I personally attended an ultra conservative school of about 70 pupils all grades accounted for, based on the ACE system (see http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com for a decent introduction), and while I thankfully managed to escape that scene many years ago (extremely lucky circumstances outside of my own doing), I'm afraid I clearly recognise the vision the author describes. I desperately hope that they are wrong, but I can imagine it being spot on all too well. :( FWIW I too don't have contact with my parents mostly as a result of this, and the level of mental gymnastics in otherwise intelligent and sincere folks is jarring.
Very well written. Although this article is quite emotive and could be considered an extreme point of view, I think it is important to read in order to understand the multitude of voices wanting to be heard in the current quagmire.
I disagree with some of the assumptions made but nonetheless think this is a voice that should be heard.
As a follower of Jesus (I have to be careful how I say Christian because of how loaded that term has become) I feel sad that the writer is marginalised as if it is something Christ would have done.
That Jesus has been attached to a particular political agenda is particularly heartbreaking.
Historically, when Christianity has gotten in bed with power it has been bad news for the essence of Christ and the humbling power of His work - I would argue this is because of the corruptibility of humans and not through something inherently wrong with Christianity.
I'm sorry for some of the things being done in the name of Christianity but this is an intelligent, thoughtful community - please find out for yourself who Christ really said he was and don't assume that what some powerbrokers say in Christ's name is true - their interests are vested.
I hope that HN continues its history of thoughtful, respectful discussion rather than the vitriol I am seeing elsewhere.
I really, really don't think so. "Jesus" (who probably never even existed) isn't the problem, though. Religions are.
That they should be "respected" as just a normal human behavior is the problem. That superstition should be considered seriously instead of being fought, esp. in young minds, is the problem.
That separate schools should exist in the name of superstition, that people should be allowed to not even send their children to school but indoctrinate them themselves, is the problem.
There is such a thing as too much freedom, and the result is catastrophic.
I'm agnostic and have no strong feelings on religion, and I find your comments very intolerant. Views like yours have no place in this community. It's not ok for you to tell people how they should live their lives.
I disagree, the whole point of society is to work together and push each other to be a certain way; to the betterment of the whole. It follows then that when non conducive behaviors are found we should strive to get rid of them. In this case thoughts (religion) not grounded in critical thinking which can lead to things like glorifying death for nonsense causes.
Addressing religion as a whole is nonsense IMO. It doesn't exist by itself and you certainly cannot attribute the same qualities to every single religion.
The major religions are a mix of philosophy + politics. Philosophy in general is certainly grounded in critical thinking. These religions obviously serve as a method to deliver the results to the masses.
Nationalism is just as bad if not worse than religion in terms of causing death and war.
That's fair. However my point stands that it is ok to tell people how to live; that's society.
Regarding religion, it is more conducive to non critical thought than other thought frameworks that exist. At the very least by magnitude it has the most impact in terms of contributing to non critical thought worldwide.
Weather nationalism is worse or not doesn't change the criticism on religion.
The next time people on HN say they don't see intolerance or contempt for religious folks on HN, I'll point them to this comment as an excellent example of both.
Origin stories are hard, if not impossible, to answer. Sure, we have the Big Bang. I've read the thing that exploded was estimated to be the size of a grapefruit. So where did the magic exploding grapefruit come from? The Big Bang pushes the quest back 13 billion years, but still doesn't answer it.
Or perhaps you like the theory that we're living in a simulation? I'd argue that is 95% identical to religion.
When I see this level of vehemence, I sincerely wonder if someone isn't concerned about the possibility of having to ultimately answer to someone or something for their life's actions.
How do religions help answer origin stories?? If the universe was created by God then who created God? If God "has always existed" then why can't the same be true of the universe? This is "turtles all the way down" over again.
About your last sentence: the hardest part of not believing in God is not having the consolation of thinking your enemies will burn in hell -- I don't miss heaven for myself but I do miss hell for other people.
High-quality free state-run secular schools is one of the most important social achievements. In that schools a new generation can grow and learn while minimizing radicalization. That new generation meets people from different cultures and religion since they are children and learn to accept the differences. This doesn't solves all problems, is not a silver bulled, but it improves society at large.
I never understood why in the USA parents are allowed to radicalize their children out of society. Now I not just don't understand, but I see how dangerous is the situation.
I believe another important piece is the Fairness doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) which forced news outlets in the US to present balanced news. Reagan killed this in 1987. It's made it much easier to live in a bubble. Fox News (and possibly most of the current US TV news; I'm not sure) couldn't exist if this doctrine was in place. The US has allowed many policies that has divided its people.
Find it funny that you mention Fox News as biased. I find the other big three (CNN, NBC, ABC) unreadable/unwatchable, while Fox News is kind of OK. I prefer RT to any of them, though.
>High-quality free state-run secular schools is one of the most important social achievements.
Libertarian here. I find this idea a joke, and I believe in it just as much as the person who made the comment with "High quality state run Party schools" does. State-run schools (secular or not) is a great way to make sure that there is only one point which you need to overtake (through elections or corruption) when you want to push your ideology through the school system.
>I never understood why in the USA parents are allowed to radicalize their children out of society.
I never understood why in the USA the state is allowed to indoctrinate everyone's children into their version of Ideal Vision of Society(tm)(r)(c)(patent pending). This is not a clash of religion vs secularism, it's about individual freedom vs state power. If you are interested in understanding the side that advocates individual freedom, I would suggest reading [1], [2], and wherever the links take you on that blog.
High quality state run Party schools are one of the most important social achievements. In those schools a new generation can grow and learn in the care of the Party while minimising radicalisation. That new generation learns about how World Jewry threatens the Aryan race and how the German Nation and the Nazi Party will lead us to greatness. This doesn't solve all problems, is not a silver bullet, but it improves society at large.
I don't understand why in France parents are not teaching their children about the threat of World Jewry. Now I not just don't understand, but I see how dangerous the situation is.
School is NOT the only source of knowledge. Parents have the most important role in teaching values. The school has an important role in socialization. School teaches the children that they are part of society and that there is people out there that are different and that's a good thing.
It is as bad that children ONLY learn from their parents that children ONLY learn from the state. Both radical situations go against a complete and balanced education.
I'm against "the state should be the only educator", my mistake if I didn't expressed that correctly.
I genuinely believe that home schooling shouldn't be allowed, except for kids with disabilities which stop them from leaving home.
It just seems to me that Americans fear radical islam, while extremely radical Christianity grows right under their noses. I agree that free state-run secular schools are the way to go for modern society.
"For instance, one nationwide study analyzed data from 1,952 homeschooled students across the country and found that the students, on average, scored at the eightieth percentile or higher in every test category"
"Several studies found no significant difference in the social skills of homeschooled and non-homeschooled students. Other studies found that homeschooled children score significantly higher on social development rating scales/questionnaires."
So I went hunting from that link, since scoring so highly simply doesn't pass the sniff test. The reference is an academic paper full of weasel words ('many studies show' type stuff), and that particular commentary (1,952 students bit) came from a book by Brian D. Ray, a not exactly neutral proponent given he is the president of the National Home Education Research Institute. I didn't find a relevant excerpt from the book, but I have found an infographic[1] based on it and other articles.
Turns out that it doesn't matter how poor or uneducated the parents, the students still perform in the top 20%, including maths and science (the latter being particularly suspect given the strong showing of fundamentalist religion in the homeschooling world).
Going back to the reference paper and pulling another reference[2], it clearly states in the abstract that while they found significantly higher rates of performance in the home-schooled kids, they also had a significantly more educated parents and significantly higher family income... and also clearly state that since their experiment wasn't controlled, you shouldn't read too much into it.
These numbers in that link are cooked. They're nonsense. That link is using weasel words, apples-to-oranges comparisons, and pulling info from non-neutral parties. Is home schooling better or worse? Well, it depends; it is better for some, and there are certainly some myths. But that link is cooked.
The statement literally said "I believe that [...]".
How can I provide data to back up that statement?
I never reasoned that home schooling doesn't provide results, or that home schooled students do worse. I'm sure that with dedicated enough parents, it will provide results, and the students will do better or at least just as well!
I still think that it shouldn't be allowed. I'm not sure how I can provide sources on that.
I'm not nearly knowledgable enough about this subject to have a well informed opinion and my only exposure to homeschooled kids have turned out to be very well adjusted adults. Despite my own anecdotal experience, I'm certainly open to any data showing the overall negative effects that homeschooling may have on the societal level, but if you strongly believe it shouldn't be allowed, and yet this belief isn't based on any solid reasoning or evidence, isn't that somewhat similar to the kind of unfounded beliefs on display in the article?
Fun fact: here in Germany, home schooling is illegal. I'm with you -- I think this is probably for the best. After all, how do you get kids to learn to socialize and integrate with society at large (regardless of their background), if they don't attend school and get out from under their parents?
But this is also the only basis on which Germans can typically sucessfully claim asylum in the US, and have successfully in the past: the idea that they are fleeing "religious or political persecution" for not being allowed to keep their kids at home and teach them in an isolated environment.
I don't know much about Germany but if what you say is true, it's great for the country: they are able to successfully expatriate the crazies out -- hey, the crazies expatriate themselves, willfully! That's pure magic.
It would be very interesting to go back to the 1940's and see what was being taught in the German schools.
I'm in favor of public education - my three kids went to great public schools. But there is no perfect answer that works in all situations, all times and all places.
You mean, learn what it is to be ridiculed, assaulted and mocked?
Awesome development indeed! How could I ever live without it!? I hope this happens to your kid.
There is nothing wrong with homeschooling. You're taking it out of proportion. I had difficulties with bullies for a few years, and my parents took me out of school to home school me. I benefited from this reset-- learned a lot about myself during that time (this is when I self-learned about tech & hacking).
Homeschooling is a much safer environment to learn. State-run schools have drugs, violence, and often teachers who don't want to teach anymore.
I love how on HN you can make a statement like this with zero evidence and it doesn't get downvoted. If someone were to do the same for a tightly held HN friendly view, you would be crucified.
Show me the numbers. What percent of homeschoolers are radical Christiana? Every home schooler I personally know is atheist/agnostic, well educated and want to make sure their kids get a solid education. (Because the public school system isn't delivering). If we are going on personal experience or assumptions, then my view is equally valid, if not more so as I have 5 data points :)
It's like saying that someone broke your arm at school,so maybe we should break arms of every kid at school. This would never happen with home schooling!
My point is - these two are unrelated. I say home schooling shouldn't be allowed, you say you were bullied at school. So is your point that everyone should be home schooled?
I mean....bullies are usually bullies because they have shit parents who don't care about their kids. Do you think that home schooling is the answer here?
With respect, the problem is that you are both using gut reactions and anecdotal personal experience in order to determine the correct government policy.
You could approach it from a civil liberties angle. But if you're really interested in what would be best for the population overall, perhaps try and cite some data? It took me 5 minutes of Google searching to find some interesting results...
It was definitely good for them to hold that child in the basement! As a population overall.
Why would I care about "civil liberties" if they come at cost of ruining my life? And I know I'm not in any way an exception. I won't be around enjoying them, right? Do I look like a person who enjoys anything right now?
I think I wasn't clear on my meaning of "civil liberties".
My meaning was this you can argue the following: That home schooling is a kind of basic human right. That there are some rights that a parent has to determine how their child is brought up.
I'm not making that argument. But I would be interested in hearing it. And hearing a justification for it.
Sounds like the Ursula K. Le Guin story is exploring individual versus group wellbeing. Thanks for posting it, I'll try and read it sometime.
On a personal note: I do know that school can be a horrible place. It can also be a huge time wasting exercise. I intensely disliked it. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience there, schooling can be particularly distressing because it's an experience forced upon you at a young age. I hope you are able to work through your problems.
A few weeks ago, at a local school (in Japan), a teacher beat a child in an after school class with a Kendo stick. The child was in hospital for a month. Very bad things happen at schools...
But... these are all single data points. And I honestly want to understand the wider picture.
I can't understand why are you arguing for school if you didn't like it at all? Do you honestly think you're so unique that everybody else has different experience? Because many of us don't.
I think that home schooling is a basic human right, just like choosing where to live and what job to take. That's because we are human and not ants. School for which there are no alternatives is a small Gulag camp.
I think it's possible that other students had a different experience to me. I think it's possible that other students would have been much worse off without going to school.
I'd like to see more data, to better understand the situation.
Would you be willing to elaborate on why the state should run schools? I am probably as extreme the other way as it is possible to be, but I'd like to understand where you are coming from.
I was raised and schooled as a Catholic in the UK, and while that's nowhere near as malign as the religious groups mentioned in this article, the final paragraph really resonated with me. It wasn't until university that anyone questioned my beliefs. I patiently heard each argument out and responded with logical gymnastics (I now classify myself as a theological noncognitivist). It was only when a difficult event happened in my life that I began to really question my beliefs and they crumbled (a traumatic experience in itself).
The author is spot on when they say that there's nothing you can do to convince these people. The beliefs are so closely held that changing them has to come from the believer.
Complete misrepresentation of homeschooling based on one person's anecdotal experience.
"A single powerful person who is convinced of their own Rightness with no thought of introspection is dangerous."
Indeed.
Perhaps we'd be better served to stop vilifying an entire subset of the population and actually listen to the parents who have recognized that public education is broken and who are taking other measures to educate their children.
It seems to me however, from armchair reasoning, lacking any motivation to research this further, that the former version would dominate and be the more public version of homeschooling, given that it co-opts into a popular American agenda with a focused message and mission.
There is a number of usual Left wing talking points which advocate violating freedom of association and therefore don't fit the classical liberal or libertarian world view [1]. Two more grave errors:
>They know Trump is easily manipulated and will change his mind with the wind if it makes him feel more powerful and famous. Trump couldn’t care less about policy, a fact he’s made quite obvious.
This is a very strong claim to make about someone whose every move in the Office thus far has been promised and rehearsed during the campaign.
>The revolution has come and we are the resistance.
I find this claim funny given that the Left has overtook the universities, the media, and Hollywood, and did so quite often using the tactics outlined in Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky [2]. (Even Hillary Clinton wrote about Alinsky in her thesis [3].) Only with the rise of the Internet could this stranglehold of power be challenged, was challenged, and Trump won.
I'm not the person you're responding to but I thought it was a good article. I've only known two people who were homeschooled, and one is an atheist while the other was Christian last time I checked, but not particularly religious, so it was interesting and disheartening to see what goes on in a fundamentalist Christian homeschooled environment.
I didn't notice the misandrist pins for sale until it was pointed out but I can't say I like the idea of wearing pins that espouse disdain or prejudice against someone for their gender, or any other reason for that matter. Hopefully this doesn't count as deflection?
I guess that's a feminist (probably "far-left feminist") virtue signal - similar to the "I bathe in male tears" tshirts that some self-proclaimed feminists proudly wear.
(This of course doesn't make it any less despicable.)
So... are we going to see any kind of evidence for this? Who's the editor? Who fact-checked the story? Or is a first person story by a political activist on a political website what we call "news" now?
