A 7-year old boy is traveling around the country, standing on street corners and preaching hellfire at passers-by (you can hear him in a recording, too). He's part of a caravan of Baptists making an expedition up to the land of the Yankees to tell us all we're going to hell.
Is this abuse? The poor kid is wasting time on the Bible and haranguing random people at the behest of his parents. Oh, excuse me, at the behest of God.
The evangelical Baptist couple nurtured his talents with Bible readings in the womb and bought Samuel his first guitar at age four, said his mother. They read the Bible together every day as a family and have home-schooled their two boys.
Asked if their son is being exploited, his mother said, "We're not making him preach. That's God's job."
So if it is child abuse and exploitation, it's all god's fault? Can we have him arrested for that? I do wish we could arrest all those parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to keep their children ignorant.
Maybe if we monitor this kid, will be able to get evidence for the existence of god when we catch him compelling a 7-year old to do unnatural acts, like bible study. Especially since he doesn't seem entirely enthusiastic about the occupation his parents have chosen for him.
Samuel, who studies the Bible for about one hour each night, wasn't sure if he wanted to grow up to be a minister.
"It's harder to learn to be a pastor than to preach," he said haltingly.
If he's a typical young boy, he'd probably rather be a baseball player or fireman. I also hate to say it, but from the recording he's not a very good preacher, either, and I hope he doesn't dream of a career in music.
I find it all sad and depressing and unfortunate for the kid, so I'd have to say this is an example of religiously-motivated intellectual abuse. I wish I knew what we could do about it.
- Log in to post comments
I noticed this yesterday (I've lived in Roanoke for much of this millennium) and also noticed the kid's singing voice is assawful.
No way is this kid doing this of his own accord, but of course his nutter parents are convinced he is.
Marjoe Gortner redux.
"We're not making him preach. That's God's job."
Keep telling yourself that when he doesn't live up to your innane ideas.
But whats worse? This or a mother who forces her little kids to go to sports or beauty contests and the like? Either way it screws the little kids up.
My first thought was to extract the audio and make a Steve Reich-esque "It's Gonna Rain" spoof, but I can't seem to get the raw media data from that website. Firefox VideoDownloader, I find your lack of success disturbing!
If you just need the audio, why would you download the entire video? Just use a sound recording program and record while it's playing.
This kid's probably happy as he can be-- no sitting through class, he gets to hang out with his daddy, can judge people all day long, and mug for the TV cameras. What's sad is that he's probably the intellectual equal of his father; all that this sort of preaching requires is easily within the reach of a seven-year old.
"We're not making him preach. That's God's job."
Excuse me? It's God's job to make him preach? Please tell me she was just flustered when put in front of a mike/camera (like many of us) and worded it badly. It really would be sad if she feels it's God's job to make people preach for him. (And is he subject to on-the-job discipline?)
Because the closest tool at hand was designed to grab the whole thing. Now that convenience has failed, I might as well try for something else.
We can only hope he goes the route of Marjoe - makes a documentary revealing the scam, then makes a short-lived career in B-movies.
Is this child abuse? Of course it is. If nothing else, the parents are guilty of depriving the child of a real education, instead force-feeding him myths and fallacies. IMHO, parent are free to teach their kid religious nonsense, but only in addition to real-world learning, not in place of it. (The challenge here is that most of these parents are probably well aware that introducing reality into the education will throw the ridiculous notions of religion into stark relief.)
What can we do? One, require that home-schoolers pass competency tests in real subjects (and make these tests actually challenging). Any child who cannot pass at the end of each school year simply cannot be home-schooled anymore. A parent incapable of educating a child to reasonable norms of competency in real subjects is not fit to home-school, regardless of religion.
Also, openly ridicule the parents' idiocy (to the parents only) and question the child's beliefs. Don't ridicule the child---he didn't ask to be born to morons. But ask the child why he believes what he believes. Tell him that most adults do not believe these things, and that it's okay for him to question them, too.
You won't change anything at that moment, but you can plant a seed that may grown into fruit later in life. As someone who grew up under the sole tutelage of religious lunatics, I wish some responsible adults had done that for me.
It's a good argument against home schooling. Children shouldn't be exposed only to their parents' ideas, or under their control 24/7.
"Because the closest tool at hand was designed to grab the whole thing. Now that convenience has failed, I might as well try for something else"
My goodness Blake, you just described my entire life!
@cureholder
>>Tell him that most adults do not believe these things, and that it's okay for him to question them, too.
An overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God. And most don't believe in evolution. So - this statement is a lie.
And no - I don't think this is child abuse. Stupid? yes but not child abuse.
If every Muslim parent in America pulled their kids out of school tomorrow and announced "Don't worry, we're going to teach them everything they need to know at home." - there would be a law requiring all children to attend public school by next Wednesday.
@Gerard Harbison
I know two couples homeschooling their children. But they are not religious nutcases. It just that their local public school is awful and financial situation does not allow private schooling (on the flip side the local public school is wonderful in my district where I live is wonderful). Unfortunately they are in the minority for homeschooling. I believe that people should have as wide choices as possible to educate their kids and many different routes work for different people. If you completely ban one route due to incompetence - you would have to close half the public schools in this country (meaning US).
I face similar people among the protesters at the Planned Parenthood clinic where I volunteer. Some of the protesters drag along their kids, ranging from 5 to 17 or 18. And those kids proceed to attempt to preach "truth" to clinic patients. I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for them. In any case, I think a case could be made for child abuse. All, incidentally, are home schooled. I've asked--both kids and parents.
I found the entire thing very reassuring. The video showed clearly that for all their shouting and side-show antics, they couldn't pull together more than 2-3 people at at a time.
I only wish I could have been there. I never pass up an opportunity to interact with these nut jobs when I run into them. I know the signs say not to tease the animals, but I've also been known to walk on the grass and run with scissors.
OEJ
Gerard:
I was homeschooled until high school. I'm now an agnostic working on a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. There is nothing inherent in homeschool that is bad. Admittedly my parents aren't the standard, they made an active effort to expose me to alternate ideas and to get me involved in the community outside of their supervision (volunteering and the like).
Like PZ said, the problem is when it is used as an excuse. In my case it was used as a tool to allow me to go deeper with my interests in history and science than is possible in a class environment. In second grade I asked why Pluto takes longer to go around the sun than the Earth even though it moves faster. What followed was a year long exploration of astronomy, math, and physics. I finished it with a presentation to the 2nd grade class I would have been part of if I had been at the local public school. That's how homeschooling should be used.
No, I won't call this child abuse. A friend of mine was the victim of real sexual molestation as a child, so I cringe at attempts to compare what this boy's parents are doing to my best friend getting raped by her grandfather when she was 10.
Blake, the audio is here:
http://www.roanoke.com/multimedia/soundslides/streetpreacher/publish_to…
I used the Download Helper extension.
It's trivializing child abuse to give that label to any parental behavior we don't approve of. Personally, I find Boy Scouts almost as abhorrent as what this child is having to do, but I wouldn't label either as "child abuse".
Good point, FastEddie.
They bought him a guitar at age four? Good; with any like he'll rebel and be playing Lordi covers by the time he's 14...
M. H.:
Thanks.
Not that I condone it (the bible is one of the most grotesque works of man), but maybe the kid should actually read the bible...Matthew 6:5-7 perhaps. It would be a start. "...do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men..."
I agree with FastEddie: let's reserve the term "child abuse" for more clear-cut cases of physical or emotional abuse and neglect, of which unfortunately our society is in no short supply. No sense "pulling a Stanley Fish" on that clear term.
I'll call this a case of intellectual malnutrition. Probably most parents are guilty of this at least some of the time.
It may not be child abuse, but it is exploitation. Child labour laws give too many loopholes for parents to exploit their children, but they clearly state that he is being made to work by some other person, other than his parents.
This is ABSOLUTELY child abuse! Abuse comes in many forms physical, sexual, and MENTAL. In comparison to physical and sexual abuse, mental abuse is often considered less damaging by most. Tell that to the families of doctors who were murdered by indoctrinated luncatics.
I mean lunatics of course
My condolences to your friend, but are you actually under the impression that "child abuse" only consists of *sexual* mistreatment?
If the kid actually wants to stand on the street corner and shout a people about god and what sinners they are, imagine what an unbearable asshat he's going to be as an adult.
Hopefully he'll go back to his little Jesusland town and not come out again.
I called the police on some JWs who showed up at my door on a school day with a school-age child in tow.
Dunno what became of them, but the police were interested and made them go away.
That's how Hector Avalos and Marjoe Gortner got their start...they turned out okay.
I think I feel more sad to what would happen to his mental state if he somehow realized that a Christian God does not exist. The worse feeling, in my opinion, is when you realized you wasted your life on a fruitless endeavor. I can only imagine if one realizes they wasted their entire childhood on said endeavor.
I think our time can be better spent doing something about, oh, this for instance: The Child Health Site
With a simple, daily click of the blue "Fund Healthcare for Children" button at The Child Health Site, visitors help children. Visitors pay nothing. The treatments and preventative services described above are paid for by our site sponsors and accomplished through our charitable partners, who currently include Mercy Corps, the Prosthetics Outreach Foundation, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation and Helen Keller International.
Self righteous indignation is all well and good, but this little frick doesn't seem to be complaining, he looks healthy, and he may grow up to be a country and western star. He may grow up to be an abortion clinic bomber, but he may decide that his parents are slave driving control freaks and rebel, turning to life of drug induced debauchery just to spite his mama.
Or maybe we can get him to recite some bible passages from Ezekiel 23:20, to wit: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
LMAO! Or maybe he will get some good material for stand up comedy: (more Zeke)
21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. [c]
22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side- 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses.
Hey, those were her lovers? I'm sorry, I have a hard (pun) time imagining she turned from handsome men on horses, horses!, wouldn't they remind her of donkies?
24 They will come against you with weapons, [d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire.
And if that isn't enough to strike the fear of god into you, Oholibah you incredible slut...
26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry.
So that's what inspired the phrase 'adding insult to injury'
@#31. Will, do you really think he 'wants' to do this? No part of this story makes me believe that he has anything like a choice in the matter. He's been sucking down these cheap, shitty hellfire and salvation lies since before he was born. There is no alternative point of view for him, and can you imagine the possible ramifications for NOT standing on the corner and belting out proclamations to the damned like mummy (excuse me, "GOD") wants? Kids have strong tendencies to believe everything their parents tell them and to want desperately to please their parents and make them happy. This makes their little minds that much easier to commandeer and exploit, and that's what makes stories like these so heartbreaking. Even if he does somehow manage to throw off the shackles at some point in the future, it will be difficult if not impossible for him to recover from the emotional and psychological effects of his upbringing. I agree with Shawn that it would be a singularly horrific experience for him to come to terms with a godless universe . And yes, for the record, I do indeed consider this a form of child abuse.
It's abuse. There are many ways to abuse kids, and keeping them pig-ignorant is one way. So far, I got physical, mental, emotional... Add "keeping them pig-ignorant" to the list.
Why not teach the kid the earth is flat, too? The Bible teaches that (and yes, I'm aware this statement could cause a huge tangent in this thread; please don't let that happen!).
I've stated before that, near where I live, there's a Bible college (William Jessup). I figured they'd be strong in some areas; like, maybe a degree in math was worth something to them. So I got into their catalog and searched for "calculus", just for fun. They don't teach it.
I can't imagine a "university" not having at least a course in integration for business majors. It just makes no sense to me.
That's a form of abuse; charging university prices, and then not even offering classes surely 90% of their AP applicants will have already taken. Of course, I'd bet only one AP student in a million would even think of William Jessup.
What are the odds this kid will ever learn trig? 0%? So the kid is probably being deprived of even basic math, and thus will probably be confined in his career to menial jobs.
There's more than one way to abuse a kid. Allowing him to be a bad street preacher at the expense of real learning is one of those ways.
This is like "training" (read "forcing" or otherwise "intimidating") a dog or a monkey to do clever tricks against their innate nature.
Its abusive to train circus animals to perform imbecilic amusements. This isn't any different - it merely demonstrates that human animal children are just as susceptible to trainers, but we already knew that. Yep, its animal abuse. Yep, its child abuse.
What a wonderfully diverse culture we have.
IanR says, "It may not be child abuse, but it is exploitation. Child labour laws give too many loopholes for parents to exploit their children, but they clearly state that he is being made to work by some other person, other than his parents."
That's fine. Call it "child slavery" then. Whatever. ITS ABUSE.
Hey, I live in Roanoke and this is the first I've heard of this. I didn't realize the circus had come to town (or at least the clowns). How sad for the little boy! I hope someday he is able to see there is a lot more to life than yelling at random people on street corners condemning them for not believing the silly things his parents have drummed into him.
Thanks mikmik. I need a t-shirt or bumper sticker that says "Ezekiel 23:20"
That would be a hoot!
Cheers,
Ray
I am horrified by people indoctrinating their children with these lies.
That said, my husband and I were both raised in crazy-fundie families, and both "got better" somewhere along the way. Maybe I am overly optimistic that children are naturally resilient and that people have the capacity to learn and grow beyond what they were taught as younglings; maybe I'm not. But I wouldn't call this child abuse. Stupid and counterproductive, yes; abusive, no.
(N.B.: sometime last year, my mom apologized to me for raising my sister, my brother and me in an environment of pro-Jesus, anti-gay propaganda. Oddly enough, we're all three a bunch of raging non-religious pro-gay libtards now; as is my mom. We all got better. Praise the Lord!)
RedMolly #41
I don't think there's even a little irony in how you turned out. Really, if you attend pretty much any decent university in this country, at about the Junior year (if you've lasted that long), you realize you're wasting time learning myths. It fogs the brain; it's a fairytale; even the most devout religious folks have doubts.
I think your experience is nothing like unusual. I think it's typical.
My epiphany came in 1983, while a student at UC Santa Cruz. I have absolutely never looked back. I looked up one day and said, "That's enough."
One of my best decisions ever.
I wish I knew what we could do about it.
consider encouraging your state legislators to fold this behavior into already existing statutes covering cults in your state.
that would be a start, since many states already have anti-cult laws.
Personally, I find Boy Scouts almost as abhorrent as what this child is having to do, but I wouldn't label either as "child abuse".
or even remotely comparable, for that matter.
nice try at a strawman analogy, though.
I don't get the problem with calling this child abuse because it diminishes the meaning of, for instance, sexual abuse. It doesn't. It's like complaining that someone said his broken leg caused him pain, because it wasn't the pain of being disemboweled by wolves. We do not have precisely calibrated terms for these phenomena.
#11:
I completely agree with you. But I do have a friend whose whole family is homeschooled and seem pretty religious, and he's agnostic leaning toward atheism. He just pretends not to be when they're around.
So maybe it's not as damaging as it seems? I hope?
I need a t-shirt or bumper sticker that says "Ezekiel 23:20"
Google is your friend. Landover Baptist has the gear that most closely resembles what you want.
My guess is, it's an issue of framing...
(Couldn't resist x.x)
Look - another kid being trained to be one of two things:
1) a mountebank
2) a disillusioned burger-flipper
> . Landover Baptist ..
I totally mis-read this as "Land Rover Baptist" and was thinking, "Hey... I could get behind that..."
When I was 6 I wanted to be an exorcist, so *maybe* this is something that the kid wants to do. Of course my parents didn't tour me across the country casting out demons.
Yes, I was a strange kid.
Ok, those of you wanting to "do something" about homeschooling of this sort by getting it covered under child-abuse laws: while it's a satisfying thought, it's not a practical one.
Cureholder made what I think is the most sensible suggsestion yet on this subject. I've been waiting for someone to jump on it, but since no one has yet, I will. As he suggested, don't disallow homeschooling--what they need to do is subject homeschooled students to annual competency tests in key subjects. Make sure the tests are challenging and meaningful, and yank them out of home school if they fail (details like retakes and potential for later return to homeschooling can be worked out in committee).
This will allow parents to homeschool (as some have pointed out, there are times it's good or even necessary), but will ensure that homeschooled children are being given an education at least roughly on par with what they'd get in public school. Everybody wins. Want to inculcate religious notions in your home school? That's fine--just make sure you teach the school curriculum as well. That should bring home schools more on par with religious private schools, which would be a step up.
"It's called 'accountability', ma'am. Junior has to take the annual exam just like the other students. If he were in public school, the teachers would be responsible for teaching him. Since you've chosen to assume that role, you've also assumed the responsibility. We have materials and other resources available to help you teach the subject matter, but you must teach the subject matter."
Ok, those of you wanting to "do something" about homeschooling of this sort by getting it covered under child-abuse laws: while it's a satisfying thought, it's not a practical one.
ask yourself what the differences really are between the behavior outlined in the current example, and that of any other cult, and then ask yourself what makes you think it's not a practical issue.
the only thing not making it a "practical" issue, is the predominant attitude that if it's religion, no matter how insensible or abusive, it gets a free pass.
Cureholder made what I think is the most sensible suggsestion yet on this subject.
yes, and others have made similar suggestions in the past. In fact, a lot of states already have laws governing homeschooling in place that require standardized testing.
however, the behavior, as is clear from this example, goes far beyond just the issue of "homeschooling".
. He just pretends not to be when they're around.
So maybe it's not as damaging as it seems? I hope?
that sounds pretty dysfunctional to me.
(er, trying again:)
He just pretends not to be when they're around.
So maybe it's not as damaging as it seems? I hope?
that sounds pretty dysfunctional to me.
(that's better.)
I wanted to be a priest until I found out (at 12) that Catholic clergy couldn't marry. (Then I found out what happens to choirboys.)
I decided a long time ago (before I turned seven), that if Bible and Science clashed, Science had to be the winner. It helped that I had pro-evolutionist (or at least sensible) parents. Although my mother never did adequately explain why she didn't want me reading "Voyage of the Beagle" (she never said it was about evolution BTW, which is just as well because that wasn't the book to avoid if that was the case).
Ichthyic wrote:
Nice try at reading comprehension.
oh i comprehended alrighty, but if you think otherwise, please do then explain exactly how the two situations are comparable.
the boyscouts being a volunteer organization that any kid can leave at any time, and all.
good luck propping up that strawman.
Enough people have already pointed out how inappropriate, in both a linguistic and social sense, to call this 'child abuse' that I don't have to do it again.
But not enough people have called PZ a moron for using the term in this context, so:
You're a moron, PZ. Think before you type next time.
I'm not optimistic that we could regulate homeschooling in a way that reins in what we don't like and keeps hands off what we do like.
I don't like kids being taken out of school to avoid evolution, but I didn't want my kids to be in a room full of people saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day.
Each of my kids was homeschooled for a portion of junior high or highschool; one got into University of Chicago, the other is now at a highly selective public arts high school. There are communities, such as Berkeley CA and Highland Park, NJ, where there are numerous group activities for homeschoolers.
I like what Frank Zappa said long ago: "quit school, go to the library and educate yourself if you've got any guts."
Mind Rape should be as indictible as Body Rape but one rarely gets the chance to call 911 for the former. The poster who called about the JW child blew the whistle on both. Congratulations!
My Central Austin neighborhood is so Professorial and Jewish (rationalist) that we get a JW contingent about every three years. I enjoy a "stonewall" skeptic encounter with them from the "May I get you some iced tea" welcome to the very final folding of the tent by the missionaries. The last pair had a "Darwin vs. Bible" theme for which they "had all of the answers". They asked the first question and the old geologist answered. They were quite unprepared. The tent-folding came about quickly.
I always worry when I take my 8 y.o. son with me to hang signs or attend protests that I'm making him do something he's not intellectually capable of discerning for himself. Granted, the liberal virtues of peace, justice and equality are the air elementary school kids breathe (at least in public schools in the Pac NW), so none of it seems odd or forced to him, and he seems to enjoy it. But still, I wonder sometimes if I'm co-opting him into something he might not agree with when he's an adult. (I was roped into riding my bike around flying a banner for a Republican state rep. candidate when I was about the same age, something that strikes me as questionable now.)
But obviously these folks have no worries about their 7 y.o. son's ability to discern saints from sinners, or to interpret Scripture that even Ph.D.s in theology can't agree on.
More accurately, a lot of people have made that assertion. I have yet to see it substantiated.
And if this isn't child abuse, what is it? The kid in question is clearly being exploited and gives every indication of being coerced verbally and emotionally to engage in this behavior for his parents' gratification, regardless of his wishes or its effect on him psychologically. On what grounds, precisely, would someone argue that this is not "child abuse" but that, say, taking pornographic pictures of children who are naked and posed sexually but not actually engaged in sexual behavior with adults is (other than T3H SECKS being involved in the latter)? I'm aware that the example is hyperbolic, but I am not aware of a relevant distinction unconnected to the "JEBUS GOOD, SECKS BAD" meme complex. Please find one, if you're going to make this argument (I'm assuming you believe there is one...)
[Now, let me think; do I clarify before or after some brain-damaged idiot skims the above, jumps to the laughably wrong conclusion that I am not vigorously opposed to child pornography, and starts foaming at the mouth? Nah, I'll see how this plays out...]
Oh yeah? Well, a member of my family was, as a child, raped and molested by three male members of her immediate family, regularly and repeatedly, over a period of nearly seven years. And you dare call a single case of іncestuous rape "real sexual abuse?"
Look. Don't think for a moment that I lack sympathy for your friend. Of course that is a horrible experience, and there's no question that what was done to her qualifies as abuse. But comparing stories is pointless, even counter-productive, for as you can see, I could argue that your friend has very little to complain about. Severity of abuse may matter in the individual case, but not in the definition. A maltreatment is either defined as abusive or it is not.
That is correct. Abuse is abuse. The question should not be, "Is this abuse as harmful as that abuse?" it should be "Is this type of mistreatment harmful enough to be defined as 'abuse'?"
So. Is it?
So. Is it?
Frankly, I think cureholder answered your question by example in the other thread on this subject quite effectively.
answer is yes.
this kind of behavior on the parents' part causes permanent disability.
how could it NOT be considered abusive by anyone who has actually spent time looking at the results of it?
I can point to a thread I created where others have shared their experiences, and all of them sound very much like what cureholder shared.
and all of them think it was abuse on the part of their parents, as well.
Ah well, looks like I stand corrected there. Perhaps I got carried away with a good idea before thinking whether it had been applied anywhere.
What makes me think it's not a practical idea? Enforceability, perhaps? How do you suggest we have the government regulate what ideas parents teach their children? And where do we draw the line--Lutheran ideas are ok but Baptist ones make you subject to arrest? And how do we check to make sure the ideas aren't being taught--do we require homeschool teaching sessions to be taped? This could become very Big Brother.
I never said it wasn't a good idea to prosecute parents who intentionally damage their children this way. I'm just saying it's not a practical one.
I got a good idea how to stop this: when you see the kid giving hellfire speech in public, call the cops and report him for noise pollution. The cops might take him into custody if his parents aren't around to keep an eye on him, but either way the constant complaints to local authorities might put a damper on their activities. At the very least, they'll get more attention from the authorities than they would want.
As for the ethics of this...the kid might have to make up his own mind. I don't think he'll make much of a living screaming at people on a street corner or appreciate his parents much if he has to get a GED at thirty or break free from the church into a very difficult world that has no use for a second-generation professional Jesus freak.
What makes me think it's not a practical idea? Enforceability, perhaps? How do you suggest we have the government regulate what ideas parents teach their children?
apply exactly the same logic and reasoning applied to cults.
that simple.
if it doesn't fit under the current state guidelines (depending on your state) for what constitutes a cult, it ain't.
it's just that few state agencies are willing to push this button, only out of fear of backlash, not because the laws aren't applicable.
so if by "impractical" you mean, "too much fear to apply the law equally", then yup, impractical it is.
things change, though.
there are several test cases relating to this issue that shouldn't be too hard to google up.
for those that want to continue this kind of debate once this thread sinks into the sunset, I did make a thread long ago to do so over on the After the Bar Closes area on PT:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1…;
feel free to add anything you wish to it. you have to register, but that's only to control for trolls.
But whats worse? This or a mother who forces her little kids to go to sports or beauty contests and the like? Either way it screws the little kids up.
Dutch Vigilante - In the first place, what makes you think it's always women who do this?
Secondly, quite a few kids have rather pleasant childhood memories of playing sports or (though it's not quite PC to say so) getting all dressed up and going to pageants (or similarly girly activities).
In fairness, this kid may eventually look fondly on his days of accosting and haranguing total strangers in public, and, with his parents' (and the more lunkheaded sector of the community's) support, attempting to shame them about not enjoying as much of God's approval as him and his family.
However, I'm not so optimistic about his memories of (as is clear from his preaching) his parents convincing him that he'd be eaten by worms in Hell if he didn't do what they told him.
He still has a point, and you know it full well.
Programming a child into a demented cultist is abuse.
Except the parents are probably equally as out of touch with reality.
That's doesn't let them off the hook however.
There are lots of behaviors that fit that description, but I'll bet you don't object to the ones you don't feel are harmful.
Just because an aspect of the parent-child relationship is harmful does not qualify it as abuse.
Then what IS necessary to qualify a behavior as "abuse"?
Legal definition of child abuse
That's a good place to start, I think.
better explore each state's definitions while you're at it, Cal.
then go google up the test cases on classifying religious indoctrination as cult behavior.
you've got a LONG way to go to prove your point, if that's what you want to do.
I hate to break this to you, Ichthyic, but I don't have to prove that this isn't child abuse, because the burden of proof isn't on me. Given the vast space of potential parent-child interaction, the abusiveness of a particular action is what needs to be demonstrated. We do not condemn all actions that we cannot conclusively show are nonabusive.
YOU'VE got a long way to go to prove your point. If that's what you actually want to do, instead of whinging about how religious indoctrination is so terrible.
you're missing it, idiot.
the points ALREADY been proven.
again, show me how this is any different than cult behavior, and you have a place to start.
showing me the feds haven't caught up on legal issues is like showing me that Strom Thurman hasn't caught up with current legal issues regarding racism.
sorry, but you're the one pleading the case of ignorance here, not the rest of us.
care to explain why?
YES, this is child abuse.
Given the vast space of potential parent-child interaction, the abusiveness of a particular action is what needs to be demonstrated.
action resulting in permanent disability counts as abusive.
again, you've certainly seen several examples of mental abuse causing permanent disability, so you countering that this isn't a case of abuse flies in the face of the very examples presented in this very forum.
let alone the millions outside of this forum.
you seem to be in denial, AFAICT.
I see. Would you also reject to our referring to the act of refusing to hire a person as an employee on account of their race as "racial discrimination" if it wasn't specifically proscribed by the laws against such?
or perhaps you would like to re-examine the article in last month's Science discussing the importance of parental influences on children in their later ability to contruct rational worldviews?
there was an entire thread on it on PT recently.
why not jump in and tell us how they are all wrong?
It's extremely ironic, that you could spend so long here, with PZ constantly demonstrating over and over again how religion maintains itself through "special consideration", and then you turn right around and appear to be attempting to do just that:
give religious indoctrination special consideration.
I don't think it's necessarily a matter of "special consideration." The problem seems to be that Caledonian has conveniently forgotten that the term "child abuse" has any meaning or relevance except as a technical term referring solely to the present state of the letter of the law.
Cal, you're smarter than this...
ahh, here's the thread on the article in Science:
Is Creationism Child's Play?
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/is_creationism.html
surely if you can't currently accept the claims of those who themselves describe the issue as abuse based on their own personal experience, you can at least see the potential based on this kind of study, right?
I would say that this is child exploitation and not child abuse.
I guess that the definition of "abuse" is similar to argument on what the definitions of "faith" and "belief" are.
Azkyroth wrote:
Cal, you're smarter than this...
There is no evidence of that assertion.
Yes, I AM smarter than this discussion, thank you for noticing.
You may also notice that I'm not using a loaded term that means far more than the meanings of its components combined and has a generally-recognized meaning that doesn't fit here.
To be perfectly frank, I think there are precious few people here who haven't been negatively psychologically affected - even 'damaged' - by some aspect of their upbringing, and there are some of you whom I regard as significantly psychologically 'damaged' because of the stupid beliefs and ideologies you've been taught by family, friends, and society. It's not child abuse then, and it's not now.
I would say that this is child exploitation and not child abuse.
and if it causes permanent dysfunctional personalities, is that just exploitation?
Cathy Lee might want to talk to you about a t-shirt factory, because she made the same argument that using children as essentially slave labor wasn't abusive either.
this kind of behavior has a a direct impact on our society as a whole, even to the minimal point that the resulting dysfunctional personalities might need to be treated at some point.
Yes, I AM smarter than this discussion, thank you for noticing.
lame.
when your puns even fall short...
You may also notice that I'm not using a loaded term that means far more than the meanings of its components combined and has a generally-recognized meaning that doesn't fit here.
you state it as fact, when the evidence indicates so far that it is but your opinion, and not a well supported one at that.
Err...
Right.
No. Because that action would fit the generally-accepted definition of 'racial discrimination'.
I said that the legal discussion I linked to was a good place to start, not the ultimate and final definition. So, let's start there: do you think the actions of the parents are prosecutable in a court of law? Would it be appropriate to remove him from his family and place him into the foster care system because of this?
To be perfectly frank, I think there are precious few people here who haven't been negatively psychologically affected - even 'damaged' - by some aspect of their upbringing, and there are some of you whom I regard as significantly psychologically 'damaged' because of the stupid beliefs and ideologies you've been taught by family, friends, and society. It's not child abuse then, and it's not now.
your argument is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one.
essentially, you appear to be conceeding that there IS abuse, but saying that abuse is relative.
congratualations, that's no more than anybody else has said.
nobody ever delineated this as a black/white issue.
I'm sure you could easily substitute the physical abuse argument in your statement and realize that the same issues of "degree" apply as well.
hence the controversies over corporal punishment, for example.
things change.
Would it be appropriate to remove him from his family and place him into the foster care system because of this?
well now, that's the interesting question, not whether this is abuse or not, because it is.
the more interesting question, is whether this kind of abuse would qualify for child removal.
since the issue of physical abuse seems a simpler one for you to envision, when does corporal punishment qualify for removal?
of course, again, this depends on which state you are in.
Wrong. I'm saying that 'child abuse' has a distinctly different meaning from the meanings of 'child' and 'abuse'. It's a noun unto itself, not just a combined phrase.
Context matters a great deal - "I came here for an argument!" "Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse!"
Do you think 'abuse' in that exchange is being used in the same way as talking about children who are raped and beaten?
...Moreover, what is it exactly, I would ask, that caused physical abuse laws to be passed to begin with?
was it based on long term physical disability to the child, or the resulting long term effects of emotional trauma resulting from the physical abuse?
sexual abuse often leaves no permanent physical disability.
would you recommend removal of a child from a sexually abusive environment?
Wrong. I'm saying that 'child abuse' has a distinctly different meaning from the meanings of 'child' and 'abuse'. It's a noun unto itself, not just a combined phrase.
that is just gibberish. apparently you think that child abuse is entirely encompassed legally by permanent physical disability resulting from physical abuse.
hasn't been that way for decades.
again, I am wondering why you insist on being ignorant of how child abuse laws are actually applied.
Do you think 'abuse' in that exchange is being used in the same way as talking about children who are raped and beaten?
what about raped OR beaten?
just raped?
do YOU think sexual abuse qualifies as rape? I would guess not.
I gotta call it quits for now.
seriously though, I do suggest visiting the thread I linked to to continue this issue for anybody interested.
the ATBC area of PT is rather eclectic, but there's some good folk hanging about there with very interesting senses of humor, in case you get bored of that particular topic.
So, tell us: how are they actually applied?
BTW, testing is already part of home school requirements for most or maybe even all states. Each state has different specific rules. Some are quite detailed and intense while other states leave you alone for the most part. In my state the parent must have two years of college or take a home school class. The kids get tested every year (that one where you fill in the circles) and you must fill out paper work at your school district office every year to inform them of your intent to home school. My state is a very "easy" state compared to others. I have heard of people getting in trouble for failing to comply. Personally, I think the laws are in place and enforcement is the biggest issue when it comes to people doing a poor job of educating their kids.
I've seen this sort of behavior before: anti-abortion activists proclaiming that abortion ends a human life.
After all, a zygote is human tissue, and it's alive, so it must be human life, right? They don't understand that 'human life' means more than being human in some sense and being alive in some sense. Or maybe they do understand, but they just don't care.
Either way, they're hysterical zealots who are abusing language.
I realize it's just an expression, but be careful about signing your arrest warrants so haphazardly. Remember you live in a country that is far closer to arresting those who don't teach their children religion than those who do. Any society where you don't have the right to be wrong is a dangerous one.
If the child is being directly coerced to do this, it's abusive. If they are not being directly coerced, but the child feels an implied pressure to continue to do it when they don't want to, then's it's punitive, like all those weekend warrior parents who push their kids unrelentingly to do this or that sport, turning what should be a child's game into a punishment.
Even if it's not abusive, even if it's not punitive, it's exploitative to publicly use children in this manner---but it's probably no worse than those stage mothers who drive the child stars.
Hmm. After making those comparisons, I wonder if what's at work here is specifically religious, or whether this is just an example of the sort of thing that happens when parents live through their children.
Not to long ago someone was found having locked their kid in their room and never letting them out *ever*, for like 10 years. This was done, according to them, as a means of "protecting" her from the world. It also meant she had no education, no toys, no books, no interaction with others, nothing but being locked in a room. The damage **may** be permanent, since this started during stages of her growth that are strongly tied to language development and other things. All your argument Caledonian amounts to is, "Teaching a kid to be an idiot who can't think for themselves is OK, because they at least *appear* normal to most people, but real abuse is somehow worse." Well, sorry, but I am not buying that one bit. I could care less that these idiots are intentionally turning their kid into someone that "fits" in their class and thus they can continue to perpetuate the, "We are victims who are not allowed real jobs!", or some other BS persecution complex that is a *direct* result of their own and ancestors choices. Its also why I have far less sympathy for people in gang land ghettos, since they perpetuate the same double standard of wanting someone to "fix" their problems, whether it be God or the government, while spending far too much of their time teaching their kid to think in ways that make them fundamentally incapable of escaping those same conditions. This teaching a kid to have no skills other than as the next right wing, ignorant, holier than thou shill, is the same mistake, magnified by several orders.
And in both cases, its seen as a way to *better* them, not as an unintentional way to damage their futures. Abuse isn't just about intentional acts, it can be about unintentional acts, commited via negligence or ignorance of consequences. Its unlikely that he man trying to "save" his daughter from an evil world thought they where doing permanent, long term, damage, or that the end result was going to be the destruction of what life she might have otherwise had. Sane people should know better, but sometimes they don't. Sometimes, they are just as ignorant as they are making the kid. But, its still negligence and/or abuse whether you fail to feed a child properly, because you *think* fasting for days is a good thing and don't know what it would do to a child. It would still be abuse if you thought S&M was healthy and decided to introduce a 10 year old to it, without them having the *context* or understanding needed to know how to react to any of it, even if all you did is drip candles or use whips, but avoided the sex acts. Abuse *must* be predicated on a) capacity of the participants to understand what it transpiring, b) their ability to choose to "not" do it, and c) if failing the first criteria, it causes long term emotional and mental problems.
Note, I don't include "physical" problems, because physical damage can come from any number of accidents, all of which they, as long as it doesn't damage the brain, they *can* learn to handle and deal with. Physical abuse is not damaging because it leaves physical scars. Its damage is in the child's perceptions of self, others and society, and the lack of context or understanding of what is happening, which results in long term problems in dealing with *all three*.
How, once you abandon the idiot idea that there is some clear dichotomy between "physical" abuse, where its the mental scar that matter, not the physical ones, and the purely mental disruptions, how is teaching a kid to not only not learn, but devalue learning and those that do learn, not damaging to their psyche, and in ways that, I would argue, could be nearly as severe and permanent as failing to learn language?
2 Points:
First, there are distinct differences between this and a cult. A cult is defined not just by its brainwashing and indoctrination, but by having secret rituals that only the initiated are allowed to participte in, and by their tools of psychological and physical control over adults. Since people of scientific mindsets are supposed to be analytical, let's recognize that zebras and horses, while related, are still distinct species, eh?
Second, the eagerness of some of the commentors to demand that government crack down on people like this is disturbingly authoritarian. You can be damn sure what would happen if this occurred in China or North Korea. Should we have the U.S. Thought Police come swooping down to "liberate" this child from his parents? And I'm willing to bet nearly every one on this board opposes George Bush's totalitarian tendencies (although, if you're willing to stand up for authoritarianism in general, please let us know).
I'm another who grew up in a very conservative church and have turned out agnostic and pro-science, so I'm not suggesting we give these dolts the parent-of-the-year awards. I'm just unwilling to support government intervention in all our lives. The First Amendment still means more to me than science itself, because it's all that guarantees our right to be scientific, or unscientific, as we please.
Ah, but that's precisely the point, James: many of the people here are just fine with having the government impose rigid standards of behavior and belief on people, as long as it's their rigid standards of behavior and belief.
Like the Pilgrims, who came to the Americas to find greater restrictions than were available to them in England, these people think it would be just fine and dandy for their own beliefs to be forced on others. They simply object to having others' beliefs forced on them.
BTW. Tried to find a copy of Gilgamesh on one of the free book sites and found instead an "analysis" of it. One part is quite telling, in that it compares Genesis with parts of Gilgamesh, as well as bits of other tales. It concludes that the epic was *originally* about Ekidu, then they threw it in the literary equivalent of a blender to mutate it into Gilgamesh, and crammed an even earlier version of the whole flood myth in to add more spice. lol One thing though is quite telling and speaks volumes about the religion we love to abhore:
"We now obtain, thanks to the new section revealed by the Pennsylvania tablet, a further analogy with the story of Adam and Eve, but with this striking difference, that whereas in the Babylonian tale with the woman is the medium leading man to the higher life, in the Biblical story the woman is the tempter who brings misfortune to man. ..."
Basically, one sees man as animal state, raised up to something higher *through* progress and civilization. It also includes the dang funny bit where she strips to "tempt" this proto-man out of the forest into the civilized world. lol The other insists that man was perfect when he used to just lounge around with the animals, without knowing any better, and that everything since was a horrible mistake. Its Progressive vs. Luddite.
as long as it's their rigid standards of behavior and belief.
Hmm. Define "rigid"... Look, lets just be clear here. The kinds of people that do this to a kid **are** the sort of people that the Pilgrims escaped to come here. We would like to see a level playing field, where the *standard* for what is reasonable or not is based on how many it screws up, not if 1% of them get out of it. And by screwed up, we mean, "Fundamentally incapable of function in a world in which 90% of all favoritism **doesn't** go to those who *claim* religious convictions, and where everything is stacked against the person saying that an idea is foolish, or for them, if they don't or do, respectively, fool into that category." What Cal is wrong with wanting a world where truth is determined based on its merits as a real explanation for something, and **not** on how many madmen, lunatics, liars, mass murderers, and priest, and laity believe and have believed in it? What is wrong with a level playing field, instead of one where someone **could** and have had their kids taken from them for trying to teach them a pagan religion, but where if someone else said, "I don't have much of a belief, but my wife is a born again dominionist that believes in the end of the world and talks once a week about how to accelerate us towards that goal.", the court is more likely to side with her, based on her "clear" religious claim, than my wishy washy position. And, if I, instead, had a kid and stated outright that I was an atheist, who the hell do you think is *still* going to get the kid?
We are bailing water here and they are all scrambling to one side of the ship, shouting about how its a miracle that God tipped the boat at a 90 degree angle so they can see the water so much better. Ask me again when there is an article about a kid standing on a street corner shouting about how God doesn't exist and the religious are all fools, instead of attending school or learning to think. When that happens, you can claim that we don't recognize the distinction between merely teaching a kid a alternate belief system and *abusing* them.
Goodness, you're ignorant. The Pilgrims might not agree with some of the parents' doctrines, but they'd certainly approve of the attitude.
>>Cureholder: Tell him that most adults do not believe these things, and that it's okay for him to question them, too.
Yoshi: An overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God. And most don't believe in evolution. So - this statement is a lie.<<
What I actually said was not that the majority didn't believe in "god," but that the majority did not believe in "THESE THINGS," i.e., the things the kid is preaching, such as hell, eternal damnation, etc.
I said nothing about whether people believe in evolution, and, sadly, you are right on that point. It doesn't, however, make what I DID say a lie.
As for my statement's being a "lie," I didn't make the statement you implied I did, and even if I had, it might have been a misstatement, but not a lie. You should look up the definition of a lie.
And it's easy for you to say it isn't child abuse--you didn't grow up this way. I did, and it definitely was child abuse. They didn't screw me physically, but they did mentally abuse me by teaching me nonsense in lieu of actual education.
"Serious emotional harm" could cover quite a bit of religious indoctrination, particularly the stuff to do with Hell. I don't know whether it covers this kid, but I think that, e.g., the ex-Catholic woman who wrote to Richard Dawkins would certainly qualify.
You might look up "tertiary prevention." There are more legal ways to treat child abuse than criminal prosecution and removal of the child. Parental counseling and education, therapy for the child, and temporary sheltering of the child away from home are all options.
>>>Enough people have already pointed out how inappropriate, in both a linguistic and social sense, to call this 'child abuse' that I don't have to do it again.<<<
I don't see how it can possibly be "inappropriate" to call this "child abuse." (Linguistically, things really cannot be appropriate or inappropriate; they can be only accurate or inaccurate.)
But in any event, "child abuse," understood as "abuse of a child," is accurate and appropriate if it includes treatment that is detrimental to the development of the child. Because religious indoctrination (especially in lieu of real education) is detrimental to the mental development of the child, it certainly is accurate and appropriate to call it abuse.
Perhaps it's a matter of degree (e.g., telling a child early on that there is a Santa Clause might not be detrimental to the child to the same degree), but a categorical statement that religious indoctrination cannot be child abuse is simply silly.
cureholder wrote:
Because religious indoctrination (especially in lieu of real education) is detrimental to the mental development of the child, it certainly is accurate and appropriate to call it abuse.
You're certainly right about that. But this is more than just garden variety religious indoctrination abuse. They're teaching him to stand on street corners screaming at strangers. They'll be lucky if someone doesn't strangle him. Of course if that happened they would no doubt just say it must be god's will.
>>There are more legal ways to treat child abuse than criminal prosecution and removal of the child. Parental counseling and education, therapy for the child, and temporary sheltering of the child away from home are all options.
Wow, this sounds like something straight out of the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao. Sending a child to "reeducation therapy" just because you disagree with the parents' religious beliefs???????
I definitely don't agree with what the parents are doing but the Constitution protects their rights to free speech and worship.
If the child wasn't being homeschooled, he'd just be enrolled in some ultrafundamentalist private school anyways. So unless you're advocating forcing all kids to enroll in government schools, you're not going to be able to stop kids from being taught from that POV.
I skipped ahead and didn't read all the comments. I apologize if this is a bit redundant.
The problem with this is that what this kid wants to do is not, at least not in terms of the law, the paramount decision. He is a child and cannot make reasonable decisions, at all, at least not as far as the law is concerned. This is pretty much the definition of a minor.
It's at this point that the state is obligated to find a balance between the rights this child may have (and minors do have rights) and the wishes of the parents. Parental rights do not always trump the rights of a child.
I think you could make a good (if not winning) case that this child is being abused, as he is being exploited. Furthermore, it seems to me that he is not being allowed certain things that all children should be allowed, such as a good education. The Supreme Court has decided that all children should be afforded a good education. In this case, it wouldn't be hard to argue, I would guess, that he's not getting a good education. Whether or not the courts would agree with you is another story altogether.
I suppose this may not rise to the level of child abuse. It may be a civil rights violation.
This just points out the problems that religion can create in a nominally secular society.
phat
Crimson Wife wrote:
I definitely don't agree with what the parents are doing but the Constitution protects their rights to free speech and worship.
Who said anything about the parents' rights to "free speech and worship"? You think free speech and worship for a parent includes forcing a 7 year old child to stand on a street cornet and scream about heaven and hell? That doesn't sound like it has anything to do with a parent's right to free speech or worship or the first Amendment or any other smokescreen. No one is denying that the parents have every right to do that themselves but making a 7 year old do it seems a bit unreasonable to some.
I was giving examples of legal responses to child abuse. I wasn't saying what particular parental behavior would justify a given response.
And yes, providing therapy for an emotionally-abused child is completely equivalent to sending them to the gulag. Child Protective Services generally starts by shaving their head and working them over with firehoses for a while, then it's off to break rocks!
It is child abuse plain and simple. It probably doesn't rise to the legal level but so what? The laws are written so only the most blatant and provable and damaging abuse is prosecutable. A 7 year old kid should be doing 7 year old kid stuff, playing games, hanging out, whatever. Not haranging strangers on street corners who are most likely universally annoyed, ignored, except for the occasional insult from people fed up with fundie cultists.
We are dealing with one such right now. The girl is 16. Her parents have literally forgotten about her. They are meth junkies and their brains are so scrambled no one knows where they are. No one cares either.
And oh yeah, she just gave birth to a kid whose father is much older and very slow mentally.
It's arguable whether legally this could be construed as child abuse. OTOH, Child Protection services is desperately hoping her parents stay fogged up, lost, and away from her. They have nothing to offer except cheap brain destroying drugs and a good example of what not to do.
Child neglect and child abuse are not the same things, legally.
Not providing the things that a child has a right to is neglect. Causing specific harm to that child (I know, that's a vague term) would be considered abuse.
This is all very legalistic sounding, I know. But the distinctions are important.
This kid may be being beaten or psychologically abused. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. That would be abuse. That's hard to prove and religious indoctrination doesn't quite meet this legal test.
It seems he's getting what he needs in terms of food and shelter and those sorts of things. Neglect isn't likely going on here.
This is where it gets a little complicated.
The Supreme Court has decided on many occasions that children have a right to a good education. If the parents aren't letting this kid get that education, well, they're violating his civil liberties. I suspect that you wouldn't be able to get very far in the courts with this argument. I would, however, love to see somebody take this argument to the courts, especially after Dover. They'd likely lose, sure, but it would be interesting.
The problem we have here is that most people are not willing to allow that other people's religious beliefs are wrong, except in cases that are obviously so odd that they can't agree with them.
That's why hammering home the message of secular foundations of our culture is important. This is a long term problem that may never get solved. But it's vital if we want to protect children like this kid.
Change people's minds and you can save these kids.
phat
Also on Marjoe Gortner, "In his early career as the 4-year-old "World's Youngest Ordained Minister," Hugh Marjoe Ross Gortner became a 'Miracle Child' extraordinare. Preaching gospel from memory and performing faith healings, he drew capacity crowds as he barnstormed throughout the Bible Belt."
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0331374/bio
Here is an organized child abuse group.
http://www.cefepa.net/main2/urban.html
"I learned that I must not just preach the Gospel, but I must "draw the net" as Jesus taught when we "fish for men." During my evangelism training in Summer Missionary Training School, I led my first person to Christ, little William Avery, age 9, there on the streets of Harrisburg on Market Street after learning how to "draw the net" of souls to Christ at CEF OF EASTERN PA."
It goes on,
"I also learned that the greatest preachers in the world aim for the children. Dr. Mable Ruth Wray always said that if I was to be blessed of God and succeed in the ministry, I must put priority on preaching the Gospel to children. She gave me a book once demonstrating this, authored by the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, called "Feed my Lambs." I have been greatly influenced by this book."
This douchebag thinks he "saved" a 9 year old. How perverse can you get?
I think at this point, everyone should take a read of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf
Of particular note should be:
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
and
Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest
potential;
(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and
values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or
she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;
(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding,
peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious
groups and persons of indigenous origin;
(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.
2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of
individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance
of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the
education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by
the State.
PZ:
I'd have to say this is an example of religiously-motivated intellectual abuse. I wish I knew what we could do about it.
Hmm. Sit back and wait for him to become another Sam Kinison?
Apologies for long post but I find this very interesting...
I think the concern about deficient home-schooling is a little misplaced when there are far more children in schools failing to achieve basic standards of literacy, numeracy etc. In terms of numbers, I think the effort would be much better directed first at improving schools. There isn't much point in taking children out of homeschooling because they failed a test and putting them into a school in which they are likely to continue failing similar tests.
And how do we make the test results meaningful? Say a boy is failing standardised tests in public school. His parents take him out of school and homeschool him. His progress improves and he is getting higher marks in the tests, but he's still failing. How long would we give the parents? Would they have a month to bring the child up to passing the tests? A year? Two years?
In addition, it seems that a major reason for homeschooling is to tailor education to a child's particular needs and interests, so I'm not sure standardised tests are a great way to measure its success. I don't think it's necessarily important that children stick to a curriculum similar to that of public schools, as long as their education has sufficient breadth, depth, and relevance.
I think it's difficult to specify what people can and cannot teach. I always think what would happen if it was the other way around - for example, if homeopathy (or creationism, or ID, or whatever) was taught in schools. In homeschooling, I would want to cover the underlying chemistry, physics etc. and talk about the evidence, and help the child to draw reasonable conclusions. However, I would probably have to teach lists of "remedies" and what they all supposedly do so the child could pass the standardised homeopathy test. This means I'm always a bit wary of prescribing too far what can/cannot be taught.
Louis Theroux had a program on BBC about a family Phelps in Topeka, KS:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
Another one family church hating people
Rose:
It might be that in your hands, or those of a small percentage of similarly enlightened parents, but in my experience, homeschooling is vastly more likely to be intended to tailor education to the parents' particular belief system, and to insulate the child from the values of the the larger society, as represented in the public school population.
Honestly, I think this whole thread -- or at least the strand of it that concerns education -- is missing a key point about the fundamental nature of childhood education in a democratic society: We keep treating education as if it's a commodity, and as if its delivery is a transaction between schools and individual "customers"... which usually means not so much the students but their parents, who are presumed to be the primary stakeholder.
I say that's bat guano! The fundamental raison d'etre of education in a democratic society -- the reason states are compelled to provide free public education and parents are compelled to either enroll their children in public education or provide a suitable alternative -- is NOT to provide job training for the children NOR to assist parents in indoctrinating their children with the "right" values; rather, the whole point of childhood education in a democratic society is to produce at least minimally competent voters. A competent electorate is the sine qua non of democracy, and society, not parents or children, is the true "customer" (if we must use that metaphor) of our childhood education.
(BTW, if I seem strident on this point, it's because I've just been through a horrifying series of municipal budget referenda in which the "no" advocates' position was basically that we should cut programs, jobs, salaries, and benefits in our town's school system because "I don't want to pay for other people's children to go to school." Grrrrr....)
This context gives a different perspective on...
The curriculum of the public schools (and BTW, this argument is why I would support national minimum curriculum standards) is society's way of saying "we, as a self-governing community, have concluded that these are the basic facts you need to acquire and basic skills you need to master in order to become a well-functioning member of this community." It's not about career advancement or intellectual achievement or moral indoctrination or any sort of personal self-actualization; it's about training citizens so that our democracy can continue to function. That doesn't mean it's all the education people ever need; it only means that the larger community has a compelling interest in seeing that everybody gets at least that much education.
In that context, it's hard to imagine a curriculum that failed to include any significant amount of the basic public school curriculum could remain "relevant" to the reason kids are in school to begin with.
So yes, I think private schools of all descriptions (i.e., including home schools) ought to be required to conform to minimum curriculum standards similar to the public schools. They can, IMHO, teach anything they want in addition to the basic standards, but if they omit (or explicitly contradict) any portion of the basic public school curriculum, they are NOT fulfilling the fundamental mission of childhood education in this society, and they should not be seen as satisfying compulsory school attendance requirements.
In other words, if you're attending a "school" that doesn't meet society's definition of school, you're a truant... and if parents send children to schools that don't meet society's definition of school, they're committing the same offense that they would be if they didn't send their kids to school at all.
IMHO, of course... [deep, cleansing breath...]
Heleen,
Shocking, isn't it? Fred Phelphs and his hate-church are well known, and widely despised, here in the States.
That they can freely exist is testament to one of America's finest innovations. That they DO exist is evidence that while America may be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," it cannot claim to have the most enlightened society on the planet.
Bill,
Good post. I'll try to remember that one when Molly voting comes around again. ;-)
A couple of years ago, my dad CCed me on a discussion about home schooling. Here's an entry that really jumped out at me. I have no reason to believe the sample is representative of all homeschooling parents, but as anecdotal "evidence" goes it's pretty interesting, and the source is reliable.
______________________________________
You have good reason to be scared. I'm a professional researcher, and a year or so ago I did a project for a client who runs a teacher-oriented website. They had recently realized that home school "teachers" were an increasingly large portion of their audience, and engaged me to bring in home-schooling parents to interview and usability test the website.
I had heard all the stereotypes about home-schooling, that the parents were just anti-social hippies or anti-social religious conservatives, and that they were doing their children a great disservice in the name of "freedom" and "God." At best I hoped that there were parents out there who enjoyed going through the learning process with their children.
I spent two-to-three hours each with over thirty parents who homeschooled their children, and while those numbers aren't definitive, I can absolutely attest that the stereotypes are there for a reason.
I hold out the (desperate) hope that there are effective and amazing teachers out there home schooling their children. But I sure as hell didn't see any.
Some highlights:
- Many brought their kids along. We had a separate room (supervised) set up where kids could wait for their parents, complete with toys and drawing equipment. To a child, they were frighteningly silent, unable to make eye contact, and nearly all came and left without saying a single word, smiling at anyone (even when interacting with siblings), and gave every indication of being cowed into submission.
- Parent "teachers" were completely open about their own lack of interest in teaching. Some approximate quotes:
I can't tell you how frightening the conversations these parents had with their colleagues in the waiting rooms were. They openly discussed "how to get around" any educational standards they were supposed to provide, how to "fool" school administrators, and how to "keep the kids busy" so they could drink their coffee in peace. Mostly I was shocked by how open they were about stating (on camera, no less) how little they cared what their kids learned or how they emerged from their "education." I can't believe they're all like this- but out of the thirty or so people I talked with, I didn't encounter ONE that seemed to be conscientious or even trying.
The whole experience was horrifying. I can't imagine the kids I encountered ever making it in a college, or even high school. . .
speaking of children preaching... I realize she's speaking portuguese, but somehow the point gets across anyhow. frightening.
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=ofeXoqX4XoQ&mode=related&search=
Kseniya:
Good post. I'll try to remember that one when Molly voting comes around again. ;-)
I don't really think I'm enough of a regular to qualify, but I blush with pride that you should even suggest it.
But to the point: The attitudes of the homeschooling parents in the piece you quote don't really surprise me, but it does surprise (not to mention depress and terrify) me that they're so conscious of their own (from my POV) deficiencies, and so unconcerned about society's requirements that they're willing to cop to it so specifically. The arrogance of parents who think they know better than anyone else what their kids ought to learn almost looks admirable compared to the shear evil of those who are willing to blow off both society and their own kids for the sake of their personal pleasure and convenience.
****
On a completely unrelated personal note, in another thread recently you mentioned that your family heritage is Ukrainian. I was surprised to find that I was surprised by that revelation, and on a moment's reflection I realized that I had subconsciously been imagining you as a (no doubt stunningly beautiful [g]) African woman. When I scratched my head a bit over why that should be, the only thing I could come up with is that your name (or internet handle, as the case may be) includes the letters K-E-N-Y-A. In my sheepishly bemused way, I'm fascinated to note [a] how readily we (or at least, I) construct mental avatars for our online correspondents and [b] what a slender reed of suggestion such an avatar can be based on.
8^)
I'm am not sure if this was covered but how is religious indoctrination any different then the political type. We persistently see young children holding up signs that display a political message. They too are taught their parents world view and they too ape the words that they are taught on street corners and sidewalks throughout the entire U.S. While I agree that this correlation is not entirely the same, what Democrat does not think that Republicans live in a fantasy world and vice versa. The real problem is that too many parents want their children to grow up to be little clones of themselves. They wish to use their children as a reaffirmation of their world-views. True, the most blatant example can be seen through religion but this is a human culture issue not simply a religious culture issue. As to this causing a loss of job potential, their are a lot of "jobs" that one must be of a specific religion or political party to possess. Hell, PZ has posted jobs for nutass non-science positions at pathetic little Jebus centers.
Anybody remember Marjoe Gortner? A child evangelist at the age of 4, poor sap. He unchained himself from his truly evil abusive parents at the age of 17. The documentary he did while on his last religious tour showing how the shtick was done won an Academy Award in 1972. Is this a repeat?
Bill: Great post
Kseniya: A really SCARY post.
Personally - I've never met anyone in my professional or private life who has been home schooled. Is that because I'm a consultant -- one of the 'elite' -- and have a relatively successful, highly-paid career, and generally only meet with senior management & executives....
um, no
I'm an HR consultant, so I meet with absolutely everyone - shop floor on up.
Part of my /role/ is to get a handle on people, to understand what makes them tick.... a big part of most people's affiliations, etc. (esp in the US) is sports and school.
To date, I've met no-one who doesn't cheer for their high-school, college, or whatever
I've never, ever (in more than ten years in the states) found [anyone who admits to being] a home schooled person in any capacity in any business where I've been consulting (to my knowledge).
So where the hell are they?
I'd imagine (given the comments) they're barely holding down minimum wage jobs....
Bill: I agree, the parents' cavalier disregard for the intellectual welfare of their children is disheartening and appalling.
Re: My avatar. :-)
You are not alone. I used to haunt a Yahoo chatroom, and I was surprised at how often I was presumed to be an African male by those who weren't already aware than Ксения (Kseniya, Xenia, Ksenia, Ksenya) is a common girl's name east of... Vienna. :-)
Obviously, the Kseniya-Kenya similarity is the cause. I thnik it's reltaed to the fact taht baldly-missplet wrods are easliy recongized if the frist and lsat lettres are corrcet.
I, too, have mental images of those who post here: vague impressions of physical attributes, timbre of voice, mannerisms and so forth, all suggested by their writing style, name/handle, and whatever is revealed by their comments. (And probably no more correct than what I'd come up with by rolling dice!)
While I can say I know some really good homeschoolers, who care about what their kids learn and follow a curriculum that the state would approve of, I also know some who teach the way Kseniya speaks of. Unfortunately, since we lived in one of the states that is a lot easier on homeschoolers than many, there was nothing I could say to the parents. Sad.
уууупс! I owe you a belated apology for misspelling it "Ксеня" before--sorry about that!
Oh, well, at least it's not Maiyerezz...
ВоронТ: No worries! I've seen and heard it mangled more ways than you can imagine. Besides, Ксеня is a diminutive form, and so is far more friendly than incorrect. :-)
Профессор П. З. Майерз?
Is that "Oooops!"? Transliterated or actually translated? Enquiring minds want to know! ;^)
It would be interesting to see some stats on what happens to homeschoolers later in life. Sounds like some of these parents are just setting their kids up to fail.
Our society is increasingly complicated. Even the option of digging ditches doesn't exist anymore. They are all dug by machines and like as not, an illegal is running the machine.
Well... that is a real problem, but I'm not so sure it's the real problem. The indocrination issue isn't even the primary issue. The issue is whether or not these parents are depriving their children their right to a minimum level of formal education and, if so, whether or not that deprivation qualifies as a form of abuse.
that's right :). and it's only transliterated--just playing with the alphabet. No idea what the actual translation would be.
but I just recently learned from Kseniya on another thread that "горілка" is not, as I would have guessed, a small female gorilla**--so I'm not exactly the source for anything about Slavic languages.
** it's actually vodka.
Excuse me, but where in that post did you see anything about "re-education therapy?"
Fun sort of play, isn't it? My wife and I lived in Korea for a year early in our marriage (jeebus! More than 20 years ago now! tempus fugit), and we learned the Korean alphabet, Han-gul. We didn't learn much of the Korean language -- it's very tough for people coming from Western languages -- but despite the fact that it looks like inscrutable pictograms or ideograms, the alphabet is actually purely phonetic and very logical. (Han-gul was invented by royal decree, for the specific purpose of improving the people's literacy in Korean, which had previously been written using Chinese characters.)
One of our happiest games was writing notes to each other in English, but spelled phonetically in Han-gul. It was a very effective secret code (not that we needed one), because to English-speakers it looked like Korean and to Korean-speakers it looked like... well, meaningless gibberish.
Reminds me of a mystery story (a Columbo episode, perhaps?) where the crucial clue is a note that appears to be nonsense Greek but turns out to be English typed on an IBM Selectric with a Greek type-ball installed. ;^)
Hey, Kseniya and RavenT-
Are you the ones who've been sending me all the penis enlargement spam, by any chance?
Re: Oooops. There's not much difference between transliteration and translation when it comes to primary interjections - usually single syllables that aren't meaningful words. Oy! Ah! Oh! Hey! Shsh! Mm-mm. There's really nothing to translate. Ой! Ах! Ох! Эй! Шш. ым-ым.
Secondary interjections, which are derived from meaningful words but more idiomatic than the primaries, suggest that figurative translations might be appropriate. :-)
батюшки! - "Dear me!" or "My goodness!" (lit. "Daddy!")
Японский Бог! - "Yowza!" or "Holy smokes!" or "Good lord!" or perhaps something a little stronger (lit. "Japanese God!")
(This may be a stronger expression than I've been led to believe, in which case my Russian friends have totally set me up!)
Re: Фальшивый по-гречески. I used to type coded messages to my (ex-)boyfriend in a similar way: I would turn on one of the Cyrillic keyboard layouts, and then type in English as if the standard layout was still active. It's a simple code for a cryptologist to break, but otherwise readable only to those who knew what we were up to AND knew both layouts.
Шеэы уфын щтсу нщг лтщц рщц! Ж-)
Yah, well, when I said "very effective secret code," I meant it more in the elementary school, Harriet the Spy sense than in any grownup, honest-to-Dog spy sense! ;^)
Вот сука! Я ПОНД! :-(
Bill, LOL, yes of course! :-)
By the way, LOL @ this:
Perfect! :-D
FYI Bill: горілка which directly transliterated is gorilka but is pronounced horilka ... is Ukrainian vodka.
*eyes the linguistic tangent* wow.
on the subject of the mini-godbotherer, i'd assume in the UK he'd be done for noise pollution. also, most of the authorities here wouldn't question whether it was child abuse or not... as soon as you get anyone raving on the streets about their particular magic man in the sky, they're generally removed post-haste. i can only imagine the kind of reaction a seven-year old preacher would get from Social Services.
at least, this is what i'd hope. i'll rue the day kids in Britain get taught this kind of bullshit... perhaps it's good that you can't homeschool kids here. i completely agree with the idea of standardised tests for homeschooled people. without them, how's a kid to ever tell the difference between his ma's opinion and verified fact?
Lepht
Tony:
I'm right here you arrogant ass. Maybe you don't know they're there because you're so busy being high on your small minded view of the world that you don't notice those of us who are perfectly functional members of society.
Barely holding down a minimum wage job? I'm 4 years into a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, thanks. I will likely have it well before I turn 30. I've been published with my lab in a Nature journal. What have *you* done for the world lately?
My parents are a Ph.D. and a Masters. They exposed me to ideas, encouraged me to explore and to learn. They tought me to think and to question, to doubt my first conclusions until I had real tangible evidence. They taught me the difference between correlation and causation. Obviously your school failed in that respect.
Maybe you don't see homeschoolers around you because they can smell the reek of self important pomposity rolling off of you and wouldn't deign to even attempt to pop your bubble of ignorance, knowing it would be futile.
Some people are just suspicious of non-socially controlled upbringings for children, and so anything other than a public school system education is suspect.
Tony- how would you even *know* whether someone has been homeschooled? Most people do not list their high schools on their resumes and even if they did, would you be able to distinguish a homeschool diploma from a traditional school one? For example, Kolbe Academy has both a bricks-and-morter school and an independent study program. The diploma is the same for both. There is no way to tell without actually asking the individual which he/she completed.
The one homeschooler I knew growing up attended Harvard. I'm not sure what she's doing now, but I doubt she's holding a minimum wage job...
yeah, my old hippie friends (very leftist, scientist, math, and atheist types) took their 2 sons out of school because the children weren't learning and were unhappy. they did say that the homeschool scene was disproportionately fundie, but they only interacted with the fundie contingent at things like taking all the homeschooled kids to the ice rink, so it didn't impact their sons much on a daily or pedagogical basis.
the younger one's starting a math PhD at Brown this year, and the older one's graduating Cambridge in topology and doing a post-doc in France. Not too bad for kids they once had thought aspired no higher than Nintendo University :).
Well, as one of those diabolical theocrats who takes his kids to church on Sunday and (gasp!) prays with them each night, let me say to you folks who would have me locked away and my kids put in foster care - I disagree with your atheism, I think your false beliefs harmful, but I will support and fight for your right to raise your own children according to your convictions, even though you would not do me the same favor.
Oh, and I was homeschooled growing up - and am now a software developer pursuing my M.S. in Computer Science, with a focus on Computational Biology. I suppose my parents should have been prosecuted...
Wonders for Oyarsa wrote:
Oh, and I was homeschooled growing up ... I suppose my parents should have been prosecuted...
Did your parents have you out on the street shouting at strangers when you were 7 years old? Those are the parents who should be prosecuted. It's got nothing to do with homeschooling.
Harmful to who exactly? How?
The one I knew is now at MIT, I believe. She had a bit of social awkwardness from not having been around many other kids, but clearly she was academically prepared beyond 99.9% of the American population.
Interesting comments on the home schoolers. As a biology teacher in a public school for 14 years it has been my experience and that of friends and family who are principals that home schooled students are typically behind at least 1 year.
There have been exceptions but they are not as common as the trailers.
Wonders for Oyarsa (hello, Wonders!) is an intelligent and engaging poster from Chris's blog (of which I've forgotten the webname) but seems to have missed the point on this one, and has chosen instead to succumb to a common knee-jerk theist's response to the supposed totalitarian designs of the atheist. One can almost smell the impending invocation of Stalin...
And, uh, Dan? Feeling defensive, are we? Tony said that to the best of his knowledge he'd never encountered any home-schooled persons in his line of work. Maybe he was wrong. I don't know. Do you? He then wondered where the homeschoolers were and speculated, based on the comments posted here, that they might be clinging to the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. A review of the comments so far will suggest that his speculation, though perhaps incorrect, is not baseless.
I don't see what's so insufferably arrogant about that. Of course, I've not been subjected to years of homeschool bias on my way to my advanced degree, so I have nothing to be sensitive about in that regard. Do you?
So. Could it be that successful products of homeschooling are indeed few and far between? I don't know. Do you?
What percentage of homeschoolers go on to get a PhD? I don't know. Do you?
Is it greater, or lesser, than the percentage of public and private school grads? I don't know. Do you?
What percentage of home-schoolers struggle or fail to transition into conventional secondary schools or colleges? I don't know. Do you?
Everybody knows (or knows of) a homeschooler or three who've gone on to glowing success in higher education. Are homeschoolers over-represented or under-represented at these higher levels? I don't know. Do you?
I'd have to review the whole thread to be sure, but I think that ALL the evidence we've seen on this page is anecdotal, up to and including Dan's and Wonders' personal success stories. The anecdotal evidence presented suggests that homeschooling requires a significant commitment from the parent(s) and that there is the potential to succeed brilliantly, as we have seen. There is also, apparently, quite a lot of room for failure - and mediocrity, or worse, is not as uncommon as we'd like.
Homeschoolers account for less than one percent of the undergraduate enrolement at my college.
What does this tell us? Not much, without knowing more about the bigger picture. But it's 3:00 a.m. and I'm not going to start trying to piece it together. Sorry!
Just wait, in a few years he'll want to do something else.
Is that less abusive than 7 year-old kids who spend their summer swimming countless laps in the local pool, then riding around in cars to other pools and swimming as hard as they can?
Feeling defensive? Arguably.
Especially after he proceeds *not* to read the rest of the thread and then to make a bunch of stupid claims. Not everyone cheers for their school. Not all homeschoolers run around yelling, "LOOK AT ME I WAS HOMESCHOOLED." It's roughly equivalent to people saying, "Well *I* don't know any gay people, therefor there must not BE any." It's patently stupid because the "observation" is flawed to begin with. He hasn't observed any homeschoolers because there's no magic, blinking, "Homeschooler" sign over their head. And to presume he can somehow identify them out of space *is* arrogance, at best.
Do you know how frequently I've heard people make disparaging comments about homeschooling while I was sitting right next to them? Far more often than I'd like to think about because like any invisible minority people don't *see* the ones that don't fit their stereotype. It never even *occurs* to them that I might have been homeschooled. And so yes, when people make statements like that, I get defensive. Because it's *not* anecdotal evidence, it's just blustering. It would be anecdotal if he'd actually talked to those people about their schooling, maybe. As it is, it's nothing but a thought excercise.
I'm well aware that many homeschoolers fail miserably. And Kansas briefly decreed Pi to be equal to 3. Should we ban all public schools because of that? Should we presume that every person from Kansas is now inherently an idiot incapable of more than simple manual labor? It's mass generalizations like that that lead to stupid ideas like "Poor people are stupid." So yes, I'm defensive. I'm not claiming all homeschoolers are brilliant or "do it right" but neither do public schools, or private schools, or anyone else. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit by and watch him malign an entire group of people simply because he's ignorant.
When the person in question is an ignorant fool, "to the best of his knowledge" doesn't go very far, at all.
Did your parents have you out on the street shouting at strangers when you were 7 years old? Those are the parents who should be prosecuted. It's got nothing to do with homeschooling.
Ah - but what if the kid was shouting at strangers in a rally against global warming, or child labor, or feeding the hungry or some other good cause? Should parents be forbidden from getting their kids involved in anything others consider controversial? Or is it religion specifically that needs this state suppression?
seems to have missed the point on this one, and has chosen instead to succumb to a common knee-jerk theist's response to the supposed totalitarian designs of the atheist. One can almost smell the impending invocation of Stalin.
Oh, I happily note that many of the above commenters would fight for my right to raise my own children, and I appreciate that. But some it seems would at least have me taken to court, even if the end my particular case it is eventually decided that imparting God delusion to my kids doesn't meet the level of "abuse".
I mean, my oldest (2) sung a praise song that we taped and emailed to friends. The poor thing has been manipulated into singing religious words, and this was even distributed. If this was done, think of what other forms of religious abuse might be happening in my home. This at least warrants an investigation, for the sake of the children, right?
I'm curious - those who agree that the above case warrants charges of Child Abuse, resulting in foster care for the child - do you yourselves have children?
Probably not - people like that are usually too busy trying to raise everyone else's children for them to have kids of their own.
I'm new to Pharyngula. Although I've generally enjoyed the blog I found this thread very disappointing.
The insults, pissing-matches and egotism are about on the level one finds at Free Republic. Had expected better from you all based on prior threads.
Disappointing that nobody has quoted any case law (court opinions). Courts strongly favor religious upbringing over atheism. Link to Austin Cline article where he cites case law:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/256589.htm
As much as you may disagree with the current laws, or the actual interpretation and application of them by the courts, police and child protection services, you do yourselves a great disservice by opining without researching.
Dan:
Oh? I believe that was a satire aimed at the school board of that particular state. If the satire addresses a failure of some kind, I don't think it's of the public school system. I think it has more to do with failure of some people to understand that injecting Biblically-based misinformation into public school curricula is a violation of more than just the establishment clause.
Even if your analogy is off the mark, I agree with you. Neither a satire aimed at one state's school board, nor any mind-numbing stupidity actually displayed by that state's school board, are sufficient reason to condemn the entire public school system.
Similarly, even widespread failure of the homeschooling paradigm does not grant us license to condemn the entire concept. Neither does the success that you and Wonders represent allow us to claim that no such failures exist. I think we're on the same page about that. Aren't we? Hey, I'm on your side, you know.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal to you my homeschool bias. It has little to do with individuals who have been homeschooled. It is my suspicion that homeschooling on the whole, as it is currently implemented and practiced in the United States, is not getting the job done. I could be wrong.
As far as mediating between you and Tony, I was a fool to say a word, and I wash my hands of it. I thought your response was excessivly vehement, but please feel free to take him to task for his myopia and incomplete rational processes. Or, not. It's up to you.
FWIW, here's The Straight Dope about the legislation of Pi. :-)
* * *
Wonders, have you "met" Cureholder?
Kseniya,
I have met none of the people posting above, at least not to my knowledge. ;-)
Ok, Wonders/Caledonian, I'll bite. Most people who've posted comments on this thread, including me, seem to believe that to indoctrinate a child into the ugliest, darkest most punitive aspects of Christianity, such that he is compelled (by his parents or his God) to shout about worms eating the brains of the damned at every street corner, is emotionally injurious to the child. I think this does indeed constitute child abuse, but I do not believe that it is a chargeable offense. I freely admit that emotional abuse is far more difficult to prove, and is certainly far more subjective than physical abuse. I don't see an easy solution to this problem that doesn't go down that slippery civil liberties slope, and I am a firm supporter of the constitution. That doesn't prevent me from feeling great pity for the child, however, and anger towards the misguided, deluded teachings of his parents. Please let me be clear that it is the specific and extreme nature of this case that I object to. Taping your toddler singing a hymn and mailing it to relatives doesn't seem at all comparable to me, and your sarcastic assertion that it's equivalent is just absurd. Finally, to address your insinuations that I am a childless busybody with no personal stake in such things, I am the joyful mother of two children, ages 6 and 4, who mean the world to me. They have taught me firsthand of the incredible power of the innate trust children have for their parents. The full knowledge of how very malleable, credulous and therefore vulnerable young children are is precisely what inflames me when I hear stories of this (and any) type of abuse.
I would certainly not claim that all, or even most, homeschooling is done properly. But honestly, I wouldn't make that claim about public (or private) school either. Much of that, however, lies with the states for failing to legislate equivalency requirements or enforce the ones already in existence. Frankly, our education system in essentially all forms is seriously flawed.
The Pi example was a poor choice, as it is in fact satire. I thought that was known, sorry if that wasn't clear. But there are plenty of other examples which fall under the same umbrella of patent stupidity. Feel free to pick whichever you desire.
Jen,
The issue is that the word "child abuse" is rather suggestive - in that we do indeed take children away from child abusers. This does look rather authoritarian from my front in this context. I disagree with so many of the ways parents raise their children, and know first hand that it is easy to do harm even when you are trying your best. But the amount of harm needed to constitute "abuse" - to the point where it becomes necessary to actually rip the child away from his parents and thrust him into foster care with strangers - well, that's would have to be great deal of harm. This is what the word "abuse" implies.
Keep in mind that the reason you and many others have such trouble with the above case, is first and foremost the religious nature of it. If the child was campaigning against global warming, warning people of the extreme consequences of it, I highly doubt you would be so up in arms. I wouldn't encourage my kids to do such a thing, and if I knew folks were doing it I would disapprove and perhaps even gently tell them so (as people are rather sensitive about child rearing advice, and understandably so). But I unapologetically assert that the number one reason you and others react so strongly is the fact that you disagree so strongly with the Christian faith itself.
So this is how it looks from my perspective. It looks like people who already have a stated agenda to root out Christianity in our society (Dawkinds, PZ), finding a sudden interest in the welfare of children when they turn their eyes to ours. And, frankly, I don't appreciate it.
Again, that's not how the American legal system works. In a small fraction of cases we take children away from child abusers. In the rest of the cases we either can't prove abuse, or can prove it but judge that the child's still better off with their family, and attempt to prevent or mitigate future abuse via parental education, family visitation, therapy and so forth.
I'm aware that "child abuse" suggests "the government is coming to take your kids" to a lot of Americans. But the solution is to educate them on what CPS actually does and how to reform its operation if they don't like it, not to downplay abuse because they're afraid the legal consequences of dealing with it will be worse.
At 7? On the street, shouting at strangers? At the probable coercion of his parents? Good lord, yes, I would.
What? Taping your toddler to a hymnal IS abusive! Surely anyone here would agr...
Oh. Never mind.
Seriously, though. Thanks, Jen, for putting voice to some thoughts I couldn't put my finger on, and in doing so you've supplied Wonders with a post to which he/she could reasonably respond. IMO this IS the topic.
Anton, I'm with ya, but "probable coersion" is another slippery concept here. Kids so naturally take after and adopt the belief systems of their parents. I was never "coerced" into rooting for the Red Sox - it just never occurred to me to do otherwise, even though my dad often reminded me that baseball was for fun, and wasn't really important, and that I was free to be a Yankee fan if that was my heart's desire...
Sigh, I'm rambling, and I'm distracted by my need to... get off the computer! Good night all.
"and that I was free to be a Yankee fan if that was my heart's desire..."
But the innate God-given morality in your immaterial soul transmitter told you that that would be WRONG.
Wonders for Oyarsa wrote:
But I unapologetically assert that the number one reason you and others react so strongly is the fact that you disagree so strongly with the Christian faith itself.
You are making dogmatic assertions with no evidence, a typically theist practice. Certainly for myself, and quite likely most posters here, forcing a 7 year old child to stand on a street corner and scream at strangers about anything is abusive and, in my opinion, should be actionable. I have never heard of anyone travelling about the country preaching about anything but religion and I doubt that you have either. It's fine that you think parents should be able to do such things to their children but not everyone agrees. I would suggest that you only approve of it since it is religious in nature.
Or force them to join the Boy Scouts, play the violin, become a chess champion, win the World Geography Bee, become the youngest surgeon ever...
The only reason you think that what this boy and his parents are doing is wrong is because you don't approve of his religion or his preaching. Which is just fine and dandy. They're illogical, irrational, dogmatic fools, and the vast majority of people here agree with that.
But even they don't need your permission to things that you don't approve of. So, shut the hell up.
Caledonian wrote:
The only reason you think that what this boy and his parents are doing is wrong is because you don't approve of his religion or his preaching.
Wrong again, as you are in just about every post.
So, shut the hell up.
Wouldn't it be nice if only those with opinions you approved of were allowed to post.
Wouldn't it be nice if only those with opinions you approved of were allowed to post.
Hey, at least he's not suggesting the government should take your kids away.
That is precisely the point. Of course I don't approve of what the parents are doing. I wouldn't exactly call this forcing the child to do this against his will though - that's just not how the story reads to me. But I still don't approve. But there is a rather fine line between disapproval and government coercion to enforce your disapproval. That you are eager to do this gives me the willies.
You once again fail to comprehend. The issue here is not what you are permitted to do. You are permitted to post about all and sundry, airing all of your moronic opinions for the world to gawk and point at. The issue is what you should do.
And what you should do is shut the hell up.
Wonders for Oyarsa wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call this forcing the child to do this against his will though
You think a 7 year old child can make an informed choice in this situation? And you claim to be raising kids? That gives me the willies.
Caledonian wroter:
And what you should do is shut the hell up.
You're repeating yourself. Not to mention sounding rather puerile. What's the big deal? You think parents should be allowed to force their 7 year old children to harangue strangers on public streets and I don't.
tomh -
Do you have children? They do not make informed adult choices, but they definitely have will. They very much have things they like to do and things they don't. My sons are certainly influenced by our household environment, and they don't make informed choices about deep philosophy, but try and get them to do something they don't want to do and you're in for a battle.
The point is that the phrase "forcing a child to do something" has definite meaning. The article did not imply to me that that was what was going on.
They might be a little more tractable if you told them that by doing it, they were saving people from eternal fiery torment....
I agree with Wonders. It does not appear that this child is being forced to do anything. According to Mom, God is, um, inspiring the child to preach. The seed was planted somehow, but what's far more likely is that it's Mom and Dad who've inspired the child to preach, by way of example and approval. Clearly they are proud of him, and have fooled themselves into believing that they have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Not that that matters. He's doing it, they are enabling and condoning it, and in time-honored fashion are assigning all credit/responsiblity to God.
Tom, I believe that the question is whether parents should be allowed to allow their 7 year old to harangue strangers on public streets if, in doing so, they are depriving him of something essential, such as sustenance and/or education.
Female child gymnasts often develop late, are shorter than normal, and by some indications have their growth stunted by the strenuous physical exercise and low weights they must maintain. (Children that grow quickly and large are likely not to continue pursuing gymnastics, but I think it's more than a selection effect.) While they often pursue the sport because of their own interest, approval from parents is at least required, and I suspect active encouragement is often involved. With Olympic-level competitors, they've trained most of their lives, and my guess is that parental involvement is quite intense.
Why don't we hear complaints about this sport from all of the so-very-deeply concerned individuals who have expressed outrage at this child's preaching? When have they questioned whether gymnasts are getting a 'proper' education, given that serious competitors often have tutors? When have they questioned whether gymnasts have a 'healthy' social life, with all of the time they devote to the sport?
They might be a little more tractable if you told them that by doing it, they were saving people from eternal fiery torment....
I'll have to try that sometime. However, they are generally known to be unmoved to eat their dinners by stories of the starving people in China, so I doubt it's as effective as you think.
Really, who would be moved by that? Parents don't usually claim that eating your dinner will somehow help the people in China to not starve, so there's no motivation even for the most globally-conscious child.
Probably because we haven't had a thread about it yet. I had a friend who was a competitive gymnast until her teens; she quit because her coach wanted her to have a pair of ribs removed, to give her the right figure. That was certainly outrageous.
If there were reason to think that many gymnasts' coaches or families were getting them private tutors because they didn't want the kids to learn anything against the holy doctrines of gymnastics, there'd definitely be a problem.
Why would we? So far as I can see, only one person on the thread even brought up the question of a healthy social life; that was Kseniya, quoting someone else's eyewitness account of the home-schooled families they'd worked with. And that was based on the kids' actually acting socially maladjusted. If you've got a similar anecdote about a bunch of gymnasts, feel free to share.
ORPHAN BOY
About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole - four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months - I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away - but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 2004, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my "psychological prison." I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He's a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages . God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 - 17].
PEACE BE WITH YOU
MICKY
He still has a point, and you know it full well.
Bill: I agree, the parents' cavalier disregard for the intellectual welfare of their children is disheartening and appalling.
Re: My avatar. :-)
You are not alone. I used to haunt a Yahoo chatroom, and I was surprised at how often I was presumed to be an African male by those who weren't already aware than Ксения (Kseniya, Xenia, Ksenia, Ksenya) is a common girl's name east of... Vienna. :-)
Obviously, the Kseniya-Kenya similarity is the cause. I thnik it's reltaed to the fact taht baldly-missplet wrods are easliy recongized if the frist and lsat lettres are corrcet.
I, too, have mental images of those who post here: vague impressions of physical attributes, timbre of voice, mannerisms and so forth, all suggested by their writing style, name/handle, and whatever is revealed by their comments. (And probably no more correct than what I'd come up with by rolling dice!)
ВоронТ: No worries! I've seen and heard it mangled more ways than you can imagine. Besides, Ксеня is a diminutive form, and so is far more friendly than incorrect. :-)
Профессор П. З. Майерз?