Homeschooling

[sanantone]

Goodness, I haven't checked in for a while, and look at all the shenanigans! (Woo! I needed to work that into a sentence today.)

Our family became a homeschool family when my special needs son was bullied relentlessly and the administrators made promises and spoke fantastically about how they were taking steps to prevent it, yet it continued happening. On top of that, it was becoming clear he was being "soft graded." (He came home with As but could not explain or show any of the knowledge that he was graded towards.) My sweet, happy kid turned into a scared bundle of nerves and terror the closer to the school that we got every morning for nine months of the year. After one particular bullying incident, we realized we could not keep putting him through it. We'd kicked around the idea of homeschooling each time something went wrong, but we finally had to do something. It was cruel to continue to send him to an environment where he did not feel safe, and we honestly did not know if he was since administrators made all sorts of promises but the issues would not have continued if they were actually being implemented.

Public school works fine for many people. I got a fantastic public school education. It just didn't work for my child. Withdrawing him was the best thing we could have done. He was two years behind in the knowledge he could demonstrate (we had him tested) and his self-esteem and stress level was at a point that a little kid should never experience. He's caught up to grade level after just one year, and tested above grade level on Science, Spelling, and History, and he's my cheerful boy again who doesn't hide behind me when a kid near his age comes around.

As far as sheltering, indoctrinating, and all that... As far as sheltering, we go out of our way to get our little guy around people other than immediate family. It's tough since we both work full-time, but it's a part of the program. As far as indoctrinating, to each their own. We live in a part of the Bible Belt where indoctrination was already being done in public school (there were a few incidents where we considered reporting them). We have our faith, but were not comfortable with others imparting their brands of faith on our kid. We're very much of the opinion that faith is a sincerely individual decision, and all individuals should have the choice to make an educated decision without others' influence. We answer our kiddo's questions when he has them but he's not pushed to believe what we do...which is good, because my husband and I actually have some slight differences in belief. Since we are not fans of indoctrination and we do not want to confuse or overly influence our son's decision, we use secular curriculums that are available and quite good. We've been focused on getting him caught up on standard academics, but are hoping to be in a position next year where one of his courses will be Religions, where all the majors will be touched upon. Part of the goal of most academic education platforms is to open a child's mind to the variety of knowledge and experiences in the world, and we see that as part of the package.

Anyway... Hope that at least sheds some light on the point that homeschool families do not all look alike. Religion had absolutely nothing to do with our decision, and in our community at least, there's an entire group of families that are solely in it because the education system in our area is lacking and they want their children to have quality educations; the rule of get-togethers are that topics remain secular in nature because the families come from such a wide variety of religions (and lack of) and we all want our children to learn to socialize with people different from them, not nitpick the differences because they're there. Pure academics and our son's well-being were our primary motives to make the change, and it's gone so very well, we are not looking back.

If I were to homeschool my future children, that'll be how I would do it. Bible study and secular academics would be kept separate. I'm not surprised that the teachers in Alabama would try to force their religious beliefs upon their students. Teachers in public schools shouldn't talk about religion at all unless they are talking about it in an academic sense.

[mrs.b]

If I were to homeschool my future children, that'll be how I would do it. Bible study and secular academics would be kept separate. I'm not surprised that the teachers in Alabama would try to force their religious beliefs upon their students. Teachers in public schools shouldn't talk about religion at all unless they are talking about it in an academic sense.

Well, not all the teachers were like that, but enough were that it was aggravating for a family that wants our child to make up his own mind in time. My kid is just heavily influenced by absolutes; Autistic kiddos are not known for seeing grayscale between the black and white subjects. If someone in a position of authority says something is absolutely true, he'll believe it without question and then grow confused and frustrated if someone else in authority contradicts it later. It is our hope that he'll reach maturity with an understanding that there is nothing wrong if people believe something different from ourselves so long as those beliefs do not require the rest of us to violate our own beliefs. For instance, it does not matter to me and should not matter to him that Muslims pray five times a day or use a different name for God so long as he is not forced to pray in the same manner or use a name that does not feel right to his ears, just as it should not matter that most Christians believe that all of creation was brought into being in seven days as defined by our human understanding of time if he chooses to believe that creation and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive ideas, so long as those Christians do not try to force that way of thinking upon him should he believe differently. We're all free to have our own personal beliefs, so long as we keep those beliefs personal. Answering questions of someone actively seeking knowledge is one thing, but imparting my own personal wisdom on everyone within earshot is another.

Since he is so susceptible to statements of absolutes, we do shelter him from people who are closed-minded to the possibility that different beliefs can coexist, though. So I guess we do shelter him somewhat, but we feel it will ultimately result in a more open and understanding mind as his maturity, sense of reason, and awareness of the world develops.

[mrs.b]

Sorry, one last thought for the dead thread - Morality and religion are not the same thing.

very young children are incapable of making many kinds of decisions about what's good for them

parents aren't supposed to respect the their child's right to choose
they're supposed to choose for them

if we let children choose then they'd stay up all night; never take a bath; never brush their teeth; eat candy, cake and ice cream for every meal; never put on shoes when they go outside; eat stuff they find on the floor; never go to school; ... and on and on

parents are supposed to parent
they are supposed to make choices for their child specifically because they child cannot
some parents make bad choices
but they should be the ones making the choices, not the children

hopefully parents teach their children to share; not to bully other children; not to take things that don't belong to them; to clean up after themselves and so on

would anyone tell a parent "You shouldn't teach YOUR child YOUR morality. Your child should be allowed to explore and make decisions for themselves about what is right and wrong."

that's basically what you're telling a parent when you tell them they're [/i]indoctrinating[/i] their child and they shouldn't teach them their values and morals

(Snip)

Sorry, one last thought for the dead thread - Morality and Religion are not the same thing. We can (and we think do) quite effectively teach our son not to be a brat, to respect his mother and father, to treat others with dignity, not to take things that aren't his, to help others whenever possible, not to kill, that jealousy is an ugly trait, to be faithful to his friends and someday his spouse or significant other, that lieing and cheating is being a jerk, that swearing is uncouth, and valuing "things" above his someday-chosen faith is disrespectful to his own beliefs, and so on...all without putting it in terms of the Ten Commandments. When you boil down the basic concepts of most religions, those same traits are just about universal. Thus, it still leaves the door open for parenting and raising a respectful child with good moral values without dictating to him what and how he should believe.

[bluebooger]

"Morality and Religion are not the same thing"

they're absolutely the same thing -- to some religions
and that's the whole point

some people get their morality from their religion
others get it from biological/sociological evolution
others just get it from their government and from the judicial system

and if a person really believes morality comes from religion then what a horrible parent they would be to withhold that information from their child

parent: "don't steal"
child: "why"
parent: "I know why, but I'm not going to tell you, just don't, you'll have to figure out why on your own when you get older"


sure a parent could say "the golden rule" or 'just because" or "because I'm he parent and I said so"
or they could put it in terms of their religion, whether it be jewish, muslim, hindu or christian
and if they really have a religious foundation for their morality then shouldn't they say so, especially if "the golden rule" is directly opposite of what their religion teaches

or do you just want say "because I said so" and raise a little robot

and you better believe the whole "why is that man homeless" has religious foundations

sure, it doesn't to conservative atheists, who will just tell the child "that's what happens when you don't work hard in school"
and it doesn't to liberal atheists, who will just tell the child "he's poor and didn't have the same advantages you have so we need to help him"

but christian will absolutely have a religious answer to that
and I'm a muslim, or hindu or jewish person would have a religious answer too

no, for some people morality IS religion
you can't separate the two

[Leebo]

I really didn't want to post in this topic again, but I agree with mrs.b.

They're not the same thing. The fact that some people think they're getting their morality from their religion just confuses the issue.

If a religious person gives an answer of "because it's written in our holy text," the next question should be "why is it written in our holy text?" Assuming it's not just an arbitrary order from a nonexistent god, it presumably has a secular, universal logic to why it helps people or society.

You don't need religion to explain why living in a society that disallows theft and murder is preferable.

[mrs.b]

"Morality and Religion are not the same thing"

they're absolutely the same thing -- to some religions
and that's the whole point

some people get their morality from their religion
others get it from biological/sociological evolution
others just get it from their government and from the judicial system

To some religions, but not all.

and if a person really believes morality comes from religion then what a horrible parent they would be to withhold that information from their child

parent: "don't steal"
child: "why"
parent: "I know why, but I'm not going to tell you, just don't, you'll have to figure out why on your own when you get older"


sure a parent could say "the golden rule" or 'just because" or "because I'm he parent and I said so"
or they could put it in terms of their religion, whether it be jewish, muslim, hindu or christian
and if they really have a religious foundation for their morality then shouldn't they say so, especially if "the golden rule" is directly opposite of what their religion teaches

or do you just want say "because I said so" and raise a little robot

Parent: "Don't steal."
Child: "Why?"
Parent: "Would you like it if someone took something that belonged to you without asking? No? That's why. It's not right to take something that isn't yours without permission to share it from the owner. You should not do something to someone that you would not want done to you."

Creativity and a tiny bit of thought is all that is required.

and you better believe the whole "why is that man homeless" has religious foundations

sure, it doesn't to conservative atheists, who will just tell the child "that's what happens when you don't work hard in school"
and it doesn't to liberal atheists, who will just tell the child "he's poor and didn't have the same advantages you have so we need to help him"

but christian will absolutely have a religious answer to that
and I'm a muslim, or hindu or jewish person would have a religious answer too

no, for some people morality IS religion
you can't separate the two

You may not be able to separate the two, but I can and do. The definition of the word itself can stand alone quite fine.[INDENT=2]mo ral i ty
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.[/INDENT]

Assuming all people of faith will treat a situation the same is not exactly reasonable. Each of us have, in adulthood, gone through a variety of life experiences that lead us to understand our personal beliefs are true, but I believe many people of faith stop the thought right there. My husband and I, and people who believe like we do, merely add on a tiny bit more: "an individual's life experiences lead us to understand our personal beliefs are true for that individual." Someone else going through the same experiences may reach a different conclusion. If an explanation set in terms of religion will help, I believe in God, and I believe God gave each of us free will so that we can make our own choices. What sort of parent would I be to take away my son's choice by force-feeding my own beliefs on him?

As I explained, one of my child's challenges is an inability to see anything other than absolutes, and if someone in a position of authority says something is true, he believes it without question. As one of two primary authority figures in his life, if I say something is true, he will believe it without question, thus, I've eliminated his choice. In fact, while Autism makes his tendency to be like that far more obvious, most children are like that to a degree.

Here's an example that does not deal with any current major religions and how we address it:[INDENT]My son saw the superhero movie, "Thor," and became fascinated with everything related to it. He wanted to know all about the characters in it and started asking questions so we got a book on Norse Mythology and went through it.

He also saw the Percy Jackson movie, and likewise became fascinated about all things related to it. He wanted to know all about the characters in it and started asking questions so we got a book on Greek Mythology and went through it.

Partway through the Greek Mythology book, he noticed Zeus seemed a lot like Odin, Hera seemed a lot like Frigg, and so on. He asked about it, and we pointed out that a lot of the ancient belief systems were similar, with just a handful of differences that, if you thought about it, were reasonably minor. We pointed out that people at that time believed very strongly in those gods to the point that wars were fought and lives were lost in support of those beliefs, and some still believe in it. He said that was silly, and we told him it was not silly at all to people that believed or still do believe in it because it is true for them; we pointed out that people died for those reasonably minor differences. Because they believe so strongly in it does not mean he has to believe the same, though.

[/INDENT]

We address questions about current religions the same, including those we believe. We answer his questions by educating him, and we let him know what our personal beliefs on a subject are as well, and always conclude that it someone else believing something is true does not have to be true for him, including his Dad and my beliefs. We explain that he'll know what feels right to him in time or when it comes along, and if it's either his Dad or my beliefs, or something entirely different, we're a family and live together and love each other all the same.

[topdog98]

I will contend that there is no absolute morality outside of religion.

Any atheist philosophy professor will tell you that there are no moral absolutes. If there are, then why? Who gets to decide?

If we are highly evolved animals and nothing more, then behaviors such as theft, rape, and murder cannot be absolutely wrong. These behaviors are acceptable, necessary, and advantageous in the animal world.

If one says absolute morality comes from societies or governments, this is not true. Societies and governments can and will change their minds (making morality no longer absolute), and governments often find theft, murder, and rape to be acceptable, necessary, and advantageous.

If one says absolute morality comes from "science," this is also untrue. Was it wrong for Ota Benga (a human) to be placed in the monkey house exhibit in the Bronx Zoo because he was supposedly only a highly evolved ape? Was it wrong for Australian Aboriginal people to be killed so that there bones could be displayed in museums since they were supposedly examples of highly evolved apes? If this was wrong, why? Who says so? Science didn't think so. If science says it is wrong now, then science changed its mind which means that morality is not absolute.

How can the concepts of right and wrong even have a meaning outside of a Higher Authority?

If a child is taught that he shouldn't hit because he wouldn't want to be hit, this is the golden rule. This is religion.

Absolute morality only makes sense to me because of God.

[sanantone]

There is no absolute morality in religion because people have different interpretations of their own holy books and religious guidelines. Then, there are things that people completely abandon with the times even though their holy books say it's okay. Mainstream Mormons banned polygamy; Christians banned slavery. Many societies have developed moral codes that go beyond their religions, and I'm glad they have. If people continued to justify slavery using the bible, I wouldn't even be on this forum or have any kind of freedom. I'm also glad we no longer stone people to death and wish we would get rid of the death penalty altogether. Too many innocent people have been killed.

[mrs.b]

I will contend that there is no absolute morality outside of religion.

I agree to a point, but contend there is no absolute morality at all, only relative morality. But therein lies the reason several meta-ethical theories exist today. After thousands of years of debate, philosophers, theologians, and politicians still have not come to a consensus. I doubt we will manage that achievement here no matter how many times we circle the issue.

Any atheist philosophy professor will tell you that there are no moral absolutes. If there are, then why? Who gets to decide?

If we are highly evolved animals and nothing more, then behaviors such as theft, rape, and murder cannot be absolutelywrong. These behaviors are acceptable, necessary, and advantageous in the animal world.

If one says absolute morality comes from societies or governments, this is not true. Societies and governments can and will change their minds (making morality no longer absolute), and governments often find theft, murder, and rape to be acceptable, necessary, and advantageous.

Not all atheist philosophy professors claim no moral absolutes. There are a wide variety of ethical theories that have no attachment to religion, many of which recognize the existence of moral absolutes. While they may not fit what you define as moral absolutes, the individuals who hold them as valid will disagree all day long.

Also, the statement that societies and government changes, and therefore cannot be the guiding hand behind morality is flawed if your argument is that religion is that guidance, because religion has also changed. Glancing back in time just a hundred years highlights a number of divergences from current state, but if you take religion even further back, the differences are readily apparent. Religion changes just as much as society and government.

If one says absolute morality comes from "science," this is also untrue. Was it wrong for Ota Benga (a human) to be placed in the monkey house exhibit in the Bronx Zoo because he was supposedly only a highly evolved ape? Was it wrong for Australian Aboriginal people to be killed so that there bones could be displayed in museums since they were supposedly examples of highly evolved apes? If this was wrong, why? Who says so? Science didn't think so. If science says it is wrong now, then science changed its mind which means that morality is not absolute.

How can the concepts of right and wrong even have a meaning outside of a Higher Authority?

If a child is taught that he shouldn't hit because he wouldn't want to be hit, this is the golden rule. This is religion.

Absolute morality only makes sense to me because of God.

The concept of right and wrong may not have a meaning outside of your Higher Authority for you. But is does have meaning for others.

I argue that the Golden Rule is a rather common-sense approach that exists in multiple cultures. Some cultures that do not embrace the Christian God - or any God at all for that matter - follow that same approach to teaching a child why you wouldn’t want to smack someone; they might slap you back. If you were to insist to any of them that they’re welcome because your God helped them come to that conclusion, I hope you run fast and have cover nearby. They may insist their own Higher Authority gave them that concept. In those same communities, other concepts that are expressly decreed by the Bible are disregarded. Scientists call the Golden Rule Action-Reaction and recognize it as a Law. You or someone who identifies all morality from faith may say that’s because God made the universe and the laws that rule it, but those same scientific thinkers will argue that point all day long. Your interpretations and moral code does not have to hold true for the next person, and in fact, it often won’t. Likewise, theirs does not have to hold true for you. That’s why debates that spin around and around such as this one take place. We disagree because our experiences and perceptions in life were different, and since neither of us have the ability to change the others’ past experiences, neither of us will make much headway in swaying the other’s opinions on this or any similar topic.

So…that’s my indulgence into philosophical and almost-religious debate. I’ll keep on leaving it to the philosophers, theologians, and politicians to take it any further than that because I don’t have centuries to ride that train of thought. I’ll just circle back to my original response to the original question:

Homeschool families educate their children outside the public system for a variety of reasons. There are, certainly, quite a few that do so because they feel quality educations cannot be complete without an overlay of religion. Other families do so for logistical purposes; a girl I went to B&M college with grew up in Alaska where the nearest actual school was inaccessible months of the year. Others do it for secular academic reasons; the schools were underperforming or not living up to some other purely academic expectation. The reasons will often vary from every family you meet. If you are considering homeschool as an option, do so for your reasons, not for the reasons others give, and not in spite of them. It is far more common now than it was years ago, as Cook pointed out. If you lean towards a secular education format, search for secular homeschool groups in your area. If you live anywhere near a metropolitan area, I’m sure you’ll find one. If you lean towards a religious educational experience, there are groups for that, too.

[nleamons]

Considering that I was homeschooled and raised in a Sunday church, you will find that I think on my own. That is I believe that "saved by grace through faith." and I also believe that the Royal law and the Mosaic law still apply today, but it must be out of love and there are a few exceptions with the Mosaic law that concerns those who are indeed gentiles Besides the Mosaic law is a very good health plan for all people that is the cure to many of our physical problems of today. I am a Christian.