Tell me what you think of this.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Tell me what you think of this.

The following post was posted at a local website in response to those advocating a "comparative religion" class in public schools.

The double edge sward I see is that if this is allowed the detriment is problematic.

My fear is that the Kumbia supporters of such a class will take any dissent, even lagit, as being hate speech, even if it is something as simple as, "Excuse me teacher, exactly how does a "spirit" replicate it's DNA to get the girl pregnant"

Certainly it is noble to try to avoid the same indoctrination we see in the middle east with their "education". But I don't want to see the interest of getting along, which we can, throwing out questioning because it "might" offend someone.

(HERE IS THE POST)

"Tenets" and "rules" of religion are arbitrary and sectarian. The good parts, to be compared in such a class, only demonstrates that the label is not required and those good things we do as a species don't need a label.

I am sure that the Ancient Egyptians had laws against stealing from their neighbor, but no matter how right you think that "rule" is, you don't believe in the magical lawgiver they claimed.

Teaching "I am ok, you are ok" based on "all religions are OK, undermines the fact that we are all human, and places the argument that one label invented human behavior at the expense of turning outsiders into a different species.

I only agree that "I am ok, you are ok" in the sense of common law in that I like it when people help me, and I don't like it when they harm me, and I like to complain about things I don't like.

BUT, I will never agree that all claims are equal just because they pass your lips.

(END)

I don't want "comparative religion" classes being turned into " never challenge absurd claims because it might offend someone", if we are to have them in public schools.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
This class might be fun.

This class might be fun. Imagine a class, where only fairy-tales are told! Plus some mumbo jumbo about global tolerance, human creativity and cultural diversity. I think such an approach will do more good than taking every metaphorical legend literally and then demanding a scientific explanation of it.
It's better to say that all claims are equal, than wage wars on who's claims are better. Peace is more worth than being right and they not. Specially now, when it is so rare. Maybe if this class will be really good, the children will realize, that inner teaching of all religions is indeed practically the same. Their weird shit is just as weird as our weird shit. I'm tired of people who know only their object of favor well, but know nothing about alternatives. (only what they single source says about them)

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:It's better to say

Quote:
It's better to say that all claims are equal, than wage wars on who's claims are better. Peace is more worth than being right and they not.

Huh? You're kidding right? So I guess by that standard Galileo would have been better off letting people think the earth was flat, which was the popular belief at the time.

Who said anything about not wanting peace? I am talking about the ability to question being silenced. The only peace believers want is peace through the submission of others. That is not peace, that is THEIR insecurity. Why should I coddle the insecurities of believers?

The peace both the believer and atheist can agree on is one of common law, not common belief.I think it is wrong and divisive to expect the other to expect their egos not to be bruised, for either side.


 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, can we get a link

OK, can we get a link to the site please?

 

My first concern is the bit about teaching only the good things about various religions. Right from the beginning, it seems as if there is someone with a hidden bias calling the shots on this one. If such a bias exists, how much of a stretch is it to go off the stated lesson plan and teach some other bias?

 

Really, absent a link to the source, I have to call this as I see it. And what I see is an all too easy setup for the proverbial camel to get his nose under the tent flap. Seriously, this can go from “all religions are good and we are going to study why that is” to “let me tell you about the best religion and you should ignore when the other religions fade into the background, never to be discussed past week one”.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:It's

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
It's better to say that all claims are equal, than wage wars on who's claims are better. Peace is more worth than being right and they not.

Brian37 wrote:
Huh? You're kidding right? So I guess by that standard Galileo would have been better off letting people think the earth was flat, which was the popular belief at the time.
I only say, as far as it is a claim against claim, there's no reason to wage wars. When the peace is ensured, then there can be a civilized dialogue, perhaps involving some evidence, if possible.

Brian37 wrote:
Who said anything about not wanting peace? I am talking about the ability to question being silenced. The only peace believers want is peace through the submission of others. That is not peace, that is THEIR insecurity. Why should I coddle the insecurities of believers?
Well, because nations like yours and mine are partially responsible for that insecurity. As far as Islam goes, particularly. I believe that these problems must be solved diplomatically, to not cause antagonistic reaction. It's better to be for something than against something. It's better to propagate religious diversity and tolerance, than submission of all religions to the allmighty science, or so it must seem to the believers.

And who says anything about questioning? I think that presenting various religions alongside each other may have the effect you want. If the listeners will be presented a set of mutually exclusive weird shit, they might start to think after a while "what's the fuckin' difference?"

By informing the students about various kinds of faiths, we can defeat the brainwashing tool of organized religion - exclusivity. Jesus, the only son of God, Muhammad, the only prophet of Allah, L. Ron Hubbard, the only daughter of Xenu, all written down in a student's notebook will soon become boring and sort of interchangeable. A school year full of various religions should work on the students as a multiple hay stacks on a Buridan's donkey.
But maybe I'm wrong and the students will like all of this stuff and they will become Unitarian Universalists.

As for teaching only good things about religions, I don't think there's anything bad about it. It should work anyway, students will see that no particular religion is necessary to commit good deeds.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:As for

Luminon wrote:



As for teaching only good things about religions, I don't think there's anything bad about it. It should work anyway, students will see that no particular religion is necessary to commit good deeds.

 

Then why not simply teach that as a fact?  It is simple, it takes about two seconds and we are done.  As I said above, the reason to do it some other way is to advance a specific agenda.  So once we teach the kiddies that Islam is a nation of people who milk goats and Buddhists really like powdered sugar on their pastry, there is nothing to stop the teacher from sliding into:

 

"Well, all of that is fine but you really need to know about all of the good things that come from some dude having been nailed to a tree a couple thousand years ago.  So the remaining ten weeks of the class will focus exclusively on that."

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=