No, it's made the choice that people can't use public school class time to read the bible to young impressionable kids. No one says he can't believe in Jesus.
allow them to read bible to young impressionable kids, and make them read koran, the tibetan book of death, bhagavad-gita etc as well. read only of the bible (which version by the way?), and read of the others as well or discriminate the young impressionable kids that were impressed by siddhartha or mohammed.
or just don't read anything religiously "impressioning" to hte impressionable young kids.
Up here in Canada, there's was a court case where religious parents who wanted to restrict local schools from using materials that teach about gay lifestyles to kindergarten kids.
Would your position mean that the parents have that right if they prefer to raise their kids "without such influences?"
If the secular ideal is a forum of ideas, then religious ideas should get equal time. It is clear to me, that a level of blatant anti-christianity, a form of censure and discrimination is taking place. I think students should be free to initiate prayer, meditation and to read and interpret their holy books in a forum of ideas.
By and large, students are free to do so.
Quote:
What educators and education administrators are telling us when they do not allow this exchange of ideas is that they have no concept of being able to manage it in a fair way and so they would rather not, period.
Is that not the correct posture in American gov't, that the gov't cannot be trusted to juggle all religions and therefore should not be in the business of religious ideas?
Just because the gov't foots the bill doesn't mean we should automatically equivocate in the form "public school equals government/state."
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state. Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
To me, a mandate to teach aswell as a duty to foster the growth of students within their culture means that you have to learn about what they practice and make a safe environment for them to do it, and work HARD to maintain care and flexibility as communities grow and change, so that what you present also grows and changes.
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
Agendas never disappear, by trying harder to include religion it makes it harder for anti-whomever agandas to hide behind a pretence of seperation of church and state, one whose application in the case of schools is weak to begin with.
I will tell you what I find funny about the whole thing. Some say as BR did that people should not make an impression upon 5 year olds per say concerning Jesus. So it could be said at a certain threshold (age) or maturity level it is ok for religious expression. I believe that is what BR said and of course I am paraphrasing.
Well I do not believe society is mature enough at any age in many cases to allow for religious expression. Look no farther than here at AO where Groverat feels he has to lock threads that pertain to religious expression. I would be willing to bet there are no 5 year olds here but. Then I also have to wonder sometimes when religious tollerance is so thin.
Must be all the punishment of all things religious back in grade school that make the admin and mods such as groverat knee jerk to lock a thread as they do.
One has to wonder the origins of this idea that it is ok to shut out religious expression.
Just because the gov't foots the bill doesn't mean we should automatically equivocate in the form "public school equals government/state."
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state. Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
To me, a mandate to teach aswell as a duty to foster the growth of students within their culture means that you have to learn about what they practice and make a safe environment for them to do it, and work HARD to maintain care and flexibility as communities grow and change, so that what you present also grows and changes.
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
Agendas never disappear, by trying harder to include religion it makes it harder for anti-whomever agandas to hide behind a pretence of seperation of church and state, one whose application in the case of schools is weak to begin with.
I could not agree more with this post. It often times boils down to who is the head moderator in the organization and what their personal views are. If they are mature they would allow for pluralistic expression. If they are inclined to be a control freak and a dictator they will express their sick sense of power over the masses to quiet free thought and expression.
I will tell you what I find funny about the whole thing. Some say as BR did that people should not make an impression upon 5 year olds per say concerning Jesus. So it could be said at a certain threshold (age) or maturity level it is ok for religious expression. I believe that is what BR said and of course I am paraphrasing.
Well I do not believe society is mature enough at any age in many cases to allow for religious expression. Look no farther than here at AO where Groverat feels he has to lock threads that pertain to religious expression. I would be willing to bet there are no 5 year olds here but. Then I also have to wonder sometimes when religious tollerance is so thin.
Must be all the punishment of all things religious back in grade school that make the admin and mods such as groverat knee jerk to lock a thread as they do.
One has to wonder the origins of this idea that it is ok to shut out religious expression.
Often the religious tollerance in the foras gets thin, when the religion is imported to EVERY THREAD and every argument. Talk about it once or twice and it's ok, but talking ONLY about it gives the impression of a naïve person. As some people NEVER want to change their opinions or religion, it is just likely to get to flaming, and you know it, you are not _that_ naïve.
Sometimes the lockage of your threads seems a bit premature, of course you rarely bring anything to the argument and seldom help your case with your somewhat infantile reading of Christianity, it seems like your ready to go door to door with some of the creationist nonesense you preach, though if your willing to admit that the world wasn't created in 6 days, then I suppose you're making progress!
Sometimes the lockage of your threads seems a bit premature, of course you rarely bring anything to the argument and seldom help your case with your somewhat infantile reading of Christianity, it seems like your ready to go door to door with some of the creationist nonesense you preach, though if your willing to admit that the world wasn't created in 6 days, then I suppose you're making progress!
I simply believe in allowing pluralistic expression. You can call me any name in the book if you like. I stand by my principles.
religious leaders have a hard time doling out the good word without offending someone, one man's meat is another man's misery.
i don't think letting teachers into the fray wouldn't do any good at all.
if my kid was being taught any kind of religious doctrine (or in fact being given a general understanding of various religions) in a public school i'd pull him out so fast it'd make your head spin.
if i'm not present it ain't happening.
teach them to read then let them find the answers for themselves.
How do children read? Literally. How have you read, untill now, the creation story? Literally, hence childishly in the face of overwhelming evidence that suggests your readings are flawed. The last thread of yours, though, is interesting for its willingness to adapt to the facts, as we know them, and knowledge. Still looking for codes, yes for hidden allegories, which is a nice step along the way to reading properly, but a child's manouver.
I think this is a difference between us, you read the bible and think it is diminished and discredited when strict literality fails, and when the obvious limitations of a human medium -- a book by the finite contemplating the devine -- cannot inform you about more than a faint impression of the devine, you get defensive. I see truths in religion, but like all man's doings I do not see them as perfect or complete and do not want to pretend that god can be so easily understood in an all too convenient way.
Sometimes the lockage of your threads seems a bit premature, of course you rarely bring anything to the argument and seldom help your case with your somewhat infantile reading of Christianity, it seems like your ready to go door to door with some of the creationist nonesense you preach, though if your willing to admit that the world wasn't created in 6 days, then I suppose you're making progress!
This is where the problems arise, because instead of just saying you disgree with him, you flatout say he is wrong, and unless he changes his view, there is no progress... but.. what if he isnt wrong? you may not beleive it, who knows, but the problem is, if you shut someone down for what they beleive, then you are no better than if they or someone else does it to you(but you(or whoever) will still complain about it.
Just because the gov't foots the bill doesn't mean we should automatically equivocate in the form "public school equals government/state."
Public schools are under the pervue of the government umbrella. It is supported by taxes. Agendas are supported by elected officials. It is mandated that children have an education; at least as I recall, it is illegal for kids to be hanging about during school time outside of some school related purpose.
Finally, teacher-led school prayer was banned using this equivocation.
Quote:
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state.
They don't have a mandate to only teach what the state and gov't should practice. By and large, schools educate students on mostly educational fundamentals. The sociological part is left to them sort out, sort of. The schools however are proscribed from certain behavior and the students should understand why that is.
Quote:
Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
This secular "ideal" is how the USA has operated since its existence. We've merely argued over how porous the line of separation is. If you mean that comparative religious studies should be offered in school, I have no problem with that. I'm all for better education. Others may, but I think it is a good idea. It is a progressive idea, one that we all should support the schools to do. By the way, schools aren't banned from doing this.
Quote:
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
A personal crucifix, no problem. Any personal religious symbol, no problem. But one sponsored by the state, probably not.
Quote:
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
It's been a long time since I've been in school, so what is done during Kwanza? Or the myriad of heritage weeks or months?
Just because the gov't foots the bill doesn't mean we should automatically equivocate in the form "public school equals government/state."
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state. Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
To me, a mandate to teach aswell as a duty to foster the growth of students within their culture means that you have to learn about what they practice and make a safe environment for them to do it, and work HARD to maintain care and flexibility as communities grow and change, so that what you present also grows and changes.
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
Agendas never disappear, by trying harder to include religion it makes it harder for anti-whomever agandas to hide behind a pretence of seperation of church and state, one whose application in the case of schools is weak to begin with.
A) It's Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa is not a revisionist holiday at all. it does not compete with or replace Christmas. Learn about the stuff you post on.
I can guarantee that if other religions put thier imagery all over a school, evangelical Chrisians (and certain adherants of Islam) would have cows. Trust me, some of the most benign symbolism in Ifa would cause a rush of parents to the principals office. And the followers of Ifa, in it's various forms are far more numerous than one would think. Most of them under the giuse of other religions.
This is where the problems arise, because instead of just saying you disgree with him, you flatout say he is wrong, and unless he changes his view, there is no progress... but.. what if he isnt wrong? you may not beleive it, who knows, but the problem is, if you shut someone down for what they beleive, then you are no better than if they or someone else does it to you(but you(or whoever) will still complain about it.
I just want to thank you for this post. I am about to go out the door and do some yard work but I caught this. I just want to say thanks. I try to always disagree with others here at AI by saying statements such as: " I respect your views but I simply disagree" I believe mature people can discuss and be respectful with differences.
There are a number of reasons why schools and the state are NOT the same thing even when "schools" are funded by the state, there are even far reaching historical precedents (into the 1970's in Canada) about the autonomy of even publicly funded schools (in the case I'm thinking of, I'm think of Universities) but rest assured there is a substantial difference.
I'll skip them for now and hope to get back to them in another post, but for the sake of brevity.
The porousness you describe is an excellent characterization of the division, only I would modify "how porous" to " how selectively porous" it can be at times.
A child who uses his education to produce a religious product has as much right as a child who uses his education to produce something of secular value. For one, because a religious expression has an inherent secular value to begin with. Just because he paints a cross does not free him from critical examination, he can still fail to meet the requirements of the assignment. This is not a teacher or principal advocating a religion or teaching a method of observance, this is a student using his right of expression and education to advance his own development. IF other students or teachers have a problem with that, then THEY THEMSELVES have a problem, because while they have a constitutional freedon OF religion, they have no SUCH freedom FROM religion as it emenates from a student who is clearly NOT an officer of the state, but a ward, and not covered by any conceivable restriction placed on officers.
Which is why public schools should make room for religious content as students deliver it, the students do not serve the public, they are served by the public and entitled to equal time for even unpopular speech (which this might be).
A) It's Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa is not a revisionist holiday at all. it does not compete with or replace Christmas. Learn about the stuff you post on.
I can guarantee that if other religions put thier imagery all over a school, evangelical Chrisians (and certain adherants of Islam) would have cows. Trust me, some of the most benign symbolism in Ifa would cause a rush of parents to the principals office. And the followers of Ifa, in it's various forms are far more numerous than one would think. Most of them under the giuse of other religions.
Yes it is completely revisionistic, and b, if the Christians and Muslims want to get stupid I have no problem laying the smack down on them either.
Trace the line of it's celebration? Based, yes, on Swahili ceremonies, but basically invented by Maulana Karenga for the benefit of dissafected African-Americans, it's links to Africa are a sham, it is a purely American invention marketed as an African celebration. It is revisionistic in it's implication that it is itself a long tradition of African importance, when clearly real "Africans" could give a shit. That's like me inventing a holiday and saying that it's been practiced for years.
They're hardly the only guilty ones, the Jehova's witnesses like to revise history at will, aswell. Though they began their shennanigans in the early 20th century they've grown fond of appropriating noteable figures that died long before anyone got that particularly idiotic idea in their head.
I don't mind Quanza, just pointing out that if schools make room for it, and they do, then they ought to make room for something of considerably greater history and cultural importance too.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
No, it's made the choice that people can't use public school class time to read the bible to young impressionable kids. No one says he can't believe in Jesus.
allow them to read bible to young impressionable kids, and make them read koran, the tibetan book of death, bhagavad-gita etc as well. read only of the bible (which version by the way?), and read of the others as well or discriminate the young impressionable kids that were impressed by siddhartha or mohammed.
or just don't read anything religiously "impressioning" to hte impressionable young kids.
Originally posted by Frank777
BR,
Up here in Canada, there's was a court case where religious parents who wanted to restrict local schools from using materials that teach about gay lifestyles to kindergarten kids.
Would your position mean that the parents have that right if they prefer to raise their kids "without such influences?"
that's sad.
Originally posted by Giaguara
that's sad.
miau.
Originally posted by Matsu
If the secular ideal is a forum of ideas, then religious ideas should get equal time. It is clear to me, that a level of blatant anti-christianity, a form of censure and discrimination is taking place. I think students should be free to initiate prayer, meditation and to read and interpret their holy books in a forum of ideas.
By and large, students are free to do so.
What educators and education administrators are telling us when they do not allow this exchange of ideas is that they have no concept of being able to manage it in a fair way and so they would rather not, period.
Is that not the correct posture in American gov't, that the gov't cannot be trusted to juggle all religions and therefore should not be in the business of religious ideas?
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state. Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
To me, a mandate to teach aswell as a duty to foster the growth of students within their culture means that you have to learn about what they practice and make a safe environment for them to do it, and work HARD to maintain care and flexibility as communities grow and change, so that what you present also grows and changes.
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
Agendas never disappear, by trying harder to include religion it makes it harder for anti-whomever agandas to hide behind a pretence of seperation of church and state, one whose application in the case of schools is weak to begin with.
Well I do not believe society is mature enough at any age in many cases to allow for religious expression. Look no farther than here at AO where Groverat feels he has to lock threads that pertain to religious expression. I would be willing to bet there are no 5 year olds here but. Then I also have to wonder sometimes when religious tollerance is so thin.
Must be all the punishment of all things religious back in grade school that make the admin and mods such as groverat knee jerk to lock a thread as they do.
One has to wonder the origins of this idea that it is ok to shut out religious expression.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Matsu
Just because the gov't foots the bill doesn't mean we should automatically equivocate in the form "public school equals government/state."
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state. Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
To me, a mandate to teach aswell as a duty to foster the growth of students within their culture means that you have to learn about what they practice and make a safe environment for them to do it, and work HARD to maintain care and flexibility as communities grow and change, so that what you present also grows and changes.
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
Agendas never disappear, by trying harder to include religion it makes it harder for anti-whomever agandas to hide behind a pretence of seperation of church and state, one whose application in the case of schools is weak to begin with.
I could not agree more with this post. It often times boils down to who is the head moderator in the organization and what their personal views are. If they are mature they would allow for pluralistic expression. If they are inclined to be a control freak and a dictator they will express their sick sense of power over the masses to quiet free thought and expression.
That is sick.
Fellowship
I will tell you what I find funny about the whole thing. Some say as BR did that people should not make an impression upon 5 year olds per say concerning Jesus. So it could be said at a certain threshold (age) or maturity level it is ok for religious expression. I believe that is what BR said and of course I am paraphrasing.
Well I do not believe society is mature enough at any age in many cases to allow for religious expression. Look no farther than here at AO where Groverat feels he has to lock threads that pertain to religious expression. I would be willing to bet there are no 5 year olds here but. Then I also have to wonder sometimes when religious tollerance is so thin.
Must be all the punishment of all things religious back in grade school that make the admin and mods such as groverat knee jerk to lock a thread as they do.
One has to wonder the origins of this idea that it is ok to shut out religious expression.
Often the religious tollerance in the foras gets thin, when the religion is imported to EVERY THREAD and every argument. Talk about it once or twice and it's ok, but talking ONLY about it gives the impression of a naïve person. As some people NEVER want to change their opinions or religion, it is just likely to get to flaming, and you know it, you are not _that_ naïve.
Originally posted by Matsu
Sometimes the lockage of your threads seems a bit premature, of course you rarely bring anything to the argument and seldom help your case with your somewhat infantile reading of Christianity, it seems like your ready to go door to door with some of the creationist nonesense you preach, though if your willing to admit that the world wasn't created in 6 days, then I suppose you're making progress!
I simply believe in allowing pluralistic expression. You can call me any name in the book if you like. I stand by my principles.
Fellowship
i don't think letting teachers into the fray wouldn't do any good at all.
if my kid was being taught any kind of religious doctrine (or in fact being given a general understanding of various religions) in a public school i'd pull him out so fast it'd make your head spin.
if i'm not present it ain't happening.
teach them to read then let them find the answers for themselves.
I think this is a difference between us, you read the bible and think it is diminished and discredited when strict literality fails, and when the obvious limitations of a human medium -- a book by the finite contemplating the devine -- cannot inform you about more than a faint impression of the devine, you get defensive. I see truths in religion, but like all man's doings I do not see them as perfect or complete and do not want to pretend that god can be so easily understood in an all too convenient way.
Originally posted by Matsu
Sometimes the lockage of your threads seems a bit premature, of course you rarely bring anything to the argument and seldom help your case with your somewhat infantile reading of Christianity, it seems like your ready to go door to door with some of the creationist nonesense you preach, though if your willing to admit that the world wasn't created in 6 days, then I suppose you're making progress!
This is where the problems arise, because instead of just saying you disgree with him, you flatout say he is wrong, and unless he changes his view, there is no progress... but.. what if he isnt wrong? you may not beleive it, who knows, but the problem is, if you shut someone down for what they beleive, then you are no better than if they or someone else does it to you(but you(or whoever) will still complain about it.
Originally posted by Matsu
Just because the gov't foots the bill doesn't mean we should automatically equivocate in the form "public school equals government/state."
Public schools are under the pervue of the government umbrella. It is supported by taxes. Agendas are supported by elected officials. It is mandated that children have an education; at least as I recall, it is illegal for kids to be hanging about during school time outside of some school related purpose.
Finally, teacher-led school prayer was banned using this equivocation.
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state.
They don't have a mandate to only teach what the state and gov't should practice. By and large, schools educate students on mostly educational fundamentals. The sociological part is left to them sort out, sort of. The schools however are proscribed from certain behavior and the students should understand why that is.
Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
This secular "ideal" is how the USA has operated since its existence. We've merely argued over how porous the line of separation is. If you mean that comparative religious studies should be offered in school, I have no problem with that. I'm all for better education. Others may, but I think it is a good idea. It is a progressive idea, one that we all should support the schools to do. By the way, schools aren't banned from doing this.
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
A personal crucifix, no problem. Any personal religious symbol, no problem. But one sponsored by the state, probably not.
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
It's been a long time since I've been in school, so what is done during Kwanza? Or the myriad of heritage weeks or months?
Originally posted by Matsu
Just because the gov't foots the bill doesn't mean we should automatically equivocate in the form "public school equals government/state."
Schools are in the education business, not the policy or enforcement business. They have a mandate to teach, not enforce or rule. If they have a mandate to teach only what the state/government should practice, they become mere agents of the state. Your secular ideal is quite vulnerable to being merely a pawn of the state. For me they should teach as completely and responsibly as they can, that involves the predominant beliefs/practices of the people, major traditions, new (topical) developments and dissenting voices. This is the information, not a mandate.
To me, a mandate to teach aswell as a duty to foster the growth of students within their culture means that you have to learn about what they practice and make a safe environment for them to do it, and work HARD to maintain care and flexibility as communities grow and change, so that what you present also grows and changes.
A crucifix should not offend anyone any more than anyone else's religious symbols, and students have a right to present those ideas to their peers for equal consideration, and not be shouted down for being, oddly enough, popular, as much as they should not be shouted down for being unpopular.
I find exceedingly odd that public schools censure Christmas pageants while promoting revisionist BS holidays like Quanza, or is the esteem of Black children specifically more important than that of Christian children?
Agendas never disappear, by trying harder to include religion it makes it harder for anti-whomever agandas to hide behind a pretence of seperation of church and state, one whose application in the case of schools is weak to begin with.
A) It's Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa is not a revisionist holiday at all. it does not compete with or replace Christmas. Learn about the stuff you post on.
Originally posted by The General
This is where the problems arise, because instead of just saying you disgree with him, you flatout say he is wrong, and unless he changes his view, there is no progress... but.. what if he isnt wrong? you may not beleive it, who knows, but the problem is, if you shut someone down for what they beleive, then you are no better than if they or someone else does it to you(but you(or whoever) will still complain about it.
I just want to thank you for this post. I am about to go out the door and do some yard work but I caught this. I just want to say thanks. I try to always disagree with others here at AI by saying statements such as: " I respect your views but I simply disagree" I believe mature people can discuss and be respectful with differences.
Thanks again General
Fellowship
I'll skip them for now and hope to get back to them in another post, but for the sake of brevity.
The porousness you describe is an excellent characterization of the division, only I would modify "how porous" to " how selectively porous" it can be at times.
A child who uses his education to produce a religious product has as much right as a child who uses his education to produce something of secular value. For one, because a religious expression has an inherent secular value to begin with. Just because he paints a cross does not free him from critical examination, he can still fail to meet the requirements of the assignment. This is not a teacher or principal advocating a religion or teaching a method of observance, this is a student using his right of expression and education to advance his own development. IF other students or teachers have a problem with that, then THEY THEMSELVES have a problem, because while they have a constitutional freedon OF religion, they have no SUCH freedom FROM religion as it emenates from a student who is clearly NOT an officer of the state, but a ward, and not covered by any conceivable restriction placed on officers.
Which is why public schools should make room for religious content as students deliver it, the students do not serve the public, they are served by the public and entitled to equal time for even unpopular speech (which this might be).
Originally posted by Sondjata
A) It's Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa is not a revisionist holiday at all. it does not compete with or replace Christmas. Learn about the stuff you post on.
Yes it is completely revisionistic, and b, if the Christians and Muslims want to get stupid I have no problem laying the smack down on them either.
Originally posted by Matsu
Yes it is completely revisionistic, and b, if the Christians and Muslims want to get stupid I have no problem laying the smack down on them either.
Kwanzaa is not revsionist at all. Where are you getting this idea from?
They're hardly the only guilty ones, the Jehova's witnesses like to revise history at will, aswell. Though they began their shennanigans in the early 20th century they've grown fond of appropriating noteable figures that died long before anyone got that particularly idiotic idea in their head.
I don't mind Quanza, just pointing out that if schools make room for it, and they do, then they ought to make room for something of considerably greater history and cultural importance too.