I disagree with some of the assumptions made but nonetheless think this is a voice that should be heard.
As a follower of Jesus (I have to be careful how I say Christian because of how loaded that term has become) I feel sad that the writer is marginalised as if it is something Christ would have done.
That Jesus has been attached to a particular political agenda is particularly heartbreaking.
Historically, when Christianity has gotten in bed with power it has been bad news for the essence of Christ and the humbling power of His work - I would argue this is because of the corruptibility of humans and not through something inherently wrong with Christianity.
I'm sorry for some of the things being done in the name of Christianity but this is an intelligent, thoughtful community - please find out for yourself who Christ really said he was and don't assume that what some powerbrokers say in Christ's name is true - their interests are vested.
I hope that HN continues its history of thoughtful, respectful discussion rather than the vitriol I am seeing elsewhere.
EDIT: Spelling/grammar
I really, really don't think so. "Jesus" (who probably never even existed) isn't the problem, though. Religions are.
That they should be "respected" as just a normal human behavior is the problem. That superstition should be considered seriously instead of being fought, esp. in young minds, is the problem.
That separate schools should exist in the name of superstition, that people should be allowed to not even send their children to school but indoctrinate them themselves, is the problem.
There is such a thing as too much freedom, and the result is catastrophic.
Origin stories are hard, if not impossible, to answer. Sure, we have the Big Bang. I've read the thing that exploded was estimated to be the size of a grapefruit. So where did the magic exploding grapefruit come from? The Big Bang pushes the quest back 13 billion years, but still doesn't answer it.
Or perhaps you like the theory that we're living in a simulation? I'd argue that is 95% identical to religion.
When I see this level of vehemence, I sincerely wonder if someone isn't concerned about the possibility of having to ultimately answer to someone or something for their life's actions.
Hacker News is, I think that was the intended meaning.
I never understood why in the USA parents are allowed to radicalize their children out of society. Now I not just don't understand, but I see how dangerous is the situation.
Libertarian here. I find this idea a joke, and I believe in it just as much as the person who made the comment with "High quality state run Party schools" does. State-run schools (secular or not) is a great way to make sure that there is only one point which you need to overtake (through elections or corruption) when you want to push your ideology through the school system.
>I never understood why in the USA parents are allowed to radicalize their children out of society.
I never understood why in the USA the state is allowed to indoctrinate everyone's children into their version of Ideal Vision of Society(tm)(r)(c)(patent pending). This is not a clash of religion vs secularism, it's about individual freedom vs state power. If you are interested in understanding the side that advocates individual freedom, I would suggest reading [1], [2], and wherever the links take you on that blog.
[1] https://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/10/19/dont-let-your-enemy...
I don't understand why in France parents are not teaching their children about the threat of World Jewry. Now I not just don't understand, but I see how dangerous the situation is.
It is as bad that children ONLY learn from their parents that children ONLY learn from the state. Both radical situations go against a complete and balanced education.
I'm against "the state should be the only educator", my mistake if I didn't expressed that correctly.
It just seems to me that Americans fear radical islam, while extremely radical Christianity grows right under their noses. I agree that free state-run secular schools are the way to go for modern society.
That doesn't really seem like a well reasoned argument. Can you provide any data to backup that statement?
Let's try some quick googling. This article looks pretty good:
http://www.educationandbehavior.com/what-does-research-say-a...
Two interesting quotes from a paper they cite:
"For instance, one nationwide study analyzed data from 1,952 homeschooled students across the country and found that the students, on average, scored at the eightieth percentile or higher in every test category"
"Several studies found no significant difference in the social skills of homeschooled and non-homeschooled students. Other studies found that homeschooled children score significantly higher on social development rating scales/questionnaires."
But this is also the only basis on which Germans can typically sucessfully claim asylum in the US, and have successfully in the past: the idea that they are fleeing "religious or political persecution" for not being allowed to keep their kids at home and teach them in an isolated environment.
Homeschooling is a much safer environment to learn. State-run schools have drugs, violence, and often teachers who don't want to teach anymore.
Show me the numbers. What percent of homeschoolers are radical Christiana? Every home schooler I personally know is atheist/agnostic, well educated and want to make sure their kids get a solid education. (Because the public school system isn't delivering). If we are going on personal experience or assumptions, then my view is equally valid, if not more so as I have 5 data points :)
Maybe we should just give kids to bullies to use as slaves? Probably auction them.
(School was unarguably the worst period of my life, period. Bonus points for being blamed for that even later on, when affluent and successful)
(Nobody ever blames bullies for being ones. They were "just kids". Now you - you do get blamed for having been bullied)
The author is spot on when they say that there's nothing you can do to convince these people. The beliefs are so closely held that changing them has to come from the believer.
"A single powerful person who is convinced of their own Rightness with no thought of introspection is dangerous."
Indeed.
Perhaps we'd be better served to stop vilifying an entire subset of the population and actually listen to the parents who have recognized that public education is broken and who are taking other measures to educate their children.
For positive experiences with homeschooling, Astra Taylor's essays on it come to mind https://popularresistance.org/the-unschooled-life-astra-tayl..., https://nplusonemag.com/issue-13/essays/unschooling/.
It seems to me however, from armchair reasoning, lacking any motivation to research this further, that the former version would dominate and be the more public version of homeschooling, given that it co-opts into a popular American agenda with a focused message and mission.
>They know Trump is easily manipulated and will change his mind with the wind if it makes him feel more powerful and famous. Trump couldn’t care less about policy, a fact he’s made quite obvious.
This is a very strong claim to make about someone whose every move in the Office thus far has been promised and rehearsed during the campaign.
>The revolution has come and we are the resistance.
I find this claim funny given that the Left has overtook the universities, the media, and Hollywood, and did so quite often using the tactics outlined in Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky [2]. (Even Hillary Clinton wrote about Alinsky in her thesis [3].) Only with the rise of the Internet could this stranglehold of power be challenged, was challenged, and Trump won.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6ln5bhcWcI
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis
Secondly, the article has plenty of links you can follow to get more information. You can follow them and make up your own mind.
Or you could crash into this thread demanding cites, one of the classic moves of a troll.
