MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Discussion Of The Day
This really continues yesterday's discussion started by True Grit about whether religious education should be a part of the curriculum in schools. SC&A has fired his own salvo. He writes:
The vast centrist portion of our population wants individual freedoms but does not wish to be coerced into expressing support for other people's choices. My opinion is that the real battle here is between "tolerance" and "approval". All these different ideologies for living can coexist if we believe in "tolerance" - not abusing each other for our different beliefs. All these ideologies can't coexist if we believe in "approval" - suppressing people's differing points of view.
As an aside, I would like to point you to a discussion at Ann Althouse's. Ann had commented on podcasting being impaired in comparison to blogging because there was no correction of factual error. As an example she quoted a podcasting professor on Lenin and Christianity:
Many people leaped to her defense, or at least to point out that they considered the statement that "Lenin was a good egg" to be a factual error. The resulting debate is an example of the collision course in our culture between the new strain of academic sensationalism and the older intellectual tradition. I found this a fascinating example of why the blogosphere is becoming influential - it has shifted the center of debate away from the elitist groups in our society and back to the coffee-house crew that gave birth to our country. In the coffee-house, pragmatism and respect for truth prevail. Among the elites, a type of intellectual flourish prevails. You may say anything as long as it is does not reprimand another professor's "anything". Sensationalism is rewarded, and intellectual integrity is reprehensible.
The argument that the government should not be in the teaching religion business is absurd. Atheism and secularism are as much religions as anything else. There are some religious conservatives that teach hate, you say? Well, there are some atheists and secularists that do exactly the same thing. Why is some ‘hate’ less hateful and more acceptable than others?And he concludes:
We are not advocating the imposition of a religious agenda anymore than we advocate imposing a secular agenda. We are advocating a moral agenda.Ilona's (True Grit) piece of this discussion is here. To one of my worries about religious education in school she replied:
The non moral agenda of secularism hasn’t worked.
I don't want the state to be a vehicle of religion, but I see the need for citizens to be informed about religion. That is why a secular observation of religion is useful. Comparative religion classes don't cover all the details, it is a time factor if nothing else.and:
I think people are correct in thinking that religion is the most dangerously abused of all humanity's important institutions. It is our convictions, of the rights involved, in safekeeping tolerance and freedom for expression that is one of most important values. How does closing off the discussion in education serve that? It only strangles the basis we have for desiring the maintenance of the tolerance of our laws.What I think is that we will have a riproaring explosion of hysterical rhetoric if we decide to teach religion in any serious way within our schools. It may not be fair, but our society is fighting about values. Radical feminism (now largely aligned with the GLBT activists) has one set of values. It wants to enforce certain ways of life and attitudes within our culture. All you have to do is encounter a discussion group ripping up stay-at-home-mothers to realize that. It pretty much wants to eliminate old ideas about sexual restraint and gender roles, and to do so it must reject most mainstream religious teachings and the cultural ethos they produced. Not all feminists are radical feminists, and not all GLBT individuals are activists.
to say it is too hard to figure out is to argue for continued ignorance,don't you think?
The vast centrist portion of our population wants individual freedoms but does not wish to be coerced into expressing support for other people's choices. My opinion is that the real battle here is between "tolerance" and "approval". All these different ideologies for living can coexist if we believe in "tolerance" - not abusing each other for our different beliefs. All these ideologies can't coexist if we believe in "approval" - suppressing people's differing points of view.
As an aside, I would like to point you to a discussion at Ann Althouse's. Ann had commented on podcasting being impaired in comparison to blogging because there was no correction of factual error. As an example she quoted a podcasting professor on Lenin and Christianity:
Thus, podcasting is not like blogging. It lacks the inherent structural safeguards that make the blogosphere work in service to the truth.She was reprimanded by a professor who found her blog. For one thing, he denies there are any factual errors in the podcast. You have to read the discussion to grasp the nature of the debate between powder-puff intellectualism and Ann's more rigorous and factual reasoning.
Many people leaped to her defense, or at least to point out that they considered the statement that "Lenin was a good egg" to be a factual error. The resulting debate is an example of the collision course in our culture between the new strain of academic sensationalism and the older intellectual tradition. I found this a fascinating example of why the blogosphere is becoming influential - it has shifted the center of debate away from the elitist groups in our society and back to the coffee-house crew that gave birth to our country. In the coffee-house, pragmatism and respect for truth prevail. Among the elites, a type of intellectual flourish prevails. You may say anything as long as it is does not reprimand another professor's "anything". Sensationalism is rewarded, and intellectual integrity is reprehensible.
Comments:
<< Home
The professor in Ann's comments I think was the same one that did the podcast. I don't want to get started on podcasting either. As far as schools I think they have big enough hurdles right now that the religion/morals debate is way down the list for me.
You are spot on about tolerance/approval. I think that is somewhat a by product of the self esteem run amok movement. It produces people that believe your lack of approval concerning them is obviously a fault with you. So we need to do something to get you to understand what is wrong with you.
Never once do they recognize that their search for approval is fueled by their disapproval of you.
In a truly free society, it's should be very easy to find someone that just really pisses you off.
You are spot on about tolerance/approval. I think that is somewhat a by product of the self esteem run amok movement. It produces people that believe your lack of approval concerning them is obviously a fault with you. So we need to do something to get you to understand what is wrong with you.
Never once do they recognize that their search for approval is fueled by their disapproval of you.
In a truly free society, it's should be very easy to find someone that just really pisses you off.
# posted by 
: 11:03 AM
: 11:03 AM
Yes. Our whole society was set up to allow ideas and different theories of life to be debated, and for those that were the most workable to be adopted.
You can't do that without genuine argument. I'm all for allowing Bill Moyer to have his say, but the idea of screaming in hysterics when other people have their say is hypocritical - and he doesn't see that.
Ideas are fine. I don't know how we arrived at the idea that rights are not reciprocal, but somehow we did.
You can't do that without genuine argument. I'm all for allowing Bill Moyer to have his say, but the idea of screaming in hysterics when other people have their say is hypocritical - and he doesn't see that.
Ideas are fine. I don't know how we arrived at the idea that rights are not reciprocal, but somehow we did.
In all this I would say I take strong exception to the idea that we teach actual religious instruction in schools, what I believe we can and ought to do is teach about religion and give a working knowledge of the way we have incorporated those values and ideas into our American system.
I think we can do this and keep the tone secular rather than religious.
When we are teaching history we are often really teaching values. We look at ideology and outcomes, we lookat how societies benefited or overstepped boundaries. It is all there, but I think the fact that religion is artificially stripped out makes it seem empty and meaningless.
Somewhere inside most people know that convictions drive a person to achieve. If you rewrite history without the account of religious conviction and motivations you leave only the implication that it was for ego (per the point of John the Muzikdude).
I think further that we ought to have an understanding of what different religions hold sacred. That doesn't mean teach that we must hold the same views, but know important things about other cultures, and about our own.
What I think we need to remember is that the secularist Left has been very bold to fill every opportunity with their ideology. If it is on that platform, then sobeit, that is the reality. There is always a stiff fight to take back squatters claims.
The American people weren't asked whether they desired a change of values in their schools. It was foisted upon them and we are reaping its product. The values were taught, the doctrines were inculcated.... in a widespread way. Besides that, all protests were handily set aside with court cases and regulations for quite a long time.
Until now- people are saying..."wait a minute"
So now is the time to reinsert values of moderation without the incumbent prejudice of the past. We ought to take advantage of the fact that the board was cleared. Speak up for balance in the curriculums, and the philosophy behind them.
Determine what we as Americans stand for, and get it in writing. It doesn't have to be carved in stone, but it ought to be available to study as students, preparing to be citizens, of a republic.
That is a perfectly Biblical thing: passing on the account and the principles to the coming generations. Before it is lost.
oi. I'm done:)
I think we can do this and keep the tone secular rather than religious.
When we are teaching history we are often really teaching values. We look at ideology and outcomes, we lookat how societies benefited or overstepped boundaries. It is all there, but I think the fact that religion is artificially stripped out makes it seem empty and meaningless.
Somewhere inside most people know that convictions drive a person to achieve. If you rewrite history without the account of religious conviction and motivations you leave only the implication that it was for ego (per the point of John the Muzikdude).
I think further that we ought to have an understanding of what different religions hold sacred. That doesn't mean teach that we must hold the same views, but know important things about other cultures, and about our own.
What I think we need to remember is that the secularist Left has been very bold to fill every opportunity with their ideology. If it is on that platform, then sobeit, that is the reality. There is always a stiff fight to take back squatters claims.
The American people weren't asked whether they desired a change of values in their schools. It was foisted upon them and we are reaping its product. The values were taught, the doctrines were inculcated.... in a widespread way. Besides that, all protests were handily set aside with court cases and regulations for quite a long time.
Until now- people are saying..."wait a minute"
So now is the time to reinsert values of moderation without the incumbent prejudice of the past. We ought to take advantage of the fact that the board was cleared. Speak up for balance in the curriculums, and the philosophy behind them.
Determine what we as Americans stand for, and get it in writing. It doesn't have to be carved in stone, but it ought to be available to study as students, preparing to be citizens, of a republic.
That is a perfectly Biblical thing: passing on the account and the principles to the coming generations. Before it is lost.
oi. I'm done:)
# posted by : 4:43 PM
: 4:43 PM
Ilona - when I was a kid we had to learn the constitution. That's a good start.
I think everything you said has great merit. I see the logic. I'm just not sure that the academic world would. The Mamacitas and the Betsy Newmarks would - but they are the real thing.
In the educational world the Mamacitas and the Betsy Newmarks don't get much attention or respect.
Ilona, you have logic on your side and I agree with your position - but I just don't know that in our sad state logic will be allowed to win out.
Post a Comment
I think everything you said has great merit. I see the logic. I'm just not sure that the academic world would. The Mamacitas and the Betsy Newmarks would - but they are the real thing.
In the educational world the Mamacitas and the Betsy Newmarks don't get much attention or respect.
Ilona, you have logic on your side and I agree with your position - but I just don't know that in our sad state logic will be allowed to win out.
<< Home
