...Honeslty angry persecuted [christian] parents say their kids are being "Exposed" to [evolution, sex-ed, Harry Potter, etc.] like it is toxic waste. Are those parents so worried that other people will have that much influence over their children? Are they that scared that their children are being exposed to other beliefs? Why can't they just explain "Hey, those people believe in something that we don't, and you don't have to either."
Just thought I would change it a bit.
Besides, what makes you think that all of the objection to religious symbols and ceremonies in the public schools comes from atheists? My wife teaches in a public school and she has never had any special requests or demands from any atheist parents. However, because of religious (e.g.: Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witness) parents she has often been required to change her lessons or exclude students when she teaches sex-ed (in Junior High schools) or practices Christmas concerts and teaches about holidays (Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, Canada Day, Valentines Day, etc.) or birthdays (in Elementary schools).
The Following User Says Thank You to John Doe For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Doe
Just thought I would change it a bit.
Besides, what makes you think that all of the objection to religious symbols and ceremonies in the public schools comes from atheists? My wife teaches in a public school and she has never had any special requests or demands from any atheist parents. However, because of religious (e.g.: Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witness) parents she has often been required to change her lessons or exclude students when she teaches sex-ed (in Junior High schools) or practices Christmas concerts and teaches about holidays (Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, Canada Day, Valentines Day, etc.) or birthdays (in Elementary schools).
Yeah, and I've said several times people who get all up in arms becaue their kids are being exposed to something differnt than their beliefs are annoying no matter which side of the fence they are on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again whether you're the angry persecuted athiest who's putting signs on busses telling people their most dearly held beliefs are fairytales, or standing on a corner telling people they're going to hell becaue god hates fags, you're pretty much the same in my books.
Neither side has the monoply on A$$h0!3$, they both just need to lighten up and let other people do what works for them.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Why do you have to be an angry persecuted atheist in order to put signs on buses stating your beliefs? Does that mean that people wearing a cross pendant are angry, persecuted Christians? How about those who drive around with the fish symbols on their cars? Are women who wear a hijab angry, persecuted Muslims?
So you want them to celebrate Christmas, but learn about other religions? Why is that one so special? Why not celebrate those other religious holidays too? Or take the more reasonable and feasible route and celebrate a general holiday and learn about them all instead of favoring one.
Maybe I didn't come across clearly, but that is what I was saying. They should learn about them all, rather than trying to exclude one or some of them. By removing all aspects of Christmas, they are in effect excluding it, which is what I am against.
My kids are not in school though, so I am drawing off my experience growing up in a largely multicultural school where mentioning Christmas (or any other religious holiday) at any point was a no-no. I assume from the previous comments about a celebration of seasons changing, that that practice is still in effect in our schools.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Doe
Why do you have to be an angry persecuted atheist in order to put signs on buses stating your beliefs? Does that mean that people wearing a cross pendant are angry, persecuted Christians? How about those who drive around with the fish symbols on their cars? Are women who wear a hijab angry, persecuted Muslims?
Mostly because they're actively going out of their way to say to other people "I think you're beliefs are wrong" instead of just letting it be.
Someone wearing a cross isn't explicitly saying "I think you're beliefs are wrong." The vast majority of them are thinking "I've got a system that works for me, and if you guys have something that works for you, that's cool too." Which is the same attitude of the vast majority of athiests who don't pay to have signs put on busses.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 12-22-2010 at 02:42 PM.
Honestly, considering every Mormon person I've ever met or worked with has been a pretty nicer person who is generally very family oriented, generous and compassionate, I'd be perfectly fine with those values bleeding into other classes.
I couldn't agree more. I like them so much I married one (from Raymond), served a mission for them and even spent a year at BYU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
As long as they're sticking to the carriculum and not teaching that Joseph Smith invented gravity, I wouldn't care if my kid in Kindergarten have to sing songs about how awesome spending time with your family is, and how you should give to charity.
I wouldn't have a problem with a separate school set up for believers, but I would have a serious issue with being in a community with no secular schooling option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
And do you honestly believe that in a community like Raymond that those values aren't already well represented in the school, regardless of whether they take religion as a subject? In a school where the vast majority of the staff are likely to be Mormon, you can bet there are definitely some Mormon influences in how the school is run, which is not at all in conflict with following the standard carriculum. As long as they are not teaching religious beliefs in fact based classes (math, science, social etc), then I don't care what they're teaching in what are essentially philosophical classes that I have the option to opt my children out of anyway.
While that may be the case, it is a large step to have those beliefs and opinions effectively endorsed by the government. I can't stop a teacher from believing that the earth is 6,000 years old, but I can certainly object to them teaching that in a public school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Honeslty angry persecuted athiest parents say their kids are being "Exposed" to religion like it is toxic waste. Are those parents so worried that other people will have that much influence over their children? Are they that scared that their children are being exposed to other beliefs? Why can't they just explain "Hey, those people believe in something that we don't, and you don't have to either."
Where is anyone complaining about exposure?
The issue is that the 'public' school presumes one form of belief as superior to all others.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
Mostly because they're actively going out of their way to say to other people "I think you're beliefs are wrong" instead of just letting it be.
Someone wearing a cross isn't explicitly saying "I think you're beliefs are wrong." The vast majority of them are thinking "I've got a system that works for me, and if you guys have something that works for you, that's cool too.
Then why do they have to wear their symbols in public and drive around with their bumper-stickers on their cars?
And their religion says that if you don't believe in their God you are going to hell. That is better than saying "I think your beliefs are wrong"?
Nobody is saying Christmas is wrong, they just want a better term to include everyone and not leave anyone out. Why is that so hard to understand? No one will be offended if you wish them a Merry Christmas. Similarly, I'm sure you wouldn't be offended if someone wished you a Happy Hanukkah.
If that is the case, then fine.
When I went to school, "Merry Christmas" was beginning to be considered an offensive term by those of different ethnic backgrounds, which is why it was removed.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Maybe I didn't come across clearly, but that is what I was saying. They should learn about them all, rather than trying to exclude one or some of them. By removing all aspects of Christmas, they are in effect excluding it, which is what I am against.
My kids are not in school though, so I am drawing off my experience growing up in a largely multicultural school where mentioning Christmas (or any other religious holiday) at any point was a no-no. I assume from the previous comments about a celebration of seasons changing, that that practice is still in effect in our schools.
How, in any way, is a celebration of seasons changing inferior to a celebration of Christmas?
As I noted in my original description, Christmas was indeed mentioned as one of the fun activities that winter brings. It was not excluded.
One the two songs they sung explicitly refers to Santa Claus (aka. St. Nick).
It is not like there was no mention of Christmas, and no one that I am aware of was offended by those mentions (myself included).
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by firebug
While that may be the case, it is a large step to have those beliefs and opinions effectively endorsed by the government. I can't stop a teacher from believing that the earth is 6,000 years old, but I can certainly object to them teaching that in a public school.
Where is anyone complaining about exposure?
The issue is that the 'public' school presumes one form of belief as superior to all others.
To your first point, I think it's been clearly established that that's not what we're talking about here. Any reasonable person, religious or not, would agree that teaching that the world is 6000 years old should not be done in any science class.
As for your question, the woman in the oringinal article explicitly says she doesn't like the fact that her children are being exposed to it.
As for your final point, I would tend to agree, but if a community is willing to approve (and fund) a school like that, then perhaps they should be allowed, provided there are options available to the folks who don't want religion taught in school.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Honeslty angry persecuted athiest parents say their kids are being "Exposed" to religion like it is toxic waste.
Hyperbole doesn't help facilitate a meaningful discussion.
The parents in the article say nothing of the sort, they simply want a secular education option which is supposed to be provided to everyone by law since we're a secular society.
Kids at a young age are easily influenced, as any parent of a 5 year old who picks up a non-desirable behaviour or idea knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Are those parents so worried that other people will have that much influence over their children? Are they that scared that their children are being exposed to other beliefs?
Not scared, but cognisant. I've reduced my son's time interacting with specific kids because they were too violent and that was rubbing off on him. You can tell a 5 year old that Billy's mom lets him hit other kids but you aren't allowed to, but I think you VASTLY over estimate the cognitive power and will power of a 5 year old if you think that's going to be effective.
Likewise I moderate and monitor what games and TV shows my son sees. Am I scared of my son being exposed to specific things? No, but there's an appropriate time and age to be able to consider specific subjects and concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Why can't they just explain "Hey, those people believe in something that we don't, and you don't have to either."
If the kid was going to a racist school where they were taught to hate non-white people, do you think that that would be effective? Just telling your kid that those people believe in something that you don't, and that'll change their mind? Again I think you really overestimate the rationality of a 5 year old mind.
(I'm not comparing religion to racism, I'm talking about how easy it is to influence a young mind and how hard it would be to change that influence)
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Doe
Then why do they have to wear their symbols in public and drive around with their bumper-stickers on their cars?
And their religion says that if you don't believe in their God you are going to hell. That is better than saying "I think your beliefs are wrong"?
Serioulsy?
Okay tell me who the bigger jerk is.
The guy who wears his Oilers Jersey to the dome and cheers for his team, and otherwise keeps to himself.
Or the guy who wears an "Oilers Suck" t-shirt to Rexall and without being asked tell everyone around them how dumb they are for cheering for the oilers.
There is a big difference between simply displaying your belifes, and actively insulting, denegrating, or out right telling someone there's are wrong.
This is where what I deem to be the "angry persectued athiest" to be way out of touch with reality. Someone simply displaying a certain symbol is not actively shoving it down your throat.
Putting signs on a bus that say "There is no god" is no different in my book, than the JW who knocks on my door to tell me that there is one.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 12-22-2010 at 03:00 PM.
Then why do they have to wear their symbols in public and drive around with their bumper-stickers on their cars?
And their religion says that if you don't believe in their God you are going to hell. That is better than saying "I think your beliefs are wrong"?
What about the guy with the NO FEAR bumper sticker? Is he trying to press his beliefs on us? Is there a problem with that? If everyone took everything they believed in and didn't ever say or express it, the world would be a pretty quiet place.
Or is it that you just don't want to hear about things you don't agree with? If that is the case, then everyone who has someone who disagrees with them should just shut up for the benefit of society? How would that get us anywhere?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
How, in any way, is a celebration of seasons changing inferior to a celebration of Christmas?
As I noted in my original description, Christmas was indeed mentioned as one of the fun activities that winter brings. It was not excluded.
One the two songs they sung explicitly refers to Santa Claus (aka. St. Nick).
It is not like there was no mention of Christmas, and no one that I am aware of was offended by those mentions (myself included).
Then my objection is mostly withdrawn.
When I was a kid, during the infancy of this movement, you could not do anything 'Christmas related'. Imagine being in band and needing to pick music for a Winter Festival, and not being allowed to have it related to Christmas.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
The Following User Says Thank You to Rathji For This Useful Post:
As for your question, the woman in the oringinal article explicitly says she doesn't like the fact that her children are being exposed to it.
That's not what the article says. First the comment about not liking isn't from the woman the article is about, it's from a different person.
Second, the quote is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Article
“The religion class is half an hour every day, and that is the only time my children are not discussing religion,” said Marjorie Kirsop, whose son, 7, and daughter, 5, are enrolled in Notre Dame Elementary School in Morinville. “But the rest of the day they are exposed to it.”
So it's not the fact they are exposed to it, it's the degree.
We're seeing one point of view here, the article's author. We don't know to what degree religion is part of all the other classes, so without that it's difficult to say.
I think we could both agree that there would be some theoretical level of religious content in the non-religious classes that we would both find inappropriate (edit, inappropriate for a public school I mean, or a Catholic school operating as the public option), but we don't know if this crosses those lines or not.
I think we could both agree that there would be some theoretical level of religious content in the non-religious classes that we would both find inappropriate, but we don't know if this crosses those lines or not.
There most certainly is a level of education about religious content in public schools that should be tolerated, but setting the level at zero tolerance allowed is short changing our youth. However, some people in this thread seem to think otherwise.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That's not what the article says. First the comment about not liking isn't from the woman the article is about, it's from a different person.
Second, the quote is:
So it's not the fact they are exposed to it, it's the degree.
We're seeing one point of view here, the article's author. We don't know to what degree religion is part of all the other classes, so without that it's difficult to say.
I think we could both agree that there would be some theoretical level of religious content in the non-religious classes that we would both find inappropriate (edit, inappropriate for a public school I mean, or a Catholic school operating as the public option), but we don't know if this crosses those lines or not.
I agree with you 100% on this point. Like I've said before, any reasonable person (religous or not) will certainly agree that teaching in scinece class that the world is only 5000 years old, and that Adam and Eve are our actual ancesotors is not right, and isn't going on anywhere in the Alberta Public or Catholic school systems. I'm fairly certain we can agree on that.
As for this article, seeing as how the kids are in Kindergaten, I'd be willing to bet the extent of religous penetration into other classes is something along the lines of singing Jesus filled Christmas songs, and making Jesus themed Christmas crafts, if it's more than that, then sure this woman probalby has a valid point, but we don't know.
My problem is that my preception is of someone who complains that the angel on the Christmas tree is pushing Christianity down here throat, but would contribute to "There is no god" bus signs. Is that the type of person she is? Probably not, but there have been so many cases of people getting all up in arms about trival things (from both sides) that whenever I see someone arguing about the inclusion or exclusion of religion in anything, I just think they're being an uptight ###### who needs to chill out and let others do their own thing. Granted public schools are a differnet story, and there should be options either way, but let's all try to be reasonable shall we.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 12-22-2010 at 03:14 PM.
Okay tell me who the bigger jerk is.
The guy who wears his Oilers Jersey to the dome and cheers for his team, and otherwise keeps to himself.
Or the guy who wears an "Oilers Suck" t-shirt to Rexall and without being asked tell everyone around them how dumb they are for cheering for the oilers.
This is where what I deem to be the "angry persectued athiest" to be way out of touch with reality. Someone simply displaying a certain symbol is not actively shoving it down your throat.
You analogy isn't very close to what we were discussing. People are not going into churches, synagogues and mosques and telling the people there that their God "sucks", which is what you are describing in your analogy.
Do you really think that the following ad is offensive? "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".
What I find odd is that you feel offended because the ad is an example of an "angry persecuted atheist" telling you that you believe in fairy tales, yet you think that if someone doesn't want any religious overtones to the Christmas holidays in a secular school they are being overly sensitive.
What about the guy with the NO FEAR bumper sticker? Is he trying to press his beliefs on us? Is there a problem with that? If everyone took everything they believed in and didn't ever say or express it, the world would be a pretty quiet place.
Or is it that you just don't want to hear about things you don't agree with? If that is the case, then everyone who has someone who disagrees with them should just shut up for the benefit of society? How would that get us anywhere?
I don't have a problem with the bumper stickers or the crosses or the hijabs. I was trying to point out that the ads placed by atheist organizations are no different than those symbols.
I agree with you 100% on this point. Like I've said before, any reasonable person (religous or not) will certainly agree that teaching in scinece class that the world is only 5000 years old, and that Adam and Eve are our actual ancesotors is not right, and isn't going on anywhere in the Alberta Public or Catholic school systems. I'm fairly certain we can agree on that...
I am not trying to be argumentative, and I totally agree with your belief in what is reasonable. However, there are a great deal of people who want exactly that information taught in science classes. From another thread, four in ten people in the U.S. believe in young earth creationism. I would imagine that the vast majority of these people want this taught in schools.
With 40% of the population, you can win a national election if you can get your people out to vote. Then you can dictate what is taught in the classroom, regardless of how reasonable it is or not. This is what scares people like me, and is why I am starting to be more vocal in what I believe. I think that this is also the reason why you are seeing more and more non-religious people airing their opinions.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Hyperbole doesn't help facilitate a meaningful discussion.