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

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

THIEF!!! (hehehe)

The best answer you can get on Christian Meditation is from Thomas Merton's book, New Seeds of Contemplation, which was edited and cleaned up by his son, from the original Seeds of Contemplation. Merton was a monk (Benedictine, I think) who spent time in China studying Bhuddism and Taoism. What he learned, he examined through the filter of his devout Christian faith, and discovered that Meditation is something beautiful that was very much lacking in Western Christianity.

-=TK

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

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.

You think that will HELP? If the kid knows what's good for him/her they'll mouth it right along with the other ones. Having a teacher explain it would be far worse than just doing it themselves and hoping no one notices.

Don't you remember being 10 or so? Grammar school / Jr. High is your entire *life*. Sure, now I wouldn't have a problem mucking around with the Pledge of Allegiance (just for the hell of it, really, since I really am something of a patriot), but I've got 14 extra years of perspective and wisdom on my side.

Kids can't deal with this stuff. All most of them know is that they want to be left alone by the other ones and try to blend in as much as possible.

[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.

Yeah...

[silveradept]

Yeah. I rmember when that used to be life. Then again, I was different anyway, so I guesss I'm too used to being the target.

But how do we educate the children about the difference they're going to encounter in the real world if they don't have exposure to it in their schooling?

Thanks!

[silveradept]

Will have to get looking for something like that, I guess. Perhaps it will come in handy...

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.

Unfortunately...

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

Grade school just isn't the time (or at least the way grade school is in America right now). There is no room for real individual expression and dialogue until HS at the very earliest. Anything earlier than that is a metaphorical struggle to survive, socially.

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.

Re: Thanks!

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Any time!

Beware, Merton is difficult to read. Each section of the book is a separate essay. Don't look for them to compile, though they don't blatantly contradict, either.

-=TK

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: Unfortunately...

[silveradept]

I understand quite a bit about that. But by then it's too late, really. They've grown so accustomed to the drive for homogeneity that when their teachers try to draw out their individuality, they hit a brick wall.

Start earlier, and figure out how to make the environment conform to it. If that means handing down some punishments, so be it.

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.

Hmm...

[eleme.livejournal.com]

I know I'm joining this conversation after the fact, but I still have some thoughts to share.

As a future elementary educator myself, I think you all have posed a very interesting conversation here. You're right, we shouldn't make kids swear loyalty to something they do not understand..but on the same token I think that we can begin to teach them what it means. Talking about America and basic principles like freedom or loyalty with children is a very real possibility.

Also, what's this about not encouraging or expecting kid's individuality in the elementary grades?? Without it our classrooms would not be the exciting, engaged places they are. Good teachers can encourage children to express their individuality and find value in all their differences. Kids can teach each other a lot. Teach them these things while they're young.

You may think that I am expressing a hoplessly ideal image of the classroom, but I have seen it and I don't think it's a lost cause.

Re: Hmm...

[silveradept]

It's an image of the classroom I would like to see more often that I have. I would like it to be so that each understands what they are asked to say, and that those who may choose not to say it until they do understand don't become the targets.