For the record, I'm an atheist yet I also believe in homeschooling. I think it's unfair to dismiss privatization of schools as a devious and dubious Christian plot. But, while we do have a public school system, it should remain neutral to Christianity.

However, I don't see the issue of teaching mythology in school, therefore a comprehensive understanding of all the different religions should be taught, I think. I think sometimes we become so cynical that we want to ban theology from public scholastic curriculum, but the purpose of education is to give comprehension of the world not ignore areas you disagree with. My two cents.

Mythology is fine in school. Imagine Christians trying to get Christianity into the school system under the guise of "mythology" though. I'm sure they'd have much cognitive and community dissonance over whether the ends would justify the means. Theology outside of culture doesn't need to be taught until institutes of higher education though. I'd say it is a branch of philosophy, which is also reserved for these institutes.

I don't know much about homeschooling, but I would like to know if there are any statewide standards that a teacher/parent has to meet for homeschooling. Is the student tested? Does he or she have curriculum that must be reviewed? I'd be hard-pressed to say that people should be forced to make their kids go to a public school, except for if there's no qualifications that need to be met for a home-schooled student.

^ Totally agree. They should have a religions class, where they teach Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, yes even Ancient Egyptian Religion and paganism. You should be taught the HISTORY of religion, not that it's some alternative to science.

For the record I'm agnostic. Some say the cheap way out, but remember: "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." -Freewill, Rush

Nothing has convinced me there is a god, but nothing has convinced me that there isn't, either. "Wisest is he who knows he knows not." -Socrates

I know not.

>> ^mizila:
^ Totally agree. They should have a religions class, where they teach Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, yes even Ancient Egyptian Religion and paganism.


They do. It's called Philosophy 101. At least my philosophy class covered all this back in 1992, when I took it. It was really a great class; we went into everything...even touched on Zoroastrianism. That's where I found out I was a naturalistic Pantheist, whose second tenet rings true to what was said in the video: Toleration of all worships and creeds.

Look, if you want to smear yourself with peanut butter, go light a fire out in the woods and dance till 4 in the morning, good for you! Rock on, buddy. Whatever floats your boat. If everyone adopted this attitude, can you imagine how simple the world would be? I'll never understand the human condition which causes others to force their beliefs onto people, without giving more critical thought onto what it is that they believe in in the first place. You realize the average person takes more time to think through the decision to buy a new car, than they apply to their own paradigms?

Ok, I'm getting told to get off the soapbox. Cheers!

Sorry, I should have said a religion class 'in grade school.' By the time you get to college it's often too late. And you're right, it shouldn't be a "religion" class but a philosophy class, since that's really all religion(s) is (are). And not an elective either.

On a side note, my Philosophy 101 class taught logic! Stoopid Comm College! A great class but not what I thought I signed up for.

RS, Christianity is a mythology. Greek Mythology is just as much a valid religion as Christianity. At one time it was just as prevalent. My Christian friends get angry when I call it a mythology, however I don't mean it to be taken as a slight.

@mizila: Most agnostics are actually atheists who use the term incorrectly. If you don't believe in a particular religion because of the lack of evidence, you are an atheist. You can still be open to the possibility of a supreme being who has not yet given us proper evidence of its existence. Technically, an agnostic is "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley. Close, but not quite the same, and actually much more assertive ("cannot be known") than atheism, which includes those who "disbelieve" as well as those who "deny" the existence of a god.

@blankfist: Nobody ever said homeschooling is bad in and of itself. It's just easy to see how the practice can be used as an indoctrination tool. Perhaps the ultimate indoctrination tool, since the children are never exposed to alternative viewpoints. But there are some very intelligent, open-minded people out there who homeschool because they can do much better than the public school system, as far as the purely educational aspects. I do believe the social aspects are too important to ignore, however, and should not be treated lightly.

As far as the Philosophy/Mythology aspects of religion, that is exactly what they are. Philosophy mixed with Mythology and presented as fact in order to pressure the ignorant into compliance. If you actually teach religion for what it is, children will not believe, and therefor churches will not support that sort of education. Personally, I realized Christianity was bunk when I learned about Greek Mythology. There is no more reason to believe in Christ than in Thor, and since Thor is just a story, then so is Christ. Everything I've learned since then just reinforced that fact.

If you don't want your child to grow up to be an ignorant asshole, at a bare minimum, you should homeschool them at least to supplement a public education. Better, you should instill values in them that foster intellectual cursorily to a point that they will seek out information outside of the classroom. Public education (even at a collegiate level) is horrid.

American philosophy is a disease, and it is infecting the world. Worldwide culture as we know it may very well become extinct in the next century, and that is a sad, sad thing. Nikes, Hummers, McDonalds, and Entertainment News are not signs of progress, they are symptoms of a disease. Our culture has not kept pace with technological advancements, and it will be our undoing.

MaxWilder,

Your criticisms of home schooling are stemming from prejudice--you are claiming them to be "indoctrination tools" because you are assuming that homeschooled children have hard-core Christian/mormon/amish parents. That is a stereotype and the motives behind it are just as invalid as racism. There are plenty of rational parents who want to homeschool their children because it is a far superior education to that received in government school. A vast majority of them chose to homeschool precisely because it provides alternative viewpoints that a government education does not. There may be social aspects to consider, but that should not be the primary purpose of an educational program.

Even if homeschooling was indoctrination, how can you mount an argument against it? The only solution of such an argument would be to force the parents to send their child to some other school that was government approved, in which case, the child is now indoctrinated according to another group of people and you are left in the same position you started. The only way out is to claim that an 8 year old has the right to make the decision for himself. If thats true, you just opened up a whole array of new problems.

To claim that government education is not an "indoctrination tool" is naive. I would argue that indoctrination is perhaps the primary purpose of government school--not a religious one, but a political one. The education you receive here (and all the media exposure) is decidedly pro-American. It paints a negative light on other countries at every possible turn. Every country thinks countries across the border are "dangerous" it doesn't matter where in the world you go. This is the result of both prejudice and government indoctrination. It is a philosophical flaw and should be corrected like any other.

^ Did you even read my comment?

Are you accusing me of prejudice because of the part where I wrote "But there are some very intelligent, open-minded people out there who homeschool because they can do much better than the public school system, as far as the purely educational aspects." Because that doen't sound like prejudice to me. You just trying to pick a fight?

Homeschooling is not, in and of itself, an indoctrination tool. But it can be used as a very effective indoctrination tool by people who want to prevent their children from being exposed to alternative viewpoints.

Public education can also be used that way, but it is not nearly as effective because the social aspects can expose the children to many alternative viewpoints, and the parents have ample opportunity at home to argue counterpoints to school teachings.

Atheist simply means Without Theism, A-Theist. Asexual, Asymmetric, etc.

With the current horrible state of public schools, if you want your kid to be able to simply Read and Write you better either home school or go upscale Private. I would never ever EVER send my kids to a public high school aka zoo.

In my high school days the study of various religions was conducted in a class called Comparative Religion. Nowadays it's likely called yo mama suk dik biyatch or something equally intelligent.

I'll vote for the right to teach religion in the classroom when they devote equal time to the Church of Wicca.

Honestly, the only thing the government has any business in teaching are the four Rs

Reading.
Writing.
Arithmetic.
Critical Thinking

The rest, they should stay out of--none of it is actually practical in everyday life: a skewed history, an incorrect presentation of evolution, an ineffective foreign language program, a deficient philosophy, and calculus. The reality of public education is students spend 12 years learning 3 out of 4 of the above skills, and little else of value.

Give me a 16 year old kid who can read, write, perform arithmetic, and think critically and I could teach him to a collegiate level in less than 1 year. Keep your $40,000 in taxes (average cost is $10,000 a year per public high school student) and use it to send him to a specialized private program for whatever career he wants.

Parents should take a personal responsibility for their children's education.

MaxWilder,

i read every word of every comment i reply to. i said you were being prejudiced because of this line:

"It's just easy to see how the practice can be used as an indoctrination tool. Perhaps the ultimate indoctrination tool, since the children are never exposed to alternative viewpoints."

you were making assumptions based on stereotypes (see the word "never"). many people associate homeschooling with mormons, amish, etc. who are specifically trying to shelter their kids, and it appeared that that was the association you were drawing.

its possible to have 1 person teach 100 viewpoints, and 100 people only teach 1. many homeschooled children get a more diverse perspective than kids in public school--even when including the social aspects of other kids (remember home school kids have friends too). one reason is that most of the kids who are in public school all had parents who went to public school--so even though there might be more of them, they often come from the same area. its a systemic error. you might be pleasantly surprised to see what homeschooling is really like for a lot of people. here is an example "class" which i believe you have already seen:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Thomas-Woods-A-Shocking-Presentation-of-American-History

these "homeschool" kids are actually listening to various college professors! and look at the range of ages--young kids to teenagers. being homeschooled no longer means a parent with a book teaching the kids--it means parents with access to the internet and all the information on it. video lectures, mit open courseware, online classrooms, online student interaction, etc. its a whole new kind of education.

I love the description of the blank paper. The absence of religious symbolism is not atheist, it is secular. Really good - I'll use that.

These strivings for an "atheist society" will have little impact, even if it is on public access TV.

The human heart is infinitely deceptive; anyone who thinks they can make up their moral code as they go along is already a victim of that deception.

Man remains a vicious animal, a reptilian brain with only a thin veneer of reason and rationality. There is nothing in the atheist's bag o' tricks to quell the beast (ego).

Apparently there's enough good in religion--any religion--that promotes human survival over destruction. I don't believe you can be an authentic atheist without acknowledging this.

Imstellar28,

I believe here you are talking about globalization (worldwide corporations) and the mixing of cultures - specifically the dominating American culture on the world stage as a result of our wealth, etc:

"American philosophy is a disease, and it is infecting the world. Worldwide culture as we know it may very well become extinct in the next century, and that is a sad, sad thing. Nikes, Hummers, McDonalds, and Entertainment News are not signs of progress, they are symptoms of a disease. Our culture has not kept pace with technological advancements, and it will be our undoing."

This is a far larger topic than education in America and I believe many things contribute to this phenomenon. I also abhor globalization and the expanding mass consumerism, but to blame it on public education is a stretch, at best.

On another note, I cannot accept your arugment that public education is merely another tool of indoctrination by a different set of individuals ('the men behind the curtain' indoctrinating your child vs. the parents, in a homeschooling situation). You keep using the history of the American public education system as evidence for this argument, but the real argument lies in the philosophy behind each. America may not have carried out the process to perfection, but the idea she used is fundamentally sound: use nationally (or even, as my biology textbooks were, internationally) reknown experts in each field to develop educational material for their respective subject and teach those expert-approved positions/information; test children based on textbooks created by the experts.

I would much rather have a properly implemented system that mimicked the above than allowing most parents to teach their children. While I agree with your point that supplementing public education should be conducted by the parents, it is a mute point as every household should do this regardless of the way the child is taught (homeschool, public, private, or otherwise).

Yes, parents must take personal responsiblity for their child to receive a proper education - not necessarily deliver the education themselves. Honestly, I do not believe that most parents have the ability or the responsibility to properly teach their child, let alone without bias and with "100 viewpoints". This is why we have public education; so that all children may be taught according to expert knowledge and viewpoints. Whether that has been carried out properly in America is another argument entirely.

Just take a look at the population statistics to realize how most children would be taught if that burden were forced upon each and every parent to do so. How many parents in this country are fundamentalists? Do you think they would give an accurate view of evolution (what about vice-versa)? How many Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) would teach both sides of each issue without bias? etc.

I would agree with you that some parents may posess the 1) knowledge, 2) resources, 3) non-biased viewpoints, and 4) non-judgemental nature to be able to properly homeschool their child. However, I would argue, as I have done here, that for the majority of households, the fundamental theory of public education is far superior.

>> ^imstellar28:
you were making assumptions based on stereotypes (see the word "never"). many people associate homeschooling with mormons, amish, etc. who are specifically trying to shelter their kids, and it appeared that that was the association you were drawing.

When homeschooling is used for indoctrination, a child can be prevented from being exposed to alternative viewpoints. Hence the word "never". That is not making assumptions, that is a description of a possible tactic. Please don't assume that I am against homeschooling altogether. I can see the usefulness for people who have the ability to use it properly. And as such I would not condone government interference when a parent chooses homeschooling. I would even fight for ignorant religious fanatics to have the right to homeschool their children, though I feel sorry for the poor victims of such a situation.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The human heart is infinitely deceptive; anyone who thinks they can make up their moral code as they go along is already a victim of that deception.
Man remains a vicious animal, a reptilian brain with only a thin veneer of reason and rationality. There is nothing in the atheist's bag o' tricks to quell the beast (ego).
Apparently there's enough good in religion--any religion--that promotes human survival over destruction. I don't believe you can be an authentic atheist without acknowledging this.


Maybe you have only a thin veneer of reason, qm. I have several more layers of brain development on top of the reptilian portions that make me into a creature that is tribal by nature, part of a pack. As a member of this tribe, I strive to be recognized as a valuable member, contributing as much if not more than I receive. In that way, my peers will hold me in high esteem, and I will have access to plentiful resources which make my life much more pleasant. If I were to commit crimes against the tribe, such as theft, deception, assault, or murder, I would lose some if not all of the esteem of my peers. Aside from the retribution my peers might seek, I may also face ostracism or death. Knowing this, I don't even consider such actions within the realm of thought, excepting perhaps in only the most extreme of circumstances, where I would be facing death due to lack of such actions.

But most days I don't have to consider such dire choices. I am polite and considerate, yet assertive. In this way my peers may safely assume I will work with the team to hold up my end of the work we must do together, but I will not allow myself to be taken advantage of. And knowing that, they can plan their lives making me a part therein, and I can do the same.

And all without religion.

EDIT: The idea that you must have religion in order to be a good person is one of the Great Lies that religion teaches people. Individuals are selfish by design, but all it takes is a little thought to realize that being a part of a healthy community is essential to our well-being.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Apparently there's enough good in religion--any religion--that promotes human survival over destruction. I don't believe you can be an authentic atheist without acknowledging this.


That doesn't make religion 'true', however.

"This, by the way, has nothing to do with atheism."