Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 10 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma: however one must remember Dawkins has an agenda, and an axe to grind with religion as a concept, thus as with any known bias, skepticism should be encouraged.
I was actually replying to Serg who said that Dawkins claims that religious education is child abuse. I don't disagree that Dawkins has an agenda. I doubt he'd disagree either.
Quote:
With respect, it is not the place of the State to make those decisions, as stated before, once a person can read, write and do simple math - everything past that is DIY, and neither the State, nor well meaning parents, can force a child to learn if they flat dig in their heels and refuse to do so.
it's not about whether a child can learn or not, its about how you define harm. I believe that the state does have a role in stepping in if a child is being harmed. I suppose what we are disagreeing on is 'what is harm?' and 'when should the state intervene?' I'll grant you these are very difficult questions.
I'm not against homeschooling per se, but I don't have a problem with a few checks on homeschooling parents, just like there are checks on teachers and schools.
Quote:
Conversely, there is NO effective means of denying a child education even if you really mean to do it, the curiosity of children knows no bounds, and as a rule they are quite good at subverting attempts to cut them off from information, especially in the internet age, but even before that - case in point the abysmal sex education that's been the case in the US for many years, one way or another, in spite of all the barriers raised against them, they DID learn.
I disagree. Places without formal, compulsory education have high degrees of illiteracy, poverty and poor quality of life in general. Children do learn naturally, but they need guidance, resources and good teaching to achieve their potential. Children who are not taught to read, generally never learn. reading and writing are not hardwired skills, like language is.
Quote:
Tell it to Brian, who wound up pumping gas because that degree he worked so hard for made him too expensive to hire - yes, companies put a lot of stock in that paper, but all the paper really tells anyone is how compliant you are and how much crap you'll take to obtain a State seal of approval on your efforts.
Yeah, I can't common on that. I can't say that graduates don't pump gas here, I'm sure some do, but it'd probably be through choice rather than design.
I'm not saying that you have to get schooled to a degree level to get a good job. Tradesmen earn a fortune here, but they need good skills and a good standard of literacy, maths, mechanics etc etc...they would definitely not get work if they couldn't read, write or do maths and a heap of other skills.
As for the rest of your post regarding schooling, I'd say that the fact that your schools appear to suck doesn't really contribute to the argument as to whether the state has any right to regulate homeschooling. It just means that your school system needs to be fixed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm all for that, M'lady - just sayin that is why some folks are so desperate to have homeschooling as a potential alternative.
And yeah, resources are very important, nowadays internet access is a significant boon to learning, but I don't think that absolves our social responsibility to have a decent system of libraries - which are being shut down and closed at an alarming rate for lack of funding.
The problem with americans facing up to the inherent problems of our educational system as a whole, is that they don't like the answers to the problem, and so they sit there and deny a problem exists while making all manner of excuses for it, and then get angry when folks sidestep the process they have invested so much effort in defending, see ?
I ran into that myself, at the tail end of my school days, which is why it took a really outrageous amount of stuff to force em to boot me, they just didn't care for the idea of someone sidestepping the process and took it as an insult to their imagined authority.
I prolly woulda done a heck of a lot better homeschooling, given that I was already studying far past their curriculum on my own, having "borrowed" (I did return those!) much of the teaching materials either without their knowledge, or a blind eye from some of the more understanding teachers.
That bein said, sure, there's a case for State intervention due to neglect or incompetence on behalf of parents who will not, or can not, effectively make an effort to educate their kid, but in all honesty it's a rare thing, and the first response of the State should be to try to find a family member capable and willing to resolve that problem.
I think we oughta really streamline the process for basic teaching certification, it's a pretty ridiculous amount of credential at this time, and by eliminating a lot of the crap tacked on just to pad the tuition cost, you could make a difference right there.
Also, I would not mind subsidising teacher education, same as I would not mind doing so for doctors - heaven knows we need them more than bombs and guns, but that's another subject.
Also helpful would be offering more independance to those with teaching cred, if they wanna hold class in the middle of a forest, let em... they wanna set their class size, let em, if they wanna offer an impromtu hour long class on economics in the park cause someone was interested, let em.
I think we're too attached to the systems, and not attached enough to education, come to think of it.
I appreciate you taking that as the perspective it was meant to be instead of as an argument, as well - believe me, this is an issue I would like solved as much as anyone, and more input on the process and potential solutions means more chances of gettin it done.
I may have my biases, but I put em out in the open, and no way would I reject a solution that would WORK cause I didn't like how it did.
I wouldn't mind being a teacher, well... officially, that is - I do a lot of it just whenever the rugrats of my social circle get together and start askin questions, which they do cause I treat em like people instead of talkin down at em, and actually listen to what they're sayin to me.
Strange thing come out of that, kids have things to teach us too... would that we would learn some of em.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And as I said, I don't have a problem with making homeschool "legal" (if in fact it needs to be made "legal"). It is your assertion that part of this "legality" requires some minimum standard and monitoring for homeschooling abuses that I have a problem with. If "legality" comes with more bureaucratic hoops, then I prefer the current vague wording with no strings attached, to a precise definition with strings, you see?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, “review the law” as I call it, which means for the legislators to “review” or reexamine the “law” or language in the California code to make homeschooling legal.
Here is an example of what I mean. Lay midwifery is illegal in some states, outright. In other states, there is no law making it illegal, but there is no law making it legal either--they call that alegal. Outside the law, but not against the law. There, as long as midwives practice safely and without incident, nobody gives a hoot. However, there is a threat of prosecution looming over their heads all the time. In the rest of the states, midwifery is legal and regulated by the state. Midwives in these states have to complete certain training requirements, complete certain state-mandated procedures, and fill out state-mandated forms. They can still be prosecuted if something goes wrong, but there is a little bit more protection under "standard of care."
Now you'd think that midwives would all want every state to make midwifery legal. But many midwives prefer the alegal status. It gives them more freedom in their practice and leeway in their judgment calls. They are not restrained by the state to conform to standards they don't believe in.
Similarly, if it came down to a choice between alegal homeschooling with no requirements and legal homeschooling with prescribed standards, I prefer the alegal status. However, since CA is not alegal, that is really neither here nor there. CA already has the ideal scenario where homeschooling is legal AND requires no minimum standard. Granted their language can be more precise, but that can be easily fixed without making changes in the rest of the law.
BTW, you're starting to get snarky, Finn. If you can't debate the issues without getting petty, we're done, OK?
--------------------------
I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces - with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now.
--Robert Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem- no offense, but you took both of those quotes far out of context. what are the ten commandments? among them, Jesus says the most important is to love God above all others, and love your neighbor as yourself. how can you love everyone unconditionally if you hate or despise God and what he stands for? that is the meaning of this verse
Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
as a humanist, how do you get around the fact that your beliefs are based, and rely solely on your knowledge, logic and reason, and nothing absolute transcendent of man? for example, how do you practice love, and this responsibility of community, when you are dependent on the knowledge and reason of your subjects? by what means does this education come in an anarchist society?
ephesian 6 : "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
this verse is important, because it emphasizes the premise of the entire book. God is our government, without which we can(and will) only be governed by tyrants(William Penn). this rosy scenario of an atheistic anarchist society is quixotic if you cant see that human nature is inherently sinful, and needs correction.. not vice versa. the contempt around here for religion suggests you believe the opposite, that religion is the culprit, in which case i ask the purpose of the bill of rights and constitution referencing a Creator?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Education reform needs to do more than streamline the credentialing process. Because that process currently has nothing to do with learning to teach, and everything to do with learning to indoctrinate.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think we oughta really streamline the process for basic teaching certification, it's a pretty ridiculous amount of credential at this time, and by eliminating a lot of the crap tacked on just to pad the tuition cost, you could make a difference right there.
It is true, more often than should be, that those who can't do, teach. The Bachelor's degree in education is comprised of the lowest standards in general knowledge. They spent the bulk of their time learning "how to teach"--as in memorizing methods and theory. That is all screwed up. In the end, what do they know more than noncredentialed parents? Not general knowledge. They have memorized the approved procedures for teaching, the same ones that are messing up kids in schools.
What the teacher credentialing process should be is the equivalent of a liberal arts major--a generalist expertise on literature, science, history, economics, politics, mathematics, and arts. Forget spending four years learning HOW to teach. Spend the four years learning WHAT to teach. The teacher should be the modern Renaissance man, who knows a little about everything to guide children wherever their interests may lie.
This is especially true for high school teachers, where a math teacher should have majored in Math, instead of Education. They need to have majored in the fields they are teaching. The entire education field is a load of crap for people who don't want to learn real knowledge. There is nothing so sacred in the educational process that can't be supplemented in a few professional workshops, or summarized into one or two elective college classes.
--------------------------
It is the great triumph of compulsory, government monopoly mass-schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best of my students' parents, only a small number can imagine a different way to do things
-- John Taylor Gatto
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's draw that analogy to food again, shall we?
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not against homeschooling per se, but I don't have a problem with a few checks on homeschooling parents, just like there are checks on teachers and schools.
If you cook at home, the state is not looking over your shoulder with a "few checks" to make sure your meals are sanitary and nutritious for your kids. The default assumption is, you're innocent unless proven guilty, and that you love your kids enough to give them clean, nutritious meals (unless proven otherwise). However, a restaurant is subject to state inspections and standards. But just because they are, doesn't mean parents cooking at home has to be, you see? You can extend this analogy with other businesses as well. When you fix your own car, there is no oversight, while businesses that fix cars are required to meet certain standards. When you do your own taxes, you supervise yourself. Businesses that do taxes have to have credentialed supervision. And so forth.
There is nothing magical about education that it requires only professionals or professional supervision. Really. Teaching your kids is like cooking meals, fixing cars, and doing taxes. You can do it yourself.
Quote:Places without formal, compulsory education also have major socio-political problems that prevent DIY education. You can't assume it is the absence of compulsory education that is the cause of illiteracy and poverty--more often than not, it is something else that is causing it.
I disagree. Places without formal, compulsory education have high degrees of illiteracy, poverty and poor quality of life in general.
However, I will agree that children do need guidance and resources to learn. Just how much guidance is needed, and how should that guidance be presented is entirely debatable. I submit though, that the guidance currently offered by professional teachers is only one of many effective ways, and is by no means the ONLY effective way, as those professionals like to claim.
--------------------------
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiousity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom.
-- Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti, I don't love hardly no one, I don't even LIKE people, never have.
What I don't do, is hate people I don't consider a direct threat to me or my personhood, barring that one simple, yet not so simple, thing - imma live and let live kinda guy.
You also didn't seem to catch the fact that politically, I am a humanist.
Spiritually, I won't share, not unless theres somehow a downright pressing need to do so, and that's pretty rare.
I will say unto you, "By their fruits you shall know them" - and what has your belief ever offered to my people but ignorance, persecution, inquisitions, murder, strife, violence, intolerence and hate ?
Your own holy book is pages and pages full of that kind of conduct, and all A-ok done in it's name, no matter how horrible.
I don't care what you believe, I care what you do, and the history of your people and their conduct makes them as a whole a threat, and individually suspect till proven otherwise.
And no, human nature is not as wicked as it's made out to be, that is an age old scare tactic to convince people to hand over the reins of their lives to a leader, often one claiming divine guidance or provenence, who means selfishly to use that for their own gain, it's the same logic being thrown at us today to frighten us into handing over even more of our lives, our privacy, our sovereign rights - and no more true now than it ever was.
Humans get along just fine, Governments and Religions are notoriously dangerous, and lead people who would otherwise have neither reason nor excuse into committing horrors upon each other.
How else to explain a man taking up arms against another man he doesn't even know, and shooting him dead, without even the evil of personal gain ?
I refuse to wait for some all powerful imaginary friend to come save us from ourselves - I think WE should do it, grow up, quit making excuses and shirking our responsibility, and actively work to evolve in a social and emotional aspect to the point where Government is rendered an unnecessary relic of a bygone age.
Did you ever stop to think, that in the terms in which it is described, that mankind outgrowing and finally doing away with earthly governments is exactly what is meant by the destruction and elevation within Revelations ?
Maybe you should stop looking for a solution externally, and start lookin internally...
Just a thought,
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One of Anthony de Mello's stories goes like this.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I refuse to wait for some all powerful imaginary friend to come save us from ourselves - I think WE should do it, grow up, quit making excuses and shirking our responsibility, and actively work to evolve in a social and emotional aspect to the point where Government is rendered an unnecessary relic of a bygone age.
I walked by the poor and hungry and downtrodden and cried to God, "God, why don't you do something?!"
God said, "I did. I made YOU."
--------------------------
It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.
--Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well there are strings attached now. Even if the current ruling gets depublished, it still means that homeschooling is effectively illegal, because anyone in California can take homeschooling parents to court on the grounds of the current ruling, and every successful court case creates precedent. Homeschooling parents always think they have a right to sneak around behind the law, but you don’t have that right - at best it‘s a precarious way to raise your children at worst it could be criminal. I don’t understand why any parent would want to subject their children to such a thing.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:And as I said, I don't have a problem with making homeschool "legal" (if in fact it needs to be made "legal"). It is your assertion that part of this "legality" requires some minimum standard and monitoring for homeschooling abuses that I have a problem with. If "legality" comes with more bureaucratic hoops, then I prefer the current vague wording with no strings attached, to a precise definition with strings, you see?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, “review the law” as I call it, which means for the legislators to “review” or reexamine the “law” or language in the California code to make homeschooling legal.
Quote:I’m sorry. It frustrates me when I realize the main source of disagreement is just a misunderstanding of words. And I think you’ve been very irrational about the issue of legislation - for some reason you seem to think it’s a threat, but in reality it’s not only the only way to fix the homeschooling problem in California - it is the way all laws are fixed or should be fixed in America. If we can’t agree on this very basic concept then I don’t know where this discussion could possibly go.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
BTW, you're starting to get snarky, Finn. If you can't debate the issues without getting petty, we're done, OK?
I found a website that explains the issue a bit more honestly then some of the other homeschooling websites:
http://www.cahomeschool.org/html/the_r-4_affidavit.html
“Fighting to defend the R-4 [California Private School Affidavit] may not be the best use of our efforts. home(sic) school families and groups need to work together and come up with a long term strategy for confirming the freedom to privately home school through a means which will survive the scrutiny of the California legislative process.
California Home Educators are supportive of individual families home schooling and do not favor government control! But we also believe that our legislative process and court system, even with their flaws, help make the United States the best country in the world! We need to work within the system, and not around it. We believe in teaching our children to be godly citizens and obey the law. If the law is wrong, we should rise up and use the system to make change. We are interested in confirming the future of private home schooling in California and are looking for those who desire to work together for the same goal.”
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Anti, I don't love hardly no one, I don't even LIKE people, never have.
am i missing something? you claim it is my belief that is hate filled, what belief do you hold that recommends love unconditionally? i am not seeing one... which is exactly my point: good luck sustaining any order or civility among a populace who decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and not on absolute truths
Quote:
don't care what you believe, I care what you do, and the history of your people and their conduct makes them as a whole a threat, and individually suspect till proven otherwise.
your own quote contradicts your hypothesis. "you shall know them by their fruit".. that is, the true believers. the people you are referring to(besides all humanity) are the "bad seeds" who do not produce good fruit. its too bad for the sake of argument i cant lump all the non-believers together and stereotype them, but rather then be dishonost, ill admit that all human beings of every religion and creed throughout history have fallen victim to corruption and tyranny; which brings me back to my point, that absent universal truths what do you have? mob rule, or the law of the wild
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME