Speaking of brainwashing ...

[_Runtu]

Saturday I pulled into a pet-store parking lot behind a woman in a tiny, yellow, Korean subcompact. Emblazoned on the back window was "Got Valor? Helaman Academy. LDS-Based Education, " along with the school's website address: http://www.helamanacademy.com/.

Perusing the web site, one finds that this school's faculty and administration consists of one Ada Dittli, who believes that her approach to education is her "way of building Zion." (I think it may have been Sister Dittli I saw in the parking lot of the pet store.)

Frankly, these kinds of "schools" scare me. Kids are extremely unlikely to get a realistic view of US history when "history is approached from a providential view with emphasis on God’s preparation of this continent for the restoration of the Gospel. We study the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as divinely inspired documents and explore their principles." History is messy, and the Constitution was born of competing political and economic interests, not of answered prayer. Maybe some people really believe that it was inspired of God that the Constitution uphold slavery in Article 1, Section 2, and explicitly state that fugitive slaves must be delivered back to their owners. Of course, these are probably the same folks who believe that the LDS denial of priesthood to people of black African descent was not "racist." And it goes without saying that viewing the US Constitution's primary purpose as "preparation of this continent for the restoration of the Gospel" is ignoring the background leading up to the Constitutional Convention, the reasons for its compromises and eventual ratification, and its implementation.

It's also a little scary that the students study only from the scriptures and "Noah Webster’s original 1828 dictionary." Seems just a tad limiting to me. I suppose I can understand the desire to "use the Word of God as the foundation for all study," but why arbitrarily choose Webster's original dictionary? Apparently, some people consider Webster's dictionary " the essential tool of education for Christians" because "Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions." Such people believe that "the English language has changed again and again and in many instances has become corrupt." But, never fear, good Christians, Webster's "American Dictionary of the English Language is based upon God's written word."

This is, to me, fundamentalism taken to an extreme. As Terry Eagleton has written, "Fundamentalists are those who believe that our linguistic currency is trustworthy only if it is backed by the gold standard of the Word of Words. They see God as copperfastening human meaning. Fundamentalism means sticking strictly to the script, which in turn means being deeply fearful of the improvised, ambiguous or indeterminate." It is precisely this fear of change and ambiguity that seems to motivate people not only to insist on a particular translation (usually the 1611 King James Version) but also to fixate on a particular edition of an American dictionary to ward off the "secularization of our modern English language."

The cold, hard truth is this: language is neither religious nor secular, and it is fluid and constantly changing. Attempting to find a time and place at which language is pure (and at which point a dictionary is the "key to the meaning of words") is as futile and silly as taking a bucket of water from the Pacific Ocean and claiming that it alone represents the "true" ocean, and everything thereafter has become corrupted.

Again, what seems to motivate such folks isn't truth or revelation but fear. So, to answer Sister Dittli's question: no, there's no valor in being afraid of language and history.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Scary. This reminds me of the movie "Jesus Camp". I love the part around the 20 second mark, where the teacher tells these young children that Harry Potter should be put to death:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSwZJ55g80Q&feature=related


Just remember, today's extreme, religiously indoctrinated children become tomorrow's fanatics.

[_Buffalo]

I feel sorry for any kid who gets put into that "school." What chance do they have of not being permanently damaged?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

A day in the life of an extreme religious private school:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z14iuazhuTQ&feature=related

Is it any wonder that China, Japan, Korea, India, etc., are kicking our ass in science and math education?

[_harmony]

Nothing unusual there. We have all sorts of Christian schools here, and some take it to and past the extreme you encountered. They're one step up from home schooling and a new thought hasn't entered those closed minds since birth.

[_RayAgostini]

A belief in the “Divine Destiny” of America seems embedded in US history. If the following quotes are incorrect, then let me know:

Washington:

In his battlefield prayer journal, General George Washington identified himself as an Israelite offering sacrifice to the God of Israel, “Almighty God, and most merciful father, who didst command the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to thee, that thereby they might glorify and praise thee for thy protection both night and day, receive, O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to thee…..” In the same journal, the General we almost made King wrote, “Holy and eternal Lord God who art the King of heaven, and the watchman of Israel, that never slumberest or sleepest, what shall we render unto thee for all thy benefits…..” It is poignant that Washington equates his people with Israel.

Jefferson:

In his second inaugural address, United States President Thomas Jefferson spoke to the Pilgrim doctrine of divine destiny to take America for themselves and their posterity, later termed “Manifest Destiny” and unequivocally identified himself and his audience as the genetic offspring of ancient Israel: “I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life…..” The National Doctrine of Manifest Destiny was an official acknowledgement that Americans, as the Israelite’s heirs, had the destiny to take all the land as Israel of old took the land of Canaan. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin both wanted the establishment of the New American Israel iconified in our national seal. Jefferson proposed a seal depicting a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day leading Israel through the wilderness. Franklin urged a depiction of Moses dividing the Red Sea with Pharaoh’s armies swallowed up in it. Although their original drafts did not become the official seal, both men got their wishes as the final seal design incorporated numerous Israelite and prophetic symbols of exodus from bondage, journey through wilderness, victory over tyrants, and vindication through national strength and unity, into the final, adopted, official seal of the United States of America.

John Quincy Adams:

The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.

Doing a bit of Googling I came across this, The Religious Origins of Manifest Destiny, which throws further light on Lincoln and the slavery question:

Not surprisingly, however, it remained for Abraham Lincoln to provide the most complex but nonetheless clear statement of the idea that America has a sacred duty to itself and to the world to preserve and protect liberty and democracy. In 1837, as a young man of 28, Lincoln gave an address to the Springfield, Illinois Lyceum. It was a time of great social and political turmoil. Illinois was riven with violence over the question of the abolition of slavery. In Alton, Illinois an anti-abolitionist mob recently had murdered the abolitionist editor, Elijah Lovejoy, destroyed his printing press and burned his office and house. In this atmosphere of intense political strife, Lincoln used his Lyceum address to call his fellow Illinoisans (and Americans) to turn to the basic democratic and liberal tenets the American national creed—the American Civil Religion—and embrace them and hold them as deeply as they held their private religious beliefs. Only such a common national faith, he argued, could provide the real and lasting foundation that would hold the sprawling, diverse, and conflict-ridden nation together.

During the Civil War Lincoln found these beliefs sharply challenged and at the same time gave them their most eloquent and powerful expression. Lincoln had always kept his questing and often skeptical spirituality closely guarded, but as the war ground relentlessly on, his beliefs and speeches took on not a sectarian but a deeply Old Testament tone. The cadence and words of his Gettysburg Address accentuate his message: the Union, “the last best hope of earth,” was fighting for the sacred cause of liberty. “It is for the living,” he declared, “to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last true measure of devotion . . . that this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . . and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

In his brief second inaugural address, delivered only six weeks before his assassination, Lincoln explored the relationship between American freedom and Divine Will. He knew that nations often, if not always, claimed God or the Gods for their side. So, acknowledging that “neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained,” Lincoln addressed the fact that both North and South invoked God as their partisan: “Both read the same Bible and Pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.” But he made it unmistakably clear that though he did not and could not really know God’s Will, he did know that God intended to end slavery, no matter what it took. Lincoln powerfully invoked a Jeremiad like vision of an all powerful and deeply offended God that would reign “woe” down upon those by peoples through ‘whom the offense cometh.’ “If we suppose that American slavery is one of those offences,” he declared, “which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God ascribe to Him?” “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray,” Lincoln continued, “that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said, . . . so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’” Here it all is: the idea that the United States represents “the last best hope” that—the belief that an all powerful, not fully comprehendible God, governs the affairs of humankind, and that this God held the whole nation, not just the South, accountable for the existence of slavery in its midst, for the violation of its appointed mission. Finally, unlike most proponents of the idea that “America is a nation called to a special destiny by God,” he refrains from claiming God as the agent of Northern victory, even though as the second inaugural makes clear he had come to believe the Almighty was the ultimate agent of “the mighty scourge of war” that He had visited upon the nation for the sin of slavery.

[_Runtu]

Sure, Ray, there's a long history of belief in American exceptionalism, often divinely sanctioned. Recognizing that fact and discussing its impact on the history of the US are quite different from saying, "God created the Constitution so Joseph Smith could restore the true church" and leaving it at that.

[_lostindc]

I have an in-law that goes to one of these private Mormon schools in Utah. Needless to say his level of education is not very high. Recently, we met a parent/school helper of the private school. I was asked where I was originally from and replied with Pittsburgh. The person responded with a sincere question asking me what it was like to grow up in Ohio. I let the conversation die. Not really in the mood to give a geography lesson.

I am well aware that public schools in Utah are generally not very good but I would think parents would be wise enough to avoid these types of private schools.

[_cinepro]

If it's any consolation, the past decade has shown that financial realities typically overwhelm the idealistic intentions of LDS-based private schools.

Countdown to bankruptcy begins.....


now.

[_Hoops]

How utterly and laughably predictable these posts are. Where does one begin? There is no arrogance quite like the atheist/agnostic one.