cooler heads to prevail and something gets worked out. Right now the cooler heads are all ducking to avoid the slings,arros and excrement being hurled about. Intolerence abounds because fanaticism abounds, and to a fanatic, compromise is the same as "giving in" to the enemy.

-Colly

 

[GingerV]

My Canadian BF says that the problem with American politics is that we Americans can't tell it apart from Football. We grew up supporting a team, we want it to win, we forgive it its failures, we may grouse about the coach among our fellow-fans...but we tollerate no criticism from outsiders, and if someone insults our quarterback we take as personally as if they'd slapped our child.

I don't think he's 100% right...but it's more true than I'm comfortable admitting. I've had a smug grin on my face when some scandle breaks among the Republican party, especially if it's someone who voted for impeachment. I'm not glad that there's a scandle...so what the hell am I smiling about? Oh yeah, it's a Republican scandle, their team lost a point. Not my best nature. What Colly just wrote reminded me of it.

BUT, that said....we live here and now. How do we fix it? I don't mean prayer in school, or who's voting for whom. I mean overall communication. How do we heal the breaks? Cause if we're waiting for a great leader to volunteer to do it for us, man are we screwed. I think it's gonna have to come from the ground up. Do we institute "take a Christian/Athiest to breakfast" day? Do we just insist that we clear our own language of bias and unfounded asumption? Or do I really need to learn to pray to clear this one up .

G

 

[rgraham666]

Well, Colleen. My school system gave up on trying to teach me anything in Grade 4.

They passed me every year. But it was made quite clear it was simply to get me out of the system as quickly as possible.

So, no socialization and no education? No wonder I'n so fucked up.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, Colleen. My school system gave up on trying to teach me anything in Grade 4.

They passed me every year. But it was made quite clear it was simply to get me out of the system as quickly as possible.

So, no socialization and no education? No wonder I'n so fucked up.

That's the thing RG. When I was in school, if you didn't pass, you repeated. Until you got it right. Passing folks for any reason other than their grades was unheard of.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

This was almost forty years ago Colleen. When they did fail kids. They would have failed me if they thought I could learn anything by repeating. They didn't. They were just moving me up and out as quickly as possible.

Maybe it's different in the States, but I have several nieces and nephews in school, and they're doing much better than I ever did. They're learning a lot of the Three Rs, and better, they're learning how to be good people.

The Good Old Days were only that if you were normal.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This was almost forty years ago Colleen. When they did fail kids. They would have failed me if they thought I could learn anything by repeating. They didn't. They were just moving me up and out as quickly as possible.

Maybe it's different in the States, but I have several nieces and nephews in school, and they're doing much better than I ever did. They're learning a lot of the Three Rs, and better, they're learning how to be good people.

The Good Old Days were only that if you were normal.

the only schools I know of that still hold kids back are private and parochial schools now.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Please do not assume that people that have a strong belief in something have a "lesser mind."

I find it extremely offensive, the stereotypes that abound here from the so-called liberals. IMHO, that's just as narrow-minded as others are accused of being.

I have many strong beliefs myself.

I don't think that people with a strong belief in something have a 'lesser mind' I think that *most* people have "lesser minds". Try some 'jedi mind tricks' sometime, you will be *amazed* at how easy they actually work. (especially on people who adamantly believe that they won't)

As an example take negative campain ads. *Most* people rail against them, nevertheless they are shown to be extremely effective. Therefor they work on *most* people, even while those people believe that they don't.

Our own minds are amazingly able to decieve our selves. We lie to ourselves all the time, and don't even realize that we are doing it. Most people have very little understanding of how the mind really works, and reject any talk of the subconscious holding any substantial control over there actions. *Even here on the AH where people tend to be more intellegent than average* These people who do not understand or who reject the power of the subconcious are the most likely to be ruled by it. And yet they are amazingly able to rationalize everything *after the fact* as completely logical and self-controlled(ie, conscious self). They tend to get extememly offended by the idea that there might be subtler forces at work within themselves that they are not conciously aware of.

I don't really think that hypnotism is bunk either, I just think that the line is exremely on target and true. People are easily fooled.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I wasn't sure whether I agreed with him, the issue is really, really deep and not cut-and-dry at all. But he made a good point. He felt that America was a little strange because we "allowed people to be jerks about anything".

It's in our constitution!

IXXCM Amendment: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of any citizen to be a jerk.

 

[sweetnpetite]

the only schools I know of that still hold kids back are private and parochial schools now.

My son got held back in a public school. Another public school refused to. I think it varies w/ the district.

I am a liberal and not a fan of scial promotion.

Once my son was able to catch up he began doing quite well.