Hello, I'm Xzeno, AKA the Princess, AKA RedHandOfDoom. I will be filling in for Alt, because he has to poop.
No, I don't have to listen. However, if I am trying to do school work, and this moron next to me is blabbering about how "Jesus is awesome," I am going to be distracted, and offended that no matter how many times I tell this kid I'm not interested, he keeps yammering on.
This applies to any repetitive, unwanted annoyance, though. It doesn't matter what he's talking about, it's how he's doing it. He could even be talking about school subject matter and it would be distracting. This example does not demonstrate any basis for rejecting religious content per se. Try again.
I don't care if you are discussing religion with your friends during school. I have issue with it when you force it on someone who doesn't want to have it forced upon them.
Force is a tricky term. Force implies coercion beyond rational conversation. Mentioning it is not forcing it on you. Nor is handing you a flyer with religious content. Nor is wanting to talk to you about it when you don't want to talk about it. However, this follows the previous example -- the religious content is not the problem, the problem is how it is presented. This is the strawman fallacy -- you are arguing against something that is similar to your opponent's position, but creating a distorted and weak version of Alt's argument that you can knock down easily. Demonstrate the difference between religion and other content expressed in an inappropriate or distracting manner.
I like how you explained our school system to me instead of answering my question. You're assuming that it's all or nothing from the get-go, which is begging the question, and the premise you're begging the question upon is a false dichotomy. This argument just doesn't work.
The skeleton explanation of the school system was necessary for the sake of the argument. In a nutshell, Public Schools have to enforce the all-or-nothing rule because of their government backing. The US maintains a no state religion policy, and the public schools can't be selective about religions because of their gov't backing. So YES, I did answer your question, you just didn't read far enough.
and the premise you're begging the question upon is a false dichotomy
So then, what are some other options to this issue we have on our hands? Permit selective religious acceptance in a secular government-funded school?
You, however, do not understand hate speech,
I would imagine that one could recognize hate being brought upon them quite quickly. And, how do I not understand hate speech? I demand depth! You can't just drop blanket statements like that, or else "your argument does not work".
You're not using the right definition of hate speech, and because of that your argument doesn't work.
Then, pray-tell, what is the "right" definition of hate speech? Please, depth in the pool would be appreciated, else I can't go diving.
I understand Satanism.
The phrase is dropped out of nowhere and never directly addressed later in your text. I can assume that you really don't know anything about Satanism and are using this dropped phrase as a means to address my entire point without having to actually dig deeper. And for that, "your argument does not work".
I'm not going to bother responding to everything on its own, so here's a blanket statement: Everything deserves to be questioned, ESPECIALLY people's beliefs. There's something to be said for the freedom of speech and expression, and that speech which should be allowed most of all is that we dislike, for this reason. People need to be able to come to their own conclusions, develop their own opinions. If everyone agrees without putting any thought into it because other viewpoints haven't been made available, no conflict would occur. You might think this is a good thing, but progress thrives on conflict. If there were no competition between ideas, new ones would struggle to take root. Where would we be? I say to embrace open conflict and use it as a tool to better your own ideologies. If they're easily subject to faltering, you could do to put more thought into it.
The purpose of school is to learn, yes, but I can personally say I haven't learned much from actual classes other than varying degrees of specific knowledge. I have, however, learned one universally important skill from school as a whole: how to think. Yeah, yeah, everyone knows how to think - we do it even when we aren't aware of it- but I'm talking about thinking as a higher function. Analysis, problem solving, applications of logic. And I learned how to think from being able to test my ideas and opinions against others. I benefited more from the polemic arguments and pitiful debates than from all of the classes I've had combined. So for me, at least, religion in schools has been beneficial.
And really, kids. If a verse from the Bible can offend you, you have a stick way too far up your nether regions. Learn to tolerate others and their beliefs, and you'll get a lot further in life. If they push further than you're comfortable with, push back, go to an authority figure, or take a third option. With society as it is, any whiner can get at least a semblance of satisfaction. Then again, you could always just accept it for what it is and get over it. I like that last one the most.
The skeleton explanation of the school system was necessary for the sake of the argument. In a nutshell, Public Schools have to enforce the all-or-nothing rule because of their government backing. The US maintains a no state religion policy, and the public schools can't be selective about religions because of their gov't backing. So YES, I did answer your question, you just didn't read far enough.
Freedom of religion and the amendment that no law should be made respecting an establishment of religion do not mean that religion MUST be absent from public schools. You're either not reading what I'm saying or not understanding it.
I would imagine that one could recognize hate being brought upon them quite quickly. And, how do I not understand hate speech? I demand depth! You can't just drop blanket statements like that, or else "your argument does not work".
Hate speech is a specific term that has a specific definition in this context. I had to say that I understood Satanism because you asserted that since I didn't consider the Bible hate speech, I didn't understand Satanism. I didn't have to address it later in my text because I was addressing a false claim of ignorance on my part. Besides, I'm not stupid--you gave a brief and extraneous explanation of Satanism anyway. I'm now thoroughly convinced you either aren't reading what I'm saying or not understanding it, because I DID address the point after asserting that I understood Satanism, and you accuse me of not addressing it and not digging deeper. All I have to do is point out all the fallacies you're committing--it's not my fault if you don't understand what they mean. That has no effect on the validity of your argument.
You asked if subjective arguments should be allowed. I said that in certain areas, yes. I do not see a broader or deeper meaning than this.
I love this game. In short, it's asking "Yo, Xzeno, can you play political philosophy with the big kids?" The answer is a qualified yes. Now, I see where you could see no deeper meaning or discussion. I didn't want to either. Issues like the one raised in this quote are the actually good ones. They involve thought, and I hate thinking as much as the next person, but hey, nothing better to do.
It asks an important question about what we value in our education system. How our education system works is based on how we want to socialize people and what kind of people we want to create. I think the Western tradition of individualism is the strongest supporter of a school system allowing or encouraging subjective argument in school. The idea is that this will help create autonomous, free-thinking individuals. However, I feel that the strongest opposing view is more or less that school should be a place of largely objective, factual knowledge acquisition, rather than a training ground for thought processes or social values. I suppose it's clear which camp I'm in, but I'm actually quite ambivalent. Seems that Kasic is more into the second type, which has its pros and cons. That's beyond this thread, so I'll leave it at that.
Really, looking at Chillz and Kasic's posts, it seems like they continually object to how the material is presented, not the religious nature of the material. A kid could disrupt bio by talking about video games. A kid could assault you in the hall and try to evangelize you into thinking Mass Effect sucks (I've seen it -- hell, done it). It doesn't matter what the content is, you are constantly objecting to the presentation, not the content itself.
Funny thing here is, I'm actually a huge proponent of political correctness and not offending anyone. As pH says, I have a stick up my nether regions. But I feel like questioning beliefs is politically correct.
Freedom of religion and the amendment that no law should be made respecting an establishment of religion do not mean that religion MUST be absent from public schools. You're either not reading what I'm saying or not understanding it.
I had previously stated that there was a difference between objectively teaching about various religions and handing out Bible quotes. The first is acceptable and I encourage it, the second not so much. I'm not trying to dispose religion entirely from schools, but keep the preaching out of government-run establishments.
Hate speech is a specific term that has a specific definition in this context.
And yet you don't define it still.
In reference to the rest of your post, it's turning into a bit of a snake eating its own tail. You see fallacies in my argument that I just don't, and if we continue down this road, it's going to turn into an ad hominem war. Not the best of things. I have indeed read the entirety of your posts, else I wouldn't have anything to respond to.
. Now, I see where you could see no deeper meaning or discussion. I didn't want to either. Issues like the one raised in this quote are the actually good ones. They involve thought, and I hate thinking as much as the next person, but hey, nothing better to do.
Well you can read a deeper meaning into just about anything. The real question becomes is that deeper meaning relevant, or does it change the argument in any way. In this case, I don't think it does.
Seems that Kasic is more into the second type,
In a way. I think that if you're in a history class you should be learning about history. Now, let's say you work religion into how it was apart of their lives and may have influenced their societal values and the implications from thus, that's okay. It's not however okay to say, "But the world isn't that old!" and argue with the teacher for 20 minutes on how the Bible isn't a valid source. This wastes everyone's time for a futile argument which did not objectively teach anyone in the class anything, other than that it wastes 20 minutes to have this argument which has been had 20,000 times in 20,000 places.
it seems like they continually object to how the material is presented, not the religious nature of the material
Seems pretty accurate to me. I'd have the same issue if someone tried to say unicorns are an essential part of history and have a 20 minute pointless argument over that as well.
The idea is that this will help create autonomous, free-thinking individuals.
Which I'm all for. I have always been appalled that there's not a class requirement where you're taught about ways of thinking, logical reasoning, and how to deal with arguments.
And yet you don't define it still.
Chillz, hate speech is speech with the intent to incite hatred or discrimination against a specific group or culture. Including a verse like John 3:16 isn't hate speech because it's not saying that Satanism is wrong, or saying that Satanists should be persecuted, or that Satanists are inferior. It's simply a statement of their belief.
I think it would if we fundamentally disagreed about how society should work, but I don't think we do. So I agree, I don't think it does either.
Alright, so, we all basically agree is the message I'm getting from the last two pages. We think religion in school is fine if expressed appropriately, and we think it's not in the same ways that other subjects can be not good for a school environment. So... good show, everybody! Saw some good arguments today. Like, serious win-highschool-debate quality stuff. I was a bit worried about the strawmen, because... we all ended up basically saying the same things. We were attacking distorted versions of each other's views. Do we need to read better, or communicate better? Also saw a bit of begging the question, but I think everyone sees what went wrong there. And Alt got a little ad hominem-y near the end, but, hey, we powered through it. So... are we done here?
It's hard because with written words people can more easily misinterpret the meaning because there is no stated tone of voice.
So... are we done here?
I don't know what more to discuss from the point of view we were taking. So unless someone points out a different way of thinking about this, then yes. Or if someone feels we haven't said what there is to be said.
Well it seems a bunch of the wellknown people here agree that if appropiatly it is fine. But then some random person may show up and say why we shouldn't have religion in schools and such not counting the people who already said why religion in schools is bad.
