Excellent to offer a comment on the Proper Separation of CULTURAL ISSUES Where FREEDOM should apply , from the domain of Governmenal EQUALITY also in Justice) is Appropriate and the proper domain, and the Third Domain of ECONOMICS where fairness and Brotherly sharing should exist, not the Golden Rule: ," who has theost Gold, gets to.make the rules" and whomever has little money, must be slave to the Wealthy! which is our problem in this capitalistic and Corporatological Nation. Thank you for properly representing that Democracy that values Freedom must remove ALL restrictions from What We Think and how we experience and choose to interpret Art, Science, Education, Medicine and Religious beliefs.
"Unfortunately, the line is nowhere near where the Justices are busy searching for it. They’ve lost the bigger picture, as we all have. The bigger picture — the more profound principle we all need to find again — is freedom of thought."🔥🔥🔥
Really Seth? Why do teachers have to force families to learn the school's choice of sex education? I don't want my child to go to school to learn how to perform fellatio. Yes, that's what schools are teaching. Before the absurdity of the Supreme Court case we have the absurdity of what schools are forcing parents and children to take.
Hey Blanca - I think we're in agreement, but that the implications of my argument just aren't fully clear. Right now, we have very limited educational choices - for many, the only choice is public education, which is standardized, it's the same for everyone. And so, even though everyone has totally different ideas of what should be taught and when, we're all forced to accept the same curriculum. If you like that curriculum, great, but if you don't, tough luck: Your kid has to learn those things.
All that supreme court justices are doing is carving out a small exemption for a handful of religious parents. They're saying "Well these parents have a legitimate concern about these specific books, and because they're religious they should be able to opt-out. In this moment, in this specific case, they should be able to choose."
My point is that everyone should be able to choose all the time. If you don't like how one school is teaching sex education, you should be able to take your child to a different school. There should be school choice. If the government gave every child a voucher to use at the school of their choice, many more schools would pop up - religious schools, remedial schools, wilderness schools, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Waldorf schools, Democracy schools, etc. etc. There would be far more diversity in educational philosophy. And parents could homeschool or help create larger schools that meet their own educational goals.
I have been wintering in Florida where these issues have become the hot-button for all manor of raucous civil (and non-civil ) debate. This article and comments frame the discussion well, from my point of view.
It has been in my mind that I taught at a school where nature-based and ancient, Christian celebrations took place. Even in the 80’s there was concern among some parents that we were teaching religion, to the point that efforts were made to mitigate the content or provide for an opt-out.
Reflecting on my knowledge of the outcome, I’d say that if we were teaching religion, we were doing a pretty poor job. Among the graduates and parents I know, there is precious little Christian religiosity. I have come to believe that the effects of education are more subtle and only a part of the experience and learning in young lives. Reading books that feature only normative social situations does not produce a homogenous population of adults. Obvious?
In Florida there is fear (exactly the right word) that the very existence of, or exposure to, atypical persons constitutes “grooming.” Absolute baloney! If that were so, all the 1500 students that I was privileged to teach over 25 years would be old, bald, white, upper-middle class progressives.
My heart aches for the children. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion.
Those are great points, Nick, thanks for making them. Yeah, I think our collective imagination for how education works - what effects a certain teaching will have - are pretty far off the mark. And this is why the whole question around coercion doesn't make much sense. Yeah, we can imagine a kind of strong indoctrination that's fear-based (for instance, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia), but most education is kind of just messy and no one knows what the outcomes will be.
That said, I do think (and I suspect you might also) that there is nonetheless an actual spectrum between freedom and coercion. As Rudolf Steiner describes in the lectures to the Waldorf teachers - a teacher should learn as much as they can about the topic they're teaching, about child development, etc., but then they should strive to let it all go when they stand in front of the child and instead simply ask "What does this unique individual need from me in this moment to unfold their own true being?" (That's obviously not an exact quote, but it's how I understand it.) But even with this way of striving towards freedom and away from coercion in the classroom, teachers still shouldn't be forced to teach this way. It wouldn't make any sense. Teachers have to be free to teach how they're inspired to teach, and hopefully they can work towards greater and greater freedom in their teaching.
I agree with your case for the noble ethics of “freedom of thought” so that parents are supported in the multiplicity of views that actually exist. An enormous uplift to the science and art of teaching - the dignity and creativity in the teaching profession - is an additional benefit to centering pedagogical multiplicity over the standardization blob
The controversy is whether parents have the right to decide what 'their kids' should be able to read. As a new parent, Seth--don't you want that right? Wouldn't you and your wife be the most qualified to make that decision? Of course, you would be. However, there's a larger issue here that needs to be addressed: It' the gay / straight divide.
Every human being is brought into existence through a heterosexual act. Whether conception occurs through in vitro fertilization or the old fashion way, it is the pairing of opposites that facilitates the incarnation of the ego. Children need to have this affirmed, especially in the first seven years of life. Heterosexuality need not apologize to or take a back seat to homosexuality. The latter is appropriate to be introduced to children after the second seven period of life, during puberty. But it's not appropriate for children before adolescence. Homosexuality--in private, was wrongfully criminalized for centuries. However, what has replaced it is the proselytizing of homosexuality aimed at children. In most major cities, during gay pride parades, men can expose themselves to kids and get away with it. They get a free pass as local decency laws are waved in their favor. In Russia, there are no gay pride parades in Moscow. However, homosexuality is not illegal-- [from MS Bing CoPilot]
"Homosexuality itself is not illegal in Russia; same-sex sexual activity has been decriminalized since 1993."
What is illegal is the display of homosexuality in front of children. Gay men in Russia are free to engage in it, in privacy, with other men. In this regard, their rights are protected.
Gay parents have called for drag queen story times for their children at public libraries across the country. If their children want to have a same sex family of their own, they will have to turn to heterosexuality either through adoption, a test tube and a petri dish, or 'the old-fashioned way'. There's no getting around it. As Rudolf Steiner pointed out: If men could have children without women, no two would be the same. Men would reproduce their diversity in the extreme. If women could have children--without men, their offspring would all look alike. It was a good thing we were never stuck with either possibility.
Btw, marriages should only be recognized for the procreation and the raising of children. Marriage licenses should be revokable, if after a period of say--10 or 15 years, no children are produced or adopted. We give married couples a break due to their burden of raising children which in the end is beneficial (hopefully) to society. I knew a couple married for 10 years who were referred to as 'Dinks'--Double Income / No Kids. An inability to have children was not their problem. They were having too much fun enjoying the financial benefits of marriage without the hassle of buying diapers. A civil union would have been more appropriate for the reality of their relationship. After ten years without kids, their marriage should have defaulted to a Civil Union, and with it--their ability to file their taxes jointly. If a couple, gay or straight, has no intention of raising children, a CU would be appropriate in protecting their legal rights.
Hey Mark - thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I disagree that the "gay/straight divide" is the larger issue. It's clearly a significant issue, and everyone has their own thoughts about it, but my point it that if we want to step back from the brink of social and political chaos, then we're going to have to recognize that freedom of thought is a higher priority. We'll have to let people have their own thoughts about it. (And maybe you didn't mean it was "larger" in the sense of being more important, but that's I understood what you wrote.)
And just for the record, I'm not a new parent. I don't have any children, but yes, if I did I would have the right to decide what they read, as I point out in the article.
One other thing: Marriage, in my mind, shouldn't be treated particularly different than education, at least in principle. People should be free to marry who they want, just as they should be free to educate their children how they want. Through the act of marriage, people are trying to recognize and form a spiritual union. This is obviously their decision and no one else's. How the government relates to it - how it classifies those people, the words it uses like "marriage" or "civil union," whether it offers tax breaks, etc., is a whole another matter. It probably shouldn't use the term "marriage" at all, because it confuses things. It doesn't have the power, the capacity, to actually recognize a true marriage. Marriage is a spiritual act, and the state can't judge the validity of it. They can of course recognize that two people have joined their lives together, and maybe they need to publicly recognize this for some reason (I can't think why), so maybe the term "civil union" would be best for all state recognized unions. But however the state relates to marriage, it definitely shouldn't be influencing whether people get married or not. People's decisions shouldn't be influenced by whether they'll get tax breaks or not.
Excellent to offer a comment on the Proper Separation of CULTURAL ISSUES Where FREEDOM should apply , from the domain of Governmenal EQUALITY also in Justice) is Appropriate and the proper domain, and the Third Domain of ECONOMICS where fairness and Brotherly sharing should exist, not the Golden Rule: ," who has theost Gold, gets to.make the rules" and whomever has little money, must be slave to the Wealthy! which is our problem in this capitalistic and Corporatological Nation. Thank you for properly representing that Democracy that values Freedom must remove ALL restrictions from What We Think and how we experience and choose to interpret Art, Science, Education, Medicine and Religious beliefs.
What more would you suggest that I omitted?
"Unfortunately, the line is nowhere near where the Justices are busy searching for it. They’ve lost the bigger picture, as we all have. The bigger picture — the more profound principle we all need to find again — is freedom of thought."🔥🔥🔥
Really Seth? Why do teachers have to force families to learn the school's choice of sex education? I don't want my child to go to school to learn how to perform fellatio. Yes, that's what schools are teaching. Before the absurdity of the Supreme Court case we have the absurdity of what schools are forcing parents and children to take.
Hey Blanca - I think we're in agreement, but that the implications of my argument just aren't fully clear. Right now, we have very limited educational choices - for many, the only choice is public education, which is standardized, it's the same for everyone. And so, even though everyone has totally different ideas of what should be taught and when, we're all forced to accept the same curriculum. If you like that curriculum, great, but if you don't, tough luck: Your kid has to learn those things.
All that supreme court justices are doing is carving out a small exemption for a handful of religious parents. They're saying "Well these parents have a legitimate concern about these specific books, and because they're religious they should be able to opt-out. In this moment, in this specific case, they should be able to choose."
My point is that everyone should be able to choose all the time. If you don't like how one school is teaching sex education, you should be able to take your child to a different school. There should be school choice. If the government gave every child a voucher to use at the school of their choice, many more schools would pop up - religious schools, remedial schools, wilderness schools, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Waldorf schools, Democracy schools, etc. etc. There would be far more diversity in educational philosophy. And parents could homeschool or help create larger schools that meet their own educational goals.
I agree with you 100%. Thanks for writing back.
I have been wintering in Florida where these issues have become the hot-button for all manor of raucous civil (and non-civil ) debate. This article and comments frame the discussion well, from my point of view.
It has been in my mind that I taught at a school where nature-based and ancient, Christian celebrations took place. Even in the 80’s there was concern among some parents that we were teaching religion, to the point that efforts were made to mitigate the content or provide for an opt-out.
Reflecting on my knowledge of the outcome, I’d say that if we were teaching religion, we were doing a pretty poor job. Among the graduates and parents I know, there is precious little Christian religiosity. I have come to believe that the effects of education are more subtle and only a part of the experience and learning in young lives. Reading books that feature only normative social situations does not produce a homogenous population of adults. Obvious?
In Florida there is fear (exactly the right word) that the very existence of, or exposure to, atypical persons constitutes “grooming.” Absolute baloney! If that were so, all the 1500 students that I was privileged to teach over 25 years would be old, bald, white, upper-middle class progressives.
My heart aches for the children. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion.
Those are great points, Nick, thanks for making them. Yeah, I think our collective imagination for how education works - what effects a certain teaching will have - are pretty far off the mark. And this is why the whole question around coercion doesn't make much sense. Yeah, we can imagine a kind of strong indoctrination that's fear-based (for instance, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia), but most education is kind of just messy and no one knows what the outcomes will be.
That said, I do think (and I suspect you might also) that there is nonetheless an actual spectrum between freedom and coercion. As Rudolf Steiner describes in the lectures to the Waldorf teachers - a teacher should learn as much as they can about the topic they're teaching, about child development, etc., but then they should strive to let it all go when they stand in front of the child and instead simply ask "What does this unique individual need from me in this moment to unfold their own true being?" (That's obviously not an exact quote, but it's how I understand it.) But even with this way of striving towards freedom and away from coercion in the classroom, teachers still shouldn't be forced to teach this way. It wouldn't make any sense. Teachers have to be free to teach how they're inspired to teach, and hopefully they can work towards greater and greater freedom in their teaching.
I agree with your case for the noble ethics of “freedom of thought” so that parents are supported in the multiplicity of views that actually exist. An enormous uplift to the science and art of teaching - the dignity and creativity in the teaching profession - is an additional benefit to centering pedagogical multiplicity over the standardization blob
The controversy is whether parents have the right to decide what 'their kids' should be able to read. As a new parent, Seth--don't you want that right? Wouldn't you and your wife be the most qualified to make that decision? Of course, you would be. However, there's a larger issue here that needs to be addressed: It' the gay / straight divide.
Every human being is brought into existence through a heterosexual act. Whether conception occurs through in vitro fertilization or the old fashion way, it is the pairing of opposites that facilitates the incarnation of the ego. Children need to have this affirmed, especially in the first seven years of life. Heterosexuality need not apologize to or take a back seat to homosexuality. The latter is appropriate to be introduced to children after the second seven period of life, during puberty. But it's not appropriate for children before adolescence. Homosexuality--in private, was wrongfully criminalized for centuries. However, what has replaced it is the proselytizing of homosexuality aimed at children. In most major cities, during gay pride parades, men can expose themselves to kids and get away with it. They get a free pass as local decency laws are waved in their favor. In Russia, there are no gay pride parades in Moscow. However, homosexuality is not illegal-- [from MS Bing CoPilot]
"Homosexuality itself is not illegal in Russia; same-sex sexual activity has been decriminalized since 1993."
What is illegal is the display of homosexuality in front of children. Gay men in Russia are free to engage in it, in privacy, with other men. In this regard, their rights are protected.
Gay parents have called for drag queen story times for their children at public libraries across the country. If their children want to have a same sex family of their own, they will have to turn to heterosexuality either through adoption, a test tube and a petri dish, or 'the old-fashioned way'. There's no getting around it. As Rudolf Steiner pointed out: If men could have children without women, no two would be the same. Men would reproduce their diversity in the extreme. If women could have children--without men, their offspring would all look alike. It was a good thing we were never stuck with either possibility.
Btw, marriages should only be recognized for the procreation and the raising of children. Marriage licenses should be revokable, if after a period of say--10 or 15 years, no children are produced or adopted. We give married couples a break due to their burden of raising children which in the end is beneficial (hopefully) to society. I knew a couple married for 10 years who were referred to as 'Dinks'--Double Income / No Kids. An inability to have children was not their problem. They were having too much fun enjoying the financial benefits of marriage without the hassle of buying diapers. A civil union would have been more appropriate for the reality of their relationship. After ten years without kids, their marriage should have defaulted to a Civil Union, and with it--their ability to file their taxes jointly. If a couple, gay or straight, has no intention of raising children, a CU would be appropriate in protecting their legal rights.
Mark
Hey Mark - thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I disagree that the "gay/straight divide" is the larger issue. It's clearly a significant issue, and everyone has their own thoughts about it, but my point it that if we want to step back from the brink of social and political chaos, then we're going to have to recognize that freedom of thought is a higher priority. We'll have to let people have their own thoughts about it. (And maybe you didn't mean it was "larger" in the sense of being more important, but that's I understood what you wrote.)
And just for the record, I'm not a new parent. I don't have any children, but yes, if I did I would have the right to decide what they read, as I point out in the article.
One other thing: Marriage, in my mind, shouldn't be treated particularly different than education, at least in principle. People should be free to marry who they want, just as they should be free to educate their children how they want. Through the act of marriage, people are trying to recognize and form a spiritual union. This is obviously their decision and no one else's. How the government relates to it - how it classifies those people, the words it uses like "marriage" or "civil union," whether it offers tax breaks, etc., is a whole another matter. It probably shouldn't use the term "marriage" at all, because it confuses things. It doesn't have the power, the capacity, to actually recognize a true marriage. Marriage is a spiritual act, and the state can't judge the validity of it. They can of course recognize that two people have joined their lives together, and maybe they need to publicly recognize this for some reason (I can't think why), so maybe the term "civil union" would be best for all state recognized unions. But however the state relates to marriage, it definitely shouldn't be influencing whether people get married or not. People's decisions shouldn't be influenced by whether they'll get tax breaks or not.
Idiocy--the courts have no business in the cultural sphere of life to which education belongs.