Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
like i get that it's fine to chose your faith or not choose one but to enforse your personal beliefs onto a child in a education system such as school... yeahi have enough of that at my first high school to know it's wrong
The problem is though that parents tend to force it on their kids as well. It's usually not out of malice and in their minds they don't view it as "forcing" but..it is forcing. Not only that, they pay money for it. Public school is free, but doesn't teach religion. Catholic schools teach religion, cost money, etc. They won't just ask for tuition either, but for donations to the church as well.
I'll never have kids, but if by some miracle I did I'd keep them away from religion until they were older. Then they could make a conscious decision whether or not to follow it.
I also think some people just underestimate what this can do to a person. I am not suggesting mental trauma, but kids are quite moldable when younger and just don't know any better about certain things and I don't think they can comprehend spirituality in the way an adult can. It becomes less about what they believe and more about what they are told. Your religion and beliefs can shape the type of person you are and for me choosing that for someone is almost like having a kid and then deciding right then and there what profession he will be in...instead of letting him decide. himself.
I just can't help wondering this about all religions: if we made it so somehow parents couldn't expose religion to their children and made it so each individual needs to make up their own mind on what to believe..would the number of religious people still be as high as it is?
Originally posted by Surtur
The problem is though that parents tend to force it on their kids as well. It's usually not out of malice and in their minds they don't view it as "forcing" but..it is forcing.I'll never have kids, but if by some miracle I did I'd keep them away from religion until they were older. Then they could make a conscious decision whether or not to follow it.
I also think some people just underestimate what this can do to a person. I am not suggesting mental trauma, but kids are quite moldable when younger and just don't know any better about certain things and I don't think they can comprehend spirituality in the way an adult can. It becomes less about what they believe and more about what they are told. Your religion and beliefs can shape the type of person you are and for me choosing that for someone is almost like having a kid and then deciding right then and there what profession he will be in...instead of letting him decide. himself.
I just can't help wondering this about all religions: if we made it so somehow parents couldn't expose religion to their children and made it so each individual needs to make up their own mind on what to believe..would the number of religious people still be as high as it is?
Originally posted by Surtur
I'll never have kids, but if by some miracle I did I'd keep them away from religion until they were older. Then they could make a conscious decision whether or not to follow it.I just can't help wondering this about all religions: if we made it so somehow parents couldn't expose religion to their children and made it so each individual needs to make up their own mind on what to believe..would the number of religious people still be as high as it is?
Well, this could be an argument also made for gender roles, national identity or general interest in participating in any kind of community. Heck, if you don't teach working values early enough maybe they'd be incapable of working at all.
Originally posted by DigiThis thread made me want to ask you a question. If we believe that something is a fact and believe that there is evidence that proves our belief as factual repeatedly can't we end up in situations where two opposing ideas are both identified as "facts"? For example the guy who regularly sees a ghost will always believe that the statement "Ghosts exist." is a fact, especially if skeptics tell him that they see it too, consistently. On the other hand the one skeptic that doesn't see it is sincere when he says the statement "Ghosts don't exist." is the fact.
Dumb teacher. Non-story, though. No one gives a sh*t when we say "Under God, indivisible" every day in the pledge of allegiance, which itself was shoehorned in during the last century. I'm atheist and couldn't give half a crap about it. Belief is intrinsic, as Surtur mentioned. This only serves as fuel for Christians with a martyr complex, who see evil trying to bring them down at every turn despite living in one of the most doggedly Christians nations on the planet.
I wonder if we can find a way to classify some things as "not up for discussion" in public school. Like someone pointed out, opening up cans of worms seems fruitless especially in an environment that is intended to be free of adults indoctrinating children into their personal beliefs about "facts" when concerning spirits. It seems obvious that teachers on either side are using their positions to push what they believe indirectly. The public school teacher that makes the student answer that, "God is real.", is a fact would be guilty of the same violation of that separation of church and state thing that is more important now than it has been in the past.
Originally posted by The MISTER
It seems obvious that teachers on either side are using their positions to push what they believe indirectly. The public school teacher that makes the student answer that, "God is real.", is a fact would be guilty of the same violation of that separation of church and state thing that is more important now than it has been in the past.
It's intrinsically unfair to give a grade on a test that will punish children depending on their religious backgrounds, but it's fair game to use an example based in a very wide element of society to explain what is a Social fact.
You do need to tackle how the separation of religion and society works during your tenure in public education. Only a theocracy would downright condemn such action.
Originally posted by red g jacks
if kids were taught by a teacher that god is real, atheists would whine that the 1st amendment was being violated. this sort of thing must apply both ways, if we intend to be intellectually honest. public schools have no business teaching kids that god is a myth.
There is a stretch between calling something a myth and noting is not factual truth (as in based in facts, proof). Schools are supposed to teach what constitutes conventional proof. Intellectual honesty is not assuming an argument is bias because it adresses points in which sensibilities might differ.
Originally posted by red g jacks
if kids were taught by a teacher that god is real, atheists would whine that the 1st amendment was being violated. this sort of thing must apply both ways, if we intend to be intellectually honest. public schools have no business teaching kids that god is a myth.
I completely agree with that, however this is not what happened in this case. The word myth was not used by the teacher.
Originally posted by Astner
How do you now that? The teacher might well have explained "commonplace assertion" as myth. Either way, belief of any kind does not belong in the classroom; and the teacher was stupid for using it as an example.
Yeah, I agree it was a bad move to use this as an example. But the spin that the OP is putting on it isn't justified.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But the spin that the OP is putting on it isn't justified.
What do you think the point of the test was anyway? To teach the children to differentiate between objective and subjective claims? That couldn't be the case since the objective claims were separated into "commonplace assertions," and "fact;" which is stupid. How the f*ck are the kids supposed to know if "Michael Jordan has a career average of 30.4 points per game," is a commonplace assertion or a fact?
The fact that it escalated the way it did also goes to show that the teacher had no respect for the children's faith.
Originally posted by Astner
Actually it is. Look at the test. The second question is "God is real," right under "cheetahs are the fastest land-dwelling animal."What do you think the point of the test was anyway? To teach the children to differentiate between objective and subjective claims? That couldn't be the case since the objective claims were separated into "commonplace assertions," and "fact;" which is stupid. How the f*ck are the kids supposed to know if "Michael Jordan has a career average of 30.4 points per game," is a commonplace assertion or a fact?
The fact that it escalated the way it did also goes to show that the teacher had no respect for the children's faith.
While I appreciate you summarising the issue again, we are not in disagreement regarding that. My claim is that the spin that the 7th graders were forced to say that God is not real, is incorrect.
Obviously you agree with my assertion, you just wish there to be disagreement that doesn't exist. The teacher made a mistake, the teacher showed disregard for deeply held beliefs, the teacher did NOT force children to say God is not real.
Originally posted by Astner
Actually it is. Look at the test. The second question is "God is real," right under "cheetahs are the fastest land-dwelling animal."What do you think the point of the test was anyway? To teach the children to differentiate between objective and subjective claims? That couldn't be the case since the objective claims were separated into "commonplace assertions," and "fact;" which is stupid. How the f*ck are the kids supposed to know if "Michael Jordan has a career average of 30.4 points per game," is a commonplace assertion or a fact?
The person taking the test does not need to be able to answer the question, he needs to be able to evaluate the question. That is the entire point of the exercise.
Is the career average of Michael Jordan something we can objectively measure? Yes. Then it is a fact.
Is the existence of God something we can objectively measure? No. Then it is a commonplace assertion.
Originally posted by Astner
The fact that it escalated the way it did also goes to show that the teacher had no respect for the children's faith.
No, the fact it escalated the way it did shows how insecure the student and her parents are in their religious beliefs that they cannot even be asked to objectively classify an abstract statement as part of a critical thinking exercise.
Anything less than total government endorsement of their religious beliefs is considered hostility. It is pathetic.
Originally posted by Badabing
Rob, Bashar, Ayelewis, Star, TI, Adam: Stop the nonsense or you all get a week off. That means stop trolling, bashing, flaming and get on topic. And not just in this thread. Anybody who argues, replies, complains, or tries to justify their actions by replying to me will get a temp ban.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The person taking the test does not need to be able to answer the question, he needs to be able to evaluate the question. That is the entire point of the exercise.Is the career average of Michael Jordan something we can objectively measure? Yes. Then it is a fact.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, the fact it escalated the way it did shows how insecure the student and her parents are in their religious beliefs that they cannot even be asked to objectively classify an abstract statement as part of a critical thinking exercise.
As I explained, the point of the exercise was to provoke the students. Hopefully the teacher was fired and blacklisted from any educational environment, because people like that should not be allowed to teach.