Thursday, February 25, 2010

No more missionaries?


RATE: 12


Nearly a year and a half ago I got into one of my most heated Open Salon discussions, chiefly with the wise Ben Sen.  We were arguing over the importance of religions symbols, creating religious and atheist movements, and whether proseltyzing was justified.  I said I would write another post on the subject after a couple days cooling off.
Better late than never?

Is the very act of attempting to convert others an assault on their culture and dignity?  Does the cultural context make a difference?  Is "converting" someone to atheism the same as converting them to a faith?

The fallout from the crazy missionaries stealing children in Haiti under the rationale that the children will be better off raised in a different brand of Christianity (non-papist?) than they would if their families stayed intact has brought these issues further to light in the public.
Clearly, these missionaries are among the worse out there.  We can assume with confidence that most missionaries don't kidnap children.  But perhaps this is just an example of the extreme logical result of the missionary approach?
One has to be pretty cocky to imagine that they personally have such a hold on the truth and the way to salvation, that they are qualified to go to another culture on another continent and show these strangers the right way.  Who are these people anyways who think they know it all? (I mean, I knew it all when I was 19 years old, but have been getting progressively dumber ever since.  These missionaries aren't all 19 years old.)
As an atheist, I come from the perspective that religious faiths are misguided.  (Yes I'm cocky too, but aren't we all?)  So perhaps I have it in for all missionaries.  But as an atheist in a dominant Christian society and as a civil libertarian, I also put a premium on religious tolerance and religious pluralism. 
If I'm to suggest that religious missionaries don't have the right to persuade others' into their world view, than I as an atheist shouldn't as well.  Some religions, like Judiasm or Hinduism, traditionally don't seek converts.  I remember talking to a nice Quaker lady who told me that even when she's talking to someone who shows genuine interest in the Society of Friends that she has to be careful regarding whether to invite them to a meeting, because that could be considered attempting a conversion.
So should we take the Quaker example and just let people be?  Leave everyone alone?
No.  That would be the cultural relativist route.  It's the easy solution.  It's bullshit.
If you think you have the answers; if you think you have the right solution for achieving salvation; if you are confident in your belief; then you should be able to share that of others.  That includes people of different cultural backgrounds.
But what is the right way?  Most of us would agree that kidnapping children is unjustified.  What should the rules be?
Much of the world's history has involved mass conversions at the point of a sword.  Indeed, that's what's responsible for the growth of the the world's most populous religions.  Generally we can agree that is an unjustified manipulation of individuals and other cultures.  
What about when giving aid in a disaster? Can you hand out Bibles along with rice?  Even with no pressure?
This month on NPR's Talk of the Nation, Father Ken Gavin of the Jesuit Refugee Service USA was asked by a Neal Conan whether their organization proselytizes in Haiti and he responded in clear language: "We, ourselves, do not. Of course, we fundamentally see that as a basically as a violation of the deepest of human rights, and especially in a situation where people are so traumatically involved, such as Haiti. It seems to us absolutely unfair and unjust to proselytize."
Of course, a Jesuit may not feel the pressure to further proselytize in Catholic dominated Haiti.  But  the Jesuit Refugee Service operates in many countries including Muslim majority Indonesia and don't feel the need to proselytize anywhere.
Proselytizing while you're handing food to hungry people or rebuilding their homes is the parallel to proselytizing with a sword, the missionary is exploiting their position of privilege and power to cajole people to convert.
The only way to convert ethically then is to do so when you're on equal footing.  Perhaps the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses have it figured out.  They fan across their communities and the world, often to different cultures, and seek to meet and talk to people one on one.  Of course, part of their strategy is to ask people if they need any help with anything.  I had  a friendly young man at my door recently offer to do my dishes and yard work for me.  Clearly they're using a psychological trick of putting potential converts in a position to owe them something back.
In the rare occasion I find myself in a church I see bulletins and pictures of all their mission trips.  In pictures they are clearly doing development work.  That could very well be their chief focus; but they are still referring to themselves asmissionaries.  Their mission is convert.  Even if their proselytizing is passive, it's there and they're doing it to people with whom they are creating an unbalanced power dynamic. Perhaps the standard should involve asking if people are doing their work "as Christians" (or whatever faith) and not "as a human being."
One of my favorite novels is The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver, about a family of misguided missionaries in the Congo in the 1960s.  The family is culturally clueless and we see the different ways that cultural imperialism has disastrous consequences for all involved.  Like the "well-intentioned" kidnapping Idahoans, they are misguided cultural imperialists.
Telling a disaster victim, or a sick person, or a hungry person, or someone who needs potable water or shelter that you'll help them and just ask them to accept the word of God in return is an assault on their dignity.  I know Jesus did that himself, but it's manipulation all the same.

Comments

There is nothing inherently wrong with proselytizing. We should all be able to articulate our beliefs, our reasons for them and the benefits that we perceive that we get from them.

But you are absolutely correct in that you need to be on “equal footing” to have these conversations.

I would take this even a bit further than you have with your examples and add our own children to the mix. The power disparity between children and their parents is huge.

The forced indoctrination of the young into the dogmas of parental religion borders on abuse (and there are many incursions on the borders).

Imagine if we only exposed our children to one kind of political philosophy (Marxism), one kind of medical treatment (homeopathy), one view on history (anglo-centric and anti-Semitic of course), one kind of music (polka); and then told them they would painfully burn eternally in a fiery pit if they strayed from our teachings. Who would condone this? Why do we condone it for religious beliefs?
markTheCanuck
Yes, I remember our discussion as a good one that felt incomplete. The Haitian situation certainly brings it to the fore, and I don't recall reading a better and more sincere response.

My position is basically that proselytizing is more often antithetical to true "faith" than enhancing. It has caused as much damage as it has led the collective forward. It could well be a necessary "step" given the development of human consciousness, but not a final destination.

If you study the history of most major religions, you will see they often have a branch that eschew proselytizing for exactly that reason. They call them the "esoteric" forms--such as Sufism--and the great Christian mystics such as Meister Eckehart and Jakob Bohme, who emphasized one's personal relationship to diety rather than what is taught by the religious institutions.

The institutions have goals of their own--such as supporting their hierarchy that have little if anything to with "spirituality." They often simply become the ideologists for representing themselves and nothing else. Hence, children are stolen from their parents in Haiti, governments are formed and dissolved on the basis of religious affiliation (Iraq , Iran and Israel) and an army of xenophobes is formed that turn a nation toward militarism (the US).

The religions themselves become the force that promotes inhumanity rather that humanity. Thus, it is no mystery many of the most sensitive and conscientious have become athiests. The only caution I have is whether the determination is made as a result of looking "inward" at one's self, or outward at the horrible damage that has been done, and that most are totally oblivious to out of their own need for security.

What I've started to see on the blogs is a lot of athiests who seem periously close to proselytizers themselves. It's very understandable given how clear it is in the world today of the damage religion has done, and continues to do, but the anger of many athiests makes me doubt their motives.

One note: Hindus do indeed proselytize. Some "forms" more than other such as the "bhakti" practioners who are not unlike the evangelicals. "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna..) Also, among your non-proselytizers you may want to mention the Zenists. Not only do they strickly forbid selling the faith, they think god is "optional" in ones belief structure. Their "idea" is to live their faith.
Ben Sen
"The forced indoctrination of the young into the dogmas of parental religion borders on abuse (and there are many incursions on the borders)."

Mark, I don't know if I would put it quite as strongly, but I too am troubled by the degree people purposely indoctrinate their kids from an early age. That seems like a whole other huge topic.

As a parent of two young ones, I've found it challenging to avoid foisting my beliefs on them. My six year old is very inquisitive (for which I am proud) and asks lots of questions on the difference between what her parents believe, what her grandparents believe, and others. I try to answer her questions non-judgmentally, even though on some points I have strongly held thoughts. She's not dumb, so she sees some of my biases. But I've been very careful to demonstrate tolerance for different ways of looking at the world.

The problem with indoctrinating young kids is not so much the power differential (although it's there), but parents have near exclusive and continual access to their kids during the first years of their lives and can use this monopoly to expose them to emotionally and developmentally manipulative dogmas.
Skeptic Turtle
Thanks Ben Sen for your thoughtful and informative comments.

I had the understanding that most Hindus hold that one should stick to the religion they were born in, but I know it is a diverse belief tradition and I know little of it. I appreciate your perspective.

I'll totally agree with you that it is the religious institutions that are often responsible for injustices to humanity. But it is impossible to separate the individual from the institution. (Though I don't know if you're claiming that.) Individuals holding dogmatic beliefs have been used by religious institutions and themselves use religious institutions for nefarious purposes.

I don't quite understand your point about why people become atheists and how exactly they are oblivious.

I feel you're poking me a little by saying atheists become proselytizers because they are "angry." I'd probably consider myself a proselytizing atheist and I've known "angry" atheists. (Though I'd call them defeatist or cynical atheists.) As my post illustrates, I don't see anything wrong in proselytizing in of itself. Proselytizing others to your way of looking at the world doesn't automatically mean you're creating a pseudo-religious institution. You doubt these angry atheists' motives. What would distinguish a bad motive from a good motive when it comes to proselytizing?

(Frankly, I think the motive is less important. Many religious missionaries have admirable motives; they just use abusive and manipulative means to serve their goals; sometimes unintentionally.)
Skeptic Turtle
It's late but in skimming I see this is exactly the kind of post I appreciate you so much for Derek! I hope to be back and leave a better comment.
Kellylark
This is a thick read. I look forward to having time to read through and comment...xx a
Akopsa
Raised Catholic, I have never felt that the church ever pushed us to convert others to Catholicism. My experience with this church has been one of self examination and one which teaches us to live an authentic good life, with generosity to others without personal gain.
I am always a bit put off by those religions that judge and condemn or go above the law, as these missionaries in Haiti did with these children. They crossed a very big line there and were acting in a role that clearly broke the law and removed children from access to their own living parents. Though in some cases, the parents consented, there was still an underlying tone that they were right despite the caution or the law.

If we are to be true givers in life, it must be with no strings attached.
Religion like politics is very subjective and not to be judged or imposed on the vulnerability of others who are struggling with their circumstamces.
Cathy GF
Great Post. I started to read the comments, but stopped. They don't matter. History if full of different religions taking over whole cultures. You go to a soup kitchen in most places, you "have" to say a prayer to eat. AA is another organization that is built on religion. You mean I can't quit drinking without God. I believe that all organized religions are bullshit. Any thing in the history of the world that has ever been organized has been or is corrupt. That includes Boy Scouts, Little league baseball, religion, etc., etc., etc., It is indeed manipulation to hold out a plate of food to a staving person while at the same time trying to convert them!
scanner
Good well written post here Turtle dear.
I wish it was the cover today and was more widely read so a discussion would come of it.
When I lived in Newfoundland a group of fundamentalists came to a town north from St Johns where I lived and told the native Indians there that even tho' they went to church it was the wrong church and the wrong version of the bible. They got run out of the town.
What happened in Haiti is important to me and should be for all the world. I always get a laugh from listening/reading of Christians of one stripe calling the other stripe wrong for whatever reason. And the laugh is grim.

The truly sad part is the fact that the other Christians are not out there saying what they did was wrong, no they are trying to say what they did was somehow right.

I personally think the whole concept of missionaries is just wrong. I also do not think that forcing any religion on anyone is wrong as well. I do not consider myself religious here.
Mission
Thanks everyone for comments! Again I want to be clear, I have no problem with the idea of conversion--but conversion through manipulation. My limited understanding of how most "missionaries" work is that they are using manipulation.

Good intentions might be a mitigation, but not an outright excuse. I recall that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Well, I don't believe in Hell, but you get the point.

If people want to convert others to their faith, fine. If people want to serve people through relief or development work, that's laudable. I don't see how you can ethically do both at the same time.
Skeptic Turtle
I am of the "attraction rather than promotion" view of religion - if there must be religion at all. I also agree that if a flaming right-wing Christian has the right to push their views then a flaming libertarian Atheist does as well.

I think any organization has the potential for wrongdoing and manipulation with out the aid of a creator or not, Christian missionaries have just honed it to a craptacular science. It is far more disgusting when it is leveraging one's "faith" in a holy being. That is the classless act of desperate people. It is - in the case of Haiti - Christian exceptionalism. It should be noted, however that I am not in favor of Muslim, Hindu, Catholic or Flying Spaghetti Monster Exceptionalism either. Though I am more likely to accept the door to door preaching of the Spaghetti Monster folks, they just seem more rational...great post - thx, ak
Akopsa
Great conversation Turtle.

I got busy over the wknd and didn't look back until now. I'm not referring to "athiests" as oblivious to the faults of organized religion as much as "believers" who out of their own needs fail to recognize the inhumanity of orthodoxy. Thus, "religion" becomes the bullwark of prejudice rather than acceptance.

I would disagree with you about whether the "motive" is important. Religion is inextricably linked to power and authority. In my own case, that power was abused and for many years I rebelled from faith of any type for that reason. I think it's true for many--the religion becomes the "symbol" they use to project their frustration and repression.

I don't in the least mean to "poke" anything at you. I think often the rejection of religion is based on a shallow analysis based on a condition that doesn't necessarily have to be true and could well cause more suffering than liberate a person from the bonds of the past, but I do not say or see any evidence that applies to you. I think you have a very reasoned approach and respect it entirely.

What once may have been the "faith" that sustained the multitudes necessarily changes as consciousness evolves in my view. Thus, we went from the matriarchy to the patriarchy, and now are headed back in the other direction.

Felicitations to a fellow travellor.
Ben Sen
Felicitations right back at you Ben Sen.

You put it well and I'm challenged to find any point with which to further quibble. I think that too many people don't truly examine their beliefs and prejudices. And yes, too often people who do reject mainstream institutions and ways of thinking ironically leave their new assumptions unexamined.

The story in the news about the study that found that atheists (and monogamous men) got the attention of a lot of my fellow godless heathen. I was disappointed in the unexamined embrace with the "Of course we're smarter attitude." They missed the key points of the study and the fact that it's just one study and one shouldn't put too much stock into it.

Plus, who cares about IQ? What matters is that you use what you got. Plenty of "smart" people don't.
Skeptic Turtle
Please note, I am not referring to you here, just a general comment:

I have a lot of bones to pick with"logic." I'm not sure it has anywhere near the sway in making choices that people think it does, and when they hold it up as a reason I should agree with them when it comes to matters of belief, I'm very suspicious. I know many athiests base their "belief" on it, and I think it's Dawkins (spelling) position as well, but I don't think it's really where the action is. More often then not, people's religious beliefs are "projections" of inner conflits caused by trauma of one sort of other that they are entirely unconscious of.

And yes, I think you are right: the vast majority are content to adapt whateve faith they are born into and live as hypocrites. If someone doesn't know what "projection" is and hasn't at least located one such attitude that derives from it, I'm afraid a conversation about "religion" is severly limited.
Ben Sen
Thanks Ben Sen. Looking forward to future conversations!
Skeptic Turtle

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

PBS taught my daughter to lie

EDITOR’S PICK                RATE: 47

I suppose it was our own fault to be limited by the whims of PBS...
Due to longstanding policy set down by the missus, we do not get cable.  At times, I’ve advocated for cable TV, but in the end I’m too cheap myself.
When it comes to children’s programming, all we have is PBS Kids at our disposal.  The Saturday cartoons of our youth no longer exist.  There are a fewSaturday cartoons, but usually it doesn’t occur to anyone to turn it on.
PBS has been fine for the most part.  From Caillou to Sesame Street to Clifford the Big Red Dog, the programming has been fun for our kids and mostly harmless.  They’re all a little annoying to adults, but one can deal with it. (Except for Barney the Satanic Dinosaur.)

One day came a new program: SUPER WHY.  Within minutes of the first episode I began to loath it and it became my daughter’s favorite thing in the whole world.
“SUPER WHY is an interactive reading adventure!
We begin each 24-minute reading adventure in Storybrook Village, a magical 3-D world hidden behind the bookshelves in a children's library. The Storybrook Village is the home of your child's favorite fairytale characters. Immediately, you'll meet the four best friends who anchor each episode: Red, from Little Red Riding Hood; Pig from The Three Little Pigs, Princess from The Princess and The Pea, and Whyatt, the curious younger brother of Jack from Jack and The Beanstalk who discovers he has the power to fly inside books to find answers to his questions. Each of these characters is re-imagined as an everyday kid, not unlike your child's own friends: Red rides roller blades; Pig drives a trike; Princess loves tea parties and dress-up; and Whyatt is the group's natural leader.
Even the description makes one want to vomit.
These programs that feature a group of kids always have white alpha male as the leader.
Each episode starts with a preschool relatable problem.
The solution is to look for the answer in a fairy tale book, in which they physically enter the story.  Oh, and they all have inconsequential and uninteresting special powers.
The Super Readers can solve any obstacle with their literacy powers!
They solve the problem of the story’s characters and therefore one of the Super Readers’ problems by changing the text and meaning of these old fairytales.
Hip Hip Hurray! The Super Readers save the day!
Victorious, they leave the story book and do a Hip Hip Hurray dance. It's the lamest dance ever shown on a screen.



I don’t have a problem with adapting literature for new purposes.  But this show does it in a way that completely eviscerates the original point, the original lesson of the story.
For example, the episode that taught my daughter to lie.
In this episode, the boy who cried wolf has problem that no one believes that he sees the wolf even though he is telling the truth.  This mirrors Whyatt’s problem that his parents don’t believe him when he said that his baby sister said her first word to Whyatt.
In the story, the boy does see the wolf but the wolf hides each time the townspeople come.  The problem is solved when the frustrated townspeople confront the boy with their disbelief and frustration and the boy tells them with all sincerity that he is really telling the truth, “Trust me!” he pleads. Everybody then says, that they DO believe him.  The Super Readers change the text so that the nice wolf appears and explains his absence because he was shy. The wolf gets to meet all the townspeople. 
Whyatt solves his problem back at home by insisting that his mom and dad “trust” him that he’s telling the truth.  His parents say OK, and immediately his sister repeats her word for everybody.
At the time, I shook my head in annoyance of their perversion of the story.
The next day I asked my four year old to go to the bathroom and wash her hands before dinner.  She insisted she already did.  I knew better.  I insisted again.  She righteously proclaimed, “I already did, daddy! TRUST ME.”
What powerful words! “TRUST ME!” We immediately had a calm but stern discussion on the difference between telling the truth and just saying you’re telling the truth.  The discussion had to be repeated a few times over the following weeks.
Of course that was the lesson she would take! The damn show taught her that adults will listen to you and believe you if you just say “Trust Me” in a particular way. They did this at the expense of the other side of the lesson, that of credibility and the importance of truth telling.
Even preschoolers can be taught that credibility is something that can be lost and earned and that telling the truth is important.  The original story of the boy who cried wolf is a bloody, but otherwise age-appropriate lesson for young kids. This show messed that up and merely taught my preschooler that talking in a sincere manner is all that is needed.* It taught my daughter to lie.
Plus, their animation stinks.

* Is it possible that Glenn Beck watched this episode and took it to heart?

Comments

The last line made me shudder even more than the description of the show!
Owl_Says_Who
Eww. This makes me sad, I remember when PBS was COOL. I learned about Cookie Monster . . lol


-R-
LadyMiko
I am very familar with the work of Super Why (rolling eyes). I have a seven year old who has been watching it for about a year or so now. We have about an hour discussion about the thirty minute show each time he does. He carries to heart the same messages that your daughter does and it can be very tiresome at times to explain for the 500th time that there is more to the story. I just got to the point that I let him watch Power Rangers instead LMAO LMAO!
KDStorm
*sigh* PBS was once great, now it just sounds terrifying.
lorianne
I was so happy when my daughter got into Word Girl! and Martha Speaks on PBS instead of SUPER WHY. Word Girl! is actually pretty funny. Martha Speaks (about a talking dog) is harmless. I'd rather she watch an adult themed movie with lots of bad language than the crap known as SUPER WHY.
Skeptic Turtle
"Trust me" Don't those words just scream: I'm not really going to tell you the truth?

Looks like the lame shows haven't gotten any better since my boys were little. Thankfully they hated that purple blob Barney as much as I did. I'm not sure I could've stomached 30 minutes of that.

Great post. The bad influences are everywhere though. How about just getting rid of cable? That's what I did:)
Eden Simone
Okay, whoops. Just re read the first line and saw that you already DON'T have cable! At my place without cable we don't get any reception, so nothing for TV at all...that's what I was suggesting:)
Eden Simone
Eden, I'm about this close to getting rid of the TV altogether. But then I realize that my kids would be that much more insistent to use my computer at all hours.
Skeptic Turtle
As you know - no kids here - but I do have nieces and nephews and I need to stay apprised of their world. THIS SUCKS.

I occassionally watch Word Girl all by myself though ;-)

I suggest a letter -writing campiang. After all, these fairy tales with the moral-to-the-story haven't lasted for 100+ years for no reason!
Kellylark
Oh, for the days of The Electric Company! xox
Robin Sneed
It's a show that neatly mirrors our political landscape, populated as it is by people who say TRUST ME! in a particular way...and amazingly, people do. Your daughter is being taught by that dumb show that betrayal is a handy and inconsequential tool to getting her way.
SFine really
Kelly, I'm glad I'm not the only adult who enjoys Word Girl.

Robin, The Electric Company is back! Thank goodness. And my daughter loves it. http://pbskids.org/electriccompany/

Sandra, the one nice thing is that these bad lessons could be untaught fairly easily. But now kid #1 is getting to an age when peers at school and other outside influences hold increasing sway and parental influence is dissipating.
Skeptic Turtle
There's so much patronizing crap made for kids with perverted morals and feel good endings. Disney is the king of this with the non-Milne Winnie-the-Pooh being the worst of the lot. Give me Pollyanna any day.

Kids don't need help to learn to lie. They do benefit from pointers on how to do it successfully.
Malusinka
Your daughter learned to lie and you learned what your wife already knew: TV is evil. Trust me!
The Biblio Files
"The damn show taught her that adults will listen to you and believe you if you just say “Trust Me”"

Oh, I've known some "Leaders of Industry" who wrote the script for this episode.

"Trust me, when I tell you, nothing will happen..." Teehehee!! Okay!!

;)
Tinkerertink69
Damn them!
Ablonde
Derek, that is a very discouraging example of what kids can pick up from a supposed educational show. Back when my sons were younger they tended to like the PBS shows related to nature like "Kratt's Kreatures" and not so much the ones with any type of animation, except for "Arthur."
designanator
How does one deny a pre-schooler who beseeches "Trust me Daddy!"
This show sounds so wrong!
R
julie Kiernan
Et tu, PBS? _r
Joan H.
This sounds like an awful show. Tell her to stick with Word Girl. We don't need any more politicians-in-training!
Lisa Kern
Oh man...this kind of thing makes me happy my daughter is now an adult. And no, Glenn Beck would never watch PBS he is just an a-hole. xx a
Akopsa
"TRUST ME" is used by car salesmen, politicians, lawyers, bosses, and religious zealots when they are lying. Rated.
OEsheepdog
You, know, our friendthe squirrel also uses the "Trust Me" phrase a lot...
Skeptic Turtle
Little ones are quick like that. At least your daughter doesn't identify with the antagonist in every scenario, like my middle son. I have not seen Super Why (and I thought I knew all of them), but it sounds like it's grown from the "sticky" school of preschool entertainment. Too bad, "trust me", is what they chose to make "sticky".

Great post!
1_Irritated_Mother
I probably shouldnt admit this, but some of the programming for the older kids is actually pretty good. Sid the Science Kid and Fetch with Ruff Ruffman show great teamwork and cooperation as well as the science based foundation they support.

Just wait a few years, it does get better. And in the meantime, get DVD's of The Muppet Show for them LOL
Placebostudman
I enjoyed reading this. The only kids' shows worth their salt on PBS are Sagwa, The Siamese Cat, Sesame Street and Between the Lions. The rest are horrible mush for the brains of young people. Cable is actually better, since you can pick science shows. Better yet, the library or Netflix that way you can control exactly what goes into young minds. I agree with you about the animation. It is an art and when it is done bad it insults the intelligence of the child. Those old fairytales are still good reading and there are some good video versions.
Lucy Simpson
Gosh, that dumb, empty-minded cartoon might be bad for your kid's creativity as a whole. What insipid blandness. I'll tell you, that Barnie ruined it for all cool kid's show.

Where's Gene London when you need him? (Only Philly-based people would know that program. His kid's show was one-of-a-kind - strange, emotional, very real and accessible, beautiful. I'll never forget it. Once when he was telling a story, he started crying!)
Beth Mann
These days we're more likely to watch Word Girl, Sid the Science Kid, Fetch with Ruff Ruffman, and the Electric Company. Sid annoys me, but the rest are pretty decent. We try to limit screen time. By may calculations the kids get 4-8 hours of TV time a week.
Skeptic Turtle
Sure, your daughter gave "Trust me" a shot after watching SUPER WHY. But it lead to a great conversation. Better to nip that in the bud early than when she's an adventurous teenager :) I think sometimes things that lead to conversation are very worthwhile in the end.
Kristi Piziks
So glad that when my kids were PBS age, they had "Wishbone"!
gwhizz
Been digging up Gene London since my last comment. Here's what he used to sing. Almost made me tear up a bit because I vaguely remember it:

He sang this ditty before launching into a story:

Let's Pretend is a story time
And I'll tell a tale to you.
I'll tell you a story of make believe
And all your dreams will come true.

And when the story's over
And when we reach the end.
We'll live happily ever after, Where?
In the land of Let's Pretend.
Beth Mann
PBS, Disney, Cartoon Network... I say be careful with them all. It's incredible how sarcastic, manipulative and far to grown up a lot of the characters are.
Amanda Gulledge
Such is the folly of letting TV teach our children. You as a good parent are active in what they watch and correcting them. That is a good thing and Kudos.

In the quest to make everything PC and "non offensive" classic stories with very specific morals all end with everyone loving each other. In the original story the strong message of do not lie or you destroy your credibility is reinforced by the wolf eating the boy. As harsh as the original story is, it is closer to the truth. Instead of the child being taught that trust is gained by consistent trustworthiness and can be lost with a few careless words; they are taught just saying the magic words makes them trustworthy.

One of the biggest draw backs of TV is it teaches life is nothing more than quick fixes and happy endings. Maybe that is the biggest lie it teaches children. Children's programing is the worst offender of consistently showing unbelievable outcomes by just using magic to solve the problem.
M Todd
Makes me glad my kids have moved on to teen angst movies and shoot-em-ups.

Although every so often we'll be flipping around and they'll scream at me if I try to flip past "The Princess Bride".

Rated. I thought PBS stood for Pretty Boring Stuff. I guess it's now Preschoolers Being Suckered. Although I must say I like their concerts. Well, most of them.
Bill S.
How odd. A PBS show taught someone's daughter how to lie. That's usually the parent's job.

I'm sorry to sound smug, but what did you expect? You can't control what your kid will learn by simply placing her in front of a television. Particulary with shows like "Super Why" which are apparently designed to get kids to think for themselves. One of the concepts they may "discover" is moral ambiguity. Better to watch this show with your kid (I know, and restrain your gag reflex) or turn it off once Sesame Street is over.
jp1954
M Todd, indeed. One of the worse offenders is Dora, who makes everything better by repeating words, like "Swiper no swiping!" A few years ago SNL did a spot on parody of this kind of children's programming: TV Funhouse: Maraka
Skeptic Turtle
jp, I'll pardon your smugness if you pardon mine. I don't think that teaching someone to get what they want with the magic words "Trust Me" counts as teaching her to think for herself or learning about moral ambiguity. I never said I thought I could control what my kid learns (from TV or anything), but I didn't expect a PBS show for preschoolers to teach my kid to lie. Maybe in that sense I'm naive.

Bill S, I'm looking forward to my kids being old enough to watch A Princess Bride. Hopefully soon! My 6 year old recently watched the Blues Brothers (I forgot there was so much swearing and shooting) and I certainly preferred that to a lot of kid's programming. (She loved the Blues Brothers.)
Skeptic Turtle
stupidest. dance. ever.

The writers of this show are morons. I miss old pbs, when the writers and creators all had degrees in childhood development.
marcelleqb
SuperWhy is a horrible attempt at copying the style of shows on Nickelodeon such as Dora, Diego, The Backyardigans etc... PBS should stick to what they do best... TRULY EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FOR CHILDREN...as my four year old daughter would say, ''Quit being a copycat''... GREAT POST...
Wayniak
there's something wrong with that? when you come to a part of the story you don't like, change the letters around to mean something else? next you'll say politicians and pundits do that
Fudo Myoö
I would've liked it better if the townspeople accessed the town surveillance tapes, spotted the wolf and eliminated him with a drone missile. Whyatt should've called 9-1-1 immediately. Shyness my ass, that wolf was probably trying to cover something sinister and better a pre-emptive strike than an endangered populace.
noah tawls
if there's one thing I cannot bear it's the white-washing of children's fables.

they did not all live happily ever after - and that was the fucking point

oh, and don't get me started on DORA! AND HER COUSIN, DIEGO! THE ONES WHO CAN'T SPEAK, BUT CAN ONLY SHOUT EVERYTHING! CAN YOU SAY, "SHOUT!" LOUDER! Apparently merely chanting someone's name for encouragement can facilitate all kinds of amazing feats.

Although I'll say I have learned a lot from watching Diego - who knew so many animals spoke Spanish? Especially the penguins, I guess, because they're from the South Pole.

am I deluding myself that Sesame Street was actually trying to teach me something?
Fudo Myoö
fudo... lets not forget that you can stop a thief simply by saying ''Swiper, no swiping... Swiper no swiping...''
Wayniak
Just this last week while watching Dora, my younger daughter (>3yrs) indignantly yelled out when Dora asked her to say 'backpack' a second time: "I ALREADY DID!"
Skeptic Turtle
I loathe heavy-handed moralistic entertainment for children, whether it comes in the form of television shows, computer games, or books.

Just give us the actual fairy tales, and let them work their own magic on young minds.
Lainey
So PBS reading shows have gone from "But don't take MY word for it..." to "Trust me"?

GAH.

(Sadly, "Reading Rainbow" was canceled this year due to lack of funding.)
Leeandra Nolting
Trust me. You don't want cable (a finishing school for mendacity).
Steve Blevins
This is terrible! That's why I only let my kids watch HGTV and Food Network.
Linda Shiue
Karin, Backyardigans I actually find more than tolerable - in truth I enjoy most of them. That is until we have the Netflix DVD in the house, which he not only refuses to let go of after a day or two, but insists on watching repeatedly. Do NOT spend two days home sick from school with a new Backyardigans DVD.

Now if they would only make new episodes of the Upside Down Show...
Fudo Myoö
Future used car dealers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose except your honesty, integrity, etc.
old new lefty
Tis puts me in mind of the lame attempts to "modernize" Shakespeare or translate the Bible into contemporary English. While I have nothing against this practice per se, the results are all too often lame. A first-rate translation requires a translator very nearly as gifted as the originator. And what are the chances of that?
Tom Cordle
Skeptic,

I constantly shake my head at children’s programming that I see these days and I wonder how much head-shaking our parents did when we were kids.

I can see your problem. The change in the story as you present it is clearly problematic, and one must question the reasoning behind it, which seems completely pointless. It distorts the original value, seemingly adds no new value, and creates ambiguity instead of clarity.

Having said that, the lesson your daughter apparently took from this was a lesson she was bound to learn eventually, anyway, and you have had the opportunity to address it well ahead of the curve. In a sense, even though it was unintended, the show presented you with an open door for meaningful discussion with your daughter about a particularly devious form of deception.

The interesting discrepancy in all this is that the story did not present a child who was lying and still asking people to “trust” him. So, in a sense, the lesson that you daughter took from it was something that she put together on her own after the fact. In my experience, kids do not need to be taught to lie; they cleverly figure that out for themselves quite easily.

It wasn’t ALL bad in its result. Of course, the ongoing issue is that you’ll need to pay closer attention to what she sees on shows such as this one. My guess is, though, that she won’t learn anything from this show that she won’t learn elsewhere soon enough, which is not a defense of the show, at all, just what I see as a realistic observation. Parenting is no easy task, to be sure.
;~)
Rick Lucke
I don't like today's cartoons they are creepy. Maybe you should limit the cartoons and stick with real books. Childeren learned from books long before TV and V tech and other gadgets. PBS has changed.
Poppi Iceland
I loved this. Thanks for pointing me over here. rated.
Caroline Hagood
It sounds way too much like a preschool indoctrination program for future politicians.
bikepsychobabble
It might've happened even without this insipid show. I can't count the number of "bad influences" I absorbed from TV and tried out on my poor parents. There used to be some patent medicine hawked in the early-to-mid 1960s, that featured an upset woman having her shoulders shaken by a "well-meaning" family member or friend, who commanded "Control yourself!" Ha - I tried this exactly one time on my mother. There was not a second time...
GA-TNline
Perhaps the lesson SuperWhy could really instill into kids perceptive enough to notice it, is to be skeptical of all authority, and parse the pronouncements of self-proclaimed experts. Or as another unquestioned authority figure once said, "trust - but verify" ;)
punterjoe
Sounds to me like your daughter attempted to lie to you before she resorted to the language of SuperWhy.

Still this is why I prefer either pure entertainment (like scooby-doo) or academic (Cyber Chase) programming rather than morality based programming.

To me that represents stepping over the line. Yeah, more than likely I agree with their little morality play but whether I do or not, those are the kinds of things that should be taught by parents.

I feel that unless kid's programming that claims to be educational isn't just a really bland person staring at the screen and saying over and over "Turn me off and go play" its hypocritical.
FilthyHarry