Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts




Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 150 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:51 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 11381
waffle wrote:
By placing propaganda promoting my religion in a school, I am doing is enshrining my beliefs in a place of prominence in a public forum. I am exerting my control of the space to enforce my views over yours. That's wrong. It's unconstitutional and it is unamerican.


...

I can see three possibilities here. Either this is sarcasm, and I am not recognising it as such. (This is very unlikely, given the general tone). Alternatively, and this is the possibility that I would consider the most probable, I have very, very badly misunderstood you. The third alternative, that it is neither sarcasm and that I have not misunderstood you, is scary; really scary.

If I am understanding you correctly, then what you are saying is that any action or actions, that enforce a view that has not been proven optimal, is wrong. That there is no space for individuality of any sort; whether purple hair dye or Mandela shirts. That wearing, or presenting, any symbol that defines one as a member of any group - except, presumably, one based on strict geography - is heavily frowned on in an American context. That the correct attitude and disposition of any person in your country is a cog in the machine; a mindless drone that does what he is expected to do and no more, and no less.

...I really, really hope that I am misunderstanding you here. Please clarify.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:54 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
According to wikipedia there are 3 theories, where the cross in the swiss flag came from, but all of thoose go back to the christian cross.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:22 am 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 3167
AOL: drachefly
Location: Philadelphia, PA
CCC, taking the context that this is a public space, and that the relevant actors are those in charge of the public space, one might substitute 'the principal and teachers' for Waffle's 'I', and the statement should seem a lot more reasonable.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:43 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
Actually (propably opposed to waffle) i have no problem, with school officials making their own religion, philospohy, ideology or whatever public, as long as it is clear, that this is their private opinion and while they have the office hat on, rules and regulations will take precedence over their private ideology. Doing that is actually a good thing, because if parents know there is a teacher of an ideology they oppose, they can make sure, their kid gets the opposite worldview as well. And it makes sure that someone checks if the teacher is not letting his ideology get in the way of professionalism.

Having the officials wear their symbols, while they refrain from decorating the school with them, is a good way to show that officials understand the difference between their private and their official hat. I see school officials that decorate their schools according to their ideology, as either not understanding the difference between private and official hat, or as considering their ideology to be more important then professionalism. Both is a very bad sign.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:48 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 5215
Location: Awaiting the Waffle Signal
arcosh wrote:
Actually (propably opposed to waffle) i have no problem, with school officials making their own religion, philospohy, ideology or whatever public, as long as it is clear, that this is their private opinion and while they have the office hat on, rules and regulations will take precedence over their private ideology.


I do have a problem with this. I oppose this quite strongly. I do so because it has been abused too often to allow as an innocent expression of belief. Teachers use this loophole to undermine biology classes on a regular basis, throwing qualifiers and maybes on science that is cut and dried. They use this to encourage students to the opinion that the science is somehow unsettled and that the students should seek the teacher out for clarification and instruction on the equally merited alternatives. And when they do so, the teacher begins religious instruction. This happens. Frequently.

Quote:
Having the officials wear their symbols, while they refrain from decorating the school with them, is a good way to show that officials understand the difference between their private and their official hat. I see school officials that decorate their schools according to their ideology, as either not understanding the difference between private and official hat, or as considering their ideology to be more important then professionalism. Both is a very bad sign.


There is so much confusion on this point and so much blatant abuse of authority, such as the one under original discussion, that I do not see this as viable. The privilege has been so abused, I no longer see it as viable.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:55 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 5215
Location: Awaiting the Waffle Signal
CCC wrote:
waffle wrote:
By placing propaganda promoting my religion in a school, I am doing is enshrining my beliefs in a place of prominence in a public forum. I am exerting my control of the space to enforce my views over yours. That's wrong. It's unconstitutional and it is unamerican.

Please clarify.


As an authority figure in a school (principle, teacher, etc), by placing symbols of my faith as decorations for the school, I am exerting my control of the school to place my views in a position of preeminence. Because this is a government institution, one that you, as a student, are required to attend, I am violating your freedom of religion by forcing mine on you.

As the internet wags oft say: Religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one. It's okay to be proud of it. But don't go waving it about in public. And don't shove it down other people's throats without their express permission.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:33 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 11381
drachefly wrote:
CCC, taking the context that this is a public space, and that the relevant actors are those in charge of the public space, one might substitute 'the principal and teachers' for Waffle's 'I', and the statement should seem a lot more reasonable.


Not really, no. All that means is that it is the principal and teachers who seem to be condemned to try to become mindless autonoma, merely standing in front of the class and repeating the approved words. (A task that could more easily be given to a tape recorder, or a VCR).

arcosh wrote:
Actually (propably opposed to waffle) i have no problem, with school officials making their own religion, philospohy, ideology or whatever public, as long as it is clear, that this is their private opinion and while they have the office hat on, rules and regulations will take precedence over their private ideology. Doing that is actually a good thing, because if parents know there is a teacher of an ideology they oppose, they can make sure, their kid gets the opposite worldview as well. And it makes sure that someone checks if the teacher is not letting his ideology get in the way of professionalism.


That's very close to my position, too. Not exactly the same - I have no problem with a teacher who, when rules and regulations conflict with ideology, immedately hands in a resignation letter rather than betray said ideology - but very close.

waffle wrote:
arcosh wrote:
Actually (propably opposed to waffle) i have no problem, with school officials making their own religion, philospohy, ideology or whatever public, as long as it is clear, that this is their private opinion and while they have the office hat on, rules and regulations will take precedence over their private ideology.


I do have a problem with this. I oppose this quite strongly. I do so because it has been abused too often to allow as an innocent expression of belief. Teachers use this loophole to undermine biology classes on a regular basis, throwing qualifiers and maybes on science that is cut and dried. They use this to encourage students to the opinion that the science is somehow unsettled and that the students should seek the teacher out for clarification and instruction on the equally merited alternatives. And when they do so, the teacher begins religious instruction. This happens. Frequently.


I can believe that that sort of abuse happens frequently, and that is a problem. But I don't think that your preferred course of action will do anything to stop it.

The people who do that would, I presume, be doing it to try to push some agenda of their own. Changing the rules won't stop them from pushing their own agenda, it'll merely increase the number of rules that they abuse or outright break in order to do so. (Indeed, is there anything in banning a picture that prevents them from slipping in qualifiers and maybes?)

What it will do is discourage a number of otherwise reasonable and sensible people from taking up a teaching position. Thus, the proportion of unreasonable rule-breakers among the pool of teaching staff might very well increase, not decrease, over time.

To be fair, if the problem's as widespread as all that, then I don't see any way to fix it at all (short of, perhaps, importing vast numbers of teachers from foreign countries).

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:42 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 5215
Location: Awaiting the Waffle Signal
Let's take a practical example. Suppose we have an ideal, monofaith community. Mono has one church, one school and one hundred children attending that school. Every family is a member of the local church and, therefore, every student is a member of the same denomination. Likewise, the principle and the five teachers are all members of the same community and church. However, the school is a public school. That is, it is paid for by property taxes on the community (all of one faith and one denomination), with a little help from the federal government.

The principal decides he is going to place a picture of Jesus on the cross in a prominent location, let's say the school auditorium. Is this a violation of the separation of Church and State, and does it infringe on the religious freedom of any of the students, teachers or faculty, given that all students, teachers and faculty are members of the same church?

I will argue that it does. And since it does, it is unconstitutional. Here is my reasoning.

Jane is twelve years old, a minor and a student at Monoschool. She was baptized into the faith as an infant, has attended church every Sunday of her life and has perfect attendance in the church's bible school. She is, by all accounts, identical to her fellow students and parishioners.

But recently, Jane has begin to have some thoughts. Perhaps she has an interest in being a veterinarian and has been reading up on modern Biology. Perhaps she really enjoys soccer and is wondering why she can never make those Sunday games. Perhaps she was reading reddit for the Twilight discussions and lolcats and wandered into /r/atheism too often. Or perhaps she went the other way and has found the teachings of the Buddha or the wisdom of the Prophet more in line with her beliefs. Or the words, 'an it harm none, do as ye will' ring more true. It does not matter. All that matters is that Jane's thoughts on religion are no longer congruent with the rest of the community.

Being concerned with appearance, she still attends church on the weekends and is still acing bible school. She tolerates her parents' expressions of faith at home, having little choice. And she goes to school where, at a recent assembly, she noticed that the church's image of Jesus was being prominently displayed. Even at school, she cannot escape the influence of the local church. The pressure, both overt and subtle, at school hammer at her wobbly personal views of religion. Conforming is so much easier. Everywhere she turns, the message to conform to the local church is reinforced. There is no escape until she is eighteen and can leave.

Jane's freedom of religion has been violated. Not at church and not at home. Church is theoretically voluntary and the government wisely keeps out of most of what happens there. Likewise, home life is personal and the government only steps in for gross violations of a minor's welfare. The school, however, is different. It is a public school, run with public funds; partially federal, partially local taxes. But as a public school, it must conform with the laws of the United States of America. And one of those is that a person's right to the free expression of religion shall not be violated.

Obviously, the principal's right of free expression has not been violated. He was free to express his religion publicly. Likewise, the rest of the faculty, the teachers and the other students have not had their right of free expression violated. They are members of the same denomination and presumably (and for this argument) have no objection to the display of their religion's icons in the school.

But what of Jane? What of her right of free expression? It was squashed. It was smothered by the actions of the principal and the concordance of the rest of the faculty, teachers and students. Jane's constitutional right to the freedom of her own religious beliefs is being interfered with by the massive pressure placed on her to conform.

Simply put, the only way to uphold EVERYONE'S freedom of religion is to ensure that there are no overt expressions of religion in a public forum. By this, I mean no images of your favorite religious leader in the school, no monument to the ten commandments in the courthouse, and most certainly no Genesis in the science classroom. The government must not appear to favor any religion, any sect or any denomination, so that all may have equal claim.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:20 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 11381
I admit, I was thinking more along the lines of the idea of a principal putting up a picture in his office, or a teacher putting a picture on her desk. Somewhere where it's clearly a personal choice, as opposed to an official school policy (in your example, that line is blurred by the prominent location).

However. The problem that you are attacking in your hypothetical is not the same as the problem that you described earlier. The problem that you described earlier is the problem of a teacher undermining the science that they are supposed to be teaching in order to follow a personal agenda. This is a major problem, and I have presented an argument to the effect that your proposed measure does not solve it, and indeed seems likely to make it worse.

The problem that you are attacking in your well-written hypothetical is, to my reading of it, a minor problem, especially in comparison to the above. If you like, I could answer the hypothetical case that you present more directly; but I'd far rather look at the major problem of non-science being taught as science, because that seems more likely to cause damage in the long run.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:45 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 5215
Location: Awaiting the Waffle Signal
The hypothetical addresses the original article that kicked this off. Our posts crossed each other, I was composing my post while you posted yours. And I just got slammed with a feature change and have to get to work schlepping bits again. I'll see what I can come up with later.

Briefly, though, I'm less worried about reasonable and sensible people from taking up teaching because, by definition, reasonable and sensible people will understand that while on school grounds, they are in a position of authority. Just because the teacher is on the way from the parking lot to class does not mean they walk by a fight in progress and do nothing. Reasonable people will not abuse their authority.

For example, wearing a tasteful cross on a necklace is a simple, quiet and unobtrusive statement of faith and is unlikely to cause an issue. Wearing a tee shirt saying, "Jesus is the only way" is an in your face assertion of personal religious dominance and clearly unacceptable. Most people understand this distinction and can handle it well. Unfortunately, we have a small, extremely vocal and extremely dedicated group attempting to replace education with religious indoctrination. And after twenty years of putting up with garbage, my tolerance for willful ignorance and deceit in the name of one's deluded, egotistical interpretation of religion has worn quite thin.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:09 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
Having a clear dominance by one faction, is indeed a case, where members of that dominant faction need to be especially carefull, not abuse that dominance. If all teachers have the same faith, then if they all express it, it can give the impression that being of that faith is an integral part of being a teacher and that should not happen.

Otherwise i guess it depends if there is a critical mass of professional or unprofessional teachers. I had some very vocal teachers of very different ideologies. And they were all very professional about it, there were clear distinctions between their personal opinions, the subjects they taught and school policy, they had to follow. And they showed respect towards each other. I think my education has greatly profited from that experience. If you have such teachers, you get the best results if you put them on a very long leash only.

If the majority of the teachers is either unwilling or unable to act professionally and it is commonplace, that they try to find some loophole to get around the rules of professional conduct, putting all teachers on a short leash is likely the lesser evil.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:02 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2699
Website: http://kitoba.com
Location: Televising the revolution
Jorodryn wrote:
I am supporting that argument by saying that has to include depictions of pagan or neo-pagan deities. No double standards.


This is a dangerous argument for a believer. Do you really want to equate the image of Jesus with with a picture of --say -- Mercury or Bacchus? Do you really want to say there is no more meaning or power in the former than the latter?

This points to the main reason I agree the picture doesn't belong in the school. American Christianity has reduced Jesus to a brand mascot. People wear their Jesus t-shirts and put religious bumper stickers on their cars, and buy WWJD wristbands and send their kids to schools like this one --but no one ever stops to ask themselves if they're actually following the lessons of Christ. How many Christians can even name the six Christian duties or the Greatest Commandment(s)?

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:01 am 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 3167
AOL: drachefly
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Oh man, Kitoba. That's... I mean, it'd awfully convenient for me to find that 'convincing', but it's certainly from an unanticipated direction.

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:17 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 2825
WLM: [email protected]
Location: Wishing I was not in Kansas anymore
Kit, have you read the book Rapture Ready?

If not, I think you'd find it fascinating...

Top 
   
 
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:32 am 
Offline
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:42 am
Posts: 1959
ICQ: 8854007
Yahoo Messenger: jorodryn
Location: Well since the universe expands infinitely in all directions, The center of the universe.
kitoba wrote:
Jorodryn wrote:
I am supporting that argument by saying that has to include depictions of pagan or neo-pagan deities. No double standards.


This is a dangerous argument for a believer. Do you really want to equate the image of Jesus with with a picture of --say -- Mercury or Bacchus? Do you really want to say there is no more meaning or power in the former than the latter?

This points to the main reason I agree the picture doesn't belong in the school. American Christianity has reduced Jesus to a brand mascot. People wear their Jesus t-shirts and put religious bumper stickers on their cars, and buy WWJD wristbands and send their kids to schools like this one --but no one ever stops to ask themselves if they're actually following the lessons of Christ. How many Christians can even name the six Christian duties or the Greatest Commandment(s)?


That is not what I am saying in the least. I don't pray to a picture, or any other physical representation of my God. Besides like I said earlier I am being intentionally obstinate about this make a point. Because, to me, the reaction I am getting from people here is same that I see atheist or non-christians get when they bring up the removal of religious symbol X from public location Y.

Let's imagine for a minute that I was being 100% serious about this, because I totally believed what I am saying. Why would my argument be any different? The main argument has been that Christianity is an active religion and that Greco-Roman polytheism is a dead religion. However, neo-paganism is on the rise world wide as a belief system. I realize that that term encompasses several unrelated relgious beliefs, but currently the Greco-Roman religion that is out there is lumped in that pool. The response to that has been, that these icons were never intended to be of a religious nature. My argument is that intent doesn't matter because, like it or not, they are a physical interpretation of Greco-Roman deities of the idea they represent. Would it matter if instead of Justitae all we had were the scales? In this case it would matter as much as the difference of having a cross instead of an actual depiction of Christ.

So now we get to the personal attacks. I'm being daft for making such an argument. Why? Because you don't agree with the argument? Because to you it is not legitimate or that big of a deal? I feel the same way when atheists make their arguments. You are an atheist and you don't believe anyway, why is a picture, or monument such a big deal? If your argument is valid then so is mine if I see these items as a subtle support of paganism or neo-paganism religious beliefs.

(the you in this is not pointed at any one person, since I started as direct reply to kitoba I wanted to establish that. I am using you in the same way that radio hosts do.)

Top 
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 150 posts ] 

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: