Creationism sub-thread

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I can't think of any topic where modern creationism would be appropriate. I mean, outside of being used as a negative example of what not to do. I don't see it as having any educational value for it's own sake. In any realm.

Maaaybe it could be addressed in poly sci in a neutral fashion. Maybe.

I don't know how to emphasize any more that you're the first person in the thread to suggest it. It actually does have an interesting bearing on Enlightenment thinking, though (given it's an artifact of and reaction to it), when you get things out of it like Thomas Jefferson arguing with church leaders about the significance of Pleistocene fossils.

Anyway, back to the more general christian education bit...that's complicated a bit by the fact that, in practice, religion evolves. So, the study of historical religion may not relate well to modern fundamentalism. Someone raised in the latter tradition is likely to cheerfully accept oddities of historical religion as merely part of Catholicism's flaws. The historical study of religion and the examination of modern religious trends kind of diverge, I think.

The goal is to normalize pluralism. At present, it's very easy for fundamentalists to read their version of a given belief backward onto all historical forebearers, so that Bill O'Reilly can write a book about how Jesus was crucified for being a small-government conservative and people will read it. The more information people have about the actual history of their faith - where it came from and how it came together, how it's meant different things to different ages - the more difficult that becomes to reconcile.

Catholicism is crucially important to Medieval and Renaissance European history, but it's actually the least useful stage in terms of that agenda, since Protestants largely follow Luther in thinking that Catholicism was a "Dark Ages" corruption of the faith that was "corrected" as opposed to a thousand-year formalization of the faith against which all Protestant sects are territorial divisions propped by a narcissism of small differences.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:47 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:spending a year on the Bible and slash
A class on the Bible and slash would be pretty interesting, but you'd probably run into even more people who were offended about erotic Biblical fanfiction than are offended by treating the Bible as literature in the first place.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:50 pm UTC

I can't stand the construction and/or.

With that said, yes, that would be amazing and I support it entirely.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:58 pm UTC

Then you should at least hyphenate and-slash-or to make it clear that it's one thing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:59 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:spending a year on the Bible and slash
A class on the Bible and slash would be pretty interesting, but you'd probably run into even more people who were offended about erotic Biblical fanfiction than are offended by treating the Bible as literature in the first place.


Offending people == instant publicity. This has potential.

50 Shades of Yahweh, coming to a theater near you.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:07 pm UTC

I wonder how much of a corpus of Bible slash there is. Straight ships are nothing special, of course, with Da Vinci Code achieving 50-Shades-level fame with its Jesus/Mary Magdaline pairing. But do people write about Mary Magdaline and Mary Mother of God hooking up? There's probably a large amount of Jesus/Apostles pairings, if nothing else because the number of available characters, which is part of why gay ships tend to outnumber lesbian ships in most fandoms.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:17 pm UTC

Agreed.

gmalivuk wrote:Then you should at least hyphenate and-slash-or to make it clear that it's one thing.

Um, get over it maybe?

Edit: I mean, what I'm saying is, yes, that would be preferable, but my opting to use the construction at all in the first place is an only slightly tongue in cheek concession of defeat.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:53 pm UTC

I strongly disagree that learning about religions is only relevant to members of those religions. Ignorance leads to misunderstandings and resentments.

My sister-in-law, a talented cook, threw a big retirement party for my father-in-law. Most of his colleagues were Jewish. She served them lobster and bacon-wrapped filet mignon. Then she was royally miffed that they "rudely" didn't eat all the expensive food she'd bought and prepared for them. When I explained why they didn't eat it, she thought it was presumptuous of them to expect Gentiles to know their dietary restrictions: "How are non-Jews supposed to know this stuff?" I was astonished that a person with three master's degrees (math, education, and business) had somehow failed to pick up the basic, general knowledge that practicing Jews don't eat shellfish or pork.

Even if someone else's religion doesn't matter to you, the fact that it matters to them should make it important to you, too, if only so you don't unwittingly harm your relationship with them. And in a multi-cultural society, it's good to know at least something about what others believe and how they put those beliefs in practice.

More seriously, if someone is using their religious precepts to justify depriving other people of their rights, it's very useful to be able to show how their persecution of their neighbors is incompatible with other precepts they hold dear. In fact, using their own precepts may be only way to convince them that what they are doing is misguided.

Cradarc
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Cradarc » Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:35 am UTC

Well said ObessoMom. Everyone has ignorance. Even if you believe your you know the "real" truth, there's still a matter of knowing what someone "more ignorant" than you sees as truth. If nothing else, it is far more practical, and much more useful for getting along with people.
You can't change a mindset without fully understanding or even empathizing with the original mindset. No matter how convinced you are that your rubix cube is solved, you still need to carefully examine all the squares on someone else's rubix cube before trying to solve theirs.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18636
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:49 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:for my father-in-law. Most of his colleagues were Jewish.
So, I think context is important here. If no one communicated to her that the colleagues weren't just 'mostly Jewish', but also 'kept kosher', I think it's reasonable throw a party to the hosts tastes. If the host hasn't specified anything here, it's hard to fault her. That said, if the only instructions she got were 'many Jewish colleagues' then it seems prudent to follow up with a 'ok, should I prepare a kosher option?'

For example, at my wedding we did not have a kosher caterer, and our kosher keeping relatives simply requested a fruit plate. It's not rude of them to ask for an off menu request, and it's not rude of me to not have a kosher caterer. But your point I think that being knowledgeable of 'what people are generally up to' is a valid one, though I'm not sure why religion, beyond being a big fat general category that a lot of people include on their IRL character sheets, is any more or less relevant than, say, 'vegetarian' or 'can't be seated next to cousin Cheryl'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:44 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
ObsessoMom wrote:for my father-in-law. Most of his colleagues were Jewish.
So, I think context is important here. If no one communicated to her that the colleagues weren't just 'mostly Jewish', but also 'kept kosher', I think it's reasonable throw a party to the hosts tastes. If the host hasn't specified anything here, it's hard to fault her. That said, if the only instructions she got were 'many Jewish colleagues' then it seems prudent to follow up with a 'ok, should I prepare a kosher option?'

For example, at my wedding we did not have a kosher caterer, and our kosher keeping relatives simply requested a fruit plate. It's not rude of them to ask for an off menu request, and it's not rude of me to not have a kosher caterer. But your point I think that being knowledgeable of 'what people are generally up to' is a valid one, though I'm not sure why religion, beyond being a big fat general category that a lot of people include on their IRL character sheets, is any more or less relevant than, say, 'vegetarian' or 'can't be seated next to cousin Cheryl'.

Right, but trying to maintain a slighted attitude after someone sits you down and makes it explicit why they're not eating the non-kosher food...that's a bit beyond the pale.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:45 pm UTC

I think part of the point is that nobody needs "can't be sat next to Cheryl" explained, and most people get "vegetarian" as well, apart from the occasional belief that fish is a vegetable.

The woman in that story, though, didn't object that no one had told her which guests were Jewish and which should be kept well away from Cheryl. Instead she objected that apparently no one had told her Jewish people are generally less likely to eat pork and shellfish than Gentiles.

Edit: I absolutely sympathize with how frustrating and even heartbreaking it can be to think you've done something awesome for another person only to have it end up as a big disappointment, and for all I know the tone of her (reported) response could have had more to do with that momentary embarrassment rather than a genuine belief that it's ridiculous to expect a Gentile to know Jewish guests may not be keen on lobster and bacon, but the account as presented is still a decent illustration.
Last edited by gmalivuk on Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18636
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:56 pm UTC

Right - and I think ObsessoMom's point that having a toolkit for being aware of how to interact with 'Other People In General' is a good thing, and one useful tool in said toolkit is awareness of other faiths. My point, which was probably not super well made, was that it's not the only tool that's important. But yes, the chefs response was indicative of a general lack of awareness, especially so because they were effectively being told politely (it sounds anyway) that they did not do the job satisfactorily, and responded indignantly.

EDIT: But yeah, to respond to gmal's edit, the response could have been due to embarrassment over not feeling like the parameters of the job were wholly explained. Which, given the nature of the job, is kind of important, though, again, if what was communicated was 'a bunch of Jews', then it seems a miscommunication. Though, I would assume a chef would take all descriptions of the clientele to be related to food preferences, and at least be curious why someone would mention that they were Jewish... Shrug.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:33 pm UTC

I understand the point the story is trying to make, but I don't see this as a failing of understanding of understanding of Religious custom. A salient point to consider is the difference between a chef and a cook. This mistake is one of experience. A professional would have asked about dietary restrictions in general, knowing that those things exist. She didn't need to know what they were. She only needed to be sophisticated enough to know they exist. After that a phone call to a Rabbi or to one of the guests would have apprised her of what she needed to know. As a non professional she assumed her taste represented others, which is often not the case. Three degrees make her expert in her fields, not party planning. Her response afterwords is as was said, a matter of embarrassment, with a touch of victim blaming.

User avatar
krogoth
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby krogoth » Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:20 am UTC

There is also the case that some Jews aren't Jewish by religion, all it takes in some cases a parent (mother only?) that is Jewish, for all we know she may have a Jewish employee that doesn't observe any of the traditions.
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:09 am UTC

Yeah, I don't buy it. This is early childhood religious tolerance apprehension stuff. The dietary restrictions are the first thing anyone knows about Judaism. Like gmal said, ignorance might not actually have been the cause in this actual event and could well be a CYA, but as the excuse qua the excuse, it's in no way acceptable.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
krogoth
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby krogoth » Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:17 am UTC

That presupposes all "common knowledge" is actually common knowledge. How is someone meant to know they don't know something to find it out? Personally I would think it on their shoulders to suggest a checklist, there had for a time been complaints they could only eat food cooked by a Jew, I don't know if they all or some still follow that sort of rule, there was special kosher cooking equipment, couldn't use stuff used for cooking non-kosher equipment, all stupid rules one may or may not be required to follow to cook for them.
If it was a no nuts thing then fair enough no nuts no nut oils no nut extracts etc, but when the rules are too complex or ambiguous as to possibly require excessive amounts of work that may or may not be required. Though then I suppose if you expect the cook to have the knowledge and to have made the connection of "my son works with Jews", "I'm cooking for my sons coworkers" to the result "I'm cooking for Jews", well hindsight is 20 20 and she should have asked.
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:56 am UTC

krogoth wrote:That presupposes all "common knowledge" is actually common knowledge. How is someone meant to know they don't know something to find it out?

This is a thread in which I'm arguing for better education on religion.

Um.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:05 pm UTC

"Jews don't eat bacon" is commonly known.

Other restrictions, more detailed, or only practiced by the more strict subsets, may well be less known. I am not completely confident that I could sufficiently accomdate the stricter folks, though I can and do manage well enough with those who simply follow the basics. There's a progression of views on what is acceptable even within each religion, so a simple "religion x doesn't do this" list is going to be of limited use.

At a certain point, it falls on those who have dietary restrictions to make them clear to others.

User avatar
krogoth
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby krogoth » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:02 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:
krogoth wrote:That presupposes all "common knowledge" is actually common knowledge. How is someone meant to know they don't know something to find it out?

This is a thread in which I'm arguing for better education on religion.

Um.

I don't think history is the way to do it though, you have enough Christian teachers teaching it as fact as is. I'd say a general cultural class would be good, teaching morals/how to interact with others, when these 'rules' can be so arbitrary, and the class would be very different between locations, probably don't want NK or China getting a hold of they idea, though they probably already instigate something like that.

It might just be something this just feels like something that should be left out of he class with its ease of abuse.
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:19 pm UTC

in the cooking for a party example, it is the responsibility of both parties to make requirements and expectations clear. When announcing the planned event, the cook/chef will USUALLY say "ok, well I'm going to make this, this, and the other thing for the meal" then the participants would be expected to reply with "yum!" or "sorry I don't eat shellfish" or "I'm allergic to gluten". IMO "we're jewish" MIGHT be sufficient enough to clear the shellfish item off the menu (or at the very least trigger the creation of an alternate menu item)....but just like someone saying they're a vegetarian doesn't give you all the necessary information to figure out if they're really a pescatarian (who doesn't know that's a word) or an ovo-lacto vegetarian who didn't make it clear that they eat cheese and eggs, or they're one of those morons who claims to be a vegetarian because they're not aware that chicken is meat.

with dietary restrictions based on food allergies, it BEHOOVES the one with the restriction to be VERY clear and VERY sure about what is being prepared when you are being served a meal. IF you have a religious restriction, that you are following because of the damage that the food could cause to your mortal soul, you might want to treat it the same as a food allergy.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby K-R » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:an ovo-lacto vegetarian who didn't make it clear that they eat cheese and eggs
Isn't that just a vegetarian?

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:35 pm UTC

K-R wrote:
DSenette wrote:an ovo-lacto vegetarian who didn't make it clear that they eat cheese and eggs
Isn't that just a vegetarian?

you'd think, but there's a name for it...so, lest we get into another semantics battle.....no
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:15 pm UTC

Except, everyone I've ever met who identifies as vegetarian (as opposed to vegan) eats at least one of eggs or dairy.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:23 pm UTC

http://www.vegetarian-nation.com/resour ... egetarian/

so again, "I'm a vegetarian" can mean all kinds of things.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:34 pm UTC

I'm well aware that there are labels for different levels of animal-product restriction.

That doesn't change the fact that "vegetarian", as a self-label, almost always refers to a diet free of meat but with possible other animal products in it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:18 pm UTC

No matter what you call it, it is knowable, by the operation of communicating. Telephone, telegraph, smoke signals, Instagram, Twitter and so on. In terms of Religious education I have yet to see any reason elucidated why my children should be taught the tenets of any Religion. Particularly in high school and for the possible purpose of undermining a child's belief as taught to them by their parents.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:35 pm UTC

Also, why should my kids be taught the name of any dead person, since it's not like they'll meet.
They also shouldn't be taught about anything smaller than a mid-priced microscope can see, because how is stuff that small relevant?
And languages that my own neighbors don't speak? What even is the point?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Also, why should my kids be taught the name of any dead person, since it's not like they'll meet.
They also shouldn't be taught about anything smaller than a mid-priced microscope can see, because how is stuff that small relevant?
And languages that my own neighbors don't speak? What even is the point?


All knowledge has *some* value. But there's comparatively low value into doing a deep delve into specific religious beliefs, especially given that it would be difficult to give all religious the same treatment.

Also, of all religious, it is most likely that, at least in the US, students already have some familiarity with Christianity. So, it's more likely to be repetition of stuff they already know.

It seems like a low value thing to put much effort into. Sure, do a cursory outline if someone is unfamiliar and would like the background, but "not enough digging into Christianity" doesn't seem like a big problem for the US. Id rather pursue improving literally anything else in the educational system first.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:No matter what you call it, it is knowable, by the operation of communicating. Telephone, telegraph, smoke signals, Instagram, Twitter and so on. In terms of Religious education I have yet to see any reason elucidated why my children should be taught the tenets of any Religion. Particularly in high school and for the possible purpose of undermining a child's belief as taught to them by their parents.


Well, let's see. We are currently involving in, depending on how you count, at war with six countries in the Middle East, and have probably nearly evaded being at war with a seventh (Iran). If you would like your children to be informed about what's going on there, do you not think it might be useful for them to know, say, the differences between Sunni, Shia, Salafi, and Sufi Islam? If your children are among the ~7% of Americans who end up serving in the military and possibly visiting some of those countries, do you not think that knowing those distinctions could be important?

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:40 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Also, why should my kids be taught the name of any dead person, since it's not like they'll meet.
Not responsive to the point. Why you teach it is as important as what you teach. I'm certain that the Reformation is important to understand on some level, but I am still unconvinced that high school is the time to teach it. I would accept a Religious Studies class that explicitly teaches the basic tenets of of all the Major faiths, if I was allowed the choice of if and when my children could take it. On the other hand I could see the utility of making it mandatory at the College level.
LaserGuy wrote:Well, let's see. We are currently involving in, depending on how you count, at war with six countries in the Middle East, and have probably nearly evaded being at war with a seventh (Iran). If you would like your children to be informed about what's going on there, do you not think it might be useful for them to know, say, the differences between Sunni, Shia, Salafi, and Sufi Islam? If your children are among the ~7% of Americans who end up serving in the military and possibly visiting some of those countries, do you not think that knowing those distinctions could be important?
I have a better idea. On two levels. Quit invading countries. Second if you are going to, send in teachers to the involved services to hit the high spots. But don't kid yourselves that a one size fits all course in high school is going to make a major difference.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25395
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I'm certain that the Reformation is important to understand on some level, but I am still unconvinced that high school is the time to teach it.
Do you propose skipping European history entirely in high school, or do you propose teaching it as though the Reformation never happened or had any impact on everything else going on at the time?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:43 am UTC

I suggest there is a difference between teaching the Reformation and what passes for that in high school. Especially given the limited instructional hours available to the teacher for the task. Consider the Nebraska Rule 10 for the accreditation of schools. It requires teaching comparative religion and world history from 1000 CE to the present. Page 24 if you are interested. I call this speed history. You are welcome to call it whatever. And it fulfills what the poster would seem to be calling for. And I'm OK with that.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5090
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:09 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But there's comparatively low value into doing a deep delve into specific religious beliefs, especially given that it would be difficult to give all religious the same treatment.
Actually there is pretty good value in doing a deep delve into {fill in}, because it opens the mind to so much of the rest of {that same fill-in} and leads to greater understanding all around. This example is religion, but language also comes to mind. Just being fluent in two languages has made it so much easier to learn a third and a fourth when I go travelling, and that has opened up many new doors.

The primary value is "gee, there is such a thing, and it's quite different from my such-a-thing". This leads to a more open mindset.

A professional chef catering a large event should know better - dietary stuff comes up all the time. However, a good cook doing a good turn can easily make that kind of mistake. I've done it, and I know the rules! I even knew the bloke was Jewish; it just didn't register as significant and so I never thought of it when I prepared asparagus wrapped in cheese, ham, and pasta tubes. (Fortunately, it was a pot luck and there were other dishes).

To the topic of the thread, it's important to understand why creationism has such a strong hold on people. It's not because they are dumb as m*stard. I'm not even sure it's because they lack reasoning powers.

Tyndmyr wrote:I'd rather pursue improving literally anything else in the educational system first.
[/quote]Yes, much needs improving, but I'm not sure it's the educational system that is the problem.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

jseah
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby jseah » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:04 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Yeah, I don't buy it. This is early childhood religious tolerance apprehension stuff. The dietary restrictions are the first thing anyone knows about Judaism. Like gmal said, ignorance might not actually have been the cause in this actual event and could well be a CYA, but as the excuse qua the excuse, it's in no way acceptable.

I knew they don't eat pork. I didn't know the shellfish portion.

The sum total of my knowledge on Jewish religion comes from a literature book we had to do for English.

On the other hand, I come from a Chinese society so I'm not too familiar with Christian traditions either. Beyond whatever capitalism tries to sell us.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:19 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Also, why should my kids be taught the name of any dead person, since it's not like they'll meet.
Not responsive to the point. Why you teach it is as important as what you teach. I'm certain that the Reformation is important to understand on some level, but I am still unconvinced that high school is the time to teach it. I would accept a Religious Studies class that explicitly teaches the basic tenets of of all the Major faiths, if I was allowed the choice of if and when my children could take it. On the other hand I could see the utility of making it mandatory at the College level.

Parents having any direct say in their individual children's curriculum is entirely unacceptable to me. And I don't really much care what it is you intend to shield children's malleable young minds from, that is also an unacceptably broken model of what education is meant to do (and synonymous to me with the indoctrination that so many of us are opposing.)

Protecting children from scrutinizing their assumptions, and their society's, about the world is how we get here, how we get cdesign proponentsists and the rest. It is why all these deprogramming stories start with college.

What I'm seeing here is a version of the "think of the children" refrain that keeps gay people out of kid cartoons. I am thinking of the children. You are thinking of the parents. And I'm saying, fuck them, they're the problem.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:33 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Parents having any direct say in their individual children's curriculum is entirely unacceptable to me. And I don't really much care what it is you intend to shield children's malleable young minds from, that is also an unacceptably broken model of what education is meant to do (and synonymous to me with the indoctrination that so many of us are opposing.)
Maybe. But I'm uncertain if what I teach my children is any of your business. There are of course limits to that, but since it is only required that we meet minimums and that alternative education venues are available, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. The children will be indoctrinated to one thing or another. You simply want to set your choice above mine. And as you say, fuck that. You of course are free to teach your children whatever you please, and to band together with others of like mind.

You believe in equality and free thought up until you're faced with what it implies. In that respect you're a lot like a Christian Evangelical. I on the other hand, don't care if they think gays are sinners. What I care about is that we create laws to keep them from acting on that belief.

Trebla
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Trebla » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:35 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Parents having any direct say in their individual children's curriculum is entirely unacceptable to me. And I don't really much care what it is you intend to shield children's malleable young minds from, that is also an unacceptably broken model of what education is meant to do (and synonymous to me with the indoctrination that so many of us are opposing.)


And if society as a whole was teaching creationism (or scientology or astrology or whatever the most crackpot thing you can think of is) you, as a parent, wouldn't want any say in your child's curriculum?

I know what you mean - "Parents who believe garbage shouldn't be able to push that garbage to their kids as education" (I think). But these parents don't think that their ideas are garbage... in fact, they know with absolute certainty that they're right.

Edit: Re-reading your statement, I may have misunderstood part of it, but I still don't think parents should be taken out of the process. I have trouble even coming up with how involved they should be allowed to be when society as a whole has been wrong so many times in the past, and disallowing critical thinking by parents and students would have prevented society from improving.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:47 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:But I'm uncertain if what I teach my children is any of your business.

(1) Children aren't property.
(2) Children aren't ghosts, either, who have no effect on the real world.

If you're still uncertain on how what you teach your children has an effect on the welfare of others, then you're ignorant of reality.

There are of course limits to that, but since it is only required that we meet minimums and that alternative education venues are available, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

"Here's a proposed minimum that would have good effects." "Well, fuck that minimum, we only need to do minimums."

You're not making sense.

What I care about is that we create laws to keep them from acting on that belief.

"Let's create laws to prevent parents from acting on their bigoted beliefs and brainwashing their children, resulting in well-known and objectively-detrimental outcomes." "Well, fuck those laws about preventing them from acting on their beliefs, we only need to create laws to prevent them from acting on their beliefs."

You're not making sense.

You believe in equality and free thought up until you're faced with what it implies.

"Equality" and "free thought" are not compatible with a tradition of indoctrination, and it's laughable to claim they are. Equating an effort to ensure that children are -not- brainwashed with being against equality and free thought is "those who call out racism/sexism/theism are the real racists/sexists/theists"-level claptrap, and you should know better.

Edit: Re-reading your statement, I may have misunderstood part of it, but I still don't think parents should be taken out of the process. I have trouble even coming up with how involved they should be allowed to be when society as a whole has been wrong so many times in the past, and disallowing critical thinking by parents and students would have prevented society from improving.

CB's not saying that parents should be taken out of the process, she's saying that parents shouldn't be able to take -other voices- out of the process. She's explicitly arguing that children should be exposed to -more variety-, not less.

Parents should not be allowed to cover their children's ears in this arena. The creationism analogy doesn't work here, because (1) children are already exposed to creationism, regardless of what they learn in schools, and (2) the argument is that the children should be exposed to more teaching, not less.

CB's position, unless I've very much misunderstood it, cannot be contorted to support the models that led to past transgressions. Maaaaaaybe it could be taken to the extreme of "giving the children the knowledge on how to kill each other", or do other horrible things that we don't teach them to do as children because they won't understand "moderation", but that's a pretty extremely edge case.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:21 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
morriswalters wrote:No matter what you call it, it is knowable, by the operation of communicating. Telephone, telegraph, smoke signals, Instagram, Twitter and so on. In terms of Religious education I have yet to see any reason elucidated why my children should be taught the tenets of any Religion. Particularly in high school and for the possible purpose of undermining a child's belief as taught to them by their parents.


Well, let's see. We are currently involving in, depending on how you count, at war with six countries in the Middle East, and have probably nearly evaded being at war with a seventh (Iran). If you would like your children to be informed about what's going on there, do you not think it might be useful for them to know, say, the differences between Sunni, Shia, Salafi, and Sufi Islam? If your children are among the ~7% of Americans who end up serving in the military and possibly visiting some of those countries, do you not think that knowing those distinctions could be important?


Strictly speaking, the percentage of the population that are vets is expected to decline significantly, and a further number are peacetime vets. The percentage of the US population involved of any of the gulf wars is only 2.2% at present.

And of course, the big wars of tomorrow may not be fought in the same area.

There's some relevance, of course, but justifying universal education based on the needs of 2.2% seems weak.

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:But there's comparatively low value into doing a deep delve into specific religious beliefs, especially given that it would be difficult to give all religious the same treatment.
Actually there is pretty good value in doing a deep delve into {fill in}, because it opens the mind to so much of the rest of {that same fill-in} and leads to greater understanding all around. This example is religion, but language also comes to mind. Just being fluent in two languages has made it so much easier to learn a third and a fourth when I go travelling, and that has opened up many new doors.

The primary value is "gee, there is such a thing, and it's quite different from my such-a-thing". This leads to a more open mindset.


I would likewise posit that teaching 3-4 languages to a deep level of understanding is a bit unlikely prior to college, and would require significant tradeoffs.

I do think that the deprogramming aspect of college is important. Hell, it's how I got out. But you can't just shove college into K-12 and expect it to work.

morriswalters wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:Parents having any direct say in their individual children's curriculum is entirely unacceptable to me. And I don't really much care what it is you intend to shield children's malleable young minds from, that is also an unacceptably broken model of what education is meant to do (and synonymous to me with the indoctrination that so many of us are opposing.)
Maybe. But I'm uncertain if what I teach my children is any of your business. There are of course limits to that, but since it is only required that we meet minimums and that alternative education venues are available, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. The children will be indoctrinated to one thing or another. You simply want to set your choice above mine. And as you say, fuck that. You of course are free to teach your children whatever you please, and to band together with others of like mind.

You believe in equality and free thought up until you're faced with what it implies. In that respect you're a lot like a Christian Evangelical. I on the other hand, don't care if they think gays are sinners. What I care about is that we create laws to keep them from acting on that belief.


See, here's the thing. I view children less as property of the parents, and more as their own individuals with attendant rights.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests