It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Louisiana Public School Cramming Christianity Down Students’ Throats

page: 18
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


There are two issues in the OP. One is the negative expressions and the other is the positive expressions. The harmful negative expressions like "being a Buddhist is stupid" don't spin other positive statements into negative ones. The poster on the wall isn't in itself hostile regardless of why it was placed there unless the person who put it there announces to everyone some sort of alternative meaning. A comparable exmple would be if a congress person said "Mexico is a terrible country and you are stupid for being a Mexican" it doesn't change the meaning of an American flag to be a symbol of hostility towards Mexico. I'm sure that is how Mexicans would begin to interpret it however.

Not only that , but your conception that the positive religious expressions there are meant to be negative are simply wrong. There are not really a significant number of other religions in most public schools that the school would feel threatened by them. They are there to promote philosophies and history that are favored by their religion, not to keep away people from other religions. While first of all it can happen that a positive poster like a Jesus poster could be placed as an act of intimidation, the people placing it would have to somehow communicate the threat of it to the the target audience. That has not happened in this case unless you can show otherwise. Likewise, an American flag is not meant to insult Mexicans unless the person putting it there says otherwise.

Intent as you point out is important but intent has to be stated directly or you are just guessing. I believe the intent of the Jesus poster was to encourage people to analyze and imitate the life of Jesus, which I view as a good thing. Jesus was never once much involved in politics. His politics was love and peace, which is a perfect message.




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 


Now you are just full of hot air.




They are there to promote philosophies


The posters are promoting religion. One particular religion. They promote worship to that religion. That one particular religion.

The signs

WORSHIP
PRAY
BELEIVE
DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING INSTEAD PRAY ABOUT EVERYTHING (why worry about grades if the questions are on faith)
AS FOR GOD HIS WAY IS PERFECT.....
HE SHEILDS ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN HIM (screw the one's who don't)
Along with a portrait of Jesus

That isn't philosophy that is indoctrination.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


You missed my argument completely. It is most certainly and definitely just as harmful for a teacher to be ridiculing their student in front of class for farting as it is for a teacher to ridicule their teacher in front of class for having a religion they disapprove of. You can confirm this with any 5th grade female student. You say I have a ridiculous argument but any and all 5th grade girls know you are wrong. For a 5th grade female student, they would rather the teacher ridicule them over their religion than laugh and make a commentary after hearing them fart. I really don't see why this is difficult to grasp. I'd be willing wager a bet on this that yes 5th grade female students would rather be ridiculed for their religion than ridiculed for farting. I absolutely challenge you to talk to a 5th grade girl about this who attends public school.
edit on 6-2-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

fractal2
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


You missed my argument completely. It is most certainly and definitely just as harmful for a teacher to be ridiculing their student in front of class for farting as it is for a teacher to ridicule their teacher in front of class for having a religion they disapprove of. You can confirm this with any 5th grade female student. You say I have a ridiculous argument but any and all 5th grade girls know you are wrong. For a 5th grade female student, they would rather the teacher ridicule them over their religion than laugh and make a commentary after hearing them fart. I really don't see why this is difficult to grasp. I'd be willing wager a bet on this that yes 5th grade female students would rather be ridiculed for their religion than ridiculed for farting. I absolutely challenge you to talk to a 5th grade girl about this who attends public school.
edit on 6-2-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)


This is about right. Both farts and religion stink the same when being forced upon public school students.

As for ridicule, you demean religion and what it means to many with your comments. We all fart, and it is pretty funny. Certain people hold particular dogmas for particular religions. It is a belief, not an action.

How you got to ridiculing someone for farting from the OP is a stretch that stinks to high heaven.

CJ
edit on 6-2-2014 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


LOL! I couldn't have said it better myself. Really weird argument that came out of DEEEEEP left field. I seriously thought he was joking at first.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   

fractal2
Before I reply, my question was: Who was harmed by the poster of Jesus on the school wall and how much were they harmed?



A poster will not jump out and choke you. It's just an object.

The reason why it is wrong is because it is a form of propaganda. You shouldn't have to look around and be told to accept this, and worship that, no matter what it is. It's a form of conditioning and brainwashing, and it is not okay. And when people choose to advertise something such as a religion, I will only view it as a product, and treat it as so. Plus in my opinion, when you have to promote a religion, it comes off rather desperate. And it just lessens my personal feelings towards it. That's the way I see it at least.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Lingweenie

fractal2
Before I reply, my question was: Who was harmed by the poster of Jesus on the school wall and how much were they harmed?



A [wall] poster will not jump out and choke you. It's just an object.

The reason why it is wrong is because it is a form of propaganda. You shouldn't have to look around and be told to accept this, and worship that, no matter what it is. It's a form of conditioning and brainwashing, and it is not okay. And when people choose to advertise something such as a religion, I will only view it as a product, and treat it as so. Plus in my opinion, when you have to promote a religion, it comes off rather desperate. And it just lessens my personal feelings towards it. That's the way I see it at least.
Thanks for being the sole person to answer the question.

Most non-profits do advertise with at least 2% of their budget, so its okay for a religion to advertise. Its even okay for governments to advertise when they do it with rightfully received funds. If you think you know a way to help people, I'd be happy if you advertised that. I can't recall seeing a non-profit ad coming across as desperate except maybe the ones repeatedly asking for money.

So, your objection to the Jesus poster is not so much about separation of church and state but rather separation of child from propaganda?

The propaganda in public schools and other public places that I object to is the the worship this soldier, worship that politician. It would be only fair to remove the Jesus poster promoting love and peace (in a one-sided way) if you also removed the Army poster promoting war and violence (also in a one-sided way). But even that would be wrong. Instead, allow taxpayers to post any poster they want next to the poster of Jesus using their own money.

It seems like what is propaganda is entirely opinion. How can you fairly make a rule against propaganda that isn't discriminating against Jesus posters but allowing propaganda like "You are worthy of praise when you wage war for your country". I think the solution is not banning Jesus posters or any other propaganda but allowing taxpayers who are bothered by any poster on a school wall to offer an alternative view posted next to it. Instead of hindering expression, you expand it. And you do that without banning expression from public places. Any solution to the propaganda problem should be positively add expression, not take away expression.

Personally I would say a Jesus poster is a nice counter-argument to the Army posters seen in High Schools. And I would welcome the Buddhist student along with other Buddhists in town to pay for a Buddha poster and place it next to the Jesus poster. They are quite complimentary of each other. Then something good could come of something bad. It would be a step towards correcting the harm on the part of the school if they would re-reimburse the Buddhists. If the Buddhists chose not to put any such poster up then you the propaganda is acceptable as-is because alternative views would be perfectly possible.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by fractal2
 


(insult deleted)



They are there to promote philosophies


The posters are promoting religion. One particular religion. They promote worship to that religion. That one particular religion.

The signs

WORSHIP
PRAY
BELEIVE
DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING INSTEAD PRAY ABOUT EVERYTHING (why worry about grades if the questions are on faith)
AS FOR GOD HIS WAY IS PERFECT.....
HE SHEILDS ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN HIM (screw the one's who don't)
Along with a portrait of Jesus

That isn't philosophy that is indoctrination.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
There is nothing wrong with promoting one specific philosophy that happens to be a religious one if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on. What you should be concerned about is the posters promoting violence in High Schools. They say things like "An Army of One". I wonder how many times you've spoken out about that propaganda on ATS. Is it within the High Schools right to promote war through an Army of One poster?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

fractal2

Grimpachi
reply to post by fractal2
 


(insult deleted)



They are there to promote philosophies


The posters are promoting religion. One particular religion. They promote worship to that religion. That one particular religion.

The signs

WORSHIP
PRAY
BELEIVE
DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING INSTEAD PRAY ABOUT EVERYTHING (why worry about grades if the questions are on faith)
AS FOR GOD HIS WAY IS PERFECT.....
HE SHEILDS ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN HIM (screw the one's who don't)
Along with a portrait of Jesus

That isn't philosophy that is indoctrination.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
There is nothing wrong with promoting one specific philosophy that happens to be a religious one if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on.
( deleted the part that has nothing to do with the case)


There is everything wrong with promoting religion by our government. Our country is not a theocracy however if all the citizens (not taxpayers) decide otherwise then we can change the foundation of this country.

I see you keep trying to equate philosophy and religion. Sorry no they are not the same.

Also even if things were the way you propose where taxpayers choose then you seem to forget not all taxpayers are christian.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 





TextThere is nothing wrong with promoting one specific philosophy that happens to be a religious one if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on. What you should be concerned about is the posters promoting violence in High Schools. They say things like "An Army of One".


Take out the words "that happens to be a religious one" and your statement is completely contradictory.

CJ



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

ColoradoJens
reply to post by fractal2
 





TextThere is nothing wrong with promoting one specific philosophy that happens to be a religious one if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on. What you should be concerned about is the posters promoting violence in High Schools. They say things like "An Army of One".


Take out the words "that happens to be a religious one" and your statement is completely contradictory.

CJ
At face value yes it is contradictory, so I wasn't clear enough. It is within a schools rights to promote one specific philosophy that if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on. You and most other ATS members on this thread think the Jesus posters are a bad thing to spend the money on. I think the Army of One posters are a bad thing to spend the money on. However, the decision should be with the taxpayers not with you because as has been pointed out the poster in and of itself is not directly causing harm.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Grimpachi

fractal2

Grimpachi
reply to post by fractal2
 


(insult deleted)



They are there to promote philosophies


The posters are promoting religion. One particular religion. They promote worship to that religion. That one particular religion.

The signs

WORSHIP
PRAY
BELEIVE
DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING INSTEAD PRAY ABOUT EVERYTHING (why worry about grades if the questions are on faith)
AS FOR GOD HIS WAY IS PERFECT.....
HE SHEILDS ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN HIM (screw the one's who don't)
Along with a portrait of Jesus

That isn't philosophy that is indoctrination.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
There is nothing wrong with promoting one specific philosophy that happens to be a religious one if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on.
( deleted the part that has nothing to do with the case)


There is everything wrong with promoting religion by our government. Our country is not a theocracy however if all the citizens (not taxpayers) decide otherwise then we can change the foundation of this country.

I see you keep trying to equate philosophy and religion. Sorry no they are not the same.

Also even if things were the way you propose where taxpayers choose then you seem to forget not all taxpayers are christian.


Well, if religion is in fact a branch of philosophy then for consistencies sake we should allow schools to promote a specific religion if we also allow them to promote a specific philosophy. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? My view is that a school promoting any but universally accepted philosophies is generally a bad idea but I leave it up to taxpayers, as I've mentioned, whether to do that.

Wikipedia says the following:
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

The key words in the definitions are:
Word 1. "beliefs", "cultural systems", "world views", and "existence".
Word 2. "problems", "reality", "existence", "knowledge", "values", "reason", "mind", and "language"
Given that you could say
1. Beliefs are a subset of knowledge.
2. Language is a subset of cultural systems.
3. World views are a subset of knowledge.
4. An order of existence is a type of existence.

Since beliefs are a subset of knowledge, religion is a subset of philosophy. Since world views are a subset of knowledge, religion is a subset of philosophy. Since an order of existence is a type of existence, religion is a type of philosophy. Since language is a subset of culture, philosophy is a subset of religion. I don't actually believe that last statement is accurate. Rather I think Wikipedia should say "the structure of language" or some other alternative text. Under that definition, you would have a direct association between religion and philosophy as well.

In three ways, religion is a branch of philosophy. In a fourth way, its directly related. If I were to define the two words myself instead of Wikipedia, then maybe I wouldn't get that result. I've never made it a point to try and nail down those two words. But I invite you to offer your own definitions and then show that religion is not a branch of philosophy.

Either way I don't think anyone on ATS would say that a teacher's ridicule of students is acceptable for any reason, and neither is punishing them for not accepting the philosophy, religious, or political belief. If someone objects on philosophical grounds to any issue, the student should not be marked down.

For example, if I am entirely sure that 1+1=3 on my math test I should be able to write, 2 is what others think the answer is but the right answer is 3 and not be marked down. Is that better or worse than only allowing students to disagree on religious philosophies? Consistency is good. By treating religion as a branch of philosophy you can create rules that are more streamlined, universal, and effective.

Insisting that 1+1=3 would most certainly open up the channels of ridicule, possibly even more than being a Buddhist at that very same school. Obviously it would result in bad grades every time. And it would result in just as much harm to the student. Yet there are ways of allowing the student to hold that belief without marking their grade down as I just outlined. The rule to resolve the issues of OP should be, "you cannot mark students down over philosophical differences" not "church and state must be separate".
edit on 8-2-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

fractal2
It is within a schools rights to promote one specific philosophy that if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on.

No, it isn't.


However, the decision should be with the taxpayers not with you because as has been pointed out the poster in and of itself is not directly causing harm.

No, it shouldn't.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 


You are really trying to push the narative that religion and philosophy are the same. They are not.

Where we get into trouble in calling Christianity a philosophy is with its direction in the pursuit of wisdom.


Religion vs Philosophy
Religion and philosophy are two different topics altogether. Religion is all about practices and customs whereas philosophy is all about metaphysics.
Religion is a belief; it has a set of code of conduct, principles, ethics and morals to follow in one’s life. There are several religions in the world. It only means that people of the world follow different kinds of religion that frame different sets of principles, ethics, morals and codes of conduct to follow for the people that belong to them.


In Brief:
Religion is a belief in a supreme power and worship of it as the creator and controller of the universe without reasoning whereas philosophy is a pursuit of wisdom by intellectual search and logical reasoning. Philosophy of religion questions the very existence of the supreme power.
Religions discipline the people through a set of code of conduct, principles and ethics whereas philosophy relies on the moral self-discipline.

Read more: www.differencebetween.com...


I think maybe you have been mislead by some TV personalities claiming Religion i.e. Christianity is a philosophy. Is Christianity a Religion, a Philosophy, or a Theology?

Christianity is Theology.



Religion and Theology are two terms that are often confused when it comes to their study. Religion is based on faiths and beliefs when it comes to the acceptance of superhuman powers in the form of God or Gods. On the other hand theology is the study of theistic thought. This is especially true of Christianity. Theism is the acceptance of the presence of God or superhuman power.
In short it can be said that theology works on religion. Religious facts and thoughts should have been established in the first place for the subject of theology to develop. Theology is in fact based on religion. It is a system of theistic especially Christian religion.

Read more: www.differencebetween.com...



This country is NOT a Theocracy.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 

Its really disappointing to me that judging by the number of stars you got, people believe its okay for a teacher to ridicule children so long as they do it for topics that don't bother you. I guess laughing at kids and emotionally scarring for life is all fun and games when done using non-religion-based topics.

I guess you can tell that it was funny to the kid I know who was emotionally scarred for life after a teacher ridiculed for farting loudly in class. It doesn't bother at all and you even laugh about it. You are wrong. I proved you wrong too when I said "ask any 5th grade girl whether they would prefer to be ridiculed for farting loudly in class vs. their religion". That very clearly proves you wrong. Offer evidence to the contrary and then we can talk further. Farts are not slightly funny in any way, shape, or form, to most 5th grade females. You are male so just don't get it. Basically you are only concerned with what offends you, not other people.

I have not demeaned religion in any way, shape, or form. Christians don't really consider Christianity to be a religion they simply consider it to be the truth and the way things are. To a Christian, the Bible is like the laws of life whereas physics are like the laws of physics. The word "religion" is considered demeaning to some Christians, especially the ones who are against organized religion.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   

daskakik

fractal2
It is within a schools rights to promote one specific philosophy that if that is what taxpayers choose to spend their money on.

No, it isn't.


However, the decision should be with the taxpayers not with you because as has been pointed out the poster in and of itself is not directly causing harm.

No, it shouldn't.


Unless you can show that promoting any given philosophy always causes harm, you have no grounds to ban the speech from public schools. If promoting a philosophy doesn't always cause harm, then the philosophy should be allowed in school.

Is it okay to dock a student grades over differences in philosophy? Or just religion (religious philosophy)?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

fractal2
Unless you can show that promoting any given philosophy always causes harm, you have no grounds to ban the speech from public schools. If promoting a philosophy doesn't always cause harm, then the philosophy should be allowed in school.

But you're not talking about philosophies in general you are talking about "promoting one specific philosophy". No. it isn't within a school's rights to do that.


Is it okay to dock a student grades over differences in philosophy? Or just religion (religious philosophy)?

From experience, I would say that if it goes against the syllabus then docking may happen in either situation. Whether it's okay would be a matter of opinon.


edit on 10-2-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Should it be illegal for a teacher to ridicule students or dock a students grade over philosophic differences in some circumstances?

Philosophy and religion are different, you are right about that point. The two different concepts are related in four ways under the Wikipedia definitions. My narrative and push is that the two different concepts can be treated as one concept under government for positive practical effects. The problem with banning categories of expression entirely is that which expressions are hurtful is entirely opinion, and personal opinions are not grounds for good government.

A poster that says "1+1=2" should be banned only if the intent of the person who put it there was to cause harm. I think a poster that says "Jesus is a cool guy." should be allowed if the intent was something other than causing harm. No harm, no foul. There is a potential law I'd love to see as part of the US constitution. And not helping someone isn't the same as hurting someone.

I accept your alternative definitions for this post though they are worse than the Wikipedia definitions. The text saying religion is in part something "without reason" should not be there. Of course there is a reason that people have religion. Are bad reasons still reasons? Yes. Pascal's wager is a bad reason to adopt religion but is none the less a logic-based reason to do so. But for the sake of argument I will accept your definition which I put together as follows:


Religion is all about practices and customs. Religion is a belief; it has a set of code of conduct, principles, ethics and morals to follow in one’s life. Religion is a belief in a supreme power and worship of it as the creator and controller of the universe without reasoning.


What this definition shows is that religion is a very large swath of concepts, all of which become banned if you make the rule "you may not promote a religion in school".

Which of the following posters should be banned from school?
"Wash you Hands Before You Eat" is a practice.
"Please and Thank You" is a custom.
"1+1=2" is a belief.
"No cutting in line" is a code of conduct.
"Love Your Neighbor as you Love Your Self" is a principle.
"Honesty is the Best Policy" is an example of ethics.
"Cheating on Tests is Wrong" is an example of morals.
"God Exists" is a Supreme Power poster.
"The Creator of the Universe is Glorious" is a worship poster.

While I'm not sure if hand-washing is part of any major religion I'm entirely sure it would be quite possible to create one that does. So, having the rule "religion cannot be promoted in public school" potentially bans all the above posters, when I bet we would all agree that not all of the above posters should be banned. Lets say you would ban the last two only. Well that is by your own definitions of religion, 2/9ths or ~22% of what religion is about. That shotgun approach killing all sorts of expression in the process of eliminating a minority of it is my objection to banning religion from government. The ban leads to 78% or more of the other components of religion being banned when they shouldn't be. The shotgun approach you advocate does too much damage to the freedom of expression.

Most atheists in the US think the supreme power over the universe is the US Federal Government or the UN. They pledge their allegiance to it and sing songs of worship to it like the Star Spangled Banner. In many of their minds, the US or UN is the supreme power watching over you that you should bow down to and praise because they'll provide everything you need for life if you just put your faith in them, provide offerings of money to them, and follow all the rituals properly. That philosophy is just as religious as any religion's philosophy.

The "supreme power" called the United States merely wants all the power to them self, so they ban the competition. It has nothing to do with wanting the best for you. Nothing. The only reason the US government does not want you worshipping competing powers is because they want to be the supreme power. That is why in the constitution, they say that churches should not have any political power. A Theocracy is fine so long as all rights and freedoms are respected. If Theocracy can't exist without respecting rights and freedoms then there can't be a legitimate Theocracy. But otherwise, yes, there can be. There is no legitimate Republic or Theocracy in existence and there may have never been. Neither of them respect our rights and freedoms.

"Religions discipline the people through a set of code of conduct, principles and ethics whereas philosophy relies on the moral self-discipline.". I don't agree with that statement. Christianity relies on "self-control" for example. Therefore both religion and philosophy rely on self-discipline.

The important part of this is: Should it be illegal for a teacher to ridicule students or dock a students grade over philosophic differences?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   

daskakik

fractal2
Unless you can show that promoting any given philosophy always causes harm, you have no grounds to ban the speech from public schools. If promoting a philosophy doesn't always cause harm, then the philosophy should be allowed in school.

But you're not talking about philosophies in general you are talking about "promoting one specific philosophy". No. it isn't within a school's rights to do that.


Is it okay to dock a student grades over differences in philosophy? Or just religion (religious philosophy)?

From experience, I would say that if it goes against the syllabus then docking may happen in either situation. Whether it's okay would be a matter of opinon.
A popular philosopher is Descartes. One of his famous sayings is "I think, therefore I am". A teacher posts that next to the philosophy classroom. Should this be banned from public schools?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 


You have completely derailed this thread with your "Farting Nonsense" and continued argument about Philosophy. Just to remind you that the OP was regarding a Christian Teacher ridiculing a Buddhist student in front of his class over his religious beliefs. The OP was absolutely nothing to do with "Farting" or other philosophy's and was regarding the lack of intolerance shown at this school to other students with different religions.

Why not start your own thread regarding the difference between philosophy and religion rather than derail this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join