Here is some hope for the coming generation:
He gave a speech on the courthouse steps:
A number of folks were very hard on child preachers. Do you see a difference between this and child preachers?
(via)
-
Subscribe
4,000 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Recent Comments
laura: I wish America wasn’t so hell bent on religion.I mean the some of the brightest and... Obama Clears Low Bar at Prayer Breakfast
Ronb0116: These are interesting comments that resonate with me. I was also raised deeply religious by a very... Would I Still Be an Atheist?
Mark: Watched the video of Ed from yesterday. There were no answers, just hedging and sarcasm. You know, I... Ed Young’s Lavish Lifestyle
Arie: The thing is that in the long term that particular mindset would lead to stagnation. The Middle East has... Would I Still Be an Atheist?
Jerdog: Super long life would almost certainly amplify the differences between the haves and have-nots. Not everyone will be... Don’t Grow Old
Twin-Skies: And Jews, and Rachel Maddow, and the Dalai Lama XD Ed Young’s Lavish Lifestyle
-
92 Comments
I see a big difference between a clear thinking child speaking on the courthouse steps in regards to a human rights issue and over the top prostylatizing by brainwashed children of the corn.
I’m just saying…
I have to say that I’m a little uncomfortable that we’re assuming this child is “clear thinking” on this subject when he might not even have had the birds/bees talk yet.
I think before espousing a view either way, you have to be able to defend it with logic, and that kids really shouldn’t be taught to speak up about things at this age, but rather they should be taught what is worth speaking up for, and when it is appropriate to speak up for it, so that when they reach the age at which they can make their own informed decisions, they have the tools for doing so.
I think he doesn’t care about sex. I think he cares about love, and the civil rights that married people get.
And you’d be bloody surpised what 9 year olds pick up!
He’s precocious and he has initiative. Did the video not say that the independent study subject was math, and that he asked permission to do his project on activism instead? It’s not for me to say where he got the idea to do that, it would probably be bad if this was opportunistic of the parents, and even the neighbors. Were they all together and he offhand mentions an independent study project, and all the neurons started firing and brainstorming and getting very excited until he ended up thinking it was his idea all along? Or was he locked up doing his homework, daydreaming to himself, “Gee, I wish there was something I could do about this,” and then later asked for help organizing it. If it was the first, all I can even think is all the adults probably thought it would be an awesome project, he’d get an A on it, and it was a good sign to them that he didn’t just want to sit by, he wanted to be involved.
I find it a bit scary to hear that kids this age couldn’t possibly care, and should hold all their thoughts until they’re old enough to engage in conversation with other adults. First of all, where do you think the building blocks for being able to do so come from? Second of all, not all kids are sequestered from adults and only care about kid things. Kids that are exposed to conversation with adults, about some adult concerns, easily become nice, unintimidated intellectuals. It’s the brats who stay brats, shoo you little brats, the grown-ups are talking, and maintain less maturity in intellect and conversational skills when they reach adulthood. A bigger obstacle for some than others, but I assume we’ve all worked with jerks and other misfits or seen them in public, the kind I’m thinking learned to relate to other adults by watching and not being talked to.
I think at his age, you expect him to join a clean-up-the-park day with a grown up who was going anyway, or go to one of those walks to cure something, again, with a grown-up who was going anyway. This seems to be the limit to which people commonly allow their child to be involved – that’s indoctrination. We care about breast cancer, so you’re coming on the walk with mom and aunty. It’s a good cause but what choice or information does the kid have? It’s so condescending to exclude this kid from using his voice just because he’s 9.
I agree. Kids are infantilized, to our collective detriment. It is instructive that throughout human history, there have been numerous cases of people we today would regard as children running empires, leading campaigns of conquest, starting religions, etc.. This is a side-effect, I think, of being much longer-lived these days than at those prior periods in history.
I think, though, that the enthusiasm for regarding children’s work as their own in our present culture is reasonably tempered by the fact that there is a decent probability due to the position children find themselves in vis-à-vis the rest of the world (at the *nearly complete* mercy not only of the law, but of parents, teachers, and other authority figures, not to mention older kids) that such a project is a product of manipulation or coercion by one of those parties, rather than generated by the child him/herself. It is an unfortunate fact that our society does actively infantilize young people, and so the probability is pretty high that any given kid is thinking more about cartoons than about issues of social or political import.
Of course, it’s usually pretty easy to tell the difference, if you have the opportunity to talk with the kid about the subject for more than five minutes (without handlers). Seeing as how we aren’t in that position, I’d say it is reasonable to be suspicious of such manipulation, but also hold out a decent amount of suspended judgment for the possibility the kid is just precocious and motivated by an internal decision.
I don’t want to be totally gullible to this wonder kid, but I don’t want to believe by its nature that this is puppetry. I think it is more probably somewhere in between. He was probably bouncing some ideas about his project with one or more adults, and even though an adult may have come up with the idea, not saying they definitely did, it then probably appealed to Ethan. Who could say if the adult had a scheme here or not? I tend to think they didn’t, and this is just a likely scenario.
I remember when I was 10 and I had to enter the Science Fair. My teacher told me that was the only thing I could do or I would fail science. So you see already, I’m not going to have enough interest in science (do I fail atheism now? ha ha) to conjure up an appealing topic, I already didn’t expect to win anything. My mom (also limited in her knowledge and interest in science) thought up the idea to grow tomato plants from seed a couple days apart, and then I made a rad poster about the root system. Not totally unrelated but kind of random. I got an honorable mention. Two smart kids in my class did their project together on fission and fusion. We’re in 5th grade, what the F is fission and fusion. They got nada. (My freak show talent is remembering).
What’s my mom’s role here? She offered me an idea I didn’t think sucked and then I expanded the presentation to include more botany. How could fission and fusion be effectively demonstrated in a grade school gymnasium? This is an example of an ambition that could have used a little adult “encouragement.” For examples, these are ordinary science projects, but I don’t think it’s beyond anyone’s grasp to figure once in a while, a kid can be interested in something that might actually matter in his community, and get so excited about a project that it grows into a successful rally at which he speaks.
This Ethan had help organizing his rally. He’s probably internet-savvy, so I imagine he learned a lot about his project before it grew larger than making a poster with magazine clippings. Was activism the seed for this project, and then discovery of what he could be active for? Did he ask his parents, why can’t Joe and John get married like you guys?
Isn’t there something we could do about it?
Well, Ethan, it’s not legally recognized, but if enough people get together believing they can change the law, maybe the law will change.*
Oh, I guess that’s for you adults to figure out, I’m going to ride my bike to Pete’s house, he has a fort.
No, Ethan… wait! Why don’t you get permission from your teacher to change your independent study project?
Nah, we’re going to ride our bikes over mud puddles.
Ethan, you’re not getting this. It’s perfect, why don’t we organize a rally for your project? You’re a kid, they’ll love it!
*Alternate ending:
How do you get enough people?
I don’t know, a rally, I guess.
A rally! How do you make a rally?
You tell people to come, and then they carry signs and flags, and you have to make a speech. They get worked up like your baseball team does before a game.
Am I old enough to do that, or should I leave it up to you grown-ups?
I think someone who is unfamiliar with biological reproduction and sexual recreation is uniquely qualified to be clear thinking on this subject.
I only meant “clear thinking” in the sense that he is speaking on a subject which is grounded in the real world. Child preachers are screeching about supernatural magical make-believe and unfortunatley, many of them will grow up being delusional and therefore not clear thinking.
This kid isn’t like those other kids at all. Yeah, he’s a product of his parent’s teachings and his surroundings, but he personally organized the rally. That right there shows a clear difference between what those kids were doing and what he’s doing; They were speaking learned sentences and phrases into a mic, while he, on the other hand, is doing something about it.
A number of folks were very hard on child preachers. Do you see a difference between this and child preachers?
I am very interested to see how UF responds to this question.
And I’ll throw a little fuel onto the fire by reiterating a claim I made in the last conversation,
“Indoctrination is simply the word we use when other parents teach their kids something we don’t agree with.”
Parent A teaches his children that humanity is depraved and needs the saving grace of Thor to be a decent human being. Also, to disbelieve in Thor is to invite hellfire, damnation and Ragnarok.
Parent B teaches her children that humanity is a diverse collection of people and cultures and uses a variety of accepted scholarly techniques and examples to show her children this. Also, intellectual curiousity and critical thinking is encouraged.
Which one is engaging in indoctrination?
Are A and B the only options?
And are you being a bit too harsh on A and a little too generous with B?
And by my definition, both, depending on your perspective. But I’d welcome you to challenge and/or correct my definition. And I would also welcome your thoughts on how you think a parent who’s religious can be a ‘good’ parent, i.e., be open and honest about his or her faith (and his or her desire to pass that faith on) without “indoctrinating.”
Simple. If a parent who is religious invites critical thinking and allows his/her children the freedom to question beliefs and, eventually, choose his/her own path without throwing out nonsense about “eternal hellfire/eternal reward”, then that parent is not engaging in indoctrination. A parent can desire all he/she wants–but eventually, a child will grow up and choose their own path. Teaching children about religion is not the same as telling them that they MUST be/think/do according to said religion. Indoctrination, by definition and practice, doesn’t allow for critical reasoning.
Fair enough.
So as long as parents don’t pass along “nonsense,” they’re okay by you?
And what about my question about A and B being the only options?
If you want a C, D and E option, put ‘em out there. And your other question is a oddly phrased–I’m not a parenting commission, and you’re lifting what I called nonsense out of context–note what I said: “nonsense about ‘eternal hellfire/eternal reward’”–that’s where the indoctrination comes in. It’s the carrot and stick used to keep people in line and keep them from critically evaluating and possibly rejecting whatever religion they’ve been born into or raised with. And it is nonsense, because it has no evidential, empirical basis.
I was curious if you thought there could be a middle ground between A and B, which was why I asked if those are the only options. Your response indicates that there might be?
I was using “nonsense” as short-hand, nothing more. I realize you meant it in a specific way and wasn’t trying to misquote you. Turns out, I should have just quoted, because it’s taking me longer to type all this than it would have had I not used short-hand…
My “odd” question was just a way of making sure I understood you. I wasn’t asking for you to be a parenting commission, just asking for your opinion.
Let me be more clear: If a parent truly believes in an afterlife and teaches his child about that, is it possible, by your definition of indoctrination, that such teaching is not indoctrination?
It’s entirely possible that, given your scenario, that a parent teaching a child about an afterlife wouldn’t be indoctrination; again, it’s not indoctrination if the parent allows the child to make up his/her mind about whether or not he/she believes in such.
Example: Child asks parents “Where do we go when we die?” Parent(s) respond: “Well, some folks think that there is a place called heaven that good people go to; however, some folks think that when we die, that we just die–like sleeping forever. Your mother/father and I think that________. What do you think?“
What about, “Some folks think you should you should kill anybody who disrespects you. What do you think?”
We don’t want young kids making up their own minds about this stuff. That’s why we have parents.
You do realize that you just made the exact case for teaching evolution alongside creationism, and letting kids make up their own minds, don’t you?
You don’t present young children with “both sides” of a case, you teach (indoctrinate) them the TRUTH. If you are a believer, then you teach the truth as you understand it.
Roger: Well said. That’s how I hope to be a parent someday. It’s encouraging to me that we’re able to reach some common ground there.
Phrankygee: I think there’s some merit there, too… but I agree with Roger in that I think we can teach the truth tolerantly. For example, I don’t think I’m gonna tell my 3 year old about the different options about the afterlife… but when my kids reach the age where they start questioning things naturally, I hope that I’m honest enough with myself and them to let them know there are options… and that they need to decide for themselves… and that I’ll love them no matter what their beliefs are (or or not).
Phrankygee: there’s a world of difference between what parents would teach kids about religious beliefs and what public schools teach about the sciences. As far as attempting to say that I’ve made a case for teaching evolution alongside creationism, my shorter response would be: bullshit.
My longer response is that you are incorrect. The debate about creationism is a debate about what the public schools need to include in their curriculum. My response was about what parents do in terms of raising their children–the only way your comments relate to what I’ve said is when public school curriculums conflict with what parents teach their kids. With regards to creationism, you have some parents and non-parents attempting to influence the curriculum not for the interests of their children, but for an entire school/school system. The problem with religious fundamentalist parents is that they cannot abide having their religious worldview confronted by scientific evidence and wish to have the public school systems conform to their religious worldview. Further, your analogy doesn’t hold up too well, as the issue with creationism is the problem of the separation of church and state. Those who wish to impose “intelligent design” or whatever flavor monotheistic creationism is this month on a public school system are, by their very actions, demanding that the state give its imprimatur to a religion–in this case, Christianity.
PLUS (and dead horse is VERY sick of being beaten) Creationism isn’t science. You want to teach Creationism/ID/IPU/FSM in regilious education, you go right on ahead.
But in Science Classrooms, we teach Science. Evolution is science, and so it is taught in Science classrooms. ID is not science, and so it is not (or at least should not). Its not about cirriculum, indoctrination, seperation of church and state or anything else.
OK, you got me on public vs. private, I totally see your point there, but let me try another example that doesn’t embroil church and state.
Should we teach that some people believe the Holocaust happened, and some people deny it, and let our young children decide that for themselves? Or that some people believe that the illuminati are secretly controlling our minds through satellites?
If my kid asks me about the afterlife, I am going to tell him what *I* think about the afterlife. Let him go ask other people if he wants another opinion. I am not going to “Teach the Controversy”, and make the religionists’ claims FOR them. Besides, where would you draw the line? Do you also teach him about Shinto, and Manicheism, and Zoroastrianism, etc.?
And you never addressed the moral question: When your kid gets taunted at school or daycare, how should you tell him to respond? Do you let him decide what HE thinks is the right thing?
I don’t. And I am going to teach my kids the truth, as I understand it. I am going to do my damnedest to impart MY values to them, because if I didn’t think they were the best, they wouldn’t be my values.
I go against the grain here. I think if it’s impossible for the parent to distinguish the difference between indoctrination and merely teaching, it’s going to be very difficult to tell them to withhold primary lessons about their religion. I said this in the other thread also. We would be failing if we didn’t start babies off with songs and words, teaching the alphabet, numbers, colors, shapes, sizes, and motor skills. As soon as they can talk, we want them to appear to have manners. Shouldn’t that be up to them? Please, thank you, I’m sorry… those words are meaningless to a child and how they work in the larger society is a mystery, and using those words is not a requirement. It’s an arbitrary standard of custom, but you can get along in this world without being polite to other people, or only being polite to people you want to be polite to. It would be nearly impossible to drill into the head of a religious person that their beliefs are incorrect and that the right way to raise their own child is to withhold what they deem necessary information from their child or present it as “what some people believe, but we’ll let you decide.”
As for teaching your child tolerance. This is an example of right behavior. You want to steer the child at the earliest from prejudice, so when they’re older, they’re not total jerky bigots you’d be ashamed of. Nobody tells their kids, well some people have different skin than you, and some men like other men instead of women, and it’s ok for you to choose to hate them when you grow up, I don’t hate them, but I will let you make unfavorable biases if you want to.
It’s the same exact thing! You can’t tell a parent to withhold what they consider fundamental to their child’s right upbringing, whether that is religious nonsense or something more sociological. They are values, you do have to be carefully taught either way. It’s arbitrary to list something as indoctrination because you’re pretty sure it’s garbage, and just call it necessary exposure when it’s “a good thing to know.” Showing your child materials to broaden their interest in and acceptance of diversity is no different than telling them the bible stories are true. If you believe it is true, than it becomes a fundamental building block on their awareness, like ABCs and manners. A religious person is unable to distinguish this like an atheists, as an advanced subject up for (some) debate. Tolerance is also debatable. I think it’s nice, I don’t think bigots are cool, but if it’s an important value to you, you are going to make darn sure your kids know right from wrong before they meet someone of another race and say something stupid.
That’s what I keep saying. You’re not totally against the grain. I got your back!
Both. Open head, insert ideology. One ideology seems to have better practical behavioral effects than the other, but that doesn’t change the bare fact.
Which one’s better?
Personally I think that B is better (for the most part), but it’s only a value judgment. Not conclusively demonstrable.
One of the major reasons is that B can sometimes lead to A, but A can almost never lead to B.
Both.
One is indoctrinating their kid in a manner I agree with, the other in a way I disagree with.
One also has actual facts and reality on their side.
Thanks to Daniel for posting this, and drawing the comparison. We point out Christian hypocrisy all the time, but some of us gots a big ol’ biblical plank in our eye.
Phrankygee: “One is indoctrinating their kid in a manner I agree with”
Kids shouldn’t be indoctrinated with anything. Why do you think most of us are on this site lol :)
It’s unavoidable!
Yeah if you want to take the definition of indoctrinating to extreme, then any kind of education is a form of it. I think most people here see indoctrination as more of brainwashing when viewing vids of the kids preaching. I don’t see that the kid in these videos as being brainwashed. Yeah you can say he has been indoctrinated but ask yourself if what he has been taught is hurting anyone or is directing hate at others. I have been to a few churches and almost everyone of the preachers had at least some hate type message in with the talks about doing good. When hate is the outcome of any sermon or speech then you know brainwashing has been going on.
What about veganism*? It depends on how you view animals. If you knew what happened to the animals you eat and wear, wouldn’t you have to share the truth with your children? Yes, I’m being extreme on purpose, because most people are indoctrinated by being served meat and to be kind to animals with no real education being served. It’s a priority for some, not for others. Some actively hate vegans because they hate PETA, and they make their choices out of spite, or from knowing some overbearing vegans. First you have to say, is it ignorant to eat meat and fish or wear leather and wool, or you came to a decision that that sits ok with you. Have you seen everything you need to see to make that choice or were you indoctrinated to ignore it? Is it right to feed your toddler a hot dog when they have no idea that it came from an animal and aren’t old enough to decide how to respond to this as a choice on how kind they ought to be to animals? Or are you making the decision for them because that’s how you feel?
*I’m not a vegetarian/vegan/ovo-lacto whatever. It’s a “neutral but extreme” example of something people do (not being a vegan) without really thinking or becoming educated or think they have to educate their children about before they’re old enough to decide.
Like I said, it’s unavoidable.
I also feel bad now that I had to say I’m not a vegan. I’m really not, but I did have some idea you’d think I must be and that I’m trying to take away your enjoyment of meat by bringing it up. This also assumes you’re not a vegan, which you very well might be.
Yeah you can say he has been indoctrinated but ask yourself if what he has been taught is hurting anyone or is directing hate at others. I have been to a few churches and almost everyone of the preachers had at least some hate type message in with the talks about doing good. When hate is the outcome of any sermon or speech then you know brainwashing has been going on.
I don’t mean to nitpick or undermine your experience, but, I will push you a little bit on one thing.
Are you judging all churches and all sermons from your handful of experiences?
No I’m not judging churches but am judging religions for the most part. I try to avoid judging people but that can be tough to do. I am on the outside so tend to see things those within religion don’t see for themselves.
If I was able to hear every sermon then I would be your god, are you trying to compare me to something created to explain things people are afraid to find answers to? I feel completely insulted that you would think because I said I have heard sermons with hate inside of them that I have the powers you think your god has.
The thing is most forms of indoctrination are the things that neither hurt nor causes hate. When it gets to that point it is no longer indoctrination but brainwashing. I see this kid as having been taught to treat people fairly and yeah parents or other adults might have helped him to come up with this stuff. The ones that were doing the preaching in my view were there to make the adults feel good about their own views not to teach them anything useful. I couldn’t even watch the earlier postings vid before it sickened and embarrassed me. Yes I get embarrassed by actions like those done by parents that make their kids learn hate.
Whoa, no need to go on the warpath. I just asked a question. I didn’t have a hidden agenda… didn’t mean to imply anything. Just a question.
I apologize for making you feel insulted.
Merriam-Webster defines “indoctrinate” as:
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach 2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
It does not have a separate listing for “indoctrination.”
Of the several definitions I looked at, this was the most interesting. Here we have a preferred definition with no obvious political connotation and a subsidiary definition that specifically refers to political partisanship. I think this suggests that the word “indoctrination” is a relatively modern epithet used exactly as brgulker suggests: to decry the education given by parents of different ideology to their children. Other definitions, including an American Heritage dictionary definition of “indoctrinate” are consistent with this premise, though dictionary.com’s own definition contradicts it somewhat.
FWIW,
I did a bit of googling to see if I could figure out the etymology of “indoctrinate.” It didn’t yield anything ground breaking.
But, it does reiterate the fact that the root of the word is “doctrine,” which simply means teaching. So, it seems like the most natural understanding of the word has to do with teaching.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doctrine
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indoctrinate
Something tells me that this young man’s parents are fostering an environment of intellectuality and compassion in their household, which was most certainly not the case for the child preachers.
What an amazing kid! There is hope for the future!
That kid made my entire day. Maybe the whole week.
This makes me uncomfortable. For one thing, the child’s activism may make him a target for the hateful. That’s a decision an adult might choose to make, but I don’t think a child can fully consider such consequences.
dwade said the same thing about the kid with the anti-abortion sandwich board. He said the danger was that militant abortionists would run the kid over. (I paraphrase.)
You both might have a point, but I think the risks, of *physical* harm, are minimal in both cases. He will likely be called nasty names, to his face, on print, and in radio/TV outlets, but there just ain’t that many people who will hurt a child. Our monkey brains are programmed not to.
I’m uncomfortable when a child does anything like this. Why allow your kid to organize a rally wherein he/she might be open to ridicule? To me, this smacks of grandstanding and appears to be a bit of a sideshow (look how “special” or “smart” this kid is!) I’m glad his parents are fostering in him an openmindedness and willingness to see people of different sexualities as human–however, what need does a 9-year old have to organize a rally? The hope I would have is for parents to organize and help their kids not bully or be bullied by other kids who’ve been heavily influenced by homophobic discourse.
valid point.
It really depends on the issue and the community. I think because kids are too young to vote, they don’t get much in the way of activism or participating in any causes they believe in, or really any community awareness. It’s precocious of him. I don’t feel the urge to protect him.
Kids when they start to learn about the world may have lively discussions around the dinner table, but they really don’t have an outlet for taking a stand. They are unknowledgeable about their resources, and ways to use their voice effectively, so I think it’s a good thing for adults to assist their children who are otherwise stifled. For example, I’m not an activist, but if my child was interested, I would offer to help, do the legwork. I probably would not make a big thing about it or push the child into doing more than he wanted, in other words. But then again, some parents are activists, and a child may be exposed, and ask outright: I feel this about that – help me find ways to present this idea to the public, initiate a movement if none exists, etc., and the whole family gets super enthusiastic. I mean, because the kids can’t vote, it’s often an issue of awareness in the first place, general ageist exclusion, “age-appropriate” behaviors. Yeah, that’s cute. What a big helper!, so patronizing. There’s nothing wrong with this kid, he’s doing what he thinks is the right thing to do and the right way to go about it.
One of the topics that has come up indirectly in a few posts has been the cognitive capacity to think critically.
Do any of you know of any research that’s been done about that?
Do very many people think critically about everything? Should every parent answer all the iffy stuff with ‘when you’re older, we’ll go over that with you, you’re not old enough to think and we’re worried we might give you values that you’ll later grow to resent and have to unlearn’? Can’t everybody observe themselves as an adult and know that they think things without knowing where they came from or consciously deciding if it was a good thing to think?
I think tolerance is good. I know I didn’t learn this from my parents. I don’t remember having to unlearn intolerance. So I go inside my head and say, tolerance, good or bad, answer myself, tolerance good, and go on with my life. I don’t think that’s a critical examination so much as growing up in the time that I did and absorbing the lesson socially. Society mostly thinks I should be tolerant. I can observe what intolerance looks like, and I can experience it myself. But it still feels fundamental and not critically examined to me. I’m a lot older than 9.
Could give this kid a rousing round of applause. I wish people wouldn’t refer to Ghandi in this kind of speach, though – it always gets glossed over that he was an extreme racist who worked as a lawyer for the (exceedingly racist) regime which was the precursor for apartheid. But I digress. Kudos to that young man :-)
Look who’s back!
BUT I’m not really “back.”
FIRST – Daniel, love the new look. Clean and efficient.
SECOND I received a few comments from you loyal UF folks that frustrated me. Apparently it’s a problem to some of you that I don’t stick around on this blog ALL DAY LONG, READ EVERY COMMENT and engage in arguments for hours on end.
I used to read an entry, leave my comment, and move on. This seemed to upset some of the not-so-intelligent thinkers who assumed my goal and my passion is to argue pointlessly ALL DAY LONG on a blog.
A few of you have contacted me through my blog. THANK YOU. I GENUINELY appreciate it. However, some contacted me through my blog, spewed hatred and the oh-so-clever “you’re delusional” remarks and then got upset because I wouldn’t respond to your arrogant attitude.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON’T KNOW ME, let me fill you in: I’m a Christian pastor. About to turn 30. Launching a church in Denver soon. I used to be a regular reader of UF and thoroughly enjoyed most (not all) of Daniel’s thoughts (the ones that had a point, not just anger behind them). I love science and math and am intelligent in both (no sarcastic comment required on your part). I am a pilot and didn’t spend the last 29 years of my life in a seminary (thank God). Religion is man made. It blows. Many Christians are, indeed, a whip. I’m NOT a debater. I don’t care if you disagree with me. I won’t fight with you, I just won’t respond to less-than-clever remarks about me being “delusional” or “clueless.” Some of the readers here can attest to my openness to talk respectfully. If you’re interested in talking, let me know. Please THINK before you contact me. You want me to “think” about my beliefs so please do the same before you spew outdated jokes and not-at-all witty sarcasm. And try your best to spell correctly. It’s hard to justify yore inteligents win yuu cante spale.
Stephen,
I want to comment about your comments about “religion.”
Religion, as it is discussed here, is discussed as a sociological phenomena. As such, it is “man-made” but in a different way than you mean.
Religion as “man-made” as you describe it means something entirely different. You’re speaking of it as “man-made” as it is described in 2 Tim. 3:5 (form without power). That’s an inter-religious distinction, and as such, doesn’t really intersect with the conversations that happen here.
In other words, when the UF crowd says “Religion Blows” (paraphrase), and when you say “Religion Blows,” you are saying very, very different things.
Remember how I wondered if Stephen was being deceptive in his word choice? Loaded words, red flags etc? Are you picking up on those signals now brgulker?
Different Stephen.
Yes, different Stephen.
But, I don’t see anything deceptive here. All I see is up-front honesty. What am I missing here?
A long history that other people (including me) have had with ‘Stephen Webb’. But of course, our history is not your history, and on balance it is best to not prejudge on our word for it.
FWIW, Webb is pretty much the only person around that I won’t engage with at all anymore.
Fair enough.
Thanks for the backstory. I didn’t pick up on any red flags, but if you and Aor have had dealingsi n the past, then I’ll take your word for it.
A pastor that thinks religion “blows”…
What is it you plan to do in this new church you’re opening?
lol.. who asked?
*feeds the troll*
*grabs popcorn*
The difference, I hope, is that this child is allowed to come up with his own opinions now and in the future, and ask questions without fear of punishment. Naturally he has learned some ideals from his parents, but it’s only indoctrination if he fears they will not love him otherwise, or would punish him. From the video it seems the kid saw injustice on the playground and wanted to do something about it and acted independently, I wish they had interviewed his parents I am curious.
When I was a child I had to be ‘corrected’ to think that same-sex relationships were wrong. It was not inherent to me that there would be a problem with them because ‘all you need is love’ right? I hadn’t hit puberty yet so I didn’t understand the sexual ramifications of the issue naturally.
I also remember learning about racism and pollution and not understanding why these things still existed because they were obviously bad. I still think they are bad, but now I understand that that humanity is very much not on the same page at this point in our history, and there is much disagreement on how to solve these problems etc.
The difference, I hope, is that this child is allowed to come up with his own opinions now and in the future, and ask questions without fear of punishment. Naturally he has learned some ideals from his parents, but it’s only indoctrination if he fears they will not love him otherwise, or would punish him. .
I like that one. Thanks.
GO ETHAN!
I was initially dubious as to whether this kid was acting on his own or just working as a mouthpiece for his parents, but after thinking about it and remembering an event from my own experience I’m pretty convinced that he’s doing this on his own.
The event I refer to was a day last April, when I was working on making a rainbow medallion (a DoS project that never got off the ground, but I’m holding onto for next year). My little brother, eleven years old, came up and asked me what I was making the medallion for.
I debated with myself as to whether I should tell him – I live in a fundamentalist Christian household, and I didn’t want to get caught “poisoning” my little brother’s mind – but in the end I decided to go for it.
“It’s for the Day of Silence,” I said.
“What’s that?”
“Well…” Time to whip out Dale McGowan’s instruction technique. “It’s a day of support for homosexual students who are being made fun of in schools.” I went on to explain that while our mother thinks that homosexuality is wrong and that it isn’t any of our business how they are treated, I think that we should treat them decently no matter what we think of them. I explained how on the Day of Silence, students in schools all around the country stay silent for a day to raise awareness of the bullying that happens to homosexuals.
He listened, absorbed the information, and left without comment.
When the Day of Silence came, nothing much happened. I’m not in school, and my little brother is homeschooled, so there was nothing to be silent about. Nonetheless, at one point around midafternoon my little brother walked up to me and motioned to get my attention. He wasn’t talking.
If you want to call that indoctrination, go right ahead.
I think the main difference is that this kid isn’t discriminating anyone. He isn’t spreading hate or trying to impose any belief on others, except we’re al equal.
Damn near got me in tears this little kid did!
I spend a lot of time with a kid his age, and they’re very capable of these thought processes. I’m not sure my neice would ever feel the urge to organise a RALLY about it though.
The only difference is that most of us agree with this kid’s (and his parent’s) position on this topic. That’s it.
No. See my post below.
I disagree with the consensus here that this is the liberal equivalent of the child preachers, though I’m pretty sure things are going to get pretty postmodern in here. After all, I’m interpreting things through the lens of my ideology.
Fact: Homosexuals do not at any point in their lives choose to be homosexuals.
Fact: Homosexuals are subject to verbal and physical abuse as well as general discrimination due to prevailing opinions about their sexual orientation.
Falsehood: Homosexuals choose to be homosexual because they derive pleasure from being wicked.
Undemonstrable assertion: Homosexuals are chosen by God to behave wickedly and then go to hell.
So there is a difference between teaching a child the first two things and teaching a child either of the last two, right?
The question is, what do you teach your child about ethical behavior towards other human beings? To the extent that people agree that it’s good to treat people as you would want to be treated and that it’s good to help protect those that are discriminated against (as oneself would not want to be treated), you can wind up with a result like this little boy. Would anyone here really describe the two moral precepts above as “indoctrination”?
And since I think the real meat of religion consists of undemonstrable assertions, I don’t really see how convincing your child of the truth of your religious beliefs is necessary in the course of raising the child.
That said, if the kid is religious and wants to preach, I say go for it. It just seems slightly more appropriate for a child to be telling those stories.
I’m SOOOO SICK of the argument that starts with “people don’t choose to be homosexual”. People don’t CHOOSE to be sociopaths either. If we COULD somehow “pray the gay away” (or even science the gay away) then the logic of your arguement collapses because after that they do choose to be gay.
Homosexual people are PEOPLE. So lets base our arguments on that.
Right, but the usual argument from the anti-gay crowd is that it’s a choice, it’s wrong, and therefore homosexuals get what’s coming to them. The presumption is not merely that they’re people, but that they’re evil people. Do you mind if I invoke the fact that homosexuality is not a choice to argue with that notion? How is that problematic?
My comment was not really, directed at your comment. More at that line of argument in general and I didnt’ mean to single you out there. :D and argh, i’m too decaffinated to think.
On the one hand, spreading accurate information is good. So arguing back against the idea that homosexuals actively choose to be homosexuals is good. When the argument is “gay people choose to be gay,” then SURE, lets trot out the evidence that proves it’s not true.
This is, imo, a DIFFERENT argument to “homosexuality is bad.” And that’s the POINT. The point is homosexuality isn’t bad. It isn’t good either. It just IS.
Hopefully that made sense.
It’s not problematic in itself, but it does open up avenues for future weakness, as Korny pointed out. If geneticists pin down definitively the complex of genes and epigenetic conditions that cause homosexual orientation, it’s just a hop-skip-jump from there to gene-therapy-as-a-cure-for-gayness. And so employing the it’s-not-a-choice-it’s-biology argument adequately defends against the homosexuality-as-a-sin-to-be-castigated model, but increases weakness to the (imo, eventually far more dangerous) homosexuality-as-a-disease-which-should-be-cured model. Considering the intellectual
dishonestyjudo that religious leaders have shown themselves willing to engage in to give expression to their homophobia thus far, it is no great leap to assume that they would seize on the ability to medicalize and thus call deviant that which they could not successfully castigate on moral grounds.IIRC, when the ‘gay gene’ was announced (a big part of the scientific puzzle, to be sure), immediately some high profile minister or other talked (positively) about the possibility of prenatal genetic “fixing” so that all children would come out heterosexual, so all this doesn’t come out of left field. I’ll try to find the link.
“And so employing the it’s-not-a-choice-it’s-biology argument adequately defends against the homosexuality-as-a-sin-to-be-castigated model,”
I think we’re comitting the naturalistic fallacy there. “Because it is natural it is good.”
To take a (real but admittedly extreme) example – sociopathy is natural. We identify it as bad because it has negative consequences.
It feels that way, but when you break it down, it isn’t. It turns out it is the other side that is committing the fallacy, and the counterargument simply points out the flaw by skewering it on a dilemma. Check it out:
Argument:
P1: Heterosexuality is natural
P2: What is natural is normative [[there's our naturalistic fallacy]]
C1:Thus, Heterosexuality is normative
P3: What is not natural is volitional
P4: Homosexuality is not natural
C2: Thus, Homosexuality is volitional
P5: What is volitional can be morally bad
P6: The volition to homosexuality is indicated as bad in [outside authority, e.g. holy text]
C3: Therefore, homosexuality is morally bad
The counterargument is simple:
CP1: Homosexuality is natural.
If CP1 is true, the original argument can only be salvaged by discarding P2, leaving it without grounding, thus unraveling the rest. (In “if it is a choice, then it is bad” by attacking “it is a choice”) Either the person must endorse the naturalistic fallacy, in which case the arguer has achieved what he set out to avoid (namely, that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are normative), or he must abandon the argument for another.
It’s 4pm on a Friday here – I think it’s cruel and unusual punishment to make me think that hard :(
But I’m finding myself in the awkward position of being unable to fault your logic, but not liking your conclusion :(
My soundbyte sounds better though!
It’s 4pm on a Friday here…
New Zealand?
Ya. Going into winter and it’s cold and horrible. It’s home time now but I’m resisting leaving coz my office is warmer than my house!
All sorts of “good” and “bad” things occur in nature: altruism, tenderness, murder, rape. Arguing about whether homosexuality is unnatural or natural (it is) seems like a dead end. Human morality differs from animal behavior.
All sorts of “good” and “bad” things occur in nature: altruism, tenderness, murder, rape. Arguing about whether homosexuality is unnatural or natural (it is) seems like a dead end. Human morality differs from animal behavior.
I agree wholeheartedly. My point is that the argument about the normality of nature originates with those who wish to say that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural; it is a (half-hidden) but necessary premise of their argument. The easiest way to tear that argument to pieces is by pointing out that homosexuality is natural. This is not to suggest a general endorsement of the normativity of nature, but rather to show that arguments from nature are absurd, i.e. the argument doesn’t take you anywhere, on either side.
It’s important to make the “homosexuality is normal” point for the practical reason that many are persuaded by the apparent normativity of nature (nearly everyone I’ve ever met, including myself, occasionally slips into the naturalistic fallacy in our thinking; it’s a [ahem] naturally seductive line of argumentation) and so must be shown why especially in this case it is a poor argument. Explaining the naturalistic fallacy itself is difficult to a person not already trained in critical thought (mainly, I think, because it is easy to point to many positive examples where what is natural *correlates strongly* with what is deemed good, and most people make the leap from correlation to causation effortlessly), and so the next best thing is to show that the naturalistic assumption doesn’t lead where they think it does.
Whoops, the quote at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph should read “homosexuality is natural“.
Yes I didn’t mean to sound as though I were arguing, just expanding. I’ve gotta work on tone.
Nah, it’s probably more me than you. As I said before, I interpret pretty much everything as an invitation to debate.
It is much rarer than sociopathy, but so is necrophilia.
I failed to properly linkify that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research
And if you really want to get down to it, artificial sweeteners are natural…
I think the subject is behavior, not substances.
What are some other undemonstrable assertions? I don’t see why religion is singled out. That said, do you know what a broad subject multiculturalism is, and that most of us say stupid things despite what we feel are our core values, despite what facts we think we are teaching our children, in front of and away from them?
I’m a product of my childhood and life experiences, every preference and decision-making ability comes from somewhere, some less certain than others. Not all of them are “useful” to this discussion. You are able to see what facts are and what falsehoods are if you are thinking about something important, but very few of us don’t take a lot of what we think we know for granted, never think about it, never analyze whether it’s right or wrong. Is there a right way to raise a child and a wrong way? There are lots of wrong ways. Does that make everyone perfect at it, or in agreement how to go about it? You just can do a lot of research, and read a lot of books. Do any of those books have testimonials from adults who say, yes, indeed, my parents raised me according to the doctor who wrote this book, and I’m perfect! They really knew what they were doing, not like those amateur parents who just have “ideas” and think they can “wing it.” Am I the only person who thinks about anything wrong with the world besides religion?
I think I agree with you, though I’m not sure what you mean by multiculturalism here. Regardless, I don’t think good or bad behavior is correlated very strongly with the degree to which one is outwardly religious. Since children learn a great deal by observation and imitation, bad behavior is perpetuated generation to generation and this has little to nothing to do with religion. I wasn’t trying to say that religious people are necessarily bad parents — I suspect that one’s a total wash.
That said, I still don’t understand the notion that one should teach one’s children that God definitely exists when oneself is taking it on faith.
I wasn’t using the example of “how to raise a child the right way” as a point to make with regards to the article or the one with the child preachers. It was more along the lines of things we, even critical thinking, analytical people, do without examination. There may be no right or wrong answer, but somehow, we make what we believe is the right decision for the best upbringing of a child.
For a nonreligious example, some people think if a kid chooses from all the instruments in the band, to play the bassoon, he has to stick it out because he’s made a commitment. If he’s learning how to play the bassoon and sees the trumpets are more popular, he shouldn’t be allowed to switch midway. A practical side may be the parent has committed to the instrument rental and it would be inconvenient and expensive for the kid to hop around until he found an instrument he liked to play or even another activity. This is an actual argument I got into with someone. I don’t see the harm in letting the kid find the instrument that brings him pleasure to play, and I do see the harm in forcing someone to keep doing some activity he isn’t interested in or actively loathes. I also see commitment is a good trait to build, but this is his “free time.” So I even disagree with myself a little.
Given that parental strategies will vary, there is no right answer, but people will often pull from their gut a policy on the issue, and maybe not even a firm policy, depending on the sex of the child and/or the expense and time commitment required of the parent, and/or the parent’s personal like or dislike of the pursuit. Who is choosing the activities or how seriously the activity is pursued? What do I value here, and how do I want to demonstrate that to my child? What choices was I given, and how do I feel the limits or limitlessnesses have affected me? Did I get the valuable lesson out of it, or do I just remember if it was fun or not? Again, what, if any, angles should I use to teach my children the values I think are important?
I’ve taken religion and social activism out of the equation and replaced it with a somewhat neutral but common scenario. Does not everyone seem to have a different point of view on Ethan’s work? It’s great for him and his parents must be proud, or it’s dangerous and even if it was his idea, his parents should limit his activities to “age-appropriate”, or I don’t know any 9-year-olds who could pull that off or who are likely to follow through, or 9 year-olds just can’t possibly have the critical thinking skills necessary to grasp the real big deal instead of the favorable attention he’s getting. Still no right answer.
I used the word multiculturalism in part because I had written a response earlier using the concept of tolerance, then I went out and the word ate at me. Maybe because I’m white, it doesn’t sound as inclusive as it means to be. It feels like me saying you are different and I tolerate you. I looked at “lesson B” where the child was taught open-mindedness, and I think for all the good intentions people may have, and all the things they think are important to expose their children in that regard, there are still a lot of social customs and language we ignore, and it’s impossible to shield children from sometimes or quite often listening to and internalizing the wrong things, no matter how much we know or think we know. And then, not everyone chooses the same set of values or prioritizes them in a healthy balance, or the same order.
My concern in the child preachers thread was for children being placed into authority positions over a long period of time. This should not happen to children or to the groups to which they belong. As a former pentecostal/charismatic I’ve seen the effects of this. “Anointed” children carry an extreme burden. Also, the specific dynamics of the parents/child and pastor/child relationships are problematic exemplified by them letting this kind of phenomena go on and on.
Concerning the current video, it doesn’t look like he is expected to carry a group leadership role nor can we see his parents profiting in some way from his actions or desiring for some profit continuing. Nor does it look like this will be on-going but was more or less a school project.
The boy probably reflects his parents values as do the preacher kids. This is the way of things. I don’t want to take away parents rights to raise their kids religiously.
As a gay man who was gay before gay meant being gay, all I can say is we’ve come a long, long way and I’m proud to live in a society where a school boy can do a class project like this and share it openly in the public square.
I see a big difference between Ethan and child preachers. Child preachers imitate mannerisms and repeat empty Christianese phrases with an affected air of authority: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TlIk4X3EsU
Ethan’s speech sounds like something a 9-year-old would be able to write himself (maybe with some editing by parents/teachers). It is delivered sincerely, without that false cocky attitude.
Most importantly, he seems like he is still a normal kid.
if he was twelve or older i would agree that this was whole hearted, i believe in what he “stands” for but, at sutch a young age you can get so caught up, if this child was raised christian, you could very well see him preaching. everyone looking back on their own childhood believes themself more understanding then they were, next time you see your 10 yr old niece\neph whatever, show them the simple pick-a-point card trick and see how believing they are when you say its magic! VERY!
child preachers are WRONG even if there preaching atheism,understanding or respect THEY DONT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE GIRTH OF THE KNOWLAGE THEY ARE STAUNCHING 4.
My boyfriend loves doing magic tricks for my 9 year old neice all the time. Apparently she has an intuitive grasp of whats actually going on and easily figures them out when adults are just stymied.
One Trackback
[...] But in other (better) news, a 9 year old organises an equal rights rally! [...]