Why don't Fundamentalist schools...

[ginshun]

rmcrobertson, you are the one who is all about acedemic freedom. Isn't being able to decide what not to teach just as much a part of that as being able to decide what to teach?

Personally I think going to a college like that would be terrible, but if that is the type of college experience/education that someone wants, who am I to tell them otherwise?

 

[heretic888]

Personally I think going to a college like that would be terrible, but if that is the type of college experience/education that someone wants, who am I to tell them otherwise?

I assume you're using a very liberal (no pun intended!) definition of "education" here.

As for telling people what they should learn, as a college student myself I consider it a grave disservice teaching fellow students a point of view that is not accepted whatsoever in the academic field in question, and then go on presenting it as if its "the one-and-only truth".

'Lil thing called integrity. :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Of course I'm all for academic freedom. This means: a) teaching everything possible, and not letting narrow-minded Fundamentalist beliefs block that; b) respecting the best work in various disciplines, rather than hiding it from students because it doesn't agree with one's religious beliefs.

 

[ginshun]

Of course I'm all for academic freedom. This means: a) teaching everything possible, and not letting narrow-minded Fundamentalist beliefs block that; b) respecting the best work in various disciplines, rather than hiding it from students because it doesn't agree with one's religious beliefs.

But could it also mean a) teaching what you see fit, and not letting narrow minded, politically correct, liberals influence that b) being able to judge for yourself what is the best work in your discipline, and teaching that based on your own beliefs, not letting what others think about it influence what you teach.

Don't get me wrong, I am not for the religous stuff taught at the schools to which you are refering. I would much rather have the teacher that you described, but if you truely believe in academic freedom, doesn't it have to work both ways?

I would think that your core belief system, whatever it may be, in some way influences what you teach your students. Is it wrong for the same thing to shape another teachers lessons, just because his/her belief system happens to be very different than yours?

 

[PeachMonkey]

But could it also mean a) teaching what you see fit, and not letting narrow minded, politically correct, liberals influence that b) being able to judge for yourself what is the best work in your discipline, and teaching that based on your own beliefs, not letting what others think about it influence what you teach.

What you're suggesting is not protection from "politically correct liberals" shoving anything down your throat, but a world where the religious do a disservice to science, to fact, and even to progress. Call it want you want, just don't call it "academic".

 

[ginshun]

What you're suggesting is not protection from "politically correct liberals" shoving anything down your throat, but a world where the religious do a disservice to science, to fact, and even to progress. Call it want you want, just don't call it "academic".

Again, I am not advocating this way of teaching, I thought I made that clear. I just think that if you are truely for total acedemic freedom (which incedentaly I am not, but that is another story) then it has to work both ways.

You can't defend the Ward Churchills of the world, and condemn the Richard Roberts'. If you think that one has the right to say whatever they want to a group of students then you should defend the right of the other as well. Otherwise you are just being a hypocrit IMO.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Listen up, Sparky: ain't a liberal.

2. Of course academic freedom entails freedom from the narrow minded. Period. It just so happens that we don't actually have liberals running around demanding that their favorite ten superstitions be stuck up on school walls everywhere, or demanding that children pray to, say, Daniel Bell every morning.

3. Hate to have to point this out, but if you're talking about, say evolution--the chief way that science differs from, say, literature, is that in science there is an objective standard against which you can measure how true your personal theory happens to be. It's called Nature. This is why evolution is science, and, "intelligent design," is Christian fundamentalism.

4. Actually, I'd tend to say that they're both idiots. Professor Churchill, because of dimwitted sensationalizing; the other fool, for being a religious wacko.

 

[Ray]

Ah, heck. Fundamentalist school or no: the way to get a good grade in a class is to parrott what the teach tells you; You know it's going to be on the test. Left leaning, right leaning - no difference - everyone thinks that their own view is the right one.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, Ray, if you actually believe that, it pretty much shows that you had idiots for teachers.

The problem, I'd say, is that if you teach kids to ignore physical reality but claim that you're teaching science, if you teach them religious bigotries but then expect them to live in an open, democratic society....

See where I'm going with this?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Well, Ray, if you actually believe that, it pretty much shows that you had idiots for teachers.

The problem, I'd say, is that if you teach kids to ignore physical reality but claim that you're teaching science, if you teach them religious bigotries but then expect them to live in an open, democratic society....

See where I'm going with this?

Yup. *Hamburger comes from a store.*
Or, can't see the forest for the trees.

And so on.

You can be Pollyanna-ish about life -- it's the way it is because I say it is, wishing will make it so, and so on, ad infinitum -- or you can choose to live in the world as a student of life, taking in all that you can, and choosing what you believe from a solid basis in fact.

Not so scary when you keep your mind open.

 

[tsdclaflin]

Did we forget that this is a free country and that we are free to be "close-minded"?

In the United States of America, you are free to: 1) love or hate your neighbor, 2) salute or burn the flag, 2) believe in God, not believe in God, or be mad at God, 3) practice martial arts, 4) be racist or prejudice (be careful how you act on it), 5) be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual.

In addition, you are free to pass on your values to children.

It bothers me that we pick on fundamentalism. Muslims and other religious groups are even more strict in their beliefs (and still execute adulterers).

Moral values are not universal; they are decided upon by culture. Historically, our values came from traditonal judeo/christian values, but they are changing. Laws are based on right and wrong. But "right and wrong" are based on the values of citizens. Some day, it will be legal to commit suicide and to put your elderly family members to death simply because society will decide that it is okay.

You can believe what you want. But so can I. And I can teach it in a private school and as long as this is a free country, how you feel about it simply doesn't matter.

Keep smiling....

 

[PeachMonkey]

The last time I checked, no one is advocating a banning of private schools where people are allowed to teach whatever narrow-minded crap they want to teach.

Pretending, however, that it's advancing academics to do so is where I take intellectual issue with the matter.

 

[tsdclaflin]

What you're suggesting is not protection from "politically correct liberals" shoving anything down your throat, but a world where the religious do a disservice to science, to fact, and even to progress. Call it want you want, just don't call it "academic".

What is "academic" about the myth of macro evolution?

The word evolution simply means to "change". Living organisms change--no one can deny that. But there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence or proof that all living things came from the same ancestor or that fish became reptiles and reptiles because mammals and birds. All of the supposed "evidence" for any of those changes are a result of preconceived notions that in themselves do not lead to evolutionary conclusions.

Let's realize that there are extremists on both sides of the fence. But to call macro evolution academic is biased and close-minded. We need to teach the next generation to think for themselves. Evolutionary scientists are just as guilty as right-wing fundamentals at teaching without proof.

Happy Easter everyone!

 

[tsdclaflin]

demanding that their favorite ten superstitions be stuck up on school walls everywhere

Getting back to martial arts for a moment...

As a Tang Soo Do practitioner, I attended a dojang for a number of years where the "Tenets of Tang Soo Do" and the "10 Articles of Faith" (Korean) were displayed on the wall. Of course, it made sense that a TSD dojang those things would be on the wall.

However, doesn't it also make sense that if you believed in those values and if they were useful outside the training hall as well as inside that you might want to share them with others?

Public places in the USA are filled with quips and quotes posted to encourage people or to promote a better world. And as long as it is not a direct quote from the Bible, nobody cares. But if it is a quote from the Bible, it must be bad. Give me a break! I think it is a good idea to post this in a courtroom:

-Work six days, but take a break once in a while.
-honor your parents (Korean TSD agrees)
-do not murder (Korean TSD agrees)
-be faithful to your family and friends (Korean TSD agrees)
-do not steal
-do not lie

What's not to like about the "10 superstitions"?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Getting back to martial arts for a moment...

As a Tang Soo Do practitioner, I attended a dojang for a number of years where the "Tenets of Tang Soo Do" and the "10 Articles of Faith" (Korean) were displayed on the wall. Of course, it made sense that a TSD dojang those things would be on the wall.

However, doesn't it also make sense that if you believed in those values and if they were useful outside the training hall as well as inside that you might want to share them with others?

Public places in the USA are filled with quips and quotes posted to encourage people or to promote a better world. And as long as it is not a direct quote from the Bible, nobody cares. But if it is a quote from the Bible, it must be bad. Give me a break! I think it is a good idea to post this in a courtroom:

-Work six days, but take a break once in a while.
-honor your parents (Korean TSD agrees)
-do not murder (Korean TSD agrees)
-be faithful to your family and friends (Korean TSD agrees)
-do not steal
-do not lie

What's not to like about the "10 superstitions"?

I've highlighted what you wrote because I don't think that anyone objects to quoting the Bible. The argument is that it's being shoved down our throats by certain people as the only way to believe and conduct oneself. You stated upthread that there are certain freedoms accorded to us as Americans and you are absolutely correct insofaras theory is concerned. The same group who would have us all believe what they do is also the most vocal concerning certain rights - like abortion -- excuse me, the right to choose (what a farcical thing to say with a right-wing president in power who would sign a law interfering in a woman's right to die a dignified death -- see the Terri Schiavo thread -- sorry for the gank.:asian: ) While I think that both sides should be presented, as I've stated again and again and again, and while a private institution not utilizing any public monies is certainly entitled to teach what they see fit, no one has the right to say what's right or wrong without presenting proof to buttress their argument. I think that's one of the points here with regard to those speaking publicly.

As to martial application, TSD, TKD and a few other Korean arts are traditional ones and have their own code which *one* may choose to adhere to -- or not. Most martial arts have creeds which state similar ideas. Yours to decide if you'll take them ALL to heart or not.

 

[rmcrobertson]

...actually, the Commandments state, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

There is no moral killing. Ask the Amish; ask the Quakers, who look more and more sane to me as I get older.

 

[Rich Parsons]

...actually, the Commandments state, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

There is no moral killing. Ask the Amish; ask the Quakers, who look more and more sane to me as I get older.

In the original language I thought it was thou shall not murder. The Prayed upon King James version has it as Thou shall not kill.

I could be wrong, but this is what I thought it said from previous discussion with those who can read other languages I cannot.

 

[Flatlander]

====================================================
Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
====================================================

 

[arnisador]

In the original language I thought it was thou shall not murder. The Prayed upon King James version has it as Thou shall not kill.

That's what I thought too. I suppose there's still some freedom in the interpretation.

 

[arnisador]

What is "academic" about the myth of macro evolution?

It's the only scientific theory of speciation. Right or wrong, it's science. We've had this discussion here many times before, if memory serves. Hmmm:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11990
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14475

It's academic in the sense that in a College of Natural Sciences or of Arts and Sciences, science is appropriately taught within the science departments.

But there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence or proof that all living things came from the same ancestor or that fish became reptiles and reptiles because mammals and birds.

Well, this opinion is uninformed by the findings and arguments of contemporary biology. Accessible summaries of these arguments can be found in the works of people like Gould, Mayr, and Dawkins, for example.

You don't have to accept the argument, but it is rigorous and supported by copious amounts of evidence.

Let's realize that there are extremists on both sides of the fence. [...] Evolutionary scientists are just as guilty as right-wing fundamentals at teaching without proof.

This isn't really true. The scientific side is pretty well proscribed...the scientific method, the collection of observations, the principle of falsifiability, etc. There isn't really extremism on the scientific side.

There's only one scientific theory of speciation. That isn't an extreme position, nor is defending that fact. Whether it's right--whether it matches facts-is another question. Newton's Law of Motion F=ma worked, and still works, very well, but it's wrong if relativity and/or quantum mechanics are right. So, who knows? Still, like Newton's Law, it's apparent that the theory of evolution is largely correct.