Yet another religious cult raided

[eppie]

Is that how schools are in Europe? They are not that way here. Teachers tend to forward one viewpoint as "Truth" and castigate any dissent to their viewpoints. This is why movies like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or The Great Global Warming Swindle get traction here in the USA. The majority of teachers in public schools at all age levels, as well as most college faculty subscribe to a common agenda and world view. So, much so, that it appears as indoctrination and propaganda even whilst you endure it. If you oppose their worldview and tenets you are kicked out of the profession. I know I was taught by my public school teachers to doubt my parents, but never my teachers. My older sister even had one of her 9th grade (she was 16 BTW) teachers arrange for her to get birth control pills without my parents knowledge, and that was 1972. It's gotten much, much worse since then. One of the teachers in the local high school activly recruits students into Wicca, and leads school board meetings with Wicca 'prayers'. I remember vividly that my grades improved dramatically, after I realized in my freshman year that you cannot tell them how you think, but rather you tell them how you think they want you to think. I sold out, and I got A's after that. The highlight was in my composition 1001 course, which I dropped at midterm because I getting "F"'s consistently. I retook the course the next semester, adopting my liberal facade and I got an A. The teacher frequently read my papers to the class as examples. The choice was to conform and win, or be true to your beliefs and fail.

I hope Europe is more sane.

Kandrathe, thanks for this interesting post. But before I can really react on this I would like to ask you some of the definitions you use. I think (like the political word liberal) there are some things that don't mean the same in europe as they do in the US.
With public school you mean the schools were 90% of all kids go through right? (as opposed to private for which parents have to pay)
In Holland we have openbaar (which means not based on any specific religion) and special which might be catholic, protestant or now also Islamic. However all of these are 'public' in the sense that they get money from the state and parents don't have to pay more to put their children on one of these. Of course schools have to obey certain ethical rules. However apparently it is no problem that on a protestant school children are teached that the world is only 6000 years old and that it was created by God (as only truth). While on an 'openbare' school (where also many parents that are Christian or Muslim put their children) in general there are some 'classes' about religion, and for sure in elementary school I didn't hear anything about Darwin (and also in high school not too much), but absolutely no telling 'the truth' to all children.
However if you go to Italy and Spain were catholicism is the standard a public school will only teach creation (not 100% sure, I will ask this and then post it).

Main point is probably that a non religious school is not the same as an atheist school, and religious issues don't play a big role.


Anyway, your post shocks me a bit. And to be clear (because I am confused)to what kind of school did you go?

[Jester]

You can lead the sheep to the stock tank, but you can't force them to drink it. Is your measure of the ineffectiveness of science education based on the number of people who don't subscribe to the dogma?

I guess so, although obviously the word "dogma" to describe a gigantic body of varied, ever-changing theory and evidence is a rather novel definition of the word.

Wouldn't you measure the effectiveness of physics education on the basis of whether or not they get the "dogma" of physical laws correct?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I guess so, although obviously the word "dogma" to describe a gigantic body of varied, ever-changing theory and evidence is a rather novel definition of the word.

Wouldn't you measure the effectiveness of physics education on the basis of whether or not they get the "dogma" of physical laws correct?

When science and scientists say "The debate is over..." it stops being science, and starts being Dogma. For example, the 'silencing" of UW meteorologist Mark Albright for challenging his collegues views on Cascade snow pack melt, the 'silencing' of OSU climatologist George Taylor for remaining open minded.

Now, let's not dig into the Dogma of evolution as its promulgated in education, and mind you I'm not an evolution opponent. I value Darwin's work, and also that of Mendel. It is just that if anyone questions the Darwin Holy Grail of science they are immediately ostrasized and drummed out of science professions and education. They get labeled as 'crack pots', get stripped of funding, kicked out of the "enlightened" club.

[Jester]

When science and scientists say "The debate is over..." it stops being science, and starts being Dogma.

A capital "D" Dogma. Wow.

There is certainly room for debate about many aspects of both evolutionary biology and about climate science. But about the basic framework? There is, in each case, a great mountain of evidence standing between anyone and overturning it. No serious scientist would claim that such a change can't happen, now and forever. But I think it is beyond reasonable at this point to say that, as far as sciences ever know things, this debate has come down solidly on the reality of evolution in biology. Climate change in climate science is slightly more contentious, but not by a whole lot. Scientists differ as to the scope, timeline, and effects of the change, but anthropogenic change itself? That's about as widely accepted as it's going to get.

The debate is also over on gravity being a property of mass. Is that also "dogma"?

Now, intelligent design? That's dogma.

-Jester

Edit: Didn't deal with examples edited in later, but Bun-Bun seems to have that covered.

[Bun-Bun]

Not every woman is opposed to a patriarchical social model. Why would you assume that all women are?
Some are very comfortable with their role in such a set up. I am unwilling to buy into the imbedded assumption in your remark. I am also leary of applying this meme of "mind control" as an explanation for adherence, or buy in, to such roles.

You have totally gone out to left field on misinterpreting my remarks. As the saying goes, "Projecting much?".:)

I made no such sweeping generalizations about a patriarchal model. In fact, I didn't even mention it. I didn't even imply or base any conclusions on it. It's all you, bud.

However, since you've obviously missed what I'm saying, let me try to clarify it for you.

My original statement was "My position is that the emotional control the FLDS has over these women is so strong that this is not a valid metric." I was referring to the fact that most of the adult women had returned to the compound, and rebutting your conclusion that this was a sign the conditions were not bad.

To expand, the conditions may be very, very bad, but they could view returning as the best option because:

1. They are intentionally deprived of news from outside the compound, so any relative informed judgement is impossible.
2. The outside world is continually demonized, again tilting the balance. Outside information is pre-judged to be wrong.
3. They are taught from birth that their place in the culture is a subservient one.
4. In their experience, there is no second authority. Decisions are unchallengable, and not their job.
5. They are conditioned to practices that make them feel different or better than outsiders. They are told they are a privileged elite. They dress differently and speak differently, so on occasions when they do interact with nonmembers, they are greeted with some adverse reactions.
6. They are faced with ample fears that limit their behavior
6a: The fear of being ejected from the community. They have no friends, allies or contacts outside the FLDS.
6b: The fear of losing their status in the community.
6c: The fear of losing their immortal soul, since only FLDS members are saved.
6d: The fear of outsiders in general.

So based on what they believe to be true, returning to the compound is a rational choice even in the worst case, even if abuse is prevalent. No need to call them brainwashed or mind-controlled. They are information-starved.

This applies in a patriarchal model, a matriarchal model, just about any model you can think of that imposes a sole source of authority. The fact that the FLDS organizes patriarchally only defines one underclass; indeed, all of the above applies to the men, too.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, thanks for this interesting post. But before I can really react on this I would like to ask you some of the definitions you use. I think (like the political word liberal) there are some things that don't mean the same in europe as they do in the US.

The government requires by law that all children attend school, and parents currently have three choices; public school which is funded mostly by local property taxes and some state funds, private school (religious and not) which is funded by the parents, and home school where kids are taught by their parents at home but must pass state exams twice a year proving the children are learning the required materials. In all cases, the fact that you don't consume any state school education does not indemnify you from paying for it in your local taxes. All people with and without children, pay local property and renters taxes which mostly go into the public school system. Another difference is that in America, the school also combines many youth activities like sports, music, and arts. So as schools add more teams, and more activities the taxes go up to support all these extra curricular activities. Not such a big deal with Choir, but it is a big deal with Olympic sized swimming facilities.

Anyway, your post shocks me a bit. And to be clear (because I am confused)to what kind of school did you go?

I went to a state run public school. It really was a nightmare. Sheesh, the stories I could tell you... Coaches sleeping with cheerleaders, the drug and alcohol use by teachers with their minor students, the physical and mental abuse, and my younger sister was almost killed twice while in school by a psychopath that the school refused to do anything about. Then there was the academics...

[Bun-Bun]

Now, let's not dig into the Dogma of evolution as its promulgated in education, and mind you I'm not an evolution opponent. I value Darwin's work, and also that of Mendel. It is just that if anyone questions the Darwin Holy Grail of science they are immediately ostrasized and drummed out of science professions and education. They get labeled as 'crack pots', get stripped of funding, kicked out of the "enlightened" club.

Go ahead. Name one.

Oh, and for fairness: http://www.expelledexposed.com/

[kandrathe]

Go ahead. Name one.

Nathaniel Abraham
Guillermo Gonzalez

Michael L. Dini, a professor of biology education at Texas Tech University, goes even further. In 2003, he was threatened with a federal investigation when students complained that he would not write letters of recommendation for graduate study for anyone who would not offer “a scientific answer” to questions about how the human species originated. Nothing came of it, Dr. Dini said in an interview, adding, “Scientists do not base their acceptance or rejection of theories on religion, and someone who does should not be able to become a scientist.”

So... Deny your faith if you want to be a scientist...

[Bun-Bun]

Nathaniel Abraham
Guillermo Gonzalez

So... Deny your faith if you want to be a scientist...

Hehe. Your examples are not of the highest quality. Abraham was fired because he won't do the evolutionary research he was hired to do. It was in the job description. Would you keep a nuclear physicist on staff that denied the existence of the proton?

Gonzalez is even worse. He was denied tenure. Not fired, just denied tenure. Maybe the fact that he did no original research on new topics since the got his current job, didn't graduate many grad students, and was pretty abysmal in getting grant money could have had something to do with that.

In the Dini case, he asked for a scientific answer. It's not out of line for people expecting recommendations to a scientific position be required to give scientific answers.

Freedom of religion is not an absolute excuse. To gain employment, you have to be able and willing to do the job. If your religious beliefs prohibit major parts of your job function, you don't get the job.

Or would you prefer civil engineers who design bridges on the theory that angels will hold them up?

[kandrathe]

Hehe. Your examples are not of the highest quality. Abraham was fired because he won't do the evolutionary research he was hired to do. It was in the job description. Would you keep a nuclear physicist on staff that denied the existence of the proton?

I don't think they tried to work with him on it. He worked for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on his passion Tiger Fish, not the Darwin Center for Evolution Studies on biological theory. Here is a more expository article; Abraham's test - Woods Hole fires biologist for not accepting Darwinism Would you say that Mendel was just good at growing peas?

Gonzalez is even worse. He was denied tenure. Not fired, just denied tenure. Maybe the fact that he did no original research on new topics since the got his current job, didn't graduate many grad students, and was pretty abysmal in getting grant money could have had something to do with that.

Maybe, or maybe he was discriminated against based upon his religious views.

In the Dini case, he asked for a scientific answer. It's not out of line for people expecting recommendations to a scientific position be required to give scientific answers. Freedom of religion is not an absolute excuse. To gain employment, you have to be able and willing to do the job. If your religious beliefs prohibit major parts of your job function, you don't get the job. Or would you prefer civil engineers who design bridges on the theory that angels will hold them up?

This is an entirely specious argument. Many of the worlds greatest scientists were also priests. Where do you think the "higher" in higher education came from? From the middle ages, universities were usually created by royal or ecclesiastical initiative. We are modern and enlightened now, so we can just leave that superstition behind, right? And... there are thousands of American Scientists who are contributing to their field AND they believe in Creationism. How can this be?

[Jester]

And... there are thousands of American Scientists who are contributing to their field AND they believe in Creationism. How can this be?

Because their fields do not require the elementary facts of geology, biology, cosmology, or any other set of facts that Creationist dogma treads all over with the subtlety of a steamroller?

-Jester

[Bun-Bun]

I don't think they tried to work with him on it. He worked for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on his passion Tiger Fish, not the Darwin Center for Evolution Studies on biological theory. Here is a more expository article; Abraham's test - Woods Hole fires biologist for not accepting Darwinism Would you say that Mendel was just good at growing peas?

A. If you're using FreeRepublic as a source, you're on shaky ground already.
B. The study of evolution is so integral to biology, a merely observational effort would be far less than the job required. It was in the job requirements. Can you really say he could do a competent job producing research if he thought half the background was wrong?
C. I have no idea what you're talking about with Mendel.

Maybe, or maybe he was discriminated against based upon his religious views.

This is not an argument, it's an assertion based on your biases. There were plenty of reasons to deny his tenure. Real reasons, that have resulted in no tenure in other cases.

This is an entirely specious argument. Many of the worlds greatest scientists were also priests. Where do you think the "higher" in higher education came from? From the middle ages, universities were usually created by royal or ecclesiastical initiative. We are modern and enlightened now, so we can just leave that superstition behind, right? And... there are thousands of American Scientists who are contributing to their field AND they believe in Creationism. How can this be?

Well, you may think we're not in the Middle Ages anymore. Sometimes I wonder ...

In any case your paragraph makes no point, nor seriously challenges mine. Why would Dini be restricted from requiring scientists to know science because great scientists were (or are) priests? There's no logical connection here.

The truth is, to make any sort of contribution to biology, geology, medicine, etc. you have to have at least a basic grounding in evolutionary theory. In addition, a Creationist mindset locks you out of doing anything useful in astronomy, physics and cosmology.

[kandrathe]

A. If you're using Free Republic as a source, you're on shaky ground already. B. The study of evolution is so integral to biology, a merely observational effort would be far less than the job required. It was in the job requirements. Can you really say he could do a competent job producing research if he thought half the background was wrong? C. I have no idea what you're talking about with Mendel.

A. I read the article. I don't fault sources just because of where they are printed, and I try to look at all sides of the issue. Truth usually lies somewhere in between the two sides of an argument. B. This was not a study of evolution, it was a study of Tiger Fish. People's beliefs are complex, so you also are now being guilty of dismissing Abraham's qualifications in total because of one facet (not half, not 25%, one small part), one which he was never given a chance to work through with his employer. C. Mendel was a priest, a scientist, and the father of genetics.

This is not an argument, it's an assertion based on your biases. There were plenty of reasons to deny his tenure. Real reasons, that have resulted in no tenure in other cases.

You asked for examples of cases where people were discriminated upon. Now you want to dismiss them as not good examples. It is hard to know why truly why this scientist was denied tenure when 91% of his colleagues were given tenure. I'm sure the college presented there side with lots of good solid proof, but to me, it smacks of censure.

Well, you may think we're not in the Middle Ages anymore. Sometimes I wonder ...

:) We are in a different middle age.

In any case your paragraph makes no point, nor seriously challenges mine. Why would Dini be restricted from requiring scientists to know science because great scientists were (or are) priests? There's no logical connection here.

He is not querying people about their processes of scientific reasoning, he is requiring students to affirm evolution as the basis of the origin of species. When you ask a Christian, did God create you, or were you evolved from an Ape. It is a challenge of their faith and beliefs. Now, Christians might be wrong in their beliefs, but it won't stop them from all rational thought and applying the scientific method to do research. And, as evidence I submit to you the thousands of scientists in the field of biology that are also Christian, who believe in Creation. There are many people who accept a form of both as exemplified by the Paleontologist AND Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who's views were suppressed by the Catholic church until recently. To label all Christians as mentally incapable of doing research, even evolution based research is persecution.

The truth is, to make any sort of contribution to biology, geology, medicine, etc. you have to have at least a basic grounding in evolutionary theory. In addition, a Creationist mindset locks you out of doing anything useful in astronomy, physics and cosmology.

In full disclosure, my sister is a renowned molecular biologist although I would say she is more agnostic. She is married to a very famous molecular biologist. This brings me very close to the topic and the people in the field. I currently work as a consultant to colleges and universities, and my firm doesn't discriminate our clientèle based upon their religious views so I get to visit public, private, and religious colleges and universities all over the world. This brings me in close contact with many academics (mostly those who rely heavily on technology in the math and sciences). I personally know many Christians, who are also renowned biologists, some are Fulbright and Rhodes scholars, and some are on the National Academy of Sciences. They are making stellar contributions to their fields of research, and still able to maintain their Christian belief systems. Many are afraid to disclose or discuss their faith with other scientists for fear of persecution and censure. They stay in the closet. I think in general my observation is that the big brains are able to over come small mindedness. Science is a process, and a methodology, not a belief system. Some people claim evolution is a fact, mans role in global warming is fact, or even that gravity is a fact. I call that dogma, not science. These adherents to the dogma's of science risk being made a fool of themselves or at least to be found to be embarrassingly wrong at some future time. Religion is a philosophy, and a belief system which is not incompatible with the scientific method, even when applied to evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, geology, etc as long as these Christians, Muslims, Jews, open their minds and use the scientific method to document their findings. Bad science starts with the desired outcome, and then tries to prove it true. Good science observes results through experimentation, and then tries to draw conclusions or hypothesis explaining how the results occurred. I've never seen a quark, quantum entanglement, or a black hole, but I am open minded enough to accept the hypothesis and evidence that they might exist. There is a difference between those who seek the truth, and those who try to fit the truth into their narrow minds.

[Quark]

Witness: Teens at ranch said any age OK to marry.

Married off and pregnant at 13. 13! Yes, let's save these children from the state.

[kandrathe]

Yes, let's save these children from the state.

Of course... the witness was a state child protection worker who was brought to the ranch the day of the raid. Are you going to quote both prosecution and defense, or just the State's case?

Has the condition of the world around you escaped your perception?

Maine middle school to offer birth control to 11 to 13 yr old girls

Now, no one, and I mean no one at the Lounge so far has defended anyone impregnating under aged girls. So, what's your beef?

[Bun-Bun]

A. I read the article. I don't fault sources just because of where they are printed, and I try to look at all sides of the issue. Truth usually lies somewhere in between the two sides of an argument.

Fair enough, though the ability to evaluate sources is important.

B. This was not a study of evolution, it was a study of Tiger Fish. People's beliefs are complex, so you also are now being guilty of dismissing Abraham's qualifications in total because of one facet (not half, not 25%, one small part), one which he was never given a chance to work through with his employer.

I think you underestimate the importance of evolutionary theory in this work. According to the Boston Globe, Abraham even asked to be excluded from the parts of his work involving evolution. That disqualifies him in my book.

C. Mendel was a priest, a scientist, and the father of genetics.

Yes. And? I never said religion and science were mutually exclusive.

You asked for examples of cases where people were discriminated upon. Now you want to dismiss them as not good examples. It is hard to know why truly why this scientist was denied tenure when 91% of his colleagues were given tenure. I'm sure the college presented there side with lots of good solid proof, but to me, it smacks of censure.:)

I asked for examples because you made a vastly incorrect statement without evidence. You're still not doing well on that. You're down to saying the evidence doesn't matter because you "just know". It's not hard to know why Gonzalez was denied tenure at all; just look at his publication record.

He is not querying people about their processes of scientific reasoning, he is requiring students to affirm evolution as the basis of the origin of species.

Incorrect. He is asking for students to give a scientifically backed answer to an important question in their field. If they can give one consonant with their faith that is backed by facts, I can't see Dini would have cause to complain.

When you ask a Christian, did God create you, or were you evolved from an Ape. It is a challenge of their faith and beliefs.

Incorrect. You are assuming the all Christians are Creationists. That's patently false. There are a vast number of Christians, including many scientists, that have no difficulty accepting the fact and theory of evolution.

Now, Christians might be wrong in their beliefs, but it won't stop them from all rational thought and applying the scientific method to do research. And, as evidence I submit to you the thousands of scientists in the field of biology that are also Christian, who believe in Creation.

You're going to have to substantiate that. Thousands of biologists who are literal Creationists is very hard to credit.

There are many people who accept a form of both as exemplified by the Paleontologist AND Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who's views were suppressed by the Catholic church until recently. To label all Christians as mentally incapable of doing research, even evolution based research is persecution.

And nobody is doing that. Please remember that Creationism is not Christianity. You're inventing an argument here.

In full disclosure, my sister is a renowned molecular biologist although I would say she is more agnostic. She is married to a very famous molecular biologist. This brings me very close to the topic and the people in the field. I currently work as a consultant to colleges and universities, and my firm doesn't discriminate our clientèle based upon their religious views so I get to visit public, private, and religious colleges and universities all over the world. This brings me in close contact with many academics (mostly those who rely heavily on technology in the math and sciences). I personally know many Christians, who are also renowned biologists, some are Fulbright and Rhodes scholars, and some are on the National Academy of Sciences. They are making stellar contributions to their fields of research, and still able to maintain their Christian belief systems. Many are afraid to disclose or discuss their faith with other scientists for fear of persecution and censure. They stay in the closet.

Are they literal Creationists?

I think in general my observation is that the big brains are able to over come small mindedness. Science is a process, and a methodology, not a belief system. Some people claim evolution is a fact, mans role in global warming is fact, or even that gravity is a fact. I call that dogma, not science.

If facts are that slippery for you, I'm not sure how you get through the day. Actually, I don't think you're using the scientific definition of fact; you're redefining the word to support your own ends.

In any case, if a sufficiently well supported theory came along that was better than the current ones in any scientific field, even those items regarded as facts could be overturned.

These adherents to the dogma's of science risk being made a fool of themselves or at least to be found to be embarrassingly wrong at some future time.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that scientists should not use well-supported facts and theories to do further research because there is a small chance they might be wrong?

Or maybe you're just saying that all scientists risk being found to be wrong. Well, that's a part of science. if evidence shows something is wrong, it gets changed. The nice thing about science is nothing is dogmatic. Before you claim evolutionary theory is, I'll point out that the theory behind the fact has changed significantly since Darwin's day, and is changing even now as further research explores the subject.

Religion is a philosophy, and a belief system which is not incompatible with the scientific method, even when applied to evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, geology, etc as long as these Christians, Muslims, Jews, open their minds and use the scientific method to document their findings. Bad science starts with the desired outcome, and then tries to prove it true. Good science observes results through experimentation, and then tries to draw conclusions or hypothesis explaining how the results occurred. I've never seen a quark, quantum entanglement, or a black hole, but I am open minded enough to accept the hypothesis and evidence that they might exist. There is a difference between those who seek the truth, and those who try to fit the truth into their narrow minds.

That's all fine. No argument there. So you're good with black holes (despite that dodgy gravity dogma) and quarks, but the mountain of evidence behind evolutionary theory is somehow problematical to your faith?

OK, throughout this post you are equating Christianity and Creationism. You either didn't read my post or are trying to create a strawman. Or, possibly, you think literal Creationists are the only true Christians. Regardless, you do nothing to address my point that literal Creationism is a serious roadblock to participating in many fields of science.

Or, you could go back to the original subject and provide some evidence that there's a grand conspiracy of nasty Darwinists out there. You've not supplied any yet that stands scrutiny.

[Griselda]

The majority of teachers in public schools at all age levels, as well as most college faculty subscribe to a common agenda and world view.

Hmm, the teachers in my building can't agree about much of anything. I don't know how we'd manage to cobble together a common agenda and world view.

[Jester]

The fact that the FLDS organizes patriarchally only defines one underclass; indeed, all of the above applies to the men, too.

Except for the subservient part.

-Jester

[eppie]

Then there was the academics...

Ok but here we are talking about a school with idiots for teachers. This is not a general world view that they want to give children like the organized indoctrination that we were talking about.

[eppie]

This is an entirely specious argument. Many of the worlds greatest scientists were also priests. Where do you think the "higher" in higher education came from? From the middle ages, universities were usually created by royal or ecclesiastical initiative. We are modern and enlightened now, so we can just leave that superstition behind, right? And... there are thousands of American Scientists who are contributing to their field AND they believe in Creationism. How can this be?

Well there we are back to where we were.....indoctrination. Even for very intelligent people it is extremely difficult to step from their faith even with much evidence available. The people can however contribute to the field because during their work the keep there religious beliefs to themselves and focus on the subject.
In most cases (also the natural sciences) you can go quite a way without believing in evolution.