|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2010 02:56:47 PM · #5076 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
ETA: By the way... You do realize that by alienating yourself and your problems from the "faithful" you're only giving them an excuse NOT to help you solve those problems right? If all of the people in your areligious category feel the same way as you do Mousie (i.e. leaving "us" to "our" problems) then I guess all of the religious people in my category don't need to feel too guilty about not helping you fix your problems. |
It's just this kind of extremely pompous and patronising twaddle that puts me off many religious people and groups. Not all i might add, as i have many religious friends of numerous faiths, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Other, and have some religious tendencies myself, but i tend to shy away from the evangelical, preachy and judgemental types. The ones who want to 'fix' peoples problems (often problems that those people don't actually see as problems themselves). Yuck. |
If it wasn't clear, I wrote that with a bit of sarcasm. At any rate, not all religious people are "pompous and patronizing", and religious people aren't the only ones that are guilty of those attitudes, which is partially what I was attempting to show. The problem being discussed in this thread is gay rights, and I was under the impression that gays wanted some help in winning equal rights but I guess I was wrong. Mousie seems to be saying, "stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours" and now you seem to be saying, "I don't want your help at all". |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 03:02:42 PM · #5077 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
ETA: By the way... You do realize that by alienating yourself and your problems from the "faithful" you're only giving them an excuse NOT to help you solve those problems right? If all of the people in your areligious category feel the same way as you do Mousie (i.e. leaving "us" to "our" problems) then I guess all of the religious people in my category don't need to feel too guilty about not helping you fix your problems. |
It's just this kind of extremely pompous and patronising twaddle that puts me off many religious people and groups. Not all i might add, as i have many religious friends of numerous faiths, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Other, and have some religious tendencies myself, but i tend to shy away from the evangelical, preachy and judgemental types. The ones who want to 'fix' peoples problems (often problems that those people don't actually see as problems themselves). Yuck. |
If it wasn't clear, I wrote that with a bit of sarcasm. At any rate, not all religious people are "pompous and patronizing", and religious people aren't the only ones that are guilty of those attitudes, which is partially what I was attempting to show. |
Ah, sorry, i missed the sarcasm. I get you now. No, not all religious people are "pompous and patronizing" as i mentioned. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 07:54:20 PM · #5078 |
I's amazing how some people will repeatedly state I'd doing the opposite of what's actually happening to avoid thinking too hard.
Seriously, how does my directly saying that I am dealing with these issues, that I'm taking to you guys because it's more effective than talking to fundamentalists, to get you to talk to your peers because you share a common tradition... how does that get turned into me "not wanting your help at all" or asking you to "stay out of my business"?
That's just stupid.
Really.
Look. I was challenged when I asked the faithful, the supposed experts on faith, to talk to their own about ADHERING TO THAT FAITH. If I had my way, I'd simply tell you all to stop believing a bunch of absurd, ancient mandates of disputed provenance. It is not my place to tell the faithful what the correct interpretation of their faith is.
I made that request, not you guys. You challenged me about it. You can't tell me, now, that the issue is about simply pointing out human hypocrisy. That is called moving the goalposts. You took issue with my request... not some hypothetical situation I did not mention.
But nooooo... now it's about how everyone's one big group! We're all one people! If I won't stand up against hypocrisy, why should you have to? You ask why I'm drawing so many distiiiiicntions between us all and saying different people have different responsibilities? Drawing distinctions is what causes these problems, you say!
This, from the same people who apparently don't even like being lumped into something as broadly encompassing as 'Abrahamic traditions'! What??? WHAT??? "It's really unfortunate that you are putting Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the same category." Why's that so unfortunate, again? It's perfectly reasonable.
Do you realize that you're blatantly playing both sides, here? When it's convenient, we're all one people, when inconvenient, those are the other churches that do bad things!
Good god you guys love to pivot. To paraphrase:
A) The tenants of your faith lead to secular harm for homosexuals.
B) Oh no! That's other churches! My church isn't like that! We're harmless!
A) If that's not your 'true' faith, perhaps you should tell the others they're doing it wrong, you're the expert.
B) Stop dividing us into categories! You're as human as us and them! Do it yourself!
So, let's assess the actual situation here:
- I'm working with the faithful to engage them about issues with their faith.
- The faithful are making excuses to avoid doing the same, while dismissing any ties to their peers.
"I'm simply saying that if you think someone is being a hypocrite you should point it out to them."
Hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 09:49:03 PM · #5079 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I'm glad you were not cast as the all powerful arbiter, because you seem to be willing to condemn by association any religious person. To blame the horrors of Torquemada on Dr. King because they share a faith in Jesus is to fail to make any kind of moral reckoning. |
I'm glad your opinion of me does not matter, because you seem willing to completely ignore my repeated, pedantic insistence that placing someone in a group or along a continuum does not mean they exhibit the characteristics of the extremes. I have been very careful to emphasize this... not recognizing it by now is entirely your failure. Even DrAchoo has caught up. Get with the program.
The level of denial on display here is stunning.
Do any of you (Christian) faithful here honestly believe that you don't share the same historical traditions as the rest of the Abrahamic faiths?
Do you honestly believe that there's no additional utility/benefit/shorthand/insight available when you share a common background with someone?
Do you honestly believe that hearing criticism from someone who professes to share a common background with you would carry no more weight than hearing it from someone who does not? (Let's call it 'peer review' for kicks.)
Really? That's what your vociferous protestation seem to indicate, because that's all I'm suggesting here. The current tack of your responses, namely taking what I'm saying and interpreting it as a slander against all religious people (because the behavior of your peers shames you and you don't like being associated with it), says more about you than me I'm afraid.
But maybe I'm stupid. Explain it to me slowly:
Why is it so unreasonable to take a pragmatic approach, reaching out to the people you share some common ground with, then asking them to (or hoping they will) propagate your ideas to people you don't share much common ground with, but they do? Have you ever seen a freakin' Venn diagram??? Ever heard of networking??? What's the point of all your churches if it isn't to spread ideas? I think you guys would be used to debating the finer points of your faith amongst yourselves.
I'm trying really, really hard to leave my full criticisms of the faithful off the table, and keep everything nice and logical/on topic... but why bother? Over and over you guys make wild accusations, faulty assumptions, and denigrate me personally. I'm tarring and feathering? I'm failing to make any kind of moral reckoning? Please.
Maybe, just maybe, my pragmatism is informed by undeniable experience that the more conservative, the more fundamental a faith's expression gets, the more likely I am to encounter a practitioner who willfully pushes away facts, who willfully ignores and denies things they don't want to be true, fingers in ears, shouting LA LA LA LA LA. If an idea isn't from the church... it's OF THE DEVIL. It's a sin to even listen! You'll get corrupted, led astray from God! I can't count the number of times I've seen someone on the extreme ends of faith say they don't care if something's true or not, they just don't want anything to do with it!
You know... the same sort of faithful that show up holding signs at pride parades claiming I'm going to hell. The same people I was talking about when I first made my request. Folks like those from Westboro. Remember? It was Nullix referring to those guys specifically as not 'true' Christians which prompted me to explain how I see you all as branches of the same tree, and then make a request for Nullix to try harder to convince his peers they're doing it wrong. Wow, who would have thought it? I've had a single coherent point this whole tangent, no matter how hard you guys try to spin away from it!
So. I choose to talk to you... doctors, artists, the computer savvy... people who've indicated they understand the value of learning and being open to new ideas. I guess that makes me a horrible person who's shirking my responsibilities. Right.
Yet here you guys are taking me to task like I'm some indiscriminate firehose of anti-religious hatred, even though I'm leaving out the more hostile impressions I have of you, impressions that shape my choices, and that could help clarify my position. What do they call that again? Irony? I chose to frame it positively in terms of using your common ground and your shared experience as a tool. You've forced me to fall back on the negative: Many of your peers are willfully ignorant and it would be a complete waste of my time... and on top of it I don't even have a foot in the door like you! At least you might have a chance. Not me. I'm OF THE DEVIL.
This tangent speaks volumes about the willingness of religious people to think about themselves critically. Apparently you'd rather get all offended that I'd dare associate you with other Christians (some ugly, like Westboro) or even other followers of the God Of Abraham (some nice, like most Jews & Muslims) and switch the topic to your righteous indignation. Hey, it's been working for you for millennia, why not keep at it?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:26:17 AM · #5080 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Seriously, how does my directly saying that I am dealing with these issues, that I'm taking to you guys because it's more effective than talking to fundamentalists, to get you to talk to your peers because you share a common tradition... how does that get turned into me "not wanting your help at all" or asking you to "stay out of my business"? |
Actually, I got the idea that you didn't want my help from the following statement. If I misinterpreted, feel free to clarify what you meant.
Originally posted by Mousie:
This is precisely why I so urgently request the faithful to clean up your own house before thinking about mine.
Look. I was challenged when I asked the faithful, the supposed experts on faith, to talk to their own about ADHERING TO THAT FAITH. If I had my way, I'd simply tell you all to stop believing a bunch of absurd, ancient mandates of disputed provenance. It is not my place to tell the faithful what the correct interpretation of their faith is.
I made that request, not you guys. You challenged me about it. You can't tell me, now, that the issue is about simply pointing out human hypocrisy. That is called moving the goalposts. You took issue with my request... not some hypothetical situation I did not mention. |
I don't see any moving goalposts. You said that the faithful should fix their own problems. I followed by suggesting that not all of the "faithful" will listen to other "faithful" and that you would have as much success pointing out their errors as I would. Then you mentioned something about the "faithful's collective behavior" and how the faithful wouldn't listen to you anyways. Then I said (or tried to say) that you have just as much of a right to point out a religious person's hypocrisy as I do. All I see is an argument progressing from point A to point B.
Originally posted by Mousie:
But nooooo... now it's about how everyone's one big group! We're all one people! If I won't stand up against hypocrisy, why should you have to? You ask why I'm drawing so many distiiiiicntions between us all and saying different people have different responsibilities? Drawing distinctions is what causes these problems, you say!
This, from the same people who apparently don't even like being lumped into something as broadly encompassing as 'Abrahamic traditions'! What??? WHAT??? "It's really unfortunate that you are putting Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the same category." Why's that so unfortunate, again? It's perfectly reasonable. |
I never said that I shouldn't stand up against hypocrisy in religion. The point that I was trying to make was that if you don't want to stand up to hypocrisy in religion, then why should I stand up to hypocrisy in politics? (Sorry if that wasn't clear). The fact is that I probably care as much about politics as you care about religion. So if you want to stay out of my religious business then why is it wrong for me to stay out of your political business?
Originally posted by Mousie:
Do you realize that you're blatantly playing both sides, here? When it's convenient, we're all one people, when inconvenient, those are the other churches that do bad things! |
It has nothing to do with names, categories, etc. I associate myself with people who believe the same things and practice the same things that I do. If a Baptist believes and practices the same things that I do then I have no problem being associate with them. If a Lutheran believes and practices the same things that I do then I have no problem being associated with them either. And if you find a Jew or a Muslim that believes and practices the same things that I do I'm sure I won't complain if you choose to associate me with them either. But since I've never met a Jew or a Muslim that believes in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the Son of God, I do have a problem being associated with them.
You have a lot of "tradition" in common with Americans who oppose gay rights, so I suppose that means you don't have a problem being associated with them.
Originally posted by Mousie:
A) The tenants of your faith lead to secular harm for homosexuals.
B) Oh no! That's other churches! My church isn't like that! We're harmless!
A) If that's not your 'true' faith, perhaps you should tell the others they're doing it wrong, you're the expert.
B) Stop dividing us into categories! You're as human as us and them! Do it yourself!
|
Newsflash: The tenets of your politics lead to religious harm for the "faithful". Ever think about that? Do you realize that churches split, pastors lose jobs, friendships are destroyed, community services and ministries lose funding, etc.?
Originally posted by Mousie:
So, let's assess the actual situation here:
- I'm working with the faithful to engage them about issues with their faith.
- The faithful are making excuses to avoid doing the same, while dismissing any ties to their peers. |
Once again, I never said that I should not engage other religious people on issues of faith, nor did I make any excuses. If something I said made you think that, then you must have misinterpreted me.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Do any of you (Christian) faithful here honestly believe that you don't share the same historical traditions as the rest of the Abrahamic faiths? |
I do share some historical traditions with Muslims and Jews, yes. Do you realize that Abraham lived 4000 years ago? Japanese Buddhists share the same historical traditions as Korean Buddhists, but Japan and Korea are about as opposed to each other (historically) as Christianity is to Islam. Go tell a Korean that they should deal with Japan's problems and you might get punched in the face.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Do you honestly believe that there's no additional utility/benefit/shorthand/insight available when you share a common background with someone? |
I believe that there is additional benefit/insight available because I share a common background with Muslims and Jews, but that does not mean that I want to work with them on religious issues or that they want to work with me. Going back to the Japan and Korea analogy, do you think that Japanese and Koreans enjoy working together on issues? If they do, it's only because they need to work together against belligerent North Korea and NOT because they like each other.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Do you honestly believe that hearing criticism from someone who professes to share a common background with you would carry no more weight than hearing it from someone who does not? (Let's call it 'peer review' for kicks.) |
What do you think would happen if an African-American went to Somalia or Sudan and criticized them? What do you think would happen if a Japanese person went to Korea and criticized them? Regardless of the shared history, someone would get a beat down.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why is it so unreasonable to take a pragmatic approach, reaching out to the people you share some common ground with, then asking them to (or hoping they will) propagate your ideas to people you don't share much common ground with, but they do? Have you ever seen a freakin' Venn diagram??? Ever heard of networking??? What's the point of all your churches if it isn't to spread ideas? I think you guys would be used to debating the finer points of your faith amongst yourselves. |
Oh, there's the moving goalposts!!! It's not a big deal for Christians to talk with other Christians, but this is not what you were originally arguing. You were arguing that the "faithful" should "clean up their own house", and you clearly stated that you put Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the same category called the "faithful". It is a big deal for Christians to talk about religious issues with Muslims or Jews. It's unreasonable, because other than claiming descent from a 4000 year old dude Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't have much in common.
Originally posted by Mousie:
I'm trying really, really hard to leave my full criticisms of the faithful off the table, and keep everything nice and logical/on topic... but why bother? Over and over you guys make wild accusations, faulty assumptions, and denigrate me personally. I'm tarring and feathering? I'm failing to make any kind of moral reckoning? Please. |
If I personally denigrated you, please explain how so that I don't make the same mistake in the future. I certainly did not intend to do that.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Yet here you guys are taking me to task like I'm some indiscriminate firehose of anti-religious hatred, even though I'm leaving out the more hostile impressions I have of you, impressions that shape my choices, and that could help clarify my position. What do they call that again? Irony? I chose to frame it positively in terms of using your common ground and your shared experience as a tool. You've forced me to fall back on the negative: Many of your peers are willfully ignorant and it would be a complete waste of my time... and on top of it I don't even have a foot in the door like you! At least you might have a chance. Not me. I'm OF THE DEVIL. |
I'm not taking you to task like an "indiscriminate firehose of anti-religious hatred". I'm just debating with you. I thought that's what we do in the rant forum. If I've been out-of-line with my arguments please explain how. All I've been trying to do is suggest that there is less in common amongst the Abrahamic faiths as you think.
Originally posted by Mousie:
This tangent speaks volumes about the willingness of religious people to think about themselves critically. Apparently you'd rather get all offended that I'd dare associate you with other Christians (some ugly, like Westboro) or even other followers of the God Of Abraham (some nice, like most Jews & Muslims) and switch the topic to your righteous indignation. Hey, it's been working for you for millennia, why not keep at it? |
You're a master at stereotyping. Good luck with that!
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 01:46:56. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 07:28:40 PM · #5081 |
This is pretty fantastic and hugely needed in my opinion.
'A north London school which has developed lessons on gay historical figures who suffered persecution claims to have succeeded in "more or less eliminating homophobic bullying" in its classrooms and playgrounds over the last five years.' |
|
|
|
10/28/2010 08:56:28 PM · #5082 |
Yeah, I'm just going to let that one be, johnnyphoto.
I don't really have anywhere constructive to go with this. I'll let my previous explanations stand. If you want to think you don't have more in common with other faithful people on these issues than I do, knock yourself out.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2010 11:32:22 AM · #5083 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
This is pretty fantastic and hugely needed in my opinion.
'A north London school which has developed lessons on gay historical figures who suffered persecution claims to have succeeded in "more or less eliminating homophobic bullying" in its classrooms and playgrounds over the last five years.' |
I was bullied in school. I was called "girly" and "gay" by bullies. I'm neither. If a bully wants to bully you, they'll find a way.
You can try patch this problem with education about homosexuality in grade school, but I'd rather not have my grade schooler learning about sexuality from the government.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2010 12:02:57 PM · #5084 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
This is pretty fantastic and hugely needed in my opinion.
'A north London school which has developed lessons on gay historical figures who suffered persecution claims to have succeeded in "more or less eliminating homophobic bullying" in its classrooms and playgrounds over the last five years.' |
I was bullied in school. I was called "girly" and "gay" by bullies. I'm neither. If a bully wants to bully you, they'll find a way.
You can try patch this problem with education about homosexuality in grade school, but I'd rather not have my grade schooler learning about sexuality from the government. |
Well, it's teaching about the dangers of prejudice isn't it. And i think the education system should teach that, whether that is about slavery or the civil rights movement or the suffragettes etc. The history of prejudice against homosexuals is no different. If we don't educate about the wrongs of the past we tend to repeat them of course. I'm sure you're a good father and teach your kids that bigotry and prejudice, whether it's racism or homophobia or sexism, is stupid and wrong but a lot of parents are not as sensible as you. I also think sex education is a good thing for similar reasons. |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 12:31:28 PM · #5085 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why is it so unreasonable to take a pragmatic approach, reaching out to the people you share some common ground with, then asking them to (or hoping they will) propagate your ideas to people you don't share much common ground with, but they do? Have you ever seen a freakin' Venn diagram??? Ever heard of networking??? What's the point of all your churches if it isn't to spread ideas? I think you guys would be used to debating the finer points of your faith amongst yourselves. |
Imagine three points on a line, equally spaced and quite far apart. Seen from either of the more distant points, the middle point appears to be near the opposite point, while from the middle point both points appear to be equidistant.
At least that is my point of view.
You think I'm with them. They think I'm with you. You are a smart guy, and we don't seem to be able to discuss this subject without creating more heat than light.
Ive tried quoting bible passages to enlighten the fools who hold signs spewing hate in the name of God, trust me, no light is generated there either, but boy does it get heated. |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 01:22:07 PM · #5086 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
This is pretty fantastic and hugely needed in my opinion.
'A north London school which has developed lessons on gay historical figures who suffered persecution claims to have succeeded in "more or less eliminating homophobic bullying" in its classrooms and playgrounds over the last five years.' |
I was bullied in school. I was called "girly" and "gay" by bullies. I'm neither. If a bully wants to bully you, they'll find a way.
You can try patch this problem with education about homosexuality in grade school, but I'd rather not have my grade schooler learning about sexuality from the government. |
So the take home is: "Don't try to fix the problem, because someone will always be a problem" and "Don't turn my kid gay" :D |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 02:11:35 PM · #5087 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
This is pretty fantastic and hugely needed in my opinion.
'A north London school which has developed lessons on gay historical figures who suffered persecution claims to have succeeded in "more or less eliminating homophobic bullying" in its classrooms and playgrounds over the last five years.' |
I was bullied in school. I was called "girly" and "gay" by bullies. I'm neither. If a bully wants to bully you, they'll find a way.
You can try patch this problem with education about homosexuality in grade school, but I'd rather not have my grade schooler learning about sexuality from the government. |
So the take home is: "Don't try to fix the problem, because someone will always be a problem" and "Don't turn my kid gay" :D |
Fix the problem by educating my children to be nice. Of course, morality shouldn't be done by the schools or by the government. Morality should be taught at home.
And don't teach my children sexuality (homo or hetero). That's the parent's job. |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 02:40:59 PM · #5088 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Of course, morality shouldn't be done by the schools or by the government. Morality should be taught at home.
And don't teach my children sexuality (homo or hetero). That's the parent's job. |
Why is it that sexuality and morality are so different than mathematics or spelling? What makes one the province of trained certified professionals, and the other a private issue best not discussed outside the home?
If I chose to keep my child home and educate her only in French, not allowing her to learn English, and not teach her any math, the government would claim that I was harming my child. Why is it that in some subjects all children must be educated, while on other subjects it is a matter of course that their leaning ought to be guided or limited by the parents? |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 02:50:44 PM · #5089 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Of course, morality shouldn't be done by the schools or by the government. Morality should be taught at home.
And don't teach my children sexuality (homo or hetero). That's the parent's job. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive you know. I'd say the ideal is a combination of both with the parents sensibly discussing what has been taught at school. |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 02:51:34 PM · #5090 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Of course, morality shouldn't be done by the schools or by the government. Morality should be taught at home.
And don't teach my children sexuality (homo or hetero). That's the parent's job. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive you know. I'd say the ideal is a combination of both with the parents sensibly discussing what has been taught at school. |
This. |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 04:57:08 PM · #5091 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I'd say the ideal is a combination of both with the parents sensibly discussing what has been taught at school. |
That makes sense if you want your child to have a well rounded education. Unfortunately not all parents want that for their children.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:06:53 PM · #5092 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Why is it that sexuality and morality are so different than mathematics or spelling? |
Math: 1+1=2 (Always)
Spelling: "Spelling" is always spelt, S P E L L I N G.
Morality: Good != Good, Bad != Bad
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
What makes one the province of trained certified professionals, and the other a private issue best not discussed outside the home? |
That's a joke. Have you met some of these "trained certificed professionals" they have as teachers? The ones I've met, I don't want them teaching anything they can get wrong. They can teach math and spelling. Leave the morals to the parents.
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I'd say the ideal is a combination of both with the parents sensibly discussing what has been taught at school. |
Yes, but if you had active parental involvement, I'd imagine you wouldn't have a bully problem in the first place.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:09:11 PM · #5093 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Why is it that sexuality and morality are so different than mathematics or spelling? |
Math: 1+1=2 (Always)
Spelling: "Spelling" is always spelt, S P E L L I N G.
Morality: Good != Good, Bad != Bad
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
What makes one the province of trained certified professionals, and the other a private issue best not discussed outside the home? |
That's a joke. Have you met some of these "trained certificed professionals" they have as teachers? The ones I've met, I don't want them teaching anything they can get wrong. They can teach math and spelling. Leave the morals to the parents.
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I'd say the ideal is a combination of both with the parents sensibly discussing what has been taught at school. |
Yes, but if you had active parental involvement, I'd imagine you wouldn't have a bully problem in the first place. |
Sexuality isn't a "moral". It's a physicality. It isn't philosophical, it's physiological.
Message edited by author 2010-10-29 17:09:48. |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:24:45 PM · #5094 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
That's a joke. Have you met some of these "trained certificed professionals" they have as teachers? The ones I've met, I don't want them teaching anything they can get wrong. They can teach math and spelling. Leave the morals to the parents.
|
Yes I have met teachers, quite a few. I've met parents who home school their children. Skipping over the question of if training makes you better or worse at a given thing, at what age, if ever, would you allow a child of yours to take a course in philosophy? How about comparative religion? Junior High? High school? College? Ever?
Be it biology, history, literature or many many other subjects, most subjects involve more than simple facts.
Is it moral to eat pork?
Is it moral to use the internet on the sabbath?
Is it moral to use force to keep others from doing so? Discuss. (perhaps only at home though) |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:31:22 PM · #5095 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Why is it that sexuality and morality are so different than mathematics or spelling? What makes one the province of trained certified professionals, and the other a private issue best not discussed outside the home? |
That's easy. Math and spelling are objective while morality is subjective and relative. Schools can only address specific aspects of morality (no bullying) because it's generally taboo to tells others how they should live (anti-gay rhetoric is a notable exception). There's also the widely held perception/myth that morality is the domain of religion and therefore off-limits to schools due to the separation of church and state. Such claims are obviously ridiculous: if a child exhibits remarkable manners or misbehaves, even the most fervent observer will invariably praise or blame the parents rather than religion. We each have a basic sense of morality as social animals and also learn right and wrong from our parents and peers, and they in turn did the same... incorporating changes in cultural attitude along the way. It's like language- certain gestures, sounds and expressions are universally understood and we expand upon that inherent knowledge with specific words, dialects and accents. |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:40:39 PM · #5096 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
. It's like language- certain gestures, sounds and expressions are universally understood... |
I can think of several gestures that in North America are considered goods things, but would get me in trouble in several other countries. :O)s
Ray |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:45:40 PM · #5097 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I can think of several gestures that in North America are considered goods things, but would get me in trouble in several other countries. |
Nods head (you understand what that means, right?) ;-) |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:52:48 PM · #5098 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...at what age, if ever, would you allow a child of yours to take a course in philosophy? How about comparative religion? Junior High? High school? College? Ever? |
When he's can make those choices himself. (I don't remember having the option of philosophy in high school tho.)
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Be it biology, history, literature or many many other subjects, most subjects involve more than simple facts.
Is it moral to eat pork?
Is it moral to use the internet on the sabbath?
Is it moral to use force to keep others from doing so? Discuss. (perhaps only at home though)
|
What place do these questions have in a secular class room? How many kids do you know understand what the sabbath is or pork restrictions?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2010 06:37:24 PM · #5099 |
Since we are on the subject of controlling indoctrination, Congressman Ike Skelton on the issue of gays in the military.
Message edited by author 2010-10-29 18:38:43.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2010 07:58:15 AM · #5100 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...at what age, if ever, would you allow a child of yours to take a course in philosophy? How about comparative religion? Junior High? High school? College? Ever? |
When he's can make those choices himself. |
Really...and what is your view relative to religion? Is it the same, or do you get to decide?
I truly am curious.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-10-30 07:58:37. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 09:30:19 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 09:30:19 AM EDT.
|
