|
Post by canadian mojo on Aug 7, 2011 11:56:59 GMT -5
"Read between the lines" huh? If it was a simple 'religions of the world' history/philosophy class that included atheism in its course material, there would be no need to include opt out clauses would there?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 7, 2011 12:42:30 GMT -5
Did you not have free periods at school? Of course we did. However, they were based upon the number of credits one had and whether or not they needed to take extra courses to catch up, not an opt-out religious class. I don't really see why you'd oppose making the courses opt-in when it would benefit both groups of students. It eliminates the feelings of exclusion, and devotes more time to learning. Regardless of whether or not you feel that the current set-up is negative, what's wrong with improving upon it?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 7, 2011 17:07:57 GMT -5
Yes. Because I've been exposed to the arguments & the history of the religion, but I'm not in a position to revise them to suit my needs. It's not hard to say, "X believes Y." Especially when I have direct quotes & such. Fundies? They won't own up to either of those. That's why they have even less business teaching than I do.
Again, this is not a free period. This is a period specifically designed to proselytize. Free periods are designed so that you can go visit staff for help, do other school work, & they certainly don't come from you opting out of another class because said class is Happy Jesus Song Time Hour.
Even if you CAN and DO do these things, just because YOU, the student, is responsible, it doesn't excuse the irresponsibility of the ADULTS. If a teacher doesn't show up for his or her class & I study for a math final, it's not a "free period," it's me making the best of a bad situation.
|
|
|
Post by maanantai on Aug 7, 2011 17:08:09 GMT -5
In many European countries, teaching of religion is an option. Only in Slovakia and Poland is it compulsary, with Poland gradually getting more secular and slowly prospering as a result. If you want religion taught - go to an intercoursing church! Unfortunately in Poland, the church virtually runs one of the national TV stations (TVP2) and to watch that crap on a Sunday is brainwashing to the nth degree. Well, it's not always optional in other countries either (for example Finland), if you happen to be member of the state church or other recocnized religious group. And yes, basically you are a member (of the state churc at least) if your mother was/is member and you haven't resigned, which you can't do on your own before you turn 18... If you're lucky and your not going to "evangelic-lutheran" or eastern-orthodox" lessons (or new-comer religions like islam, catholism, sikh and so on) you basicly have "ethics" which can be great or really suck if your teacher in that happens to be a fundie. From my experience, it is easier to get good grades on religious studies rather that ethics, because you don't need to have your own opinions on the matters (not even on the 9th grade when we went through world religions [with a non-theistic home ec teacher x) ] and made huge presentations about your choise of religion) and keep explaining them on the exams. Oh how I hated those non-stopping discussions about ethics of eating chickens (or other animals) or is there really any point to have family if you don't have religion that makes it kinda mandatory... n
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 7, 2011 17:17:05 GMT -5
That...what?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 7, 2011 18:03:05 GMT -5
Yes. Because I've been exposed to the arguments & the history of the religion, but I'm not in a position to revise them to suit my needs. It's not hard to say, "X believes Y." Especially when I have direct quotes & such. Fundies? They won't own up to either of those. That's why they have even less business teaching than I do. Again, this is not a free period. This is a period specifically designed to proselytize. Free periods are designed so that you can go visit staff for help, do other school work, & they certainly don't come from you opting out of another class because said class is Happy Jesus Song Time Hour. Even if you CAN and DO do these things, just because YOU, the student, is responsible, it doesn't excuse the irresponsibility of the ADULTS. If a teacher doesn't show up for his or her class & I study for a math final, it's not a "free period," it's me making the best of a bad situation. I'm... kinda having trouble with the assumption that we are talking about proselytising fundies here .
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Aug 7, 2011 18:41:04 GMT -5
I'm not as alarmed as some of the posters in this thread, LHM, but I don't see anything in here that would prevent abuse.
Also, the problem with it being opt-out is similar to that with the school prayer. An early compromise suggested was allowing non-religious children (or children from other religions) to simply sit quietly while the rest of the class prayed. The end result, in many places, was that the children were now identified as non-Christian, and faced a degree of ostracism and bullying.
There's also the problem that children don't typically have the reasoning skills to think critically when evangelized to, especially if it's presented as what all their friends believe.
Again, I'm with you in thinking that the basic idea of meeting people from various religious groups, getting an idea of what they're about, and seeing what they're like isn't bad. I just think there needs to be more oversight on this. As described, it seems open to abuse, as the comment from the Access Ministries people show.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Aug 7, 2011 18:46:15 GMT -5
We had the same thing with RE when I was at school. It was non-denominational but christian. Me, the muslim girl and the jewish boy all got to go outside and play, much to the envy of the rest of the class. That is until grade 7 when my parents thought it would be a good idea for me to go to RE as prep for high school.
I repeat by sitting it out we weren't ostracised but simply envied. Eventually a couple of other kids convinced their parents to sit out as well it was like an hour extra play a week.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 7, 2011 18:48:38 GMT -5
I'm not as alarmed as some of the posters in this thread, LHM, but I don't see anything in here that would prevent abuse. Also, the problem with it being opt-out is similar to that with the school prayer. An early compromise suggested was allowing non-religious children (or children from other religions) to simply sit quietly while the rest of the class prayed. The end result, in many places, was that the children were now identified as non-Christian, and faced a degree of ostracism and bullying. There's also the problem that children don't typically have the reasoning skills to think critically when evangelized to, especially if it's presented as what all their friends believe. Again, I'm with you in thinking that the basic idea of meeting people from various religious groups, getting an idea of what they're about, and seeing what they're like isn't bad. I just think there needs to be more oversight on this. As described, it seems open to abuse, as the comment from the Access Ministries people show. It might be an Australian thing, but, generally speaking, identifying one's self as non-Christian or Christian of another denomination rarely leads to bullying here. Frankly, I would be very much surprised if the average Aussie kid, given the choice between religious education or doing his own thing, didn't opt out on spec, whether Christian, athiest or Zoroastrian.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 7, 2011 18:50:52 GMT -5
We had the same thing with RE when I was at school. It was non-denominational but christian. Me, the muslim girl and the jewish boy all got to go outside and play, much to the envy of the rest of the class. That is until grade 7 when my parents thought it would be a good idea for me to go to RE as prep for high school. I repeat by sitting it out we weren't ostracised but simply envied. Eventually a couple of other kids convinced their parents to sit out as well it was like an hour extra play a week. Thats sort of what I imagine woud happen.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 7, 2011 19:00:34 GMT -5
It would vary, depending on where you are.
As someone said earlier, "Don't just read between the lines, read the lines already!" We've got unqualified church volunteers from an organization that says, specifically, they want to "bring kids to God."
There's nothing more to prove to you. They're preaching. This is not proper academic study.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Aug 7, 2011 20:36:32 GMT -5
I've had teachers like that, actually. Uni lecturers too. I dunno... I think what you're talking about here goes to the question of just "objective" any teacher can be on an issue that is dear to them. Do you think you, as an athiest (you are an athiest, right?) could teach a class on religion without your beliefs influencing the discussion? ETA: I think the answer to sectarian slanted teachers is to expose kids to as many different viewpoints as possible, and do it in a constructive learning framework, rather than try to censor what views kids are exposed to. There is a huge difference between a teacher declaring his beliefs and running a politics class and a bunch of Christian volunteers running a religion class. For one teachers are made aware of legal and departmental guidelines which prevent them from discriminating against anyone for sectarian or political reasons, secondly the reason we have politics teachers is to teach about politics in an unbiased way according to to departmental guidelines. I think it would be one hell of a stretch to imagine that those evangelical volunteers from Access ministries have come to teach a balanced and objective course on world religions, given that they are volunteers they'd scarcely be qualified even if this was the case! As an atheist if I was given a class on religion (unlikely) I'd let them know straight up that I was an atheist so they'd know what my personal beliefs where, however as a professional I'd try and teach the subject as evenhandedly and objectively as possible. That's what we expect of professional teachers and not glassy eyed "volunteers" from the cult down the road!
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Aug 7, 2011 20:40:21 GMT -5
It might be an Australian thing, but, generally speaking, identifying one's self as non-Christian or Christian of another denomination rarely leads to bullying here. Frankly, I would be very much surprised if the average Aussie kid, given the choice between religious education or doing his own thing, didn't opt out on spec, whether Christian, athiest or Zoroastrian. You know what, Australia is a diverse place and your corner of Queensland where you went to school is not all of Australia! I've had to intervene in cases of sectarian bullying in Australian schools, just because you have never seen it in your little corner of the country does not mean it does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 8, 2011 2:48:30 GMT -5
It might be an Australian thing, but, generally speaking, identifying one's self as non-Christian or Christian of another denomination rarely leads to bullying here. Frankly, I would be very much surprised if the average Aussie kid, given the choice between religious education or doing his own thing, didn't opt out on spec, whether Christian, athiest or Zoroastrian. You know what, Australia is a diverse place and your corner of Queensland where you went to school is not all of Australia! I've had to intervene in cases of sectarian bullying in Australian schools, just because you have never seen it in your little corner of the country does not mean it does not exist. I was a forces brat and went t schools in three states, bioth public and private. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it certainly isn't part of the national fabric the way it is in the US.
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Aug 8, 2011 22:10:29 GMT -5
I was a forces brat and went t schools in three states, bioth public and private. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it certainly isn't part of the national fabric the way it is in the US. That's a rather broad, sweeping assumption you've made about a nation halfway around the globe, in broad comparison to your own. Sectarian bullying is human nature, not some national stereotype; Put any two different facets of human culture up against one another, be it sports, military opinions, politics, faith or... hell, stamp collecting, and chances are, someone will attack someone else for not fitting their mold.
|
|