lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (03/17/84)
Indoctrination of values occurs in a variety of ways. You don't have to stand on a soapbox to tell everyone about them - in fact, that's probably one of the worst ways. The message of action speaks a lot more effectively, even though it may not attract more attention. That's why advertisers don't tell you "Do this!" They either push the advantages of doing it or stress the disadvadvantages of {not doing it, doing something else}. Where does this apply? Consider some of the myriad ways that you are indoctrinated with values: Your teacher made you read a certain book, exposing you to certain words, actions, and thoughts. Authors will pass statements of value as statements of fact. One of the classics is still "If you have never masturbated, we invite you to try" (_Our Bodies, Our Selves_). ["it doesn't hurt to try."] The TV producers make programs that emphasize sex, disrespect, "personal rights," etc., to get you to emulate the "hero", or at least accept such behavior. They also try to make fun of certain attitudes/behaviors, to shame you away from them. The supposedly unbiased news media definitely isn't. What is and isn't reported, the prominence (or lack of) given to a story, the selection of sources, and what a reporter wants to convey, are all values not stated as such. At least in many foreign lands, you *know* the media is biased, and in which way. And those commercials, especially the beer commercials, teaching that not only is beer OK, not only does beer make it better, but beer also guarantees a good time. [Like getting raped in Boston.] [Yes, Byron, your Friday visits *do* express values.] The government passes a law stating that a certain activity is per- missible/not permissible. Whether or not you do/don't do that activity, the government has essentially expressed its value judgment on it. [Hypothetical example: legalizing marijuana, but taxing it. Judgment: $$ more important than marijuana's effects.] [Sorry, Ken, the government *can't* abstain.] I've said it before, and I'll say it again - genuine freedom from religion is an illusion. Religion *is* being taught; the question is WHOSE. Man-deification is a subtle religion, appearing in many guises. Not suprisingly, it is most fully expressed in Human-ism. (Is rabbit!jj going to keep *them* out of the way? BTW jj, if you want to shackle those who make it their business to "discomfort" people, start with all the salespeople in the world, followed by the advertisers.) Toby may think his kids are learning religion nicely at home, but how well do you stack up against X hours of TV per day, plus whatever ideas the kids are being exposed to in school? I still remember my co-worker's anger that his kid was more interested in Santa Claus than Chanukah. Alan Wexelblat fits in well with the advertisers by using: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray publicly that they may be seen of men." as an argument against public prayer. WRONG! Note those last seven words - the *motive behind the prayer* is what is in question. Otherwise, how would you account for Jesus's obviously public prayer at Lazarus' tomb? Ditto for Bill Jefferys' "Jesus advised against public prayer, remember?" When will you guys read the context? Bill (and others) also apparently don't see the pressure on a child to not pray, rather "a child forgetting to pray ... is unfortunate." Come on, Bill. Picture it: a mother sends her son off to school with a reminder to pray when he gets there. He gets off the bus, puts his books in his locker or desk, and goes somewhere to pray. Rather unlikely he'll be out of sight, and the taunting of those who couldn't care less is likely to be intense. Or if he is able to be alone, when he gets back with the rest of the kids, the waiting line may be so long that he doesn't have a chance to play. Or if he plays first, the pleasures of the moment are more likely to take precedence over his mother's instructions (human nature). Besides, prayer does more than invoke the blessing of Deity on whatever - it reminds the one(s) praying that Deity is not to be left out just because they are in a particular place. A footnote for Rob Paull: "It seems to me that its the parents responsibility to teach religion to their children." Right - it's also their responsibility to teach their children about sex and a few other things. Did you object about *that* when the state took it over? In all of this, did anybody bother to ask William Murray (in whose behalf the 1963 court case was filed)? He and Mom see opposite ways now. -- The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick {ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (03/20/84)
Larry Bickford has now convinced me that since it is not possible to NOT teach religion in public schools, that we should legislate it. Unfortunately, though, I disagree with Larry's choice of Christianity as our new state religion. I think that it would be much better to cram down those kid's throats the one, true religion: namely, Zorkism. Yes, dear friends, there is no longer any need to cling to a flimsy, unprovable belief system when you can have blind faith in the Great Zork. (The Great Zork is the leader of a herd of pink elephants that live on the moon.) To any of you heretics out there that doubt the divinity of the Great Zork, I issue this challenge: prove that He doesn't exist! If you can't do this one simple thing, then you reject Zorkism at your own peril. Even though Larry is doomed to roast forever in Helaphantine, I urge the rest of you to save yourselves before it's too late! Send 10% of all future income to: Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw