Well...

[silveradept]

Two days and no posting. Wow. My life must really be pretty boring (which it is.)

Football tomorrow. Much-needed win to keep the hunt for the conference championship alive. Had a few fun things happening, but nothing really worthy of any particular mention. Played Diablo II with a roomie, and was much fun, it was.

Stealing from tkarrde98's journal, there is good news to report. It's here...

Finally, I have two question to propose to those who do read the journal.

The first is something being posted in freetobelieve, and it is regarding a sign I see on my way to class. It's for one of the Methodist churches on campus, and it just reads "Chapel open 9 am-5pm for prayer and meditation." The word that strikes me as odd is "meditation." Somehow, I can't quite picture what Christian meditation would be like. Could be me looking through a lens that equates the word with the more Eastern meaning of the word, which usually has a godless connotation. Then again, I think I've answered my own question when thinking about it long enough. I'll still ask their opinions, and yours, on what such a thing as "Christian meditation" is...

The second is something I already posted in freetobelieve about education as a mini-rant spin-off on a topic about the Supreme Court agreeing to hold hearings on Newdow's Pledge objections Thus, here it is...

Yes, the segment Under God was added, yes, the country was trying to escape religious persecution, and the I ask the question what God you see when you say that phrase... after all, it's not "one nation, under the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" is it?

The entire Pledge is optional, I believe. It cannot be mandated in schools anymore, (it's a Supreme Court decision, but I know not which one...) but it would do well to make the phrase optional and keep the rest. If one believes not in the principles that the Pledge states, then by all means, don't say it.

Either way, I agree with you, xanthvamp, about it being the parent's responsibility to educate the child on things like that. Too often we expect the schools to teach everything, even morals, but then we get huffy when they don't teach what we consider to be the right morals. Exposure is not a danger, what happens because of it is. If the parents have not trained their children well, the schools are relatively ineffective about reinforcing it. So the parent needs to explain why he doesn't want her to say those words, and then the teachers need to be able to explain to the other students why she doesn't say it in terms they can understand and accept. After all, a kid that expresses individuality is a target in the social circles of schooling.

I'll take the firestorm in my own journal, rather than have the community suffer it. What do people think?

Comments

[loweko.livejournal.com]

Personally I find the whole concept of getting schoolchildren to recite a political platitude as pretty abhorrent anyway.

K...

[silveradept]

Explain yourself further. Aren't we supposed to inspire nationalism in our younger generation so that they dno't decide to revolt against us?

Re: K...

[loweko.livejournal.com]

No, you're supposed to not inculcate the same nationalism (or ANY ideal) in children too young to understand what they're getting.

Re: K...

[silveradept]

So long as we're not expressing either political or religious ideologies, then the schooling system is doing well? Or is that strictly for those "not old enough" to understand?

Re: K...

[loweko.livejournal.com]

Silver, you're not getting it. What you are essentially doing is ensuring every child is indoctrinated with the ideology before they can even understand any of the concepts behind it. Looking at what rampant patriotism has done to the history of the world, I really don't think children need to be burdened with it at that age.

Re: K...

[silveradept]

That's what I needed to know. I can understand that, and frankly, I think you're right. I just wanted to make sure I knew what you were advocating.

A Caveat

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

In order to do what you want here, you're going to have to strip several different parts of the school system. Including American History and Government classes, the loss of which is more abhorrent than making them nationalists.

As the great Latin chickpea stated:

"He who fails to learn from history remains forever a child"

--Cicero

Also bear in mind, the current generation of teachers are mostly baby boomers and war kids. Patriotism is ingrained in their way of life. So to remove it, you will have to remove them. And since children are, at least in part, a product of their parents, well, you'll have to bring in outsiders to teach. Which has its own dangers.

And finally, remember that patriotism is not nationalism.

-=TK

Re: A Caveat

[silveradept]

Also a wise statement to keep in mind. Is it possible, however, to strip the component that would cause indoctrination out of the history lesson? Instead of talking strictly about "the winners", as one of my religion professors refers to when he talks about what becomes canon and what becomes cannon fodder, is it possible to teach a course that adequately is able to represent "the losers" as well?

Re: A Caveat

[loweko.livejournal.com]

Patriotism is the root cause of nationalism. One is simply an extreme expression of the other.

And I'm not bashing the political education curriculum (much as I feel the US version could do with a little, y'know, inclusion of the rest of the world). Heck, I'm a third-year student of Government myself, I know all about the need to learn from past mistakes, and I appreciate the way my own arguments rely on children eventually being educated in a such a manner until they can appreciate what they're saying.

I just don't the whole idea of children swearing an oath of loyalty.