Define THE Christian Worldview for Homeschoolers?

22 03 2008

Christian (and science-minded) mom Dawn at Day by Day Discoveries sounds off about homeschoolers who claim creationism is a universal tenet of the Christian worldview.

That other sound you hear is me, cheering. . .

UPDATE: “Mind Your Head About Home Education and Religion”

« Powerful Aroma of Home and History In Hot Cross Buns Let’s Play “Lose Ben Stein’s Movie” »


Actions

Information

10 responses to “Define THE Christian Worldview for Homeschoolers?”

22 03 2008
Dawn (17:37:34) :

Thanks for the mention. :) That ‘christian worldview’ conceit of creationists has really been getting under my skin lately.

22 03 2008
JJ (18:06:46) :

Dawn, if there’s some universal answer to uniting all of us in understanding, I’m pretty sure you (figuratively speaking) are the key to finding it. :)

23 03 2008
JJ (11:04:39) :

And it’s not just science or not. How about race politics? Another current issue in how to “define” Christianity is
connecting race to resurrection, as in NYT’s “Obama Talk Fuels Easter Sermons.”
Is race a Christian issue, and who gets to say what to say about it? Who can be shouted down or “expelled” for disagreeing? (And would that be either Christian or politic?)

Also check out this in WaPo for Easter Sunday:
“He’s Preaching to a Choir I Left”

23 03 2008
JJ (11:11:15) :

Btw, did y’all hear (the publicly secular and profane) James Carville connecting race politics to Easter in another way, by likening Bill Richardson to Judas for endorsing Obama on Good Friday, thus “betraying” his rightful overlords the Clintons? The 30 pieces of silver line was even used.

23 03 2008
JJ (18:00:13) :

I’d be grateful for anyone who will read (or re-read) this to inform our collaboration here on taking a stand for diverse truth–
“The Story of Homeschool Truth: Time We Learned Our Lesson?”

23 03 2008
Dawn (20:25:39) :

I think the whole idea of a Christian worldview should be chucked out the window. I have a certain view that’s informed by my religion and that’s it.

23 03 2008
JJ (20:42:25) :

Dawn (and all), how does this strike you? — from “Maybe Obama Made the Wrong Speech” which I found through Blog Against Theocracy:

. . . religious positions - for example, creationism - must not seep into secular government. If gays want to marry, it isn’t Westboro’s business. If women want abortions, Pat Robertson need not approve. If a lab wants to do possibly life-saving experiments with stem cells, they shouldn’t be stopped by a president who hears celestial voices in his head. In return, our government should not legislate religion and what pastors choose to say from their pulpits. If they want to preach racial hatred, they’re entitled to do so, even if it is reprehensible and obnoxious behavior.

Religions, by their nature, are exclusive. In order to keep the sect alive, they must recruit devotees to their specific brand of God stuff. Left unchecked, that natural exclusivity will lead to a movement warped by absolute devotion to a principle or being that may very well be anathema to the rest of society and it will hunger to propagate as strongly and quickly as possible.

Good government is inclusive. It should be a place where everyone gets an equal chance to live as they choose, whether that includes believing the earth is only 10,000 years old or being an atheist. The only way we can expect government to function like that is by clearly dividing the rights and responsibilities of religion and government. To do otherwise is to invite a theocracy more virulent than anything the Muslims have managed to cook up.

Obama’s speech on racism was good, but a speech about avoiding theocracies would be good too.

24 03 2008
Nance Confer (07:43:22) :

“The only way we can expect government to function like that is by clearly dividing the rights and responsibilities of religion and government.”

***

You mean like they taught it in school when I was there? As opposed to the past two terms where “So?” sums up the level of responsibility in every instance?

Nance

25 03 2008
JJ (08:39:47) :

“The greatest con theopolitical conservatives ever pulled, was getting their religious views defined as the cultural ‘default setting’ when, in fact, most people aren’t fundamentalist Christians.

And the way they did that was by lying.”

And because I was SO exasperated by her deaf, dumb and blind “privileging” of her own ignorant view of homeschooling moms last year, I will now gladly link and recommend this much better post from Amanda at Pandagon, with a cock of the snook to the quoted blogger above.

Finally see this New Scientist first-person account from the current cult-controlled promo tour of EXPELLED! (by another “Amanda” ;) :

Maggie and I couldn’t help feeling that the polarised audience in the theater was a sort of microcosm of America, and let me tell you - it’s a scary place.

I also couldn’t help thinking that the intelligent design folks aren’t being silenced, so much as they’re being silent. Because when it comes to actually explaining anything, they’ve got nothing to say.

25 03 2008
So I Poked Around, About Family Demographics . . . « Cocking A Snook! (12:44:13) :

[...] the upside, it sure opens up “the” meaning of family values . . [...]

Leave a comment

You can use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>