It's Not the Predestination But the Journey

     Tuesday in class, we discussed a main tenet of Puritanism: "predestination". Basically, this is the concept that God arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and who goes to h-e-double-hockey-sticks. While good behavior is an indicator that He may have chosen someone, they cannot change God's mind with their behavior. This is reminiscent of another belief system we talked about: college apps. This is how the stereotypical college application procedure goes:

     1: I go to the college visit.
     2: On the basis of very little information about my character or academic abilities, the people from the college decide if they will let me attend their school.
     3: I bow my head and accept my fate. If I have been chosen for a good (or "good" - but I would need another post to discuss that) school, I will naturally act like the perfect person I am.

     Phrased like that, it does seem kind of odd, doesn't it? But the logic is nearly identical to that of predestination. The only real change is the substitution of one higher power (the college admissions board) for another (God). Extreme difference? Well, maybe. You would be surprised at how widespread the image is, of college admissions boards as mysterious entities whose minds cannot be swayed by our actions, whose thought processes cannot be understand by mere mortals, and who have total control over our destinies. Call me crazy, but that sounds a lot like the technical definition of a deity to me.

     Which raises the question: why do people seem to enjoy thinking this way? Because it takes the burden of responsibility off their shoulders? Because people are naturally pessimistic and mopey? Something else completely unexpected? Comment please! I want to know what you think.

Taking It on Faith: Thinking for Oneself in the Presence of Authority

     In class on Friday, we discussed the First Amendment, with special focus on when and where it can be limited. The limitations that caught my attention the most were those imposed on teachers. As both government employees and potential role models to their students, they are often prevented, and usually discouraged, from airing their political beliefs, religious beliefs, or generally anything controversial that isn't in the lesson plan.
     The logic behind this seems straightforward at first glance: if a teacher, the local figure of authority, says anything about anything, the student is likely to accept it as truth without further thought, similarly to how they believe what their parents say. After all, most children with religious parents grow up to follow the same religion, so it makes sense, right?
     Well, not always. Their are two key forces to consider. For starters, at a certain age kids begin to question authority. The colloquial name for this is "teenage rebellion". So while limitations on teachers' self-expression may be logical in K-8 schools, by the time high school rolls around the logic is decidedly weakened.
     The second variable is that kids are often not considered capable of thinking for themselves. Which is ridiculous! I can think for myself, and do so regularly, and I would bet that most of my classmates who read this do too. And once students are capable of taking the facts (or failing hard information, the data they're given) and drawing their own conclusions from it, censoring teachers makes zero sense. In fact, from my point of view it cuts down on how interesting and informative their classes are.
Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment please.