Racism vs color blindness
Special Agent Orange
I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
raise one's child color blind.
A couple of months ago I was wondering about my 11 year olds "cultural
awareness" as to what he might hear in the neighborhood. I asked him
if he was at all familiar with the word, "nigger". He had never heard
the term and had no idea what it meant. How many preteens could have
possibly get through 6 years of public schooI and say the same? I was
personally excited about this - we have strived to reinforce Martin
Luther King' s emphasis on the content of character over the color of
skin.
As to the content of MLK's character, his good friend Ralph D.
Abernathy's auto biography _And the Walls Came Tumbling Down_ sheds
sufficient light on pages 434-436 and 470-475 while doing his best to
put King in the best light possible. This is another aspect of color
blindness. If it was wrong for Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker then it
was wrong for King.
Of course at this time I had a responsibility to explain to my son
that the term is an extremely derogatory one that should never be
said. While our children's exposure to the unsavory needs to be
censored to a degree, they should at least be aware of the issues.
My ancestors swung by their necks, not their tails.
I suport publick skools
http://www.onetinc.com/~phychobm/bubby1.html
Julie Pascal
Special Agent Orange wrote:
>
> I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
> raise one's child color blind.
I agree.
Yet this seems to be one of the areas where public school is
seen as so necessary. "Children must experience diversity."
It sometimes feels like being back in school and having an
arguement with a fellow student who never gets beyond "I know
you are, so what am I?"
Home school may not yet have a "track record" to point to, but
"school" certainly does. Is there any evidence that we can
expect schools to produce color blind students? Many of us
cringe and shudder as we see public school so often portrayed
as the solution for social ills. There are any number of
reasons given that "school" has yet to succeed. Perhaps a
new "program" is needed? More bussing? Or maybe they just
need to get kids away from their parents sooner.
Why do people fear those who are different? It could be said
that it is a survival instinct. Things that are different, and
people who are different _may_ be a threat. It is safer to
stick with the familiar. Going no farther than this it may
seem reasonable that _exposure_ to the unfamiliar would be
the solution. _Experiencing_ diversity would be the key.
(I do not think home schooled children lack this, but that isn't
my point at the moment.)
I think there is a deeper principle at work. Security, or rather
insecurity. Why is the unfamiliar a threat? Because people
are insecure. A person who feels secure has no fear of what is
strange or different. IMO, traditional school breeds insecurity.
Little 5 and 6 year olds are sent off on their own and expected
to figure out amongst themselves how to interact with each other
and to deal with strange situations. These children do not all have
the same capacity to resist peer pressure. Some will be friends
with whoever they please. Others will find that this is socially
risky and choose to follow the bullies.
The punishment for a child who fails to "fit in" is harsh. So
the child has to always worry about doing it right. The child
has to decide who is the safest alliance. The child always has
to worry that they might do something "wrong." Some children
simply do not have much talent socially and will never quite
learn the rules. Others learn them very well, and I'm not sure
that isn't worse.
Home school seems ideal for providing the security and safety
that allows children to take risks. Individual children are
different, but I know that many of us who are _always_ with
our babies find that they will go to _anyone_! The security
of Mom or Dad being there does not contribute to clinginess,
it contributes to exploration. I don't know what thoughts, if
any, go through their little minds, but they know they are
_safe_. Even for a home schooled child who has limited contact
with people of other races I feel this security provides the
best chance of them growing up color blind.
Security _and_ familiarity would practically guarentee it.
(My children know that their friends have different hair colors
and skin colors, but I don't think they are aware that people
are separated into groups because of it.)
j.pascal
Karl M. Bunday
Julie Pascal wrote, in reply to another participant:
> > I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
> > raise one's child color blind.
>
> Yet this seems to be one of the areas where public school is
> seen as so necessary. "Children must experience diversity."
> It sometimes feels like being back in school and having an
> arguement with a fellow student who never gets beyond "I know
> you are, so what am I?"
>
> Home school may not yet have a "track record" to point to, but
> "school" certainly does. Is there any evidence that we can
> expect schools to produce color blind students?
None whatever. If anything, the record of how children educated in
government-operated schools in the 1970s and more recently behave
regarding "race" is a warning that we should get more children out of
such schools to preserve national harmony and tolerance.
> Home school seems ideal for providing the security and safety
> that allows children to take risks. Individual children are
> different, but I know that many of us who are _always_ with
> our babies find that they will go to _anyone_! The security
> of Mom or Dad being there does not contribute to clinginess,
> it contributes to exploration. I don't know what thoughts, if
> any, go through their little minds, but they know they are
> _safe_. Even for a home schooled child who has limited contact
> with people of other races I feel this security provides the
> best chance of them growing up color blind.
>
> Security _and_ familiarity would practically guarentee it.
This matches my observation of families in two countries, one where I
was distinctly part of a "minority," instantly identifiable by sight as
a foreigner.
> (My children know that their friends have different hair colors
> and skin colors, but I don't think they are aware that people
> are separated into groups because of it.)
It is interesting to watch my homeschooled, very definitely
"multicultural" son grow up and deal with these issues. He differs from
me and from most people who live in Minnesota sufficiently in physical
features that most people guess he is adopted--nope--and has been
thought to belong to several different "races" by onlookers.
--
Karl M. Bunday bund...@gold.tc.umn.edu
http://home.concentric.net/~kmbunday/
While I am traveling to do research and writing updates to the School Is
Dead, Learn in Freedom! site, check out the site mentioned below, with
which I have nothing to do but which I like very much. There is much
information there by schoolteachers about how to reform the system so
that teachers can enjoy greater professional respect.
http://www.schoolreport.com/
lo...@usit.net
phyc...@onetinc.com (Special Agent Orange) wrote:
>I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
>raise one's child color blind.
I have a different take on this than you. One of the reasons I started
H/Schooling was to get away from all the muliticuturalist teaching.
I personally believe the Bible teaches us to separate.
I don't believe in mixed marrages. Now I guess I have open a new can
of worms and flames are headed my way, BUT before they do please
understand this,,,,,,
I love all people. I love all races. But God has showed us in the
Bible about keeping ourselves with ourselves.
Kerry Gossett
lo...@usit.net writes
>I have a different take on this than you. One of the reasons I started
>H/Schooling was to get away from all the muliticuturalist teaching.
>I personally believe the Bible teaches us to separate.
>I don't believe in mixed marrages. Now I guess I have open a new can
>of worms and flames are headed my way, BUT before they do please
>understand this,,,,,,
>I love all people. I love all races. But God has showed us in the
>Bible about keeping ourselves with ourselves.
I am interested in your position on multiculuralist teaching as it
relates to biblical teaching. Could you please provide the scriptural
basis for your position?
1. Considering the fact that all humans descended from
Adam and Eve, therefore we are really all just one
race, the human race, how can you defend your position
from charges of racism?
2. Given the fact that God created us all in his image,
with the same bloodline, where in the bible does it
require seperation based on race?
3. If God is perfect, why would he have made people of
different colors with the ability to mate and bear
children, and then forbid them to do do? Are you saying
that this ability was a mistake?
4. What about the children of such relationships? Should
they crawl in a hole somewhere and hide? What sin have
the children committed?
5. Why did God allow Moses to marry Zipporah the daughter
of a Midianite priest and bear him two sons?
6. Do you ever watch the learning channel?
Are you aware that genetic research has traced the roots
of human kind to Africa. Science has finally proven what
God told us long ago. Namely we are all brothers and
sisters. How do you square that with your belief?
Paul D. LeBoutillier
Ray wrote:
> >But God has showed us in the
> > Bible about keeping ourselves with ourselves.
Where?
--
Paul D. LeBoutillier (pau...@primenet.com)
Senior Pastor/ Calvary Chapel Ontario, Oregon
http://www.calvarychapel.com/ontario
Administrator/ CHAMP Online! BBS
Ray
Say for example, you are white and your, for example, daughter comes home
and tell you she had met someone. Would you rather he be 1) a white
non-Christian, 2) a black Christian, or 3) a white female? Just wondering
because I have decided I would much rather her be with a good Christian
over picking a non-Christian. I have a daughter and have thought about
this seriously. And I am white.
Carol J
lo...@usit.net wrote in article <5c549i$if0$1...@news.usit.net>...
> phyc...@onetinc.com (Special Agent Orange) wrote:
>
> >I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
> >raise one's child color blind.
>
> I have a different take on this than you. One of the reasons I started
> H/Schooling was to get away from all the muliticuturalist teaching.
> I personally believe the Bible teaches us to separate.
>
> I don't believe in mixed marrages. Now I guess I have open a new can
> of worms and flames are headed my way, BUT before they do please
> understand this,,,,,,
> I love all people. I love all races. But God has showed us in the
phyc...@onetinc.com
In article <00001df1...@msn.com>,
kerry_...@msn.com (Kerry Gossett) wrote:
>
>
> lo...@usit.net writes
>
> >I have a different take on this than you. One of the reasons I started
> >H/Schooling was to get away from all the muliticuturalist teaching.
> >I personally believe the Bible teaches us to separate.
>
> >I don't believe in mixed marrages. Now I guess I have open a new can
> >of worms and flames are headed my way, BUT before they do please
> >understand this,,,,,,
> >I love all people. I love all races. But God has showed us in the
> >Bible about keeping ourselves with ourselves.
>
> relates to biblical teaching. Could you please provide the scriptural
> basis for your position?
>
> 1. Considering the fact that all humans descended from
> Adam and Eve, therefore we are really all just one
> race, the human race, how can you defend your position
> from charges of racism?
>
> 2. Given the fact that God created us all in his image,
> with the same bloodline, where in the bible does it
> require seperation based on race?
Some hold that, based on Gen 11, Deut 32:8 and Acts 17:26 that God intended and
still intends that the races be separate. Adherence to such a principle could
have been a safeguard against the kidnapping and forced relocation of slaves a
couple of centuries ago.
Of course when I run into some fundamentalists that oppose 'mixed marriages' I
ask what constitutes a 'race'. The first person that told me that they oppose
interracial marriage was a Cuban married to a caucasian. I was a little slow to
pick up on the irony at the time but get a little chuckle out of that in
retrospect.
Some say they oppose interracial marriage because the children will be looked
down upon on by others. One problem with holding this position is that, based on
my observation, society as a whole no longer stigmatizes the mulatto. The place
where it is most likely for such children to be stigmatized is the church where
people are opposed to mixed marriages.
I'm giving my .sig a vacation. Sorry if that causes a problem.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
lo...@usit.net
kerry_...@msn.com (Kerry Gossett) wrote:
>lo...@usit.net writes
>>I have a different take on this than you. One of the reasons I started
>>H/Schooling was to get away from all the muliticuturalist teaching.
>>I personally believe the Bible teaches us to separate.
>>I don't believe in mixed marrages. Now I guess I have open a new can
>>of worms and flames are headed my way, BUT before they do please
>>understand this,,,,,,
>>I love all people. I love all races. But God has showed us in the
>>Bible about keeping ourselves with ourselves.
>I am interested in your position on multiculuralist teaching as it
>relates to biblical teaching. Could you please provide the scriptural
>basis for your position?
> 1. Considering the fact that all humans descended from
> Adam and Eve, therefore we are really all just one
> race, the human race, how can you defend your position
> from charges of racism?
You are correct. We all make up the human race. The human race is made
up of serveral ethnic groups. How can I defend myself from charges
of racism? This is a all too common charge now days.
RACISM = belief in the superiority of a particular race.
I don't think any race is more superiority than any other.
I do think however that some groups of people has more of an advantage
than others. You take the Jews for example. In Romans 3:1-2 the Bible
says that they were the ones that was given the oracles of God.
I know that now everyone can be saved BUT,, during those days you had
to be in with the Jews. God showed favortism to a particular group of
people, but who is going to point a finger at God? No one can.
Even today, you must be a Jew inwardly.
> 2. Given the fact that God created us all in his image,
> with the same bloodline, where in the bible does it
> require seperation based on race?
It's true we are all of one bloodline. But race is not made up by
blood. Race is determined by genes and chromosomes.
In Acts 17:26-27 the Bible tells us that God has made of blood, all
nations upon this earth. He also goes on to tell us that He has set
the bounds of habitation.
> 3. If God is perfect, why would he have made people of
> different colors with the ability to mate and bear
> children, and then forbid them to do do? Are you saying
> that this ability was a mistake?
Just because you have the ability to do it,,, doesn't make it right.
Not comparing this but,, consider this thought,,,
Mating with your own children. You have the ability to do this
terrible thing,, should we do it? Of course not. I know this is a
terrible comparission but was trying to show about our abilities.
> 4. What about the children of such relationships? Should
> they crawl in a hole somewhere and hide? What sin have
> the children committed?
Those children has done nothing wrong. I feel the same way about the
abortion issue,,, many christians say they don't believe in abortion
except in the case of rape or incest. I don't say nor believe that.
I believe abortion is wrong absolutely. The babies in the case of
rape or incest has done no wrong.
> 5. Why did God allow Moses to marry Zipporah the daughter
> of a Midianite priest and bear him two sons?
I have wondered that myself. I don't know the answer to that.
I'll be the first to admit that there are many, many things that I
don't know.
> 6. Do you ever watch the learning channel?
> Are you aware that genetic research has traced the roots
> of human kind to Africa. Science has finally proven what
> God told us long ago. Namely we are all brothers and
> sisters. How do you square that with your belief?
I'm not a sciencetist, nor do I have any problems with them, except
when they try to claim something that is unscriptual.
The Bible says God placed Adam & Eve in the garden Eden and that out
of Eden came a river which parted into 4 heads. One of the heads was a
river named Gihon, which went down to Ethiopia, which is in Africa.
Physically speaking we all came from one blood,, Adam.
Spiritual speaking we are not all brothers and sisters. Some has God
for there Father and some has the devil for there father.
In summary,,,,, it's my desire to see everyone saved.
Regardless of what race they are.
John
lo...@usit.net
Ray
Excuse me but Ray didn't write this. I was responding to this.
Paul D. LeBoutillier <pau...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<32E992...@primenet.com>...
> Ray wrote:
> > >But God has showed us in the
> > > Bible about keeping ourselves with ourselves.
>
lo...@usit.net
"Ray" <rjoh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Say for example, you are white and your, for example, daughter comes home
>and tell you she had met someone. Would you rather he be 1) a white
>non-Christian, 2) a black Christian, or 3) a white female? Just wondering
>because I have decided I would much rather her be with a good Christian
>over picking a non-Christian. I have a daughter and have thought about
>this seriously. And I am white.
>Carol J
Yes you are correct about rather her be with a Christian.
In my situation if my daughter came home with any of the options that
you gave me it would be in defiance of what she has been taught.
John
lo...@usit.net
Ray
So you are saying that she has been "taught" that she can only date white
Christians?
Carol J
lo...@usit.net wrote in article <5ci6ck$d3l$1...@news.usit.net>...
lo...@usit.net
"Ray" <rjoh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>So you are saying that she has been "taught" that she can only date white
>Christians?
>Carol J
I teach my children that it is wrong to mix races in marrages.
I also teach them to marry a christian.
At this point my children are too young to date.
When my children starts dating,, and they date and then marry someone
outside of our race,,, then they are going completely against what
they have been taught.
John
lo...@usit.net
Ray
We all hope that our children obey everything that we teach them BUT I
think that there are gonna be some things that they are not gonna blindly
obey and we have to be prepared to deal with those circumstances when them
arise. It sounds to me that you are pretty adamant about this. I am just
saying that to me it wouldn't be the end of the world it she met a
Christian of any race ( although I would prefer her to meet a white one).
I have much stronger concerns about her future than the issue of race.
Carol J
lo...@usit.net wrote in article <5ckthc$4u8$1...@news.usit.net>...
Right Wing
Heres my 2 cents worth...
There are so many other things we need to be teaching and
preparing our children for...ESPECIALLY in this day and age that have
an argument over racism seems so insignificant. If you believe your
children shouldnt mix with other races...fine...do that. But be
prepared if it doesnt work out that way. After all...what will you do
if one of your children does go against this? Will you cast them
from your family and disown them? Or will you give your child and
their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse the cold shoulder each time you see
them? I would be more concerned with them dating someone who shares
their same faith, hopes, dreams and visions than i would skin color.
I would also be more concerned about teaching them about God and
Jesus and help them to find what Gods will is for their lives. When
Jesus walked this earth as a man and did miraculous healings..He
didnt discriminate about skin color. When God judges us...He wont be
judging our skin color. Remember...our bodies are just tents...when
we die...color is not an issue. More than what YOU want for your
child...the MOST important issue is what GOD wants for your child.
Charlotte :o)
Sam Finlay
Ray wrote:
>
> Say for example, you are white and your, for example, daughter comes home
> and tell you she had met someone. Would you rather he be 1) a white
> non-Christian, 2) a black Christian, or 3) a white female? Just wondering
> because I have decided I would much rather her be with a good Christian
> over picking a non-Christian. I have a daughter and have thought about
> this seriously. And I am white.
>
> Carol J
>
You're right Carol, and given today's racial climate, rather brave.
If it helps any, there is another perspective on this issue that I
ran across recently. It is that race ( as normally conceived ) is
an illusion. For race to have any coherent meaning there have to be
defined charactics that determine a person's race. This turns out
to be impossible to do. What we call race appears to be various
points on the continium of humanity. For example: Imagine you start
walking from Norway to South Africa. At first the people around you
are typical Scandinavians ( blonde, blue eyed ) as you walk east & south
the folks gradually change into more Slavic types & then more Middle
Eastern & so on into Africa where people gradually become darker
skinned. There are no abrupt changes in people you meet on your long
walk. They just gradually change. So slowly in fact that you would
hardlly notice the changes & couldn't ever say; "Now, I've crossed the
border & I'm in a new racial group". So, not only is racism wrong in
the eyes of God, it also doesn't make any rational sense. Racism can
also be downright silly when you aren't directly affected by it.
I recall an incident that I witnessed some years ago when I went with
a Japanese friend on a tour of a cave. I noticed in the tour group a
family of Asians & suggested to my guest that he should go over & say hi
to some folks who might be his fellow countrymen. He looked at me
in some horror & said "Definitely NO! They are Koreans." Couldn't have
proved it by me. Try as I could, I couldn't see any difference.
Me? I'm a pure bred mongrel. :-)
Sam
My opinions alone.
Ray
Thank you. You put EXACTLY what I was trying to tell John into words. I
was just having a harder time expressing what I was trying to say.
Carol J
Right Wing <the-ex...@msn.com> wrote in article
<00001df1...@msn.com>...
Kerry Gossett
phyc...@onetinc.com wrote:
>>Some say they oppose interracial marriage because the >>children
will be looked
>>down upon on by others. One problem with holding this >>position is
that, based on
>>my observation, society as a whole no longer >>stigmatizes the
mulatto. The place
>>where it is most likely for such children to be >>stigmatized is
the church where
>>people are opposed to mixed marriages.
>>I'm giving my .sig a vacation. Sorry if that causes a >>problem.
It's seems society has a better view on this issue
than many who claim to be christian.
I see lo...@usit.net as yet to provide any basis for
this belief.
Julie A.Pascal
Roscoe A. Sincero wrote:
>
> And since this is a home education newsgroup, I will give you an example
> of one of the beliefs of a 11 year old. This happened a few years ago but
> anyways, the young girl proudly proclaimed that you can have sound in a
> vacuum. A number of us attempted to convince her that this is not so.
> Then we learned that she was home-schooled.
This is down right silly. I don't doubt in the least that you met
an 11 year old who stubornly held to the belief that sound can
travel in a vacuum.
What does that have to do with home school? Traditionally schooled
children come up with similar misconceptions all the time.
j.pascal
Julie A.Pascal
Roscoe A. Sincero wrote:
> : > > I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
> : > > raise one's child color blind.
> : >
>
> to say that it is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, if you intend to
> have your child raised "color blind" that home school education is a good
> way to do it. However, if you intend to have your child raised as a bigot
> then home school education is _also_ the way to go.
Perhaps. Though if a parent intended to raise their child as a bigot
_not_ home schooling would likely make little difference. I don't see
that "school" makes a very large impact in reducing racism (or for
that matter homo-phobia.)
> For instance, I know
> a mother who took her little girl out of public school because she
> disapproves of homosexuals and the teaching of evolution in school. Thus,
> we can conclude that this little girl will grow up disliking homosexuals,
> might actually even hate them. Staying at home will decrease tremendously
> the likelyhood that the little girl will come into contact with a
> homosexual. Therefore, her views of homosexuals will be shaped by what her
> mother tells her. (Note, disliking someone and hating someone are two
> different things.)
As you don't _know_ what this mother will tell her child you _can't_
make such a conclusion. Maybe you are correct or maybe you are not.
There is no excuse for hating anyone but that doesn't mean that I want
or need my children to be exposed to the message (not the people)
that homosexuality is legitimate and perhaps they ought to experiment.
Christianity does _not_ condone sexual experimentation. Homosexuality
is _far_ down my list of things to worry about. Much more important
is what is taught to children, informally by peers or otherwise,
about sexuality, marriage, fidelity, etc.
I'm glad you realize that disliking and hating are two different
things, but there is a third option. Disapproval. It's far less
personal than even dislike.
> On a related note, this little girl wrote a little letter to the editor to
> our local newspaper and writes that evolution violates the second law of
> thermodynamics. Now since when do 7 year olds get taught thermodynamics?
Just about any of those "Let's see what kids think about this
important issue." interviews are nothing more than a rehashing of
parental opinions.
> I had to wait until college for my first thermo course (junior year). This
> is also another problem that I see in home schooling. It appears that
> people are abusing their rights as parents and decided for themselves to
> teach their children falsehood. Why? It is one thing to teach evolution
> only or creation only but to tell falsehood or to teach material knowing
> that they themselves do not understand it is dishonest. I can't wait for
> the little girl to write something about these gay people.
What do you think should be done about that "abuse?"
Let's talk about public school for a moment.
Great battles are waged over public school curriculum. I oppose that.
Why? I'm giving up the chance that my views would prevail. I oppose
it because I don't feel that I have a right to dictate what other
people's children are taught, despite my confidence in being "right."
A person can believe in ideological freedom or not, but freedom
must be freedom for everyone. Part of the "price" for my freedom
is that others are free to teach their children things that I
find abhorrent.
Should the battle for ideological dominance be in the realm of
childhood indoctrination or should it be a discussion of ideas
among adults? Even then it would be wrong for the dominant view
to obtain force of law. Yet it is not uncommon for people to
express the opinion that children should be forcably educated in
the values of society, rather than those of their parents.
>From what I've seen of the history of compulsory education (as
opposed to simply "public" education) is that it has _always_
been about ideology. It has been about the majority attempting
to control the ideology of the next generation.
j.pascal
Roscoe A. Sincero
Karl M. Bunday (bund...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Julie Pascal wrote, in reply to another participant:
: > > I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
: > > raise one's child color blind.
: >
I do not know who said the above since the citation was cut-off but I have
to say that it is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, if you intend to
have your child raised "color blind" that home school education is a good
way to do it. However, if you intend to have your child raised as a bigot
then home school education is _also_ the way to go. For instance, I know
a mother who took her little girl out of public school because she
disapproves of homosexuals and the teaching of evolution in school. Thus,
we can conclude that this little girl will grow up disliking homosexuals,
might actually even hate them. Staying at home will decrease tremendously
the likelyhood that the little girl will come into contact with a
homosexual. Therefore, her views of homosexuals will be shaped by what her
mother tells her. (Note, disliking someone and hating someone are two
different things.)
On a related note, this little girl wrote a little letter to the editor to
our local newspaper and writes that evolution violates the second law of
thermodynamics. Now since when do 7 year olds get taught thermodynamics?
Roscoe A. Sincero
Kerry Gossett (kerry_...@msn.com) wrote:
<snip>
: It's seems society has a better view on this issue
: than many who claim to be christian.
: I see lo...@usit.net as yet to provide any basis for
: this belief.
And you'll probably won't find any basis ever unless, of course, he admits
being racist. Let us all be honest here. There is ONE and only ONE
reason for not allowing mixed marriages. The other race (whatever that
may be) will "pollute" the offspring. So it doesn't matter if "loel" is
white, black, green, or Martian. Having mixed marriages is a bad thing in
the minds of these people. Sometime ago, I was watching one of those talk
shows in which a number of black females complained when black males would
date white females. So "loel" is not unusual in his beliefs and it is
probably common.
If you are having a hard time understanding this, I'll give you an
analogy. If I gave you two choices of food: a) pizza b) vanilla and
onions mixed with peanut butter sandwich, which would you choose? Why did
you choose it? The reason is that one tastes BETTER. In a similar
fashion, having mixed marriages will allow another race who is "not
better" to "pollute" the offspring. Creating "mud people" is not what
they want.
I'll probably get some hate-mail for this but if I do I guess I will make
it worthwhile for you. So, I will give you an example of what a
"non-racist" said. Approximately one year ago on a local BBS, a
white individual proudly proclaimed that black people on a whole is less
analytical and more short-tempered than white people. He said that these
traits are not necessarily a bad thing. Now, guess which race he thinks
is better? Remember now, he said he is not racist.
lo...@usit.net
the-ex...@msn.com (Right Wing) wrote:
>Heres my 2 cents worth...
> There are so many other things we need to be teaching and
>preparing our children for...ESPECIALLY in this day and age that have
>an argument over racism seems so insignificant.
Sorry for being late to reply,, my time is very limited.
Each parent has a value system for their own children
I have a value system for my children, and you have one for your
children.
What I would place importance on,,,, you probably would not.
What you place importance on,,, I probably would not.
Mixed marriages may be a small matter to you and lots others.
But that is your choice.
and I would like to ask you this,,,
"Does not believing in mixed marriages make you racist?"
What I am saying about not mixing is to be said regardless of what
race you are.
>If you believe your
>children shouldnt mix with other races...fine...do that. But be
>prepared if it doesnt work out that way. After all...what will you do
>if one of your children does go against this? Will you cast them
>from your family and disown them? Or will you give your child and
>their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse the cold shoulder each time you see
>them? I would be more concerned with them dating someone who shares
>their same faith, hopes, dreams and visions than i would skin color.
>I would also be more concerned about teaching them about God and
>Jesus and help them to find what Gods will is for their lives.
I try my best to teach them God's way. Of which, they seem to be doing
OK. I realized that being their father, I would have a blindness
toward my children that others wouldn't have.
Every morning before school starts, they say the pledge of allegiance
to their country and also they say their own prayers.
I believe in prayers and I teach my children to pray.
Maybe somewheres in their prayers they can pray for their oh daddy. :)
>When Jesus walked this earth as a man and did miraculous healings..He
>didnt discriminate about skin color. When God judges us...He wont be
>judging our skin color. Remember...our bodies are just tents...when
>we die...color is not an issue. More than what YOU want for your
>child...the MOST important issue is what GOD wants for your child.
> Charlotte :o)
you are correct. When a person dies,, skin color isn't a issue at
all. We are not saved by race,, but by a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ. That is brought out in Acts 17:26-27
God says that He set bountries of our habitation because so that they
may come to know the Lord in their own habitation.
John
lo...@usit.net
lo...@usit.net
"Paul D. LeBoutillier" <pau...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Ray wrote:
>> >But God has showed us in the
>> > Bible about keeping ourselves with ourselves.
>Where?
>--
>Paul D. LeBoutillier (pau...@primenet.com)
>Senior Pastor/ Calvary Chapel Ontario, Oregon
>http://www.calvarychapel.com/ontario
>Administrator/ CHAMP Online! BBS
Acts 17:26-27
All thru the Bible God has separated people.
John
lo...@usit.net
Julie A.Pascal
Jim Steigelmann wrote:
>
> In article <32F2D0...@pascal.org>, ju...@pascal.org says...
> >
> >This is down right silly. I don't doubt in the least that you met
> >an 11 year old who stubornly held to the belief that sound can
> >travel in a vacuum.
>
> sound travels in a vaccuum. :)
>
> How many "public-school" students still think that electrons circle in nice
> distint orbits around the nucleus of an atom, like planets around a sun?
They don't? ;-) Actually, I probably _would_ have got that one
wrong but now that you mention it...electron "clouds" right?
> >What does that have to do with home school? Traditionally schooled
> >children come up with similar misconceptions all the time.
>
> Very true. My dad had to "re-educate" us kids about the realities of
> mathematics and science, because the public schools were doing such a *poor*
> job.
I also read science fiction newsgroups. Even very well educated and
well read people are suseptable to misconceptions. For instance, just
recently tidally locked planets were being discussed with Mercury
as an example. Someone pointed out that it's been known for a very
long time that the same face of Mercury is not always toward the
sun. Mercury's "day" is actually 2/3 of Mercury's "year."
Even if we are very careful it would be impossible to never make
such a gaff. Factual errors exist in textbooks and encyclopidias, etc.
And _sometimes_ people make BIG mistakes just because they "goof"
and not because they don't understand the subject or understand
why what they said is obviously wrong. (I've done _that_, believe
you me!)
j.pascal
Right Wing
Acts 17:26-27
All thru the Bible God has separated people.
Acts 17: 26-27 says...From one man He made *every* nation of men,
that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times
set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did
this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and
find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.
and verse 28 says.... For in Him we live and move and have our
being . As some of your own poets have said, We are His offspring.
Maybe im not seeing this...but from that i see no where
where God is separating people. In the Old Testament, yes, He did
separate people and tell them to keep with thier own. But, in the New
Testament there is NEW life through Jesus. I dont recall anywhere in
the New Testament where God or Jesus tells us to keep separated from
anyone...unless of course they are immoral. We are to be separate
from the WORLD...but NOT separate from Gods Children. You stated in
your earlier post about teaching them Gods ways and that you are not
racist. But from what you have said...theres a large racial overtone.
On the one hand you teach your children that God loves all
people...On the other hand you are saying its wrong for your children
to date or marry outside of their own race. Why? We are all the body
of Christ..with Jesus at the head. We are not God so who are we to
say one kind of person is better than another? Gods love cannot be
taught with seperation. God is not a God of seperation and race...but
a God of unity and strength for His children. Remember...from *ONE*
man God created *ALL* races. If there are inter racial marriages
fine. That, by no means, will take Gods love and forgiveness away.
Jesus is here for ALL people.
Charlotte :o)
Sam Finlay
Roscoe A. Sincero wrote:
>
Let us all be honest here. There is ONE and only ONE
> reason for not allowing mixed marriages. The other race (whatever that
> may be) will "pollute" the offspring. So it doesn't matter if "loel" is
> white, black, green, or Martian. Having mixed marriages is a bad thing in
> the minds of these people. Sometime ago, I was watching one of those talk
> shows in which a number of black females complained when black males would
> date white females. So "loel" is not unusual in his beliefs and it is
> probably common.
>
> If you are having a hard time understanding this, I'll give you an
> analogy. If I gave you two choices of food: a) pizza b) vanilla and
> onions mixed with peanut butter sandwich, which would you choose? Why did
> you choose it? The reason is that one tastes BETTER. In a similar
> fashion, having mixed marriages will allow another race who is "not
> better" to "pollute" the offspring. Creating "mud people" is not what
> they want.
Polluted offspring? I have read that if you are unfortunate enough to
have an inherited tendency to genetic based medical problems, then your
bet bet for a healthy child it to marry a person of a different skin
color. Far from being "polluted" these children are often have a genetic
advantage.
Sam
>
Jim Steigelmann
>
>>
>> And since this is a home education newsgroup, I will give you an example
>> of one of the beliefs of a 11 year old. This happened a few years ago but
>> anyways, the young girl proudly proclaimed that you can have sound in a
>> vacuum. A number of us attempted to convince her that this is not so.
>> Then we learned that she was home-schooled.
>
>an 11 year old who stubornly held to the belief that sound can
>travel in a vacuum.
After all, all they have to do is go and see StarWars, to *know* that
sound travels in a vaccuum. :)
How many "public-school" students still think that electrons circle in nice
distint orbits around the nucleus of an atom, like planets around a sun?
>What does that have to do with home school? Traditionally schooled
>children come up with similar misconceptions all the time.
Very true. My dad had to "re-educate" us kids about the realities of
mathematics and science, because the public schools were doing such a *poor*
job.
--
---------------
Jim Steigelmann
----------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the
opinions of my employer, my boss, the state of Illinois,
the government of the United States of America, or of the
world in general...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Steigelmann
In article <5d0oan$c...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, leg...@Glue.umd.edu says...
>
>Karl M. Bunday (bund...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
>: Julie Pascal wrote, in reply to another participant:
>
>: > > I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
>: > > raise one's child color blind.
>: >
>
>I do not know who said the above since the citation was cut-off but I have
>to say that it is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, if you intend to
>have your child raised "color blind" that home school education is a good
>way to do it. However, if you intend to have your child raised as a bigot
>then home school education is _also_ the way to go. For instance, I know
>a mother who took her little girl out of public school because she
>disapproves of homosexuals and the teaching of evolution in school. Thus,
>we can conclude that this little girl will grow up disliking homosexuals,
>might actually even hate them.
As a Christian, I will note that you can *both* strongly disaprove of
homosexuality and still love the homosexual. You have jumped from the
mother's disapproval of an act/life-style to having the daughter hating the
people. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
I personally think that homosexuality is a sin... But guess what else,
we are *ALL* sinners. If I taught my children to *hate* homosexuals, then
by all rights I should teach them to have *everyone* (including myself).
There is a line to be drawn between teaching that an action is wrong/immoral
and teaching that certain *people* are to be hated.
> Staying at home will decrease tremendously
>the likelyhood that the little girl will come into contact with a
>homosexual. Therefore, her views of homosexuals will be shaped by what her
>mother tells her. (Note, disliking someone and hating someone are two
>different things.)
Sooo.... What is *wrong* with a childs view of the world being shaped
by her parent?
>On a related note, this little girl wrote a little letter to the editor to
>our local newspaper and writes that evolution violates the second law of
>thermodynamics. Now since when do 7 year olds get taught thermodynamics?
I was taught some of the *basic* laws of thermodynamics when I was very young
(Dad was a PhD chemist who was always teaching us one thing or another.) In
this case, however, the child was probably regurgitating information that some
adult who didn't understand thermo had passed along.
>I had to wait until college for my first thermo course (junior year). This
>is also another problem that I see in home schooling. It appears that
>people are abusing their rights as parents and decided for themselves to
>teach their children falsehood. Why?
First - who are *you* to decide what other people teach their children?
Hypocrite! Not only would you demand that your children be taught the "truth"
as you see it, but now you are demanding that other people must teach their
children *your* truth!
As for waiting until your Jr. year at college to find out about Thermo - what
took you so long? The basics of thermodynamics can be easily understood by a
child. The *details* of thermodynamics, though, do require a college level
course.
>It is one thing to teach evolution
>only or creation only but to tell falsehood or to teach material knowing
>that they themselves do not understand it is dishonest. I can't wait for
>the little girl to write something about these gay people.
I have *yet* to find a homeschool parent who *deliberately* teaches their
children falsehoods. We could just as easily send them to school if we wanted
their brains filled with mush.
As for teaching material you don't understand...
My high-school computer science teacher had never taken a comp-sci class. He
was a mathematics teacher who read up on the subject.
My high-school chemistry teacher had only taken a couple of intro-chemistry
courses.
My high-school physics teacher was totally clueless about quantum mechanics and
about Relativity.
Somehow, I mananged to *still* get accepted into a good college, get AP
placement in a number of courses, ace a course in QM, and get two degrees in
Chemical Engineering and Computer Science.
Roscoe A. Sincero
Sam Finlay (sfi...@btg.com) wrote:
: Roscoe A. Sincero wrote:
: >
: >
I don't believe in this "polluting" idea myself. And I agree with you
that marrying someone outside your ethnic background and having kids with
this person can sometimes lead to children with "genetic" advantage. For
instance, not getting sun-burned after only 35 minutes would be an
advantage, I would think.
Unfortunately, there are parents out there who do believe in this and they
teach their kids to think this way. Some will rebel against their parents
for the sake of rebelling. Others will rebel because they met someone
they liked. But there are still others that will grow up racist just like
their parents before them. If one is home-schooled, it is generally
easier for the parent to "protect" their children from co-mingling with
these "inferior" races. Without any experience with kids of other races,
the children's only view of other races is what their parents tell them. I
got a short lecture saying that there is nothing wrong with this--having
the kids view of the world being shaped by their parents is okay. (Now
what did I *REALLY* say?) There are programs out there (I hope) that
addresses these concerns. However, the parents can choose not to
participate. There are others in this newsgroup who think that it is okay
for parents to teach such things. In short, parents can raise
brain-washed hatemongers and society won't know about it until it is too
late.
In a previous post, I used homosexuals as an example so I get this lecture
on how you can "love" someone while at the same time, disaprove of them.
Meaningless drivel. The person's dislike for homosexuals is obvious from
his post. It is okay for the parent to shape the child's "view of the
world" in any way he/she fits even if it is a lie. For instance, he
_apparently_ realizes that the claim that evolution violates the second
law is false. However, he sees nothing wrong with teaching it. The
parent has the right to do this. If I used racism (eg. black parents
teaching their kids that all white people are racists or that white
parents teaching their kids that all black people are inferior), then
there is a high possibility he would have said something different. I
also get this silly lecture on "versions" of the truth. Evolution either
violates the second law or it doesn't. There is no "version" of the
truth. Blacks are either inferior or not. There is no "version" of the
truth. Straw man building is apparently the acceptable mode of
discussion. If I only used racism instead of homosexuals ....
I even received a lecture on how early he learned the basics of
thermodynamics and even asked why I took "so long". Like I said straw man
building is the favorite tactic to use. I said I took my first thermo
COURSE my junior year in college. We all learned at a young age that "hot
goes to cold" and that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it changes
form. Thus, I already learned the "basics" of thermodynamics before I took
thermodyamics just like everyone else. If I only used racism instead of
homosexuals ....
I received a lecture on how well people who don't understand something can
teach it. Does anyone see how silly this sounds? He cites a
mathematician teaching computers as his first example. Since when is a
mathematician reading up on a subject (computers, in this case) the same
as a mathematician who doesn't understand the subject? Can you teach a
child to solve two simultaneous equations without knowing how to solve it
yourself? Suppose the child gave you a problem that he/she made up and
you can't find an identical problem anywhere in a math book. Can an
algebra-deficient individual teach algebra?
If I only used racism instead of homosexuals ....
Julie A.Pascal
Art Kreitman wrote:
> >>From what I've seen of the history of compulsory education (as
> >opposed to simply "public" education) is that it has _always_
> >been about ideology. It has been about the majority attempting
> >to control the ideology of the next generation.
>
> A little correct history would be usefull at this point. The
> homeschooling movement is a very recent development. Through most of
> US history, one of the first things that a town did when it grew was
> build a schoolhouse and hire a teacher. Compulsory education (and
> public education) was part of a social trend to counteract the
> exploitation of children. The child labor laws are also a result of
> that movement. Universal education was also seen as a great
> equalizer. It would give everyone a chance at success, not just the
> children of the rich.
Correct history? How about _complete_ history? I'll admit the
child labor law component of compulsory education, though I
wonder if it wasn't as much to protect jobs for adult men as it
was to protect children from exploitation. But that isn't all
of it...
(I believe that Karl Bunday may have some interesting information
related to this on his web pages.)
> The key trigger for the homeschool movement was the Brown vs Board
> of Ed decision. All those good christians couldn't stand the idea
> that their pure, white children would be educated in the same room as
> black children. All those years of telling your good chistian kids
> how blacks were inferior. Imagine if one of those black kids was
> smarter then the white kids. This would cause the white children to
> "be forcable educated in the values of society, rather then those of
> their parents".
I've heard this baloney before. Was it from you? The "trigger"
for home school was Brown vs. Board of Ed? What year was that?
This _may_ have been a partial impetus for Christian private
schools, but there were other things happening, say...prayer
taken out of school, etc., at the same time. Home school existed
but was not "triggered" until relatively recently.
Considering that "compulsory" education was responsible for
"compulsory" separation of children according to race _before_
Brown vs. Board of Education...
The compulsory separation of races is the majority attempting to
control the ideology of the masses. Like I said. That the "control"
people eventually had a change of heart and wanted to "control"
the other direction doesn't legitimize the process.
> The racist component of homeschooling still exists. One of the
> primary supplier of homeschooling material is Bob Jones University.
> The founder of BJU wrote how the bible told him that blacks were
> inferior. Its only in the past few years that blacks were allowed to
> attend the school. To this very day, school policy is to forbid
> interracial dating.
The AFL/CIO excluded black men from any sort of meaningful
employment for years. What's your point? (Incidently, the
documentary I saw about the Black labor movement was enormously
interesting. If union membership was required to work a trade
and the unions wouldn't let you in...) Maybe life would
be better if everyone avoided the AFL/CIO because of their
policies in the past.
I can't (and wouldn't want to) defend forbidding interracial
dating.
What you can't do is claim racism as a general component of
home schooling because some home schoolers use BJU material.
Since the racism issue is so important, perhaps you should look
into the influence the Klan had in promoting Oregon's "Public
School Only" law that was declared unconstitutional in
Pierce vs. The Society of Sisters.
The connection between Pierce vs. the Society of Sisters and
home school is ongoing. (Unlike the Brown vs. Board of Education
which has no discernable connection to home school at all.)
j.pascal
Julie A.Pascal
Roscoe A. Sincero wrote:> : > : > > I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
> : > : > > raise one's child color blind.
> : > : >
> : >
> : > I do not know who said the above since the citation was cut-off but I have
> : > to say that it is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, if you intend to
> : > have your child raised "color blind" that home school education is a good
> : > way to do it. However, if you intend to have your child raised as a bigot
> : > then home school education is _also_ the way to go.
>
> : _not_ home schooling would likely make little difference. I don't see
> : that "school" makes a very large impact in reducing racism (or for
> : that matter homo-phobia.)
>
> Home-schooling option allows the parent to have sole control on the
> "facts". (...)
> Public school (and even private
> school) provides opportunity for the child to see other types of people
> including people of other races and homosexuals. Either the school itself
> teaches the real facts or the child has personal contact with a homosexual
> and/or people of other races.
Home schooled children are, generally, far less isolated than
traditionally
schooled children.
> From these experiences, they can determine for themselves if most child
> molesters are homosexuals or if black people are inferior. A
> home-schooled child is doomed to wait until adulthood (or earlier if she
> is transferred to public or private school) to have the _opportunity_ to
> find out for him/herself the actual facts. In the meantime, the child
> becomes a hate-monger.
Yeah, sure. You have _far_ more faith in peer-socialization than
I do. In case it entirely skipped your notice, most of these "hate-
monging" adults were traditionally educated. Funny thing how that
works. I'd _much_ rather have the role of teaching my children that
race is irrelevant than to somehow hope they get that message in
school.
> : > For instance, I know
> : > a mother who took her little girl out of public school because she
> : > disapproves of homosexuals and the teaching of evolution in school. Thus,
> : > we can conclude that this little girl will grow up disliking homosexuals,
> : > might actually even hate them. Staying at home will decrease tremendously
> : > the likelyhood that the little girl will come into contact with a
> : > homosexual. Therefore, her views of homosexuals will be shaped by what her
> : > mother tells her. (Note, disliking someone and hating someone are two
> : > different things.)
>
> : As you don't _know_ what this mother will tell her child you _can't_
> : make such a conclusion. Maybe you are correct or maybe you are not.
> : There is no excuse for hating anyone but that doesn't mean that I want
> : or need my children to be exposed to the message (not the people)
> : that homosexuality is legitimate and perhaps they ought to experiment.
>
> Where do you get this idea that being exposed to this "message" may cause
> some children to "experiment"? What is this "message"? Like I said in my
> other post, if I used racism only instead of homosexuality, I will get a
> _different_ response. This was addressed to someone else but in the above
> paragraph I can see it also applies to you.
No, you would not get a _different_ response if you used racism instead
of homosexuality. If I recall, you did bring up both issues. The
"message"
to experiment is rife in our "culture." My following paragraph went
on to explain that the issues of sexual morality are central.
(Actually, I think Satan just loves the over-focus on homosexuality
because it distracts Christians from sexual immorality that hits
closer to home.)
> : Christianity does _not_ condone sexual experimentation. Homosexuality
> : is _far_ down my list of things to worry about. Much more important
> : is what is taught to children, informally by peers or otherwise,
> : about sexuality, marriage, fidelity, etc.
>
> : I'm glad you realize that disliking and hating are two different
> : things, but there is a third option. Disapproval. It's far less
> : personal than even dislike.
>
> In the real-world, how is "disapproval" actually being applied? In the
> real-world, disapproval of homosexuals *IS* the same as disliking
> homosexuals. This is how it is in the real-world.
My, that is a _great_ way to advocate putting our children into
the "real world."
> I hear on TV,
> newspapers, etc. that some gay person got beat up or that some gay person
> was denied housing. I read in the papers that many people in Colorado
> actually believe that it is okay to deny gay people housing and other
> rights that other people have. This is somehow an example of
> "disapproval" of their actions. It seems to me that you are 'stuck' on
> the homosexuality example and not looking at the big picture. The big
> picture is that the parents will abuse their rights as educators and
> teach crap to their children. Now some children might just simply end up
> ignorant--this can be corrected. Others on the other hand might end up a
> bigot--much, much more difficult to correct.
Who is missing the big picture (and who is "stuck" on homosexuality?)
The "big picture" is should we or should we not do something to
enforce societal values.
(...)
> : What do you think should be done about that "abuse?"
> Nothing.
Well, that's a relief.
> I just want people to know that there are parents who are,
> indeed, abusing their rights as educators. Other parents (home-schooled
> or not) can then prepare their child in some small way to deal with these
> 'abused' children. The parents can tell their child that there will
> always be people who spread false information such as the "Big Bang Theory
> has been around longer than Newton's Laws and it is still not a law"
> (another of Big Brother's scientific "facts") and other non-sense. In
> short, the children should be taught not to believe every "fact" that
> comes their way. People like "Big Brother" provides plenty of examples of
> why this is so. Not all conmen are trying to sell a swamp as water-front
> property; there are people like "Big Brother" around.
>
> : Let's talk about public school for a moment.
>
> : Great battles are waged over public school curriculum. I oppose that.
> : Why? I'm giving up the chance that my views would prevail. I oppose
> : it because I don't feel that I have a right to dictate what other
> : people's children are taught, despite my confidence in being "right."
>
> You speak of "right" (as in "right vs. wrong") as if it is subjective.
Not at all.
> Big Bang theory is either older than Newton's laws or it is not. There is
> only one right. Sound can either be made in a vacuum or not. There is
> only one right. Black people are either inferior to whites or not. There
> is only one right. Such junk are not taught in public schools because
> these things are _not_ right.
God either is or is not. Christianity either is or is not True.
True, not true, are not "subjective" I agree. (Things don't become
true only when they are proven.)
> : A person can believe in ideological freedom or not, but freedom
> : must be freedom for everyone. Part of the "price" for my freedom
> : is that others are free to teach their children things that I
> : find abhorrent.
>
> I thought we were talking about public schools. In public school, junk
> "ideologies" should not be taught in public schools. If the parent wants
> to teach their child that it is okay to be a racist moron, so be it. Don't
> use the public schools to teach such junk. In a home-schooled
> environment, other parents should realize that there are mentally unfit
> parents out there who are teaching their [the mentally unfit's] child
> crap. These parents [the mentally FIT] should take this into account when
> they educate their child. This way the child would be better prepared to
> handle the offsprings of these mentally unfit parents.
I snipped the rest of your post. (It seemed to be a continuation
of this idea.)
Perhaps I've just heard so many people claiming that home school
should be controlled or disallowed because of the risk of stupid
parents teaching stupid things (or teaching nothing) that I assumed
this was your point as well.
I think that most parents realize that there are crackpots out there
and will take that into account when teaching their children. At the
least they will be aware that people hold an enormous range of
views about the world. From what I've seen (and heard) from parents
who home school few of them desire to isolate their children. I may
not want my children to be taught values by their classmates or to
be indoctinated into the ideology peppered between the "facts" by
teachers, but this isn't the same as not wanting them to know that
other points of view exist. I'd rather they got a "realistic" veiw
of the world, and that can happen more easily while they are in it
than in the closed environment of school.
Isolation isn't the answer. For parents who desire to keep their
children from exposure to ideas or people I'd say, "This will
backfire on you." (This doesn't mean a parent shouldn't try
to keep things "age appropriate.")
Actually, I feel far more secure, as a Parent, home schooling than
I would if my children were in school. Here I _know_ what my
children are exposed to and we can talk about it. If they were
in school I'd have no way of knowing what they'd been told or
what they were exposed to. I'd probably have absolute fits about
certain subjects if the children had them in school, whereas at
home I could "teach" the same exact book with confidence.
Though it is possible that some parents home school for the
purpose of isolation, it seems likely to me that even more parents
who homeschool will react to the security by providing a far
broader education to their children than they'd have recieved
in school.
Which would likely be a very good way to prepare to deal with
those unfortunate children you've mentioned.
j.pascal
Art Kreitman
"Julie A.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>
>Let's talk about public school for a moment.
>
>Great battles are waged over public school curriculum. I oppose that.
>Why? I'm giving up the chance that my views would prevail. I oppose
>it because I don't feel that I have a right to dictate what other
>people's children are taught, despite my confidence in being "right."
>
>A person can believe in ideological freedom or not, but freedom
>must be freedom for everyone. Part of the "price" for my freedom
>is that others are free to teach their children things that I
>find abhorrent.
>
>Should the battle for ideological dominance be in the realm of
>childhood indoctrination or should it be a discussion of ideas
>among adults? Even then it would be wrong for the dominant view
>to obtain force of law. Yet it is not uncommon for people to
>express the opinion that children should be forcably educated in
>the values of society, rather than those of their parents.
>
>
>>From what I've seen of the history of compulsory education (as
>opposed to simply "public" education) is that it has _always_
>been about ideology. It has been about the majority attempting
>to control the ideology of the next generation.
A little correct history would be usefull at this point. The
homeschooling movement is a very recent development. Through most of
US history, one of the first things that a town did when it grew was
build a schoolhouse and hire a teacher. Compulsory education (and
public education) was part of a social trend to counteract the
exploitation of children. The child labor laws are also a result of
that movement. Universal education was also seen as a great
equalizer. It would give everyone a chance at success, not just the
children of the rich.
The key trigger for the homeschool movement was the Brown vs Board
of Ed decision. All those good christians couldn't stand the idea
that their pure, white children would be educated in the same room as
black children. All those years of telling your good chistian kids
how blacks were inferior. Imagine if one of those black kids was
smarter then the white kids. This would cause the white children to
"be forcable educated in the values of society, rather then those of
their parents".
The racist component of homeschooling still exists. One of the
Steven Nicoloso
lo...@usit.net wrote:
> and I would like to ask you this,,,
> "Does not believing in mixed marriages make you racist?"
> What I am saying about not mixing is to be said regardless of what
> race you are.
John,
If I may summarize your view, you are saying that the Bible forbids
"mixed marriages." I couldn't disagree with you more, BUT let's say
for the moment that you're right. Please define for us a "mixed
marriage." Can I, a white male of Italian, Bohemian, Norwegian,
and Irish decent, marry a person who is HALF Irish and HALF African?
or how about 7/8 Irish and 1/8 black? How much of a different race
does a person have to have before they are that different race???
Can a half Chicano-half Black person marry a half Chicano-half Asian
person? Can an Indian (from India) marry a Chinese? I'm sure others
could pose even more difficult challenges of your theory. My point
is we're all mongrels if you go back far enough.
To me this is all quite ludicrous. We CANNOT define very well at all
what a race really is. Healthy people of "all" races on earth can
intermarry and produce fertile offspring -- which suggests that we're
all part of one "race" (species) -- the Human race.
As to being a racist, I'm sure you and I both believe that we'll stand
before God one day. I cannot judge you, but I would advise that you're
standing pretty close to the line. . . I believe it is common for
God to challenge people with this view by having their kids bring home
someone of whom you do not approve.
Good luck,
Steve
--
Steve Nicoloso, Research Assistant
****REAL EMAIL: < nico...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu > ****
(false email ID given in header in, perhaps futile, attempt
to defeat spam)
Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG)
"...a three hour tour, a three hour tour!"
Julius B. Cruse
Art,
I'm glad someone said this. I read about Bob Jones ideas a few years ago
in the book (I think) How to Survive Home Schooling. I knew that was not a
curriculum I would want for my biracial son when he wasn't even a year old.
He is now five.
My nephew wanted to go to Bob Jones University, couldn't afford it and is
going to Pensacola Christian College in the fall. I haven't voiced my
opinion about Bob Jones to my brother, because religion is not a good
subject or argument for the dinner table, and I don't see them that often.
I looked up the verses that John (or someone) listed that supposedly show
that race mixing shouldn't be done. You would have to add a lot of words
that aren't there and a lot of fancy interpreting to say that those verses
show anything of what some say they do.
Thank you Art for speaking up about Bob Jones.
Sara
Art Kreitman <ar...@congruent.com> wrote in article
<32f6875b.93070428@newshost>...
Daniel J. Bredy
In article <32F746...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu>, Steven Nicoloso <gill...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu> wrote:
>lo...@usit.net wrote:
>> and I would like to ask you this,,,
>> "Does not believing in mixed marriages make you racist?"
>> What I am saying about not mixing is to be said regardless of what
>> race you are.
>
>John,
>
>If I may summarize your view, you are saying that the Bible forbids
>"mixed marriages." I couldn't disagree with you more, BUT let's say
>for the moment that you're right. Please define for us a "mixed
>marriage." Can I, a white male of Italian, Bohemian, Norwegian,
>and Irish decent, marry a person who is HALF Irish and HALF African?
>or how about 7/8 Irish and 1/8 black? How much of a different race
>does a person have to have before they are that different race???
>Can a half Chicano-half Black person marry a half Chicano-half Asian
>person? Can an Indian (from India) marry a Chinese? I'm sure others
>could pose even more difficult challenges of your theory. My point
>is we're all mongrels if you go back far enough.
>
>To me this is all quite ludicrous. We CANNOT define very well at all
>what a race really is. Healthy people of "all" races on earth can
>intermarry and produce fertile offspring -- which suggests that we're
>all part of one "race" (species) -- the Human race.
Excellent post, Steve. It's high time we abandoned these ridiculous
notions of 'racial purity' and the even more ridiculous notion of
'race'. I'm not saying that problems of racism do not exist in
our world-- obviously they do, but such prejudices are based on
the ridiculous notion that 'race' is akin to 'species'. This is as silly
as dividing people based on hair color or ear shape, and an idea
not given credence by most biologists.
Roscoe A. Sincero
Julie A.Pascal (ju...@pascal.org) wrote:
: Roscoe A. Sincero wrote:
:
: > : > > I recently came to believe that home education is the best way to
: > : > > raise one's child color blind.
: > : >
: >
: > I do not know who said the above since the citation was cut-off but I have
: > to say that it is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, if you intend to
: > have your child raised "color blind" that home school education is a good
: > way to do it. However, if you intend to have your child raised as a bigot
: > then home school education is _also_ the way to go.
: Perhaps. Though if a parent intended to raise their child as a bigot
: _not_ home schooling would likely make little difference. I don't see
: that "school" makes a very large impact in reducing racism (or for
: that matter homo-phobia.)
:
Home-schooling option allows the parent to have sole control on the
"facts". Let us return to homosexuals for the moment. We all know that
many parents "believe" that most child molesters are homosexuals. Now
whether or not this belief is valid is unimportant. We know that these
parents will teach such junk to their children. Now what is the
likelyhood that the children would look up information to verify if the
parents are right about this belief? Public school (and even private
school) provides opportunity for the child to see other types of people
including people of other races and homosexuals. Either the school itself
teaches the real facts or the child has personal contact with a homosexual
and/or people of other races.
From these experiences, they can determine for themselves if most child
molesters are homosexuals or if black people are inferior. A
home-schooled child is doomed to wait until adulthood (or earlier if she
is transferred to public or private school) to have the _opportunity_ to
find out for him/herself the actual facts. In the meantime, the child
becomes a hate-monger.
: > For instance, I know
: > a mother who took her little girl out of public school because she
: > disapproves of homosexuals and the teaching of evolution in school. Thus,
: > we can conclude that this little girl will grow up disliking homosexuals,
: > might actually even hate them. Staying at home will decrease tremendously
: > the likelyhood that the little girl will come into contact with a
: > homosexual. Therefore, her views of homosexuals will be shaped by what her
: > mother tells her. (Note, disliking someone and hating someone are two
: > different things.)
: As you don't _know_ what this mother will tell her child you _can't_
: make such a conclusion. Maybe you are correct or maybe you are not.
: There is no excuse for hating anyone but that doesn't mean that I want
: or need my children to be exposed to the message (not the people)
: that homosexuality is legitimate and perhaps they ought to experiment.
Where do you get this idea that being exposed to this "message" may cause
some children to "experiment"? What is this "message"? Like I said in my
other post, if I used racism only instead of homosexuality, I will get a
_different_ response. This was addressed to someone else but in the above
paragraph I can see it also applies to you.
: Christianity does _not_ condone sexual experimentation. Homosexuality
: is _far_ down my list of things to worry about. Much more important
: is what is taught to children, informally by peers or otherwise,
: about sexuality, marriage, fidelity, etc.
: I'm glad you realize that disliking and hating are two different
: things, but there is a third option. Disapproval. It's far less
: personal than even dislike.
In the real-world, how is "disapproval" actually being applied? In the
real-world, disapproval of homosexuals *IS* the same as disliking
homosexuals. This is how it is in the real-world. I hear on TV,
newspapers, etc. that some gay person got beat up or that some gay person
was denied housing. I read in the papers that many people in Colorado
actually believe that it is okay to deny gay people housing and other
rights that other people have. This is somehow an example of
"disapproval" of their actions. It seems to me that you are 'stuck' on
the homosexuality example and not looking at the big picture. The big
picture is that the parents will abuse their rights as educators and
teach crap to their children. Now some children might just simply end up
ignorant--this can be corrected. Others on the other hand might end up a
bigot--much, much more difficult to correct.
: > On a related note, this little girl wrote a little letter to the editor to
: > our local newspaper and writes that evolution violates the second law of
: > thermodynamics. Now since when do 7 year olds get taught thermodynamics?
: Just about any of those "Let's see what kids think about this
: important issue." interviews are nothing more than a rehashing of
: parental opinions.
These "opinions" you call them are called "scientific facts" by the kids.
Calling them "versions of the truth" (as one person did) or calling them
"opinions" (like you did) or calling them "misconceptions" is no excuse
for lying. These kids grow up believing such junk. That 11 year old that
I mentioned in another post was a creationist. Her brother, of course,
was a creationist. (He was 20 or 21 years old at the time when she made
that 'sound in a vacuum' comment). The reasoning provided by this family
for this scientific "fact" was a quote from the Bible about stars singing.
From this they _also_ conclude that sound can be made in a vacuum.
This family also spits out the generic "we are being persecuted because we
are Christians" belief over and over again. They are like brain-washed
parrots who can't think for themselves. The older brother is
college-educated--well, he claims this. Radiocarbon dating (C14) is used
to date stars is one of the scientific "facts" that the older brother
tried to spread. Non-thinking brain-washed human tape recorders is what
they are.
: > I had to wait until college for my first thermo course (junior year). This
: > is also another problem that I see in home schooling. It appears that
: > people are abusing their rights as parents and decided for themselves to
: > teach their children falsehood. Why? It is one thing to teach evolution
: > only or creation only but to tell falsehood or to teach material knowing
: > that they themselves do not understand it is dishonest. I can't wait for
: > the little girl to write something about these gay people.
: What do you think should be done about that "abuse?"
Nothing. I just want people to know that there are parents who are,
indeed, abusing their rights as educators. Other parents (home-schooled
or not) can then prepare their child in some small way to deal with these
'abused' children. The parents can tell their child that there will
always be people who spread false information such as the "Big Bang Theory
has been around longer than Newton's Laws and it is still not a law"
(another of Big Brother's scientific "facts") and other non-sense. In
short, the children should be taught not to believe every "fact" that
comes their way. People like "Big Brother" provides plenty of examples of
why this is so. Not all conmen are trying to sell a swamp as water-front
property; there are people like "Big Brother" around.
: Let's talk about public school for a moment.
: Great battles are waged over public school curriculum. I oppose that.
: Why? I'm giving up the chance that my views would prevail. I oppose
: it because I don't feel that I have a right to dictate what other
: people's children are taught, despite my confidence in being "right."
You speak of "right" (as in "right vs. wrong") as if it is subjective.
Big Bang theory is either older than Newton's laws or it is not. There is
only one right. Sound can either be made in a vacuum or not. There is
only one right. Black people are either inferior to whites or not. There
is only one right. Such junk are not taught in public schools because
these things are _not_ right.
: A person can believe in ideological freedom or not, but freedom
: must be freedom for everyone. Part of the "price" for my freedom
: is that others are free to teach their children things that I
: find abhorrent.
I thought we were talking about public schools. In public school, junk
"ideologies" should not be taught in public schools. If the parent wants
to teach their child that it is okay to be a racist moron, so be it. Don't
use the public schools to teach such junk. In a home-schooled
environment, other parents should realize that there are mentally unfit
parents out there who are teaching their [the mentally unfit's] child
crap. These parents [the mentally FIT] should take this into account when
they educate their child. This way the child would be better prepared to
handle the offsprings of these mentally unfit parents.
: Should the battle for ideological dominance be in the realm of
: childhood indoctrination or should it be a discussion of ideas
: among adults? Even then it would be wrong for the dominant view
: to obtain force of law. Yet it is not uncommon for people to
: express the opinion that children should be forcably educated in
: the values of society, rather than those of their parents.
: >From what I've seen of the history of compulsory education (as
: opposed to simply "public" education) is that it has _always_
: been about ideology. It has been about the majority attempting
: to control the ideology of the next generation.
What I see here is this:
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This
is known already. However, there are those who like to claim it does.
Therefore, those who claim that evolution does not violate the second law
are simply attempting to control the "ideology" of the next generation.
Black people are not inferior to white people. This is known
already. However, there are those who like to claim that this is true.
Therefore, those who claim that black people are not inferior to white
people are simply attempting to control the "ideology" of the next
generation.
False claims are called "ideologies", "opinions", "versions of the truth"
and other nice-sounding words. Since these are "ideologies", "opinions",
and "versions of the truth", there are no absolute right or wrong.
Depending on the point of view or situation, these can be right, wrong or
even neither. Whatever the case may be, it is okay to teach them. False
information by any other name is still false information. Teaching false
information for no other reason but to spread false information is wrong.
Good parents should know that there are bad parents. Kids are taught to
look out for child molesters, robbers, etc. However, they are often not
taught to be wary of these conmen. How many people bought a "scientific"
book on creationism only to find out that half the content or more covers
anti-evolution material? This is money wasted that shouldn't have been.
This is only one very simple example. You are trying to provide your
child a proper education only to find out that it is being 'erased' by
some idiot parent or some offspring of one of these parents trying to make
a few *_bucks_*. It is being 'erased' so easily because the information
you provided and the problems you gave did not cover everything your child
was interested in. Here comes someone with a PhD, who is a parent and a
"Christian" writing a book with the information your child seeks. How
many people bought a book that covers fossils which was written by a man
with a BS degree in aerospace engineering or a PhD in biochemistry?
It is impossible for a parent to answer every single lie that was made up.
However, the parent can answer a few of them _and_, more importantly, they
can teach which groups or persons lie the most. Good parents can teach
their child to be wary of any "facts" that is spread by groups like the
Institute of Creation Research or by individuals like Carl Baugh (with his
supposedly faked degrees) and Ron Wyatt (the 'real' Indiana Jones).
Let us go back to "ideology" for a moment.
What if a "good" Christian parent gave a scientific explanation on why
black people are inferior? Here's a made-up example taken from an actual
discussion. A person claims that black are more short-tempered and less
analytical than white people. Black people are a people of action. He
says that black people have different emotional chemicals. Because of
these differences in "emotional chemicals" black people are less
analytical than whites and more short-tempered. This is why they commit
riots, murders, and rapes. The person who said all these things is not a
parent but what _if_ a parent said the same things and teaches the child
this crap. Is this an example of a "version of the truth", "opinion",
"ideology" that is okay to teach? Shouldn't real Christian parents teach
their child that there are parents out there who teaches such things or
should their child be "left in the dark"?
Johnson
> : What do you think should be done about that "abuse?"
>
> Nothing. I just want people to know that there are parents who are,
> indeed, abusing their rights as educators. Other parents (home-schooled
> or not) can then prepare their child in some small way to deal with these
> 'abused' children. The parents can tell their child that there will
<snip>
Who are you to get to decide that the parents' are abusing their rights
as educators? Perhaps they should prepare their children to be able to
deal with the children being educated by the parents with different views
of the world.
> Let us go back to "ideology" for a moment.
>
> What if a "good" Christian parent gave a scientific explanation on why
> black people are inferior? Here's a made-up example taken from an actual
> discussion. A person claims that black are more short-tempered and less
> analytical than white people. Black people are a people of action. He
> says that black people have different emotional chemicals. Because of
> these differences in "emotional chemicals" black people are less
> analytical than whites and more short-tempered. This is why they commit
> riots, murders, and rapes. The person who said all these things is not a
> parent but what _if_ a parent said the same things and teaches the child
> this crap. Is this an example of a "version of the truth", "opinion",
> "ideology" that is okay to teach? Shouldn't real Christian parents teach
> their child that there are parents out there who teaches such things or
> should their child be "left in the dark"?
Again in your opinion it is crap.
Beth Clarkson
Sorry, I haven't time to respond to this entire post, but there were a
couple of points I really couldn't let pass.
> Public school (and even private
> school) provides opportunity for the child to see other types of people
> including people of other races and homosexuals. Either the school itself
> teaches the real facts or the child has personal contact with a homosexual
> and/or people of other races.
>
> From these experiences, they can determine for themselves if most child
> molesters are homosexuals or if black people are inferior. A
> home-schooled child is doomed to wait until adulthood (or earlier if she
> is transferred to public or private school) to have the _opportunity_ to
> find out for him/herself the actual facts. In the meantime, the child
> becomes a hate-monger.
Excuse me, but I hate to think of children learning about what child
molesters are or are not like through personal experiences at school!
Surely that wasn't what you meant to say. Also, I feel compelled to
point out that if the child has been conditioned at home to think of
black people as inferior, chances are good that is how black people at
school will be perceived. Expectations shape our observations. Parents
shape expectations. Parents who hate blacks or homosexuals or jews or
any other group can teach this to their children, whether they choose
public school or home school.
Beth Clarkson
garth
Daniel J. Bredy <dbr...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5d7m9c$l...@camel5.mindspring.com>...
> In article <32F746...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu>, Steven Nicoloso
<gill...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu> wrote:
> >lo...@usit.net wrote:
> >> and I would like to ask you this,,,
> >> "Does not believing in mixed marriages make you racist?"
>
> Excellent post, Steve. It's high time we abandoned these ridiculous
> notions of 'racial purity' and the even more ridiculous notion of
> 'race'. I'm not saying that problems of racism do not exist in
> our world-- obviously they do, but such prejudices are based on
> the ridiculous notion that 'race' is akin to 'species'. This is as
silly
> as dividing people based on hair color or ear shape, and an idea
> not given credence by most biologists.
And this is where it always goes wrong. I have carefully read John's
posts and communicated with him by email. He is not in anyway racist
in outlook and doesn't deserve that unfair tag. Why can these issues
not be discussed in a fair and reasoned way without some hothead
standing up and yelling *racist*?
I have really appreciated the honest and forthright views presented
in these postings due to my own concerns about interracial marriages
resulting from our observation that not one of our approximately 20
friends who married across cultures has made it. I am greatful to
John for sharing his views and am sorry that he should have to face
these smears in return.
ga...@clear.net.nz
Julius B. Cruse
Garth,
I understand people form opinions from what they see around them. And you
see your friends not making it in their cross cultural marriages. But may
I ask how many friends of same race marriages have not made it either.
Statistics show that interracial marriages are less apt to end in divorce
than same race.
I am in an interracial marriage and we have a 5 year old son. We will be
married ten years in May. I can think of only 1 interracial couple that we
personally know whose marriage has ended in divorce. The others have been
married anywhere from 4-20+ years. Off the top of my head I know of two
white couples whose marriages ended in divorce, one being my brother and
one my cousin. My brother's ex is Hispanic and Jewish ( although did not
practice her religion) so I guess that marriage was considered cross
cultural?
She had personality problems which led to the divorce (she seemed to have
more than one personality)and my cousins wife left him for someone else and
took the four kids.
Sara
lo...@usit.net
Steven Nicoloso <gill...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu> wrote:
>lo...@usit.net wrote:
>> and I would like to ask you this,,,
>> "Does not believing in mixed marriages make you racist?"
>> What I am saying about not mixing is to be said regardless of what
>> race you are.
>John,
>If I may summarize your view, you are saying that the Bible forbids
>"mixed marriages." I couldn't disagree with you more,
If you don't mind let me flip the coin on this,,,
I have tried to show how that in the Bible God has always separated,
for example,
THE TOWER OF BABEL,, God separated them and confused
their langage. God was the one that made the different langages
not me. Why did God do that? He wanted people to spread
over the earth.
THE CHILDREN OF ISRIAL,, God told them not to marry strange
women. Women of the other nations.
ACTS 17:26 quote,, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined
the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"
This verse tells me that God was the one that set the boundries on the
earth. The langage, traditions, skin color are all their for a
distinction. Again I say NOT that anyone is better than another,,,
each one of us just have our own ways.
When I was a boy scount, we would learn some of the indian ways,,
In our self defense,, we would learn how to fight using some of the
Chinese styles.
And again,,, God set the bountries, not me.
The next verse tells us why God did it,,,
VS 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel
after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
God did it so that everyone in their own makeup and tradition could
find God.
Now let me flip the coin on this,,,,
Where does God tell us to get together and mix in marriage?
>BUT let's say
>for the moment that you're right. Please define for us a "mixed
>marriage." Can I, a white male of Italian, Bohemian, Norwegian,
>and Irish decent, marry a person who is HALF Irish and HALF African?
>or how about 7/8 Irish and 1/8 black? How much of a different race
>does a person have to have before they are that different race???
>Can a half Chicano-half Black person marry a half Chicano-half Asian
>person? Can an Indian (from India) marry a Chinese? I'm sure others
>could pose even more difficult challenges of your theory. My point
>is we're all mongrels if you go back far enough.
You said that backwards ,, we are not all mongrels if you go back far
enough.
I see what you are saying, and I agree that it could get very hard to
distingish one from another, but it doesn't change things.
>To me this is all quite ludicrous. We CANNOT define very well at all
>what a race really is. Healthy people of "all" races on earth can
>intermarry and produce fertile offspring -- which suggests that we're
>all part of one "race" (species) -- the Human race.
Yes you are correct healthy people can intermarry and have offsprings,
but God has set the bountries. Two men can get together, (I'm not
sure if they legalized marriage for them or not) BUT that doesn't
make it right. A man can have offsprings from his daughter, but it
doesn't make it right.
The sons of Noah,, the Bible says, came all the nations (I believe
races) on earth.
>As to being a racist, I'm sure you and I both believe that we'll stand
>before God one day. I cannot judge you, but I would advise that you're
>standing pretty close to the line. . . I believe it is common for
>God to challenge people with this view by having their kids bring home
>someone of whom you do not approve.
>Good luck,
>Steve
Rest assured God will judge me on a lot of things, that I can say for
sure. I pray everyday that God will forgive me of my sins. I trust
that He has.
Just to show you how that I feel towards other races let me tell you
this,,,,
I worked on a contruction site. They were 4 of us. White.
One day they hired a black man. I worked beside him.
After a short while the building that we where working on got
broke into and a lot of stuff got stolen. The next day my boss came
up and fired the black man. Well no one said any thing.
I went to the black man's house and expressed my sorrow
to him and told him I just knew he didn't do it.
A long story short,,,, He didn't do it. It turned out to be
one of the white men.
I can tell you many more experiences,,, I love all races.
John
lo...@usit.net
Scott Diesing
"garth" <ga...@clear.net.nz> writes:
>I have really appreciated the honest and forthright views presented
>in these postings due to my own concerns about interracial marriages
>resulting from our observation that not one of our approximately 20
>friends who married across cultures has made it.
There are two Black/White couples in our church. Both are
black husbands/white wives. (I am white fyi.) As far as I can tell
their marriages are as stable as anyone else's I know. Both men are
men that I look up to and they are both active in the church and
devoted to Jesus Christ.
My life has been enriched by these two men. Not because they
are black but because they are who God created them to be.
Christians should be the first to see skin color as trivial.
We are all descendant from the same man and woman. Ethical behavior
(the fruit we bear) should be of paramount importance. But skin
color, not.
Sorry for jumping in to this conversation in the middle. If
my comments are outside of the path this thread was taking, please
forgive me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Diesing
Christian. Married to beautiful wife, Rita. Father of Adam (6),
Hudson (4), Joe (2) and Clare (due in May!). Parent-Educator.
"Human reason is effective only to the degree that it subordinates
itself to the Creator of all things." - Scott Diesing 1997
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/apologetics.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Nicoloso
note: my REAL email in .sig below
lo...@usit.net wrote:
John,
I shudder to think that this might turn into a real flame war. I'll
do my part (as you have done) to be civil here.
> If you don't mind let me flip the coin on this,,,
> I have tried to show how that in the Bible God has always separated,
> for example,
I think you would find a new testament reversal of this trend. Christ
brings "things" (people, races, God and man) together, insofar as I
understand the term: "reconciliation."
> THE TOWER OF BABEL,, God separated them and confused
> their langage. God was the one that made the different langages
> not me. Why did God do that? He wanted people to spread
> over the earth.
> THE CHILDREN OF ISRIAL,, God told them not to marry strange
> women. Women of the other nations.
>
> ACTS 17:26 quote,, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men
> for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined
> the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"
> This verse tells me that God was the one that set the boundries on the
> earth. The langage, traditions, skin color are all their for a
> distinction. Again I say NOT that anyone is better than another,,,
> each one of us just have our own ways.
I'm perfectly willing to grant the YOU are NOT saying that anyone
is "better" or worse than anyone else.
> When I was a boy scount, we would learn some of the indian ways,,
> In our self defense,, we would learn how to fight using some of the
> Chinese styles.
> And again,,, God set the bountries, not me.
> The next verse tells us why God did it,,,
> VS 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel
> after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
> God did it so that everyone in their own makeup and tradition could
> find God.
The example of Tower of Babel does not clearly point to the separation
of races. Do you suggest that we not marry persons who speak different
native languages?
The children of Israel were forbidden to mix due to different value
systems (which were abhorrent to God). It is tantamount to the clear
NT principle of Christians not marrying non-Christians -- a principle
with which, while distasteful to some, I fully concur.
And your quote of Acts 17:26-7 seems to be far more a statement
of fact than a proscription of interracial coupling. It was in fact
difficult in the first century for people to travel and emigrate and
wide. The fact that God determined this is "de-facto" segregation
doesn't mean it is His will for all people for all time. In the end,
God is sovereign and determines all things. He may very well have
determined our current capability to travel and emigrate throughout
the world, and meet and love people of all "races."
> Now let me flip the coin on this,,,,
> Where does God tell us to get together and mix in marriage?
God gave us common sense -- It is more healthy to us as a species
if we intermarry. I'm certain that others, more expert than I, can
point to numerous examples of interracial marriage in the scriptures
which were not condemned by God. Nevertheless, I would propose that
there exists no: "Thou shalt intermarry" because it just isn't a
"big deal" to God either way. He has indicated that it is His wish
that Christians marry Christians. This is the only restriction that
I'm prepared to say is Biblically defensible. If you believe otherwise
you are free do to so, but increasingly as a minority.
> I can tell you many more experiences,,, I love all races.
> John
> lo...@usit.net
No need. I have conceded your love for all races. I guess I have
a problem with your exegesis -- it is my hope that your Biblical
interprations will guide your world-view, and not the other way
around.
Kind regards,
garth
Sara,
Thank you for your most courteous reply. It is possibly true that I
have formed opinions on the basis of what I have observed and
experienced. I do find within myself an inclination to hope that my
children will marry within their own ethnos. It defies my logical
attempt to analyse it. I do not know if I would act on it or not
because the opportunity to find out has never been presented.
Here we live in a multicultural neighbourhood. I see children from
all local backgrounds playing at the computer. Some of my kids are
down the street at the home of some friends whose name I cannot
really pronounce. As neighbours we know each other and often have
chinwags in the kitchen. Discussions of race issues are quite open.
My genuine impression is that most parents that we know feel much the
same way. There is a bias towards ones own race and culture at the
root level. I have come to suspect this is naturally built in or
otherwise God made.
There is a strong political move to restore the indigenous *mana* in
NZ. For this purpose, *language nests* have been established, there
are calls for a separate Justice system, a separate Education system
and so on. There is a virtual separation of the races underway
although no one in authority would admit to it. This may be
polarising opinions. When I first came here, such issues were never
raised and there was much more tolerance than now. The leading
activists are often of interracial background who change their names
to take on the identity of the current cause and often are opposed by
the very peoples they are claiming to represent.
The problem area as I perceive it is from the children of the mixed
marriage onwards. I worked as a youth social worker for many years in
our largest city which I understand is also the world's largest city
in terms of polynesian population. The program we operated was a
catchment for those children who fell through the cracks or were
considered unmanageable by other social agencies. Our largest failure
rate was with the children of cross culture relationships. So often
we found they had no sense of belonging to either culture. Many had
no need to be on the streets or in gangs because they had good homes
but preferred the company of others like themselves. They
communicated a sense of alienation from society as a form of
sub-culture. I found this worrying for the future.
To relate it to the Bible, I note that it was the children of the
interracial marriages who caused the Israelites to revolt against
God. They appeared to be unable to perceive the God of their
Israelite fathers. These are the mixed multitude of the OT. Even
Judah's own desendents by his marriage to the non Israelite were a
source of trouble through time as they also did not continue to
relate to the culture of their father, Judah. This loss of identity
is much as I found the present day situation through my work.
Maybe we are conditioned by experience and observation or maybe there
is an automated internal response to each after its own kind? I can
not answer for how I feel but to date I have not wished harm on
anyone because of race. What I have very much appreciated is those
posts which have discussed the issues without resort to emotional
response. It has been good for me to see how others think and to read
other's experiences.
Thank you.
ga...@clear.net.nz
Julius B. Cruse <brot...@k2nesoft.com> wrote in article
<01bc142a$4a443fe0$3d8c...@JuliusB.Cruse>...
> > I have really appreciated the honest and forthright views
presented
> > in these postings due to my own concerns about interracial
marriages
> > resulting from our observation that not one of our approximately
20
Jim Steigelmann
In article <5dcovj$aq$1...@news.usit.net>, lo...@usit.net says...
>
>Steven Nicoloso <gill...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu> wrote:
>
>>lo...@usit.net wrote:
>>> and I would like to ask you this,,,
>>> "Does not believing in mixed marriages make you racist?"
>>> What I am saying about not mixing is to be said regardless of what
>>> race you are.
>
>>John,
>
>>If I may summarize your view, you are saying that the Bible forbids
>>"mixed marriages." I couldn't disagree with you more,
>
>I have tried to show how that in the Bible God has always separated,
>for example,
> their langage. God was the one that made the different langages
> not me. Why did God do that? He wanted people to spread
> over the earth.
>
> THE CHILDREN OF ISRIAL,, God told them not to marry strange
> women. Women of the other nations.
>
> ACTS 17:26 quote,, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men
> for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath
determined
> the times before appointed, and the bounds of their
habitation;"
>This verse tells me that God was the one that set the boundries on the
>earth. The langage, traditions, skin color are all their for a
>distinction. Again I say NOT that anyone is better than another,,,
>each one of us just have our own ways.
>In our self defense,, we would learn how to fight using some of the
>Chinese styles.
>And again,,, God set the bountries, not me.
>The next verse tells us why God did it,,,
> VS 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might
feel
>
> after him, and find him, though he be not far from
every one of us:
>God did it so that everyone in their own makeup and tradition could
>find God.
>Where does God tell us to get together and mix in marriage?
In Christ there is no longer Jew, nor Greek... All believers are
now ONE people. Therefor, we are free to marry other believers.
Paul, however, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, did write
that believers should *not* marry unbelievers.
Sam Finlay
Steven Nicoloso wrote:
>
<snip>
John wrote:
> > Where does God tell us to get together and mix in marriage?
>
> if we intermarry. I'm certain that others, more expert than I, can
> point to numerous examples of interracial marriage in the scriptures
> which were not condemned by God. Nevertheless, I would propose that
> there exists no: "Thou shalt intermarry" because it just isn't a
> "big deal" to God either way. He has indicated that it is His wish
> that Christians marry Christians. This is the only restriction that
> I'm prepared to say is Biblically defensible. If you believe otherwise
> you are free do to so, but increasingly as a minority.
>
> > I can tell you many more experiences,,, I love all races.
> > John
> > lo...@usit.net
>
> No need. I have conceded your love for all races. I guess I have
> a problem with your exegesis -- it is my hope that your Biblical
> interprations will guide your world-view, and not the other way
> around.
>
> Kind regards,
> Steve
On a lighter note...
You guys have missed the point. As a future father-in-law I will
follow the time honored path so well beaten by my own father-in-law.
Any fellow, with out regard to race, creed, or national origin, is
a low life bum who has no business hanging around my daughter! The
sooner he takes a hike, the better!
See! I'm getting in practice already. :-)
Sam
The father of 3 daughters aged, 15, 12, & 9, who if truth be told,
are a lot more in charge than I am.
>
>
(the original) Marty Carts
Scott Diesing wrote:
> "garth" <ga...@clear.net.nz> writes:
> >I have really appreciated the honest and forthright views presented
> >in these postings due to my own concerns about interracial marriages
> >resulting from our observation that not one of our approximately 20
> >friends who married across cultures has made it.
> There are two Black/White couples in our church. Both are
> black[/white couples........who are doing fine.]
I can only think of one interracial couple. They are the coordinators
of an evangelical Catholic (no, not necessarily an oxymoron) movement,
Cursillo, in the Washington DC area and are extremely well thought of
everywhere, as far as I can see, and are doing fine as a couple too.
> Christians should be the first to see skin color as trivial.
> We are all descendant from the same man and woman. Ethical behavior
> (the fruit we bear) should be of paramount importance. But skin
> color, not.
Hear hear!!
> Sorry for jumping in to this conversation in the middle. If
> my comments are outside of the path this thread was taking, please
> forgive me.
Yeah. What he said.
--
For email replies, kindly remove the "Z" from email address
as it appears above. Post to the wrong newsgroup and BOY!
do you get TONS of garbage email spam! Thanks.___Marty
(the original) Marty Carts
garth wrote:
> Sara,
> Thank you for your most courteous reply. It is possibly true that I
> have formed opinions on the basis of what I have observed and
> experienced. I do find within myself an inclination to hope that my
> children will marry within their own ethnos. It defies my logical
> attempt to analyse it. I do not know if I would act on it or not
> because the opportunity to find out has never been presented.
garth (capitalized or not?), Thank *you* for your candor. I think
I understand what you're saying, and agree with some of it. I think
I might disagree, or at least withhold judgement on some of it too.
I would be delighted if my children all ended up as electrical
engineers with interests in guitar, voice, farming, ....(you get
the picture if you perceive that I am essentially describing myself).
I understand that many plumbers are fine people (some of my best
friends are plumbers!) but somehow I can grok happiness and a sense
of fulfillment better in an {my background here} and thus would be
more easily appeased if my kids all brought home engineer-types to
introduce to the family.
We're all scared or uncomfortable with the unknown, and are comfortable
with and prefer the known, sometimes even if the known is definitely
worse than other options within reach (the job you hate, the roommate
you hate, the house in a state of continual junk, the car always
smelling like old banana peels, etc.).
In part this is justified. I'm positive that an engineer *can*
be at peace with his lifelong vocation and make a decent living
(don't tell my boss, *please* :) but even though I can imagine
it, it just seems less possible somehow that {your profession
here, especially those that don't pay quite as well} can.
Different cultures have different customs, different traditions,
different diets, different ways of doing the same things that we do.
I don't think that it's surprising, or a bad thing that people
find greater comfort in and celebrate the familiar. Is it racism
or other type of bigotry to have African American or Dutch or
{your ethnic or any type of group here} celebrations or to want
to move into neighborhoods heavy in (your ethnic group here}?
Hmmmm... hate the "stream of consciousness" posts, but this gets me
wondering about what racism actually is.... The OED says that racism
is "a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities
are determined by race. b. racialism.". Racialism is "Belief in
the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism
towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be
felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic
wellbeing." (side note: the etymology of Racialism is only as old
as 1907! I wonder what word was used before then! Did the concept
even warrant a word of its own?!!)
If you want the word that describes the evil aspects of race
considerations, then RACISM is less appropriate than RACIALISM.
Surprise. Even I can learn! Just don't expect it too often!
Anyway, garth, I agree with you that different people groups
behave differently and that we feel more comfortable with our own
kind than others, and that it's ok to be that way.
What I don't agree with (I'm not saying all of these are your
beliefs) is that: Significant "distinctive human characteristics
and abilities are determined by race"; One race is superior
to other races; Different races *ought* to stay apart
(there's a world of difference between "it's fine for a race
to stay together" and "different races ought to stay
separate"); Racialism is above contempt; It is moral in any
case to disadvantage another person by exclusion or any other
means because of their race.
I'ld better post this with the disclaimer that I mean no evil
toward any person, that I am trying to better understand the
bizarre characteristic which plagues all of mankind, racialism,
and that my powers of communication are sometimes dephishent.
If I've said anything really stupid please let me know in a
non-flamish way. I'll either give you the go-ahead to flame
me or correct myself.
[....many ruminations]
> Maybe we are conditioned by experience and observation or maybe there
> is an automated internal response to each after its own kind?
Sure, but I'ld attach the internal response to a preference for the
familiar instead of the same race. Suppose a community of blind white
orphans-since-birth raised with a community of blind black
orphans-since-birth. Can you
imagine the existance of any preferences correlating to race there?
Since I cannot, I have to surmise that race doesn't have any place
in the equation, and thus that racialism is a consequence of
evil, not holiness or even any a-moral consideration.
> I can not answer for how I feel but to date I have not wished harm on
> anyone because of race.
Cool, then.
> What I have very much appreciated is those posts which have
> discussed the issues without resort to emotional response.
> It has been good for me to see how others think and to read
> other's experiences.> Thank you.> ga...@clear.net.nz
[...]
Steven Nicoloso
Note: my REAL email in .sig below
Sam Finlay wrote:
> Steven Nicoloso wrote:
> John wrote:
> > > Where does God tell us to get together and mix in marriage?
> On a lighter note...
> You guys have missed the point. As a future father-in-law I will
> follow the time honored path so well beaten by my own father-in-law.
> Any fellow, with out regard to race, creed, or national origin, is
> a low life bum who has no business hanging around my daughter! The
> sooner he takes a hike, the better!
> See! I'm getting in practice already. :-)
> Sam
> The father of 3 daughters aged, 15, 12, & 9, who if truth be told,
> are a lot more in charge than I am.
Sam,
Thanks for the warning! My daughter will only be 2 in May. That
gives me at least 13 years to build up my gun collection before
I have to show it off to potential suitors :-) . . . and at least
7-9 years before I have to live without access to the bathroom!
garth
This post just turned up as an isolated item on my server. Is the
thread dead?
(the original) Marty Carts <Zca...@radef.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in
article <32FC53...@radef.nrl.navy.mil>...
> Scott Diesing wrote:
>
> > "garth" <ga...@clear.net.nz> writes:
>
> > >I have really appreciated the honest and forthright views
presented
<snips>
> > Christians should be the first to see skin color as
trivial.
More like a non-issue. We have fair and dark skinned within the same
cultures. The US perceived contrasts of black/white are not so
relevant here. For example one of my daughters is quite dark
complexioned, reflecting Spanish/Meditterranean heritage and another
is fair, blue-eyed and a strawberry blond possibly from Viking roots.
The one can pass for (and is often mistaken for) native indigenous
whereas the other is clearly identified as European immigrant. Unlike
possibly in the US, here, skin colour on its own is not a reliable
indicator of race.
> > We are all descendant from the same man and woman.
I suppose we all have to believe something. I wish I had your daring
to be so definite! I have tried to look at both sides of the
scriptural arguments but it seems reasonably valid either way. And
all believe what they believe. So what can I teach my kids in all
good conscience? Christians had faith that the world was flat once.
Ethical behavior
> > (the fruit we bear) should be of paramount importance. But skin
> > color, not.
>
> Hear hear!!
Just as an aside, I read that from a scientific angle, Jonah's skin
colour would have turned bright purple after the episode with the
digestion system of the large fish and he probably did not have too
much trouble getting noticed in Assyria. If so, they seem to have
been prejudiced in favour of foreign purple skinned prophets.
ga...@clear.net.nz