Unreasonable Faith has done a story this last week about the Indianapolis public school system adpoting a policy that prohibits the viewing of atheist websites, along with some other alternative spiritualities (one should note, that apparently it's okay to view websites on major religious doctrine). Currently the FFRF is fighting the issue and urging people to voice their concerns.
Voice your thoughts - particularly if you're a person of faith. Do you think it's okay for religious discrimination like this to occur in public schools?
the school board apparently includes atheism into all those views.
No, the school board includes atheism as a system of 'alternative spirituality/belief' - which it is. Are you even reading the document, or are you selectively blind because it makes you incredibly wrong, and you're having real difficulty accepting that fact?
If you want me to be more specific here, then if the students were distracted by atheist/magic/satanist sites and not mainstream religious sites, then the school has every right to ban only those sites.
No, they don't - you're still making concessions for terrible administation and law making.
I don't have enough evidence to work from -- no specifics or circumstances included in the article or the policy -- to know whether the school is right or not.
This is true, but what we can work from is probability. Is it likely that a school administrator in a nation that is predominantly christian is picking on these particular minority religions because they genuinely distract from school work, or is it more likely that it's another religious bigot trying to subtly forcing their way of life on new generations of students by making certain materials unavailable? It's like a modern version of a book-burning.
Seriously, I'm not outraged by this because I'm not surprised. Indiana doesn't allow sale of alcohol on Sundays either, so this is just par for the course.
Seriously, I'm not outraged by this because I'm not surprised. Indiana doesn't allow sale of alcohol on Sundays either, so this is just par for the course.
Are you serious? PEOPLE! I CALL YE TO ATTENTION! HEAR AND HEED THINE WORDS, THEE, MY BROTHERS! ALT PLAYS GOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay, now being serious(that joke either landed in the bunker or achieved the fairway...I'm not being optimistic enough to bet green), are you serious? Wow...and Utah is the one notorious for religion. But Indiana is the real perpetrator... Anyway, yeah, that sucks and is unfair. But we cannot violate the Sabbath. Remember what happened to Johnny Tremain?(see, first sign that he is a jerk, he prefers to go by the name Johnny...)
Indiana is for the most part a redneck, backwater state that happens to be the birthplace of a s**t-ton of famous people. I just happen to live in a smart, rich, liberal part of the state. You wouldn't believe the level of inbred hickitude I saw on the local news when they were doing a story on Palin's book . . . it was pretty dang traumatizing.
Umm...not going to reply to hickitude. But I'm afraid that it's true. A recent study showed 62% of Utahns are Mormon....or some stat like that. *sobs* They're all too friendly but still somehow stupid1 THEY CAN'T DRINK SODA! I'm bored. Waiting for WoM to come out. No one to talk to. Speaking of which, Alty, why is your chitty chatty talky box closed?
*sniff* But we mustn't break the Sabbath. Johnny Tremain(Johnny the jerk because his name is Johnny) burned his hand to crippleage when he tried to work on the Sabbath...do not forget it. But yeah, I see that. Utah...most of it is uninhabited, however it looks nice(several nat. parks). Most of the population comes from the cities along the Wasatch front.
No, the school board includes atheism as a system of 'alternative spirituality/belief' - which it is. Are you even reading the document, or are you selectively blind because it makes you incredibly wrong, and you're having real difficulty accepting that fact?
Yes it includes it as an "alternative spirituality/belief". However: in that sentence, all the other terms are related. Most people relate occult pracices and voodoo with mysticism. Atheism is between those terms. Also, it doesn't look 'correct' nor mature to insult one's opponent.
No, they don't - you're still making concessions for terrible administation and law making.
ha! The law states that if the students are distracted by only the atheist sites and not the other ones, the school can get rid of those sites so that the students can learn. And, if it's happening, then they need to. If that scenario is ever the case, it will be held up in court a million times over.
This is true, but what we can work from is probability. Is it likely that a school administrator in a nation that is predominantly christian is picking on these particular minority religions because they genuinely distract from school work, or is it more likely that it's another religious bigot trying to subtly forcing their way of life on new generations of students by making certain materials unavailable? It's like a modern version of a book-burning.
Well what I've been saying, and what's been ignored every single time, is that we don't even know. Everyone involved recently in this topic knows which of those scenarios is right and which is wrong, we just don't have enough information about the banned sites to know which scenario it is.
However: in that sentence, all the other terms are related.
No... all of the terms are related, not just the other ones... in that they're all alternative spiritualities and beliefs. If you think Voodoo and satanism have intrinsic similarities or roots beyond the fact that it is a form of spirituality or belief, you must be smoking something. Similarly, Atheism has no other similarities to the other items in that list. You say Atheism has links to mysticism, or voodoo, or satanism... and you're just wrong. Completely wrong.
Also, it doesn't look 'correct' nor mature to insult one's opponent.
Well that's hypocritical. A subtle jab at my maturity? I don't really care - I'm just not going to sit still while you arrogantly proclaim your ignorant viewpoint.
The law states that if the students are distracted by only the atheist sites and not the other ones, the school can get rid of those sites so that the students can learn.
Who gets to decide what constitutes a distraction? Elected officials? Educational experts of the highest levels with Doctorates? No. A piddly little back-asswards school board or administrator who shouldn't be trusted with those kinds of decisions.
No... all of the terms are related, not just the other ones... in that they're all alternative spiritualities and beliefs. If you think Voodoo and satanism have intrinsic similarities or roots beyond the fact that it is a form of spirituality or belief, you must be smoking something. Similarly, Atheism has no other similarities to the other items in that list. You say Atheism has links to mysticism, or voodoo, or satanism... and you're just wrong. Completely wrong.
Fine, all points in that paragraph not including Satanism and Atheism are related to mysticism. So let's look at that sentence alone again: Occult practices is in the beginning, voodoo, other mysticism in the end. Most people connect all of those. Atheism is in the middle of all of those. One thing that you've been completely ignoring through this part of the discussion as well: I've not been talking about what I say, I've been talking about what the school considers atheism to be a part of.
Well that's hypocritical. A subtle jab at my maturity? I don't really care - I'm just not going to sit still while you arrogantly proclaim your ignorant viewpoint.
if you hadn't been ignorant this entire time, you'd see that I HAVE NO VIEWPOINT. I'm simply trying to keep this thread less of a partisan debate.
Who gets to decide what constitutes a distraction? Elected officials? Educational experts of the highest levels with Doctorates? No.
Common sense does. It doesn't take very long to realize a student is not doing their work and is instead surfing around on an atheist web site. If it continues, teachers may complain. Teachers complaining may lead to atheist web sites being banned. You don't realize how often things are banned in this way.
[quote] No. A piddly little back-asswards school board or administrator who shouldn't be trusted with those kinds of decisions.
Sorry to butt in, but . . . biiiiiig unsupported assumption there . . . just saying . . . .[/quote] agreed.
I've not been talking about what I say, I've been talking about what the school considers atheism to be a part of.
But it is what you say, since you're not a part of the school, so what you're saying in this thread is entirely on you; since you're getting the grammar in the sentence wrong, I'm correcting you.
if you hadn't been ignorant this entire time, you'd see that I HAVE NO VIEWPOINT. I'm simply trying to keep this thread less of a partisan debate.
You might not truly hold the viewpoint you're arguing for & are just arguing it for fun, kicks, or whatever - but if you're arguing for the side that's discriminatory, it's still the ignorant viewpoint. I say 'your' because it's the side you've decided to take in the debate, for whatever reason. Similarly if I argue about the legalization of drugs, I really don't care either way; it's not something I feel passionately about. However, if I argue in a debate that they should be legalized or kept illegal, for the purposes of that debate, that's my viewpoint.
Even given the most constricting set of circumstances, discrimination is still discrimination.
Sorry to butt in, but . . . biiiiiig unsupported assumption there . . . just saying . . . .
Not entirely unsupported, I'm working from experience and interactions I've had in the past. If they had been smarter or more qualified they'd be working at a better job. Makes it rather unfortunate though - most of the quacks I've talked to that *do* work in these positions; you really begin to fret over them being in charge of children's futures.
Not entirely unsupported, I'm working from experience and interactions I've had in the past.
. . . In Canada.
Makes it rather unfortunate though - most of the quacks I've talked to that *do* work in these positions; you really begin to fret over them being in charge of children's futures.
. . . In Canada.
You do not live in Indiana. You live in Canada, and you pretty much always have.
Also, just because there are people who do a job badly doesn't mean everyone with that job does. That's like saying that the entire movie industry is a pot of awfulness because of Uwe Boll and Ed Wood. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that it's stupid to make and then defend such unsupported assumptions on IPS, especially when you've never lived in Indy. It's a wild assumption and a broad generalization no matter how you slice, cut, grind, emulsify, mix, separate, blend, fold in, combine, pulverize, butcher, step on, or firebomb it.
Your personal experiences don't speak for all schools - so your assumption, even if it could be considered supported, is not supported nearly enough for you to validly use it as a point in your argument.
But it is what you say, since you're not a part of the school, so what you're saying in this thread is entirely on you; since you're getting the grammar in the sentence wrong, I'm correcting you.
what? no. I've been saying that the school considers atheism to be a part of mysticism. once again... since they have occult practices in the beginning of the sentence and voodoo and mysticism in the end, and most people consider all of those to be related, and since atheism is in the middle of those, the school apparently considers atheism as mysticism.
You might not truly hold the viewpoint you're arguing for & are just arguing it for fun, kicks, or whatever - but if you're arguing for the side that's discriminatory, it's still the ignorant viewpoint. I say 'your' because it's the side you've decided to take in the debate, for whatever reason. Similarly if I argue about the legalization of drugs, I really don't care either way; it's not something I feel passionately about. However, if I argue in a debate that they should be legalized or kept illegal, for the purposes of that debate, that's my viewpoint.
Well if you've read my posts, at the end of most of them, I've said that depending on the situation, the school could be right here. I've been simply trying to avoid the establishment of a single, misinformed opinion on this. It is possible that many students in Indianapolis get distracted on atheist websites-- they could even go on them to spam. It's a chance occurrence, just like it's a chance occurrence that they're discriminating against atheism. It's not discrimination if certain websites get students distracted more than others. If the Colts websites got students distracted and not the other football websites, it would be the same deal (except people wouldn't complain about it as much).
Not entirely unsupported, I'm working from experience and interactions I've had in the past. If they had been smarter or more qualified they'd be working at a better job. Makes it rather unfortunate though - most of the quacks I've talked to that *do* work in these positions; you really begin to fret over them being in charge of children's futures.
It's still unsupported evidence. Also, you didn't even bother to look up whether the head of Board of Education of Indiana has a degree of some sort, or lots of experience, etc. For all you know he could have some great, reformist 50-year track record as a Board of Ed official.
It's still unsupported evidence. For all you know he could have some great, reformist 50-year track record as a Board of Ed official.
I never refuted that it was unsupported - just not entirely from personal experience. On the same argument, for all you know, it could be some bumpkin with more shoelaces then brain cells.
I've been saying that the school considers atheism to be a part of mysticism.
Small differenciation though - you *think* the school considers atheism to be a part of mysticism. Whether or not that's how the school views the document, is something else, and given the wording of that section, there's no evidence to show that the school thinks atheism is anything other then atheism.
Well if you've read my posts, at the end of most of them, I've said that depending on the situation, the school could be right here.
And if you had read my posts, you'd see that not only does the United States of America's constitution offer an explicit point regarding the respecting of one religion over another as being out of the question, but discrimination of people's lifestyles and choices is wrong. Your football analogy doesn't hold up as much weight in that regard as say, a website that helps counsel atheist youth fraught with despair from an oppressive majority religion.
At any rate, I think our views on the subject are.. irreconcilably different. I've had fun, I've gone over what I wanted to, so I'm out. Thanks for the good discussion.
