In These Times

Latest Comments view all 11

• • 11 Jan 06
  • 2:02 pm

  If you want to rely on hard data, instead of religious fantasy, this study pretty much sums it up . 1. Journal of Religion and Society: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html Excerpts: "The data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been …

  Posted to Cult of Character

• • 12 Jan 06
  • 2:02 pm

  David, I myself grew up in Salt Lake City Mormon culture in the 50's, so I know whereof you speak. You might as well be describing life in the Soviet Union, Iran or China, though. Any sufficiently clamped down society is going to exhibit good manners, conformity, submissiveness to authority, and many will internalize the repression... The notion of what amounts to good manners is a conservative relative, not allowing for change (i.e., no jazz, no rock n roll, no long hair, sexism, racsim, on and on....). But this is America, good manners are nice to haves, but those are not …

  Posted to Cult of Character

• • 16 Jan 06
  • 4:30 am

  Kuya, yours is a list of moral rules, not character attributes - a line that character education consistently blurs. For example, does "Truthfulness in speech and honesty in business and personal interactions" mean one is trustworthy or honest? What frequency qualifies? Are there other qualifiers? What are the disqualifiers? Are they absolute or cumulative, an average? Etc, etc. As such, I am as immediately skeptical of any lists of moral rules (i.e., rules for behavior) as a list of ill-defined, un-measurable character traits. In fact, they are impossible and absurd because individuals make choices in the real world, where every context …

  Posted to Cult of Character

• • 16 Jan 06
  • 4:58 am

  There is a basic question in this line of thinking that is never addressed. Why do people behave as they do? Is it the person who has evil in him (bad character)? Note that it is hard to think outside this paradigm when embedded in a religiously saturated culture as we are. Not just from the church, for there is nary a movie plot, especially those requiring violent solutions by the good guys without a villain who is pure evil (or had an unusually abusive childhood). But 99.9% of real criminals and enemies are just regular folks like you and me. …

  Posted to Cult of Character

• • 16 Jan 06
  • 5:00 am

  Almost done. The real question underlying all this is not the good or bad character of students; it is about on what basis one should act. I would argue that making appropriate choices requires very little in the way of any specific character enhancements in children - who are all just fine thank you. Equally inert is the attempt to indoctrinate impossible to define behavioral axioms (i.e., "Use self-control."). Appropriate choices require no more and no less than well-informed critical thinking with an eye to long-range consequences. Rather than spend time and money investing in fixing children (e.g., character education) let's …

  Posted to Cult of Character