197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + + + +
Talk:Libertarian censorship (view source)
Revision as of 14:06, November 18, 2008
, 14:06, November 18, 2008Philosophical flaw, only for advanced readers
Or are we to enforce "[[tolerance]]" of things liberals like while enforcing [[censorship]] of things liberals hate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Or are we to enforce "[[tolerance]]" of things liberals like while enforcing [[censorship]] of things liberals hate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:This is coming from someone who supports school prayer, so don't take it the wrong way. However I can see a strong flaw in your argument. Religious beliefs are personal, there is no objective way to prove their accuracy and each student is entitled to their own opinion. Once teacher initiated public prayer is allowed, it gives individual religious beliefs an authority that is above what is allowable in a multicultural society (even if you invited members of other religious orders in, you will never be able to accommodate for all students). Sending students out of class is entirely impractical, not only does it disrupt the flow of the lesson but it also isolates students and leaves them open to alienation and ridicule.
:Descriptions of sex acts are entirely different matter. There is little doubt that using the powers of sexuality (a nice euphemism I learned in primary school :) can lead to pregnancy, and that there are ways to utilise these powers beyond basic intercourse. It is not a question of personal belief, rather of teaching what is undoubtedly true. As such, censoring sex education based on graphic content is entirely different to censoring school prayer, and comparing the two is a fallacy. That said, coming from a public school in Australia where sex ed is probably some of the most graphic in the world (send me an email if you want a description) it is relatively tame and I believe most parents wishing to shelter their children have either not experienced it themselves or have impractically high standards (they'd also have to censor the news and virtually all television shows).
:Just jumping back to the school prayer issue, my two cents is that the Australian model has worked wonders. In it, students in public school are not subjected to communal prayer (appropriate, given the wide variety of beliefs), however have access to compulsory scripture classes where prayer is conducted, and can join various student groups which support prayer. Not only does this ensure that students can pray in the manner that suits them (or not pray entirely) rather than being subjected to a generalised prayer which may or may not suit their beliefs, but it also fosters spiritual growth within the groups, as students are able to identify and discuss their faith with their peers. It also circumnavigates the concept of authority discussed above. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 18 November 2008 (EST)