"Discipling the Kids"

[Darius]

I have a nephew at this school. He's 5, and in no way should a teacher at his school be teaching evangelical ideas after class there.
One of their basic lessons is that 'catholics, methodists and unitarians are not christian'

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/03/19/25665/pasadena-cef

This a quiet movement growing across the country, they're hoping to 'disciple' the kids with their ideas before they can be taught anything else.
If you're a parent or plan on being one, or have siblings who are parents, this should disturb you on a profound level.

[Shjade]

I came to this thread expecting the title to be a typo of "disciplining."

I think the fact that it is actually an accurate title is a little disappointing. It would be hugely disappointing, but I've sorta stopped being surprised by people acting this way when it comes to religion.

Hhhh.

[Torch]

I have a nephew at this school. He's 5, and in no way should a teacher at his school be teaching evangelical ideas after class there.
One of their basic lessons is that 'catholics, methodists and unitarians are not christian'

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/03/19/25665/pasadena-cef

This a quiet movement growing across the country, they're hoping to 'disciple' the kids with their ideas before they can be taught anything else.
If you're a parent or plan on being one, or have siblings who are parents, this should disturb you on a profound level.

Why would this disturb me? As far as I can tell, this is a voluntary, extra-curricular program that is not required of any student. If a parent does not wish their child to participate, simply do what I would do: Toss the flyer in the garbage. I wouldn't allow my child to participate any more than I would allow my child to participate in any after-school activity that I don't feel is appropriate or necessary.

It's no different than FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes), or any other quasi-religious group that uses a public school facility, with teachers as facilitators of the group.

Should the Girl Scouts not be allowed to meet at a public school because the recitation of the Girl Scout Promise includes the phrase, "On my honor, I will try...to serve God..."?

[Callie Del Noire]

Girl scouts don't USUALLY go heavy on evangelical doctrine, which I think is the concern of the original poster. There are evangelical groups I wouldn't want talking to my niece in school (before, after or during).

That said, I don't see anything particularly offensive in the article, but I get the feeling that things were left kind of brief in the way it was written.

[Envious]

An optional after school program does not disturb me in the least.

[Torch]

Girl scouts don't USUALLY go heavy on evangelical doctrine, which I think is the concern of the original poster. There are evangelical groups I wouldn't want talking to my niece in school (before, after or during).

I quite agree, and that was sort of my point. As a parent, I get to decide what is appropriate for my child. If my child attends a public school (which by definition is free from religious influence), I am assured there will be no "evangelizing" during school, and I would not allow my child to participate in said evangelizing either before or after school. I would trust that the teachers who facilitate the program in question are professionals who do not allow their beliefs to prejudice my child one way or another.

[gaggedLouise]

I came to this thread expecting the title to be a typo of "disciplining."

I think the fact that it is actually an accurate title is a little disappointing. It would be hugely disappointing, but I've sorta stopped being surprised by people acting this way when it comes to religion.

Hhhh.

I actually misread it as "Disciplining the kids" in the Politics board overview. :) But I suspect sometimes the two are found together, running in the family so to speak (not making any wider point about Christian families here, I come from one myself - not a very hardline one though - and there are several reverends and pastors in the extended family, extremely nice and sane people)

[elone]

If these groups use public schools for their forum I hope that they are charged for custodial services, staffing, electricity, and any other expense beyond what the school would normally incur. None of my tax dollars for this please.

I do agree with the person who said, what if this was a Muslim group? People would be having fits. Also, what if it was neo-Nazis or similar hate groups. Would this be allowed? Parental permission or not, I personally don't think it is right, especially the banners hung on the school which seem to indicate an impression of some type of school support of the program.

Also, for children, peer pressure is intense, and I am not sure about their being able to distinguish between religion and school since it is all in the same location. Personally, I feel that they should keep this type of activity in their churches, you can brainwash them there and you don't need parental permission slips.

[Serephino]

Getting them young is what religions tend to do.  Young minds are so impressionable.  I did something in Kindergarten, only it was during school.  There was a church not too far from the school, and on Wednesdays some lady took us during nap time for Bible School instead.  I had to get signed permission slip from my parents of course...

[kylie]

I do agree with the person who said, what if this was a Muslim group? People would be having fits. Also, what if it was neo-Nazis or similar hate groups. Would this be allowed? Parental permission or not, I personally don't think it is right, especially the banners hung on the school which seem to indicate an impression of some type of school support of the program.

It's whatever the current political atmosphere of that community will allow -- regardless of whether we think the impetus to be a content majority, a confused majority, a bureaucratic drone system, or a vocal minority.  Posting the Ten Commandments on the walls may still be controversial in most places, but then try to get a lecture on contemporary Paganism, Buddhism, or even atheism installed in some school grounds.  While I imagine a few places would accept them, I imagine quite a few others would be as upset as they might at a sample of Muslim philosophy. 

    At the same time, at least last I heard:  It was still frequently accepted to recite "under God" every single morning, or to emphasize the Revolution and Greek antiquity in History classes over and over -- forget much on Asian history as a whole, never mind any dirty details about bombing Hiroshima or the Vietnam War.  It's often taken for granted that teachers, as well as Scout leaders and ministers (sometimes all one in the same) will toss in a few informal "nurturing" words quite often, about how anyone can be reborn in this life as anything they want through the miracles of pure faith or perhaps the free market -- if only they keep working against statistically incredible odds. 

   At least, that was definitely my experience growing up in a small town which didn't view itself as particularly extreme.  And that place was very tame and tolerant by standards of some of the Southern schools I still hear about in the news today (granted and happily in this case, relatively liberal papers).  It even had a good state system with a fair bit of funding, and a higher education system nearby that was almost the opposite in its critical philosophy.  Who would have known...  Well, on the plus side, I did get away with presenting on what it was like in the middle of an atomic blast in about 6th grade   Maybe they were enjoying the horror/drama aspect more than the humanitarian implications -- I do suspect I was.  But then, I do remember some kids turning pale.  So much more harmonious and comfortable to teach that God (or capital) is always on our side, and we can do no wrong, lalala...

[Oniya]

Getting them young is what religions tend to do.  Young minds are so impressionable.  I did something in Kindergarten, only it was during school.  There was a church not too far from the school, and on Wednesdays some lady took us during nap time for Bible School instead.  I had to get signed permission slip from my parents of course...

They had a time-slot at the little Oni's school for 'Religious Education'.  The class was held in a trailer juuuuuuust off school grounds, and it was opt-in (the remaining students got extra reading/study time), but I was seriously worried about peer pressure those first couple of years.  The number of opted-in students decreased year by year, though, and oddly, she didn't start getting the Jesus-pushers after her until this year.  She got criticized by another student for saying 'Oh my gods' (thank you, Percy Jackson!), and then got gifted with 'stationery' that included a story of the 'true meaning of Christmas'.  (If I'd known who left it, I would have Xeroxed my copy of 'Yes, Virginia' for them.)

[Darius]

The peer pressure is the aspect of this that is troubling me.

I was video chatting with my nephew the other night, and HE brought up how some of the older kids involved with it were talking to younger kids in his class about joining when they were old enough. From what I get from his mom- recruitment is part of the groups goals.

I have no problem with them doing this on school property if they're paying the same fees as everyone else. And, if the school opens its doors for other types of groups to use their facilities.

Where I see the biggest problem is that the group is led by a teacher. And the session starts right after school. How much pressure is that on a kid who's in that teacher's class? I almost want to tell the parents to demand a web cam with audio in that class so they can hear that the teacher is not pressuring the students.

I'd have far less objection if they did this group an hour after the kids were allowed to leave for the day, and it was taught by someone not associated with the school.

[Torch]

The peer pressure is the aspect of this that is troubling me.

That's why parental involvement and control is so important.

No matter the amount of peer pressure, a child is still only allowed to participate with a parent's permission. And this is true of any organization or activity, regardless of whether it is secular or religious-based.

At the elementary-school level, parental influence is far greater than any possible amount of peer pressure. And if it is not, then something is wrong in the home, not in the school.

[Caela]

I'll admit, I stopped reading at elementary school. I find this entirely inappropriate in an elementary setting. At such a young age, religious indoctrination of any sort should be chosen by the parents alone and not the school and certainly not in a setting that might encourage young children (who can already be cruel enough on their own) to pressure others into such a program.

I don't have a problem with slightly older kids, say middle and high school, wanting to have some sort of religious study class after school as a means of touching base with others of their faith (whether they're christian, muslim, pagan, jewish etc. makes no difference to me) and to study and support each other in that faith. What I do however, have a problem is with an adult led religious organization using schools to seek to indoctrinate kids into their faith.

[vtboy]

For me, this is a "camel's nose inside the tent" issue.

For about 50 years, the religious right has been all atwitter over the banishment of prayer from our public schools. There are very good reasons for  the ban, which need not be detailed here. While permitting religious groups to rent out school facilities for after hours proselytizing sounds fairly innocuous on its face, I suspect that, at bottom, this is actually an ecclesiastical flanking maneuver aimed at getting around the ban.

We no longer live in frontier communities in which the one public building must serve as weekday town hall and courthouse, Sunday church, and nighttime saloon and bordello. The faithful very often have their own buildings, called churches or synagogues or mosques, for promoting their own beleifs. A congregation that cannot afford to build, purchase or lease such a facility, but is sufficiently flush to rent out school premises, is evidently capable of paying for use of the local VFW hall or Elk's Club for an afternoon or two a week. Failing that, let their members donate use of a basement or living room for the purpose, much as cub scout den mothers used to do in the dim, dark days of Ozzie & Harriet.

Now, I'm sure the faithful will point out that there are conveniences inherent in the use of school buildings (e.g., the presence of a captive audience, avoidance of the burdens attendant to moving the kids, etc.), not afforded by the other alternatives I have suggested. Well, too bad. There are burdens attendant to most human endeavors. Just as obstruction of religious practice is not a legitimate end of government, neither is its facilitation. The rule is simple in both concept and application. Controversy over it can really only exist in the minds of those bent on employing the coercive power of the state to spread their own religious doctrines (and there is at least a subtly coercive aspect to the use of public school property to advertise and provide religious instruction).

Not being an absolutist on most issues, however, I would offer the faithful this bargain: in exchange for use of public school facilities for religious marketing, allow government to use church vestries immediately after services for seminars on evolution and contraception. Think there will be many takers?

[Torch]

The faithful very often have their own buildings, called churches or synagogues or mosques, for engaging in their own brands of brainwashing.

This quote comes very close to violating the spirit (and rules) of debate on this board.

Please remember that many Elliquiy members are also members of churches, synagogues and mosques, and would not take kindly to having their beliefs equated to "brainwashing".

[vtboy]

This quote comes very close to violating the spirit (and rules) of debate on this board.

Please remember that many Elliquiy members are also members of churches, synagogues and mosques, and would not take kindly to having their beliefs equated to "brainwashing".

I'm not sure what it is about religion that makes people hypersensitive to mild terms which, in other contexts, would not even raise an eyebrow. Had I used the same word, for example, to describe the content of Fox News broadcasts, I doubt anyone would accuse me of "violating the spirit (and rules) of debate on this board," much as they might disagree with my point.

In any event, as it was not my intention to give offense, I will modify the term in my prior post to something which, I hope, you will find a little less provocative. I trust  you are not also suggesting I need attenuate my opinions about the value of religious dogma and practice, or otherwise refrain from expressing them on a board dedicated in part to the airing of views on religion. 

[Oniya]

It's the very fact that religion (and to a similar extent, political affiliation) does have such a hyper-sensitivity associated with it that made it necessary to have a separate 'Politics and Religion' board at all.  We ask that all members keep this in mind when engaging in discourse on these topics.

Thank you.

[Torch]

I'm not sure what it is about religion that makes people hypersensitive to mild terms which, in other contexts, would not even raise an eyebrow. Had I used the same word, for example, to describe the content of Fox News broadcasts, I doubt anyone would accuse me of "violating the spirit (and rules) of debate on this board," much as they might disagree with my point.

In any event, as it was not my intention to give offense, I will modify the term in my prior post to something which, I hope, you will find a little less provocative. I trust  you are not also suggesting I need attenuate my opinions about the value of religious dogma and practice, or otherwise refrain from expressing them on a board dedicated in part to the airing of views on religion.

You are more than welcome to your opinions on religious beliefs, or any other subject. You are also more than welcome to express those opinions within the guidelines of the site and this board.

However, using inflammatory language (i.e. religion = brainwashing) as defense of your opinion can be considered offensive by some members.

[vtboy]

You are more than welcome to your opinions on religious beliefs, or any other subject. You are also more than welcome to express those opinions within the guidelines of the site and this board.

However, using inflammatory language (i.e. religion = brainwashing) as defense of your opinion can be considered offensive by some members.

Is there some non-inflammatory way to express the opinion that, without the suspension of the critical facilities of its adherents, organized religions could not survive, and that the suspension of these facilities is furthered by the sort of rote verbalizations and rituals which are repeated over and over again in houses of worship? I think not, and thus wonder if it was really my choice of words to which you were objecting.

[Torch]

Is there some non-inflammatory way to express the opinion that, without the suspension of the critical facilities of its adherents, organized religions could not survive, and that the suspension of these facilities is furthered by the sort of rote verbalizations and rituals which are repeated over and over again in houses of worship? I think not, and thus wonder if it was really my choice of words to which you were objecting.

This thread has strayed off-topic, so if you'd like to open a separate thread regarding the validity and sustainability of organized religion, please feel free to do so.

And I do believe you answered your own question.

[DarklingAlice]

This thread has strayed off-topic, so if you'd like to open a separate thread regarding the validity and sustainability of organized religion, please feel free to do so.

And I do believe you answered your own question.

Torch, I find this highly relevant to the current discussion. It seems to me that vtboy's question consists of whether or not religious aims (whatever they may be) would be as well met were they not exploiting the environment of an elementary school (an environment ready-made for indoctrination). Essentially, is there an ulterior motive for hosting such sessions in a public school setting rather than in a church? And, if there is, is this sort of behavior acceptable?

Nothing inherent in that question is uncivil and it is not your position or right to police these boards any more than it is mine. The P&R board requires all of us check our offense at the door to a certain extent. You are both entitled to your opinion.

[Oniya]

I think that's a fairly non-inflammatory way of putting it, DarklingAlice. 

I know that in my region, there's a high percentage of religious people.  I doubt they're making many new 'converts' by having the Religious Education class at the school, (even if it is during the school day) and the parents (who are often low-income here, or working two or more jobs between them) don't have to worry about driving their kids to yet another extra-curricular activity.

As a parent, I make a point of being aware of what my child is exposed to in school.  When Mr. Oniya and I first heard about the Religious Ed 'period', we asked questions.  We were very careful to make sure that we'd filled out all the forms 'consciously', instead of just signing our names at every X.

[elone]

As for the use of the word brainwashing. I think that term usually implies doing something that is against someone's will usually through means that are questionable. Perhaps a more appropriate term for what we are talking about in these after school programs might be indoctrination.

At any rate, I think that the peer pressure aspect of all this is too much for young children. If parents want to give permission for their own children that is fine. However, those that don't participate may be made to feel that they are being left out of something. Of course this all depends on the level of participation. It could work just the opposite if the vast majority of kids don't go to the meetings.

Either way, it is just another pressure that doesn't need to be put on children.

[vtboy]

I think that's a fairly non-inflammatory way of putting it, DarklingAlice. 

I know that in my region, there's a high percentage of religious people.  I doubt they're making many new 'converts' by having the Religious Education class at the school, (even if it is during the school day) and the parents (who are often low-income here, or working two or more jobs between them) don't have to worry about driving their kids to yet another extra-curricular activity.

As a parent, I make a point of being aware of what my child is exposed to in school.  When Mr. Oniya and I first heard about the Religious Ed 'period', we asked questions.  We were very careful to make sure that we'd filled out all the forms 'consciously', instead of just signing our names at every X.

When governmental authorities permit religious groups to use public facilities to promote their beliefs, as is the case here, there is at least an implication, and I think a strong one, that government is endorsing those beliefs. Among the many reasons government should avoid lending any sort of support to the promotion of religion is that religious teachings are so often exclusionary, and horribly so -- for example, that non-believers, members of other faiths, homosexuals, users of contraception, and those who receive or provide abortions have turned their backs on God and, absent correction of their ways and repentance, deserve punishment, whether in this life, the next, or both. While such credos in any context make my skin crawl, I understand and acknowledge the right of the faithful to adhere to them and advocate them through their own offices. Once government provides a platform for religious doctrine, however, it becomes almost sophistic to say that government is not supporting religion's classifications of some behavior as good and other behavior evil, of some actors as godly and others sinful. Such religious dictates may be troubling and alienating enough to a child of non-mainstream religious background, to a child of a homosexual couple, to a child struggling with his or her own homosexuality, or to a pregnant teenager contemplating abortion, without school authorities bestowing their implicit imprimatur.

It should be an uncontroversial proposition that all citizens enjoy the right not to have their government support activities which would define them as outcasts on religious grounds. Nor would it do to say that government might avoid support for the more socially pernicious aspects of religious dogma, by screening the content of the religious instruction offered, as that would amount to censorship, an offense to at least two of the guarantees of the First Amendment. And once the notion that all religious teachings are entitled to equal treatment enters the mix, what should we do about instruction in jihad, about fringe religious groups that advocate white supremacy, and the like?

As to the offered justification that permitting religious instruction in public schools would reduce burdens on economically strapped families, all I can say is that it is appropriate for government to mitigate the struggles of the poor through secular devices (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized day care), but not through support of religious ones. And, perhaps government would be doing these families a greater service by keeping their doors open after school hours for such less judgmentally freighted activities as tutoring and seminars in good nutrition.