There's been a lot of fussin' recently about the President making some sort of "televised" presentation to school age children across our nation. Mama wonders why he couldn't just be a reading buddy or something.
The first complaint that Mama saw was that it is nothing more than an attempt at indoctrination. Mama has heard bits and pieces of the "pledge" and Mama will get to how she feels about that in just a minute. Right now, though, Mama wants to clear up the whole negative connotation about the word indoctrinate. When we hear or read the word it gives us all the heebee-jeebies. The first thing Mama thinks of is Charles Manson and his "family" who enjoyed passing the time by cutting up pregnant women and spelling three letter words on the walls. Manson, without a shadow of a doubt, brain washed those people.
However to some degree we all take indoctrinate our children, family, and friends. Did you teach your babies to say, "please" and "thank you"? You indoctrinated them. Did you teach your babies to use a fork or not drink out of the toilet? You indoctrinated them. Did you teach your children that Jesus died for us? You indoctrinated them. Did you teach them the PEMDAS to solve their easier math problems? You indoctrinated them. Yet...when it is something we do not personally agree with we automatically throw the word indoctrination around like it is a dirty and evil word.
It's all a form of brain washing. It isn't until we vehemently disagree with an idea that we label it. Mama was recently called a bad parent because she is opting her out her precious little sweetums from the circus presentation. Why? Because Mama feels that parents should be left to do the parenting, teachers should be left to do the teaching (except you lovely homeschoolers. Mama supports homeschooling!), and presidents should be left to hob nobbing and rubbing elbows with foreign diplomats.
Should children make oaths or pledges? The Bible is clear that if we make an oath we are to keep it. There are some limits to that. Mama has her own special rules. It can't be immoral, illegal, or cause Mama to have a heart attack when she hears about it. Mama thinks it is a good thing to draw attention to those suffering from hunger, poverty, mental illness, or sickness. Children should be raised to have compassion and empathy and to do what is in their means. However, that is a parent's job. No one will convince Mama that a man that has never met my precious little sweetums can educate them better about it than she can. He doesn't know Mama's babies...and he doesn't know yours. If it takes a complete stranger to educate your babies on the woes of civilization...you are not doing your job as a parent.
Mama thinks it is wonderful when children want to right a wrong. One of Mama's precious little sweetums has a very soft spot in his heart for babies. He likes to make baby hats on a loom to donate. Mama's other precious little sweetum has a soft spot for people that do without or are hungry. He's participated in numerous food drives and practically grew up at a food bank stocking the low shelves he could reach. Mama has a soft spot for all children or those that are suffering. The Bible tells us that whatsoever we do for our brethren we are really doing for Jesus.
Mama doesn't feel that children should make a pledge to do whatever they can to serve or support the President. The military (Lord bless every one!!) serve their country. We Christians serve our Jesus. We have no business pledging to serve a man. Mama thinks the President had one too many play dates with "our dear leader" Kim Jong Il. Americans are not here to support the President. As a matter of fact...last time Mama took history (and she doesn't think it's changed too much in the last 15 years...) the President was given a job by the people. That makes him in the office to serve us... Doesn't his wants sound a bit backwards to you?
Besides...if he can be so succint with what he feels our children should do why can't he explain what he wants done with healthcare in 1100 pages?
Just a thought.
Please, if you disagree with the presentation, call your local schools and ask if their is an opt out activity. If there is, opt them out. If there isn't, just check them out for that part of the day. Take them to a museum or go to the library and look up history books. Goodness knows quite a few Americans out there need a refresher.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Indoctrination?
Posted by the . recidivist at 7:44 PM
Labels: american history, Bible, christianity, current events, God, kids, obama, public education, right to free speech, Word of God
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry but we can't pray in our schools, so what gives Obama the right to indoctrinate out children? You can say it's to encourage our children to stay in school all you want, I don't buy it, bolonga!!! That is our job as parents to encourage our children. My husband, his brother and boss, and most likely myself will be going to Washington DC to march against this ridiculous healthcare bill....All I can say is I truly believe these are end times and it's not going to get any easier at all unfortunately!
Mel
My thought is this - many presidents, congressmen, and senators have done similar speeches in the past, and no one really threw a fit then. In fact, before the Carter administration, these type of youth-directed speeches were quite normal. They were used to curtail the hippie movement in the 60's and ease civil unrest during the rights movements. They were peaceful discussions that encouraged thought and argued against irrational violence.
I would think the party of personal responsibility would use this as a opportunity for healthy debate. I'm not a parent myself, so my opinion means little here, but my thought would be to encourage my kids to listen carefully to what he had to say, then we'd discuss it later. Children are very impressionable, and are exposed to dozens of influences every day - from their parents and teachers, all the way down to the bus drivers and Wal-mart greeters. A presidential address will not be some sort of new influence that will hurt them any more than a classmate with an opposing viewpoint.
I probably would have quirked an eyebrow if Bush had done something like this, but I think that children should hear and discuss. Parents are going to have the strongest influence in something like this, and I think "hiding" them from it sets a bad example.
Here is the full text of the President's dreaded speech.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32723584/ns/politics-white_house//
Happily, we can report that nothing socialistic, evil, or soul-damning was said. In fact, if this had been preached from my church's pulpit, I'd have been saying "amen" and "amen-amen".
Enter this as one more evidence for the wisdom of "can't judge a book by its cover".
-Sister Pamela
Sis Pam - you know I love you...but I disagree. Any administration that would label parents who think they should have the right to hear or approve of something first as "silly" is not in the right (no pun intended). Any speech that was REWRITTEN (and it was) to remove the part about asking children to consider how they can SERVE the President has no place in a democratic country.
If other people wish to allow their children to listen to it, good for them...however I am defending my parental right to protect my children and give them our values.
If Bush would have wanted to do this, I would have opted out my children. I don't want politicians anywhere NEAR the delicate psyches of youth.
Matt -
You know me well enough to know I would not hide my children from things like that. We've talked about it at home. Our entire district has more or less boycotted the speech. The administrators will watch it first and ONLY if it fits in to current curriculum will it be aired.
My sons will still be opted out. J for sure because he is so young. We would let B watch it if he wanted to, but even before we brought it up he said he didn't want to see it. He's the one that told us about it.
BTW - I finally have two recent pictures to send you of your pseudo-nephews.
True, but the stink being raised about this speech really makes conservatives look hypocritical. They praised H.W. Bush and Reagan for such speeches in 1991 and 1988, and Reagan's speech was extremely partisan and political (inflammatory, in fact). Conservative families didn't pull their children from those events. In fact, they praised the event as something all presidents should do, and future leaders should follow the example.
Now, because the shoe is on the other political foot, it's now an imposition for the democratically elected leader of our nation to address our children. Why have the disruption? Why spend the money? Why take the time?
I would submit that your "entire district" would not have boycotted a similar speech by W. Bush, or McCain, had he won the election.
Post a Comment