Presuppositionalism
Sep. 1st, 2004 10:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsTwo articles caught my eye this week, and combined together they produce a kind of twisted irony that makes me wonder if the critical facilities of the writers ever engage on their own prejudices. The writers of the two articles have no reason to have ever heard of each other, but their ideas clash is my brain with entertaining resonances.
The first is a letter to the editor of the Grand Forks Herald in North Dakota. The writer, Mark Broden, following an article on a "secular summer camp," asserts that "eight-year-old boys and girls cannot make the decision to be atheists themselves" and therefore "their parents are forcing their ideas on their children."
The second is an article by Jonathan Rosenblum in the Jerusalem Post, discussing the recent Pledge of Allegiance case in the United States. One of the critical points in that case was that the father, an atheist, felt personally injured by the pledge because, as he put it, "the government tells her there is a God, and the father tells her there is not." Rosenblum asserts that "one of the purposes of education is to make children unlike their parents."
In both cases, the authors are asserting a kind of presuppositionalism; this is the religious belief that all people know the truth (as described according to the presuppositionalist's belief system) and that any other belief system one espouses is, in fact, a lie or a deception. The parents at the distinctly non-religious summer camp aren't just transmitting their values to their children; they're indoctrinating their children into their rebellion against the Christian being both the parents and their children really know down in their hearts is lord of all and yadda yadda.
In the second case, the author makes the case that the child in this needs exposure to the truth (in his case, Judaism) because it is the duty of the school system to "make the child unlike his parents."
Everyone got this? In one case, it is the duty of the system to affect a child in one direction, in the other, it is the duty of the system to *not* affect the child in the other.
There are days when I wish people understood that their religion is not merely a convenient nexus around which to hang one's prejudices.
The first is a letter to the editor of the Grand Forks Herald in North Dakota. The writer, Mark Broden, following an article on a "secular summer camp," asserts that "eight-year-old boys and girls cannot make the decision to be atheists themselves" and therefore "their parents are forcing their ideas on their children."
The second is an article by Jonathan Rosenblum in the Jerusalem Post, discussing the recent Pledge of Allegiance case in the United States. One of the critical points in that case was that the father, an atheist, felt personally injured by the pledge because, as he put it, "the government tells her there is a God, and the father tells her there is not." Rosenblum asserts that "one of the purposes of education is to make children unlike their parents."
In both cases, the authors are asserting a kind of presuppositionalism; this is the religious belief that all people know the truth (as described according to the presuppositionalist's belief system) and that any other belief system one espouses is, in fact, a lie or a deception. The parents at the distinctly non-religious summer camp aren't just transmitting their values to their children; they're indoctrinating their children into their rebellion against the Christian being both the parents and their children really know down in their hearts is lord of all and yadda yadda.
In the second case, the author makes the case that the child in this needs exposure to the truth (in his case, Judaism) because it is the duty of the school system to "make the child unlike his parents."
Everyone got this? In one case, it is the duty of the system to affect a child in one direction, in the other, it is the duty of the system to *not* affect the child in the other.
There are days when I wish people understood that their religion is not merely a convenient nexus around which to hang one's prejudices.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
So....
Date: 2004-09-01 10:46 am (UTC)Got links?
Date: 2004-09-01 11:03 am (UTC)Re: Got links?
Date: 2004-09-01 02:00 pm (UTC)The original letter appears to have fallen out of date, but a response (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/opinion/9497679.htm) to it is available.
Hmmm...
Date: 2004-09-01 11:33 am (UTC)The issue of whether (public) schools have the right to teach something in conflict with parental beliefs is wide-reaching, and the author may well have been offering a commentary on the general notion. In particular, this has been raised wrt evolution, science in general, sex ed, etc. I could even imagine a scenario where the parent bringing the suit was trying to cast some light on this broader issue.
After all, if school can't teach anything in opposition to the parent's view, then school really can't teach anything at all, as there is some wacko that will be "offended" by basically anything. P.E. because of the emphasis on physical prowess and the nudity in the showers... Co-ed math because girls don't need it... Grammar because it teaches conformity... Literature for obvious reasons... History becuase it neglects women and minorities, and Herstory because it is revisionist feminism...
Well, you get the idea. Whether schools may contradict parental views is a relevant and important issue, worth public dialog and exploration in the courts.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2004-09-01 01:55 pm (UTC)I have no doubt that Rubenstein was conflating the non-teaching of religious instruction in public schools with the teaching of philosophical naturalism; he as much says so in his article (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1093489820699&apage=1). What I found preciously ironic was this sudden breakdown between the screaming right-wingers on the one hand who claim it is the duty of education to make students "different from their parents", and the screaming right-wingers on the other hand who claim that it's their duty to prevent education from doing that to their kids.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-01 01:20 pm (UTC)So run for school board, get like-minded people to do so also, and make sure that this is taught. It's probably the most effective way to get our freedom back.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 08:06 am (UTC)I second technoshaman's comment. A large part of the reason that I left local politics was that it had become a game of choosing between very different, but equally ugly, extremes, and the people worth working with on things like this never supported one another, or at least didn't stick around for very long.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 08:23 am (UTC)