A Schism in the HS Community?

[laundrycrisis]

Different terms--"agree to disagree" vs "those who don't Compromise" would be fine.

 

My point was simply--*could* it be a good thing? If the world could get a better glimpse of a non-fundamentalist face of hs'ing, if the marketplace could grow & realize what a demand there is (might be?) for other materials...I mean...SOTW is one of the few currics that's not *explicitly* Christian, & look how popular it's become? Across the board, there are people who feel comfortable with its authority and accuracy--neither being 100%, but both being an awful lot better than what's been available before.

 

Imagine a world in which there were more SWBs, more SOTWs. Imagine a place where no one calls you a fool shaking his fist at God because you reject YE, & imagine it being the same place that people don't call you...other bad things...for believing YE. Imagine disagreeing w/out name-calling. And imagine that from these rich discussions, genuine friendships: learning more, considering new ideas, *enjoying* the diversity?

 

:hurray: Yes, I think it would/could be a good thing to happen on a larger scale. It's already been happening on a smaller scale, I believe for a while.

 

As a secular person on the outside looking in, this hairsplitting over theology looks ridiculous and the person who has been saying and posting the nasty things looks very foolish. I would ignore it all as ridiculous except that I'm sorry to see that an author I enjoy and respect has been hurt by it and that her business has been attacked.

 

I believe it would be beneficial for the Christian HSers with more tolerant and open views to be able to enjoy conventions etc that aren't dominated/controlled by those with less tolerant views. I know there are already a lot of more moderate and tolerant Christian HSers who quietly do their own thing, use the materials of their choice, whether Christian or secular, are friendly toward and accepting of secular HSers, and don't identify with the Christian groups that are less tolerant. Some of them even join specifically secular groups and forums because they don't identify with the more extreme religious parts of the HS community. They usually introduce themselves with a first line of "we are Christian, BUT...." I have never seen these people not be welcomed for not being "secular enough". I have met a few secular individuals with this attitude, but never a group.

 

I am part of a wonderful inclusive group that welcomes all faiths and lack thereof. There are no divisive lines drawn over religion. I am encouraged that others also seek this type of community. I have hope that someday there will be inclusive conventions, where the only thing that is not tolerated is intolerance. I would like to see booths side by side, one with faith-infused materials, one with completely secular materials, and no tension or arguing, no claims of "absolute truth", just an agreement that "it's amazing and fascinating to learn about no matter how you choose to look at it".

 

If a schism in the world of large Christian homeschool conventions results in the deliberate creation of a "tolerance" camp, IMO that would be a great thing.

Edited March 30, 2011 by laundrycrisis

[Lovedtodeath]

I felt kind of sorry for her when she said something like, "You moms are so much nicer than the Xtian HS moms." Apparently, the Xtian HS moms are very concerned about who is going where when they die.

 

I don't have time for stuff like that in my life and hang it all, it makes me glad it's not part of what I've got to deal with as an adult. I do find it oddly ironic that the thing that is supposed to bring people the most comfort can be so darn damaging. I'm watching my new friend really struggle with is. And I'm wondering why the Xtian HS moms cannot see how very un-Christlike that looks.

:iagree:So many of us have been damaged by judging. I wish people would just stop.

 

It is honestly a relief to have friends that don't know anything about my religion. And that is very very sad.

[pdalley]

lcelmer, I would have said the same thing no matter how the names may change.

 

If you need ________ to tell you that ________ is not a fit author for your child's homeschool materials, you lack the discretion and critical thinking skills necessary to educate another.

 

Do you see what I mean?

 

I happen to be on Ken Ham's "side" in that I am YE and believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I still think he is dead wrong to attack SWB and Dr. Enns, or to beat a drum warning "good" Christians. It is turning into a witch hunt.

 

I am with Dr. Wile on this. All should be free to proclaim what they believe, and all hearers should bear the responsibility of sorting it out.

 

Attacking and warning are something else, especially when the man in question does hold to orthodox Christian beliefs shared by many Christians over the ages.

 

:iagree:

 

And if you read the curriculum samples that we've been graciously allowed to read then its very easy to decide if it is or is not right for your family. Really, I don't see any evidence of an unorthodox Christian world view in that text if it is read and not chopped up to make a point.

[m0mmaBuck]

That's so funny, because Bud said we couldn't homeschool because we weren't hippies or Jesus freaks! But of course, we can and we do!

 

:lol::lol::lol: My husband said the same thing! And here we are!

[HeatherInWI]

People will assume that b/c I am a Christian and I HS that....

 

Or they will assume that b/c they see certain books on my shelf that I....

 

The whole "not-Christian-enough" thing doesn't apply if you aren't a professing Christian in the first place.

 

Exactly. We are conservative Christians, but not fundamentalist or young earth, and we are scientists, but are not liberal or atheist. People on both sides seem set on drawing lines that we have no choice but to cross.

[Lovedtodeath]

And if you read the curriculum samples that we've been graciously allowed to read then its very easy to decide if it is or is not right for your family.

Really? Because a warning against buying RS4K is apparently needed even though you can read the whole thing online.

 

Telling people that they might want to know that the author of this _____ curriculum also has connections with ______ that promotes ______ is different than personal attacks. You can fill in the blanks with different things and make it apply to Telling God's Story or RS4K or History at Our House or _____.

 

If warning people that an author has a particular point of view, affiliation or agenda is wrong... then we need to start cracking down on those RS4K or History at Our House or ______ warnings.

 

I have seen things written by Ken Ham that are too dogmatic. He probably did word things the wrong way... I am just clarifying that homeschoolers do in fact as others for reviews and opinions of the curriculum or the author, don't we?

[pdalley]

Really? Because a warning against buying RS4K is apparently needed even though you can read the whole thing online.

 

Telling people that they might want to know that the author of this _____ curriculum also has connections with ______ that promotes ______ is different than personal attacks. You can fill in the blanks with different things and make it apply to Telling God's Story or RS4K or History at Our House or _____.

 

If warning people that an author has a particular point of view, affiliation or agenda is wrong... then we need to start cracking down on those RS4K or History at Our House or ______ warnings.

 

I have seen things written by Ken Ham that are too dogmatic. He probably did word things the wrong way... I am just clarifying that homeschoolers do in fact as others for reviews and opinions of the curriculum or the author, don't we?

 

 

I do as well but the more I do this the more I listen to what I consider the real experts - the people who use the curriculum. I appreciate the chance to read it for myself before buying. I take people - and things - as I find them. I don't trust that _______ has a certain agenda because Dr. Y said so. If I can tweak it I'll use it. I don't like it being implied I'm embracing a bad theology or worldview by doing so.

 

My issue with Dr. Ham is that he trashed the person - he didn't just disagree with the problems in the curriculum. I think it's possible to take issue with certain points or theologically without casting doubt on the state of the author - and in this case - the publisher's intentions.

[Jen500]

Really? Because a warning against buying RS4K is apparently needed even though you can read the whole thing online.

 

Telling people that they might want to know that the author of this _____ curriculum also has connections with ______ that promotes ______ is different than personal attacks. You can fill in the blanks with different things and make it apply to Telling God's Story or RS4K or History at Our House or _____.

 

If warning people that an author has a particular point of view, affiliation or agenda is wrong... then we need to start cracking down on those RS4K or History at Our House or ______ warnings.

 

I have seen things written by Ken Ham that are too dogmatic. He probably did word things the wrong way... I am just clarifying that homeschoolers do in fact as others for reviews and opinions of the curriculum or the author, don't we?

 

But Dr. Keller marketed her materials as neutral, yet she admitted herself that she has the agenda of planting seeds of doubt about evolution in the minds of children using her books.

[Lovedtodeath]

I do as well but the more I do this the more I listen to what I consider the real experts - the people who use the curriculum. I appreciate the chance to read it for myself before buying. I take people - and things - as I find them. I don't trust that _______ has a certain agenda because Dr. Y said so. If I can tweak it I'll use it. I don't like it being implied I'm embracing a bad theology or worldview by doing so.

 

My issue with Dr. Ham is that he trashed the person - he didn't just disagree with the problems in the curriculum. I think it's possible to take issue with certain points or theologically without casting doubt on the state of the author - and in this case - the publisher's intentions.

Thanks for adding clarity. I don't disagree.

[KnitWit]

All of this reminds me of Raymond Moore's White Paper, written about a similar schism issue back in 1994. Those of you who are interested in homeschooling history might want to read it. Though it's complicated, it involves, among other things, a similar situation, with a conference speaker who was deemed unfit (inter-racial marriage, divorce). Add in HSLDA politics. It's ugly, and part of it eventually went to court.

 

http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/extras/WhitePaper.htm

 

When will we ever learn?

 

WOW Pauline! Thank you for this link. I just spent FAR too long reading this whole thing and it was completely eye opening. It sheds a LOT of light on a LOT of things, in my opinion. I had never read this.

 

Raymond Moore was one of the first authors I read back in the mid-90's, but his voice was quickly crowded out by many others. Reading this, it kind of makes me sad. Seems he was all about what we wish we had.

 

ETA: Interesting the beginnings of *trashing each others beliefs* presented here. Hmmmm....

[Aubrey]

ETA: Interesting the beginnings of *trashing each others beliefs* presented here. Hmmmm....

 

Nah, this isn't the beginning. The woman at the well was caught up in a similar issue: *They* say we should worship on *that* mountain; *we* think it should be *this* mountain. Let's see if you're the Messiah: which mountain is it???

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Really? Because a warning against buying RS4K is apparently needed even though you can read the whole thing online.

 

Telling people that they might want to know that the author of this _____ curriculum also has connections with ______ that promotes ______ is different than personal attacks. You can fill in the blanks with different things and make it apply to Telling God's Story or RS4K or History at Our House or _____.

 

If warning people that an author has a particular point of view, affiliation or agenda is wrong... then we need to start cracking down on those RS4K or History at Our House or ______ warnings.

 

I have seen things written by Ken Ham that are too dogmatic. He probably did word things the wrong way... I am just clarifying that homeschoolers do in fact as others for reviews and opinions of the curriculum or the author, don't we?

 

IMHO Ken Ham could have said such and such curricula is not young earth or does not take Genesis literally which is not offensive but I still believe why not stick to selling your stuff so to speak. Ken Ham IMHO took it into offensive territory when he used words like attackers of Christ:glare:

 

OTOH from what I recall the warnings against RS4K did not cross that line into attack mode. I recall them simply warning that they are not truly secular science which is not the same as saying one is an attacker of Christ IMO.

[Parrothead]

:iagree:So many of us have been damaged by judging. I wish people would just stop.

 

It is honestly a relief to have friends that don't know anything about my religion. And that is very very sad.

It is only the people I meet from the homeschooling world that what to know up front what my religious preferences are.

[KnitWit]

Nah, this isn't the beginning. The woman at the well was caught up in a similar issue: *They* say we should worship on *that* mountain; *we* think it should be *this* mountain. Let's see if you're the Messiah: which mountain is it???

 

You have a point

[jec3113]

Since RS4K was brought up. Can someone fill me in? Has RS4K been "attacked" also? Desperately trying to keep up with all this information! :001_huh: Is RS4K secular or is there a "hidden agenda"

[Mrs Mungo]

RS4K is a perfect example. I know that Dr. Keller she made some off the cuff remark about bringing people around on her email list. BUT, it is a curricula *most homeschoolers* think is neutral (and Dr. Keller feels it is neutral, she explains this on her website). Other than her comment, I haven't seen anything showing any examples of an agenda. Neither of the groups on the ends of the spectrum use it because 1. she is suspect because she is a scientist *or* 2. she is suspect because she is a Christian. The people in the middle don't care. I'm interested to see her Earth Science which is due out soon, harder to skirt these issues in Geology and Astronomy (imo).

Edited March 30, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Haiku]

So what do you think--would a schism be so bad?

 

Nope, not at all. I would love to live in a world where people viewed homeschooling as a lifestyle and/or educational choice, not a religious one. I would love to have curriculum choices that don't assume my beliefs for me, and I would desperately love to attend a homeschool convention that wasn't actually a narrowly-focused Christian-lifestyle convention dressed up in homeschooling clothes.

 

Tara

[simka2]

I saw this today. I'm begininng to think the schism has been here all along. The difference is right now we have a prominent homeschool figure attempting to widen it (within the Christian community.) This is what makes me squirmy :001_huh:.

 

"Yes, there is a culture war happening in our nation, but there is a much greater battle that needs to be fought—a battle to call the church back to an uncompromising position on the authority of the Word of God."-Ken Ham

 

Here's the whole article http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/30/more-sad-compromise-in-the-church/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29&utm_content=FaceBook

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm currently using RS4K Chem 1 and have used the pre chem. I believe there is one questionable sentence in the entire book. It is something like "blah blah was designed to...". It is very subtle. I didn't notice it. It would have never made it to my radar had nobody pointed it out to me.

 

But, I don't even that *that* is really questionable. Was designed by Science or by Nature, you decide.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree. It does not bother me in the least. I can't overthink everything, ya know?

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

IMHO Ken Ham could have said such and such curricula is not young earth or does not take Genesis literally which is not offensive but I still believe why not stick to selling your stuff so to speak. Ken Ham IMHO took it into offensive territory when he used words like attackers of Christ:glare:

 

OTOH from what I recall the warnings against RS4K did not cross that line into attack mode. I recall them simply warning that they are not truly secular science which is not the same as saying one is an attacker of Christ IMO.

Right. That's what I was saying... that Ken Ham probably did cross the line but if he had simply said, "FYI author of such and such curricula does not subscribe to a creationist belief" then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[Lovedtodeath]

Since RS4K was brought up. Can someone fill me in? Has RS4K been "attacked" also? Desperately trying to keep up with all this information! :001_huh: Is RS4K secular or is there a "hidden agenda"

The big hoo-ha is about a yahoogroup comment that Dr. Keller made, not about her curriculum, but in response to members of the yahoo group who were talking to some kids and trying to open their minds to the possibility of something other than unguided evolution. She supported the yahoo group members who were doing this.

 

There have been many warning type posts whenever RS4K is mentioned in a secular thread. Here are a couple of quotes and if you go to the threads that they are from you will find more.

 

I dug this out from the archives.

Lovedtodeath

04-20-2009, 03:13 PM

 

I guess what I mean is: Can you give an example of a sentence with designed in it and rephrase the sentence without using the term evolved?

 

FWIW no science curriculum accurately portrays my beliefs between evolution and creation, so I just present both and explain accordingly.

 

Lovedtodeath04-20-2009, 03:17 PM

 

(e.g. "flowers are designed to..." instead of "flowers function as..."). I see. Good example. Any more?

 

 

MyCrazyHouse04-20-2009, 06:18 PM

 

I haven't seen RS4K, but have read reports in more than one forum about the unnecessary use of the word "designed" (e.g. "flowers are designed to..." instead of "flowers function as..."). I'm not sure whether Keller's use of the terminology is intentionally deceptive, but given her background, I'm not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. That type of terminology could be viewed as "priming" for ID arguments down the road.

 

I am a secular, non-Christian homeschooler. I used "designed" in reference to human biology all the time, e.g. Kid: "I am SO sick of blowing my nose!!!" Me: "It's functioning as designed. Your mucous membranes secrete more than the regular amount of fluids when blah, blah..." Is there anyone here delusional enough to suggest I am priming my children for ID arguments down the road?

 

I fully expect a person of faith to experience the fruits of scientific inquiry - as everything else in their lives - from that perspective. And it doesn't make the fruits of that inquiry bad science. Many of the scientific "big names" - Copernicus, Galilei, Newton, Mendel, Kelvin, not to mention the whole slew of non-European scientists that predated them - were people of deep faith. Seeing the molecular structure of a leaf and remarking on the glory of <insert deity here> in this creation does not change the molecular structure of the leaf.

 

All I'm saying is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. :001_smile:

 

A question (I'm curious) ~ what verb should be used there, to please atheists/etc? I'm just thinking that 'designed' doesn't necessarily mean "by God" (unless it says so) ... does it? Could it not mean "designed by the Big Bang"? (or anything else)

 

I was raised in an Atheist home for a large portion of my childhood, and I don't think that I'd have jumped from the word 'designed' to the idea of God as a child - considering that I'd been taught at home that there was no such thing and whatnot...

 

It just seems like ANY word that you put there could be then said to mean a Creator (in the sense of God)...

 

Plants are created...

Plants are designed...

Plants are made to...

Plants are set up to...

Plants are built so that...

 

I don't know, I can't find a verb that couldn't be said to give that impression if you saw it that way...

 

(I'm not sticking my nose in here to argue or anything - I just read the quotes and started wondering what WOULD be considered suitable wording there...)

[Slartibartfast]

Right. That's what I was saying... that Ken Ham probably did cross the line but if he had simply said, "FYI author of such and such curricula does not subscribe to a creationist belief" then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

:iagree:

 

I wouldn't have had a problem with that

[justasque]

RS4K Chem 1

 

I looked at RS4K chem some years ago, and if I recall correctly it had an example of baking a cake (the actual baking part, not the mixing the stuff part) being a physical change (when actually, as I understand it, and I am not a scientist, it is a chemical change). That was enough for me to put it in my "no thanks" list. I don't know if the current version has the same issue, and I could be remembering incorrectly. I'd be interested to know. Anyone have the book?

[Daisy]

Have we ever all been one happy group? I don't think so. Homeschooling is just a sub-set of our society. It contains any number of different groups of people with wide-ranging beliefs.

 

In order to have a schism, you have to have been whole at one point. That has never been the case. We are a group of individuals who temporarily rally around the same cause. We'll never be a homogeneous group and I think that is good.

[Mrs Mungo]

I looked at RS4K chem some years ago, and if I recall correctly it had an example of baking a cake (the actual baking part, not the mixing the stuff part) being a physical change (when actually, as I understand it, and I am not a scientist, it is a chemical change). That was enough for me to put it in my "no thanks" list. I don't know if the current version has the same issue, and I could be remembering incorrectly. I'd be interested to know. Anyone have the book?

 

Baking a cake is both a physical change and a chemical change. Cooking is listed as a type of chemical change (through heat) in the first paragraph on chemical changes. I have the first edition of the books.

[HS Mom in NC]

Be careful about generalizations on this one.

 

There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians (like me, an Independent Baptist) who have no problem with other people homeschooling from all different points of view whether they label themselves as Christan or not. Yes, I have a very specific set of criteria for what makes a person a Christian, but I don't go around declaring unto all the world who fits my criteria and who doesn't. I'm an adult who knows other people have different criteria and they're entitled to theirs whether I agree with it or not. If someone wants to specifically have a conversation about what I think makes a person a Christian, I will answer them, but otherwise I just live my life according to my beliefs and let others live according to theirs. Christian is a term different people use differently-get used to it.

 

There are plenty of fundamentalists who are not Ken Ham fans even though they hold to a young earth point of view. They don't like his attitude or his methods. I have personally just left a church (among many other reasons) where Ken Ham and his videos and books are promoted and accepted by many. Many other fundamentalist members there (who are staying) don't like him either. There are divergent views on creation among fundamentalists including the Pre-Adamic View, The Gap Theory and I'm sure others I haven't spent time on.

 

Ken Ham would do better just to stick to the ideas he believes in and why and what he doesn't believe and why doesn't and let the chips fall where they may. There's no need to go around listing people and books you disagree with-once you start that it's an endless task. Teach what you believe to be the truth and people can accept it or reject it. If they accept it, they can hold it up to any book, speaker, author etc. and see if it fits. If it does, great. If it doesn't, they can reject it. He and his followers need to drop the paternalistic condescension about "warning" people that there's someone with differing views. What next? They'll tell us the sky is blue?

 

I have spent time developing a workshop on the roughly 8 different hsing methods (traditional school at home, 3 models of classical education, living books, 2 forms of unschooling, and unit studies) and the roughly 3 different mindsets (1. secular and religious pioneer, 2. settler, and 3. institutional refugee.) It's a big world with lots of different people with different goals, motivations, and methods. I would like to get into teaching new hsers about their different options and encourage them to decide for themselves which best meets their convictions. Welcome to life in a free society.

[justamouse]

IMHO Ken Ham could have said such and such curricula is not young earth or does not take Genesis literally which is not offensive but I still believe why not stick to selling your stuff so to speak. Ken Ham IMHO took it into offensive territory when he used words like attackers of Christ:glare:

.

 

This. this is the part that makes me sick to my stomach-and not in a pissed off way, but in a very real way because as soon as you start making statements like that, as soon as you bring the hammer of us against them down, how far is it until more people state that they wish there wasn't a literal Mr. /Mrs._____ and then do something about it?

[justasque]

Baking a cake is both a physical change and a chemical change. Cooking is listed as a type of chemical change (through heat) in the first paragraph on chemical changes. I have the first edition of the books.

 

Thanks Mrs. Mungo! I shall revise my mental opinion of this series! I've wondered for quite some time whether I had it wrong - apparently I did!

[Aubrey]

Be careful about generalizations on this one.

 

There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians (like me, an Independent Baptist) who have no problem with other people homeschooling from all different points of view whether they label themselves as Christan or not. Yes, I have a very specific set of criteria for what makes a person a Christian, but I don't go around declaring unto all the world who fits my criteria and who doesn't. I'm an adult who knows other people have different criteria and they're entitled to theirs whether I agree with it or not. If someone wants to specifically have a conversation about what I think makes a person a Christian, I will answer them, but otherwise I just live my life according to my beliefs and let others live according to theirs. Christian is a term different people use differently-get used to it.

 

There are plenty of fundamentalists who are not Ken Ham fans even though they hold to a young earth point of view. They don't like his attitude or his methods.

 

You know, I think I'm using the term "fundamentalist" a little loosely because, broadly speaking, that's the camp I belong to, too.* Obviously I don't think like Ken Ham, but...I guess kinda like being able to poke fun at your own family more than you would at someone else's...I've been...less specific than maybe I should have been. At one point, I said Ham-ites. Maybe that's better?

 

Still, I do think "fundamentalist" has meaning...how *does* one classify the people who are making the narrow comments regarding other people's lack of faith in Ham & his interpretation of Scripture? It's not all Baptists, but there are some in there; it's not all non-denoms, but there are some in there. What is that slice of Christendom that "believes the Bible"?

 

*Dh has just recently quit attending a Southern Baptist seminary. While we are not exactly Baptist--more non-denom--we've been in Baptist churches for about 3 years. The seminary itself...would probably qualify for a badge. Fundamentalist, or whatever you want to call it. Faaaaaaaaaaar right. Before that, I was the furthest right person I knew. ;)

[kchara]

I don't think "Fundamentalist" is technically the correct term, but I also don't think there's a better one, so it'll have to do. My dad's a minister in the Disciples of Christ church. When I have terminology questions, I usually call him. He said that basically a Fundamentalist is someone who believes the Scripture is inerrant, infallible, and literal. An Evangelical is more open to interpretation on it. (For example, women wearing headcoverings. A fundamentalist would be more likely to interpret that passage literally, while an Evangelical would be more inclined to interpret it as a woman under her husband's headship, or to say that the passage was for a specific time and place, and no longer relevant.)

 

I think neither particularly fits the situation at hand. I believe the term "Fundamentalist" has been hijacked by a serious fringe, even within Fundamentalism. I think "Evangelical" is being slowly hijacked by the same fringe, which, honestly, gets back to the heart of the whole thing which is, is there only 1 type of Christian?

 

I could be wrong on those definitions, and feel free to correct me if I am. :) That's just the way I've heard it defined.

[Rosie_0801]

Aubrey, Dear. Why don't you just move to Australia?

 

Rosie

[Aubrey]

Aubrey, Dear. Why don't you just move to Australia?

 

Rosie

 

Because I'm having a Really Awful Very Bad Terrible Day?

 

Or because y'all do something else over there?

[Lovedtodeath]

Maybe it is because everybody likes you and Australia is tired of us hogging you?

[Rosie_0801]

Because I'm having a Really Awful Very Bad Terrible Day?

 

Or because y'all do something else over there?

 

The latter; we have Really Awful Very Bad Terrible Days here too.

 

:grouphug:

Rosie

[Joanne]

I saw this today. I'm begininng to think the schism has been here all along. The difference is right now we have a prominent homeschool figure attempting to widen it (within the Christian community.) This is what makes me squirmy :001_huh:.

 

"Yes, there is a culture war happening in our nation, but there is a much greater battle that needs to be fought—a battle to call the church back to an uncompromising position on the authority of the Word of God."-Ken Ham

 

Here's the whole article http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/30/more-sad-compromise-in-the-church/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

The impasse will exist in this (and other) settings as long as there is exclusive religiousity.

[GMB]

I'd love to be a part of a community in which I was pretty confident that the mom next to me wasn't squirming because somebody else's statement of faith was excluding or belittling hers.

 

Aubrey, I share a desire to participate in a community in which homeschool parents accept and learn from differences of faith, educational goals, and politics. We homeschool one child because she asked for it two years ago.

 

Although we are a Christian family, we do not include religious instruction as part of academics. When I showed my proposed curriculum plan for this year to an experienced member of my local homeschool support group, she admonished me to add Bible and to make that class my DD's top priority. This academic emphasis was presented to me in a way that made it seem like an inoculation against bad moral choices in DD's future. I have observed too many counter-examples to accept this reasoning.

 

Anyway, I'm surprised to discover how hard it is to locate homeschool curricula choices that are not explicitly Christian - especially if one desires a package plan. It seems even more difficult to locate support groups and conventions which appeal to non-fundamentalist Christians like my family - or which welcome the differences we bring to the table.

[In2why]

Joanne and some others brought up this very issue when the kerfuffle started.

 

TXMary, I think you are supremely missing the point. It isn't about secular people v. fundamentalists *at all*. It is about fundamentalists openly criticizing non-fundamentalist *Christians* calling them wolves in sheep's clothing, attackers of Christ and all manner of other things. We can't all just get along because a vocal minority of that group doesn't WANT to get along. In fact, they apparently believe they are commanded by the Bible to speak out and ostracize people who believe differently than them. And they have wide support in their particular community. That makes it impossible for everyone to just get along.

 

Yes This!!!!! Because I will not sign a Statement of Faith (and not because I don't agree with the statement, but because I don't accept that it is Christian to kick out Mormans, Catholics, and others) it IS harder for me to homeschool. I live in a small town and there is the large statement of faith group, and a smaller inclusive group. The larger group, simply by having more than the required minimum number of children are able to set things up that we can't. For example we have an art school, and on Fridays they offer an art class for homeschooled children. When I called to see about joining, I was told that I had to be a member of the group. I asked about setting up another class and we had to have 20+ children for the school to set anything up. Even more frustrating is that I know of many families who joined that group even though they don't agree with the Statement of Faith so they can have those opportunities for their kids. It is the only game in town.

[In2why]

Okay, so you don't like Ham, don't go to his talks, and don't buy his materials. I still don't understand why there needs to be a schism. This reminds me of Jr. high, when two girls got in a spat, and the whole circle of friends was expected chose sides. Someone should stand up and say, "Agree to disagree." I have to do that all the time in so many areas of my life, why should this be any different?

 

Because he has influence and the power to hurt good people. For me it isn't enough to just agree to disagree, it is important to say it is wrong. Right now he just went after one man with a differing opinion, but if there isn't a backlash to say that he went out of bounds it empowers him to go after others. He already took a warning shot at SWB in his facebook post, and we are all here on this forum. If I were a fundamentalist, would I eventually have to prove it by turning my back on any of her education materials as well because *they aren't Christian enough either? There are many intelligent fundamentalist who came to their POV through deliberate thought, and prayer, but there are also many who have no clue why they think how they do other than their "church/education" leaders told them that this is how they should. People who are not fundamentalists are a large part of the homeschooling populationm but the loudest voice with the biggest pulpit not only control conventions but also home education politics and perceptions in our legislature. I find that dangerous as well and I don't want them speaking for me, yet if I am silent then I give their actions approval.

[Aubrey]

Maybe it is because everybody likes you and Australia is tired of us hogging you?

 

Can I frame this & hang it over my desk? :D

[Aubrey]

The latter; we have Really Awful Very Bad Terrible Days here too.

 

:grouphug:

Rosie

 

No, no, no--you know the book: Alexander and the Horrible, Awful, Very Bad Day. He says he's going to move to Australia.

[In2why]

I am not sure I buy that anyone is left out. Homeschoolers as a whole have many options. It sounds to me like both sides just want to shut the other side up. Ken Ham wants people that don't agree with him to shut up and people that don't agree with Ham want him to shut up. Where do you go from there?

 

Perhaps that is the case where you live, but it isn't the experience everywhere. I will tell you about our wonderful Statement of Faith group. The leader stepped down and there was an opening and another Mother stepped up. She was fabulous. She planned great field trips, she organized co-ops, and not only had she homeschooled for a few years, but she was a former special education teacher, and published author of children's history books on Jamestown and Roanoke. She also is Mormon. Some of the members decided that even though she could sign the Statement of Faith that being Mormon made her "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and asked her to step down. But here is the 'good part'....she could continue to plan everything and work under another member but she couldn't have a voice or leadership role because it just "didn't look right". Sure she can find all the curricula but very few people classically educate in our area that aren't fundamentalist so forget about support, and just hanging out with other kids and Mom's. I don't care for myself, but it bothers me that my son is excluded. Even at homeschool swim lessons that are open to every homeschooler the other moms and therefore their kids are very exclusive.

[In2why]

where you can form such an inclusive group. I would love a group like that. I would love to meet some of those hippie Jesus freaks irl, too. Someone said you can just start your own group. Yes, but if there is no one else around that wants to be inclusive, you're isolated.

 

That's not the worst thing in the world but it's hard on the kids. Where we live, the "Christians" think we're heathens because we're Catholic, the seculars think we're freaks because we're Christian and the public schoolers think we're freaks because we homeschool.

 

For me, this issue is about attitude. Attitude permeates the whole community. I can find curriculum and I can find tolerant people on this board. But, irl, it feels so much more hostile than it should be. And, it's tiring.

 

I hope it will be better for my kids in college. For now, I teach them to be accepting of all people, not just ones like themselves.

Denise

 

 

Yes this....(Sigh)

[KnitWit]

Perhaps that is the case where you live, but it isn't the experience everywhere. I will tell you about our wonderful Statement of Faith group. The leader stepped down and there was an opening and another Mother stepped up. She was fabulous. She planned great field trips, she organized co-ops, and not only had she homeschooled for a few years, but she was a former special education teacher, and published author of children's history books on Jamestown and Roanoke. She also is Mormon. Some of the members decided that even though she could sign the Statement of Faith that being Mormon made her "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and asked her to step down. But here is the 'good part'....she could continue to plan everything and work under another member but she couldn't have a voice or leadership role because it just "didn't look right". Sure she can find all the curricula but very few people classically educate in our area that aren't fundamentalist so forget about support, and just hanging out with other kids and Mom's. I don't care for myself, but it bothers me that my son is excluded. Even at homeschool swim lessons that are open to every homeschooler the other moms and therefore their kids are very exclusive.

 

You have to be kidding me! This makes me nauseous.

[Rosie_0801]

No, no, no--you know the book: Alexander and the Horrible, Awful, Very Bad Day. He says he's going to move to Australia.

 

Yeah I know the book, but moving to Australia doesn't cure Horrible, Awful, Very Bad Days! I haven't seen that book in years. I'm going to have to dig it out of the library some time and see what the Australian edition says. I suppose they have days like that in Tahiti too. :(

 

Nah, you should move to Australia because these sorts of problems are so much easier to avoid.

 

Rosie

Edited March 31, 2011 by Rosie_0801

[kalphs]

Perhaps that is the case where you live, but it isn't the experience everywhere. I will tell you about our wonderful Statement of Faith group. The leader stepped down and there was an opening and another Mother stepped up. She was fabulous. She planned great field trips, she organized co-ops, and not only had she homeschooled for a few years, but she was a former special education teacher, and published author of children's history books on Jamestown and Roanoke. She also is Mormon. Some of the members decided that even though she could sign the Statement of Faith that being Mormon made her "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and asked her to step down. But here is the 'good part'....she could continue to plan everything and work under another member but she couldn't have a voice or leadership role because it just "didn't look right". Sure she can find all the curricula but very few people classically educate in our area that aren't fundamentalist so forget about support, and just hanging out with other kids and Mom's. I don't care for myself, but it bothers me that my son is excluded. Even at homeschool swim lessons that are open to every homeschooler the other moms and therefore their kids are very exclusive.

:grouphug:

I empathize with you.

[Caroline]

Just because I have a kid named after it, the actual book title is Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. Judith Viosrt wrote it. I love that book. (And I read a story about Alexander all grown up, and he turned out to be a really nice person.)

[My3Boys]

Things have shifted for me as well. I've tried to stay away from it all (not visiting the facebook page, or Ham's site), but just what I've read here has been so distressing. That poster you mention? That is horrendous!!

 

It hasn't rocked my faith or anything, because my faith is not based on how people act, but it saddens me to my core that fellow Christians are acting in such an unChristian way.

 

Well I haven't seen admirable behavior on either side. :glare:

[My3Boys]

I"m not hiding anything. People need to know they can be Christians & think, too.

 

Wow. I know you probably didn't mean it like it sounds, but as a conservative Christian I found that offensive. That follows the old stereotype that only ignorant, uneducated people who can't think for themselves would believe all that Christian stuff.

 

Please tell me you didn't mean it that way? :confused: Most Believers I know have college degrees, are or have been employed in demanding professions, are very well-read, and are anything but non-thinkers.

[Mrs Mungo]

Wow. I know you probably didn't mean it like it sounds, but as a conservative Christian I found that offensive. That follows the old stereotype that only ignorant, uneducated people who can't think for themselves would believe all that Christian stuff.

 

Please tell me you didn't mean it that way? :confused: Most Believers I know have college degrees, are or have been employed in demanding professions, are very well-read, and are anything but non-thinkers.

 

Aubrey IS a conservative Christian. The two of you are in violent agreement.