My response to a homeschool ad. Maybe mean, but am I wrong?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-02-07 12:06am

So, someone posted an ad on craigslist looking for an activity partner for her son who is homeschooled. She made reference to the fact that the partner should be a Christian. I decided to make this post, and also send it as a personal response. Now, this wasn't nice. I realize that. But how accurate is it? From my own 17 years of growing up in a fundie household, and seeing the other fundies around me, I think it's pretty to safe to say I probably hit the nail right on the head. Here's what I wrote...

Congrats on your decision to homeschool your child. I'm sure he/she/they won't grow up to socially deprived oddballs, and your infusion of religious zealoutry will undoubtedly do nothing but help them in life. Afterall, the less you expose your child to reality, the less of a chance there is of reality having any effect. I know this decisicion is basically a no brainer; afterall, the average religious fanatic is highly educated and highly qualified to provide education to children.

I'm glad you are doing this, because everyone knows that there is absolutely no reason at all to expose a child to place where they might learn to form acceptance of people with different beliefs, different ideas, different backgrounds, etc., and learn to function without the omnipresent religious filter of the fanatical parent. Afterall, Jesus himself said that we should shelter ourselves away from the "sinners," and never, under any circumstances, expose ourselves to them. That's why he lived his entire life in a locked up temple surrounded only by his disciples.

Yes, exposure to new ideas are from Satan. We all know this. Ignorance and sheltering are the keys to happiness and healthy living.

Again, congrats on your decision. I'm sure your children will grow up to become outstanding fundamentalist Christians, and be very happy in the delightful bliss of knowing that they are going to heaven, while the heathens at school are going to Hell.

Anyway, I needed the break. We'll see how she replies.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-02-07 12:08am

Ooops, here is the last part:

And please, by all means, make sure to do the Christian thing and hit your children when they misbehave. Instilling that anger while they’re young is going to create the zealous passion that they will need later in life to battle the sinners of the world.

Now, I know you know all of these things. I don’t even have to say them. My last bit of advice is pretty simple; just make sure to have as many kids as you possibly can. That helps to ensure that most of them will follow in your footsteps and become good Christians. So what if one or two of them hold resentment to the fact that you beat them, sheltered them, didn’t allow them to think freely, made them into social weirdoes, and never taught them about drugs or sex? All you have to do is beat them into submission until they’re eighteen, then you can kick he or she out of the house and never have any contact with them again. Yes, the world is sinful, but luckily the Christians of the world are here to provide healthy and positive examples for all of us to follow.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-02-07 12:08am

Yes a bit mean. I know neither you nor who it's sent to (personally, I mean), so it doesn't affect me in the least. Post her response to that. I want to know what she thinks (if she agrees, I will be shockered).

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-02-07 12:12am

She's going to get into a huff and dismiss me as a 'worldly sinner' and probably say something about public schools having an "agenda" (the irony).

People who fit this particular mold are pretty damned predictable. Ask ANYONE here who has debated with these people. If you've met one of them, you've basically met ALL of them. They're not hard to profile.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-07 12:15am

They all act the same because they're socialized to hate and fear anyone who strays from the narrow path. They even talk about how narrow the path is; the narrow path is a metaphor you'll hear sooner or later if you get into their inner circle and hear them counselling each other.

It's funny how people just accept a Christian saying things like "I need to meet someone" or "I need a playmate for my child" and then adding "and he should be Christian." If someone says that and adds "and he has to be white", everyone says "you're a bigot!" But when it's religion, oh nooooo, we can't criticize.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-02-07 12:17am

Well done.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-02-07 12:17am

Of course, what will be said is that you can choose religion, but not skin colour. Completely false, of course. You believe what you believe, and it takes a lot to change your views.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-02-07 12:18am

Ack, I mean Well done, I enjoyed what you posted, Superman.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-07 12:23am

My favourite Christian excuse for bigotry was the moron who said that he was not segregating others from himself: he was segregating himself from others. Big difference.

Seriously, somebody actually said that. It's on my creationism website hatemail page.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-02-07 12:28am

Darth Wong wrote:My favourite Christian excuse for bigotry was the moron who said that he was not segregating others from himself: he was segregating himself from others. Big difference.

Seriously, somebody actually said that. It's on my creationism website hatemail page.

For their benefit, or his? Frankly it seems the others are better off without him.

What a loathsome sort...

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-02-07 12:47am

Darth Wong wrote:My favourite Christian excuse for bigotry was the moron who said that he was not segregating others from himself: he was segregating himself from others. Big difference.

Seriously, somebody actually said that. It's on my creationism website hatemail page.

The more I learn, the more I am convinced that this particular breed of "Christian" is nothing more than the narcissist with sort of a religious excuse. If that's true, then it most likely means they're what psychiatrists refer to as "trauma survivors" (neglected or abused as children by primary caregivers). Since these homes are full of abuse, they're sort of screwed from the start. They never developed the ability to think rationally because they're sort of stuck where the abuser left off. I've been volunteering at a detox facility here for a while now, and you see THIS EXACT SAME thing in addicts and alcoholics. Shocking, I know...

I had to add this last part... (I'm done, really...)

And lastly, I just wanted to give you credit for raising your children correctly by having them be extensions of yourself instead of fostering them as individuals.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-07 07:46am

You know, if you actually wanted a response, you might have summed up your entire e-mail by saying, "Why must your son's activity partner be Christian? Consider this: how would it sound if you asked that your son's activity partner be white? It's the same sort of discrimination."

She'd need to respond then, because she'd have to show that she wasn't being a bitch in doing this. Racist analogies always make people respond.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-02-07 08:09am

I like it. I think it basically hits the nail on the head. Good for you!

It won't make her think, but we appreciate the effort.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-02-07 08:12am

As far as I'm concerned, the only kid who should be homeschooled is Erin Stonebender. Thus, your letter is completely justified ^_^

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-02-07 08:13am

wolveraptor wrote: She'd need to respond then, because she'd have to show that she wasn't being a bitch in doing this. Racist analogies always make people respond.

And calling them religious bigots doesn't?
A little on the harsh side, Clark, considering you don't really know that's the kind of situation the kid's in, but I nevertheless fear that it will prove to be all too accurate.

Base Delta Zero · Post by **Base Delta Zero** » 2006-02-07 09:10am

It's funny how people just accept a Christian saying things like "I need to meet someone" or "I need a playmate for my child" and then adding "and he should be Christian." If someone says that and adds "and he has to be white", everyone says "you're a bigot!" But when it's religion, oh nooooo, we can't criticize.

Not to be argumentative, but there is a slight difference. Religion is an ideological difference, rather than a physical one. There is an actual difference in thinking, and someone can change religion, but not race. It's still discrimination, but it's a different kind of discrimination.

On the main topic, I'd say there's a good chance she'll believe you and do what you say. As for the Jesus analogy, she'll likely respond that he was the messiah and was only around sinners to rebuke them (i.e. tell them they were going to hell).

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-02-07 10:10am

defanatic wrote:Of course, what will be said is that you can choose religion, but not skin colour. Completely false, of course. You believe what you believe, and it takes a lot to change your views.

Am I missing some sarcasm here? If belief isn't a choice, then we shouldn't see any deconverted fundamentalists, and Christianity shouldn't have spread in the first place.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-02-07 11:43am

Update.

Reply on public board

Hmmm...thank GOD you didnt homeschool your children (or maybe you dont have any..we hope!) It seems to me that you are a very narrow-minded individual by your very "open" minded comments regarding homeschoolers. I homeschooled my children for 4 years, and then sent them to school. There are benefits to both. I know many, many people who homeschool their children and they are exposed to many religious beliefs as they study ALL of the religions, unlike our schools where they study everything EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY! Lets see, my kids have been back in school for 4 years and have been exposed to lots of social situations, including the friend who got alcohol poisening last week and died, the friend who thought it might be a good idea to give one of my kids marajuana as a "birthday" present, and the friend who is cutting herself. Fortunately because of our good relationship, my children felt comfortable enough to tell me about these friends and the marajuana. I guess I did something right.

My response:

Yes, it sounds like you did indeed "do right." Your child is hanging around people who smoke pot, cut themselves (no trauma there; perfectly normal, perfectly healthy) and drink themselves to death. Congrats on giving your child the skills needed to find such healthy friends... But thanks for proving my overall point that home schooled kids are from trauma ridden dysfunctional families, who of course, find others like themselves.

And yes, you're right. There is a conspiracy in the public school system to keep Christianity out. Damn, you found us out... Because, as you know, it's everyone else who has problems and they conspire against you and your religion. There's no way that you might actually have the problem...

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2006-02-07 12:34pm

Could it be that she simply pulled the stories of the friends out of her ass in an attempt to defend her position? Considering that the children are fundamentalist morons (a relatively safe assumption), I find it not very likely that they would chose such acquaintances.
However, taking into account that the children appear to be in middle school at present increases this probability, as it's the time, in my experience, when some adolescents begin to experiment with the substances she mentioned. This does not fully explain, though, why the fundies would acquire suicidal friends.

Or perhaps her indoctrination didn't fully work?

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2006-02-07 12:40pm

First you derogate her for failing to expose her child to the real world.

Superman wrote:Afterall, the less you expose your child to reality, the less of a chance there is of reality having any effect. ... So what if one or two of them hold resentment to the fact that you beat them, sheltered them, didn’t allow them to think freely, made them into social weirdoes, and never taught them about drugs or sex?

Then you criticize her for exposing her child to the real world.

Superman wrote:Yes, it sounds like you did indeed "do right." Your child is hanging around people who smoke pot, cut themselves (no trauma there; perfectly normal, perfectly healthy) and drink themselves to death. Congrats on giving your child the skills needed to find such healthy friends.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a good thing for children to be exposed to the painful reality of the world--the potsmoking, cutting, and binge-drinking real world--or it's not. What's the mother to do? You tell her she's wrong if she tries to protect her child from the real world, then you tell her she's wrong for letting her child experience the real world. Which is it?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-02-07 12:54pm

Jew wrote: You can't have it both ways. Either it's a good thing for children to be exposed to the painful reality of the world--the potsmoking, cutting, and binge-drinking real world--or it's not. What's the mother to do? You tell her she's wrong if she tries to protect her child from the real world, then you tell her she's wrong for letting her child experience the real world. Which is it?

Thanks for missing his point. The problem is not them meeting such people but choosing them for friends.

Superman wrote: Congrats on giving your child the skills needed to find such healthy friends.

Exposure to does not equal become friends with.

You tell her she's wrong if she tries to protect her child from the real world, then you tell her she's wrong for letting her child experience the real world.

No he doesn't. Superman tells her she's wrong for protecting her child from the real world, and then chastizes her for failing to equip the child to deal with it, as evidenced by his phenominally bad choice of company.
If she had let the kid experience the real world maybe he would have learned that hanging around with such people is a Bad Idea (TM).

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2006-02-07 12:56pm

Jew wrote:You can't have it both ways. Either it's a good thing for children to be exposed to the painful reality of the world--the potsmoking, cutting, and binge-drinking real world--or it's not. What's the mother to do? You tell her she's wrong if she tries to protect her child from the real world, then you tell her she's wrong for letting her child experience the real world. Which is it?

I should think the answer would be fairly obvious. The children should have known about the real world from the beginning so they would know from the beginning who to associate with and who to avoid, instead of getting exposed to it all at once and not knowing what to do and ending up with drinkers and pot smokers. Superman said it best in this sentence:

Superman wrote:Congrats on giving your child the skills needed to find such healthy friends.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2006-02-07 01:02pm

Batman wrote:Thanks for missing his point. The problem is not them meeting such people but choosing them for friends.

Friend is a word with broad meaning. The woman's response didn't indicate these friends were close friends. They could just as easily have been friends in the sense that they belonged to the same social group, and weren't particularly close. I believe you're reading meaning into the woman's words. There simply isn't enough information to conclude that the child is unequipped to handle reality, or that the child's choice of friends is questionable.

Anyway, I encourage Superman to respond further to the woman and clarify what we just discussed here: that it isn't wrong for a child to be exposed to the real world, but that if the child's only friends are ones who are bad role models then some steps will need to be taken to correct the problem. If the child has other friends and is not solely associating with rotten characters, then there is no immediate problem on the social front.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-02-07 04:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:My favourite Christian excuse for bigotry was the moron who said that he was not segregating others from himself: he was segregating himself from others. Big difference.

Seriously, somebody actually said that. It's on my creationism website hatemail page.

Really?

I had a guy at a gay content board I frequent using the bible to justify slavery, and not just antebellum south, either.
Modern...

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-07 05:39pm

Surlethe wrote:Am I missing some sarcasm here? If belief isn't a choice, then we shouldn't see any deconverted fundamentalists, and Christianity shouldn't have spread in the first place.

There's some degree of choice, I think. You can't make yourself believe in god, but you can probably be convinced by someone when you're in an emotionally vulnerable state. I don't know if that's considered a choice to believe or not.