789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 245:
Line 245: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
:::::: "''And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong.''": Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are ''scientifically'' proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to ''prove'' anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not ''scientific proof''? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been ''scientifically'' proven?
:::::: "''And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong.''": Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are ''scientifically'' proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to ''prove'' anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not ''scientific proof''? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been ''scientifically'' proven?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
This is becoming difficult to follow, so I am unindenting.
1. ''Your answer from your following comments seems to be "according to the law", and this may be so, but we are talking about what ''should be'' the case, not what ''is'' the case. As such, we can ignore what the law or constitution currently says as well as how it is interpreted.''
Clearly we are approaching this from different views, then. I was not arguing a hypothetical "if we lived in a theocracy" sort of thing, I was arguing about school prayer in America. I will happily cede the point that, if we lived in a Christian theocracy, it would only be appropriate for teachers to lead the students in prayer. My objections and arguments stand, however, when it comes to America, which is governed by those Constitutional clauses. I actually also happen to believe that, yes, everyone should have freedom of religion. If you do not, as it seems, that would simply be a fundamental difference of ethics between us.
2. ''If a teacher "speaking the truth" says that Australia is in the southern hemisphere, are they "merely...endorsing their personal opinion"???''
You appear to believe that the existence of a certain sect's god is as empirically proven as the location of Australia, but I have to venture that such does not seem to be the case. Otherwise there would be no Catholics or Protestants... we would just be able to take a microscope to God.
Regardless, this is a tangential issue, with little bearing on the matter at hand and great capacity for derailing.
3. ''No, it's only postmodernist thinking that says that such things are dependant on your viewpoint rather than being factual.''
...well, that's actually not "postmodernism," it's "factual relativity," as I said above. Postmodernism is a very distinct school of thought based around the theory that an examination of the false dualities in our language and the wide variety of what is not said, as revealed by a study of the "differance" and the privileging of speech over writing, can lead to an understanding that any given text cannot be said to have a single definitive interpretation. It's a little much to go into in an aside on a discussion on an online encyclopedia, but suffice to say that the two are very different.
4. ''As I said above, a school teaching that God exists does not mean that you are forcing someone to believe it. So teaching it and being free to believe or not believe ''are two separate things''. We were talking about the former, and you replied by repeating the latter.''
The teacher is a representative of the state, as an employee of the state. In their role as teacher, by espousing any religious beliefs they are implicitly supporting them. Thus, it would be the state supporting those religious beliefs. This is severely compounded by the intended position of the teacher as the figure of authority and voice of knowledge and wisdom in the classroom... ideally, a teacher should impart not simply raw knowledge, but also a manner of critical thinking and approaching the world. Accordingly, a teacher using this position, and the fact that they are indirect representatives of the government, means that they are strongly endorsing particular religious views if they espouse them in the classroom.
5. ''Why not? They teach many other things as truth; why not also teach which religion is true?''
I assume you are being facetious. This would be incredibly unconstitutional. Further, I should point out that a good teacher does not, in fact, teach anything as "truth." A good teacher instructs his students to question the accepted facts being given, with a wise and skeptical eye. In science, for example, nothing is sacrosanct "truth," since under the scientific method everything is open to question as long as evidence can be presented. Similarly, in history nothing is assumed to be ironclad truth, and interpretations of events can very widely. These are, of course, ideal scenarios... we often have many teachers who unfortunately think they are some sort of repository for divine accuracy, with the arrogance to decide what "must" be the "truth."
6. ''Assuming they are not the only two options, then yes, I would be quite comfortable with that, as long as they came up with the correct answer''.
That would be the great caveat, wouldn't it? ;) I think you take my point. Or I hope you do, anyway.
7. ''Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are scientifically proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to prove anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not scientific proof? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been scientifically proven?''
I was using the colloquial sense of "prove," as I think you probably were aware. You seem to be taking a pretty personal tone to this... let's try to keep it civil, please.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)