In the middle school where I taught a lifetime ago, candy in the classroom was forbidden.
We had a few relatively incompetent teachers on staff and their classrooms were an unruly mess. The children walked about the room as they pleased, and ignored the teacher's (often shouted) instructions to sit down. Papers, pens, pencils and a variety of debris flew through the air. Conversation was of such a volume that no one could hear the teacher's lecture. Every so often the teacher would "lose it" and begin screaming for everyone to sit down and shut up!
Generally, the hubbub settled to a low roar, but only momentarily.
These were the teachers who, in their incompetence, thought they had to "reward" students for behaving in the manner students were supposed to behave. So, if the children arrived in class on time, or carried a textbook with them, or actually sat quietly in their chair, etc., the teacher passed out candy, in defiance of the school regulation against candy in the classroom.
The students were quite aware that the teacher was breaking the school rule about candy in the classroom, which led, of course, to a relaxed attitude about all school rules on the part of the students. Not only so, but the poor teacher's attempt to bribe the children to act as they were supposed to act, backfired, and though they took the candy, they soon continued their misbehaving ways.
In fact, these candy-laden classrooms were the worst behaved in the entire school!
About this same time certain middle schools in several states -- primarily in the Midwest -- came up with a plan to bribe children with real money to attend school. The uproar was considerable and the school administrators responsible for that lame brained idea were forced into a defensive stance. Their rationale withered under much volatile criticism. I'm not sure of the outcome, but I do not believe that plan was ever put into operation. I certainly hope it was not!
Margaret McKeehan, in an article titled "Sex Ed in the Bible Belt," tells of her experiences with sex education in schools she attended in the Bible Belt. It is a humorous and poignant story yet afflicted with much sadness and despair. Suffice it to say her sexual education at the hands of imbecilic instructors left much to be desired.
Her middle school sex-ed class had left her "with one distinct impression: sex is painful. Nothing depicted it positively. My hormones were raging, but the actual idea of sex was repulsive and frightening." Things didn't improve in high school. In high school, sex ed was of the abstinence-only variety. Because "it was a public school ... they couldn't justify saving sex for marriage on religious grounds. Instead they justified it with social custom ... Virginity is a gift. Waiting is a gift. ..."
Now comes the "real topper," as Ms. McKeehan says. If you signed a promise not to have sex before marriage, you could get a free sandwich from Chick-fil-A! McKeehan writes, "I don't mean to state the obvious, but nothing could devalue a person more than selling his/her virginity for a chicken sandwich."
As with trying to bribe students to behave with candy, or bribing students to attend school, so with trying to bribe students to refrain from sex with a chicken sandwich: It is not only stupid, but it doesn't work! More than that, it reveals the moral emptiness of the persons in charge of the well-being of these young people.
Finally, there are has been a minor furor in recent days about a church in Georgia that is giving away gas cards to bribe people to come to church. The particular congregation engaged in this idiocy is First Baptist Church of Snellville. Now, you don't get the gas card just for showing up: you get a chance at one of two $500 gas cards.
If perceived interest in this promotion is a sign of success, it has done very well. Tracy Coenen in an article at WalletPop says the pastor told her the church had to put in an additional phone line just to handle all the calls.
The pastor defends the promotion "by saying that the gas card giveaway is not just about luring people into the church. He says that the church also wants to help people meet their physical needs, and help with purchasing gas is one of those needs."
Methinks two $500 cards is not really about helping "people meet their physical needs," and the pastor is full of crap. That rationale is so lame McCain wouldn't buy it. This pastor is all about "luring" people into church!
But it's not that big a deal. Like teachers giving candy to kid and sex education instructors giving chicken sandwiches to those who promise to remain virgins 'til marriage, the church has always had a bag full of gimmicks to lure people into church. In the old days, there were picnics and potluck dinners; there were gold pins for perfect attendance and Sunday School Christmas plays (a sure way to get parents to church at least once a year!). Today, you'll still find picnics and potlucks, but you'll be enticed by concerts featuring "Christian" superstars, big screen TVs, full orchestras, punk bands, huge speakers, dance tunes set to "Christian" lyrics, etc.
The biggest "lure," however (at least in a negative sense), has been the threat of hell! God WANTS you to attend church. God insists you attend church! By failing to do so you put your very soul in peril!
The point of all this is that bribery is always an unethical and ultimately unhappy way to coerce people to behave as you think they should.
And in the long run, bribery never works!
But isn't it interesting that it is so hard to get people to come to church? How many children, for example, if left alone by their parents, would voluntarily attend church or Sunday School (without the bribes)? How many people wend their way to a worship service on Saturday or Sunday because they really want to be there? How many attend worship because they are "encouraged" by a significant other? How many go to church because they feel guilty if they don't?
I'm not going to try to answer those questions, but I think if you were to take a poll of worshipers in attendance at synagogue or a church on a Saturday or Sunday, you would find the great majority would rather be someplace else.
I could be wrong, of course.
1 comment:
When I was a teenager, it was during the Great Depression. If some girl had offered me a chicken sandwich for sex, I would have gladly given up my virginity for the sandwich. Luckily, the girls were as poor as I was so I had to give it away to some girl and we both went hungry. I must admit though, it took my mind off my stomach. Sex education was learning through experience, as it was never discussed by anyone, including my parents. (I did learn in college, many years later, that my parents probably did have sex at least twice, as I had an older brother.) The Navy did give me some sex education but it usually involved a film about a sailor meeting a girl at a roller skating rink. The end result was a disease which the Navy frowned upon. I stayed away from girls that skated for years. I never did figure out the relationship between roller skates and a disease. I learned to ice skate instead and meet many sexually active girls on Central Park Lake. Maybe it had to do with the ice and the cold weather. I do not remember having sex in warm weather for a few years. I thought people that lived in warm climates risked disease, so I never dated a Southern girl unless I had only honorable intentions. I was in my sixties before I moved to Florida with my wife, who had no diseases and never owned roller skate. I did not allow my daughter to own roller skates either.
I have been lucky but wonder if I missed out by avoiding all girls that roller skated. Roller skates are no longer popular and sex is very popular. I do not know how that happened but am sorry I was born so long ago when sex was not allowed or perhaps not invented.
Bob Poris
Post a Comment