|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 6, 2011 12:22:15 GMT -5
I think Art was merely mentioning his own experience, not trying to make any kind of point. Mentioning your feelings or experiences = making a point. That's why discussing contraception is endorsing teenage sexuality, or using the word "homosexual" endorses the gay lifestyle!
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 6, 2011 12:33:58 GMT -5
I think Art was merely mentioning his own experience, not trying to make any kind of point. Mentioning your feelings or experiences = making a point. That's why discussing contraception is endorsing teenage sexuality, or using the word "homosexual" endorses the gay lifestyle! Lack of context makes stealth sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 6, 2011 12:36:06 GMT -5
*Sunglasses*
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 6, 2011 12:57:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Aug 6, 2011 14:19:36 GMT -5
Schedule the jesusey nonsense for first thing in the morning and let the kids that opt out arrive at school later. I, for one, would much rather have an extra hour in bed than sit through some bronze age nonsense dictated by a runny-brained theist. I second this proposition. That, or its opposite, placing Bullshit 101 at the ass-end of the day so the kids who don't wanna be put through that crap can go home early.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 15:05:38 GMT -5
Trauma's not the issue. Exclusion and wasting valuable time is. "Exclusion"? You think athiest kids who WANTED to stay would not be allowed to? As for wasting valuable time, unless things have changed markedly in the interim, when I was at a public school, such events happened about once a semester. I'd say sports afternoons were a far more significant waste of "valuable time". Cutting class and driving my carless friends to Maccas probably even more so.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 6, 2011 15:16:06 GMT -5
"Exclusion" in the sense that they're giving preference to a single religion, without catering to the rest.
If sports afternoons are a waste of time, wouldn't it make more sense to limit those, rather than waste even more time with religious classes?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 15:20:57 GMT -5
"Exclusion" in the sense that they're giving preference to a single religion, without catering to the rest. Except... I don't think thats actually the case. IIRC any religious group that has blue carded representatives is allowed to participate. Its not a case of Christians and only and all others fuck off. ETA: If we were to find that it WAS only Christian groups, or certain kinds of Christian groups, invited to participate, yes, then we'd have a problem. Frankly I would be quite happy if sport was dropped from secondary school curicula, but I'm in something of a minority. I actually think that teaching kids about religion, various kinds, from the mouths of the actual practitioners, rather than second hand strawman versions would probably be generally beneficial to kids.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 15:22:55 GMT -5
I think Art was merely mentioning his own experience, not trying to make any kind of point. Mentioning your feelings or experiences = making a point. That's why discussing contraception is endorsing teenage sexuality, or using the word "homosexual" endorses the gay lifestyle! AWW YEAH, I'ma get to knock down a strawman with my face on it! Take that, strangely literal interpretation of what I said and the resulting responses! YEAH! Amaranth--New FSTDT hobby?
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 15:27:12 GMT -5
Dammit, even that will probably be taken the wrong way...
Ah well.
Should probably expect that even with this statement.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 15:32:48 GMT -5
"Exclusion" in the sense that they're giving preference to a single religion, without catering to the rest. Are they? While the article says "mostly taught" by evangelicals, that doesn't seem by active design and therefore not inherently preference. Personally, I think the bigger problem is that it's being taught at all...Or, more specifically, that if it's being taught at all, the concept seems to be opt-out instead of opt-in.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 6, 2011 16:05:54 GMT -5
While it's not by design, the end result of teaching religious courses in schools lends itself to de facto sectarianism, being that the majority religion is likely to dominate the classes. As such, the image of preferential treatment -- even if it's not intentional -- can foster feelings of exclusion amongst those who don't conform to the majority.
Ultimately, it comes down to the same problem: It should either be opt-in, or not taught at all.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Aug 6, 2011 18:54:51 GMT -5
Studies shows that it does foster feelings of exclusion which then leads the minority groups to want to emulate what the majority group has. That's why I consider this as indoctrination.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 19:18:44 GMT -5
While it's not by design, the end result of teaching religious courses in schools lends itself to de facto sectarianism, being that the majority religion is likely to dominate the classes. As such, the image of preferential treatment -- even if it's not intentional -- can foster feelings of exclusion amongst those who don't conform to the majority. Ultimately, it comes down to the same problem: It should either be opt-in, or not taught at all. And I definitely agree with the end result. I'm only a little bothered by religion being taught in school if it's optional. It does worry me, in part because it is likely to be a very one-sided debate. It just worries me more when they do stuff like "talk about religion in science class because a bunch of fuckheads aren't sure whether the earth is flat." Or "make the default option that everyone is taught about religion."
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Aug 6, 2011 20:13:49 GMT -5
If you want to learn about Jesus you have all day Sunday.
|
|