I think this is where a disconnect with Dawkins often comes in. I was raised in the northeast among moderate Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Reform Jews. I've attended liberal-leaning Episcopal churches as an adult. The religious world that Dawkins describes is entirely different from any of the religious communities I've had experience with. I don't doubt, certainly, that it exists, but I also don't think it's the totality of religious life, as Dawkins seems to believe. I know that my religious experience sits alongside that of those who experience a fundamentalist hegemony that is very oppressive. But Dawkins doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that my religious experience (and that of most of the people I know)--where I was never threatened with hellfire, where I was taught about God's love for everybody with no qualifiers added on, where questions and doubts were not just taken seriously but allowed to simply exist rather than being answered away--is also real and valid.

Is there anything that doesn't foster fanaticism and extremism in some people? Politics certainly does. There have been shootings resulting from the rivalry between East and West coast rappers. Soccer games have led to riots. It seems to me that people have an enormous capacity for responding with fanaticism to just about anything, and perhaps how few people in the scheme of things (given how many people in the world are religious in one way or another) actually do commit extreme, fanatical acts in the name of religion indicates that religion does a pretty good job, for the most part, of moderating that impulse.

But Dawkins actively misrepresents religious believers. It would, I think, come as a shock to him that the God of supernatural theism has been discarded by many contemporary Christian theologians and practitioners. He tells his readers--who, I agree, probably have little interest in theology and so are not likely to actually investigate if what he says represents the totality or even the mainstream of religious faith--that he is providing them with both all they need to know about religion and all they need to know to dismiss it. It would be like a person only learning about secular humanism from a conservative Christian worldview class that has the goal of teaching the student that secular humanism is wrong. Obviously that student is not going to have anything approaching a genuine understanding of what secular humanism is.

The thing is, every single criticism Dawkins makes of religion has been made, by religious people. There is, literally, nothing in The God Delusion that was knew to me. I'd read much of it in John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg, both Episcopalian theologians. I'd read many of the same criticisms in the writings of process theologians, who are much more vicious in their skewering of supernatural theism than Dawkins is. Tillich presents a God that is so completely different from the God Dawkins writes off that all he can do is basically say that he can't be bothered to deal with Tillich. If you want to understand why the criticism of Dawkins, for many people, has absolutely nothing to do with his being an atheist per se but everything to do with his refusal to engage in any way with serious theological thought and his extremely simplistic understanding of how and why religion functions, I'd highly suggest Terry Eagleton's review. Eagleton is an atheist Marxist literary theorist. The opening line does a good job setting it up.

I guess it's just that the idea of being completely and totally right about something that cannot be proven is foreign to me. I'm a theist. I believe in God. However, I also know I could be wrong. I think that atheism and agnosticism are both perfectly reasonable, morally sound, and epistemologically valid positions. I can't imagine thinking that anybody who didn't believe in some sort of "More" was stupid, deluded, willfully ignorant, brainwashed, or anything of the sort. I know so many sincere, reasonable, good people who have a wide array of beliefs on matters of faith, and I can't imagine questioning the goodness, reasonableness, or sincerity of any of them. So I guess if I was an atheist I would frame it as, "I don't believe in God/s. The evidence around me and my own experience lead me to that conclusion. YMMV, but here's why I came to the conclusions I did..." No need for snide dismissals of alternative viewpoints, IMO.

Would you think that if a Christian said, "We are supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs. We break that taboo by talking about Jesus. People don't want to hear the truth about Jesus, and so they take offense," would they be right? Is the problem that they are talking about Jesus, or that they are talking about Jesus in a way that is indeed offensive? I have no problem with atheism. I have no problem with critiques of religion. I do have a problem with intolerance, in any form. (I see the irony, yes, and I'm okay with it.) Dawkins bothers me because he is intolerant and arrogant. It's not the "There's no God" part of his message that bothers me, but the "and anybody who doesn't agree with me is either stupid, deluded, or brainwashed" part.

Who is talking about "deference" or "credence"? The point is, if you are going to debunk the concept of God, you've got to know what you're talking about, and since it is a contested concept within religious systems, you don't get to just choose the easiest conception to knock down. This is a matter of whether one is "inside of" or "outside of" religion. It's a matter of intellectual integrity. Just as you wouldn't dismiss the entire field of science because of one branch that many mainstream scientists considers to be more psuedoscience than valid scientific work, you shouldn't dismiss all religion on the basis of one particular type of religious thought that is considered bad theology by most religious people. That's not to say that one might not decide to dismiss the entire field of science after taking a serious, sustained look at the entire field, or that one might not decide to dismiss theology after taking a serious, sustained look at what's out there. All of which is to say, if Dawkins were to take seriously Tillich or Buber or Whitehead or, as mentioned, Wright, and tell me why I shouldn't believe in the God they describe, with more than just a "And that's silly, too, because it's religious!" he might convince me. As it is, I find his work useless because I already don't believe in the God he's telling me not to believe in.

I don't think that's why he's considered rude. He's considered rude because he is completely and entirely disrespectful to anybody who has any kind of religious faith. Saying that he is considered rude because he speaks out against religion is like Christians who say that people are offended by them because they are speaking about Jesus. Nope, not it, at least not for most people. While there may be people who are indeed offended by the very mention of the name "Jesus," most people are offended by those sort of Christians because they are talking about Jesus in ways that are offensive, exclusionary, and hateful. Most people don't think Dawkins is rude because he speaks out against religion. While the very idea of speaking out against religion may offend some people, most people who find Dawkins rude think that because the way he speaks out against religion is rude, intolerant, and disrespectful. A number of atheists/agnostics, including Chris Hedges and Terry Eagleton, have criticized Dawkins. It has nothing to do with his disbelief in God/gods. "Unwillingness to change as our knowledge increases" isn't what defines religion. If it were, the Catholic Church wouldn't be considered a religion, or most mainline Protestant denominations, or Conservative and Reform Judaism, or moderate Islam, or my own Episcopal Church.

That is true, but I'd personally be equally against having 888 tattooed across my forehead, and 8 is my favorite number. (It's so round and inviting, and it looks like a tiny snowman, and my mom and I were both born on the 8th.)

I don't think you need to even know, much less believe in, the reason behind a superstition to have some reaction to it. I have no idea what the deal with the number 13 is, or black cats crossing your path, or walking under ladders, or breaking mirrors, or opening umbrellas inside. I just know that they are supposed to be "bad luck," and while I don't really believe in luck, I also prefer not to have bad things happen to me ;), so the idea that something could be a portent of bad things eeks me out a bit. 666 works the same way for me. I completely disagree with the biblical reasons for finding it scary--that isn't how I think Revelation is meant to be interpreted--but it's so culturally associated with bad luck/bad things that I probably would have a silent moment of "Oh no!" if my lunch rang up to $6.66. I'd still eat it, but I'd have an "eek" moment.

The Church of the Larger Fellowship (an online UU church) has a number of RE resources that could be adapted for homeschool use. I'm a former UU, now an Episcopalian, but I use UU materials in homeschooling. There is a lot of good stuff. You might also want to check out the UUA bookstore's children's section.

I don't think Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist, at all, but I do think he's a scientific materialist fundamentalist. He not only believes that his way of looking at the world is right (which many obviously think about what they believe), and not only believes that his way of looking at the world is the ONLY right way to do so (which, again, many people believe), he also believes that his conclusions are so obvious to any thinking person that the only way a person couldn't share them is if they are brainwashed, stupid, or deluded. It's like the way some Christians assume that anybody who disagrees with them must be "blinded by the enemy." They somehow cannot fathom that a person might seriously and sincerely hear and consider their viewpoint, and reject it anyway, for valid reasons. Dawkins assumes that anybody who disagrees with him is brainwashed, delusional, or perhaps willfully ignorant, because he simply cannot imagine that anybody could seriously and sincerely look at the world and come to a different conclusion than he did. to me, both positions indicate a lack of critical thinking, and either an inability or unwillingness to inhabit the viewpoints of those you don't agree with, even for a moment. Dawkins does seem to believe that science can and will answer any and all questions. I think that's both naive and wrong. There are questions that lay outside the realm of science; to imagine, for example, that science can answer ethical questions is to ask something of science that it wasn't designed to do. I'm not saying that we need religion to answer those questions, because we don't; there are plenty of ways to address and answer ethical questions that do not rely on or make reference to religion. But Dawkins isn't saying that we can answer ethical questions without religion, he's saying that we can answer them with nothing more than science. I suppose, if he had his way, we'd do away with not just theology departments, but also sociology and anthropology and literature and philosophy and history departments, and just leave every question we might ever want to ask in the omnicapable hands of evolutionary biologists. I'm a lit person. I think critical analysis is a very, very useful tool. I don't "believe" in it--just like people can't "believe" in science--but I use it. I think it can lead us to better understandings of texts. But, I certainly don't think that I can apply critical analysis to every single question worth asking. It doesn't work that way. Science doesn't, either, and when somebody does think that there is nothing we can ask--or at least nothing worth asking--outside the realm of what science can answer, then I do think we're treading into fundamentalist territory. I actually think that's where Dawkins' misunderstanding of religion comes in. He seems to have no acquaintance with the work of any serious author who has ever discussed comparative religions or the history of religions, and who have--whether they are believers or atheists or agnostics--demonstrated the many and varied reasons why religions began and developed. Instead, he assumes that religion was designed to have an explanatory purpose: people didn't understand things about the world, so they made up stories, which became religions, to explain them. Therefore, if a better way to explain things is developed--like science, which absolutely is a better way to explain scientific phenomenon--religion can and should be discarded. The idea that Genesis might not be about the processes through which creation came to be, or that the story of the Tower of Babel might not be included in the biblical text to answer the question of why there are so many languages, seems not to occur to him. Dawkins believes that a hammer is the only tool worth using, so all he ever sees are nails.

In a weird, culturally superstitious way, akin to how I feel about walking under ladders or the number 13. I know it's silly and it's baseless, but I'll still have that flash of :eek: when confronted with it.

I disagree. There are many, many viewpoints I don't want to see legislated or turned into public policy. There are none I think shouldn't be voiced.

Also, if somebody wants to oppose gay marriage, why look to a homeschooling advocacy group to do that? I'm a member of Amnesty International. I'm not going to be all, "Hey, Amnesty International, how about you do something about poverty?!" That's not what they are there for, and if they began to get involved with all kinds of peripheral issues that many of their members might agree on but that were not central to their purpose, would be divisive (since not everybody who supports AI's mission regarding political prisoners would have the same views on dealing with poverty), and would dilute their energy from their original cause. Now, I don't think this is relevant to the HSLDA, because it never was about protecting the freedoms of all homeschoolers. It's always been a group interested in promoting a very specific conservative agenda and supporting a very narrowly-defined version of homeschooling. As noted, the HSLDA has been instrumental, in some states, in passing legislation that actually creates MORE regulation and makes certain types of homeschooling much harder. So it's not like the HSLDA has strayed from its original mission, as this has always been its mission. But, certainly all homeschoolers don't have to like it and don't have to keep quiet about their problems with the organization. I homeschool in a way that the HSLDA would likely approve of (not in terms of religious content, obviously, but in terms of my teaching style), but I support the right of unschoolers to educate their children as they see fit. I do not support efforts to narrowly define homeschooling. I actually have no problem with a certain level of regulation, and think it could be a good thing, but I do not want to see regulation in place that would privilege one kind of home education over others, or that would make it difficult or impossible to home educate in certain ways. AFAIK, there are some states with homeschooling laws--like Alabama--that make homeschooling secularly extremely difficult (you either have to be under the authority of a church-based "cover school" or be a certified teacher). I am not aware of the HSLDA working to change those regulations.

How is granting marriage rights to same-sex couples a possible infringement on homeschooling? I mean that in all seriousness. What genuine risk does that pose to the rights of homeschoolers? Have the rights of homeschoolers been curtailed or challenged or taken away in states where civil unions and same-sex marriage are legal, since they've become legal? The way I see it, rights are not a zero-sum game. If people really want their right to homeschool protected, even if it became a very unpopular thing, then they should support the rights of other minority groups. I'm assuming most homeschoolers wouldn't want GLBT people to say, "Those homeschoolers are all indoctrinating their kids to think homosexuality is an abomination. They pose a threat to us, so let's try to pass a constitutional amendment to make homeschooling illegal." Our rights and freedoms aren't threatened by the rights and freedoms of others, but tied up with and enhanced by them. That said, people are free to do what they want. But I think that championing conservative causes that restrict the freedoms of others is absolutely wrong, both morally and practically if we're interested in freedom for homeschoolers in the long-term.

Not very often. But I remember a few times I ordered something from the ads in the back of magazines or something. By the time it arrived, I'd generally forgotten that I'd ever wanted it.

My biggest "I would never" was spanking. I have done it, and I do regret it. I should have stuck with my convictions on that one. I don't think I had any other really firm nevers, though. I don't think I would have imagined I'd let my kids play with toy guns, but that because such a clearly losing battle early on that I gave it up quick. I don't think I'd have seen myself as the kind of parent who would dress my DD in pink and dresses all the time, but she just looks so. darn. cute. in them that I can't help it. After nursing my first for two years, I didn't think I'd ever formula feed one of my kids. When DD was 10 months and I was four months pregnant and nursing had become very painful and difficult, it was a really tough thing to wean her and put her on formula. It was, practically, very easy--it took all of two days, and she seemed not the least bit bothered--but it was very emotionally difficult for me.

I remember when, as a kid, things would take 6-8 weeks for delivery. How did we have the patience?

:iagree:

I'm opposed to the parental rights amendment. Parents already have rights, including the right to homeschool. A parental rights amendment, rather than securing parents any necessary rights they don't have, would simply strip away some of the few protections that children currently have. I don't care if the HSLDA supports it, or supports a constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from being granted partnership rights, but I think they're wrong and I wouldn't join.

Because it's fun! Seriously, I find sentence diagramming really fun. That's why I plan on teaching it. But, I don't think it's necessary. And if my kids absolutely hate doing it, it's not something I'd require, assuming they were able to grasp grammatical concepts/relationships in other ways.

I agree it would be helpful if you clarified what you meant by "liberal" curriculum. AFAIK, there are not liberal curriculum, in the sense that there are lots of conservative Christian curriculum and several curriculum coming from a conservative political/economic perspective. The only decidedly-liberal materials that I own that I can think of is Howard Zinn's A Young People's History of the United States. That is definitely politically/economically liberal. Everything else we use is either secular in a really mainstream/moderate way or conservative Christian material we tweak to fit our needs. So, you aren't going to find a liberal alternative to the kind of conservative Christian "worldview" courses, or the Uncle Eric series, or Abeka's American government course you often find. They aren't out there, either because nobody is producing them or because liberal homeschoolers have no interest in that kind of thing. But you can find materials that are either secular or that can be altered to fit your family. Are you looking for a specific subject? I'm sure you could get some good suggestions here for materials that would work for you. But if you're looking for a comprehensive/complete curriculum that comes from a decidedly liberal standpoint, in the sense of teaching students the "rightness" of left-of-center political, economic, social, and religious positions and the "wrongness" of other ways of looking at things, you won't find any, which as a liberal I'm inclined to think is a good thing. ;) For an American, I'm super-duper economically liberal (which would make me a tiny bit left of center if not dead center most other places ;)) and a little bit left of center socially and theologically.

Family Size (more, fewer, or about the same # of kids?) My maternal grandparents had four kids, one of whom died shortly after birth; my paternal grandparents had five kids. We've got three right now. Size of your home? I don't know. I know my maternal grandparents started out in an apartment in Jersey City, which I can't imagine was very big. I think my paternal grandparents raised their kids in a three-bedroom. We've got five people in a 800 sq. ft. two-bedroom right now. Number of moves in your lifetime compared to them? I'm not sure. Do you have as much of a social support network as they did? I'm sure they had more. Both sets of grandparents lived very close to their families. We don't. I've managed to find a nice group of friends in my neighborhood, but it's not the same as having a lot of family nearby. How do you think your nutrition compares to theirs? What about your overall health? Probably better, on both counts. Educational Levels? My paternal grandfather dropped out in the 7th grade to work, and my paternal grandmother had a high school diploma. She was really, really smart and did extremely well in school--she was first in her class--but her mother died when she was 16 and she had to take over caring for her father and siblings, and so furthering her education wasn't an option. My maternal grandfather had a master's degree in history (he was a high school teacher), and my maternal grandmother I'm not sure about. I know she didn't go to college but I can't remember if she graduated high school. I have a master's degree and my husband has a doctorate.

Congratulations!