Because his BS is insane ... so it's completely sane and rational to feel that way.
My right-wing friends, why no outrage over this teacher?
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
Because his BS is insane ... so it's completely sane and rational to feel that way.
You're right, you didn't ... I shouldn't have used "you guys" in that response. I'm sorry about that.
Edited: and "you" ... I should have used different terms
1. Am I the only one shocked that Vanilla Ice posted something unrelated to black people?
2. She is a moron. What is to defend? I guess you're that big of a moron that you figured we'd all just jump right to her defense.
LOL no one says it doesn't happen...and yes it is about which religion inspires it more often...that answer is Islam.
Then your question/challenge to name examples of people killing in the name of Christianity was misleading ... because it sure seemed like you were asserting that it doesn't happen. And from your responses to my answers it sure seemed like you wanted to keep convincing yourself that it doesn't happen.
It happens. Trying to make a rational comparison in scope between the two is hilarious though.
I think, and mind you, this is just my opinion, even having the audacity to bring examples of Christian extremism up as a means to deflect from the atrocities of Islam is silly. There really isn't a comparison to be made at present. The board has played this game many times, and the leftist crazies have to go back decades in their defense and usually the next day somewhere a terrorist event occurs. I'm not sure what point they are trying to prove or defend, whatever it is, it's laughable to watch though.
If my statements are ever taken as a deflection, that isn't my intent. And I know the scale isn't at all comparable, but at the same time there are Muslim countries without all of the extremist views. Malaysia being one. I know American Muslims and they don't share the views of the extremists either.
My point is, always has been and always will be, that anybody can find a way to pervert almost any religion to justify whatever atrocity they want to perform. Over there it's done on a much larger scale but it's done everywhere and always has been and always will be.
In the case of abortion bombings and Islamic extremists, I honestly think that there is a lot more to the underlying cause of it than religion. If it was only religion then why isn't there complete unrest and perpetual violence in Malaysia? On the scale that it is, it is predominantly isolated to the ME, except in the cases where they try terror attacks in other places ... but the day to day violence is in the ME.
To me, I draw parallels to gang violence. I don't know how much the crips and bloods is still a thing, but they were killing each other left and right because they were part of the wrong gang ... but what were the factors that precipitated all the gang activity in the first place? Carry that philosophy over to the Shiites and Sunni's ... is it really about those religions or is there something that precipitated the clash along those religious lines?
No matter what the number is no Christian out killing anyonr else is doing it because of what the Bible or their church says. Poor cuntrytard just cant past his own stupidity.
I think the ultimate question boomer my friend is are we a Christian nation exclusively or a Christian Nation that includes a myriad of diversity? Surely you do not argue against our Christian foundation or heritage.
So we can establish Christianity played some relevant role in our founding (not all but most of our Founding Fathers were Christian) because the nation was established with unmistakable fidelity to Christian philosophy, teaching, and beliefs.
OK, now we are deciding what role if any Christianity has in this Nation? I'm arguing that role is prominent, yet under assault in attempts to diminish it. You argue it is not non-significant, but certainly is not nor should it be prominent in our pluralistic society, and is not certainly "under assault". We can disagree there, but that is what separates our disparate views on this issue.
If it's not under assault, why is it not more freely accepted or tolerated by those who disagree with it?
If it is accepted, why is not more prominent? No one challenged the Founding Fathers promotion of it, or acceptance of it.
OK. Consider the nations around the world where it is not prominent, or significant, especially those Nations where it is forbidden or severely restricted.
Any of those you'd wish us to emulate?
Here in America, the Christian heritage is solid enough, and rooted enough to both allow and withstand all standing in contrast to it, including atheism. There are few if any other Nations where that dynamic is as pronounced, and certainly none where it is equaled or even surpassed.
So what does say about us?
Says to me Christianity has a special place in America, and America is and continues to be a great place because of it. However if we lose what is left of it, or refuse to accept more of it, we would also lose our position of prominence in the World today.
I suggest we keep it, and do all we can to allow it to flourish because it has served us all quite well.
Last edited:
I said Public school kids don't have the advantages of having Christian ideology taught boom, and they are inferior to schools that do teach that. I also said there are exceptions, but I claimed Public schools by and large have failed in their overall education mission, especially compared to Private schools.
Private schools (especially Religious ones) are not bound in their education mission to not teach kids about our Creator. Other theories can be considered of course and are, but the superiority of the Private education is that nothing is excluded like creationism is in the Public schools.
So therefore, private school education has a more universal approach and broader parameters for the students in engage in intellectual curiosity and thought. Public school kids are restricted in that same vein by comparison, so the breath and depth of their intellectual curiosity is stunted or limited against Religious doctrine.
However within Religious doctrine (not just Christianity) the essence of man and his relationship to the world around him can be thoroughly explored and evaluated. This gives Private school students a much more universal and holistic view of their world, free from restrictions of all the possibilities one may consider when learning or pursuing objective Truth. Question all, assume nothing. challenge, investigate everything.
Public education relies on only a secular view of possibilities, and by definition is limiting both in it's scope and philosophical approach relative to the overall analysis among all of the variables available for students to consider and analyze. Religion, or Religious philosophy is therefore denied to Public school students to investigate or even consider, robbing them of a rich reservoir of intellectual thought and exercise.
Last edited:
You dismiss anything and everything Christian and then turn around and call me a hypocrite? You automatically dismiss Christianity by rote, and yet I'm insane for believing in it because of its empirical evidence grounded in both Scientific and Biblical Truths.
You get to choose what you believe, fair enough. But where is your license to summarily dismiss others who believe differently?
I am not afraid to challenge non belief, nor am I calling anyone without Faith names. Why is your hostility to Faith acceptable yet my questioning of your non-belief "insane"?
Seems to me the accuser here is the example of the very intolerance he is accusing others of.
Perfectly willing (and able) to entertain this "debate" with you boomer my Man:
Pull quote from linked article:
"Private schools do not receive tax revenues, so they do not have to follow the same sorts of regulations and bureaucratic processes that govern (and sometimes hinder) public schools. This allows many private schools to be highly specialized, offering differentiated learning, advanced curriculum, or programs geared toward specific religious beliefs"
full article
Private vs Public
http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/private-vs-public-schools/
More....
Private vs Public (why Private schools are better)
pull quote from linked article:
"Want evolution taught, but your district is dominated by creationists? Too bad. Mexican-American, and you want a course on your history? You’re out of luck in many districts. Religious, and you believe faith is essential to your child’s education? You are absolutely unequal; teaching religion is impermissible in any public school, but religious people must still pay for them"
Full article:
https://www.cato.org/publications/c...public-schools-why-private-schools-are-better
more....
Why I'm a public school Teacher but a Private school Parent?
pull quote from linked article:
"In general, the teens at the public school don’t appear to have bought into an educational environment like that at SLOCA[sic]—and for good reason: There's nothing to buy"
full article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...l-teacher-but-a-private-school-parent/386797/
Now, we can go on with this boomer if you wish.
If you read nothing else in what I've linked you to here, read the last article at least. Being a fellow teacher, I think you'll find his comments interesting especially.
You are perfectly free by the way to link me to articles or data showing Public education as superior to Private education for whatever reasons you can find. I'll read it, and then compare it to other research I have accumulated on this topic and we can intelligently compare, contrast, analyze, & discuss the data, to hopefully reach a consensus on which of our two positions is correct?
I don't have time for your pejorative name calling and feeling personally insulted simply because you are a Public school teacher, or "feel" offended by my opinions about Public education. Again, I did not say YOU per se are a bad teacher boom!
However, there is just too much raw data on this issue boom to resort to emotional outbursts over it. Cite your data, compare, contrast, and analyze it against mine to disprove my initial statement of Public school's inferiority vs Private schools.
If you're going to just call me names and act like a little spoiled brat, go whine over on the Pitt OT board. At least there you will find willing participants in your childishness.
Last edited:
You are a sad man. First: if you think science doesn't challenge students to investigate and question everything, you are just as foolish as they come. Psychology, Sociology, Literature, History, Philosophy, Anthropology are centered in that endeavor. Even sciences like Biology, Geology, and Anatomy encourage the student to explore and discover.
Second: "religious doctorine gives a student a more universal and holistic view of the world "free from restrictions of all the possibilities one may consider when learning or pursuing objective truth" ---- might be the most ridiculous sentiment I've ever read posted on this board. Religious doctorine LIMITS scope and narrows vision. It limits ones ability to pursue objective truth, as it provides the subjective truth one MUST accept at the most powerful level possible. Once a student is forced to accept any religious doctorine, any scientific or philosophical pursuit to discovery must be made within the confines of the doctorine's stated limits of acceptance. The only way you would not see that, is if you have already accepted a truth as absolute in the first place, and therefore have no problem with that truth being the restrictive existence in which your students search for "objective truth".
Third: the relationship and education that religious doctorine provides, that you identify as so much richer and beneficial than an education based on a secular view, IS ALWAYS AVAILIBLE TO THE STUDENT AT CHURCH, AT HOME, OR ON THEIR OWN AT ANY POINT IN LIFE. Bringing it into the classroom seeks only to bring all minds together under the same uniform method of thought.
You should simply admit:
1) that you seek ALL American students to be taught through the lens of Christianity.
2) that the liberty you claim to cherish should only apply to those that accept your religious doctorine as the absolute truth. All others should enjoy their liberty with substantial limitations as to not taint the glory that they should follow.
Be honest with yourself and others, at the very least please.
No boom not at all. Christianity (and any Religious doctrine) should be subjected to scientfic discovery and analysis. That type of scrutiny is the only real way to test as valid whatever it's claims are. Christian Science is a fascinating investigation into not only the design of creation, but also its purpose. As we've discussed before in this forum, undestanding one without an appreciation for other leaves scientific investigation with no real answers.
There is in fact purpose in all design and design for a purpose in all created things. Excluding the investigation of the designer nullifys the essential scientific question behind the inquiry of the purpose of created things, which by definition have designs. Otherwise everything would not be unique, it would all be the same ether by accident or some other explanation. But of course observable Science is not about "sameness". Even the tiniest molecule is different from another similar to its construction, yet marvelously complex in its unique design.
Public education can of course as you mentioned here in this post challenge those assumptions, and question and investigate those possiblities true enough. But it cannot provide answers when the only logical conclusion is that we are designed with purpose by a Creator.
Logic does not dicate any other ultimate answer to that scientific inquiry. Yet public education is mute on that answer.
Last edited:
Well stated.
He is on such an incredibly ridiculous level of stupidity that I had to put him on ignore. Life is so much better not having to see that ridiculous nonsense.
This is something you really need to understand:
Science is concerned with discovering the properties of life
Religion is concerned with discovering the meaning of life
Combining the two is like an investigator seeking evidence to support their already drawn conclusion. Public school is focused on creating good American citizens, informing students on science, art, literature, history and math, and helping students narrow their professional focus. The students should embark on their own quest to discover meaning for life independently of this education.
it's called free speech.....something you libs used to champion but now you have forgotten since it is being used against you now
Public employees don't have free speech to be bigots. Pretty simple.
You would be singing an entirely different tune if she said "let's ban all Christians."
some folks who call themselves "Christians" get a thumbs up for banning too.....lots of dem congressmen and women are public employees and it sure hasn't stopped them.....cue maxine watters here
County handbooks are pretty clear on commenting on social media. Cabell County recently fired a woman for her racist comment about President Obama.
Do you think a racist comment and a comment denigrating a particular religion are different than a comment about a political figure?
I think the racist comments are worse. Comments from educators about religion,race and politics should have NO place in the PUBLIC education realm. I know that if a student wore a shirt that implied Fu*k someone or even had such wording about any subject, they would be removed from any public school.
Well stated boomer, and no argument from me on those 2 differences you point out.
However my friend we are conscious of more than our mere existence. We have morals to balance our relationship to creation and each other.
What can Public education teach our students about morality and their role in it?
Based on what boomer? The same sort of situational ethics you often argue based on whatever is moral for the moment?
Kids today lack self control and respect for authority or a proper understanding of their purpose in Life when they are told to make their own morality and have no respect for morals that transcend human situational ethics.
It is here where in my opinion Public education is hollow because it cannot define a purpose for those kids' existence outside of their own selfish visions of their made up morality.
Last edited:
Morality is a personal quest. I would not attempt to teach a student lessons in morality, for their family's chosen moral code might be much different than my own. The only morality I teach is the standard of American citizenship. That requires one to accept differences between fellow countrymen (students) even if those differences stand in stark contrast to your own. Bullying or demeaning others in classroom (professional) setting is strictly forbidden. And each student regardless of background, race, social status, family status in the community, religious affiliation, intelligence, or physical attributes must abide by the same rules (laws) as everyone else, or suffer consequences.
Outside the classroom, a student is completely free to follow traditions, rebel against them, seek their own moral code, or abide by a moral code taught to them by loved ones or a religious institution. Inside the classroom, advanced citizenship is taught. Tolerance of ideas, understanding different perspectives, using critical thinking to analyze and evaluate the world around them, and appreciating the system of laws and processes that have created and protected America are what we focus on in public education. It is a reflection of true American society. Destroying that, destroys America in its essence....even if it coincides with your personal moral ideology.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Boomer I don't disagree with the educational objectives you clearly state here, it is the execution of that you and I are debating. Public schools have a mission. To educate. We don't disagree on that either.
That mission is not forgotten on them, nor are they derelict in their zeal to execute it. What you and I are debating is the results. I'm arguing that a relativistic moral construct absent fidelity to principles beyond one's own definitions is a prescription for disaster, and leads to an educated student with no sense of obligation beyond themselves or even worse in my opinion to the State.
It's not so much dictating a specific moral order, for as you said that can and does indeed change relative to the whims of any culture. But it's more an appreciation of transcendent moral truths that must define self governing people. It is their obligation to both understand and appreciate what those are, and most importantly why we must pay strict attention to that critical portion of our foundation, which I have said I believe to be Christian in essence if not in practice.
I believe the founders of our great Nation codified those transcendent truths in our Constitution, and secured them as our unalienable rights by defining where they did indeed originate. Through our Creator.
They were not so much interested in defining how we pay homage to that source, as much as they were interested in making sure that we place it as the highest moral blueprint through which we organize ourselves as a self governing society where no Man's morality is superior to another's.
I respect the Public school mission to assure we are civic minded, and understanding of our pluralistic differences. But to ignore our moral foundations, or our transcendent moral order ordained from our Creator and codified in our inalienable rights does a disservice to both students and civic minded citizens.
My problem with Government sponsored education is it's refusal to emphasize that source, that common origin of our inalienable rights. However it is the foundation of everything we are as Americans. Deemphasizing that leads to a moral bankruptcy that retards our educational pursuits, objectives, and yes results among students who are left with nothing other than their own analysis to intellectually endeavor to discover objective truth beyond themselves.
Last edited:
I don't agree. Americanism is the pursuit of a nation that protects liberty. Americans are free to worship and live according to their own personal moral and spiritual ideology. America was founded by largely Christian men/women, but the America they created was for everyone. Thomas Payne was a founding father. Sentiments of John Locke became tenants of our nation just the same as those derived from Christian principles.
Surely you recognize the clash of moral disagreement that existed between Protestant and Catholic ideology in Europe at the time of the nation's founding? Surely you are aware of the Pilgrims quest to find land free of persecution? How about the passionate desire for the founders of Jamestown to break the social ranks entrenched in Europe through Church ideology of Devine influence on Royal bloodlines?
This is what we are born from....not just the desire for Christians to establish their own land. Quakers, Protestants, Catholics, those dedicated to science (at a time when Christianity prevented even basic exploration of our world or bodies), and non-religious entrepreneurs who desired a better life for their families were ALL a part of the founding of this unique nation. So, although I'm sure right now you're thinking about how all religions agree on the creator, the founding fathers sought to provide an environment that was conducive to allowing all ideas to thrive. Franklin, parallel universe theory, Payne and the Age of Reason are just as fundamental to America as anything Christian.
Because it's the protection of liberty that matters. It is the environment that allows ideas and exploration to thrive that is the essence of America. Who is to say that absolute truth is what your ideology states? You, that's who! I do not assume to establish truth for my fellow Americans, only to help provide the protection and environment for them to seek it out.
I teach with that in mind.
Again, very well stated and argued boomer as you always do. You have a nearly perfect grasp of our founder's intent in establishing our Freedom to Worship as we choose, respectful of our differences and even skepticisms of our human origins for those who disagree with Faith.
You are exactly correct Sir, they struck almost the perfect balance between Freedom of Religion and worship, as well as Freedom from it particularly ordered by the governing State.
I do not disagree wth anything you mentioned in that respect. However you have not addressed my specific complaint with regard to the Public education model, which by definition excludes ANY sensitivities to Religious or Spiritual instruction in terms of how it governs our necessary moral order.
It is not an indictment on Public education, because as you correctly point out that is not its mission, nor can it be in a neutral obligation to favor no creed over another being an arm of the Government.
However I am arguing boomer, that lack of it's core ability to sensitize students to this necessary ingredient of our self Governance is what makes Public education deficient in my opinion to Private schools who have no such restrictions.
It is curious to me, how many of you on the Left in this forum recently have voiced your frustration or even anger over Trump's alleged moral shortcomings or questionable behaviors. Many of you cited his example for instance of the treatment of women by what he simply brags about, being "improper" as a role model for Children and you have in fact called out Christians for refusing to hold Trump accountable for these perceived violations of whatever moral standard you all believe he's violated.
Yet you here are simultaneously arguing to me it is not the role of our Government schools to advocate for or promote any type of moral code or moral constrict based on any Religious doctrine.
So I'd like to know where this source of outrage from the Left over Trump's alleged violation of moral decency emmanates? How can you argue on the one hand for hypocrisy from Christians refusing to hold Trump accountable for his moral shortcomings, yet also insist sensitizing our students in Government run schools about moral behavior has no place in its education mission?
How do you on the Left demand moral conduct without providing a moral code under which that conduct is adjudicated and under what principles?
The Founders knew a pluralistic society had to be tolerant of different Religious views, but they did not advocate elimination of Religious morality in our Government or governance. In fact it was quite the opposite, for they knew without agreement on a consensus social moral order from a common source, we would open ourselves up to either Government tyranny or Religious tyranny.
That source specifically mentoned was our Creator, and it is the refusal to recognize that source and inform our students of its importance which Public education fails to address and ultimately fails in my opinion.
As you also boomer have failed to address in this post of your otherwise very well explained outline of our most cherished Freedom, Liberty.
Separation of Church and State is very much so a tenant of our Constitution.
Morality encompasses a sense of ones relationship to their spiritual consciousness, but it also encompasses ones relationship to others. Teaching America should be independent from teaching ANY religious doctorine.
Christian schools are not horrible institutions, imo. But they fail to help create truly American citizens. Other forms of private schools (that do not adhere to regilous doctorine) are usually very efficient. When a school has admission abilities, better funding, technology and faculty they will surely be more efficient on the average. However, I feel they can lack a social diversity, due to financial restraints. Vouchers might seek to remedy that deficiency. But let's be honest....the voucher system will, in time, create many more Christian based schools (exactly what you would advocate for), there will be non-religious private schools as well, but admission requirements would become more strenuous as the number of applications increase. Charter schools would provide a option, but would be subject to funding motivations as well, which would create a desire to select a charter that can be efficient (this would be done almost always along socioeconomic lines). And this would leave even more underfunded schools for the students whose parents choose not to allow their child's education to be dilluted by religious doctrine, and parents who cannot afford to live within the areas that efficient Charter schools cover or who do not have the financial ability to provide tuition, transportation, or both.
As for the efficiency of Public schools? Eliminate tenure, pay more, get more teachers to lower class size, help parents be more involved, and take academics as seriously as we do athletics.....and watch the efficiency increase.
This may be true as abstract discussion boomer but it is not practical in terms of Governance or education.
Why?
Because morality nor its source is NOT relative. If that were so, we'd have different sets of Laws for 300 million different individuals (the rough approximation of the current U.S. population)
We must have a clear set of defined morals or a "moral code of order" if you prefer that is not only indisputable, but universally recognized even if it is not universally accepted.
The alternative is anarchy.
You are absolutely correct, Public schools cannot push one Religion per se over another, or favor one over another. But they fail to instruct using a common moral reference, or a common moral code that MUST be recognized and appreciated if we are to self govern and live under the common rules of moral Law that even atheists grudgingly accept to live under in this nation.
What is that moral source? Where does it come from?
Our Founding Fathers said the answer to that question is "self evident". They didn't name a specific Religion in codifying that, (they didn't have to) but they most certainly did not hesitate to place that recognition...that source as supreme even above the Government itself.
So let me ask you a question boomer? Is morality relative? Should it be taught as such or even at all?
Extrapolate from your answer if it is a "yes" what the ultimate end result of relative morality would be for both the Government and individuals under it?
Then ask yourself, does Public education teach a moral social order? If the answer is "no" or it "cannot" then ask yourself in extrapolation of that answer how those students are to ever decide how they should both think and function in a pluralistic society that has moral standards, and what those are based on?
It cannot be both. Either we live under a commonly recognized moral social order, or we make it up as we go along and each person decides for themselves where to draw their moral lines.
I'm suggesting we not only can't live that way, but we'd cease to be a functionary representative Republic if we were to do so.
Anarchy would replace civility. Tyranny would replace Liberty.
Last edited:
