Hispanic (lack of) education will kill US democracy

[Sean]

In the process of indoctrination, they regrettably teach us how to think for ourselves - provided you get past 8th grade.

Yes because indoctrination is all about encouraging free/critical thinking isn't it?

[dgs49]

The point is, what is taught to grade school children in Catholic schools is indoctrination. Children to not have the maturity to assess many sides of a complex question. Catholic children used to be (can't speak for current practice) taught verbatim questions and answers from the Catechism (in my case, the "Baltimore Catechism"). This entirely satisfactory and appropriate when you are 9 years old.

On the other hand (the "idiotic" hand), many contemporary parents teach their young children NOTHING about their religious traditions, then expect them to decide for their ignorant little selves what path to follow as adults.

In HS, I was taught to challenge traditional beliefs, and got a taste of Catholic apologetics. I was taught, for example, how adult Christians can reconcile Evolution with the Bible.

Of course, this was a time when public school children were still reciting the Lord's Prayer in school. A very different time.

[The Hen]

On the other hand (the "idiotic" hand), many contemporary parents teach their young children NOTHING about their religious traditions, then expect them to decide for their ignorant little selves what path to follow as adults.

A sound moral ethical code does not require a religious background or tradition. However I understand that you will find difficulty in accepting that with your childhood indoctrination.

[Sean]

The point is, what is taught to grade school children in Catholic schools is indoctrination. Children to not have the maturity to assess many sides of a complex question. Catholic children used to be (can't speak for current practice) taught verbatim questions and answers from the Catechism (in my case, the "Baltimore Catechism"). This entirely satisfactory and appropriate when you are 9 years old.

On the other hand (the "idiotic" hand), many contemporary parents teach their young children NOTHING about their religious traditions, then expect them to decide for their ignorant little selves what path to follow as adults.

In HS, I was taught to challenge traditional beliefs, and got a taste of Catholic apologetics. I was taught, for example, how adult Christians can reconcile Evolution with the Bible.

Of course, this was a time when public school children were still reciting the Lord's Prayer in school. A very different time.

It might be a "very different time" where you come from but don't imagine for a second that the education you have described is the norm for countries which are dominated by Catholicism. In Ireland for example the indoctrination begins the day you start primary school and lasts until the day you leave secondary (high) school.

Oh and you can count me amongst the "idiotic" parents who for some strange reason does not wish to teach his child beliefs which he himself does not hold. Crazy aren't I?

[dgs49]

We've been over this ground before, but there are moral teachings and principles that go beyond the Golden Rule.

MOST PEOPLE who consider themselves "non-religious but moral and ethical," tend to look at life's behavioral conundrums from the simple perspective of "Whom does it hurt?" Obey the Golden Rule, and all that. They believe themselves enlightened because they can see the moral "evil" in driving an SUV, because it could conceivably harm humans 100 years from now.

But there is more to being a moral person than that. What about hate (without overt action), greed, envy, gluttony, lust, and so on. What about patronizing pornographers and abusing drugs? These are evils for which there is no apparent harm, but history teaches us that they erode the Person (and the society) in time, and thus they are to be avoided. Those who have internalized Judeo-Christian values and traditions can draw on this great history to resolve what might be "close calls" for those who are merely, "moral and ethical."

Many of the people whom I know, and who consider themselves moral and ethical, but not religious, have no problem cheating on an insurance claim, fudging their taxes, or taking advantage of an error by the bank or grocery store. They can rationalize their actions because the harm to any individual is so miniscule as to be ignored.

In fact, just about anything can be rationalized if you truly want to. What are the "pro-choice" arguments in total, if not rationalization of killing a baby because the "curse of an unwanted child" is said to be worse?

Abortion is the cleanest single example in the world of the difference between faith-based morality (which invariably deems abortion to be sinful), and logical morality, by which it is rationalized. There is simply no MORAL argument in the world that can justify this horrific practice, but every one of the "pro-choice" marchers you see at the demonstrations see themselves as acting morally and ethically.

It is stark.

[dales]

A woman has been raped.

Should she have an abortion, if she desires one?

[dgs49]

Is the child human?

The moral argument against abortion is that it is the taking of a human life. That is no less true when you are talking about a case of rape, incest, or a fetus with a serious birth defect.

I don't have the data in front of me, but I have read in the past that the incidence of pregnancy by rape is so infrequent as to be meaningless.

And once you start down that road you will get arguments like, What constitutes "rape"? If the woman was drunk, is that "rape" (failure to give knowing consent)? If the woman later decides it was a bad idea and wouldn't fuck that guy again, does that make it (retroactively) "rape"? If the woman is of low intelligence, can she effectively give consent? If the girl is under 18, does she have the capacity to give consent? Will any woman who does not want a child claim that she was raped by an unknown assailant?

There is no true moral argument in favor of abortion. It is possible to rationalize a balancing of equities, and conclude that a quick, relatively painless abortion is better than burdening a girl with parenting for the next 18 years, but that is not a moral argument, it is a practical one. You can say, truthfully, that the emotional burden of bearing a child that is the product of a rape, and that that burden outweighs the evil of killing the child, but that is not a moral argument. There is no moral consideration that justifies the taking of an innocent human life.

If there were, one could justify taking a whole lot of lives. Consider the population of your nearest maximum security prison. Half the people in there are literally unredeemable. You could "rehabilitate" them until hell freezes over, and as soon as they are let out into society they will again start to victimize whoever gets in their way. Any rational balancing of interests would conclude that it is better to off them and save the taxpayers the money it costs to keep them alive.

Yet this is the "balancing" argument that pro-choice people use to justify abortion: The end justifies the means. It ain't a moral argument; it is a practical one.

[dales]

I don't have the data in front of me, but I have read in the past that the incidence of pregnancy by rape is so infrequent as to be meaningless.

Tell that one to my sister who was gang raped over 30 years ago and elected to have an abortion.

This is not a black or white issue, it has many graduations of gray.

[BoSoxGal]

A woman has been raped.

Should she have an abortion, if she desires one?

A woman has become pregnant and the pregnancy inconveniences her present life plan. She should choose to handle the pregnancy in any way she so desires, including termination. It's her body, her life and any moral implications are between her and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever other make-believe entity, she worships. It's none of our (society's, the State's) business.

dgs, your response would require that there never be a war, because there is no moral argument that justifies the taking of innocent human life.

[Long Run]

I'm not talking about 50 years ago though LR... My Catholic school experience was in the 80s. I do know through friends in Ireland that not a lot has changed between then and now.

My only frame of reference on this subject is what I see here, so can't guess at how things are at Catholic schools elsewhere. But my dad complaining about the nuns smacking him in school would get a look from today's kids like he was an alien of some sort. There are no nuns in the Catholic schools anymore, at least in these parts. And the parish priest is only around once or twice a week for mass or some special event. They have professional principals, teachers and administrative staff, like any other school, and a large number are not even Catholic. But that's here.

[Lord Jim]

I'm seeing descriptions of Catholic school that are entirely different from what my daughter has experienced...

For starters, in the eight years she's been going, (kindergarten through 7th grade, which she's in now) she has had exactly one...count 'em one...nun as a teacher....the rest have all been laypersons....

Their backgrounds, attitudes and philosophies cover the whole spectrum. (In fact for the past two years she's had an English teacher who's quite liberal....a couple of weeks ago they were doing the Iowa Tests thing, and this teacher informed the class that the test had been invented originally to prove that rich white males were smarter than anybody else....nevertheless, overall he's a damn good teacher and is very dedicated to his students)

She's not being "indoctrinated" in any way shape or form....(Oh wait a minute, I forgot....there are some folks around here who consider the mere teaching that God exists to be an offensive form of "indoctrination" so let me qualify my statement...she's not being "indoctrinated" in any "meaningful" sense of that term)

Religion is of course one of the subjects she studies, but the instruction she's gotten in that could in no way be classified as heavy theological subject matter...Mostly just learning the bible stories, both New Testament and Old....

The teaching of religion doesn't play any role whatsoever in the rest of the curriculum...She isn't learning a "Catholic Math" or "Catholic version of history," or "Catholic science" (in her science class, they are currently building terrariums) if you sat in on any of her classes in any core subject, (which I have done a number of times over the years) you wouldn't see any difference from a public school, (except of course for the fact that the kids are actually paying attention, there are a lot fewer of them in the class, and that the subject matter is a little more advanced)

She certainly isn't being taught in any way to look down on, or disparage any other religions. There are a number of non-Catholics attending the school; in fact one of her best friends is a nice little Jewish girl who has been a classmate of hers for the past four years.( last year Tati spent some time over at their house during the Hanukkah season and learned about that tradition. She also had Passover dinner with them. Cheryl had Christmas and Easter dinner with us. )

All-in-all we are extremely pleased with the education that Tati has been receiving (and Jimmy will also receive) from this school. At less than $500 per month for tuition, it's without question the best investment we've ever made.

[Gob]

All-all we are extremely pleased with education that Tati has been receiving (and Jimmy will also receive) from this school. At less than $500 per month for tuition, it's without question the best investment we've ever made.

Wow, you could send her to Eton for that price Jim!

[Lord Jim]

Well, it's a fraction of what a lot of private academies in the Bay Area charge....

[Gob]

Yep, and it wouldn't actually get you through the front door of Eton either, I checked. Eton costs £28,851.00 or US $44,805.49 (Oh, and Eton is boys only.)

Here's a thing, back to the OP;

The governor of California, Jerry Brown, has signed into law legislation allowing illegal immigrants to receive state aid to attend college.

Supporters of the California Dream Act, as it is called, say it will benefit the state economically.

However, critics argue that it condones entry into the US without proper documentation.

About 2,500 students are expected to qualify for grants under the new legislation.

Governor Brown, a Democrat, said the law would benefit the state by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and, he said, "the lives of all of us".

But, in a state with a huge immigrant population, critics say the law encourages the illegal immigration by granting access to state resources previously reserved for legal residents.

Opponents of the law add that it should not have been passed without major overhaul of America's immigration rules.

California's last governor, the Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to sign the legislation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15231104

[dales]

I'm over-joyed </sarcasm>

[Lord Jim]

A state legislator was quoted on the news this morning as saying that the way this law was "crafted" that it would not affect the ability of any citizen or legal resident to get into state colleges....

That's a pretty neat trick... it must have been "crafted" with witchcraft then; since there are only a fixed number of slots available, it seems pretty obvious that every slot filled by an illegal is a slot not available to someone here legally....

I take it the legislator who said this wasn't a math major...

One thing that should be noted about this....

A few weeks ago Rick Perry was catching hell because he signed a Texas law which allowed people to use their gun registration license as proof of eligibility to vote, but not their University of Texas student ID....This was supposed to show blatant ideological bias, since college students tend to be more Liberal than the general population...

I don't know what the requirements are for getting a gun license in Texas, but since the state has a law similar to this one for their state colleges, it seems obvious to me that under no circumstances should a student ID be a valid proof for eligibility to vote....

How can you have a form of identification serve as proof of the right to vote, when you issue that ID to illegal aliens?

[Sean]

It might be a sting. I cam picture a large bus pointing south with a sign outside saying "Enrolments this way".

[loCAtek]

I can speak only from my own experience of course .

Then can you explain why only your experience matters?

[dgs49]

BSG: The fetus is human. You've written him/her out of the thought process. Proving my point.

It is entirely possible to wage a "moral war," as Thomas Aquinas explained hundreds of years ago. Further, most civilized countries have rules of engagement for combatants which are intended to prevent (or minimize) the killing of innocents. This is why we are so repulsed by, for example, Palestinians who launch attacks from residential areas and situate themselves in hospitals and schools, thus INTENDED the slaughter of innocents for their own propaganda purposes. And of course, they know that the Israeli's will always seek not to kill non-combatants - otherwise their strategem makes no sense.

[rubato]

BSG: The fetus is human. You've written him/her out of the thought process. Proving my point.
... "

A first-trimester fetus is a blob of protoplasm the size of a lima bean.

That does not satisfy most intelligent person's definition of "human".

But then the Catholic church didn't regard abortion before "quickening" (the end of the 2nd trimester) as murder until very recently.

yrs,
rubato