Thank you to everyone who shared their stories of survival yesterday, and I really only have one question:
What on earth were your parents thinking?
It is something I think a few of your mothers may have said as well. I am still trying to picture TLMinut’s mom as dad attempted to explain exactly what it was her son was doing on the roof of the station wagon while he did donuts on the beach. And Crimson Wife’s husband go shot by a crossbow? From an eleven year old kid?
Our society certainly has changed. And as I read your comments and thought about the stories shared on the radio, I think I see two reasons for this change: changing awareness and changing attitudes.
Changing Awareness
In her comment, Mrs. Nickelbee of Nicklebee Notes writes,
When I was 4, I used to ride my tricycle to my Grandma’s house two blocks away. By myself. (You might have to know my neighborhood to get why that is a terrible idea nowadays.) Those were the days before the movie “Adam” came out. (That was about the kidnapping and murder of Adam Walsh, son of John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted.)
According to research cited in Last Child in the Woods, kidnapping really has not changed that much over the years, but awareness of it certainly has. We no longer give our children the kind of freedom we had as children simply because we are more aware of might happen than our parents were. Because they did not have amber alerts and did not hear a report any time a child was confronted by a suspicious stranger. We are tuned in to the danger and we have responded.
This is also present in examples raised by Renae of Life Nurturing Education who, as a toddler, rode a motorcycle strapped to her father in a baby backpack, and those of you who remember riding around without seat belts or in the bed of the pickup truck. As Deborah Bolack of Songs for My Journey pointed out, there were no seat belts, let alone seat belt laws.
There was another bit of parenting that would most certainly be considered unlawful today that really did not come up in the comments here, but certainly did on the show: alcohol consumption. A lot of the callers remembered being allowed to have a swig of the beer as they delivered it to dad. The effects of alcohol on the unborn and young children were not yet understood. Even my mother was prescribed, by a medical doctor, a glass of wine a day to help with her blood pressure while she was pregnant with my brother. A friend of mine was given beer mixed with her bedtime bottle to help her sleep. Now such things are a little scary to think about, because we know what that can lead to.
We may jokingly say that it is a wonder that any of us survived childhood, but it is a reality that not everyone did. Many children were killed in car crashes before seat belts were standard, and many suffered the effects of maternal alcohol consumption with no understanding of what was causing the developmental delays.
Changing Attitudes
This change carries with it some positive and negative consequences, and is particularly relevant to current attempts to increase regulations over homeschoolers. At one time, the family was considered an institution set apart, untouchable, out of bounds to monitoring by the community. In fact, in 1874, Mary Ellen Wilson suffered horrificly at the hands of her foster mother. Neighbors and a nurse tried to help, but both the police and the church responded that it was a family matter and they could not intervene. The nurse finally went to Henry Bergh of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals to help. And the reasoning which finally got this girl before the court? As a member of the animal kingdom, she should be afforded the same kind of protection that an abused animal would receive.
Now we recognize child abuse as a real threat and feel responsible to report it. Professionals are now bound by law to notify CPS, encouraging some to make the call “just to be sure” and more to protect themselves should anything ever happen. But the idea of abuse is changing. No longer is strictly that “which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.” It has been broadened to include parenting which is not necessarily dangerous, but merely uncomfortable for the child. I increasingly hear the word used for parenting practices with which society, or even just that particular person, happens to disagree.
And it is also beginning to be used to describe educational choices by parents outside the mainstream. And Christians in particular (emphasis in the original):
It is for this reason that I consider religious education to be a serious form of child abuse. No matter what kind of beliefs they might hold about underage sexuality, we don’t allow parents to sexually abuse their children because we understand that they don’t own their children’s bodies. Likewise we should understand just as clearly that no matter what their religions might demand they teach, parents do not own their kids’ minds. Society has a profound interest in the truthful education and proper formation of its future citizens. Therefore it should be expressly against the law to teach children a curriculum that so blatantly and directly contradicts science–even and especially in private. Such curricula should be treated like child pornography. Because miseducation is at least as damaging to children as sexual abuse. We’re talking about the malformation of the brain a child will possess for life. It goes without saying that it does not matter whether it is conducted in the home or in a private group setting, it should absolutely, positively never receive any government subsidy or funding. Black Sun Journal
Now, I agree with the funding and subsidy part. But there is something deeply troubling to me that someone would equate the teaching of religious belief (and abstinence and creation in particular) with sexual abuse.
As we have placed increasing emphasis on education, we have placed increasing emphasis on how a child is educated, who a child is educated by and exactly what that child learns. When that differs from the mainstream, the standard, or even the accepted, we now call it abuse?
Two more days until Home Education Week!
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
I’m fortunately not an abuse survivor, but if I were, I’d be absolutely livid at how casually the term “child abuse” is thrown around these days by demagogues. I’d be like the member of my mom’s church who is an Auschwitz survivor- he goes ballistic every time he hears some idiot likening President Bush or whoever to Hitler. Can’t say that I blame him!
The increased emphasis on education stems from our increased belief in the malleability of the human mind. Would that stem from the behaviorist school of thought? But, really, there are plenty of children brought up with one set of religious beliefs that choose differently when older; plenty of children who are raised one way, but raise their children a different way. Even if this weren’t true, why does it make sense to let the “state” decide what goes in the child’s mind? That point brings to mind Hitler Youth and the Communist propagandists encouraging children to “tell” on their families. Scary.
Education, as most homeschoolers know, is not the filling of a bucket, but the lighting of a fire. Other people don’t seem to get that.
So what happens when it is discovered that a scientific theory taught in state schools is false. (That’s why they’re called theories, folks.) Are the teachers who taught that theory in GOOD FAITH then guilty of abuse?
Thoughts to ponder.
Ah, the truth finally comes out:
Parents do not own their kids’ minds, but by contrast “society” does. And that is where we would disagree in whole, even if we agreed on many other things.
You see, it used to be that society was considered the collection of individuals…heck, even Wikipedia still says the same. Now, for whatever reason some groups have taken it to mean that those “individuals” must all be like them. You know, kinda like junior high.
Others of us believe otherwise, and that not only is society a collection of individuals, but that society is inherently stronger by being composed of people who are different. Odd, that such “liberal” ideas are no longer being espoused by the left. Plus, we take it a step further with homeschooling: we ensure that our kids do not turn out like the society being created through public schools. Oh, and we actually teach, too, as an added bonus…which some public schools still have not figured out is their goal.
And the fact that studies show that homeschoolers score higher academically, well, that’s just more proof that we are doing it better than public schools and without constant demanding of more funds.
This is just a load of hogwash and scary, scary, scary. I am an atheist. So is my husband (we both grew up in a very religious environment, both at home and in the school (the South African curriculum wasn’t called Christian National Education for nothing). I don’t give my children instruction in “Atheism” or “humanism” or anything like that. They hear our views. They seem to be pretty atheist now, but who knows, a decade or two down the line they might have different views. The statement from Black Sun Journal is just the thin end of the wedge - does he expect parents to hide their religious views and practices from their children? Because children (or well-bonded children, anyway) tend to go along with their parents’ views and beliefs. The logical consequence would be to take children from their parents and raise them all in the style of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”.
I just read the extract on religious education to my dh and he said that he reckons it is more dangerous to force children into one sector’s view of what is correct, than to allow their parents to teach them their beliefs, and let all the various beliefs and theories to battle it out, without some authority deciding what people should think.
Thank you for sharing that, Rina. Most atheists obviously don’t believe things like that, but I have been seeing a lot more of it recently in forums and in blog discussions. Who are these people? Who is the Black Sun Journal? I don’t know…maybe they are just espousing extreme views for the attention.
But they seem to be attracting a following, and I find it disconcerting. Either have no idea what abuse really is and what it does to a child, or they really don’t understand the importance of the parent-child bond to the child.
First, I would need to the definitions of mainstream, standard, and acceptable.
Comparing everything to child abuse and pornography is the rhetorical equivalent of comparing everything to Hitler and the Third Reich. It is a false dichotomy and immediately invalidates the argument.
It is also a reprehensible insult to those who are actual victims of sexual abuse- I am willing to bet they’d give their right arm if the worst thing that happened to them was to have to go to church or hear the story of Noah and the Ark.
Two things:
1. What is wrong with beer or wine? “Swigs” of beer from the olden days, lol. Children in Europe still do drink alcohol, and in America (before alcohol became such a stigma), people of all ages drank only wine or beer because the water was so contaminated. There is no drinking age in most if not all European and Middle Eastern countries. They don’t seem to be too terribly retarded.
2. About atheism. Atheism makes no sense because it is the denial of something that supposedly doesn’t exist? Huh? What it really boils down to is, can Christianity be proven as true? Yes, it can. It is. The real issue not not whether children should be “well rounded” or “tolerant,” but that they learn to discover and understand and accept truth.
And so if I am adamant in teaching my child that 2 + 2 = 4, I am “forcing” my “belief” on him? What if the child refuses to believe that 2 + 2 = 4? What if his teachers don’t believe it, either?
True religion is not supposed to be one’s opinion of things, like preferring the color pink to the color blue. True religion is conviction that comes from investigated and factual doctrine.
Like Alexander Hamilton, I can also say, “I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”
Interesting timing…or is it a sign of the times? I’m in a very long-winded (on my end) discussion with a person who didn’t respond when I asked directly if it was “abuse” to teach creationism. FYI, Illinois has education neglect separated from child abuse at this time, if I’m recalling correctly. This was part of the response instead:
On the evolution elephant, I must confess I am torn between two solutions:
1. To be certified as graduating at the high school level, a student must pass a test that covers (among many other things) the theory of evolution. You don’t have to believe it, but you do have to understand it.
2. Permit ‘conscientious objectors’ to skip that requirement by demonstrating advanced proficiency in some other science, such as physics.
I lean towards #2 because it is the more libertarian of the two. But I worry about raising a generation of kids who are ignorant of the life sciences.
ughh..what is libertarian about this? Illinois does not require any of this at this time for homeschoolers.
I just needed to stop by and get a breath of fresh air.
When I was in public high school biology (in Texas), my teacher, whom I regarded as very wise and sensible, announced to the class that we would be studying a chapter on Darwinian evolution. We were expected to understand what the material said and be able to answer the questions on the test about it. We were not required to believe it, just to comprehend it. She went with option one, and I think it went well.
I also loved my high school biology teacher. He’s one of the reasons that I went on to get an animal science degree. Thanks for reminding me of him, as I’m trying not to be angry about public schools. Usually unsuccessful…
Option one makes perfect sense (to me) for the public schools. But this guy (I think he’s a fella) wants IL homeschoolers to do this as well. We don’t have to be certified. We graduate our kids ourselves from our private school/homeschool, when we deem it time for them to graduate. Illinois homeschooling laws are very minimal in our compulsory attendance exemption.
His value system finds creationism abhorrent. Enough that because of a potential belief system, he wants homeschooling parents directed in how to teach science in their families.
While I was studying for my education degree, I was required to take an ethics class. I know I’ve brought this up before, but what kind of an ethics problem is this:
You are teaching a unit on evolution. A girl in your class has spent some time studying evolution through a church program. She demonstrates an understanding of evolution, deeper even than most of the rest of the class. The problem is that she obviously does not believe it.
Is it ethical to pass her?
At the time, I didn’t care two cents about the evolution/creation debate, but the question bothered me. Now, I see where this level of rhetoric is coming from which equates the teaching with abuse.
Funny thing is, if the discussions I have held on the matter are any indication of anything, the average creationist homeschool spends way more time talking about evolution than I ever did in school. Certainly it isn’t presented the way it would be in a public school, but what I was taught in school was so watered down that I doubt it really was any better from a scientist’s point of view.
My biology teacher had a similar speech and for some odd reason she looked right at me through the whole thing. Funny thing was, I wasn’t Christian and really had never thought all that much about how the world began. I don’t know…I might have been as likely to argue for alien seeding at the time, as astronomy was more the focus of my attention and I was devouring any and everything Isaac Asimov had ever written. And a bit of Carl Sagan. And Stephen Hawking.
But I guess I had built a reputation for going to the library and checking our text book.
There is no drinking age in most if not all European and Middle Eastern countries.
That isn’t exactly true (this is purchasing age, drinking age is sometimes a year younger, although not always, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian):
Austria: 16 (15 in one state), 18 in the case of spirits
Belgium: 16
Croatia: 18
Czchek Republic: 18
Denmark: 18
Egypt: 21
Estonia: 18
Finland: 18
France: 16
Germany: 16, 18 for spirits
Iceland: 20
Iran: illegal
Iraq: 18
Ireland: 18
Israel: 18
Italy: 16
Jordan: 18
Libya: illegal
Netherlands: 16, 18 for spirits
Norway: 18, 20 for spirits
Oman: 21
Portugal: 18
Qatar: 18
Saudi Arabia: illegal
Spain: 16
Sweden: 18, 20 for spirits
Switzerland: 18
UAE: 21
UK: 18
And although alcohol is certainly more accepted in Europe, I wouldn’t say that Europeans are necessarily much wiser in their consumption. It is true that binge drinking isn’t as common since alcohol is in general more an accepted part of culture. But there is a lot of frequent drinking, and I experienced the effects of it.
You are right that a “swig” isn’t really going to hurt anyone. The only point was that at the time, no one realized what effects drinking had on children. Now we know, and thus we are less tolerant of alcohol given to young children.
I worked with children with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect. It is a sad thing…and many still are not diagnosed. After all, the symptoms can be quite similar to an attachment disorder.
I’d say that’s true. My kids have studied the principles of evolution as well as creation, and enjoy science tremendously. The idea that creationists don’t study science is silly- as if there aren’t scientists who are respected in their fields that are also creationists, and that scientific achievement and discovery cannot be obtained without believing in evolution and rejecting Christianity. Ever heard of Isaac Newton?
What was their ‘correct’ answer, Dana? Or was it one of those questions where they put the idea in your idea and let it roll around for a bit before they go to step b?
:-)All righty….I’m going to go take a shower and put my tin foil hat on now.
I agree from what I’ve seen that is the case too. But ignorance abounds regarding homeschoolers and there now seems to be a drumbeat about what homeschoolers should be taught.
I guess the idea that homeschoolers will remain is now a sad given to the anti-homeschooler crowd, so they’ve moved on to what is politically correct for homeschoolers to learn. I’ve tried to stay away from the evolved/creationist debate w/i our homeschool community because:
1) it seems to be pretty hostile
2) there are people like rob reich and erasmussimo who have an agenda for homeschoolers
3) the hostility w/i the homeschool community seems to have a trade off that creationists need to be told what to teach their kids….makes me nervous.
I noticed that The Black Sun Journal went on and on about how parents should not be allowed to ‘lie’ to their children, so would they include Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy in that category? Or parents who have their kids answer the phone and tell whoever that they were not available? Or how parents choose to explain any contraversial topic? It sounds to me that they would criminalize any presentation of religion or religious concepts to children, unless they haven’t actually thought their premise through to its logical conclusion, which wouldn’t be a new thing.
So I am wondering how technical they would get with their standards of truth for children, because it seems to me that folks who make such demands are rather selective about what and how such standards would be applied.
Dana,
Having read the opinions posted by Black Sun along with his philosophy regarding an acceptance of consensus science as if it were on an equal plain with true science renders most of his articulations moot. Black Sun hasn’t the courage to come out from behind his mask of unaccountability, to stand on his own given name, all the while quoting folks who do have the conviction of thought, enough to place their names along side their beliefs. Espousing the degenerate state of those with a different mind set is a tool often used by those incapable of defending their own. I do; however, find his position politically motivated and in today’s climate of fear mongering, he stands a good chance of winning over those who are incapable of reason based thinking.
We’ve been studying Isaac Newton lately; he’s always held up as an example of a great scientist who was also a man of faith. But although it’s true that Newton was very religious and actually wrote more about the Bible than about science or mathematics,in his writings he denied the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
Even so, with that caveat, I offer this quote from Newton, a caution presented alongside his theory of gravitation:
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God alone knows all that is or can be done.”
Shame shame, using the public school tactics of “applied history” to prove your point! lol!
Those drinking age laws are NEW. Historically– as historically as the dawn of time until the 1970s and 1980s, there were no drinking laws abroad. My husband lived in other countries during that time, and knows this for a fact.
Not to mention that for thousands of year, wine and beer were produced as THE main beverage, even in this country.
There is a religious stigma to alcohol use, and it is an American one, mainly. I think people are barking up the wrong tree. Rather than pointing to alcohol consumption as an evil, it really should be licentiousness and drunkennesses that are the problem.
I know people afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome. But their mother’s sin wasn’t that they drank alcohol but that they drank too much.
Wow. I’m floored that the question of “belief” in evolution would even be an issue for passing or failing. Why on earth is it any of the school’s business! Makes me hopping mad.
TF mentions “consensus science” vs. true science and I think that is an important distinction in this discussion. Black Sun and many others treat evolutionary origins of life as observable fact rather than as a paradigm or construct; thus in their minds, we may as well be teaching children that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Paradigms are necessary as a “working framework” for putting together what is observed, and they are subject change when new information and data become available. True science necessarily involves continually questioning the the working paradigm to see if it is correct and fits all the observable facts. Requiring “belief” in a paradigm — disallowing questioning, looking for facts that do not fit, or even outright dissent — undermines what TF refers to as true science.
Good point, Rebecca.
I personally happen to believe in evolution, albeit a Divinely-guided rather than Darwinian version. But when I teach it, I stress that it’s a THEORY that many but not all scientists BELIEVE and that some very interesting questions about it have been raised by ID proponents to which the evolutionists don’t yet have good answers. It’s not a fact and it absolutely drives me up the wall when it’s treated as one.
It is reasonable to require government-run schools to teach the principles of the theory of evolution but not to require students to accept that theory. Private schools and homeschools should be free to teach whatever they wish since they are privately funded.
We handle the origins of life in philosophy/religion, and keep science for that which is observable and measurable.
We have a video about the Great White in which one of the scientists says, “We know more about the dinosaurs than we do about the Great White.”
And that left me with a question: Is it really that we know more or is it that we are unencumbered by their actual presence to disrupt what we think we know about them?
I have learned to stay out of the discussion, because it annoys me. Both sides have a tendency to treat the other not as if they were simply wrong, but as if they were intellectually inferior and incapable of reasonable thought.
I’m yet to find more than a couple of people that I could actually have a discussion with that did not include more insults than facts.
To be clear, I have no problems with science, it is what has become to be known as “scientism” which I find disconcerting:
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth. PBS.org
And if you like the philosophic, I really enjoyed this article which looks at some of the strivings between realism and romanticism and looks at scientism as it was practiced in the USSR:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/aant2.html
Let me clarify, since I’ve been accused of public school tactics.
You’ve changed the point here and really only emphasized mine which is that there are two reasons we are seeing decreased tolerance of certain things: increasing awareness of the dangers of certain behaviors and an increased willingness to enter into the familial relationship to protect children (for better or for worse).
You did not say in your original comment that drinking ages in Europe and the Middle East have changed. You stated that they didn’t exist:
There is no drinking age in most if not all European and Middle Eastern countries.
That is factually inaccurate. I am well aware of the fact that they have changed, just like they did here. And for the exact same reasons. Europeans are increasingly aware of the potential dangers and increasingly willing to interfere with the family to protect children (for better or for worse).
I never argued that alcohol was a sin and have never said anything but irresponsible drinking is the problem.
And interestingly, the Jews recognized the connection between maternal alcohol consumption and “strange children.” Sampson’s mother was warned against strong drink when told she was pregnant…perhaps because Sampson was to be a Nazarite, but perhaps because Jewish custom forbade alcohol consumption by pregnant women.
The Talmud says, “She who uses intoxicating drinks during pregnancy has strange children.”
In England, the connection was recognized after the “gin epidemic” when cheap gin led to a variety of defects in children. Restrictions on the sale of alcohol slowed the “epidemic” and society began to look at other things as a cause.
And in reference to this statement:
They don’t seem to be too terribly retarded.
The stats I’ve seen indicate that FAE/FAS is more prevalent in Europe. Sweden: 1/600 births, France: 1/300 births and USA: 1/750 births. Here’s a little more on the history:
http://depts.washington.edu/fadu/FASEur.html
But basically it outlines the same thing we see here: people are more aware of the danger and the laws are changing to reflect that…in Europe and America.
And if the issue is drunkenness, that is far more prevalent in Europe. At least where I was.
Just a few comments on the issue of teaching the scientific theory of evolution and some of the statements of commenters above.
First, as the question of the girl who does not “believe…” It would be unethical to give her anything but the A grade she has earned by demonstrating her understanding the theory. Her choice not to accept the evidence presented for the theory is simply her choice. It harms no one.
Secondly, the word “belief” is improper when dealing with a scientific theory. Science is a field that does not appeal to the supernatural or to faith. To say that some scientists do or do not “believe” in the theory only confuses the issue further. That said, we must also remember that science is a self-limited field that imposes boundaries on what is properly called science. Everything of value in human knowledge does not have to be science or be connected to it.
Finally, I am strongly opposed to any idea that teaching one’s own children a particular world view or refusing to teach them another world view is somehow abuse. This belittles the seriousness of real abuse where it occurs, and it also makes claims that somehow a child can never grow to think for himself. I taught the biological sciences at the university level. From that experience, I I would say that I prefer students who had been taught to think over students who had been taught to parrot the theory of evolution. The first students (some of whom had not been taught the theory of evolution and some of whom had been taught it) were a joy to teach: they were curious and they understood how to really wrestle with a problem and make it have meaning. The second group were, for the most part, more interested in jockeying for points than with real learning.
But this is getting too long…
Good discussion here on PD, as usual!
Thank you so much for your comments! I agree with you on all points. This is an important point, I think:
That said, we must also remember that science is a self-limited field that imposes boundaries on what is properly called science. Everything of value in human knowledge does not have to be science or be connected to it.
That is how most of us view science (I think), and I doubt most scientists fret all that much about religious belief. I have not real problems with the theory of evolution, and I think the debate gets confused because most of us are really talking about abiogenesis as opposed to what most scientists talk about when mentioning evolution.
I don’t know, but when I used to get involved in the debate, it seemed like the two sides were speaking two different languages, and they weren’t really talking about the same thing.
What does bother me, however, is this idea of “scientism” which isn’t scientific, really. It is a philosophical worldview which seems to be gaining ground (or at least gaining attention) which, to condense the definition above, says this:
In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
That bothers me…and it is this group that is talking about parents teaching their children creation as if it were an abuse issue.
Hi, Rina,
I like your dh’s comment and agree with it. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I made the mistake of trying to “discuss” this with Black Sun, and ended up getting royally trolled. It’s my own fault, I fed the troll.
I don’t think he has any real viewpoint at all. He seems to make outrageous statements so he can play with the reaction.
Susan,
I read the comments too and completely understand your need to come up for air. I made the mistake of entering into a “conversation” with one of these guys. They are as doctrinaire and religious as people who have a religion, except that people who have a religion tend to be honest about it. Sigh.