RubySoho
Winston
College Credit for Creationism Courses Cancelled -- Christians Complain
August 15th 2008 06:18
If you're a private educational institution, then you have a good deal of leeway to teach what you wish. Not being sponsored by government funds means far less government intrusion in your curriculum. Sure, there are still standards that need to be met (literacy and mathematics, for example) but otherwise it's pretty open. This is why some private Christian high schools have "science" courses which promote ideas like young-earth creationism and actively deny evolution. Fine. If people actually want to pay to make themselves dumber, that's OK with me. So, no problem so far. However, it seems that Christian high schools in California that ONLY teach creationism are bent out of shape over the fact that colleges are not accepting those "courses" as valid for biology or history credits. That's right. Conservative Christian schools that deny accepted science are mad that they can't get science credit at an accredited state university. Makes sense.
Before I go further, let's take a closer look at the story. Here are some excerpts from the news article, taken from the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. All bold font is added by me:
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations. " What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."
Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."
But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.
For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.
Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.
There's so many awesomely dumb things in this article to address, I hardly know where to start. Let's begin with the line, ' "It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. ' I would dearly love to hear Ms. Monk elaborate on this statement, because I just can't figure out what paths her mind followed to end up at that conclusion. Ms. Monk, wouldn't it be just as simple to say that CA Christian high schools are attempting to "Christianize" secular universities? As an accredited public university, UC is under an obligation to teach the accepted scientific explanations for things like biology, evolution, geology, cosmology, etc. By trying to have personal faith articles validated as equivalent to scientific research, Jennifer Monk and the AFF are essentially trying to have UC endorse Biblical mythology as being on equal footing with secular science. Unfortunately for this group, classes are generally not based upon the idea that "whatever ideas anyone has are equally valid." A good education teaches what the best data says at the current time, not what certain fringe groups want it to say. Sorry Ms. Monk. I will also say that NO ONE is trying to secularize Christian schools. You're free to teach what you wish. What the UC is doing is exercising their right not to recognize unsubstantiated, uncritical teaching. Big difference.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations. You mean the University of California won't accept my personal belief that invisible flying gnomes paint the sky blue every morning?? What a crock!
Seriously, what do these religious schools expect? They are entitled to their articles of faith, and I will never argue that. However, even the most ardent theist has to admit that their position, however heartfelt, is not tenable in a scientific sense, right? Oh wait, let me highlight an excerpt from the article again: Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that, does it? The world is flat, mankind started off as two naked people in a garden, bats are birds, the sun moved backwards one day, pi equals 3 and dinosaurs were killed in a flood 4500 years ago. Screw off, science.
Let's be clear here. The school is not being anti-Christian. They are being pro-education. A Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Asatru, Zoroastrian, or Wiccan applicant to the school who had an equally unscientific agenda would have the same problem that these Christian students have. It's clear that the university is willing to work with believers, to a certain extent:
"...the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution."
See? That's not unreasonable. The school isn't refusing to acknowledge a religious viewpoint, they are only refusing to allow the sum total of their curriculum to be dismissed out of hand because of personal faith. Their school, their rules, their curriculum. If you object, go to Bob Jones University. Seriously, Christian high schools of California, why are you arguing about this?
At any rate, a hearty "well done!" for Justice Otero and his eminently sensible ruling. There is no malice or hidden agenda within his decision -- his reasons are quite clear. The texts and classes were rejected because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. I realize that there are certain populations within the Christian community that are openly hostile to critical thinking, but I take comfort in the fact that it still carries some weight with the majority of people.
Before I go further, let's take a closer look at the story. Here are some excerpts from the news article, taken from the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. All bold font is added by me:
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations. " What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."
Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."
But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.
For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.
Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.
There's so many awesomely dumb things in this article to address, I hardly know where to start. Let's begin with the line, ' "It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. ' I would dearly love to hear Ms. Monk elaborate on this statement, because I just can't figure out what paths her mind followed to end up at that conclusion. Ms. Monk, wouldn't it be just as simple to say that CA Christian high schools are attempting to "Christianize" secular universities? As an accredited public university, UC is under an obligation to teach the accepted scientific explanations for things like biology, evolution, geology, cosmology, etc. By trying to have personal faith articles validated as equivalent to scientific research, Jennifer Monk and the AFF are essentially trying to have UC endorse Biblical mythology as being on equal footing with secular science. Unfortunately for this group, classes are generally not based upon the idea that "whatever ideas anyone has are equally valid." A good education teaches what the best data says at the current time, not what certain fringe groups want it to say. Sorry Ms. Monk. I will also say that NO ONE is trying to secularize Christian schools. You're free to teach what you wish. What the UC is doing is exercising their right not to recognize unsubstantiated, uncritical teaching. Big difference.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations. You mean the University of California won't accept my personal belief that invisible flying gnomes paint the sky blue every morning?? What a crock!
Seriously, what do these religious schools expect? They are entitled to their articles of faith, and I will never argue that. However, even the most ardent theist has to admit that their position, however heartfelt, is not tenable in a scientific sense, right? Oh wait, let me highlight an excerpt from the article again: Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that, does it? The world is flat, mankind started off as two naked people in a garden, bats are birds, the sun moved backwards one day, pi equals 3 and dinosaurs were killed in a flood 4500 years ago. Screw off, science.
Let's be clear here. The school is not being anti-Christian. They are being pro-education. A Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Asatru, Zoroastrian, or Wiccan applicant to the school who had an equally unscientific agenda would have the same problem that these Christian students have. It's clear that the university is willing to work with believers, to a certain extent:
"...the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution."
See? That's not unreasonable. The school isn't refusing to acknowledge a religious viewpoint, they are only refusing to allow the sum total of their curriculum to be dismissed out of hand because of personal faith. Their school, their rules, their curriculum. If you object, go to Bob Jones University. Seriously, Christian high schools of California, why are you arguing about this?
At any rate, a hearty "well done!" for Justice Otero and his eminently sensible ruling. There is no malice or hidden agenda within his decision -- his reasons are quite clear. The texts and classes were rejected because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. I realize that there are certain populations within the Christian community that are openly hostile to critical thinking, but I take comfort in the fact that it still carries some weight with the majority of people.
| 131 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Summer Minor
Seriously, if they are so certain that the got a good education aren't there other ways to test out of certain subjects? Or just retake the classes that you didn't get credit for in college? I was short a math credit (per the college of my choice) when I went to college and took a class my freshman year on statistics that got me right back where I needed to be. Not a big deal.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
The problem isn't just that the texts and classes these private high schools are using don't meet acceptable scientific standards. The real issue is that these particular Christians are objecting to having to learn about non-Biblical science at all. How do you place incoming freshman if they haven't met any of the accepted curriculum? The issue isn't that they can't retest, it's that they won't.
As I said, it's their choice. They can go to a private Biblical college and get their Masters degree in Nonsense if they want. They just shouldn't expect the rest of the academic world to cater to their non-education.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
i love objective terminology for bible stories!
maybe they could get credits for watching the TV show Supernatural?
Comment by Deanna B
I'm not telling you that will definitely be your experience...just throwing out a what if. Scientists and Christians alike can have their beliefs and what they call proof...but not one of us will see for sure ,if there's a God who created all this,until our final day on Earth.
Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants to find out we were wrong the whole time?
Thanks for letting me exercise my mind.I always look forward to seeing what's in your thought zone!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As for you're 'what if', well.....it's a big 'what if.' What if there is a god, but Christians are wrong and you're standing in front of Vishnu when you die? Have you done everything that Vishnu requires? Doubtful. There's always a 'what if' involved, and the only way to deal with that is to seek out the most likely correct answer. From an academic standpoint, if ALL the scientific research points in a particular direction then that is what should be taught. If someone chooses to think that science just exposes how God did something, fine. But the bottom line of the science stays the same. This alternative tactic of simply denying any science that contradicts the Bible is madness!
Now, as I said, a private school can teach what they want. But public schools that receive government funding and are open to everyone are obligated to teach the most widely accepted and scrutinized theories. Exemptions for religious reasons are simply ridiculous. Why should they get the same credit for not having to learn the same material? Saying "the bible is literally true, end of story" is much, much, much easier than learning in depth about biology, evolution, cosmology, etc.
Thanks for the comment Deanna. I always enjoy reading what you have to say
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Deanna B
I also appreciate that on your blogs we are all respectfully entitled to our own thoughts,opinions and musings.
I wish you a wonderful day and can hardly wait to see what you come up with next!
Cheers!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Always glad to have your input here
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Children are obviously impressionable and rely on adults to make the best choices for them. These children who are told that any evidence which refutes the Bible is wrong are being let down in the worst possible way.
I really don't understand how setting guidelines and basic standards for education is a violation of freedoms.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I don't like taking this position, but I am trying to be logically consistent with myself here. Private schools that do not receive government funding are free to set their own curriculum. In general that works out fine, as most private high schools deliver top-quality educations. I went to a Catholic high school and received a very good education. Most private schools, of whatever stripe, make it their business to deliver competitive college prep course and thus prepare their students for higher ed. Private schools, being smaller and thus having better student:teacher ratios tend to outperform public schools. So, in most cases, there isn't any conflict. But for those institutions that are more ideologically driven and less concerned with giving meaningful, relevant educations, there is nothing on the books to deny them that. Should the government be able to tell parents and students who opt out of public schools what they can be taught? I can't say yes to that in good conscience.
It's a really tough call, and part of me would love science standards to be consistently mandated across public and private schools. However, that does violate certain principles in ways that I can't support.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And honestly, sometimes children need to be saved from their own parents. When it comes to education I have no problem with the law stepping in and overiding the wishes of parents and/or the school. Children deserve to recieve the best education possible. if you deny them that, you are denying them untold opportunities. This post is a perfect example of that. These students think they are getting an education, then bam! Suddenly they can't even get into university because they have essentially been lied to their whole lives.
In many ways, Australia's society is fairly paternalistic- we have many more rules than you do, eg. we are legally obliged to wear seatbelts in cars and helmets when riding bikes. Sometimes these laws are silly and annoying such as our fairly draconian laws regarding drugs, but one thing I am proud of is the high standard of education we provide. No school in Australia would get away with teaching that scientific evidence that contradicts the 'word of God" is wrong. Sure, parents could tell their children that anyway and then it is up to the children to weigh up what their parents tell them against what their school teaches and form their own conclusions. But at least they are getting all the information they require to decide for themselves.
I guess this is one of those instances where we don't see eye to eye, but I don't think it is a tough call at all. Education, to be called thus, must be of a certain standard. Teaching kids that the Bible has all the information we need to know about the world falls far short of that standard and it actually pains me to know that there are kids out there who are being taught this, without ever being offered up the alternative.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Okay, this is one aspect of Libertarianism I just don't get. Why? Why can private enterprise do whatever they see fit when what they are doing is detrimental to other people?
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Btw, thanks to both you and Ruby, this is turning into a very interesting discussion for me!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I see your point, I really do, but putting government standards into religious, privately-funded schools means re-writing the rules for Church/state separation. If we don't want religious groups intruding into secular rights, then the same principle must be followed in reverse as well.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I'm sorry, but I just can't get my head around this. Once again, it may be a nationality thing. Coming from a country where the government is quite strict about what can and cannot be taught at school, to me it seems not only lax but downright negligent to allow this.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
To sum up my basic position, beyond the scope of the post, I feel that while many religious beliefs are harmful and misguided, it is better to attempt to educate those beliefs out of people than it is to rip them away. Sending the government in to dictate curriculum to these privately funded schools will only solidify the idea that they are "persecuted" and further isolate this particular bloc of people. It will end up having a negative impact, despite the good intentions.
I think it may very well be a nationality thing, honestly. I'm pretty sure neither one of us is going to totally come to the other's way of thinking on this. Which is fine, life would be boring if we all agreed on every single little thing
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I'm just going to have to chalk this up to one of the big differences between Australia and America. We just expect certain things to be taught at school and certain things to be taught at home. But on a final note, I will say I find it disconcerting when such things are given legitimacy by being accepted as "science courses". One thing that frustrates me when I interact with Americans is the way some seem to think that just repeating something over and over makes it true. I could never see where that attitude was coming from, but now I am beginning to understand. Religion has screwed up your society good and proper.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
a school age child must attend the school that the parents choose, so whilst a private institute is free to run whatever bogus courses it wants (if it doesnt want government funding or national accreditation) it still begs the question: should the parents be free to enrol their children in such a course at the expense of a proper education?
as a parent you have a duty of care, and the state (well at least in Australia) is responisible for enforcing that every child has access to a basic level of education
if your child was in a regular public school and they were absent from every science class from ages 6-18 the parents would have to explain the lack of attendance and the child would not be able to pass the compulsary exams that allow them to progress with study
i think creationism is a problem if it takes the place of regular science, the child is disadvantaged, and it is no different to neglectful parents not clothing or washing or feeding their kids
it seems like creationism would be better suited to and extra-curricular or elective subject, or perhaps a weekend hobby like team sports . . . imagine saying i want to keep my kid out of math class and send them to basketball lessons instead
does the state have the right to intervene in bad parenting if it encroaches on to a minor's right to education?
does a child really have the capacity to make an "educated" choice about where and what they want to learn?
i noticed quite alot of religious folk shouting "age of consent" when it came to pre-pubescent children appearing topless in artistic photographs, yet when it comes to education (and hence ignorance) those same people think a child can make a choice to consent to the parent's religion
i think the state should regulate what constitues a basic level of education and hold parents to their duty of providing access to that information
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Morgan and Ruby -- Man you guys are tough! OK, the only people accepting that junk as science classes are the very small sliver of the population who hold such hardcore views. Even many fundamentalists aren't entirely opposed to learning science that disagrees in any way with the Bible. They probably won't agree with it, but they'll study it. Besides, the UC and other colleges have made it very, very clear that they do not accept it. The main point here, that we can all happily agree on, is that the courts upheld the rights of secular educational institutions not to be forced to change admission standards based on religious beliefs. Hooray!
Morgan, you raise great points, as have Ruby and Jeff. I can't really fault your approach to this, as I'm on the same page as you in what I would prefer to see taught to all children. However, the way the U.S. government is set up, this really becomes a church/state issue. While the state rightfully can intervene in religious matters such as the ones Jeff mentioned above, wherein people suffer real, physical harm or death due to religious practice, they are prohibited from interfering with religious practice in general. Until someone can present a strong enough case in court that shows that the exclusive teaching of creationism constitutes irreparable harm to minors, then it can't (and shouldn't) be changed. There is currently no legal standing to do so.
"it is no different to neglectful parents not clothing or washing or feeding their kids"
See, that's where I have disagree slightly. While I personally find omitting the teaching of actual science to children reprehensible, I also concede that it is wholly possible for a person to have a decent job and live a healthy life without understanding evolution or cosmology. Inadequate food or clothing are demonstrably, tangibly harmful situations. Poor understanding of science is not in the same category. As it stands, there are millions of people in America who do attend public schools and have an absolutely abysmal understanding of science, either from a poor education or from having the science beaten out of them by religion anyway. The level of basic scientific literacy is this country is appalling. So, I'm not really ready to declare these kids disadvantaged, when I doubt they are much more scientifically illiterate than millions of their secularly educated peers.
It's not really comfortable for me to defend these people in any capacity, as I'm thrilled that they lost their court case and I despise their stance on this issue. But, I can't approach this issue the way I think it should be, I have to approach it the way it is. And the way it is is as I've discussed. It would be much simpler and more gratifying for me to agree with you guys on this point and call for science standards across the board. Unfortunately I can't in this situation. I'm just thankful that it's such a relatively minute portion of the population that we're discussing here.
Please, go easy on me!
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
go easy?
too tough?
i would be interested to know how much science the creationism replaces in these private christian schools . . . is it only the chapter on evolution?
let me give you an engineering perspective . . .
it is actually really important to understand how rock and soil types are formed (sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic etc) when doing calculations and designs for the foundations of buildings . . . with geology you really need to have some scope of the age of the earth and the magnitude of time it takes to form rock to be able to plot the layers on land surveys . . . if the geotech report is wrong the building fails and the occupants are endangered
i dont think parents have a right to limit their kids career choices by failing to educate them . . . teaching kids that the earth is only 5000 years old with either prevent them from being engineers or produce some very incompetant engineers
i also think it is a health and safety issue not to understand anatomy, reproduction, basic chemical reactions (fire, acids, poisons), and the laws of physics (parting the sea, walking on water) . . . dont get me started on sex ed
in my opinion it is critical that kids should understand that plagues are caused by inadequate sanitation and imbalances in the ecosystem - not gods wrath
your responsibility as a parent is not just to feed, accomodate and clean their young, it is to teach them how to do these things for themselves . . . give a kid a bath and theyre clean for a day but teach them how to install a gravity based sewer system and they will avoid the bubonic plague forever
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
If you take the line from the textbook at its word, then anyplace where science and the Bible differ, the Bible wins. That would impact, well........everything, I guess. Cosmology, geology, biology, physics, math (remember, in the Bible pi = 3), at the least. I don't know of any passages interfering with chemistry off the top of my head, although there may be some. So maybe these kids can be chemists?
Now, that's if you take the passage at its word. I tend to think that, despite what the book says, they focus on evolution and possibly a little cosmology, and let the rest of science alone. No one I have ever heard about is objecting to kids learning that the earth revolves around the sun, although that is obviously at odds with the Bible. Even fundamentalist mathematicians and engineers have to learn that pi = 3.14159265etc and so forth, despite what the Bible says As far as I know, chemistry and physics are taught pretty much as is, although I'm sure they're given a "god is awesome" slant. So we're really primarily talking about biology here. Essentially, this is another facet in the conflict between creationism and evolution.
So, in light of that, I stand by my premise. The worst outcome seems to be that these kids won't go on to become evolutionary biologists.
I don't know enough about geology or engineering to give any meaningful feedback on your analogy, but what you said makes sense. So perhaps certain fields of engineering MIGHT evade them as well. (I would have to see some stats on that before I would subscribe to that idea, however).
your responsibility as a parent is not just to feed, accomodate and clean their young, it is to teach them how to do these things for themselves . . . give a kid a bath and theyre clean for a day but teach them how to install a gravity based sewer system and they will avoid the bubonic plague forever
That is a wonderful summation, and I really enjoy the way you phrased it. You're wearing me down, that's for sure! But, to me, this argument over what can be taught in private high schools is still almost entirely irrelevant. This is because a) I still think it is a church/state issue, and thus the government has no legal recourse at the current time and b) this is a teeny tiny microcosm of the problem. As I said there are millions upon millions of public school educated Americans who are every bit as ignorant of how science works as these CA high school students. The problem isn't a few private religious schools. The problem is a general failure in our entire educational system, coupled with widespread, pervasive ignorance caused by adherence to dogmatic religious teachings. Changing the rules (and potentially causing severe political and legal fallout) over a handful of schools will accomplish essentially nothing in the scheme of things. To me, this is a matter of knowing when to pick your battles, and this is not the one to pick.
And yes Morgan, you are tough in your own exceedingly pleasant and polite way!
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
ahh tenacious!
i need to put that on my "words we dont say nearly enough" list!
im just prodding you because i enjoy your responses, i think it is admirable that you can remain objective towards something you seem to find quite vile . . . perhaps this is an even harder argument for you than saying child rapists dont deserve the death penalty?
i think children are always the grey area of a persons right to individual freedoms, my opinion is that once you agree to be a parent you are actually in part an agent of the state
this is possibly an idea that americans would reject, but Australia is more socialist with a strong focus on welfare . . . when you have a child you are signing a social contract to hold their interests paramount . . . if you are having difficulty the government offers assistance
when i was at school even PE (phys ed) was compulsary, and the state regulates what can be sold in the canteen (cafeteria) . . . health and fitness of children is a concern for the whole community and the responsibility is not entrusted solely to the parents, it is the role of the government to ensure no child is left behind
just for the record i dont agree with home-schooling either unless it is physically impossible to access a regular school (ie remote locations, lack of public transport, severe medical problems) because there is a social aspect to school which is essential to personal development
i dont know what these christian schools are actually teaching but i dont think they have the right to excempt any part of the syllabus from their programs . . . add to the syllabus sure, but dont subtract
i just hope they are teaching them that oxygen fuels fire, and how rain clouds form, and what makes babies, and how drugs affect the body, and that you cant really live in the belly of a whale or turn water in wine
you moderate the conversation very well, no wonder we all act so politely!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But I agree totally. Teaching kids that life begins at conception, that science is wrong, that the bible is the definitive word of god etc, not only breeds a black and white attitude, it is damaging to the intellectual progress of the country. No wonder you guys have people going around calling Obama a Communist Muslim with a penchant for killing live babies. It appears that ignorance is being encouraged at an educational level. That's scary. And it's only going to keep holding you back in the long run.
It's starting to make sense to me now. Why does Obama have a page on his website dedicated to "fighting the smears" when McCain does not? Is it because conservatives know that they can say anything they want and get away with it? After all, they are allowed to teach that to their kids.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
i was watching a documentary about how the USA tried to deport John Lennon for opposing Nixon and the war, and John and Yoko declared themselves ambassadors of the land-less state of Newtopia . . . i should live there!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I wave the white flag of truce! I'm out of responses on this one, and while I agree with all of you in principle, I obviously have a couple of differences in how I view it in practice. I will say that I have enjoyed this conversation quite a bit (especially since I was a bit surprised by it. It isn't the one that I actually intended, as it is tangential to my post but not actually the same topic). I think a lot of good points were made, and it has given me some food for thought. I may expound upon some of what we discussed here in a later post, so thanks for the prodding (Morgan!)
Btw Morgan, to me, this is how most blog discussions should go. We're all friends here, even if we have some disagreement on this topic. I've never found that people consider a point more seriously after being insulted or maligned. Then again, there are folks on Orble who make much more of an impact than I do using that approach, so what do I know?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
you are a very wise man!
any blogs where i am insulted or spoken down to i make a conscious effort to avoid returning to . . . i only really get in the mood for discussing when i feel like im being listened to . . . ive put more thought and effort into writing comments here than i do on most of my posts! haha
i guess it depends whether you want to attract return visitors or whether you just want to be gawked at like a freak-show novelty?
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Nah, I wouldn't say that. At best it's nice to know that getting my degree in Communication has a couple practical applications, like being able to get a point across and having dialogs with people without resorting to acting like an asshole.