A poster at Pharyngula pointed this out - apparently the APA has ruled on Intelligent Design:
"APA ADOPTS POLICY STATEMENT OPPOSING THE TEACHING OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS SCIENTIFIC THEORY
"WASHINGTON, DC—The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has adopted a resolution opposing the teaching of intelligent design as scientific theory and stating that teaching intelligent design as science undermines the quality of both science education and science literacy.
"The APA Council released the following statement after adopting the resolution:
“While we are respectful of religion and individuals’ right to their own religious beliefs, we also recognize that science and religion are separate and distinct. For a theory to be taught as science it must be testable, supported by empirical evidence and subject to disconfirmation. Thus, intelligent design lacks a basis in science.”
"In adopting the resolution, APA reaffirmed its 1982 Resolution on Creationism which stated that “creationism does not conform to the criteria of science.” In adopting the current resolution, APA joins a number of other science and education organizations that have taken similar positions including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and the National Association of Biology Teachers.
"Full text of the 2007 APA Resolution on the Teaching of Intelligent Design can be found at: http://www.apa.org/releases/IntelligentDesign.pdf 
Questions and Answers about APA’s position on intelligent design
"Q: Why is APA taking a position on intelligent design?
"A: APA’s position is on the teaching of intelligent design as scientific theory. The Association believes that teaching any concept as science requires empirical evidence and the ability to test the concept using the scientific method. The teaching of concepts as science in the absence of such criteria undermines all science education and the goals of science literacy.
"APA’s position is that all students should develop an understanding of what constitutes good science and that the teaching of intelligent design as scientific theory weakens such understanding.
"Q: What about the teaching of intelligent design as religious theory?
"A: APA is very mindful that religion and science are two very different pursuits. We fully support any individual’s religious choices and beliefs.
The APA resolution speaks to the absence of scientific methods or evidence to support the teaching of intelligent design as science. It is not meant to question the legitimacy of intelligent design as a religious philosophy."
This will no doubt be assaulted with charges of conspiracy, shouts of 'Foul!', and all other forms of dour sour grapes. I've actually heard accusations of the APA as being a left-wing political propaganda machine.
That was of course, right after they released studies showing that there was absolutely no proof that gay parents were any worse than straight ones.
Wish I was kidding.
Anyways, can I get a HELL YES?
39 comments:
From a psychological standpoint, the APA's position is actually quite bad. It's saying that religion and science aren't just "two very different pursuits," but that they're two different kinds of thinking that can be sustained at the same time even when they lead to contradictory conclusions.
The APA resolution "is not meant to question the legitimacy of intelligent design as a religious philosophy." That implies that facts and evidence are necessary while you're in the science classroom, but as soon as you go to church you can turn off your mind.
When psychologists promote schizophrenia, that's not a good thing.
gary - I couldn't disagree more.
People compartmentalize constantly. It's not a bad thing. Your behavior at work is most likely very different than your social or dating life - you have to keep some areas separate from others.
Imagine some ancient caveman deciding he wants to boff another caveman - right in the middle of hunting a mammoth. I'd guess that would be frowned upon.
That implies that facts and evidence are necessary while you're in the science classroom, but as soon as you go to church you can turn off your mind.
That hardly means that anyone's going to ever do that just because the APA says so. Though I wonder about religion shutting off minds.
In a public school system, we don't throw multiple subjects into 1 classroom. Usually, teachers specialize, & keep classes distinct from 1 another.
So no, it's not even schizotypal. It's just sense.
Science isn't about philosophy, it's about evidence & facts.
ID is the complete reverse. Teaching it alongside evolution would be the more schizophrenic maneuver.
Ka
Well hell yeah, I'll give you a HELL YES!
But, I do agree a 100% with Gary! I may only be a dog psychologist, but even I can see the harm in teaching children contradictions. In reality humans are very similar to dogs in their learning and behaviors(at least from what I see). You can NOT train a dog with contraditions, it will only confuse the dog and cause more unwanted behaviors.
My own kids have many christian friends and it is very clear that a lot of them are confused and not really happy and comfortable with themselves. And some of the stuff they do and talk about very carelessly is ALARMING and SCARY! One kid told us how his father and him like to flood out gofers and them stomp them too death when the come up. How can you love life when one thinks so little of the life around them? I admit, gofers are a problem here, but come on there are more humane ways to deal with them.
My daughter has a christian friend that comes to school quite often with a nice big red slap mark across her face and this child told my daughter that her father only slaps her cause he loves her and wants her to behave. I don't get that concept, I love you and heres a slap to prove it.
And this list can go on and on. I know one thing though, my kids christian friends only make my kids appreciate the parents they have even more. It is nice when your kids come to you and tell you how happy and lucky they are to have parents that dont beleive in crazy shit.
SNTC - No, I still disagree.
ID falls under the venue of philosophy: 'Why are we here?' Evolution falls under the heading, 'How did we get here?'
& humans do indeed compartmentalize: we don't have sex while we're driving (unless we want to end up wrapped around a telephone pole) - & you teach an English class separated from a science class, or a home economics class.
It's difficult to check a religious/philosophical bent at the door.
Note the APA distinctly qualified this: The APA resolution speaks to the absence of scientific methods or evidence to support the teaching of intelligent design as science. It is not meant to question the legitimacy of intelligent design as a religious philosophy.
While I agree you don't teach contradictions to children, I feel gary's point is a non sequitor.
KA
I was agreeing with this comment from Gary...
"From a psychological standpoint"...
I'm asuming he is in the psychology field and is giving his perspective. While the APA has to tiptoe around the religious, anyone who can see the true extent of damage that their ideaolgy causes, should say so.
That is just how I took his comment anyway. I could be reading him wrong? Sometimes my attention span isnt what it used to be. Multitasking gets a little harder as I get older. lol
While I agree you don't teach contradictions to children, I feel gary's point is a non sequitor.
Consistancy is key to parenting. I agree with Amy. Mixed messages are very confusing to young children, especially, that haven't developed reasoning skills yet.
My kids go to public school and my son is in the 4th grade and my daughter is in the 2nd grade.
Contradiction has not really come up yet. When the time comes for my children to learn about evolution, they are going to learn it. I wouldn't be doing them any favors by not allowing them to learn it. It's important for their critical thinking skills to have all the evidence before I jump in and start confusing them with having to make a choice between the creation story and evolution. They can make that choice later.
SNTC - I think Gary was inferring that there was some sort of enforced partition of POVs. I was pointing out that we partition on a regular basis. We regularly keep (some of us, at least) our political and/or religious opinions to ourselves at the workplace (or at the dinner table, some of us), we don't exercise when we drive a car, or stump on an issue in the middle of a grocery store. Time & place, & all that.
Sadie:
Consistancy is key to parenting. I agree with Amy. Mixed messages are very confusing to young children, especially, that haven't developed reasoning skills yet.
I agree too: the key point is that a lotta creationists/ID'ers are trying to drive a 'wedge' into the classrooms by claiming the 2 'theories' should be taught in tandem, letting the child decide.
It's important for their critical thinking skills to have all the evidence before I jump in and start confusing them with having to make a choice between the creation story and evolution. They can make that choice later.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.
Ka I agree with what you are saying, but we are talking about children. And children do not have the skills to seperate their lives as well as adults and are at a very imporatant stage in learning critical thinking. They will learn about evolution in schools much like they are now(at least where I live now)but when they get home or go to church they will be told something else and sometimes told that their teachers are liars.(that goes on where I live too) This is very confusing for them and can shut down their ability to think critically. That is why richard Dawkins is so firm in his stance that religious indoctination is child abuse. Whether it is done through ID or staight out old school fear mongering, it is still indoctrination and it still can interfear with childrens ability to think critically.
Indoctrination--
"In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.
This was from a petition that went around in the UK against religious indoctrination and my point in bringing it up here is that Atheist parents run the same risk of indoctrinating their young children.
Ka said...
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.
Sweet.
SNTC - sorry, I was unclear.
My point being, is that we partition in our daily lives. & yes, children aren't as capable. What I was getting at, is that specific subjects are kept separate from 1 another. Civics, Social Studies, Math, etc. As such, ID is a philosophy (if it can be called that), not a science, & should be kept away (at arm's length, if not farther) from the science classroom.
sadie:
This was from a petition that went around in the UK against religious indoctrination and my point in bringing it up here is that Atheist parents run the same risk of indoctrinating their young children.
Here's where the line blurs.
What, then, are the parents allowed to teach their children? If a child learns 1 thing, & goes home to learn another, completely contrary thing, what then?
The religious upbringing (or the lack thereof) is completely in the parents' venue. The State can't bring them up (unless they're a ward of such).
OTH, most parents don't have the time (& energy) to become experts on subjects: they then defer to the school to teach them what the consensus of experts say is science, philosophy, etc. Unless there's demonstrable harm to said child.
Ka
I agree with you completely and I know it doesnt help that I have been very emotional lately due to my activism in childrens rights. How can anyone not, when you hear all the stories the statistics? One minute your angy as hell the next your crying. Man, Its an emotional roler coaster! They say it takes a little to get used to, but if you get too used to it, its a bad sign. Anyway, I will try not to be so emotional, so not to confuse you. I tend to forget that emotions can confuse men sometimes. ;) lol
SNTC - I assume you're talking about the latest news from India? Turns out there's a whole lotta ugly shit going on out there in re: kids.
Anyway, I will try not to be so emotional, so not to confuse you. I tend to forget that emotions can confuse men sometimes. ;)
LMAO. Don't sweat it, doll.
This is a very important decision, a valuable decision. ID belongs in theology - christian apologetics, not in a science class.
Here's where the line blurs.
What, then, are the parents allowed to teach their children? If a child learns 1 thing, & goes home to learn another, completely contrary thing, what then?
What a child learns is up to the parents. If the school is crossing boundries, it's up to the parents to communicate with the school and if the parents are crossing boundries, it's up to the school to communicate with the parents and the state has no business getting involved unless there is reason to believe there is abuse going on in either the school or in the home.
Bottom line is: the parents need to be actively involved at school to know what's being taught and then have open discussions with their kids. I always leave the heavy spiritual stuff at the door for a later time when i feel the kids can handle it.
sadie - you say:
I always leave the heavy spiritual stuff at the door for a later time when i feel the kids can handle it.
There are plenty of folks that want to bring it in - Kansas, Dover, etc. I read somewhere that Idaho might be next.
It boils down to 'let's put science to a vote', basically.
If someone in your hometown starts this crapola, will you step up to bat, & put a stop to it?
If someone in your hometown starts this crapola, will you step up to bat, & put a stop to it?
Of course. It's the classic struggle of the "It Takes A Village" mentality that drives me insane. Nobody knows whats best for my kids better than I do and I will decide when my kids are ready to grapple with creation or evolution.
If evolution is what they teach in school as fact--then it will be so. My kids will learn it.
I learned it and I have been able to form my own opinions. I'm still forming opinions. It is folly for people to think that kids are incapable of developing their own beliefs as they grow and mature. Christian parents do not need to brainwash their children.
Sure, my kids learn by the example my husband and I set for them. They go to church with us. They go to our friend's houses but I don't see how this is any different than parents who raise up their kids in an Atheistic home--you're talking about it in front of them, leading by example, hanging out with people who are like minded--it's all good.
KA said; " I assume you're talking about the latest news from India? Turns out there's a whole lotta ugly shit going on out there in re: kids."
----
Don't get me started on India! Right now I am letting Amnesty take care of that. I am a BIG supporter of Amesty and have been for a long time now. That is why I LOVE Systen of a Down, a rock band(I have all their CDs and my son and I have seen them in concert many times) dedicated to the cause of Amnesty.
Right now, I have been campaining to stop judges bogus claims of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Judges have been ignoring childrens cries from help claiming that their mothers are brainwashing them and quite often are giving abused children over to the custody of their abusers.
I have also been researching bogus claims of satanic ritual abuse syndrome. There is absolutely no evidence for it, yet we have had many witch hunts over it. But, the one thing that does exist is christian ritual abuse and EVERYONE is turning a blind eye! The statistics show that the majority of abused children are from christian homes and nobody wants to acknowlege it little lone do something about it. GRRRRRRR!!!!!!
What drives me insane is the consistent misrepresentation of sensible phrase which simlpy means that we all have a stake in the rearing of our children. We live in a society where individual freedom is extremely important, but, to allow chidren to be viewed as the absolute property of the parents is a moral abdication.
You are wrong. Even I know what is best for your children: education in ALL religious dogma so that they can make their own decisions based on critical thinking and best evidence. If they have any sense they will come to atheism as the only possible answer, not some fanciful specter.
Sadie said: "Sure, my kids learn by the example my husband and I set for them. They go to church with us. They go to our friend's houses but I don't see how this is any different than parents who raise up their kids in an Atheistic home--you're talking about it in front of them, leading by example, hanging out with people who are like minded--it's all good."
-----
While I will agree with you about children learning by their parents examples. Atheist families don't have many other atheist friends hanging around (at least we dont, we are a military family and are surounder by chistian zealots). We dont have a church to send our kids to to be indoctrinated and if your kids are going to church, they most certainly are being indoctrinated. We don't and really cant depend on our atheist leaders to sit our kids down and tell them all about atheism and nor would I want that. My son is 17 now and getting ready to graduate this year he is an atheist by choice. Yes, he had two atheist parents, but he has been around more christians and has even attended church with his friend many many times. I have never stopped him from learning or hearing the gospels, but I also sat down with him and incouraged him to think critically about it and reason and logic prevailed. My older daughter is 14 and has just decided that she is an atheist. She has also attended church with friends. My youngest is 11 and she has also attended church with friends and she flat out told me it was the dumbest thing she had ever heard and couldnt understand how anyone could believe such absurd and impossible things. She wants nothing to do with it and is a little scared of christians now. I dont know what they told her, but she doesnt want to hang out with her christian friends much any more. She has one friend whoes parents are agnostic and that is the only person she wants to hang out with. I think for kids not being raised with the pressures of religion, religion will naturally make them uncomfortable.
That is just my experience anyway.
Amy
Remy
Ramen! I have also exposed my children to other religions while they were younger. I even had my girls placed in a pagan girl scout troop. They LOVE it! The troop leader is our friend to this very day. They learned about herbalism, goddess worship and yes even did a little spell casting for positive self-esteam.
We also have exposed them to buddhism, shamamism and the list goes on. Whatever we leared, we taught them or exposed them to it, but ALWAYS encouraged them to think critically!
remy - who exactly is wrong? Sadie? Me? Whom?
I find Sadie to be remarkably open-minded, even...dare I say it? Liberal in her views.
I agree w/the SC on this: it's entirely on the parents to teach their kids about religion (or the lack thereof).
Until somebody establishes that religious upbringing is actual abuse, that'll have to stand.
KA:
Sadie is wrong. On some matters she may well be liberal. SC?
I know that I am stepping on the sanctity of the Parents by suggesting that they may not know what's best for their offspring, but the knee-jerk acceptance of their authority irritates me.
The point I am making is that a society cannot turn a blind eye to ineffective parents. I see it every time I enter a school. Children ought to be given ALL the information available, from atheism to Zoroastrianism.
remy - SC = Supreme Court.
& giving children ALL the information available is simply going to confuse them: data overload.
We live in a society where individual freedom is extremely important, but, to allow chidren to be viewed as the absolute property of the parents is a moral abdication.
I don't recall her making any statement like that.
In fact, I read quite the opposite.
Ka
I think you are not getting our stance about religious indoctrination. I can't speak for Remy, but for me and many other well educated people in the field of psychology view religious indoctrination as child abuse.
Religious parents, while well meaning, do expose their children to indoctrination. Christian indoctrination tells children that a supernatural being created them and that they must follow this creaters every whim. It does seem harmless at first glance, but what it does is stop the child from questioning about their natural world and forces them to accept absurdities, impossibilties and even cruelties, as normal and good. My example about a couple of my kids christian friends was a good example about how religious indoctrination causes people to just accept cruel and inhumane behavior and to actually enjoy it without any thought what so ever.
A father and son using goffer stopming to bound is cruel inhumane and not very effective either and was done for the enjoyment. A girl that just accepts her fathers slaps of love as normal and her fault is not normal nor psychologically healthy. They were indoctrinated to eccept un-natural and un-normal events that will cause them not to be able to tell the difference all through life.
Amy
SNTC - No, I do understand your stances. The problem is, for 1 thing the general consensus (I think in the APA) is that it's acceptable, & not abuse. The other problem as I see it, is that for the majority, it's relatively benign. The larger portion of theistic parents are mostly liberal/cafe xtianity types. We can say, for instance, that Jeffrey Dahmer was raised in an evangelical enviro (daddy was a creationist), but for each of these examples, you can select millions of folks who came out all right, who are functional, loving parents.
& to stipulate religious upbringing as abuse that warrants intervention, in a country that specifically states in the 1st amendment 'freedom of religion', is too fraught w/peril in this day & age.
As for children being cruel(er), I say that goes more to the nature of the beast: kids are cruel. That's evolution at play.
While the system that has a hand in the child's upbringing is cogent, it's not the only factor involved.
& I sure as hell wouldn't want the state, or the freakin' village to step in, if I was raising a child.
The SC AND the ACLU recognize that the parents are the ones to raise the child as they see fit: unless the kid shows some serious maladjustments (Dahmer, case in point), it's really nobody's business. Best kept in the family.
& we've gone way overboard in this country anyways. We have instances where a Muslim family got their kids taken away because the dad patted the baby girl on the butt at a BB game, & another instance where SS wanted to take away a son from a mother for slapping her kid (said kid was going apeshit in a supermarket).
KA--
Interesting conversation.
:)
I find Sadie to be remarkably open-minded, even...dare I say it? Liberal in her views.
Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment and I'll confirm that I am liberal in most of my views. I think Jesus was liberal and radical in his views as well.
I think that understanding and respecting people's differences is the key to establishing your own opinions on issues.
This is why I spend equal time on Atheist blogs as well as Christian blogs. I feel that above all else, we are all humans that share this earth. My faith in God promotes finding the beauty in everyone. I refuse to look down on people or pass judgment on them. I especially think that is important for online communication. I don't know anyone beyond what I can gather from their comments so it's foolish to act like we know what a person is like is this kind of setting. It's also foolish to assume people are telling the truth 100% of the time. People lie to make themselves look a certain way, depending on their audience. I am especially leary of anonymous commenters that don't have a blog I can look at for myself. I'm the same here as I am at home (on my blog).
Anyways!
I agree w/the SC on this: it's entirely on the parents to teach their kids about religion (or the lack thereof).
Until somebody establishes that religious upbringing is actual abuse, that'll have to stand.
I can not speak for all Christians, nor do I feel the need to. I can say that being a Christian will not make you a good parent.
I believe the biggest tool for good parenting is common sense and unfortunately, it's not very common at all.
I know Christians that are horrible parents and I don't think that has anything to do with their faith or lack thereof because I also know plenty of good parents that are Christians. I know good Atheist parents and good agnostic parents. Again, I don't think it's the spirituality or not, that makes a good parent.
It's common sense and you either have it or you don't and it's hard to learn if you lack it.
I found this on an Atheist website dedicated to helping people that have been indoctrinated:
All religions work on the principle of exposing each new generation to a single world-view, to the exclusion of all others, in a repetitious and authorative manner. Doubts, as to the veracity of such ‘teachings’ are not encouraged, indeed, are not tolerated.
That's bullshit. Excuse my french. All religions do not *work* like that.
I know this for fact because I am surrounded by Christian parents that do not subscribe to that malarkey. Maybe some Christians do but I don't know anyone and that's MY experience, for what it's worth. Atheists that preach that crap as fact to their kids are bredding generations of ignorance and far more guilty of indoctrination themselves.
hmph.
*breeding*
don't know what >bredding means. Hate typos. Sorry.
sadie:
It's also foolish to assume people are telling the truth 100% of the time. People lie to make themselves look a certain way, depending on their audience.
I'm a WYSIWYG kinda guy: you can assume that I'm telling the truth 100% of the time. I fancy myself blaringly honest to a fault.
It's common sense and you either have it or you don't and it's hard to learn if you lack it.
Yeah, evolution sure doesn't favor the intelligentsia, that's for sure.
'I do not know why they call it common sense, since it is not so common' - Voltaire.
Atheists that preach that crap as fact to their kids are bredding generations of ignorance and far more guilty of indoctrination themselves.
Hmmm...maybe the word 'indoctrination' is ill-defined.
"The act of indoctrinating, or the condition of being indoctrinated; instruction in the rudiments and principles of any science or system of belief; information. Sir T. Browne. "
There's of course a pejorative.
But if we adhere to the strictest sense of the definition, we all indoctrinate our children to some degree, no?
But if we adhere to the strictest sense of the definition, we all indoctrinate our children to some degree, no?
Agree. And it should be so. It always has been.
KA Said:"to stipulate religious upbringing as abuse that warrants intervention, in a country that specifically states in the 1st amendment 'freedom of religion', is too fraught w/peril in this day & age."
----
I will concede on that. I don't even believe that intervention is a good idea. It would ony cause caos, confusion and hosility. I think education and science will eventually prevail, but that doesn't mean that religious beliefs should be above questioning and that includes whatever morals that stem from that belief. After all christianity has only benefitted and advanced to where it is today from the many free-thinkers of history that dared to question.
------
KA said:"& I sure as hell wouldn't want the state, or the freakin' village to step in, if I was raising a child.
The SC AND the ACLU recognize that the parents are the ones to raise the child as they see fit: unless the kid shows some serious maladjustments (Dahmer, case in point), it's really nobody's business. Best kept in the family."
-----
This is where I completely disagree. Our government has a moral abligation to protect children. If there is another proven more humane way to raise children, that premotes more stable and more productive children, then it is our governments responsibility to provide free access to classes that teach parents better ways to deal. For example there is scientific research that shows babies have a different cry for every need and every need has a universal cry. Every human baby has the exact same cry for a specific need. And studies further show that babies whoes cries and needs go un-heard and un-met, are more likely to become difficult children. Raising children from day one, is about comunication and if the comunication between mother and child is broken, the child grows frustrated and insecure. To keep the comunication going infants should be taught sign language. Many new mothers are having a HUGE success with this as well. Children are able to comunicate their needs and have less frustrations, tend to throw less fits, are more happy and more comforable with themselves. It is also well documented that the early Native Americans used sign language to comunicate with their infants. It worked for them and it works just as well now. And Yes, I firmly believe that our government is absolutly obligated to provide these life changing findings to the masses. I don't believe it should be forced, but readily avialable and DR.'s should be required to give EVERY new mother information about effective parenting skills. And in all reality most parents would be lining up to find better ways of raising their children with out hitting. No parent ever really feels good about themselves after hitting their child and that is a fact.
------
You said:" we've gone way overboard in this country anyways. We have instances where a Muslim family got their kids taken away because the dad patted the baby girl on the butt at a BB game, & another instance where SS wanted to take away a son from a mother for slapping her kid (said kid was going apeshit in a supermarket)."
----
First off, I don't know the details are about the guy patting his kid's butt, but if it made someone uncomfortable and someone turned them in.... I blieve it is our governmental obligation to at least investigate. I don't know enough about the case and not a lot of people I know are freaking out about a father patting their kid on the ass.
But what really got to me was that you are defending a parents right to smack their kid. It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable to hit a child! Parents only hit their kids out of frustration and never really feel OK about it afterwards. I know I never did and niether has any of the other parents I have talked to. I know, when my son was really young I was a spanker and guess what? It NEVER stopped him from doing it again. All I was doing was showing him that it was OK to hit when you are frustrated and it wasn't very effective. Hitting children hurts their self esteam and belittles them.
However, I dont think kids should be taken away from their parents for spanking or smacking, but I firmly believe that the courts should force parents that hit their kids to have to take parenting classes that teach them how to comunicate without hitting and that is what most parents want anyways. And a lot of states are already doing this and it is working and many parents are greatful for it, because it isn't natural to hit our children. Humans are the most comunitive species on this planet, that is what makes us human. Hitting dehumanizes the person being hit!
Now I will admit that the system is very flawed and many good parents are run through the ringer for nothing and the system has let more kids fall through the cracks than not. That is what child advicits are working on. The problem is that there are way too many politicians that can't think critically. Yet, they are the ones making all the rules. Which makes my want to say....Gee I wonder why so many rule makers can't think critically...and....damn how in the hell did they they slip by the masses??....
Amy
SNTC –
I will concede on that. I don't even believe that intervention is a good idea. It would ony cause caos, confusion and hosility. I think education and science will eventually prevail, but that doesn't mean that religious beliefs should be above questioning and that includes whatever morals that stem from that belief. After all christianity has only benefitted and advanced to where it is today from the many free-thinkers of history that dared to question.
Note that I’ve never said anything is above questioning.
This is where I completely disagree. Our government has a moral abligation to protect children. If there is another proven more humane way to raise children, that premotes more stable and more productive children, then it is our governments responsibility to provide free access to classes that teach parents better ways to deal. For example there is scientific research that shows babies have a different cry for every need and every need has a universal cry. Every human baby has the exact same cry for a specific need. And studies further show that babies whoes cries and needs go un-heard and un-met, are more likely to become difficult children. Raising children from day one, is about comunication and if the comunication between mother and child is broken, the child grows frustrated and insecure. To keep the comunication going infants should be taught sign language. Many new mothers are having a HUGE success with this as well. Children are able to comunicate their needs and have less frustrations, tend to throw less fits, are more happy and more comforable with themselves. It is also well documented that the early Native Americans used sign language to comunicate with their infants. It worked for them and it works just as well now. And Yes, I firmly believe that our government is absolutly obligated to provide these life changing findings to the masses. I don't believe it should be forced, but readily avialable and DR.'s should be required to give EVERY new mother information about effective parenting skills. And in all reality most parents would be lining up to find better ways of raising their children with out hitting. No parent ever really feels good about themselves after hitting their child and that is a fact.
Wait: sign language? I’ll have to see that to believe it. A child is a simple creature that grows in complexity. I’ll need some links. I certainly hope you’re not talking about that Mozart Effect. Our government is absolutely obligated? Oh, nononononono – I hear you on the ‘not forced’, but most govt. agencies can’t find their own asses if their hands are tied behind them.
First off, I don't know the details are about the guy patting his kid's butt, but if it made someone uncomfortable and someone turned them in.... I blieve it is our governmental obligation to at least investigate. I don't know enough about the case and not a lot of people I know are freaking out about a father patting their kid on the ass.
It was a Muslim couple, I saw it on dateline (I think?) – it was far more than investigation. Armed men came & took the children. Some asshole reported that the dad massaged the baby’s genitals in public.
THERE’S your govt. agency in action. The whole ‘protect the child’ movement has gotten WAY outta hand. Rules include: daughters not allowed to sit in their dad’s laps, can’t take showers (this is a big thing in divorce cases: the mother, if she wants custody, will make a huge deal out of ‘naked showers’) w/tiny kids (karen mentioned on the NGB that toddlers follow you EVERYWHERE), can’t romp – it’s big business to take kids & place them w/foster homes.
I’m all for protecting kids, but there are limits, fer cryin’ out loud. Combined w/our bizarre hang-ups in the US (nudity doesn’t always equal intimacy, but in America? Yeesh).
But what really got to me was that you are defending a parents right to smack their kid. It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable to hit a child! Parents only hit their kids out of frustration and never really feel OK about it afterwards. I know I never did and niether has any of the other parents I have talked to. I know, when my son was really young I was a spanker and guess what? It NEVER stopped him from doing it again. All I was doing was showing him that it was OK to hit when you are frustrated and it wasn't very effective. Hitting children hurts their self esteam and belittles them.
However, I dont think kids should be taken away from their parents for spanking or smacking, but I firmly believe that the courts should force parents that hit their kids to have to take parenting classes that teach them how to comunicate without hitting and that is what most parents want anyways. And a lot of states are already doing this and it is working and many parents are greatful for it, because it isn't natural to hit our children. Humans are the most comunitive species on this planet, that is what makes us human. Hitting dehumanizes the person being hit!
There’s a big difference between slapping the shit outta the kid for the fun of it (ugh!), & the occasional requirement. Remember that scene in Terms of Endearment? Grandma & the 2 little kids were leaving the hospital - mom dying of cancer. Older kid says “Yeah, well fuck her!” (meaning his mom). Grandma smacked that kid a good 1.
& if my kids running around screaming & yelling & thrashing some retail outlet just ‘cause he/she feels like it, that kid’s gonna get it. There’s a difference between stern & cruel. I don’t go w/all that ‘touchy-feely’ crap. I’ll reason w/the kid when it’ll work. I’ll yell at the kid if necessary. & if I catch the kid going after another kid w/a baseball bat or a butcher knife, even kidding around, there needs to be consequences. Those are extreme examples, sure.
Now I will admit that the system is very flawed and many good parents are run through the ringer for nothing and the system has let more kids fall through the cracks than not. That is what child advicits are working on. The problem is that there are way too many politicians that can't think critically. Yet, they are the ones making all the rules. Which makes my want to say....Gee I wonder why so many rule makers can't think critically...and....damn how in the hell did they they slip by the masses??....
Amy, I’m all for a lot of what you say. But the government? The state? Those sorts of agencies have a distinctly BAD track record. While I realize it’s just a cartoon, it’s a pretty good representation of what can go haywire. Homer & Marge go to a spa. A number of bad things happen to the kids (all of them a bit out there, sure), & boom! The kids are taken away, & given to Flanders. I saw an episode of Picket Fences where a child advocate took away a child because the mom was Wiccan. THAT was believable, & a little scary.
1 of the bigger problems in this nation is that a lotta people go WAY overboard, usually because they’re passionate, & more damage than good can be done by people w/good intentions.
For the record, my dad was kinda heavy-handed. & before you start sympathizing, I was a wild-ass brat. I had little in the way of critical thinking skills, & I did whatever popped into my little head. If I told you the long litany of crap stunts that I pulled, I’d bet you’d rethink a lot of your philosophies. I was a terror. My own ma said that raising me was a nightmare.
All that being said, I helped raise my GF’s kid from 11 to 17, & never laid a hand on him. I caught him bullying someone smaller, & I grabbed the earlobe, & put him into a corner, let him know that it was uncool.
Here are some links about signing with babies.
http://www.signingbaby.com/main/
And here is a link about the different cries.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Why_is_my_baby_crying
These methods work and work a hell of a lot better then smacking and demeaning your kids. I have used them, a couple cousins have used them, my sister and many many other people who have had great success. I speak from experience! And for the record Americans are failing in the parental department and our kids are out of control and most parents spank and smack. So exactly how is smacking and spanking working so well?? Spanking and hitting only leaves frustrated kids who cant comunicate their needs and will eventually take their frustrations out on others, much like we see in schools now. Well good luck with that.
Now I will agree that the system is very messed up, but there is NO SUCH THING as Parental Ailienation syndrome.Most parents work out their own visitations without any problems what so ever. The mothers and sometimes fathers who are trying to protect their kids are loosing custody of their children to the abuser anytime someone claims abuse and if you really research you will find that many proven abused children were handed over to their abuser because of this bogus syndrome. It is that kind of mentality that has caused many abused children to slip through the cracks. Where is the critical thinking in our society??
I dont think there is any reaoning with you about this and I dont have time. I am having surgery this morning so I need to go.
SNTC - whoa, hold on there, what does signing w/& to babies have anything to do w/disciplining them? You can't discipline a baby. I'm hoping that you were in a rush out the door on that.
Now I will agree that the system is very messed up, but there is NO SUCH THING as Parental Ailienation syndrome.
Oh, yes there is. My mom has worked for divorce lawyers for many years. It's a common enough tactic: the children are used against the husband/wife. It's a vile, vile tactic, to use a child as a weapon.
I am having surgery this morning so I need to go.
Oh my gosh. I hope everything's well w/you? Is it serious? Eek.
Sorry to be late. I got called in to work. Had to teach grade 6. There are times when I would dearly love to "instruct" the little dears with my hand. But I'm an adult. Even though it is beyond some of their ablilty to comprehend just what I am saying, reason is the only way to approach teaching. It is certainly more difficult than yelling or applying the kind of discipline I was subjected to. Eventually they get it.
I confess that to allow the incompetence demonsrtated by some government officials would not be the answer to the problems inherent in raising children. It's all about balance.
Which brings me back to the phrase that caused me to put finger to key: It takes a village... Perhaps this is too much of a socialist view of the world but, to quote Red Green, "We're all in this together". (The word verification is zzzen!)
remy:
Even though it is beyond some of their ablilty to comprehend just what I am saying, reason is the only way to approach teaching.
The only way? Amy keeps doling out these absolutes as well. You're a surrogate authority figure, the parents are the final arbiter.
It's all about balance.
That's the wisest thing anyone's said on this thread. That's exactly what I tried to convey, & not too well.
Equal amounts of yin & yang. A parent needs to be stern on occasion: dole out consequence for action.
It takes a village... Perhaps this is too much of a socialist view of the world but, to quote Red Green, "We're all in this together".
I think this lends itself too freely to interpretation. It gives the avid busybody far too much carte blanche. Most folks mind their beeswax.
Trust you me, I've been in a 'village' mindset. There's way too much interference. It's the equivalent of training a dog: too many voices confuse the poor thing.
My ex-GF had 2 of her sisters live w/us (on different occasions). It was TOO MUCH a 'village'. They were involved in our lives on WAY too many levels. They'd go to the point of listening in on each others' phone calls.
It's a good theory, but application usually varies widely.
KA said:"SNTC - whoa, hold on there, what does signing w/& to babies have anything to do w/disciplining them? You can't discipline a baby. I'm hoping that you were in a rush out the door on that"
--------
Teaching babies sign laguage has been around for a long time. I started teaching my daughters to sign from the day they were born. While it may have nothinng to do with discipline it teaches babies to comunicate their needs instead of throwing fits. Children throw fits and act out with bad behavior and somethimes violent behavior, out of frustrations, because they can't comunicate what they need or want. When you try to figure out what a baby or toddler wants that can't comunicate, it only leaves child and parent frustrated, leading to bad behaviors and hitting that can last a life time.
While the decovery of universal cries are just begining to be recognized, some mothers have long recognized that with every need their baby has, it has a cry for it. Which only inhances the baby's ability to comunicate.
When you told me that story about about that boy telling his grandmother that he hopes his mother dies. I wouldn't have smacked the boy. I would have sat him down and asked him why he felt that way. He could have been angry that his mother was dying and didnt know how to comunicate it properly. The biggest problem with kids today it that they do not know how to comunicate their feelings. And smacking him isnt going to change his mind about his mother, it will only frustrate the kid more. Kids say and do horrible things out of not being able to express themselves properly.
When I watched that movie bowling for colonbine the smartest thing said through the whole movie was said by Marolyn Manson when they asked him what would he have done to help those boys and he said "I would have listened to them".
Our children are screaming for help and instead of teaching them how to comunicate and work through their frustrations we smack them. I can't speak for anyone else but to me that is just fucked up!
---
KA said:"Oh, yes there is. My mom has worked for divorce lawyers for many years. It's a common enough tactic: the children are used against the husband/wife. It's a vile, vile tactic, to use a child as a weapon."
---
Well, the cases I have read, the judges are giving custody to parents that have been convivted of abusing their children using the PAS. And many child activists and psychologist do not recognize PAS and in fact it was a judge that came up with it and and many abused children have been handed over to their abusers because of it. Now I am sure there are a few parents that probably do use their children to get at their ex, but it is very few. The studies show that the overwhelming majority of divorced parents work out visitations on their own with out courts. So that leaves a small number of parents battling for custody and lets not forget that parents that can't work out their differences is usually because of domestic violence and violence and other abuses against the children.
And here is a link about PAS as junk science.
http://www.jfcadvocacy.org/pas.asp
---
Oh yeah, I had surgery to fix my TMJ. So my jaw is wired and my face hurts, but I got meds so it's all good. lol
Amy
Amy - well, I stand corrected on the signing thing.
PAS is defined as ""a disturbance in which children are obsessively preoccupied with depreciation and/or criticism of a parent. In other words, denigration that is unjustified and or exaggerated."
Ummm...are your kids teenagers yet? Because teenagers do that all the time.
There are some serious criticisms at the link,
http://www.answers.com/topic/parental-alienation-syndrome-1
When you told me that story about about that boy telling his grandmother that he hopes his mother dies. I wouldn't have smacked the boy.
He wasn't a toddler. Pre-teen.
Now I am sure there are a few parents that probably do use their children to get at their ex, but it is very few.
No, it's not very few. It's very common, was my impression.
The studies show that the overwhelming majority of divorced parents work out visitations on their own with out courts.
Well, my stepson (when his ma separated from his dad) would go on these dad-son visits. He'd come back crying & scared to death (he was 11 at the time). Seems like his dad had a lotta revenge fantasies (he blamed my GF's sister[s] for their splitting up), & wasn't above sharing them w/the kid. I had to work my ass off to convince my GF that visitations had to be cut off (she's from the Phillipines, & was unaware of all the rules).
So, I've personally been in a few of these situations, & again, it's not all monochromatic.
KA said:"Ummm...are your kids teenagers yet? Because teenagers do that all the time."
---
Yes, I have two teenagers and my son has a different father. His father doesnt have anything to do with him by his own choice and thats fine with me and my son(I don't believe in forced father-hood). My husband adopted my son when he was 6. You know, my son has never ever used that 'your not my dad' towards my husband, not even when he was mad at my husband for putting him on "lock down" when his grades would slip. Which I know a LOT of kids do that and I did it myself.
Most parents divorce because of bad comunication skills that get passed on to their kids. Kids are NOT stupid and will minipulate and do all kinds of crazy shit when they have not learned how to deal with their emotions and comunicate properly. And a lot of times parents get so cought up in the divorce they tend to not pay as much attention to their children and then the children do things to get attention no matter what kind of attention it is or who it hurts.
Teens have a lot of mixed emotions and if they havent been taught to comunicate them properly those emotions will come out as all kinds of crazy shit. BUT, it is never to late to teach them, all you have to do is listen to them. When that boy said what he said, it was a cry for help. His mother was dying and he had no idea how to deal with it or comunicate it to others. That would have been my que to stop everything and sit down with him and help him comunicate his emotions and why he had them. And talking goes a lot further than hitting. You would be suprised at how easy it is to get a teenager to talk even when they dont want to.
And you were right in my opinion to encourage your girlfriend to stop sending her son to her husband, it sounds like he has some huge issues.
And for the rest of your post I'm not real sure what you are getting at. But, I am taking if that you see things different than me and thats OK with me. People arent always going to see eye to eye.
Amy
Amy - I mostly have a problem w/absolute 'blanket' rules laid out in stone.
Most of the things you talk about are wonderful things, but there's some cracks that things fall thru.
Most upper- to middle-class folks can afford the time & energy to sit down & hash things out w/their kids. But if you look at a single mother w/2 or more kids, who's living just below the poverty line, working 2 or 3 jobs, she just doesn't HAVE the 2 to 4 to 6 hours a week to teach their infants to sign (though most mothers 'n nannies are pretty sharp, & figure out what the infant wants quickly), or to sit down at length to explain in huge detail what the kid did wrong.
I'm not an advocate of corporeal punishment by any stretch (it never really worked for me, except to get me to behave), but if we do something about poverty & education, that'll go a longer way than legislating child rearing. These problems won't vanish, not by a long shot, but there's WAY too many variables in the mix to start planting absolute rules, & warranting govt. intervention.
I understand your passion on this, & I agree, but sometimes, there are exceptions that test the rule.
Post a Comment