Progressive people of faith: The Nuns of Philadelphia

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput might have the last word when it comes to Catholicism in Philly, but there’s a good chance Sister Mary Scullion has impacted far more people than he or any other Catholic in the city.
She belongs to the Sisters of Mercy, which, with roughly 270 members headquartered in Merion, is Philly’s third-largest congregation of nuns. Spend any amount of time with her and you’ll quickly learn why she’s known as the Mother Teresa of Philadelphia.
During a freezing winter in 1988, she led a group of homeless people into the basement of the city’s Municipal Services Building, demanding it be used as a shelter. She’s been arrested — four times — for refusing to back down when helping the poor. While other nuns regularly go on weeklong retreats to reflect and pray, Sister Mary has been known to sleep on the streets to better understand the people she cares about.
She’s the co-founder of Project HOME, the influential nonprofit that, on top of helping people experiencing homelessness, works to break the cycle of homelessness itself. The organization, which has attracted international visitors and attention from the likes of Jon Bon Jovi and Bill Clinton, provides housing for the homeless, youth and teen programs, veteran assistance, and wellness and health-care services.

Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/04/08/philadelphia-nuns/#DApw1x1WIwjvjmxu.99

What you do for the least of these, you do also for me.

[ExciteBike66]

1. I would love to know

what these "progressives" think about a woman's right to choose!

[guillaumeb]

3. One could ask them, as they are helping the poor.

And one could even help them.

Agreed?

[ExciteBike66]

5. One could ask them, and helping the poor has nothing to do with it.

Many conservative Christians help the poor, that does not make them "progressives".

[guillaumeb]

7. What makes anyone a progressive?

In your view?

[ExciteBike66]

8. It's easier to come at it the opposite way...

It's tough for me to consider someone a progressive if they are anti-choice. These nuns might be very nice and sweet, but I doubt they are what many folks here would consider "progressives". However, I have not asked them (the nuns or the others here on DU) so I could be completely wrong.

[guillaumeb]

9. Are you a single issue voter?

If I state that, in my view, a progressive is a pacifist, does that disqualify most politicians, and all Presidents, from both parties?

[beam me up scottie]

13. Why does supporting human rights for women make one a 'single issue voter'?

Would you support taking away men's reproductive rights?

Do you agree people have a right to bodily autonomy?

Would you support legislation forcing people to donate tissue or organs?

If not does that make you a single issue voter?

[guillaumeb]

16. And pacifism?

Can a militarist really be said to support rights if that person is willing to make war and kill people? The ultimate in deprivation of rights.

[beam me up scottie]

18. This isn't about pacifism, it's about forcing women to give birth.

Are you really claiming it's progressive to want to ban abortion?

Seriously?

[guillaumeb]

19. I answered this.

And you apparently will not talk about pacifism.

[beam me up scottie]

23. You said support for reproductive rights makes one a single issue voter.

I wanted you to clarify your position.

This sub thread is about reproductive rights, pacifism is a red herring.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Yes, it is a grave injustice no one wants to discuss yet another attempt to move the goalposts.

You are trying to assert that we defining progressivism arbitrarily. Not a very subtle ploy.

[guillaumeb]

48. The sub thread was pure speculation of motives, with no evidence offered

to show that the motives are true. If the poster has any proof of the position, feel free to post such proof. Otherwise, I feel this is an attempt to discredit the Sisters based on something the poster feels might be true.

And, in the spirit of moving goal posts and sub-threads, the poster subsequently refuses to discuss my sub-thread concerning pacifism. Should I assume some sort of motivation in the absolute refusal? Is pacifism a frightening subject?

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. You don't need to assume anything. I flat out told you why people aren't discussing it.

There's always going to be a degree of subjectivity when trying to define broad terms like "progressive", and because these terms describe subculture there will always be a few people trying very very hard to define them in ways that exclude people they do not like. By its simplest definition, progressivism is about social and economic justice, creating the best quality of life for the greatest number of people. Pacifism may or may not fit into that definition depending on how one looks at war or how one defines pacifism, but belonging to a goddamned hate group is most certainly grounds for exclusion from Club Progressive.

You can't be a progressive if you are a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a transphobe, etc..

We're talking about a restaurant making their burgers from cow manure and you're trying to make the conversation about whether or not a burger without pickles can really be considered a burger.

[guillaumeb]

53. You avoided the substance of my reply.

I understand why one might wish to do so.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. because it's not grounded in reality.

You made it up. Pacifism isn't in any Progressive platform. Sorry.

ALL of them severely restrict the use of the military and constrain military budgets for peace and economic justice, but that doesn't imply let alone state 'pacifism'.


I'd argue I'm more progressive than you are, and I'm not anywhere near a pacifist. For starters, on abortion, I don't do the two-sides-of-my-mouth bullshit and say I'm 'against abortion personally but pro-choice politically'. No. Fuck that. I'm pro-choice period. Personally and politically. I'm also in favor of normalizing the very idea of abortion among other 'hot button' reproductive freedom issues. It's not an 'issue' at all. It's normal. It's a safe (safer than birth) option. It's a morally acceptable option. It's fine. I'm not going to be two-faced and say 'it should be legal, but oh by the way, you're killing someone, if you ask me on a personal level.'. I'm not going to insist it be legal while also fomenting guilt trips for people who utilize it, as if there's something wrong with the concept.

Another voice in the din; shame... shame.... shame...

Well, shame on you. To express it right here on DU even.

And I don't have ANY trouble speaking on this issue as a male either. Guess what. I authorized the destruction of 9 fertilized embryos, because the 'I believe it's murder' contingent made it such an issue that our IVF facility had to add legal indemnification in triplicate so they could destroy un-used fertilized blastocysts on our authority as the biological parents. So yes, even as a male I absofucking-lutely have aborted living fertilized embryos. And I'd do it again, because it has NO moral implications. Attempting to implant and carry all 9 would have had negative moral implications, you bet, but terminating them? Nope. Not gonna fucking apologize and I am aware of my privilege, as a male, because people like you probably don't remember to foment guilt toward people like me, even though what I did was not morally different than a woman going to a medical facility for a D&X abortion.

I think people who hold this bullshit 'its bad but it should be legal' position are actually the worst. The fucking worst. People that can flow between the two sides of this issue and sow fear and doubt and second-guessing while pretending to be pro-life, but casting all sorts of shade on the actual employment of the procedure.

Please re-evaluate your position.

[Fix The Stupid]

63. Beautiful reply. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

64. Your post is a thing of beauty, one of those rare posts that make me remember why I joined.

You are absolutely right, those passive aggressive digs at women who support abortion rights are the worst.

This is how it comes off:

"Well I personally think it's murder but you go on ahead and kill your baby, I won't try to stop you because I'm pro-life AND pro-choice. You should be grateful to me for being such a committed feminist because I support your right to murder the life you carry even though I find it morally repugnant. Aren't I just awesome to sacrifice my morals to support your rights? You're welcome!"

The shaming of women who choose abortion is sickening. It's patronizing and smug to throw that caveat in there. They can't bring themselves to simply say "Of course I support abortion. 100%. Period." No, they have to try to guilt trip us by pointing out that they still think we're doing something immoral but they'll allow it because they're just so progressive.

Fuck that noise. I'm not just pro-choice - I'm pro-abortion.

Abortion is NOT immoral, it is HEALTHY and it is NORMAL. I don't know a single woman who regrets having an abortion and I sure as hell don't regret mine. It's bad enough women have to face protesters who call them murderers, that they have to worry that someone will gain access to their personal records and publish them, that they have to deal with the stigma at all - but when our 'allies' are doing the shaming it's even worse.

How dare anyone try to shame women for having a medical procedure? Do they feel guilty for masturbating? Do they cry every time their partner douches? Do they stand over used tampons and pads and weep over the loss of life? Because half of all miscarriages happen before the woman even knows she's pregnant so there's a good chance there's a "life" in that waste basket. If they don't obsess over those things then where do they get off trying to make us feel guilty for "taking a life" by having an abortion?

Thank you AtheistCrusader for saying what we've all been thinking. And thank you for being a true ally. You get it.

You should make that an op or at the very least put it in your journal so others can read it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

66. Nicely done.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Well, go add pacifism to the platform for Progressives, because it's not in there.

None of the State level Progressive Party platforms claim pacifism, nor does the Progressive Democrats Of America issues list.

You seem to be making this up.

[guillaumeb]

56. Well, some posters here are claiming that I called one group progressive when I did not.

And I said that for me, pacifism is an integral part of being a progressive.

It seems that because I have a few PPOF posts, some responders seem to be assuming that all of my posts are part of that small group and responding accordingly. Just as one responder assumed that the Sisters that are the subject of one post must be anti-abortion or anti-choice. The responder has offered zero evidence to support the must be assertion even though I have asked for evidence to support the charge.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Well, to me, progressive is all about jelly beans. Because I said so.

You don't get to define 'progressive' for anyone but yourself, so it's pointless to bring it up as 'for me' unless you're just deliberately trying to sow confusion and try to score debate points off the confusion.

You wouldn't be doing that, would you?

[trotsky]

65. They are Catholic nuns.

They are anti-choice, by definition.

You are the one who needs to provide evidence otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

67. Dismissive of you, but hardly convincing.

The claim was made by another, and apparently now endorsed by you. But neither of you has provided the evidence to back up your claim.

[trotsky]

68. The OFFICIAL POLICY of their church is anti-choice.

If they do not obey the official policy, they can be disciplined.

Sorry dude, burden of proof is still on you to show they're pro-choice. No matter how desperately you try to pretend otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

69. Wrong. You and another made a claim that you refuse to back up.

It was you that built the man of straw. Now show the proof, or know that the claim was exposed as straw.

[trotsky]

72. My claim is that they follow Catholic dogma, because they are Catholic nuns.

If they don't, they will be officially punished.

Burden of proof is on you, no matter how much you desperately claim otherwise. Good luck.

[guillaumeb]

73. Again, you failed to prove your assumption.

Generally, when a person makes a claim, which you did about the Sisters, the burden is on the person making the claim to validate the claim. Which you refuse to do. I understand that you wish to make claims and then demand that others disprove your claims, but that simply does not work.

[trotsky]

74. Keep trying.

I'm done. You're claiming Catholic nuns are pro-choice. Good luck with that.

[guillaumeb]

75. Wow. Do you buy straw by the bale, or by the wagon load?

[trotsky]

87. Aw, you gave up.

Sorry you lost again.

[redwitch]

76. at a Dem booth at a local fair during the Kerry run for Prez...

I saw my priest coming over. Oh boy. He said hello, looked at the Kerry buttons and picked one up. Oh, maybe I can't wear this one he said putting back the "Pro choice Pro Kerry" button and choosing another. He then leaned over and said to me quietly " If a pro choice Catholic shouldn't receive Communion, should a Pro Choice priest not give communion?" I was stunned. This happened after that bishop somewhere said he would deny Kerry communion if he came to his church. I have also met pro choice nuns. We Catholics are a conflicted lot.

Whatever that nun's views on abortion she seems to me to be a fierce advocate for the downtrodden. I like that.

[lapucelle]

79. The official policy of the Church is anti-abortion.

If the official policy were anti-choice, prominent pro-choice Catholics like Biden would be denied communion. There are many pro-choice Catholics. Not everyone in the male hierarchy approves of that stance, but nowhere is it forbidden.

[trotsky]

86. Actually, denying communion for pro-choice Catholic politicians has been raised in the past.

https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2004-church-state/people-events/more-catholic-bishops-deny-communion-to-pro

I don't dispute that there are many pro-choice Catholics, however they are openly defying their church. And a group of nuns could never advocate for abortion rights without getting at a minimum an official reprimand from the Vatican. That has been my position, but somehow another person in this thread thinks we need to "prove" that a Catholic group is anti-choice. He also has praised anti-progressive groups and individuals who are against reproductive and LGBT rights, so I'm quite content opposing him.

[lapucelle]

88. It's interesting that certain men in the hierarchy

have floated the idea of denying communion, but they have never really worked towards it. And you are right about the pre-Francis papal crackdowns, but then there's this response to the Hobby Lobby ruling....



There are other voices out there, and they should not be discounted. Some of the nuns I know run single gender schools, and they are already beginning to prepare their stakeholders to welcome any student who is transgender. They are willing to walk that line. I admire them greatly.

http://www.women-churchconvergence.org/index.php

[trotsky]

89. Again, I don't dispute the existence of pro-choice Catholics...

so I'm not sure what your point is there trying to tell me they exist.

But the fact remains, it is against church policy AND can result in sanctions up to and including excommunication. No convent could be promoting abortion without getting disciplined.

[lapucelle]

90. I don't dispute that no convent

would promote abortion, but then again I know of no group that promotes abortion.

The OP was pretty much immediately smacked down for characterizing nuns as "progressive people of faith". My point is simply that those who throw shade sometimes have no idea that they are basing their judgements on stereotypes that have little relation to reality.

For some reason, these social justice activists were deemed unworthy of the Hallowed Imprimatur of Progressivism by the Keepers of Progressive Purity simply because they are Catholic nuns. Screw that.

[ExciteBike66]

14. No Presidents in the history of this nation

have been "progressive" as it is regularly seen today.

Even FDR interned Japanese-Americans.

As to my point, I would say that being pro-choice is pretty much required if one wants to be considered "progressive" these days. It's not the only issue I am concerned with, but I would not vote for any politician who expressed a pro-life stance.

[Lordquinton]

10. Does helping he poor cancel out encouraging conditions that make them poor?

Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Does it cancel out teachings that keep people in poverty? No questions in responses please.

[guillaumeb]

49. Your questions need much refinement.

I have no idea what your point might be.

[Lordquinton]

70. Fine. Do good works cancel the bad?

If they create poverty are they progressive for small acts?

Or is that still too confusing?

[guillaumeb]

71. Too simplistic.

If a conservative does something good, is the act still good?

Or is the good act tainted by association?

[Lordquinton]

80. How about an answer

Not more dodges.

[Bretton Garcia]

81. Teaching people to turn away from Reason, makes them stupid and poor

The Church, 1) in stressing Faith, 2) de-emphasizes and in many ways even attacks Reason. 3) This cripples the intellectual capacity of many believers. Who, 4) once they cannot reason, cannot do complex work, or get good jobs.

Or related to that, 5) they cannot get a good paycheck. Which 6) means? They stay poor, or even get poorer than they were before.

So ultimately, the religious stress on Faith, actually ends up perpetuating - and even creating - far more poverty than it fixes.

Ironically, the very persons who presented themselves as our saviors, our religious leaders, were actually extremely foolish and even evil men.

[guillaumeb]

84. What an amazing response.

SO faith attacks reason? And the many stupid believers, those with crippled intellects, are unable to get good jobs. That explains why I do not have a cell phone. My faith makes me too stupid to use one. So if I renounce my faith I can buy a smart phone and get a good job.

I only wish that I had received your wise guidance many years ago,

How about this narrative, as a counterpart to your narrative on faith and belief:

Atheists represent a quite small section of the population. A small percentage of atheists, call them fundamentalists, are driven by an unreasoning hatred of faith, so much so that no matter what good work is done by people of faith, these militant, uncompromising, fundamentalist atheists must attack that work as tainted because it is associated with faith.

This small cadre of intolerant atheists cling to people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens not because they are correct, but because Dawkins and Hitchens allow their beliefs to be validated.

What say you?

[Bretton Garcia]

92. I've worked for the poor all my life

What I see, is that there are two or three major layers of Church theology, teachings. In the lower levels, we are taught to pray for physical miracles; healings, etc.. At the low to intermediate level, we are told to ignore the reason and science that tell us that promises of physical miracles are false.

And so - at the lower levels - Christianity sets itself and its Faith up, in dramatic opposition to reason and science. And this is very bad for people. Since it teaches them to distrust intelligence, reason, itself.

There are other, both lower and higher theologies, that may be closer to your own Jesuit training. But this level is quite popular. And did a great deal of damage, I submit, to many. In fact, worsening their ignorance and therefore, poverty.

There are higher theologies that finally, marginally allowed reason and science. Like probably, to a degree, your own. But for that matter? They will be seen to stop short of any full deference to reason, at least to a degree. And to have had some bad - if slightly less serious?- effects.

[guillaumeb]

93. Your framing. Valid only as proof of your own opinion.

But like my hypothetical description of fundamentalist atheists, it reveals only your opinion of faith.

[Bretton Garcia]

94. Data verifies link between poverty and fundamentalism

[guillaumeb]

95. Given that approximately 84% of humans are believers,

I am certain that data can be massaged to prove nearly anything.

Data also shows that the 1% in a system will be far wealthier than the 99%. Do you blame religion for class based difference?

[Bretton Garcia]

96. Religious Reagan, Bushes, grew the wealth differential

The gap between the rich and the poor increased tremendously. Due to tax breaks for the rich. Part of Reagan's trickle down voodoo economics.

Evangelicals were also a very major factor in the election of Trump. Our billionaire president. Who tried to destroy health care for the poor.

[guillaumeb]

97. Mainly, I believe, due to abortion.

But, as later analyses show, even Catholics narrowly went for Clinton so this bloc of voters shows signs of fracturing. 2018 and 2020 will show more.

[Bretton Garcia]

99. Catholics are typically fairly evenly split

But that has meant that at best, they don't really help; at best, they cancel each other out.

Or often, abortion and a general religious and political conservatism are often enough to tip them over the edge.

Chaput, Burke, EWTN, Phil Donahue, "Father" Corapi, and "the new evangelism" in the Church, have had lots of influence.

[Lordquinton]

98. If you're basing your argument on imaginary things

oh... oh wait...

[rug]

100. On cue.

[Lordquinton]

103. Yes you are

[rug]

104. What are you?

[Lordquinton]

105. Do you have something to say?

[rug]

106. I love that story.

[demosincebirth]

77. Here we go again, making a mountain out of a molehill!

[lapucelle]

78. I work with nuns, and those I know are quite progressive.

By and large, they are pro-life, meaning that they are against abortion and against the death penalty.

Being against abortion is not always the same as being anti-choice, just as being anti-abortion is not always the same as being pro-life.

The sisters I know are very active in social justice and are currently in the process of establishing a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants on the grounds of their mother house. I'd be very careful about imposing some sort of definitional requirement of ideological purity on these women. They are clearly on the side of the poor and the marginalized.

[Bretton Garcia]

82. Nuns are often better than Chaput

Some in hospitals allowed contraception, and even medical abortion.

But? There are so many problems with religion in general, that they often do harm.

[lapucelle]

83. Chaput is one extreme voice among many.

He is an ideologue who trades in a brand of Catholicism that is akin to the type of purity politics most reasonable people recognize odiously judgmental. That Pope Francis has neither elevated him to the position of cardinal nor approved his nomination to the synod on the family is significant.

My personal experience has been that the women of the church are often very different from the men. The sisters I work with count it as a badge of pride that they have been investigated by the Vatican more than once in the last several decades for subversive political activity. One of their accusers/inquisitors was a bishop exiled from the Boston dioceses for his very major role in the coverup of child sexual abuse.

The pre-Francis crew at the Vatican would have done the same to Jesus Christ himself if he were preaching today.

[Bretton Garcia]

85. Yep. Cardinal Law...

... wasn't just exciled from his diocese; he was exiled from the USA. Boston was going to put him in jail for protecting pederasts. He hid out in the Vatican for a while.

[ExciteBike66]

101. "Being against abortion is not always the same as being anti-choice"

What does that even mean? Are you saying they are against abortion, but women should be allowed to choose? if that is the case, then they are pro-choice and not pro-life (in the actual definition of the terms as used in our society).

[lapucelle]

102. These terms are slippery and often used interchangeably,

but as a wise man once said "words matter".

Pro-choice involves supporting a woman's legal and moral right to bodily autonomy.

Pro-life involves respecting everyone's right to life, including the unborn, the sick and disabled, and condemned prisoners.

Anti-abortion involves the idea that pregnancy cannot be artificially or medically terminated, no matter what the physical or emotional consequences to the mother or the unborn child.

There are anti-abortion proponents who are more interested in punishing women than protecting the life of the unborn. They are especially snaky because they sound reasonable to some. They'll make exceptions for certain classes of pregnancies (rape or incest). These are the folks who want to make women pay for choosing to have sex. (If life were truly sacred, then the circumstances of conception would not matter.)

Pro-choice is a legal position. Pro-life is a moral position. Pro-life proponents often work to insure that women have access to contraception, education, and the means to safely carry a baby to term and put the child up for adoption. But, there are also those who actively work to end abortion rights. It's not a monolith; it's a spectrum. Mike Pence is an example of an anti-abortion, anti-choice politician who is not pro-life because he favors the death penalty and wants to end a woman's right to choose.

That people support a legal right to act, but abhor the actual act is nothing new. Feminists have for decades been trying to reconcile the differences between pro-choice versus anti-abortion stances with a movement that seeks to let every woman autonomously determine the course of her own life.

[chia]

2. I'm reminded of Sister Corita Kent

"Corita's art was her activism, and her spiritually-informed social commentary promoted love and tolerance."

[guillaumeb]

4. Thank you.

I had no idea and had never heard of her.

[chia]

6. You're welcome. :)

I hadn't either until someone told me about her, so I'm very happy to be able to do the same for someone else. She's an inspiration.

[Bretton Garcia]

11. The Church gives - and takes away from the poor.

The Church gives to the poor. But it never gives as much as it took away from them. When it taught them to despise money; and therefore not to work for it effectively.

See my comments earlier on Jim Wallis:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218247657

The Church makes people dysfunctional and poor, by teaching them to rely on miracles, magical thinking, rather than logic, reason, science.

Then, when the miracles and blind faith fail, and they are left uneducated and irrational and deluded, and cannot work effectively? Then the church gives the dysfunctional and poor - that it created itself - tiny alms. Which are not remotely as great as what the poor would have made, on their own. If they had not been earlier trained by the church to be irrational and dysfunctional. And ... therefore, poor.

[guillaumeb]

12. I believe that you are confusing religion and class systems.

But if that analysis works for you.........

[trotsky]

15. Your church opposes the use of birth control,

which is proven to alleviate poverty.

Ergo, your church makes poverty worse. Fact.

[guillaumeb]

17. Not.......my.........church.

What also alleviates poverty is social justice.

[trotsky]

22. Oh really? What church do you belong to?

And no matter what else, opposing birth control makes poverty WORSE.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Social justice. Like access to family planning.

I thought you said you were a catholic at some point?

Is there a small-c non-trademarked catholic church I'm unaware of? 'unaffiliated' catholic churches are not Catholic(TM), per the RCC.

[guillaumeb]

36. I was. Emphasis on the past tense.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Ok.

[Bretton Garcia]

20. Religion educates people in how to think - or not think

To think rationally ... or to just blindly, faithfully believe the commandments their prophets and God gave them.

There are other systems of education; the better, more practical schools of the state. But in poorer areas especially, the church is a primary educator.

Oddly enough, though, for that matter, Christianity itself is a system. One that has many features of its own class system, that slyly reassembled serfdom: an oppressive "lord" demanding total blind unquestioning "obedience" from millions of oppressed serfs, or "servants of the Lord."

No confusion here: that's what a close study of the core vocabulary of Christianity begins to tell us, deep down.

The Christian "Lord" exploits us the same as any other lord.

[guillaumeb]

21. An interesting viewpoint.

All systems employ education. The Us public school system is every bit a system of indoctrination as any church school. It simply lacks the name "church".

[Bretton Garcia]

24. Public education is more modern, less medieval

And less exploitative than the biblical medieval Lord.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Yes, public schools indoctrinate people, into 'non-barbarism'. Thanks for that.

Are you serious with this shit?

[guillaumeb]

34. Are you seriously asking?

How about American exceptionalism?

How about a view of history where the US always acts for the best of motives?

I could continue, but the indoctrination is there, and it is the reason that right wing viewpoints are so accepted.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. My son's public school has shredded (this semester) Columbus and American manifest destiny/exception

alism.

(Views tied up in religious underpinnings, divine provenance and the like.)

So, I disagree.

[guillaumeb]

40. I am not currently in school. But I have seen relatively recent textbooks on history.

Perhaps your district is relatively liberal. But Texas is the largest market, and Texas history is not so liberal.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Absolutely. The demographics differences between WA and TX are as long as your arm. Longer, actually

But we don't have to purchase the same textbooks, if funding is available. Also, the teacher can correct the narrative regardless of the tools at hand. When every kid in the class has access to a iPad or a Chromebook, knowledge finds a way.

[guillaumeb]

44. We homeschooled our children.

For secondary level history we started with A People's History of the United States.

Plus, access to the internet is far from universal. So what is learned in a district where creationism is taught may not be so easily unlearned.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Yeah, I get that. But it's not an issue here.

We do have some ARGLE BARGLE COMMON CORE freaks in our district, but they're marginalized.

It's good curriculum.

Zinn's book is ok, as a counter-weight to more jingoistic historical books, but I don't know if I'd start with it.

[beam me up scottie]

31. How do public schools 'indoctrinate' children?

indoctrination:

the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

Do you have evidence that children are being taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically in public schools?

I've heard creationists make that claim about science teachers who don't teach 'intelligent design' and I've seen right wing nut jobs accuse teachers of using the classroom to indoctrinate children with so called 'liberal ideology' but I've never heard a progressive similarly excoriate our entire public school system.

[guillaumeb]

35. #34.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Rule... 34?

[guillaumeb]

41. Post #34

[AtheistCrusader]

43. *whew*

[guillaumeb]

45. SO what is rule 34?

I hate to admit that there are gaps in my knowledge, but I have never heard of Rule 34.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Unsubstantiated allegations.

How about American exceptionalism?

How about a view of history where the US always acts for the best of motives?

I could continue, but the indoctrination is there, and it is the reason that right wing viewpoints are so accepted.

I wasn't taught that the US was exceptional, or that it always acts for the best of motives.

In fact my history teachers were quite critical of our actions against native Americans, slaves, women, immigrants and others who were treated abysmally by our government.

Do you have proof that all or even most public schools don't teach our history of colonialism and oppression?

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. Neither was I.

We had to read Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition in AP American History, a book that openly challenged much of the civic mythology built up around American political figures.

I'm not saying my experience was the norm -- it was a college-level course most high school students don't experience -- but if you're the type to whine about the width of paintbrushes, well... you know.

[Bretton Garcia]

51. Churches stripped Reason from poor people

It told them to just believe what they were told; taking it on faith ... or authority. Without asking for evidence.

This kind of zombification, frontal lobotomy, conveniently turned billions of people, into conveniently mindless slaves.

Which was the real purpose of faith, after all. Now ancient lords could endlessly exploit their now non-resisting people.

[guillaumeb]

54. This sounds like part of a rather formulaic dystopic novel.

Perhaps you should write one.

[Bretton Garcia]

57. The Church already did: the Bible, with its Apocalypse

The catechism admits that there are many false prophets. And that the Church will only be perfected in the Second Coming. This means that most Christians are deceived, exploited, by liars. Till a second Coming.

Similarly, modern thinkers, for that matter, agree that the Roman and Medieval lords were exploitative. And were better replaced by democracy.

A simple summary of actual history.

Since religious folks often aren't too up up to date, or patient with criticism, it's necessary to at times, put out a short and sweet summary.

[guillaumeb]

58. When you write this novel, will your narrator be as condescending

as this summary indicates?

And if you write for a religious audience, the vast majority of people, remember to use really short words. We have trouble with the big words that sophisticated people like to use.

[Bretton Garcia]

61. OK. Less condescending. But with smaller words.

[guillaumeb]

62. Condescending is still too big.

I eagerly await this opus.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. "Mother Teresa of Philadelphia" Not a good sign.

[NeoGreen]

28. I have to ask (entirely off-topic)...

...your sig line, was it inspired by:

If not, apologies for the interruption, you may return to the regularly scheduled debate dispensing of encouragement...

[AtheistCrusader]

29. No, it's the title of a book by Howard Schultz, but I think it apropos for the state of post-primary

life around here.

[NeoGreen]

30. Corporations have souls...?...

...guess I have some reading to do.

FYI
My reference was funnier.
Just sayin'

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Oh, most likely funnier. The book is not super funny at all.

Starbucks extended full health coverage to part time employees, when the ACA was having teething issues, and some employers were moving employees to part time to avoid coverage requirements.

Also extends PTO, and College Tuition at ASU to anyone who works more than 20h per week.

It's a good company, and we'd be better off as a society if more companies followed suit.