Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on December 15, 2009, 12:57:43 PM
-
No, I am not making this up. Here's the drawing:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tauntongazette.com%2Farchive%2Fx1903566028%2Fg1a91903a62c58158a902c5e53f09aaff938378b45be54e.jpg&hash=703adf416d8351a3984be3f8304b6456c6f7c2b9)
A fellow parent asked me the the other day if we are going to send our kids to public school when they hit kindergarten. It didn't take me long to say, "No." Just one more reason...
http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1903566059/Taunton-second-grader-suspended-over-drawing-of-Jesus
aunton —
A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.
The father said he got a call earlier this month from Maxham Elementary School informing him that his son, a second-grade student, had created a violent drawing. The image in question depicted a crucified Jesus with Xs covering his eyes to signify that he had died on the cross. The boy wrote his name above the cross.
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” the incredulous father said.
He requested that his name and his son’s name be withheld from publication to protect the boy.
The student drew the picture shortly after taking a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat site in Attleboro. He made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas, the father said.
“I think what happened is that because he put Xs in the eyes of Jesus, the teacher was alarmed and they told the parents they thought it was violent,” said Toni Saunders, an educational consultant with the Associated Advocacy Center.
Saunders is working with the boy’s parents after a mutual acquaintance referred them to her.
“When I got that call, I was so appalled that I had to do something,” Saunders said.
“They weren’t looking at the fact that this is an 8-year-old child with special needs,” she added. “They made him leave school, and they recommended that a psychiatrist do an evaluation.”
The school, in fact, required the evaluation before the boy could return, the father said.
Maxham School principal Rebecca Couet referred all questions on the matter to the superintendent’s office.
Superintendent Julie Hackett said district policy prevents her from discussing a “confidential matter regarding a student.”
“Generally speaking, we have safety protocols in place,” Hackett said. “If a situation warrants it, we ask for outside safety evaluations if we have particular concerns about a child’s safety. We followed all the protocols in our system.”
Hackett refused to specifically discuss the student’s drawing or the school’s reaction to it.
The father was flabbergasted when he learned his son had to undergo an evaluation.
“When she told me he needed to be psychologically evaluated, I thought she was playing,” he said.
The man said his son, who gets specialized reading and speech instruction at school, has never shown any tendency toward violence.
“He’s never been suspended,” he said. “He’s 8 years old. They overreacted.”
The boy made the drawing and was sent home from school on Dec. 2. He went for the psychological evaluation — at his parents’ expense — the next day and was cleared to return to school the following Monday after the psychological evaluation found nothing to indicate that he posed a threat to himself or others.
The boy, however, was traumatized by the incident, which made going back to school very difficult, the father said. School administrators have approved the father’s request to have the boy transferred to another elementary school in the district.
This is not the first time in recent years that a Taunton student has been sent home over a drawing. In June 2008, a fifth-grade student was suspended from Mulcahey Middle School for a day after creating a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.
The Mulcahey teacher also contacted the police to take out charges in the 2008 incident.
"From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved."
----Niccolò Machiavelli
-
He made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas, the father said.
Well, he drew an Easter picture on Christmas.
At least it had something to do with Jesus.
The boy wrote his name above the cross.
As a child is supposed to do when handing in assignments to their teacher: Put your name on the top of your paper.
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” the incredulous father said.
Dad needs to go back to skrewl. They're not violating his RELIGION, they're violating his FREEDOM of religious expression. I would agree with dad if he actually said that.
The teacher asked for a personalized expression on the meaning of Christmas for the individual students. The teacher got what she asked for. This drawing, while theologically has little to do with Christmas, is appropriately associated with Christmas to an 8 year old who has not yet fully comprehended the faith he is being introduced to.
I hope the district eats crow, pays out $$, and the kid gets to go to a better private school with the proceeds.
-
“Generally speaking, we have safety protocols in place,” Hackett said. “If a situation warrants it, we ask for outside safety evaluations if we have particular concerns about a child’s safety. We followed all the protocols in our system.”
I call satire. Nobody could be that dumb.
-
I wonder if the parent could demand the teacher undergo an evaluation?
-
I call satire. Nobody could be that dumb.
http://www.nea.org/
-
jfruser, I really appreciate the Machiavelli quote at the end. For better or worse, that is the approach I have taken in many aspects of my life. I go in and very early drop on them (school, etc.) that I am a trial attorney and a magistrate judge. Sometimes, it is better to be feared...
-
As fun as it is to call this religious persecution, I'd hazard a guess that it's more "zero tolerance" nonsense. IMHO, it's the same mess as throwing kids in detention or suspending them for bringing a butter knife for their lunch.
-
As fun as it is to call this religious persecution, I'd hazard a guess that it's more "zero tolerance" nonsense. IMHO, it's the same mess as throwing kids in detention or suspending them for bringing a butter knife for their lunch.
Or drawing a picture of a gun at age 8. School administrators are no longer allowed to think for themselves.
-
Or drawing a picture of a gun at age 8. School administrators are no longer allowed to think for themselves.
How can you allow a person to do something they're incapable of doing?
-
Or drawing a picture of a gun at age 8. School administrators are no longer allowed to think for themselves.
Well, it's an effective way to avoid some lawsuits.
-
This drawing, while theologically has little to do with Christmas, is appropriately associated with Christmas to an 8 year old who has not yet fully comprehended the faith he is being introduced to.
Actually - if you believe that way - the kid got it exactly right.
Jesus was born on "Christmas" (not necessarily 12-25) so that He could die on the Cross thirty something years later.
-
so kid went to a christian retreat (what is that? like a camp or a chruch or abby or something) for a christmas thingy, no doubt saw a gazillon and one criucefixes and so when the teacher told them to draw a christmas picture, kid drew what he saw at the retreat christmas thingy.
furthermore, your standard 8 year old is not gonna think to kill themselves on a cross or want to be Cruicified. thats a little more for crazy teens that are too smart for their own good, not very orginal and need to spend sometime in a mental ward.
-
Or drawing a picture of a gun at age 8. School administrators are no longer allowed to think for themselves.
It's the old problem of not having the right tools for the job!!
And, yes, teachers really can be this dumb, undoubtedly.
My favorite: A school board member (I know, not a teacher) was interviewed on TV re: a flap between school and a parent involving a school bus route:"We not want no kid to not ride the bus!" Can't freakin' speak English and is deciding school policy.
Chris: good work! Daughter had a problem w/ a teacher; nothing serious, and of course, MY daughter couldn't be wrong. I appeared for a meeting in suit & tie and knowledge of body language. I'm 6'2". 220 lbs. "Have a seat Mr. FXXXXXXXX." "Thanks, I'm fine." Folded my arms across my chest and stood rather close to the seated little bitxxx. "Oh, no, Mr. FXXXXXX, she's doing fine, she's very bright, etc., etc........."
Yeah, I know; my sentence structure sucks.
There really are some good teachers. Unfortunately, they're in the minority, or even persecuted.
Stay safe.
Bob
-
so kid went to a christian retreat (what is that? like a camp or a chruch or abby or something)
Well, at my current church, we don't have retreats; we have advances! :laugh:
Anyway, retreats I've attended are kind of like church camp, but for adults. Or children/teens. I imagine it's something like a corporate retreat, but probably not as posh, and with religious services and prayer time, rather than whatever it is the business folk do on their retreat thingies.
-
As fun as it is to call this religious persecution, I'd hazard a guess that it's more "zero tolerance" nonsense. IMHO, it's the same mess as throwing kids in detention or suspending them for bringing a butter knife for their lunch.
Yeah. That sort of shrinking violet stuff has gotten into churches, too, I'm afraid. Christianity is, in a sense, a blood-drenched religion. A lot of church-goers don't like to hear about that anymore.
As others have pointed out, drawing the crucifixion indicates that the kid is starting to get a grasp of his (or his family's) religious beliefs, not that he needs mental eval.
-
Results of an overly litigious society.
-
*Sigh*
You know how, every time a nutjob goes on a killing spree, they mention all the "warning signs" that people saw and said nothing about? This is an effort to report everything that could possibly be construed as a warning sign.
Naturally, in classic governmental tradition, they go overboard.
-
Seems to me that the school administrators are showing "warning signs" of being obsessive control freaks. Next time a kid disappears in the area, the cops should drag them in for questioning.
-
Another article on it. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CJTKRO0&show_article=1)
Johnson said the teacher became upset when his son said he drew himself on the cross.
Uh, guys, if an 8 year old is showing signs that he's got himself confused with GOD I think it warrants a psych eval. Sure, it's probably nothing, but if he's really got a Messianic complex it should be nipped in the bud before things jump off the chain.
-
Oh. Didn't notice that before.
HOWEVER. And this is a big HOWEVER, scripture also speaks of the believer being crucified with Christ. Galations 2.20 and 6.14.
-
so kid went to a christian retreat (what is that? like a camp or a chruch or abby or something) for a christmas thingy, no doubt saw a gazillon and one criucefixes and so when the teacher told them to draw a christmas picture, kid drew what he saw at the retreat christmas thingy.
Exactly. If there's one thing you're likely to see at a Christian retreat center, it's a cross .. or three, or four, or ... So they took an 8-year old to this place with crucifixes and told him they were there about Christmas, so then they asked him to draw something that reminded him of Christmas.
Nothing like zapping the poor kid for following the flippin' instructions.
This wasn't a "retreat," folks, this was a retreat center. Specifically, to cite the article, the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette. I'm thinking they had more than a couple of crucifixes at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette.
-
Another article on it. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CJTKRO0&show_article=1)Uh, guys, if an 8 year old is showing signs that he's got himself confused with GOD I think it warrants a psych eval. Sure, it's probably nothing, but if he's really got a Messianic complex it should be nipped in the bud before things jump off the chain.
Then why hasn't our dear leader been evaled yet? :D
-
I'm thinking they had more than a couple of crucifixes at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette.
Good thing he didn't draw any pictures of the Lady of La Sallette. They would have nailed him for being a sex offender.
-
Good thing he didn't draw any pictures of the Lady of La Sallette. They would have nailed him for being a sex offender.
Whiskey.
All.
Over.
Monitor.
/afk =D
-
Dad tells the tauntaun gazette that the school is violating his kid's religion, but tells WBZ-TV that he suspects racism. So, they're violating his religion because he's black?
In the WBZ story that GB posted, it does say that he told the teacher that it was a drawing of himself. I'm not a school teacher, but I understand that they are taught to look out for signs of abuse in young children. Maybe the boy's drawing and verbal communication to the teacher were interpreted as such. Maybe that's what dad is really upset about.
I think they should show some concern about the quality (or apparent lack) of art education at the kid's school.
-
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” the incredulous father said.
Fail. There's no way an 8-year-old kid can possibly have a "religion" to violate.
-
There's no way an 8-year-old kid can possibly have a "religion" to violate.
how many kids you got/raised?
-
He should have drawn a Mastercard.
-
Fail. There's no way an 8-year-old kid can possibly have a "religion" to violate.
I attended parochial school for 8 years.
The nuns who taught me early on, starting with 1st grade, would vehemently disagree with you.
As do I.
-
He should have drawn a Mastercard.
To many people that's more of a religious icon than a crucifix.
-
He should have drawn a Mastercard.
To many people that's more of a religious icon than a crucifix.
Introducing the Mammoncard Platinum...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uncommondescent.com%2Fimages%2FMammon.jpg&hash=d63d8549ccd27200ff389d2e31f152979320b7f3)
"What's in your wallet?"
-
Fail. There's no way an 8-year-old kid can possibly have a "religion" to violate.
How does that work, exactly?
If he were anything other than christian they would swoon over it.
"oooh ahhh, look at the picture of Buddha!! Good job Timmy!"
(Would have used Islam as an example, but I don't think an Islamic child would draw Muhammed)
In the WBZ story that GB posted, it does say that he told the teacher that it was a drawing of himself. I'm not a school teacher, but I understand that they are taught to look out for signs of abuse in young children. Maybe the boy's drawing and verbal communication to the teacher were interpreted as such. Maybe that's what dad is really upset about.
Yes, this could be a case of over-paranoid teachers and not religious persecution.
-
The boy, however, was traumatized by the incident, which made going back to school very difficult, the father said. School administrators have approved the father’s request to have the boy transferred to another elementary school in the district.
I'd sue the school to make them pay for the kid's counseling to get him over what the administrators did to him.
That's the problem with policies like this. With virtually unlimited ability to push expenses on the parents, there's no check on how far administrators can go, what they can demand from parents.
On the father's comments, I could see the 'freedom of' being dropped from either the article, or assumed by the dad. I tend to drop words if I'm not careful. As for the racism, I can see them violating his freedom of religion because of racism.
-
In the WBZ story that GB posted, it does say that he told the teacher that it was a drawing of himself. I'm not a school teacher, but I understand that they are taught to look out for signs of abuse in young children. Maybe the boy's drawing and verbal communication to the teacher were interpreted as such. Maybe that's what dad is really upset about.
i dont' buy dad's accusation of racism nor the possibility that this is the kid drawing himself.
i go back to my earier statment that i dont' think an would 8 YO think to crucifie himself. I think the kid misspoke or the teacher missheard on that one (the 8 YO's i've been around arn't always the most articulate, especially if stressed or hyper)
plus there are a lot of things that kids get confused about when it comes to religion, especially when they confuse the literal meanings with the more estoric meanings (come on, when you were a kid, didn't you ever get a little confused about communion? "we eat jesus? :O " ) and if the kid got confused in a not so good way about his religion, well thats a matter for his pastor and parents, not the school and a psych exam. In which case, yes, the kid could have drawn himself, but not in any way that would indicate he's being abused or wants to hurt himself.
as for dad, well, it sounds like he's milking this particular situation for all its worth.
-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/16/taunton_officials_dispute_reports_on_jesus_sketch/
TAUNTON - City officials sharply disputed yesterday widely distributed reports that a local elementary school suspended a second-grader and required the boy to undergo a psychological evaluation for drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross.
The story, initially reported by the local newspaper, raised questions of religious bias days before Christmas and was broadcast by local television stations and other news media. Making the story more compelling, the boy’s father held court for much of the day at his girlfriend’s apartment, granting interviews to reporters from Providence to Boston, demanding that the school district compensate him for his family’s pain and suffering.
“It hurts me that they did this to my kid,’’ Chester Johnson, the boy’s father, said in an interview with the Globe. “They can’t mess with our religion. They owe us a small lump sum for this.’’
But school officials say that the account in yesterday’s Taunton Daily Gazette was rife with errors and that the father’s description of what happened is untrue.
“The report is totally inaccurate,’’ Julie Hackett, superintendent of the Taunton public schools, said in an interview in her office yesterday. “The inaccuracies in the original media story have resulted in a great deal of criticism and scrutiny of the system that is unwarranted.’’
Dino F. Ciliberti, editor of the Gazette, did not return calls yesterday.
Hackett said the student, age 9, was never suspended and that neither he nor other students at the Maxham Elementary School were asked by the teacher to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas or any religious holiday, as the Gazette and other media reported and the father suggested, although his story changed as he explained it.
She said it was unclear whether the boy, who put his name above a stick figure portrait of Christ on the cross, had drawn the picture in school, which his teacher discovered Dec. 2.
“Religion had nothing to do with this at all, 100 percent nothing to do with it,’’ Hackett said, adding that Taunton is known as “The Christmas City.’’
She said the drawing was seen as a potential cry for help when the student identified himself, rather than Jesus, on the cross, which prompted the teacher to alert the school’s principal and staff psychologist. As a result, the boy underwent a psychological evaluation.
She declined to comment on the results of the evaluation or whether the teacher had reason to believe that the student was crying out for help. The boy’s father showed reporters a report indicating his son was not a threat to himself or others and could return to school.
“In this case, as in any other case involving the well-being of a student, the administration acted in accordance with the School Department’s well-established protocol,’’ she said in a statement. “This protocol is centered upon the student’s care, well-being, and educational success. The protocol includes a review of the student’s records.’’
After reading the account in the local paper, Mayor Charles Crowley of Taunton asked Hackett to apologize to the boy’s parents. But in a telephone interview late yesterday, he said he stands by the superintendent.
“Dr. Hackett has far more of the facts than I do, and now I understand that the report was not accurate,’’ he said. “Based on her account, I stand behind my superintendent. She is in possession of the facts.’’
Officials from the state Department of Children and Families declined to comment on the case because there was no allegation of abuse.
Johnson said his son was suffering as a result of the commotion. He said his grades have declined in recent days and that he wanted him to be transferred to the Elizabeth Pole School, the most recently built in Taunton.
“He said he was uncomfortable,’’ he said. “I also think they should give him a fully paid scholarship to the school of his choice. We should be compensated for our pain and suffering.’’
Johnson acknowledged that his son identified himself on the cross, but he said it was only after he told school officials that his picture represented Jesus.
“He was scared, so he changed his story,’’ Johnson said.
School officials said the newspaper had an ax to grind, citing an opinion piece Ciliberti posted yesterday on the Gazette’s website, in which he called the school’s actions “a shame’’ and argued that the district “turned this into a major story.’’
Hackett said the Gazette published its story without giving the district time to investigate the allegations.
“The approach that is often taken is that an editorial or article in the local newspaper is completely inaccurate, but it gets published before anyone checks the facts,’’ she said.
-
Kid's father sounds like a real winner.
Still, if the new version is the correct one, it still seems like another no-tolerance sky-is-falling reaction.
-
Kid's father sounds like a real winner.
Still, if the new version is the correct one, it still seems like another no-tolerance sky-is-falling reaction.
more like a "HAHAHA!!! finally i can sue someone and live the big life! HAHAHAHA!" reaction. ;/
-
It looks like both of those things. The school over-reacted, and the father saw dollar signs.
-
plus there are a lot of things that kids get confused about when it comes to religion, especially when they confuse the literal meanings with the more estoric meanings (come on, when you were a kid, didn't you ever get a little confused about communion? "we eat jesus? :O " ) and if the kid got confused in a not so good way about his religion,
Heck, I think at 8 years of age I still thought God was an old man with a white beard (you know, the Big Guy whose picture is on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel) who somehow lived in the attic of the church and only came out when other people weren't around.
I KNOW I believed that at 6. Pretty sure I still believed it at 8.
-
Fail. There's no way an 8-year-old kid can possibly have a "religion" to violate.
=|
plus there are a lot of things that kids get confused about when it comes to religion
Adults are often confused by religion, much less little kids. I'm not sure why the school administrators are surprised or alarmed that the poor kid has an apparent misunderstanding about it.
-
Adults are often confused by religion, much less little kids. I'm not sure why the school administrators are surprised or alarmed that the poor kid has an apparent misunderstanding about it.
Because they have none, thus they have no understanding of the concept of "religion" and are either afraid of it or jealous of it.
-
Because they have none, thus they have no understanding of the concept of "religion" and are either afraid of it or jealous of it.
They have a religion called Secular Humanism, and it is a jealous god.
-
alright, can we call it quits on snotty comments about those without a religion?
:police:
thank you
-
What snotty comments? I'm merely observing that A. secular humanism is a religion (ie unprovable worldview about the nature of man, god, origins of life, morality etc etc) and B. it is the only religion allowed to be taught in public schools. It is, in fact, the official state religion as far as .gov schools are concerned. All the hysteria over prayer in schools, posting the 10 Commandments etc and no one seems to care that one and only one religion is allowed to be
indoctrinated taught in public schools.
I'm not saying anything negative about this religion in and of itself, merely pointing out the hypcrisy of it's refusal to self acknowledge as a religion.
-
They have a religion called Secular Humanism, and it is a jealous god.
had i made a similar comment about christianity, there would be hell to pay right now.
-
I don't think so. Christian scripture specifically states that God is a jealous god. Or at least I thought that was in there somewhere.
No one was talking about the non-religious in general. The remarks were directed at school administrators. This is not unlike the misunderstanding and uproar about "atheist scum."
-
i'm gonna stand by my statement and say had this converstation been reversed, thread lock would be imminent.
don't tell me that jelouse god bit wasn't delevered in a completely snarky way.
-
Nothing like arguments about religion to make a thread go south.
-
I'll say it blue.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Again, unless you're a public school official my comment had nothing to do with you. I was merely pointing out that only one religion is allowed to be taught in public schools.
-
I was merely pointing out that only one religion is allowed to be taught in public schools.
Ooh, are we using bold now?
Secular = not religion, not without some fun semantic games.
-
I believe if you consider the definition of a religion, secular humanism fits the bill to a T. A religion is simply a worldview about the larger, unprovable questions: origins, god, morality etc. Not traditionally "religious" != non-religious.
-
I'll say it blue.
Again, unless you're a public school official my comment had nothing to do with you. I was merely pointing out that only one religion is allowed to be taught in public schools.
technically, no religion is taught in public schools. secondly the morals that are taught in classrooms that you decided to call the religion of Secular Humanism, is an american creation and thus based pretty strongly on the AMERICAN judo-christian ideas. seriously, why take issue with it?
furthermore, as someone who doesn't beleive in any orginized religion and would probably be classed right smack dab into the Secular Humanism thing, your comment was offensive and snarky.
i get it, the bible says that the supreme being of the judo christian faith is a jelouse god. Your comment had nothing to do with that.
AND i find it hard to believe that you can't see the hipocrasy of whats going on right now in this thread.
-
I believe if you consider the definition of a religion, secular humanism fits the bill to a T. A religion is simply a worldview about the larger, unprovable questions: origins, god, morality etc. Not traditionally "religious" != non-religious.
I do believe that the above is the fun semantic game to which I was referring.
-
I'm honestly puzzled why you are offended, and I say that in as non-snarky and inquisitive a tone as I can. I'm also puzzled as to what hypocrisy you're referring to.
-
I do believe that the above is the fun semantic game to which I was referring.
How do you define religion? Serious question. Many Eastern religions are atheistic, then there's the polytheistic sects, the Universalists etc etc. Or are you taking more of a "religion is whatever I think it is, 'cause I knows it when I sees it" approach?
-
I'm honestly puzzled why you are offended, and I say that in as non-snarky and inquisitive a tone as I can. I'm also puzzled as to what hypocrisy you're referring to.
honestly puzzled? i think i've read your posts for long enough to know your not that dumb. the original comment you made that started this thing, had nothing to do, in any way, shape or form, with the biblical text that you later quoted, and had everything to do with being a snot about another form of philosophy, that you can't stand.
which is fine. i don't expect you or anyone else to love what someone else beleives, becuase i sure as hell don't love what you beleive. However, did you once see me snark about christianity being at fault in this thread?
yet you seem to have absolutly NO issue in snarking about what someone else may or may not beleive in.
-
My comment wasn't aimed at your beliefs. It was aimed at the public school curriculum. Seriously, I don't care what you believe. Atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Mormon; I really don't care. All I care about (or object to) is the way public schools force one brand of religion down kid's throats, while pretending they are not. So unless you are involved in your local school board, my comment has nothing to do with you.
As for snark about Christianity, how many people have made dismissive "your invisible friend in the sky" comments about it, and there have been no repercussions? Answer: a lot.
-
I'm taking a practical approach that considers the mission of public schools and other public institutions. If you want, you can keep on denigrating that approach because it differs from your own. I don't mind.
The difference is I'm not trying to prove anything, or at least not anything new or novel. You are. A definition developed to make a point is not a good definition in and of itself. It might be the basis for an argument about the worth of the definition, but then you're right back the aforementioned fun semantic games.
Again, useful in some contexts. If you want this thread to be about how all philosophies and approaches to life are equally "religious" and therefore every legal precedent regarding religion in public schools and similar institutions is totally wrong because they don't agree with your definition of "religion" and basically public schools all suck, then I guess we can do that. In fact, I think we already are.
I just think it's kind of silly. =)
ETA: Fergot to bold. I don't know much about effective emphasizing, but ah knows it when ah sees it.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi235.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee212%2Fspetsnazx%2FThread-I_like_where_this_thread_is_.jpg&hash=607000daa0ab0c82e13c9ee2589817952ef7405e)
=(
-
You didn't answer my question. What is your definition of a religion, aside from any questions about schooling or public policy? You seem to assume that there is some standard definition that everyone in the world knows and agrees on; I'd like to hear exactly what you think that definition is.
I actually am asking this as a serious question in an attempt to understand where you're coming from, not in an attempt to "win" a debate or something.
-
You didn't answer my question.
You noticed that, did you?
-
...
Wow, and they accuse me of excessive snark.
I honestly am curious what you think. It makes it difficult to initiate a conversation with someone who insists on filtering every comment through a lense that assumes the worst of intentions, tones, and underlying motives then attacks the person speaking.
-
[Public school administrators] have a religion called Secular Humanism, and it is a jealous god.
Could someone explain how the above is an attack on all non-religious people? ???
As for snark about Christianity, how many people have made dismissive "your invisible friend in the sky" comments about it, and there have been no repercussions? Answer: a lot.
A lot lot.
-
How do you define religion? Serious question. Many Eastern religions are atheistic, then there's the polytheistic sects, the Universalists etc etc. Or are you taking more of a "religion is whatever I think it is, 'cause I knows it when I sees it" approach?
A religion is simply a worldview about the larger, unprovable questions: origins, god, morality etc.
Religion is a social phenomenon designed to give you certainty about those things, when living with uncertainty is unbearable.
"Secular humanists" do not take anything to be absolutely true unless it can be proven in a logical sense. Theories validated by repeatable scientific results are not absolute truths. They are generally accepted, and are assumed to be true for practical purposes, but not for philosophical purposes.
As for snark about Christianity, how many people have made dismissive "your invisible friend in the sky" comments about it, and there have been no repercussions? Answer: a lot.
If I seriously expressed a belief in Enki, would you not be dismissive or consider me the slightest bit loopy? That Mesopotamian pantheon was a religion that a lot of people (relatively speaking) presumably took seriously for a long time.
If Scientology, with Xenu and volcanoes and reincarnation and all that, had been started as a cult during the Roman Empire, do you think it would be broadly considered a cult today? Or would it be accepted as a religion -- a dead or a minor one perhaps, but a religion nevertheless?
If I'm supposed to take your invisible friend in the sky seriously, why is that? Why should I take yours seriously and not the Muslim God, specifically the version who wants muslims to displace (or possibly kill) all Jews and take back Israel? Why yours and not Hinduism or Buddhism, nebulous conglomerations of all sorts of beliefs that can mean almost anything to anyone, to the point where people can't really agree whether some versions of those religions even involve a God?
If your contention is that I should take seriously a lot of mutually exclusive belief systems that all proclaim to be the truth (or at least the path to truth), I don't really know what to say to that.
If instead your contention is that I should take all religions seriously, because they're all social clubs that discuss allegories and are only trying to get at the truth, rather than taking things asserted in the Bible or by the Church as absolute truths, then I'm perfectly willing to go along with that. However, then religious tomes and religious doctrines cease to have special significance, and you have to acknowledge for instance Nietzsche's works as having equal standing. Religions then become glorified book or philosophy clubs that don't stray beyond at most a few specially chosen books. I have not yet encountered someone I'd call "religious" who can stand the implications of this religion-as-an-allegory concept, no matter how much they claim that's how they view religion. It always turns into a "my allegory is better than [random other allegory] because mine says it's better", at which point it's no longer an allegory; their religion has been elevated above all other religions and all other philosophies and myths, for no supportable reason.
-
BW & BSL:
Balog's point is not new.
Balog's point was made by Jean-Jacques Rousseau*, Dewey, Holyoak, Compte*, and many others long before any of us walked the Earth. Most/all of whom are considered hallowed philosophers in public education and Ed Dept circles. Heck, JJR & his bloody philosophical children in the French Revolution did not metaphorically or semantically make a deity out of their SH, they took over churches and altars and such and had worship services for "Reason."
From their perspective, Balog's "criticism" was a feature, not a bug, and a necessary steep for a technocratic future of indoctrinated people to be used as tools by the technocrats who tolerate no deity before their own.
I spent time in the public school system and saw how effective they have been at inculcating their SH while denigrating other beliefs. The 3 R's may not stick, but the public school system has marked sucess with all but the most grounded in their faith. After all, kids are required by law to spend ~8 hrs/day, 5 days/wk, 9+mo/yr for 12+ years subject to SH indoctrination in the public schools. Parents and clergy have a great difficulty competing with the established religion philosophy of the state SH technocrats when the SHs have the public fisc and law to beat folks over the head with.
To get wound around the axle about Balog pointing out the obvious makes as much sense as a Christian getting wound around the axle by a SH pointing out that God's Son had to be murdered for Christianity to exist and that God did not intervene to stop the murder of his Son, despite having the means to do so. It is uncontroversial to anyone who has read the texts of either camp.
* The roots of SH are in continental Europe, not America.
-
JF: It is possible to attach the trappings of religion to a secular society. In the present day, some Jews do it, as well as Unitarians, although quite a few Unitarians are not secular so much as disaffected with their Christian sect of origin. This doesn't mean that secular = religious. It means that some people have attempted to make a point about the validity of the secular.
B: I made the comments I wanted to make. I think it's silly to declare that virtually everything = religion. I think it's silly to dismiss the practical policy concerns of how to ensure public schools conform to the constitution. I think it's really silly of you to somehow decide on your own that I have a duty to engage in debate with you on your terms.
To clarify still further: No, I will not provide a dictionary definition of religion for you so that we can then spend all day arguing about the definitions of the words in the definition, which definition(s) apply, and how the mean secular people are really *exactly* the same as religious fundamentalists. I'm just not going to do it. I made my point. You made fun of it. Fine. Whatever.
I'm still not going to debate with you about the nature of religion. I choose to take the state of constitutional law as I find it.
-
God Reason forbid I should expect someone on a discussion forum to answer questions about their philosophy or engage in debate. How dare I "dictate" to you by asking questions! ;/ I see you still have no interest in being cordial. That's unfortunate, but I tried so your ill manners on not really my concern.
Tyme: I don't ask you to "take my/any beliefs seriously" I ask you to not mock them in front of me. That whole polite society thing, remember? Your little spiel is especially funny given the massive twist you got in your panties over Jfruser's comment that happened to include the word atheist.
-
God Reason forbid I should expect someone on a discussion forum to answer questions about their philosophy or engage in debate. How dare I "dictate" to you by asking questions! ;/ I see you still have no interest in being cordial. That's unfortunate, but I tried so your ill manners on not really my concern.
So, what you are saying is that I have a social duty to provide a definition of religion to you so that you may then demand that I provide further definitions to you so that we can spend a day or so embroiled in a semantic debate, but it is very rude of me to suggest that you are "dictating" to me what I must do?
I see.
Thank you for insulting me in public this time, instead of by sending me a creepy private message inviting me to repent of my "rudeness" by doing exactly what you order me to do.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheftisgood.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F05%2Fsinking_ship.jpg&hash=29dfe12d91949becbe262502bb722b48345422c2)