Secular Humanist Camp

[Guest]

Dear all,

I recently checked out

atheistparents.org

after hearing that it was a great website for atheists.

I was disappointed to see the "Religious Stupidity" section.

It was no more than immature rants, primarily, and not surprisingly, about Christianity.

I was also somewhat amused to read:

"Looking for a summer camp that encourages free thought and rational inquiry? Look no further. Camp Quest has been in full swing each summer since 1996, and Camp Quest of the Smokys is gearing up for its second year. For application forms, click the image to the left. For more info not yet listed at the site, email the coordinators.

http://www.campquestsmokies.org"

,which is specifically billed as a camp for secular humanists. Some of their activities (among many common ones) are an Invisible Pink Unicorn Hunt and Freethinker Jeopardy.

Also "All activities are conducted in a manner consistent with secular humanist principles,".

As it turns out (emphasis mine), "Camp Quest of the Smoky Mountains is run and staffed primarily by members of the Rationalists of East Tennessee, a nonprofit organization that supports free inquiry and critical thinking about the nature of the universe and human societies, emphasizes the importance of the scientific method, and explores ethical and intellectual alternatives to supernatural belief systems. Accordingly, we seek to provide opportunities for like-minded children to have fun, learn, and engage in humanist fellowship."

I also enjoyed reading, from the main page, "Of course, it's also a little fun to get in our own little jab at Christians by appropriating a symbol they appropriated from someone else. "

Wow, that is rational And again, equating religion with Christian.

I really enjoy the content of the site, other than the Religious Stupidity page. I think that page alone reduces their effectiveness.

I don't know what to think about the camp, but think it is curious and has a quasi-religious nature.

Can't we just send our kids to a camp camp and not worry about the teaching of someone elses' beliefs?

What do people think of this?

Sincerely,

S. H.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Dear all,

I recently checked out

atheistparents.org

after hearing that it was a great website for atheists.

I was disappointed to see the "Religious Stupidity" section.

It was no more than immature rants, primarily, and not surprisingly, about Christianity.

I was also somewhat amused to read:

"Looking for a summer camp that encourages free thought and rational inquiry? Look no further. Camp Quest has been in full swing each summer since 1996, and Camp Quest of the Smokys is gearing up for its second year. For application forms, click the image to the left. For more info not yet listed at the site, email the coordinators.

http://www.campquestsmokies.org"

,which is specifically billed as a camp for secular humanists. Some of their activities (among many common ones) are an Invisible Pink Unicorn Hunt and Freethinker Jeopardy.

Also "All activities are conducted in a manner consistent with secular humanist principles,".

As it turns out (emphasis mine), "Camp Quest of the Smoky Mountains is run and staffed primarily by members of the Rationalists of East Tennessee, a nonprofit organization that supports free inquiry and critical thinking about the nature of the universe and human societies, emphasizes the importance of the scientific method, and explores ethical and intellectual alternatives to supernatural belief systems. Accordingly, we seek to provide opportunities for like-minded children to have fun, learn, and engage in humanist fellowship."

I also enjoyed reading, from the main page, "Of course, it's also a little fun to get in our own little jab at Christians by appropriating a symbol they appropriated from someone else. "

Wow, that is rational And again, equating religion with Christian.

I really enjoy the content of the site, other than the Religious Stupidity page. I think that page alone reduces their effectiveness.

I don't know what to think about the camp, but think it is curious and has a quasi-religious nature.

Can't we just send our kids to a camp camp and not worry about the teaching of someone elses' beliefs?

What do people think of this?

Sincerely,

S. H.

I don't see a problem with it. Religious camps are extremely common and it is nice to see an alternative.

Granted I have never had a problem finding a non-religious camp to send my kids to, but if people want to send their kids to a camp that is secular by design, tht is their perogative, just like it's the perogative of religious parents to send their kids to to a religious camp, or parents who value science education to send their kids to 'Space camp' or any other type of specialized camp for specialized interests.

As for the 'Equating religion with christianity' thing. The answer is very simple, in the US christianity is far and away the most common religion so it's the first one most americans think of when religion in general springs to mind.

What I'd liketo see though, is a secular humanist day-care center. I don't know if it's just a problem peculiar to my town but finding a non-religious daycare center is tough.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Also, I don't see any 'religious stupidity' section on the site. It may be on the 'Rationalists of East Tennesee' site that they are linked to but I don't have time to find it if it is.

If it is there, it's rather misleading to imply that it is on the camps page, don't you think?

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not a secular humanist (sorry), but if I were, I wouldn't send my kids to this place. Sue me for being paranoid, but something tells me this will be the kind of place where religious beliefs will be ridiculed pointedly, through games or what not. Of course, I could be wrong; but if I'm not - what's the point of sending your kids to a place that reinforces stereotypes or simply still "preaches" that X belief system is the right one? There are plenty of secular camps scattered all over the place where beliefs are unimportant - be they secular or otherwise. I'd send my kids to one of those.

 

[Fade]

Also, I don't see any 'religious stupidity' section on the site.

It's down on the left under the "topics" section.


If anyone is in doubt as to whether SH is a troll, let all your doubts be stilled.

It's only a matter of time before he begins saying A-theist.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not a secular humanist (sorry), but if I were, I wouldn't send my kids to this place. Sue me for being paranoid, but something tells me this will be the kind of place where religious beliefs will be ridiculed pointedly, through games or what not. Of course, I could be wrong; but if I'm not - what's the point of sending your kids to a place that reinforces stereotypes or simply still "preaches" that X belief system is the right one? There are plenty of secular camps scattered all over the place where beliefs are unimportant - be they secular or otherwise. I'd send my kids to one of those.

Before I read your post, Josh, I was all ready to jump up and say "secular humanist camps are a great idea". You caused me to stop and think.

The only camps I have ever been to were affiliated with Christian organizations (YMCA and Episcopal Youth). I remember having a great time there, and I don't rember a lot of proselytizing. Yeah, there was a Sunday church service but it wasn't a big deal.

I suspect that there are a number of "Christian" camps which engage in heavy duty indoctrination, but I doubt that they are the norm. You could probably recognize them by their bible-thumping advertisements. After thinking about it, this SH camp looks very much like a "philosophy-thumping" camp, heavy on the indoctrination. I don't think it is a good thing to try to force young minds into a mold of thinking. Given freedom, children will find their best path. I do not argue for one second that children are given that freedom in the very non-secular US, but I would hate for "my side" to engage in the same brainwashing tactics as the fundies.

I would prefer to send my hypothetical kids to a camp which had no axes to grind.

 

[Fade]

Given freedom, children will find their best path.

Absolutely wrong.

Given freedom, children will find the path most travelled.

 

[KelvinG]

Can't we just send our kids to a camp camp and not worry about the teaching of someone elses' beliefs?

Agreed. If I had children I would love to expose them to secular humanism, but not at camp. I wouldn't want camp to be teaching secular or non-secular beliefs to my children at all.
However, other parents might disagree and they have every right to take advantage of this camp.
I'm sure there are many Christian camps held every summer, so why shouldn't there be secular camps?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'm not a secular humanist (sorry), but if I were, I wouldn't send my kids to this place. Sue me for being paranoid, but something tells me this will be the kind of place where religious beliefs will be ridiculed pointedly, through games or what not. Of course, I could be wrong; but if I'm not - what's the point of sending your kids to a place that reinforces stereotypes or simply still "preaches" that X belief system is the right one? There are plenty of secular camps scattered all over the place where beliefs are unimportant - be they secular or otherwise. I'd send my kids to one of those.

You have no evidence that religious beliefs are mocked at this camp.

Also how is preaching that a belief system is right reinforcing a stereotype?

I really don't see what's wrong with raising kids up with your beliefs/values. As far as I know that's one of the most common and universally practiced rituals within human society and I really can't think of reason why it *should* or will go.

Also if you do want to see a place where secularists are mocked(if not assaulted by peers) and a belief system is taught as "THE TRUTH" then perhaps you can take a gander at the common as dirt fundy camps.

All in all your post was mere conjecture, which to me sounds like IT is the one based on and reinforcing stereotypes.

 

[Checkmite]

You have no evidence that religious beliefs are mocked at this camp.

Also how is preaching that a belief system is right reinforcing a stereotype?

I really don't see what's wrong with raising kids up with your beliefs/values. As far as I know that's one of the most common and universally practiced rituals within human society and I really can't think of reason why it *should* or will go.

Also if you do want to see a place where secularists are mocked(if not assaulted by peers) and a belief system is taught as "THE TRUTH" then perhaps you can take a gander at the common as dirt fundy camps.

All in all your post was mere conjecture, which to me sounds like IT is the one based on and reinforcing stereotypes.

Well, this warrants a reply, so I'll bite.

Let me be the first to admit that my offerings were completely conjecture; I will also admit they are based on my own opinions about the sort of camp I would want to send my kids to.

There are many different types of camps; the sort of camp you'd pack Timmy off to depends, of course, on why you're sending him off in the first place. Is it to learn about a particular subject - for example, acting, or culinary arts? Does he or she need to lose weight, or need help learning to read, for instance? To bolster self-esteem? Perhaps you do want your kid to be indoctrinated in the ways of secular humanism. Or perhaps you want a more broad-based summer experience, where several skills are taught and emphasized.

I'll tell you plain - I'd prefer the latter. If my (hypothetical) kid were to go off for a month, I would not only want a camp where he or she as a whole person could develop in different areas, but one where he or she would be exposed to different people and different ideas. I want him or her to spend a month with a few Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Wiccans his or her own age, as well as atheists. I would not want to send my child to a camp with one focus, which would give its attendees a "club" -type exclusive atmosphere, or give them the impression that they belong to an "elite" or (conversely) a "victim" subculture.

Secondly, I admit that the idea that religion would be ridiculed at this place is also total conjecture. However, I have my own ways of detecting subtext which may indicate what a described camp's agenda includes. It's not perfect or a guarantee, but simply enough to make me suspicious. By way of example, let me offer descriptions similar to the one Camp Quest offers (in the OP), describing the camp and its purpose:

Our children are our future. As parents, our responsibilities include nurturing and guiding them through the best possible life experiences, while providing them with outstanding opportunities to learn and grow physically, socially and emotionally.

At Camp Tioga, we provide fun, friendships, and fantastic lifelong memories. Besides offering more than 80 activities such as sports, drama, crafts, nature, swimming, and boating, etc., we also have a state-of-the-art Fitness Center, and a Computer Center with internet access.

Camp Tioga, plays a vital role in each camper's growth and maturation by fostering independence, self-discovery, ethics, and social skills. We will also stress team concepts, technology and critical thinking; skills that are necessary in today's and tomorrow's world. And all of this in the most terrific, fun-filled environment.

This, to me, sounds like a very good camp; it is compatible with the goals I would've set in my mind when choosing a camp, as stated earlier in this post. I would add this to my list of "possibilities" - but of course I wouldn't just send my kid. I'd most likely do a little investigating, including a visit to the camp to observe, if at all possible. Now, let's take a look at another camp description, which contains a bit of suspicious subtext:

For over 80 years Camp Claire has offered a superior summer program for young people. It offers wonderful opportunities for them to grow, laugh, make new friends, and learn new worlds. It is a positive, nurturing environment that encourages curiosity and creativity, and increases self-esteem, while providing a lifetime of memories. Campers are individually challenged and supported to work, create, and stretch to their fullest potentials.

The Camp is located on a ten-acre waterfront site on a tributary of the historic Connecticut River with a breathtaking view of Lyme's Hamburg Cove. Our campers experience a total living, learning environment based on the relations between the human spirit, the community, and the world.
Camp Claire is a full service, non-profit, resident co-ed summer camp serving kids entering grades
2-10. Open to all without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin. It's owned and operated by the First Congregational Church in Meriden, Connecticut.

I'll admit, the subtext is very weak; just because the camp is run by a church, doesn't mean it will necessarily be Christian in nature - right? (Right? ). But all hope is dashed if you bother to notice Camp Claire's "logo" (you'll most likely blow by it a couple of times; I did), you'll see that it consists of a shield with a Christian cross superimposed on it. I wouldn't bother to investigate this camp further - it's already off my list. Subtle hints let you know where the priorities lay.

Now, let's again take a look at Camp Quest's description:

Camp Quest of the Smoky Mountains is run and staffed primarily by members of the Rationalists of East Tennessee, a nonprofit organization that supports free inquiry and critical thinking about the nature of the universe and human societies, emphasizes the importance of the scientific method, and explores ethical and intellectual alternatives to supernatural belief systems. Accordingly, we seek to provide opportunities for like-minded children to have fun, learn, and engage in humanist fellowship.

The subtext is not so subtle here, but I'll highlight it anyway:

...explores ethical and intellectual alternatives to supernatural belief systems. Accordingly, we seek to provide opportunities for like-minded children to have fun, learn, and engage in humanist fellowship.

If I read that correctly, I can expect that one of the more important priorities at this camp would be "exploring ethical and intellectual alternatives to" religions. Combined with the mild contempt in which religion seems to be held on the Rationalist's main page, and the fact that all the kids are presumably "like-minded", it doesn't take a Frankonian leap of logic to come up with the possibility that "exploring ethical and intellectual alternatives" might mean discussing how bad and simple the religious are. Humanist fellowship (whatever that is), and learning about secular humanism are fine; but when comparisons are going to be made, and one is going to be submitted as better than the others, I personally see a problem. I'll concede that my earlier conjecture about "games" may was most likely exaggeration - I'm sure they wouldn't go as far as playing "Pin the Brain on the Fundy" - but how much does it really take to effectively steer an 11-year-old's mind?

The real reason I would cross this camp off my list, even considering all that, is the fact that sending my kid to an exclusively "secular humanist" camp seems to be promoting exactly the opposite message regarding my child's freedom of choice regarding personal matters like religion than the one I want to convey.

If you think you've done such a bad job of teaching your son or daughter to think that you have to send them to a concept-saturation camp for a month where they'll be buffered from all the evil theists, you're perfectly entitled. On the plus side, your kid will learn that he's not the only secular humanist kid in the world - he'll have met three from Ohio, half a dozen from California, and two from Virginia...that'll convince him. Personally (again), I see no fundamental difference between such a camp and another Christian camp I came across on the web, whose site explained that children would be able to "grow and learn free from the influence of godless society".

I'd much rather my kid learn to cope and work with kids who aren't necessarily like-minded. Perhaps, after critical thinking, that's the most important skill anybody should learn. If I can't teach my child critical thinking or the "scientific method" well enough that I can't to send him to a camp where he might be exposed to (gasp!) a Christian child for a whole month without worrying that he'll come home converted, I may as well give it up.

For the record, I did not state that "learning X belief system is the right one" is "reinforcing a stereotype"; there's a very important or between the two that you seem to have missed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add: I wasn't going to bother mentioning this, but I changed my mind. The part of your reply that truly struck me was this one:

Also if you do want to see a place where secularists are mocked(if not assaulted by peers) and a belief system is taught as "THE TRUTH" then perhaps you can take a gander at the common as dirt fundy camps.

I don't think you're suggesting that I'm naive enough to think that secularists are never attacked (verbally and otherwise) by theist peers; however, the only alternative interpretation of this line (as far as I can tell) seems to be "Big deal; Fundies do it to us all the time" - which isn't much better. Which is it?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Joshua Korosi

There are many different types of camps; the sort of camp you'd pack Timmy off to depends, of course, on why you're sending him off in the first place. Is it to learn about a particular subject - for example, acting, or culinary arts? Does he or she need to lose weight, or need help learning to read, for instance? To bolster self-esteem? Perhaps you do want your kid to be indoctrinated in the ways of secular humanism. Or perhaps you want a more broad-based summer experience, where several skills are taught and emphasized.

Why can't you do both? As long as it doesn't go to extremes. Also won't parents be more likely to get along better with people that hold the same beliefs and values?

I would not only want a camp where he or she as a whole person could develop in different areas, but one where he or she would be exposed to different people and different ideas.

That's your choice and it will likely happen even in a secular humanists camp.(Humanists hardly agree on everything.)

Likewise the kid is likely around enough different ideas and beliefs as it is.

I want him or her to spend a month with a few Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Wiccans his or her own age, as well as atheists. I would not want to send my child to a camp with one focus, which would give its attendees a "club" -type exclusive atmosphere, or give them the impression that they belong to an "elite" or (conversely) a "victim" subculture.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Again mere conjecture. Also, how old is this kid we are talking about? Do you expect them to have critical thinking skills at such a young age?

I think you only focus on the good of the pluralistic camp and ignore much of the bad. Which includes superficiality(they obviously can't go too deepoly into controversial subjects), bickering etc.

Is camp supposed to be somewhat of an educational experience or a place of quick and dirty athletics? A place where you can really associate with the like minded or bicker?

With a more homogenius group you can get more freedom to plan activities. Such as reading books or watching movies that may upset "christian", "Jewish" or "Hindu" parents.

You can teach about how a lifeform evolved instead of being politically correct.

I'll admit, the subtext is very weak; just because the camp is run by a church, doesn't mean it will necessarily be Christian in nature - right? (Right? ).

There will likely be preaching and bible study that a parent may not wish to subject his or her kid too(and shouldn't be badmouthed for doing so).

You must remember Christianity is a missionary religion, meaning one of its primary goals in the conversation of as many people as possible. This is not an option in most Christian religions, this is a duty.

If I read that correctly, I can expect that one of the more important priorities at this camp would be "exploring ethical and intellectual alternatives to" religions. Combined with the mild contempt in which religion seems to be held on the Rationalist's main page, and the fact that all the kids are presumably "like-minded", it doesn't take a Frankonian leap of logic to come up with the possibility that "exploring ethical and intellectual alternatives" might mean discussing how bad and simple the religious are.

Perhaps though that's mere conjecture. Basically I read it as saying it will train kids how to think skeptically, critically and philosophically.

Perhaps all you want in a camp is some horse play,hiking and canooing. Perhaps even some "ghost stories" I suppose, if certain people don't deem it too "occultist".

However others may want a place that fosters intellectual development in a world all too devoid of it.

I personally see a problem. I'll concede that my earlier conjecture about "games" may was most likely exaggeration - I'm sure they wouldn't go as far as playing "Pin the Brain on the Fundy" - but how much does it really take to effectively steer an 11-year-old's mind?

Why? Are we supposed to encourage relativism among children? Teach them all ideas are equal? To teach critical thinking and skepticism?

And what's wrong with steering a child's mind? Children do need guidance on the intellectual level just like every other level. The adult's role should not be restricted to the most superficial or lowest common denominator.

The real reason I would cross this camp off my list, even considering all that, is the fact that sending my kid to an exclusively "secular humanist" camp seems to be promoting exactly the opposite message regarding my child's freedom of choice regarding personal matters like religion than the one I want to convey.

So you see it as a personal, subjective matter instead of one requiring reasoning?

Well I don't. I would let a child make a choice but I'd rather it was an informed choice, based on a good method, not something they just picked up. Children I believe do need a bit of guidance. I'm not vouching for extremes like the parental thought police but saying that they are young, not completely aware of the rules of reasoning and should be taught.

I don't think children "naturally" develope their intellects or thinking skills without some support and guidance. You may believe that people, if left alone, naturally develope into first class rationalists but I've seen many examples that would beg to differ.

A kid can naturally learn to think for his or herself. But I think a kid must usually be properly equipped before a kid can do so.

If you think you've done such a bad job of teaching your son or daughter to think that you have to send them to a concept-saturation camp for a month where they'll be buffered from all the evil theists, you're perfectly entitled.

False Dillema

You either keep religion/philosophy in the home

or

you are a bad parent.

Maybe you just feel they should realize they aren't the only ones with certain beliefs? Or are around non-secularists so much they should be able to get away?


Perhaps you just want them to go to a camp but not just a PC one focused almost purely on atheletics.

Or maybe you don't have time to teach your kids critical thinking and such regularly.

Personally (again), I see no fundamental difference between such a camp and another Christian camp I came across on the web, whose site explained that children would be able to "grow and learn free from the influence of godless society".

Oh yes difference in beliefs and values. I imagine a Christian would send their kids to a camp for similiar reasons, and guess what? I wouldn't mind so long as children were not abused.

Parents naturally pass on beliefs and values to children. That's the way its been and that's the way it's going to be for a very long time.

However to say they are exactly the same now is simplistic. Christian camps likely focus on the mere memorization of dogma, psuedoscience, etc.

Humanist camps, likely freethought, critical thinking and skepticism. Now what would you rather have promoted?

In the former the kids are taught mere obediance, in the latter kids are equiped to think for themselves.

I'd much rather my kid learn to cope and work with kids who aren't necessarily like-minded. Perhaps, after critical thinking, that's the most important skill anybody should learn.

They will likely learn that at public school or by just hanging around with friends.


It's interesting how you put that AFTER critical thinking. Tell me which is more likely to teach or emphasize critical thought:

1) Secular Humanist camp.

2) Normal Camp.

3) Christian camp.
?

If I can't teach my child critical thinking or the "scientific method" well enough that I can't to send him to a camp where he might be exposed to (gasp!) a Christian child for a whole month without worrying that he'll come home converted, I may as well give it up.

Perfectionist fallacy. I can likewise simply say if I can't teach my child to cope well enough what's the point of sending him to a Pluralistic camp?

Perhaps I wish him to learn more about critical thought while in a camping enviroment.

For the record, I did not state that "learning X belief system is the right one" is "reinforcing a stereotype"; there's a very important or between the two that you seem to have missed.

You appear to be right. Sorry about the confusion. Though I don't see how that reinforces stereotypes.

The main problem is you seem to think philosophical and ethical values should stay in the home. I disagree. You also seem to think that it's the parent's sole responsibility to teach such things to a child, here I disagree as well. The parent can do a lot but only so much. And even if the parent has done a sufficient job, the parent may want their kid to learn more, especially in a social enviroment with trained professional and large discussion.

I don't think you're suggesting that I'm naive enough to think that secularists are never attacked (verbally and otherwise) by theist peers; however, the only alternative interpretation of this line (as far as I can tell) seems to be "Big deal; Fundies do it to us all the time" - which isn't much better. Which is it?

Well if it was just that I'd agree. My criticism was more what your focus tended to be on, and how you seem to ignore such a relevant thing. The fact that a kid for example could be persecuted in a Christian dominated enviroment.

I don't think the proper reason for sending a kid to camp is to teach them how to "cope." Camp is suppose to be a place to learn, and have fun. Not "cope".

I wouldn't for example take my kid to a camp that said "We really teach them how to cope."- Camp Hardknox.

And personally I think a kid will learn far more at a camp that teaches how to think critically,philosophically and in a naturalistic manner then one that either ignores such matters entirely or one that preaches supernaturalism.

There is far more to growing and satisfaction then mere atheletic and game excercises; and a camp that realizes this provides an excellent, long overdue service in book.

 

[Checkmite]

Re: Joshua Korosi

Why can't you do both? As long as it doesn't go to extremes. Also won't parents be more likely to get along better with people that hold the same beliefs and values?

Absolutely - and sure you can do both. I was describing why I wouldn't send my kid to such a camp. I also made very clear that your choice of camp depends mostly on what you want your kid to learn.

That's your choice and it will likely happen even in a secular humanists camp.(Humanists hardly agree on everything.)

Likewise the kid is likely around enough different ideas and beliefs as it is.

It's not the being around such ideas that's important...it's the ability to see value in other people without hanging up on labels like "black", "poor", or "superstitious fool". It's the ability to see that people have different points of view, different attitudes, goals, upbringings, and ideas - and then being able to look through all that stuff that shallow people get tangled up in, and eliminating that stupid "us vs. them" attitude that exclusive environments endorse.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Again mere conjecture. Also, how old is this kid we are talking about? Do you expect them to have critical thinking skills at such a young age?

Why not? Everytime the subject comes up and a poll is made here, nearly everyone brags about how they were able to figure out that religion is bunk when they were 10 years old. And if you don't expect your kid to be able to learn critical thinking skills by his age...then what is the point of sending them to this camp (that is supposed to teach critical thinking skills) again?

I think you only focus on the good of the pluralistic camp and ignore much of the bad. Which includes superficiality(they obviously can't go too deepoly into controversial subjects), bickering etc.

Summer camp isn't a late night talk show, or an episode of Crossfire. Controversial subjects are divisive by nature; one of the points of long-term resident camp is to teach people to find strengths in each other and use those strengths to work together to accomplish something, even in spite of differences. Discussing controversial subjects that many people feel strongly about only serves to force people apart, which is a bad thing if they have to spend a month together - unless, of course, the kids are all "like-minded", as in the case of this secular humanist camp; then most people would share many of the same views, and conflict would seldom arise. But the problem that then fosters is that discussion of the controversial subjects will be rather one-sided. And in that case...what is the point of discussing them? So everyone can agree and be happy?

Is camp supposed to be somewhat of an educational experience or a place of quick and dirty athletics? A place where you can really associate with the like minded or bicker?

I'm dubious. You seem to be implying that one can learn more by interacting with people who already think much the same way as he does. I think such a condition limits the ability to learn. And a camp needn't involve athletics at all. Excluded middle.

The boy scout camp I went to as a kid was very educational - I learned (let's see)....CPR, intensive first aid, rescue swimming, plant and tree identification, organism classification, firebuilding and safety, fishing techniques, hiking safety, cooking, a little bit of sewing, map-and-compass orienteering, and photography. There are a plethora of classes I didn't even take. Through example and experience we learned leadership, adaptability, and tolerance. Now, there were no girls at this camp, though many of the instructors were female (and some very aesthetically pleasing ones, too); but I don't think you'll argue that such things are not taught at co-ed camps. It seems to me the only thing that's missing here is the discussion of "controversial" subjects - and I'm just so scared to death of them.

With a more homogenius group you can get more freedom to plan activities. Such as reading books or watching movies that may upset "christian", "Jewish" or "Hindu" parents.

Yes, that is one genuine benefit of exclusive membership.

You can teach about how a lifeform evolved instead of being politically correct.

Even at (allegedly "ultra-theistic")boy scout camp, evolution is taught. The problem you suggest doesn't exist.

There will likely be preaching and bible study that a parent may not wish to subject his or her kid too(and shouldn't be badmouthed for doing so).

You must remember Christianity is a missionary religion, meaning one of its primary goals in the conversation of as many people as possible. This is not an option in most Christian religions, this is a duty.

That was the point, perhaps the facetious tone I meant to convey wasn't accurately presented.

Perhaps though that's mere conjecture. Basically I read it as saying it will train kids how to think skeptically, critically and philosophically.

Perhaps all you want in a camp is some horse play,hiking and canooing. Perhaps even some "ghost stories" I suppose, if certain people don't deem it too "occultist".

However others may want a place that fosters intellectual development in a world all too devoid of it.

Standing around agreeing how stupid theists are isn't my idea of encouraging intellectual development. And I'll admit that's conjecture and maybe even a worse-case scenario; but none of your rebuttals in which you accuse me of conjecture hold water, because you also use conjecture when you assert that "it's not going to be that way". Neither of us knows for sure; I'm just more of a mind to be wary when the trail is foggy, while you seem to be knee-jerk in your defense. Being prepared for the worst means anything not as bad will be a breeze.

Why? Are we supposed to encourage relativism among children? Teach them all ideas are equal? To teach critical thinking and skepticism?

No...the point isn't to teach that all ideas are equally valid; the point is to teach that people with different ideas can still work together as a team to accomplish wonderful things. They'll need that sense of tolerance and the ability to work together to get them through life later on.

And what's wrong with steering a child's mind? Children do need guidance on the intellectual level just like every other level. The adult's role should not be restricted to the most superficial or lowest common denominator.

So you see it as a personal, subjective matter instead of one requiring reasoning?

Well I don't. I would let a child make a choice but I'd rather it was an informed choice, based on a good method, not something they just picked up. Children I believe do need a bit of guidance. I'm not vouching for extremes like the parental thought police but saying that they are young, not completely aware of the rules of reasoning and should be taught.

I would try to instill such qualities in a kid before he has to exist for a month without his parents, in a strange environment. I wouldn't allow complete strangers to do it for me in any case; no matter what their religious affiliation would be.

I don't think children "naturally" develope their intellects or thinking skills without some support and guidance. You may believe that people, if left alone, naturally develope into first class rationalists but I've seen many examples that would beg to differ.

A kid can naturally learn to think for his or herself. But I think a kid must usually be properly equipped before a kid can do so.

Again - I could teach my child such things better than any camp. I need the camp for things I can't teach - like experience dealing with diversity.

Perhaps you just want them to go to a camp but not just a PC one focused almost purely on atheletics.

There with that "athletics" stuff again. Excluded middle.

Or maybe you don't have time to teach your kids critical thinking and such regularly.

Well that's a hell of a thing "not to have time for", but I must concede that you're right - some people are very much limited in what they can do, because of work or disability or the like. This argument I cannot refute, except to ask how such parents got along before secular humanist camps were invented?

Oh yes difference in beliefs and values. I imagine a Christian would send their kids to a camp for similiar reasons, and guess what? I wouldn't mind so long as children were not abused.

Well, I could say the same thing about parents sending their kids to a whites-only prom; sure I won't contest their right to do so. I'm simply explaining why I disagree with the notion.

Parents naturally pass on beliefs and values to children. That's the way its been and that's the way it's going to be for a very long time.

No argument here.

However to say they are exactly the same now is simplistic. Christian camps likely focus on the mere memorization of dogma, psuedoscience, etc.

Humanist camps, likely freethought, critical thinking and skepticism. Now what would you rather have promoted?

Now who's using conjecture? Without visiting and observing, how certain are you that such a camp wouldn't openly ridicule religious people? It's difficult even to say whether it's likely or not; why are you so certain?

In the former the kids are taught mere obediance, in the latter kids are equiped to think for themselves.

Again, you can't say that for certain. You'd like to think that a group calling itself "secular humanist" would do so; I'd also like to think that Deists are inherently reasonable people - but I'm ashamed to say that many who call themselves Deists are just as intolerant as fundamentalist Christians.

They will likely learn that at public school or by just hanging around with friends.

They're as likely to do so as they are likely to learn critical thinking at school or hanging around with friends. Ask Dark Cobra how well he's learned to cope with people who don't think like him at school.

It's interesting how you put that AFTER critical thinking. Tell me which is more likely to teach or emphasize critical thought:

Irrelevant, because I've already explained that I would undertake the teaching of critical thinking myself.

Perhaps I wish him to learn more about critical thought while in a camping enviroment.

That interesting tagline seems to be the only justifiable reason I could find to send my kid to such a camp. But alas, that "us vs them" exclusivity gets in the way.

The main problem is you seem to think philosophical and ethical values should stay in the home. I disagree. You also seem to think that it's the parent's sole responsibility to teach such things to a child, here I disagree as well. The parent can do a lot but only so much. And even if the parent has done a sufficient job, the parent may want their kid to learn more, especially in a social enviroment with trained professional and large discussion.

Well you're wrong about what I think. From what you've written, I could deduce that you seem to think anyone who doesn't want their kid to debate religion at a summer camp is a slave to political correctness or is only interested in some sort of athletic program; but I don't really believe that's the case with you. But in any case, you won't get trained professionals at this camp. You'll get summer volunteers; the only "requirement" according to the website seems to be that applicants pass a criminal background check.

My problem is the "club" atmosphere. The "only people who are like us" point of view. It's the same with Christian camps, the above-mentioned "whites only" proms, and the like. I don't agree with it.

Well if it was just that I'd agree. My criticism was more what your focus tended to be on, and how you seem to ignore such a relevant thing. The fact that a kid for example could be persecuted in a Christian dominated enviroment.

It doesn't justify the ridiculing of Christianity (or any other "group") in an environment where the target group is absent. I'm sure you'll agree it's not ok to tell racist jokes when there are no people of other races around. Sure, I'm not saying it will happen for sure - again, I'm running worst-case scenarios in my head here. But it isn't exactly a preposterous suggestion either; this board is nearly exclusively non-theist, and lots of people see no problem with degrading the "believers".

I don't think the proper reason for sending a kid to camp is to teach them how to "cope." Camp is suppose to be a place to learn, and have fun. Not "cope".

In that case, why the animosity toward camps with athletic emphasis?

I wouldn't for example take my kid to a camp that said "We really teach them how to cope."- Camp Hardknox.

Neither would I - I think you're on the edge of starting to pull out the straw.

And personally I think a kid will learn far more at a camp that teaches how to think critically,philosophically and in a naturalistic manner then one that either ignores such matters entirely or one that preaches supernaturalism.

True...but I'm more of an opinion that a camp that only allows "like minded" kids to apply in the first place may possibly be teaching kids what to think, not how to think. If it matters, I think that a kid will be able to gain more from a camp that teaches unity in spite of differences (as opposed to one that teaches unity because of a shared difference from others).

There is far more to growing and satisfaction then mere atheletic and game excercises; and a camp that realizes this provides an excellent, long overdue service in book.

Thanks for the wisdom, but I highly doubt that Camp Quest is the first or last camp to realize that.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

It's not the being around such ideas that's important...it's the ability to see value in other people without hanging up on labels like "black", "poor", or "superstitious fool". It's the ability to see that people have different points of view, different attitudes, goals, upbringings, and ideas - and then being able to look through all that stuff that shallow people get tangled up in, and eliminating that stupid "us vs. them" attitude that exclusive environments endorse.

I don't see how other camps necessarily encourage this. Public schools are full of us vs them enviroments for example.

Also secular humanists have different goals and upbringings too.

I don't see where you are getting any of this conjecture but it certainly doesn't appear to be the facts. You can't just assume that since a school is secular humanist it promotes intolerance and lacks diversity.

Also I believe critical thinking and philosophy is more valuable then any of the above you mentioned. I mean a young person will see that people have different points of view and such anyways. Camps are hardly the place to learn such a thing. Nor is sharing different religious or otherwise points of view necessarily encouraged at such camps.

Why not? Everytime the subject comes up and a poll is made here, nearly everyone brags about how they were able to figure out that religion is bunk when they were 10 years old.

Those are not normal people and I doubt their critical thinking ability was fully formed. The reason is critical thinking demands you have a certain amount of experience,(background knowledge) and understand certain principles. It's unlikely younger people have a good grasp as that. Ever consider that all the bragging may be just that?

Are you telling me that if we made a 10 year old read a New Age book he could point out all the problems?

And if you don't expect your kid to be able to learn critical thinking skills by his age...then what is the point of sending them to this camp (that is supposed to teach critical thinking skills) again?

Well I don't really expect any kid to know critical thinking at that age. Have you ever been around an ten year old?

And you can always learn more about ethics, and critical thinking.

Your dillemma is so false, "either the kid should know it or there's no point in teaching it."

It ignores matters of degree and the fact that the parent may not have time to properly educate the child. Also this ignores the fact that critical thinking can be best learned in an enviroment of public discussion.

Summer camp isn't a late night talk show, or an episode of Crossfire. Controversial subjects are divisive by nature;

When did I say that? Poor straw man.

I said it was a place for critical discussion. And why shouldn't it be?

I'd rather it be that then a place where children learn how to "cope".

And what's all this about seeing "people have a different viewpoint" if such are downplayed for being "divisive"?

Seems now you change your argument when conveniant. In one sense you like how pluralistic camps encourage children to see different viewpoints, then you say that's "divisive".

one of the points of long-term resident camp is to teach people to find strengths in each other and use those strengths to work together to accomplish something, even in spite of differences.

No differences are just ignored. I think the point is to actually pretend the differences just don't exist. In any event why should camp be limited to this?

Discussing controversial subjects that many people feel strongly about only serves to force people apart, which is a bad thing if they have to spend a month together -

That's only if a kid can not tolerate another's difference. I think discussing controversial subjects with which people disagree then still having to work together brings them closer together in a more meaningful way.

It's better if we learn to aknowledge our difference and discuss them, then still tolerate. Then to ignore them, then tolerate. Because the later is not really tolerating.

I think your response is a sort of evil character: secular camps are bad divisive places that encourage an "us vs them" mentality, mock religious people, and fail to provide essential services.


BS. I think they merely provide a rational enviroment for a kid to grow mentally in while having fun and doing normal camp things. I don't see how mainstream camps are superior in any way.

Likewise I think such things are important for a childs growth. A child must learn to duscuss.examine his or her ideas, provided you don't start at a ridiculously early age(10 or 11 is youngest) that to me is better then learning "team play" which they learn about in public school anyways.

unless, of course, the kids are all "like-minded", as in the case of this secular humanist camp; then most people would share many of the same views, and conflict would seldom arise. But the problem that then fosters is that discussion of the controversial subjects will be rather one-sided. And in that case...what is the point of discussing them? So everyone can agree and be happy?

Secular humanists hold different viewpoints. Or to encourage at least an examination of controversial issues.

They could for example go over the evidence for evolution, discuss superstitions, etc. I think such a thing would be a big help in a world where there are all too many scientific illiterates.

They are discussed because discussion encourages intellectual growth.

I'm dubious. You seem to be implying that one can learn more by interacting with people who already think much the same way as he does.

Depends. In some ways yes. I for example elarn more by discussing ideas on the James Randi forums then I do in a forum like "Drink Deeply and Dream" where people believe in vampires, often times that they are vampires.

That's because if they think the "same" in that they are more critical then they can learn a lot more.

Also among the like minded a counselor can get more deeply into issues without angering parents.

So yes I do think in this situation a like minded crowd can learn more.

I think such a condition limits the ability to learn. And a camp needn't involve athletics at all. Excluded middle.

No because you know a PC camp will never go into controversial issues. Or very rarely. They will not go into evolution at all, hell they may not even mention dinosaurs. They want to keep things at the superficial level of athletics and thus the kids don't really learn anything but PE.

The boy scout camp I went to as a kid was very educational - I learned (let's see)....CPR, intensive first aid, rescue swimming, plant and tree identification, organism classification, firebuilding and safety, fishing techniques, hiking safety, cooking, a little bit of sewing, map-and-compass orienteering, and photography. There are a plethora of classes I didn't even take.

Yes but are those really meaningful things to learn? "Firebuilding"....."planting trees"?

Hell I'd rather my kid learn typing on the computer, the skill would at least be more useful.

CPR maybe but I imagine a kid can learn that and all the above at humanist camp as well.

Through example and experience we learned leadership, adaptability, and tolerance. Now, there were no girls at this camp, though many of the instructors were female (and some very aesthetically pleasing ones, too); but I don't think you'll argue that such things are not taught at co-ed camps. It seems to me the only thing that's missing here is the discussion of "controversial" subjects - and I'm just so scared to death of them.

What's missing is controversial subjects, philosophy, critical thinking and ethics. In short, one of the most important things a kid should learn about.

Also I really doubt they taught a ten year old that much about leadership or adaptability, you could also learn most of the above from team sports or any other group activity.

Even at (allegedly "ultra-theistic")boy scout camp, evolution is taught. The problem you suggest doesn't exist.

Are you telling me they'll disuss evolution at a fundamentalist camp?

If so then I must say sir that is very hard to swallow. They won't even mention evolution in some public schools.

Standing around agreeing how stupid theists are isn't my idea of encouraging intellectual development.

They said they will discuss ethics and philosophy, how is that just standing around agreeing theists are stupid?

And the air grows thick with straw.

conjecture when you assert that "it's not going to be that way".

No I go by probability and the camp's own statements. Nowhere did they say they were merely going to debunk religion. They said they'discuss certain issues like ethics and philosophy, hence my viewpoint goes by what they said, your viewpoint goes by attributing some malevolent/hidden meaning to what they said.

Neither of us knows for sure; I'm just more of a mind to be wary when the trail is foggy, while you seem to be knee-jerk in your defense.

Actually I think its the other way around. You seem to be knee jerk about the camp being "exclusive" promoting an "us vs them" mentality, "reinforcing strereotypes" etc.

I'm merely saying that's not likely given what they said and a pluralistic camp has problems too. That Humanist camps at least encourage intellectual development and pluralistic camps do not and too me, intellectual development is what's important. I'm also saying its simplistic to equate a humanist camp and a fundamentalist camp simply because both contain ideologies.

I'm also going a bit by the principle of charity instead of snearing with just a glimpse.

Being prepared for the worst means anything not as bad will be a breeze.

Being prepared for the worse does not mean you make accusations for the worst right off the bat.

No...the point isn't to teach that all ideas are equally valid;

So then they have to say there is a right and wrong. Then saying there is a right or wrong isn't necessarily bad.

the point is to teach that people with different ideas can still work together as a team to accomplish wonderful things. They'll need that sense of tolerance and the ability to work together to get them through life later on.

They can learn this from other places.
You don't need a camp for that.

Also, is this really the best place to learn this? Kids learn this at school 3/4 of the year. Do you really need to send them to camp to learn what they probably already know instead of something new?
Also is learning that simple thing more important then fostering critical thinking skills?

I would try to instill such qualities in a kid before he has to exist for a month without his parents, in a strange environment. I wouldn't allow complete strangers to do it for me in any case; no matter what their religious affiliation would be.

You as a parent can only get so far with it. And sometimes its best to leave them with complete strangers.

According to what you are saying a Christian or Jewish parent should likewise be able to teach their kids their religion before christian camp. If they can't they are "bad parents" who are letting"strangers" do it for them.

That notion is a bit unreasonable to say the least.

I don't see why a kid can't be allowed to develope such skills in a social enviroment. I mean how far can you really go as a parent before you seem bossy? Give them critical thinking books? Sit them down and teach them facts...etc?

And you are ignoring how a parent may want both, perhaps the kid has an ok grasp of critical thinking for his or her age but the parent wants the child to learn MORE while camping. In an enviroment where people can get along at a deeper level as opposed to regular camps, which like public schools, probably NEVER go into such things and create little niches.

Again - I could teach my child such things better than any camp. I need the camp for things I can't teach - like experience dealing with diversity.

No I can teach my kid about diversity pretty easy too. Just take them to different places etc.

Also how do you know you can teach critical thinking better then any camp? You don't. And you may not have the time as well.

There with that "athletics" stuff again. Excluded middle.

No, facts. Most camps focus almost purely on athletics or other pointless rituals like sewing, which imo is very BORING.

Gee an entire summer of canooing, hicking, CPR and firemaking. Delightful.

Personally I'd rather not subject my kid to that, or if so those activities were done sparingly.

Humanist camp sounds like it has less of that stuff so it's better in some way. It teaches kids something that actually matters, which they don't just pick up at public school: how to reason well.

This argument I cannot refute, except to ask how such parents got along before secular humanist camps were invented?

Settling for second best. Same reason they send their kdis to public instead of humanist schools.

Christians obviously do not have this problem and neither should secularists.

Well, I could say the same thing about parents sending their kids to a whites-only prom; sure I won't contest their right to do so. I'm simply explaining why I disagree with the notion.

There is a big difference between a humanist camp and white only camp/ prom. Are you really suggesting that this is a fair comparison?

Now who's using conjecture?

I don't need conjecture. I know humanists, I read their magazines. They value skepticism, freethought and critical thinking. Ever heard of CSICOP? That is very strongly associated with the Council for Secular Humanism.

Without visiting and observing, how certain are you that such a camp wouldn't openly ridicule religious people? It's difficult even to say whether it's likely or not; why are you so certain?

I'm not 100 percent certain. But if I were to place a bet on what I know(which I admit isn't much) I'd say they encourage skepticism and freethought because humanists in general tend to value such things.

Again, you can't say that for certain. You'd like to think that a group calling itself "secular humanist" would do so; I'd also like to think that Deists are inherently reasonable people - but I'm ashamed to say that many who call themselves Deists are just as intolerant as fundamentalist Christians.

True and I know secular humanists can be as unreasonable as Christians. However humanists as a group are somewhat based around skepticism and freethought so such a thing is likely to be encouraged all things being equal, even if the teachers are hypocrites.

I also believe deists are on average more rational then theists. There may be exceptions but all things being equal I'll bet a Deist is more likely to be rational and scientifically informed.

BTW, I'm not sure if I'd consider Franko and such to really be Deists, their Goddess simply seems too active and they are idealist. I'm more ify with them.

They're as likely to do so as they are likely to learn critical thinking at school or hanging around with friends. Ask Dark Cobra how well he's learned to cope with people who don't think like him at school.

Well I must strongly disagree. As far as I remember, schools, even college do not encourage critical thought among friends. The average kid or teenager doesn't even like discussing such subjects, more then dislike they even seem to in some way crusade against such discussion. And teacher's don't do a lot to teach it too, the ones that do are often misguided as well.

I remember "critical thinking" excercises, "How would you have solved this countries problems".

Most teenagers don't even know what a falllacy is. Many adults will not know what an ad hominid is. You obviously don't pick such things up at school.

Also I think being around like minded people helps them cope better in many ways then always being around people who disagree with you. It's sort of a relief. Sure arguing with people on Christian forums can be fun for a while but just stay around there and you'll likely get spiteful. Sometimes you need a break.

And I think that's a lot of what camp is: taking a break from the hassles of busy world. Relaxing, having a good time. Not coping: you cope all day. And intellectual discussions/development can be fun and relaxing.

Irrelevant, because I've already explained that I would undertake the teaching of critical thinking myself.

But what about teaching your kid more while he or she is AT camp?

That interesting tagline seems to be the only justifiable reason I could find to send my kid to such a camp. But alas, that "us vs them" exclusivity gets in the way.

But what makes you think they promote that? Many humanists I meet aren't like that.

And don't other camps, even PC ones do likewise to an extent? Maybe it's not an ideology but I imagine things like "we have to win the tournaments" takes place.

Well you're wrong about what I think. From what you've written, I could deduce that you seem to think anyone who doesn't want their kid to debate religion at a summer camp is a slave to political correctness or is only interested in some sort of athletic program;

Actually what I think is the parent probably has a problem with secular humanists. And more or less is the type that seems to think religious/philosophical discussion should stay in the home.

You'll get summer volunteers; the only "requirement" according to the website seems to be that applicants pass a criminal background check.

See that is maybe one reason I'd do more checking before hand.

My problem is the "club" atmosphere. The "only people who are like us" point of view. It's the same with Christian camps, the above-mentioned "whites only" proms, and the like. I don't agree with it.

Like I said that comparison is simplsitic. No all clubs are like, most humanists I know are not. And if they are, not to the same degree.

Again though the "club atmosphere" has advantages, like it allows for moire freedom, is deeper and is more relaxing.

I imagine many people would likewise say the JREF promotes a club atmosphere. Of skeptics vs paranormalists. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

It doesn't justify the ridiculing of Christianity (or any other "group") in an environment where the target group is absent.

Who said they are doing that?

And if so, really what's wrong with a joke or two?

I'm sure you'll agree it's not ok to tell racist jokes when there are no people of other races around. Sure, I'm not saying it will happen for sure - again, I'm running worst-case scenarios in my head here. But it isn't exactly a preposterous suggestion either; this board is nearly exclusively non-theist, and lots of people see no problem with degrading the "believers".

I would say, they make christian jokes with no christians around: big deal.

Seriously, is that really such a bad thing? Does it really promote a deep rooted hatred or dislike?

Guess what I make jokes about christians too, and Buddhists, and liebrals, conservatives and Muslims. Does that really count as "ridiculing" them?

Perhaps you are being overly sensitive.

In that case, why the animosity toward camps with athletic emphasis?

Because I think they get enough of that in PE. And I think that is pointless,tiring and boring. I'd rather have deep discussion at a camp, something meaningful.

Neither would I - I think you're on the edge of starting to pull out the straw.

Well you said coping was the "important thing" I'm sure you wouldn't send your kids to camp hardknox. But it does show in a way, how the practice does seem kind of callous.

True...but I'm more of an opinion that a camp that only allows "like minded" kids to apply in the first place may possibly be teaching kids what to think, not how to think.

Well yes that is a worry. But part of secular humanism is freethought and skepticism, hence even if they were taught what to think they'd likely pick up how to think as well.

If it matters, I think that a kid will be able to gain more from a camp that teaches unity in spite of differences (as opposed to one that teaches unity because of a shared difference from others).

But I don't think it's really teaching unity in spite of differences. It's teaching unity by ignoring differences and coercion for the most part.

Also I don't think humanist camp is teaching unity in due to difference from others but from being the same.

What do you think is a better standard for unity anways, accidently being grouped together or sharing the same beliefs and values?

Also I don't really thinking learning unity at a camp is that big of a deal. Sorry but I mean they should know already via public school how to get along and work together if forced too.

Their friends will also likely hold very different beliefs, so they can learn tolerance there.

Thanks for the wisdom, but I highly doubt that Camp Quest is the first or last camp to realize that.

Name another secular camp that encourages this?


Lastly, I'd like to point out how you talk a lot about tolerance and diversity.

But now you are already accusing the secular humanist camp of the worst, is that really very charitable? Is that really very tolerant?

Is it even reasonable to assume to expect the worst behavior of a camp from a cusory glance, especially when such practices would seem to go against secular humanist ideology?

To me that doesn't sound like tolerance but more like an argument for PC schools thinly vieled as bastions of tolerance and diversity.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't see where you are getting any of this conjecture but it certainly doesn't appear to be the facts. You can't just assume that since a school is secular humanist it promotes intolerance and lacks diversity.

That it's "secular humanist" really doesn't matter; it could be anything. My issue is the "exclusivism", if that's a word (it is now, anyway). It's something I don't agree with - if you think it's fine, that's OK. But it's not consistent with what I'd have in mind when choosing a summer camp.

Also I believe critical thinking and philosophy is more valuable then any of the above you mentioned. I mean a young person will see that people have different points of view and such anyways. Camps are hardly the place to learn such a thing. Nor is sharing different religious or otherwise points of view necessarily encouraged at such camps.

So do I, but our disagreement is whether this camp is the best environment for such a thing. I think not - for several reasons.

Those are not normal people and I doubt their critical thinking ability was fully formed. The reason is critical thinking demands you have a certain amount of experience,(background knowledge) and understand certain principles. It's unlikely younger people have a good grasp as that. Ever consider that all the bragging may be just that?

Undoubtedly.

Are you telling me that if we made a 10 year old read a New Age book he could point out all the problems?

No. Do you think after staying a week at Camp Quest, he'd be able to?

Well I don't really expect any kid to know critical thinking at that age. Have you ever been around an ten year old?

I used to be one once - but didn't everyone? My youngest stepsister turned 11 six months ago, so I know something of how they think.

And you can always learn more about ethics, and critical thinking.

Is this point contested?

Your dillemma is so false, "either the kid should know it or there's no point in teaching it."

My dillemma, as you've defined it, doesn't exist. I keep thinking that I've repeated myself regarding my objections in this regard, but you keep misinterpreting. My communication skills must need work.

It ignores matters of degree and the fact that the parent may not have time to properly educate the child. Also this ignores the fact that critical thinking can be best learned in an enviroment of public discussion.

But that doesn't mean you have to throw a kid into the water to teach him to swim. A child who is just beginning to learn the concepts and thought processes involved in critical thinking may not be ready to jump in the shark tank and tackle the big tough "controversial" subjects; and in any case, the website doesn't suggest that Camp Quest is quite the intellectual forum you portray it as.

Seems now you change your argument when conveniant. In one sense you like how pluralistic camps encourage children to see different viewpoints, then you say that's "divisive".

No, again you must only be reading every other word I post. I said that controversial issues are divisive by nature. One can learn to recognize differences in others and even discuss those differences without being directed into a heady argument about why "this belief is wrong, and anyone who holds it must be irrational".

No differences are just ignored. I think the point is to actually pretend the differences just don't exist. In any event why should camp be limited to this?

Not at all; the point is to be able to see the differences and work around them instead of getting hung up on them.

That's only if a kid can not tolerate another's difference. I think discussing controversial subjects with which people disagree then still having to work together brings them closer together in a more meaningful way.

I've seen so many people I've worked with at different jobs quit over so many trivial differences in opinion with their coworkers that your argument seems hopelessly optimistic to me. In any case, kids are very "groupthink". When a viewpoint seems to be getting unpopular, children will often renounce it simply for the sake of not wanting to be an outsider. You can try and tell them not to be that way; and it may work at first - until the first time she ends up on the losing side of an argument. It's just the way they are. How many ten year-olds have you been around?

It's better if we learn to aknowledge our difference and discuss them, then still tolerate. Then to ignore them, then tolerate. Because the later is not really tolerating.

Discussing differences doesn't mean tackling deep controversial subjects.

I think your response is a sort of evil character: secular camps are bad divisive places that encourage an "us vs them" mentality, mock religious people, and fail to provide essential services.

Again, it has nothing to do with "secular" camps - haven't you noticed my comparing this particular camp with other "exclusive" camps? It is the fact that it's "exclusive", not the fact that it's secular, that I take issue with.

They could for example go over the evidence for evolution, discuss superstitions, etc. I think such a thing would be a big help in a world where there are all too many scientific illiterates.

And why couldn't you do that?

No because you know a PC camp will never go into controversial issues. Or very rarely. They will not go into evolution at all, hell they may not even mention dinosaurs. They want to keep things at the superficial level of athletics and thus the kids don't really learn anything but PE.

No, I don't know. Even a camp with a relatively theist swing like Boy Scout camp discusses evolution.

Yes but are those really meaningful things to learn? "Firebuilding"....."planting trees"?

"Planting trees?"

Hell I'd rather my kid learn typing on the computer, the skill would at least be more useful.

He won't be doing that at Camp Quest. He would be doing that at Camp Tioga, it even has a computer lab with internet access...

CPR maybe but I imagine a kid can learn that and all the above at humanist camp as well.

What's missing is controversial subjects, philosophy, critical thinking and ethics. In short, one of the most important things a kid should learn about.

Also I really doubt they taught a ten year old that much about leadership or adaptability, you could also learn most of the above from team sports or any other group activity.

Well I have an advantage over you here; while we're both just speculating about "secular humanist" camps, I've actually been to boy scout camp, so I actually know what I'm talking about. But again, you seem to have an idea that this Camp Quest is going to be basically a "classroom without walls". Let's put things into perspective.

This place is a single-week (7 day) camp. As for the "mind expanding" intellectually stimulating activites that you claim sets this camp above all others, we have the following billed on the website:

• Philosophy Cafe (A title so nebulous that we can't deduce with any certainty what it would encompass, however, we could assume that discussion of philisophical matters would take place here - though I'm curious as to the depth of philisophical discussion amongst 12 year olds),
• Freethinker Jeopardy (No discussion here, just recall of facts. I will admit this would be fun, though)
• Designing blind and double-blind experiments (This activity is taught in the bulk, if not the vast majority, of public schools. I was taught how to design such experiments at two different schools, in fact, due to transferring to a different city.)

Here's the remainder of the list of activities:

• Salamander Hunting
• Campfire making
• Tree species identification
• Bird watching
• Learning survival techniques
• Team-building activities
• Nature hikes
• Dodge ball
• Swimming
• Learning to play recorder
• Campfires
• Sing-alongs
• Photography
• Communication Skills
• Magic Show
• Chess
• Crafts

The exact same things will be taught at this Secular Humanist camp as will be taught at what you call a "pluralist" camp. No matter what you think "camp" should be - it's going to be a camp. If you don't want your kid to learn "useless skills" like wilderness survival or firebuilding, don't send them to camp. Send them to a critical-thinking seminar or workshop, or have them join a local club. I'm not sure I could give a camp praise for realizing that "there is far more to growing and satisfaction then mere atheletic and game excercises" simply because of the fact that it's the only camp in the world that offers Freethinker Jeopardy - especially if that's the only real difference between it and another camp which lets anyone join regardless of religious orientation.

Are you telling me they'll disuss evolution at a fundamentalist camp?

Of course not, but I'm not advocating fundamentalist camps over Secular Humanist camps...am I?

They said they will discuss ethics and philosophy, how is that just standing around agreeing theists are stupid?

No, they didn't say that. Look again at the list of camp activities.

And the air grows thick with straw.

Kind of like the suggestion that "I don't like this camp because it's a secular humanist camp", right? The straw's been coming from both sides of the room.

No I go by probability and the camp's own statements. Nowhere did they say they were merely going to debunk religion. They said they'discuss certain issues like ethics and philosophy, hence my viewpoint goes by what they said, your viewpoint goes by attributing some malevolent/hidden meaning to what they said.

But they haven't said that - they simply blurbed something nebulous about "encouraging critical thinking" - something that Camp Tioga claims to do as well.

Actually I think its the other way around. You seem to be knee jerk about the camp being "exclusive" promoting an "us vs them" mentality, "reinforcing strereotypes" etc.

The camp is exclusive. And in any case, I've been admitting all along that I'm running worst-case here. That I'm so far off the mark it's not funny is a distinct possibility that I've conceded from the very beginning.

I'm merely saying that's not likely given what they said and a pluralistic camp has problems too. That Humanist camps at least encourage intellectual development and pluralistic camps do not and too me, intellectual development is what's important. I'm also saying its simplistic to equate a humanist camp and a fundamentalist camp simply because both contain ideologies.

Now you're using the "false dilemma" - i.e., a camp which doesn't engage in discussion regarding controversial issues doesn't encourage intellectual development. The idea that pluralistic camps do not encourage intellectual camps its itself a rather wild supposition - considering that if you remove the references to Secular Humanism and "Freethinker Jeopardy", Camp Quest and the pluralist Camp Tioga become completely indistinguishable, according to their websites.

I'm also going a bit by the principle of charity instead of snearing with just a glimpse.

"Give them a chance" - it is an honorable attitude. But, when my child's development is concerned, I would choose not to offer him as a guinea pig.

They can learn this from other places.
You don't need a camp for that.

You don't need a camp to learn critical thinking either; your argument can be used against your position.

Also is learning that simple thing more important then fostering critical thinking skills?

The pluralist camp in question does both.

According to what you are saying a Christian or Jewish parent should likewise be able to teach their kids their religion before christian camp. If they can't they are "bad parents" who are letting"strangers" do it for them.

That notion is a bit unreasonable to say the least.

I don't see why a kid can't be allowed to develope such skills in a social enviroment. I mean how far can you really go as a parent before you seem bossy? Give them critical thinking books? Sit them down and teach them facts...etc?

And you are ignoring how a parent may want both, perhaps the kid has an ok grasp of critical thinking for his or her age but the parent wants the child to learn MORE while camping. In an enviroment where people can get along at a deeper level as opposed to regular camps, which like public schools, probably NEVER go into such things and create little niches.

Also how do you know you can teach critical thinking better then any camp? You don't. And you may not have the time as well.

Well, let's put it this way. Starting from the time my kid would be 11, I've got seven years to teach him critical thinking. That this camp in seven days could teach so much more than I could in seven years is ludicrous. And the "no time" argument is wearing thin on me; if I spent only one hour a day with my kid, it'd take me less than a year to have spent more than twice as much time teaching him as this camp would have. In fact, I question whether, after 7 years, there'll be a noticable difference between a kid who attended this camp and one who didn't attend any camp at all - except, of course, the kid who attended will remember "unimportant" skills like firebuilding.

No, facts. Most camps focus almost purely on athletics or other pointless rituals like sewing, which imo is very BORING.

I wasn't aware that you'd been to or read about most camps; I'm apparently out of my league. In any case, this supports my original assertion that what you want your kid to learn helps decide which camp they'll go to.

Gee an entire summer of canooing, hicking, CPR and firemaking. Delightful.

Personally I'd rather not subject my kid to that, or if so those activities were done sparingly.

Then why are you even considering sending your kid to a camp at all? If you don't want your kid to be camping, you shouldn't send them to a camp.

Humanist camp sounds like it has less of that stuff so it's better in some way. It teaches kids something that actually matters, which they don't just pick up at public school: how to reason well.

You're JPW here - "that stuff" constitutes the overwhelming majority of activities at Camp Quest. Remember, it's a camp, not a seminar. If that's what you're looking for, then you should send your kid to a seminar or workshop.

There is a big difference between a humanist camp and white only camp/ prom. Are you really suggesting that this is a fair comparison?

Yes, because I'm not talking about beliefs, I'm talking about the bare-bones concept of only people like us, please.

I don't need conjecture. I know humanists, I read their magazines. They value skepticism, freethought and critical thinking. Ever heard of CSICOP? That is very strongly associated with the Council for Secular Humanism.

(proudly displays the cute "Darwin fish" he bought from CSICOP Online)

I'm not 100 percent certain. But if I were to place a bet on what I know(which I admit isn't much) I'd say they encourage skepticism and freethought because humanists in general tend to value such things.

I hope you're right.

I also believe deists are on average more rational then theists. There may be exceptions but all things being equal I'll bet a Deist is more likely to be rational and scientifically informed.

Thank you.

Well I must strongly disagree. As far as I remember, schools, even college do not encourage critical thought among friends. The average kid or teenager doesn't even like discussing such subjects, more then dislike they even seem to in some way crusade against such discussion. And teacher's don't do a lot to teach it too, the ones that do are often misguided as well.

I remember "critical thinking" excercises, "How would you have solved this countries problems".

Most teenagers don't even know what a falllacy is. Many adults will not know what an ad hominid is. You obviously don't pick such things up at school.

We must've gone to school on different planets.

Also I think being around like minded people helps them cope better in many ways then always being around people who disagree with you. It's sort of a relief. Sure arguing with people on Christian forums can be fun for a while but just stay around there and you'll likely get spiteful. Sometimes you need a break.

And I think that's a lot of what camp is: taking a break from the hassles of busy world. Relaxing, having a good time. Not coping: you cope all day. And intellectual discussions/development can be fun and relaxing.

Assuming such discussions take place. Thinking back, it occurs to me that the last thing kids want to do on summer vacation is sit through classes.

Actually what I think is the parent probably has a problem with secular humanists. And more or less is the type that seems to think religious/philosophical discussion should stay in the home.

Wait...a person who doesn't think discussion about religion is the most important thing for a child at camp probably has a problem with secular humanism?

I imagine many people would likewise say the JREF promotes a club atmosphere. Of skeptics vs paranormalists. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

We're adults, capable of deciding who we want to associate with.

And if so, really what's wrong with a joke or two?

I would say, they make christian jokes with no christians around: big deal.

Seriously, is that really such a bad thing? Does it really promote a deep rooted hatred or dislike?

Potentially. Again - we're adults.

Guess what I make jokes about christians too, and Buddhists, and liebrals, conservatives and Muslims. Does that really count as "ridiculing" them?

....is this a trick question?

Perhaps you are being overly sensitive.

I've spent much of my life with people who tend to be excluded - because of their race, because they're atheists, and other reasons. A few times, simply by associating myself with them, I have ended up being "excluded" as well. It ain't cool.

Because I think they get enough of that in PE. And I think that is pointless,tiring and boring. I'd rather have deep discussion at a camp, something meaningful.

As I said, I'd love to sit in on a "deep" discussion amongst 11 year olds. Kids tend to have very short attention spans; kids who aren't as inclined to participate in such discussions would get bored, quickly. Why do you think camps - including the one in question, have lists of activities 8 miles long, for only one week's worth of time?

Also I don't really thinking learning unity at a camp is that big of a deal. Sorry but I mean they should know already via public school how to get along and work together if forced too.

Their friends will also likely hold very different beliefs, so they can learn tolerance there.

Nowhere else on earth can kids learn to think critically like they can at Camp Quest, I'm certain.

Name another secular camp that encourages this?

Camp Tioga?

Lastly, I'd like to point out how you talk a lot about tolerance and diversity.

But now you are already accusing the secular humanist camp of the worst, is that really very charitable? Is that really very tolerant?

Is it even reasonable to assume to expect the worst behavior of a camp from a cusory glance, especially when such practices would seem to go against secular humanist ideology?

To me that doesn't sound like tolerance but more like an argument for PC schools thinly vieled as bastions of tolerance and diversity.

I am not a boogeyman, out to get secular humanists. The fact that its a "secular humanist" camp rather than a fundamentalist camp, or "hindus-only" camp, makes no nevermind to me.

 

[Jesse]

If anyone is in doubt as to whether SH is a troll, let all your doubts be stilled.

There is no doubt that you are a baby lizardman.

 

[Checkmite]

Fade is a man?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Cause I know so many care

No. Do you think after staying a week at Camp Quest, he'd be able to?

He'd probably be better at it. (My criticism btw was concerning whether ten year olds had sufficient critical thinking skills, not whether camp Quest could equip them , your response= red herring.)

I used to be one once - but didn't everyone? My youngest stepsister turned 11 six months ago, so I know something of how they think.

My youngest sister is around 9, my youngest brother 11. And I know neither have fully developed critical thinking skills. (Though my brother has picked up some from me.)

But that doesn't mean you have to throw a kid into the water to teach him to swim. A child who is just beginning to learn the concepts and thought processes involved in critical thinking may not be ready to jump in the shark tank and tackle the big tough "controversial" subjects;

Who says the subjects are tough? The kid can start early; in an open, supportive, enviroment. The discussion floor can only be considered a "shark tank", if adults started seriously debating with the kid, or intense pressure was put on the child by authority figures. (Or if kids were simply set loose, with no mediation.) All of which is unlikely at Camp Quest.

No, again you must only be reading every other word I post. I said that controversial issues are divisive by nature. One can learn to recognize differences in others and even discuss those differences without being directed into a heady argument about why "this belief is wrong, and anyone who holds it must be irrational".

So then ignore the differences...ignore who's right or wrong?

But express them...which would be divisive(people will naturally look at others a certain way for their beliefs).

That is a contradiction.

On the one hand you are saying expression is allowed, except where it turns into examination or debate. But if it does not turn into such things, is it really much of an expression?

Not at all; the point is to be able to see the differences and work around them instead of getting hung up on them.

Yes and they learn to do this at school, with friends and likely at Camp Quest as well.

And how is a bit of a debate getting "hung up", shouldn't a kid learn that just because you debated with someone, just because they disagree with you: that does not make them your enemy?

I've seen so many people I've worked with at different jobs quit over so many trivial differences in opinion with their coworkers that your argument seems hopelessly optimistic to me.

Yes, I agree people do this. And it was because they were taught to take disagreement so personally. They were likely told such discussion is taboo and a criticism of religion or philsophy is the equivalent to an insult. I see MANY people like this. You bring up whether a person believes in free will or not and they act like you slapped them in the face.

And I think part of the problem is they are thrown in enviroments where such discussion is discouraged. Like PC summer camps.

In any case, kids are very "groupthink". When a viewpoint seems to be getting unpopular, children will often renounce it simply for the sake of not wanting to be an outsider. You can try and tell them not to be that way; and it may work at first - until the first time she ends up on the losing side of an argument. It's just the way they are. How many ten year-olds have you been around?

That's why you teach them how to argue.

Also notice how your above point indicates children will naturally absorb the most popular beliefs at their summer camp.

As for your question, I'm around my eleven year old brother and nine year old sister all the time.

Discussing differences doesn't mean tackling deep controversial subjects.

Yes it does. All our most cherished and fundamental beliefs fall under the heading of "controversial subjects".

Again, it has nothing to do with "secular" camps - haven't you noticed my comparing this particular camp with other "exclusive" camps? It is the fact that it's "exclusive", not the fact that it's secular, that I take issue with.

And you are presuming it is exclusive, (a rather ambiguous term) because it is a secular humanist camp.

And why couldn't you do that?

I've already gone under the time issue, why some parents might feel it inapropriate/pushy, doing it better etc.

Again the false dillema:

Either the parent teaches it

or it should not be taught.

If that's the case why teach basic math at schools?I mean a parent can teach basic math....

Why teach firestarting at summer camp? A parent can likewise teach that....

No, I don't know. Even a camp with a relatively theist swing like Boy Scout camp discusses evolution.

Ok, now you are REALLY stretching credulity here; are you saying fundy and PC camps teach evolution?

They often times don't even go into it in public schools. They certainly don't in fundy schools. So you are saying they teach it in similiar camps though?

He won't be doing that at Camp Quest. He would be doing that at Camp Tioga, it even has a computer lab with internet access...

One merit for camp tioga. However my point was that I'd rather have less of the athletics and more fun/useful experience. I consider intellectual exploration the most useful of all.

Well I have an advantage over you here; while we're both just speculating about "secular humanist" camps, I've actually been to boy scout camp, so I actually know what I'm talking about.

Ahh, the cheap shot innuendo. Unfortunately for you I've had siblings that went to(girl scout) camp and know people that went to fundy camps as well. Big deal, at most you have anectdotal evidence of one type of camp. And how long ago was it?

But again, you seem to have an idea that this Camp Quest is going to be basically a "classroom without walls". Let's put things into perspective.

This place is a single-week (7 day) camp. As for the "mind expanding" intellectually stimulating activites that you claim sets this camp above all others, we have the following billed on the website:

* Philosophy Cafe (A title so nebulous that we can't deduce with any certainty what it would encompass, however, we could assume that discussion of philisophical matters would take place here - though I'm curious as to the depth of philisophical discussion amongst 12 year olds),
* Freethinker Jeopardy (No discussion here, just recall of facts. I will admit this would be fun, though)
* Designing blind and double-blind experiments (This activity is taught in the bulk , if not the vast majority, of public schools. I was taught how to design such experiments at two different schools, in fact, due to transferring to a different city.)

Yes and what's your point? Believe it or not some people consider philosophical discussion and learning freethinking at age 12 to be a good thing. Better then "firestarting" or hiking.

Here's the remainder of the list of activities:

* Salamander Hunting
* Campfire making
* Tree species identification
* Bird watching
* Learning survival techniques
* Team-building activities
* Nature hikes
* Dodge ball
* Swimming
* Learning to play recorder
* Campfires
* Sing-alongs
* Photography
* Communication Skills
* Magic Show
* Chess
* Crafts


The exact same things will be taught at this Secular Humanist camp as will be taught at what you call a "pluralist" camp.

Yes but this one also teaches philosophy and freethought in a social enviroment. Tell me of another place that does this for kids. Or do you think kids should not learn of such things if not taught sufficiently by their parents?

No matter what you think "camp" should be - it's going to be a camp. If you don't want your kid to learn "useless skills" like wilderness survival or firebuilding, don't send them to camp.

Well there's some simplistic "us/them"(either/or) type of reasoning right there. It ever occur to you that the good might outweight the bad?

Send them to a critical-thinking seminar or workshop, or have them join a local club.

Because so many ciritical thinking seminars are directed at twelve year old kids....and so many clubs discuss critical thinking.


You have it ALL figured out I guess.....

In any event don't you think they can get deeper into the issues, in a friendly week long, camp type enviroment then in a half hour classroom full of people they don't get to know(and likely never will)?

I'm not sure I could give a camp praise for realizing that "there is far more to growing and satisfaction then mere atheletic and game excercises" simply because of the fact that it's the only camp in the world that offers Freethinker Jeopardy - especially if that's the only real difference between it and another camp which lets anyone join regardless of religious orientation.

Why are you so hung up about people of different religious orientation not fitting in....maybe I don't want them fudging up the learning/excercises....ever consider that?

Also they are the only camp that teaches critical thought and philosophy in a FUN(something a child might like) manner. That to me deserves a lot of credit.

Of course not, but I'm not advocating fundamentalist camps over Secular Humanist camps...am I?

You are suggesting they are equivalent, which is really quite, quite unwarranted.

No, they didn't say that. Look again at the list of camp activities.

Yeah I did. And none said "stand around and talk about how theists are stupid."

I did see philosophy cafe, which suggests, according to my totally bizzare interpretation: philosophical discussion.

And freethinker trivia which I believe(and correct me if this is just WAY out there) is trying to teach the child about freethought.

Kind of like the suggestion that "I don't like this camp because it's a secular humanist camp", right? The straw's been coming from both sides of the room.

I know, a deist who thinks atheists believe in an accidental "uncaused" universe not liking an atheist camp and creating ad hoc reasons to cover it up. How ridiculous.

I mean its not like you can see yourself expressing your deism and being "bullied" or mocked by the secular humanists or seeing them make jokes about theism to little kids, instilling an "evil" prejudice. It's not like that thought doesn't irritate you a bit. Irritate you enough so that you don't want to send your kid to the camp and would love to see it's reputation smeared.

Naw, it's about how "exclusive" the camp is, how it MUST promote an "us vs them" morality simply by criticizing theism/possibly making jokes about it. (Nevermind, by that token any atheist which attends an atheist meeting promotes an "exclusive" us vs them morality and any skeptics promotes a skeptics vs believers viewpoint but lets ignore that.)

Also nevermind the brunt of any "attack" will be towards fundamentalists, not all religions/theisms.

I mean if they criticize and make jokes about your belief that automatically means they think you an Enemy. They promote an "US vs THEM" mentality which is the root of all evil.

(also nevermind your viewpoint promotes an 'us pluralists' vs 'them excluders' mentality too.)

As for the camp's little philosophical "discussion" and "childish"(nevermind its directed to children) freethought trivia: who cares. They are an EXCLUSIVE camp so it can't be that deep or useful.
And such things should be kept at home and taught by the parents anyways...not "strangers". Can't be that you just don't like the camp and thus downplay its good points, must be that they don't deliver and parents should be sole teachers of critical thought/philosophy. (which then I would have never learned, nor most of us I imagine as my parents never taught me.)

But they haven't said that - they simply blurbed something nebulous about "encouraging critical thinking" - something that Camp Tioga claims to do as well.

Well lets go over what they said:

Camp Quest of the Smoky Mountains is run and staffed primarily by members of the Rationalists of East Tennessee , a nonprofit organization that supports free inquiry and critical thinking about the nature of the universe and human societies, emphasizes the importance of the scientific method, and explores ethical and intellectual alternatives to supernatural belief systems.

(bold is mine and pertains to any mention of intention to teach rationality...I dunno why I think a group who calls themselves "Rationalists" would teach about rationality though.)

Well that's quite a lot of "blurbing" especially seeing as it takes up most of the page...

And gee, did it say "explores ethical and intellectual alternatives to supernatural belief". Did they say "debunking religion" or exploring intellectual/ethical alternatives(which implies the study of belief system)?

The camp is exclusive. And in any case, I've been admitting all along that I'm running worst-case here. That I'm so far off the mark it's not funny is a distinct possibility that I've conceded from the very beginning.

Why are you starting off by supposing the worst case scenerio though?

I mean there's preparing for the worst, but that does not mean you assume the worst. And preparing for the worst isn't always the best idea anyways(such wastes rescources and you may miss good oppurtunities).

Now you're using the "false dilemma" - i.e., a camp which doesn't engage in discussion regarding controversial issues doesn't encourage intellectual development.

I think going into controversial topics is essential for intellectual development. The goal of philosophy and science is not the memorization of facts.

The idea that pluralistic camps do not encourage intellectual camps its itself a rather wild supposition - considering that if you remove the references to Secular Humanism and "Freethinker Jeopardy", Camp Quest and the pluralist Camp Tioga become completely indistinguishable, according to their websites.

Show me how camp Tioga ecnourages intellectual development?

I searched an found this to be the closest thing under activities:

Academics <http://www.camptioga.com/images/bullet_star.gif> Computer Center <http://www.camptioga.com/images/bullet_star.gif> Astronomy <http://www.camptioga.com/images/bullet_star.gif> Camp Newspaper

In the corner of the screen, after a list of dozens of physical and artistic activities(40 in all). I mean it really looks like intellectual excercises(called "academics") is real priority at camp Tioga.

http://www.camptioga.com/ab_activities.shtml

"Give them a chance" - it is an honorable attitude. But, when my child's development is concerned, I would choose not to offer him as a guinea pig.

Well isn't that a bit of an "exclusive" attitude? I mean I'm so sure a secular humanist camp would do irreparable harm to your child(a Catholic camp maybe, humanist camp...doubtful).

You don't need a camp to learn critical thinking either; your argument can be used against your position.

Yeah but it would be a nice, conveniant place to ecourage/learn/develope it though.

The pluralist camp in question does both.

Oh yes, its rather obvious. I mean they make no real mention of science, rationality, freethought, philosophy or critical thinking on their page.

But they do have a list of 3 "academics" like astronomy and "camp newspaper"(a real deep discussion group) where the intellect can just take off and soar, after the 40 or so listed physical and artistic excercises(which ARE mentioned endlessly).

Well maybe soar about as well as a lizard at the very least.

Well, let's put it this way. Starting from the time my kid would be 11, I've got seven years to teach him critical thinking.

Do you? Lets not forget parents have to work, kids like to play, etc. Also lets assume the kid can't really pick up critical thinking at age 4.

I mean really can you start there? Maybe 8 is the best place to start, 7 the earliest. Until then its just superficial memorization. So you get what? 4-5 years. When the kid is not in school that is. While you are not at work. And assuming you ARE a good teacher and a good, well educated parent(believe it or not, some parents are not good teachers) and you want to spend a lot of yours and your child's time together teaching critical thinking, that still doesn't give you much.

And lets say they still don't learn, do you let it slide? Or do you perhaps encourage it at a camp where it might be more fun/stimulating? Where the parent's aura of autjority is not present?

I mean its not really like your kid will criticize the parent or question/examine that far. A counselor or peer may be a different story though, especially if they are encouraged by the counselor.

And the "no time" argument is wearing thin on me; if I spent only one hour a day with my kid,

Well you did agree with it just a couple posts ago...

From your previous post:

Well that's a hell of a thing "not to have time for", but I must concede that you're right - some people are very much limited in what they can do, because of work or disability or the like. This argument I cannot refute, except to ask how such parents got along before secular humanist camps were invented?

Now it's:

it'd take me less than a year to have spent more than twice as much time teaching him as this camp would have. In fact, I question whether, after 7 years, there'll be a noticable difference between a kid who attended this camp and one who didn't attend any camp at all - except, of course, the kid who attended will remember "unimportant" skills like firebuilding.

Hmm perfectionisty fallacy included(do it perfectly, or not at all.) Did you want crow with that?

I wasn't aware that you'd been to or read about most camps; I'm apparently out of my league.

I know it's a radical assumption.

In any case, this supports my original assertion that what you want your kid to learn helps decide which camp they'll go to.

Yes and I believe the most important things to learn are philosophy,critical thought and the scientific method. Not "camp newspaper".

Then why are you even considering sending your kid to a camp at all? If you don't want your kid to be camping, you shouldn't send them to a camp.

1) Maybe I think such things if done rarely *can* be fun.

2) Maybe the good outweighs the bad.

3) Maybe because they do other things(like raost marshmallows and hang out with peers) at a camp too.

4) Maybe because one as a parent(believe it or not) needs a break.

I thought of that in less then 2 seconds. Hard to believe an objective person like you wouldn't have thought of it yourself.

You're JPW here - "that stuff" constitutes the overwhelming majority of activities at Camp Quest. Remember, it's a camp, not a seminar. If that's what you're looking for, then you should send your kid to a seminar or workshop.

Oh yes, solid evidence. "It's a camp not a seminar" argument.

Alas I must be blind and fail to be compelled by it.

So far they seem to have stressed intellectual activity in their opening statement. Now this doesn't prove one way or the other what the majority of time is spend on.

But then again was that the point? The point was they spend more time on the intellectual/"academic" activities then other camps. And consequently, less on the physical/artistic activities. Less they found a way to manipulate time,which I believe would immediately put it above the rest.

Yes, because I'm not talking about beliefs, I'm talking about the bare-bones concept of only people like us, please.

Ah you don't have a problem with humanists.

You just say that a humanist camp is comparable to a white-race only camp.

I mean, why would that ever make me believe you held a slight, itty-bity bias on this issue?

That you were thinking in simplistic extremes and ignoring a lot of fine yet relevant points?

I mean yeah, I first thought "white supremist prom" when I saw "secular humanist camp" too. It's easy to get the two groups(secular humanists and white supremists) confused(they are both exclusive after all) but after some deep thinking and investigation I found they had very little in common. Perhaps you can check out the council for secular humanism's homepage:

http://secularhumanism.org/

And one by Kingdom Identity:

http://www.kingidentity.com/

And decide for yourself.

We must've gone to school on different planets.

Must have.

Assuming such discussions take place. Thinking back, it occurs to me that the last thing kids want to do on summer vacation is sit through classes.

Ahh but philosophical discussion and freethinking trivia aren't like classes. In fact learning about philosophy, if taught right, is very, very fun. (Likely there will be no tests, or homework, or assignments like classes have either.)

Wait...a person who doesn't think discussion about religion is the most important thing for a child at camp probably has a problem with secular humanism?

Nope a person who immediately says "I wouldn't send my kid to a humanist camp" and declares it "exclusive" upon a cursory glance possibly does.

We're adults, capable of deciding who we want to associate with.

And parents are not right to say who they want their kids associating with?

Are you also saying that such an enterprise promotes an "us vs them" mentality for kids only....not adults?

Potentially. Again - we're adults.

Potentially? Well a feminist might say potentially calling an open sewer entrance a "manhole" instead of a "personhole" can turn a kid into a sexist....but do you really think that likely?

....is this a trick question?

Nope, a rhetorical one.

I've spent much of my life with people who tend to be excluded - because of their race, because they're atheists, and other reasons. A few times, simply by associating myself with them, I have ended up being "excluded" as well. It ain't cool.

Nobody says discrimination is cool. But freedom of association is allowed and even alright, depending on the situation and your personal values. (I personally exclude child molestors, guess I just I can't get over my own bigotry). And telling a joke or having a camp is not discrimination. You really just need to recognize the wheat(jokes made for fun, simple/meaningful association and disassociation) from the chaff(prejudice). It's not always simple but nobody said life was going to simple.

As I said, I'd love to sit in on a "deep" discussion amongst 11 year olds.

Me too...... at age 11.

Kids tend to have very short attention spans; kids who aren't as inclined to participate in such discussions would get bored, quickly.

True, but only when something is not fun. Put a kid in front of something he or she really enjoys or is very stimulating, video games or a movie and you can have their attention for hours. Philosophy may not be fun for a kid(it was for me) but it is stimulating.

Also shouldn't a kid learn to increase his or her attention span?

Why do you think camps - including the one in question, have lists of activities 8 miles long, for only one week's worth of time?

Because they are catering to the kids attention span maybe?

Did you ever consider a short attention span to be something learned?

Did you ever consider that if it was learned and very spread out, the camps would cater to it?

Also lets say kids do have a short attention span of maybe an hour, two hours tops. That's still plenty of time to learn a bit more about philosophy and freethought then what they know. (Also if kids attention spans are so short, and this prevents them from learning critical thought from summer camp, what makes you think they'll learn it from parents?)

Also Christian camps manage to keep a kids attention long enough to learn fundy ideology. And look at what they are working with(One of the dullest books on earth, learned via the dull/nonstimulating process of mere memorization), if they can do it, certainly humanists can.

Nowhere else on earth can kids learn to think critically like they can at Camp Quest, I'm certain.

Ugh! Hard....to move....losing too much...straw.*collapses*

Camp Tioga?

LOL. Already beat that dead horse to a puddle.

I am not a boogeyman, out to get secular humanists. The fact that its a "secular humanist" camp rather than a fundamentalist camp, or "hindus-only" camp, makes no nevermind to me.

Well it's not like we can take into account what the believers actually believe. What IDEAS, a camp based around ideology, contains. Nor the philosophy of a philosophical group.

The actual substance of what makes up the groups beliefs.

I mean, why do that when you can easily lump them in with a group that adheres to a radically different philosophy, based on a very superficial comparison?

Come on, do you really believe a fundamentalist christian camp and a humanist camp will have the same effect on a child?