3 ms·

> many dogmatic religions want to protect children from influences they cannot control or understand. Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, w

by wyager 4y ago

> many dogmatic religions want to protect children from influences they cannot control or understand. Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling.

xpe 4y ago
> Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling. No. This seems like an attempt at a wise phrase unfortunately mechanistically generated from some recursion and word substitution. Please try to support the claim if you actually believe it. Research classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics, almost any field of study; they are not dogmatic in the same way that religion is. You should read about the history of the homeschooling movement especially in the American south such as Georgia. It has been a sustained effort by conservatives to opt out of the educational system. Perhaps you have some interesting angle on how state education is somehow parallel? But I highly doubt it. I see a computer scientist's mind at work trying to find a pattern -- a meta pattern perhaps -- to claim understanding. The problem is that I don't see any evidence that the claim has been examined up close. I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. Tell me if I'm wrong. I see it very often here: Overconfidence without a grounded understanding. Consider a simpler and rational explanation (for the USA at least): State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society. An effective education in democracy does not shelter people from the idea of religion but instead puts it in a context so that we can live together even though we may not have the same fundamental beliefs.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. For modern western nations, that does means encouraging kids to think in terms of specific liberal, secular humanist values like universal human rights, pluralist nation-states, global interdependency, democratic government, capitalist economics, etc — and there are many communities throughout the world and throughout the US who have not actually bought into those values and instead value other, sometimes incompatible things. There is a real and legitimate tension between state education vs homeschooling (regardless of the particular politics/culture at home). I personally think too much such value fragmentation will damn us all and that a common education is necessary to keep a relatively peaceful order in what’s a constitutionally and inescapably diverse nation, but I get the complaint and worry that these other commenters are airing.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. I don't know you mean by they, but I agree that a role of education is a kind of induction. Thank you for your comment. I would like to see more people building bridges of understanding.
- wyager 4y ago
  Why are you talking about > classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics when our conversation was about > Liberalism and pluralism (your words)? > State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US. Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents). > I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why. I suggest reading Albion's Seed and A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > Why are you talking about >> classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics > when our conversation was about >> Liberalism and pluralism > (your words)? I'm going to make a few points in different threads to ease replies. First, let's step back. We are different people having a conversation. I often see people claiming the other person is off topic. Such a claim assumes that one person gets to define what on topic is. One person is not granted that power here. Not you, not me. I have hope that better discussion is possible with a better tone. I'll do what I can to help.
    - wyager 4y ago
      I have a habit of ignoring "tone" in discussions on relatively intelligent message boards because I think most of the people I'm talking to can handle it, and it makes the discussion vastly more likely to transmit valuable information. I'm not trying to police the topic of your commentary; I'm just not letting you swap out "liberalism and pluralism" with "classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics". I don't know if you did this intentionally or subconsciously, but this is an extremely common (and dishonest) rhetorical strategy used by your religion. Don't expect me to let it slide.

by wyager 4y ago

xpe 4y ago

> Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling. No. This seems like an attempt at a wise phrase unfortunately mechanistically generated from some recursion and word substitution. Please try to support the claim if you actually believe it. Research classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics, almost any field of study; they are not dogmatic in the same way that religion is. You should read about the history of the homeschooling movement especially in the American south such as Georgia. It has been a sustained effort by conservatives to opt out of the educational system. Perhaps you have some interesting angle on how state education is somehow parallel? But I highly doubt it. I see a computer scientist's mind at work trying to find a pattern -- a meta pattern perhaps -- to claim understanding. The problem is that I don't see any evidence that the claim has been examined up close. I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. Tell me if I'm wrong. I see it very often here: Overconfidence without a grounded understanding. Consider a simpler and rational explanation (for the USA at least): State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society. An effective education in democracy does not shelter people from the idea of religion but instead puts it in a context so that we can live together even though we may not have the same fundamental beliefs.

swatcoder 4y ago
I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. For modern western nations, that does means encouraging kids to think in terms of specific liberal, secular humanist values like universal human rights, pluralist nation-states, global interdependency, democratic government, capitalist economics, etc — and there are many communities throughout the world and throughout the US who have not actually bought into those values and instead value other, sometimes incompatible things. There is a real and legitimate tension between state education vs homeschooling (regardless of the particular politics/culture at home). I personally think too much such value fragmentation will damn us all and that a common education is necessary to keep a relatively peaceful order in what’s a constitutionally and inescapably diverse nation, but I get the complaint and worry that these other commenters are airing.
- xpe 4y ago
  > I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. I don't know you mean by they, but I agree that a role of education is a kind of induction. Thank you for your comment. I would like to see more people building bridges of understanding.
wyager 4y ago
Why are you talking about > classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics when our conversation was about > Liberalism and pluralism (your words)? > State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US. Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents). > I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why. I suggest reading Albion's Seed and A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations.
- xpe 4y ago
  > Why are you talking about >> classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics > when our conversation was about >> Liberalism and pluralism > (your words)? I'm going to make a few points in different threads to ease replies. First, let's step back. We are different people having a conversation. I often see people claiming the other person is off topic. Such a claim assumes that one person gets to define what on topic is. One person is not granted that power here. Not you, not me. I have hope that better discussion is possible with a better tone. I'll do what I can to help.
  - wyager 4y ago
    I have a habit of ignoring "tone" in discussions on relatively intelligent message boards because I think most of the people I'm talking to can handle it, and it makes the discussion vastly more likely to transmit valuable information. I'm not trying to police the topic of your commentary; I'm just not letting you swap out "liberalism and pluralism" with "classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics". I don't know if you did this intentionally or subconsciously, but this is an extremely common (and dishonest) rhetorical strategy used by your religion. Don't expect me to let it slide.