Did this teacher cross the line?

[Reaper]

It's not an ad hom. It's an opinion. Every military's implied mission is to force compliance with...force. That means beating the crap out of people who don't agree with you. Obviously if you're fighting a war, they don't agree with you - yet here you are beating the crap out of them because of it. Sounds accurate to me.

 

No, not really. Have you considered that the enemy troops might actually be forced into it? That's not to say that our troops aren't immune either, just look at Guantanamo. I'm sure you've heard of Milgram little experiment in this regard. Whether that is good or bad depends on the situation.

 

Not only that, while the nations at war will certainly cite some moral, or other justification, the actual reasons we go to war usually have nothing to do with morals or agreeing with people in general. What ever the wills of the state may be, it is NOT an accurate description of the morals, ethics, or opinions of people who actually serve in the military, on both sides, even in times of war.

 

And everyone is entitled to opinions, but trying to state them as fact is another issue, especially when using them to attack another person.

 

If I join the KKK, then you're probably going to assume my values mirror theirs huh? Is that a presumption? Of course it is, but a logical and reasonable presumption nonetheless.

 

Except that the KKK clearly expresses it's distaste for people of other races or ethnic groups. It's sole purpose is to promote racial inequality, so yes, anybody who does join it will be a person who is racist.

 

As for the military, the reasons that people join the military are usually varied, ranging from the fact that it may be compulsory, or national pride, or pushing ones limits, etc. So here the analogy fails.

[Severian]

WHAT!? you did make ad hominems. Here is one such one:

 

I was going to reply to this, but I think ParanioA put it quite nicely already.

 

And don't you dare try to play semantic word games with me, because I can guarantee that you (or anyone else for that matter) will not win. I'm quite skilled in making words having any meaning I want them too..

 

That much is already clear. It seems that words have completely different meanings to you than those attributed by normal people...

[Reaper]

I was going to reply to this, but I think ParanioA put it quite nicely already.

 

Except that it wasn't quite correct, or an adequate justification.

 

 

That much is already clear. It seems that words have completely different meanings to you than those attributed by normal people...

 

Oh really? Well, I suppose the fact that you didn't reply to my other points means that you knew very well that your arguments were invalid.

[Severian]

Oh really? Well, I suppose the fact that you didn't reply to my other points means that you knew very well that your arguments were invalid.

 

What other points? I didn't think you made any. Are you refering to this thread?

[ParanoiA]

No, not really. Have you considered that the enemy troops might actually be forced into it? That's not to say that our troops aren't immune either, just look at Guantanamo. I'm sure you've heard of Milgram little experiment in this regard. Whether that is good or bad depends on the situation.

 

Yes, I've considered that people might choose to abandon their morality set by sadistic force. It's still a choice, and it's still a reflection of your morality. If I have a gun to my head and I'm being told to kill somebody or I'll be killed, then I'll kill somebody. And that says something about my morality and principles doesn't it? It doesn't mean it's not understandable or carries no sympathy - it's just a statement of fact. I chose to kill someone else rather than myself be killed.

 

 

Except that the KKK clearly expresses it's distaste for people of other races or ethnic groups. It's sole purpose is to promote racial inequality' date=' so yes, anybody who does join it will be a person who is racist.

 

As for the military, the reasons that people join the military are usually varied, ranging from the fact that it may be compulsory, or national pride, or pushing ones limits, etc. So here the analogy fails.[/quote']

 

The reasons for joining a group are irrelevent. What if I joined the KKK because I wanted companionship with bald white people? Not because I hate anybody. Too bad. That group's mission is my implied mission now that I've joined them. So my value system can be called into question. And that's reasonable.

 

Maybe your reasons for joining the army are wholesome and kindly - but the military's business is in exercising force onto others. So your value system can be called into question.

 

In reference to the KKK, you superimposed the "group's" morality onto the individual - then you turned right around ignored the "group's" morality when you referenced the military and the individual.

 

So which is it? Are our values and morality code reflected by the groups we choose to participate in, or not?

[Reaper]

You can ignore the rest of my post Severian, I don't care. If fact, I don't care if you ignore what everyone else said on this thread. I have no interest in continuing; it is a pointless debate.

 

===========================

 

 

The reasons for joining a group are irrelevent. What if I joined the KKK because I wanted companionship with bald white people? Not because I hate anybody. Too bad. That group's mission is my implied mission now that I've joined them. So my value system can be called into question. And that's reasonable.

 

Well, no, in this case, as I said before the sole purpose of the KKK's existence is to promote racial inequality, so, as you said, the person who joins is most likely to be racist. This only holds if the person is NOT racist. However the KKK make their intentions very clear.

 

As for the military, as far as I know the original purpose was one of self defense, though our leaders have indeed used it for offense and conquest. But that still has nothing to do with the morality of the individual soldiers. The only time could be their morals are called into question is if they do join during a war, or willingly participated in one, that they know for certain to be very wrong. However, as Milgram's experiments have shown, one can be manipulated into doing something wrong without even realizing it, and even be pressured or tricked into thinking that it is okay and that it is the right thing to do! So even if their morals could be called into question, some situations make that very tricky and you do walk a fine line between valid objections and then just downright ad hominems and baseless attacks. And this can happen anywhere, not just the military.

 

And just because force is used doesn't mean that those who use it have their morals/ethics are wrong or are questionable; after all, we use force to detain criminals. We also use force to stop people from doing acts deemed a danger to everyone else for that matter. Does using force mean that their morals should be called into question? I think not.

 

Your example was just a false analogy. And, Severian's point was just plain wrong.

 

==================================

 

Well, this thread has gone way off topic. I don't mind if they started mashing the delete button.

[ParanoiA]

As for the military, as far as I know the original purpose was one of self defense, though our leaders have indeed used it for offense and conquest. But that still has nothing to do with the morality of the individual soldiers.

 

Yes it does. They've chosen to join a group that fights "with prejudice". That's as broad as the point gets - that was the ORIGINAL point that Severian made that you keep adding baggage to. No one said the prejudice wasn't justified.

 

He chooses not to follow the moral code found in joining a group that beats the crap out of people who don't agree with them. Now, he may be wrong for making that choice, since there could be a really good list of reasons for beating the crap out of people who don't agree - like, "they want to occupy my country and we don't want them to" - that sort of thing.

 

So, take issue with him there. Tell him that conclusion is too broad to be accurate. But to deny the obvious moral code you're endorsing when you join the military is nonsense.

[Reaper]

Yes it does. They've chosen to join a group that fights "with prejudice". That's as broad as the point gets - that was the ORIGINAL point that Severian made that you keep adding baggage to. No one said the prejudice wasn't justified.

 

Now your just making a strawman. First off, not all of the military's actions are necessarily fighting "with prejudice". And second, you know very well what I meant, you're just now using vague words, because the way you are using then now could mean just about anything. Prejudice against what for example?

 

Severian was making a point that just because mooeypoo was in the military (and might have beat the crap out of people) means that her morals are somehow flawed, inaccurate, or that she is just a bad person in general, which as I have clearly demonstrated is false.

 

He chooses not to follow the moral code found in joining a group that beats the crap out of people who don't agree with them. Now, he may be wrong for making that choice, since there could be a really good list of reasons for beating the crap out of people who don't agree - like, "they want to occupy my country and we don't want them to" - that sort of thing.

 

But so what if they do beat the crap out of people? That still doesn't mean that their morals should be called into question. I've demonstrated some examples where doing this might actually be the right thing to do.

 

So, take issue with him there. Tell him that conclusion is too broad to be accurate. But to deny the obvious moral code you're endorsing when you join the military is nonsense.

 

Well, excuse me, but beating people up is technically NOT a moral code whether or not you want to admit it. It is an action. But doing that doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of ethics, unless you call into question their intentions.

 

 

 

Seriously guys (and not just ParanoiA), what is the matter with admitting that you are wrong? Severian was making a bunch of baseless assumptions and playing semantic word games, his arguments were invalid, and that's why he got pwn3d. The comment I made a little while back was to demonstrate where he made the ad hominem, because he stated he did no such thing. And, in that particular context, it was indeed intended as an attack. Look at the language of his posts!

 

Quite frankly' date=' [b']I am quite happy not to share any 'human values[/b]' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you?

 

That is very clearly an attack on another member, despite his claims to the contrary.

[ParanoiA]

Well, this thread has gone way off topic. I don't mind if they started mashing the delete button.

 

It's gone off topic, but was there much left to say? Besides, what's wrong with this current discussion? Groups / individuals / morality codes - sounds juicy to me....

 

Severian was making a point that just because mooeypoo was in the military (and might have beat the crap out of people) means that her morals are somehow flawed, inaccurate, or that she is just a bad person in general, which as I have clearly demonstrated is false.

 

No he wasn't. His point was that he didn't agree with her morals. His reply was EXACTLY in line with her initial:

 

"Christian Values" - as originally written in the bible - are not something I would be proud of at all.

 

HUMAN VALUES is something I would find much better to define my life by.

 

Quite frankly' date=' I am quite happy not to share any 'human values' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you?[/quote']

 

Do you not see the obvious dig delivered by Mooeypoo here? He didn't imply her morals "bad" - he replied his morals as happily preferred over hers. A tongue-in-cheek response to an offensive post.

 

But so what if they do beat the crap out of people? That still doesn't mean that their morals should be called into question. I've demonstrated some examples where doing this might actually be the right thing to do.

 

Exactly! You need to read my posts more carefully, because I just made that point. If you're going to join a group, then don't get upset when you're judged by the attributes of that group. Common sense. Good or bad. Your ethics are derived by your actions.

 

No semantics. Just common sense.

[Reaper]

It's gone off topic, but was there much left to say? Besides, what's wrong with this current discussion? Groups / individuals / morality codes - sounds juicy to me....

 

Yes, I agree.

 

No he wasn't. His point was that he didn't agree with her morals. His reply was EXACTLY in line with her initial:

 

 

Do you not see the obvious dig delivered by Mooeypoo here? He didn't imply her morals "bad" - he replied his morals as happily preferred over hers. A tongue-in-cheek response to an offensive post.

 

If you use euphemisms, then yes. It is a really big stretch though. And I'm not denying that mooeypoo made ad hominems, just making a counter point to Severian. An ad hominem is still an ad hominem, regardless of who started it. And it doesn't make it any more right either. That is all I pointed out. And in my opinion, he should know better than to respond like that.

 

Exactly! You need to read my posts more carefully, because I just made that point.....

 

No semantics. Just common sense.

 

How ironic .

 

 

I'm done fighting. You can side with who ever you want. I feel my argument was solid enough.

[ParanoiA]

I'm done fighting. You can side with who ever you want. I feel my argument was solid enough.

 

I think you make some valid points. However, the crux of it seems to be bias. You assign moral value to one person based off of the group they're in and then give a pass to another person based on the group they're in, just because you think the potential of being compelled suddenly changes everything.

 

You've made this point before concerning Roosevelt and the war too. That he didn't have a choice. Of course he had a choice. People always have a choice. The morality of that particular choice was quite clear - it was justified, in my opinion. Most would agree, too, that our involvment in WWII was justified. And it was still a choice.

 

Just because someone can be compelled, by force, to fight in the military does not absolve them from the moral attributes of that military - they are killing other people. They are obeying orders and doing their bidding.

 

Now, do I blame that person for making that choice and endorsing a different morality code? Of course not. They were compelled. But they're still exercising that morality code - their actions have spoken. They would rather live and kill other people, rather than refuse to sacrifice their original morality code and choose their own death instead.

[Severian]

Severian was making a point that just because mooeypoo was in the military (and might have beat the crap out of people) means that her morals are somehow flawed, inaccurate, or that she is just a bad person in general, which as I have clearly demonstrated is false.

 

No, I was making the point that she might not be best placed to set herself up as a moral arbiter over others, which is what she was doing. She brought the moral values of others into question, and I merely questioned her authority to do so.

 

Quite frankly, I am quite happy not to share any 'human values' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you?

That is very clearly an attack on another member, despite his claims to the contrary.

 

If you had been paying any attention at all, you would have realized that the parts in quotation marks are directly lifted from her own post. Why is it acceptable for her to attack Christian moral values, but it is not OK to criticise her moral values in response? I even used the same words!

[iNow]

She brought the moral values of others into question, and I merely questioned her authority to do so.

Everyone has the right to question the values of others, regardless of their position or personal stance.

 

 

 

Why is it acceptable for her to attack Christian moral values, but it is not OK to criticise her moral values in response? I even used the same words!

Nobody has defined "Christian values." Is there a list somewhere we could view? Perhaps a repository of some sort which delineates what these even are?

 

I think THAT was the biggest part of Moo's post (that's what I sensed, not necessarily what she intended... she can speak for herself what she meant).

"What is a christian value?"

"How is that somehow supposed to be distinct from a value held by a non-Christian?"

 

She also suggested that if one looked into the bible, the source of Christian truth, that there are countless examples of "values" that are atrocious, and several mandated behaviors which speak against the "human values" held by nearly everyone on the planet today... held regardless of religious affiliation.

 

So... What IS a Christian value?

[ParanoiA]

The repository is going to be somewhat dynamic - kind of like the difference between liberal views and conservative views. I would think some christian values would include being pro-life, keeping sex ed out of public school, creationism, maybe opposing gay marriage - I'm not a christian so I don't keep up with their code.

 

However, how is it relevent in this particular discussion? The use of the phrase is to reference the sum of their values - not that each value has been assigned one label - "Christian" - and so non-christians can't use it...or need to be offended by it...

 

These values can have many labels actually. Being pro-life can be a conservative value, a christian value, an atheist value - whatever categorical label claims it as one of it's values that makes up it's morality set. Pro-choice would be a liberal value, a paranoia value, an iNow value - nobody owns it, it's just a description.

 

If that was the basis for Moo's objections, then that's an argument from ignorance don't you think?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I thought this thread was about the behavior of the teacher in question, not Christian values and Mooeypoo's military service.

 

If we continue the religious discussion and attacks (yes, both sides are at fault here) this thread will be closed. Please stay on topic.

[iNow]

The issue in this case is not that the teacher used some latitudes to keep the attention of his students. He's teaching history, which can be a very dry subject, and he's phrased some things a bit poorly. The history he was teaching regarded Dark Age Europe, and he made comments about people not being able to think reliably about their own economics when they're wearing their "Jesus glasses," meant to imply that they put the church's need for funds ahead of their own.

 

Was his style offensive to some? Of course. Many people have a very thin skin, especially about beliefs that they use to identify themselves. That's understandable.

 

 

Here's what I don't get though. Why is religion, or someone's religious beliefs, supposed to be somehow exempt from criticism? Why is it so taboo to speak of religion in a negative way? Why can't religion be held to the same standard as any other part of our lives?

 

 

This is the meat of the case.

 

Religion is given a special platform where anybody who disagrees or speaks ill of it, despite any inherent accuracies in their comments, gets sued or struck down as if their comments are "out of line" or are "too dangerous."

 

 

This teacher wasn't challenging the students beliefs. He was speaking of the church in context of history, and trying to keep his students engaged by making it a bit "sexier."

 

 

 

From the link in the OP:

 

Funny, isn't it, how such conflicts often emerge when theology is brought into the public school classroom.

 

This kind of dispute typically hinges on impressions or feelings of students. What one finds rankly offensive, another sees as merely challenging. What one student sees as a humiliating put-down, another recognizes as a Socratic argument by the teacher. That's assuming the student isn't semi-distracted in the first place and picked up only half of what the teacher said, missing context or nuance.

I won't go point-by-point, but even in the lawsuit version, the reference to "Jesus glasses" seems to be in the context of European peasants acting against their best economic interests because the Church convinces them that religious faith is more important.

 

Plenty of historical theory exists to back up that observation. High school kids have every right to learn that the Church in the Dark Ages and beyond kept peasants subservient, often using religion as the justification. Likewise, parents of religious students can't cry foul in a history or science class if the subject matter either contradicts or undermines their beliefs.

[Reaper]

Here's what I don't get though. Why is religion, or someone's religious beliefs, supposed to be somehow exempt from criticism? Why is it so taboo to speak of religion in a negative way? Why can't religion be held to the same standard as any other part of our lives?

 

It's not so much that religion is exempt from criticism, but rather whether his particular criticism was valid. In the teacher's particular case, he made some pretty nasty ad hominems and hasty generalizations.

 

Saying that religion is bad/not true because people have used religion to oppress other people is exactly the same as saying that evolution is bad/not true because people have used it to create Social Darwinism (And therefore justified oppression of other people through it). Both conclusions are not valid, and they both can be seen as offensive simply because those statements make some pretty hasty assumptions about people who accept religion, evolution, or both.

 

So, while the link from the OP does actually make an effort to sympathize with both sides here, I don't think in this particular case it was challenging beliefs. Pretty much, it was more or less saying "The catholic church did X,Y,Z in the past, therefore all Christians are bad/wrong" or "Some Christians believe X,Y,Z, therefore all of them are bad". Or since he does add conservative in here, "Some conservatives believe X,Y,Z, therefore they are all bad/wrong". The conclusions drawn from the statements are invalid, and they can be seen as rather offensive.

 

Plus, given the tone of the speech (and the fact that this seems to happen every day at class), it seems to me that the teacher was pretty much preaching (which is against First-Amendment Rights).

 

 

 

And, there are already enough generalizations of any group as it is. As an atheist intellectual-in-training, I see no need or reason to stoop down to their level

[iNow]

So, while the link from the OP does actually make an effort to sympathize with both sides here, I don't think in this particular case it was challenging beliefs. Pretty much, it was more or less saying "The catholic church did X,Y,Z in the past, therefore all Christians are bad/wrong" or "Some Christians believe X,Y,Z, therefore all of them are bad". Or since he does add conservative in here, "Some conservatives believe X,Y,Z, therefore they are all bad/wrong". The conclusions drawn from the statements are invalid, and they can be seen as rather offensive.

I've just reread the posts and the link in the OP, and I don't see where said "Since X, therefore all bad." Can you share where you took this from, or acknowledge that this may have been an unintentional strawman?

[Reaper]

I've just reread the posts and the link in the OP, and I don't see where said "Since X, therefore all bad." Can you share where you took this from, or acknowledge that this may have been an unintentional strawman?

 

These two statements:

 

When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.

 

And

 

Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies. That's interfering with God's work.

 

Maybe it's not exactly saying what I just equated too, but its the same general idea, and these statements do fall along those lines. I've made no strawman here. Notice how they imply a general conclusion "because X, therefore all bad".

 

That's my two cents anyway.

[doG]

I disagree. As a humanist I believe in the value of treating others as I would have them treat me. If a Christian applies this it does not make it a "Christian" value by "definition". As a Libertarian I believe in liberty. If that concept is applied to government by people who are Christians it does not make it a "Christian" value by "definition". [/quote']Any value which Christians hold is a Christian value. Any value which libertarians hold is a libertarian value. They may even have some in common, and being a libertarian value does not in principle stop a value from being Christian too.

 

I concede your point. Perhaps those that do not will rethink the meaning of this that different groups can hold common values.

 

The phrase "separation of church and state" was plucked from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, but entered the national discourse through the verdict of the US Supreme Court case Everson v. Ewing, which concluded:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.[/b'] Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

 

This is really the answer to the OP's question. No agent of the state can show preference for any religion. In a church school, effectively a private school, it would be different but Capistrano Valley High School is a public school so the 1st Amendment applies.

[Pangloss]

I'm on the road here so I'll just be brief. First, thanks for returning to the subject at hand -- I guess you guys found out a little about "Captain's Values". (grin) Second, my point in raising this issue was not so much to demonize this guy, because I think we all understand how stories can get blown out of proportion, but rather to see if we're all on the same page about whether these specific actions might be unacceptable. I think we are.

 

I think we also agree that challenging students in a classroom is a good thing, and that furthering a personal ideological agenda in the classroom (when not done for the purpose of challenging students) is a bad thing. This is why I personally wouldn't fire the teacher in question, because I cannot determine based on the facts in evidence whether students are, for example allowed to raise the opposite point of view.

 

Now don't get me wrong, it's hard to imagine from the quotes (and the audio recording I've heard) that this guy will listen for even a nanosecond to an opposing viewpoint. But if he does -- holy cow, what a powerful classroom that must be, especially if he's making it clear to the students that they SHOULD be forming their own opinions, that they SHOULD be standing up and challenging his statements.

 

In short, I want to hear an audio recording from his classroom of a presentation from a student in support of the Iraq war, or the benefits of organized religion on society. Does he allow the student to make his or her case? And does he grade that student on their conclusions, or their effort? That would be revealing, I think.

[doG]

I think we also agree that challenging students in a classroom is a good thing, and that furthering a personal ideological agenda in the classroom (when not done for the purpose of challenging students) is a bad thing.

 

Not always. I went to public school and never cared much for history class until the 10th grade. The teacher there was quite an unusual teacher compared to most. He started every class with a bible story but it wasn't a reading from the bible. Each of the stories he picked to illustrate some moral value he wanted to convey, not a belief in his God, Christ. He acted out all of the parts very vividly and made it very entertaining. It was always short but got everyone's attention.

 

He taught history the same way. He turned it all into a kind of play where he acted out all of the parts. He kept everybody's attention and everyone passed his course because they actually learned the material. His methods may be questionable but he did a very good job at getting the material through to us in a way no other teacher I ever had did. I'd have to say that he was one of the best teachers I ever had.

[Pangloss]

That's a great story. Though I'm a bit confused at where you feel that differs from what I said in the quote. He was motivating you, and you say he wasn't pushing a Christian ideology, so I guess I'm confused, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

But a great story and thanks for passing it along. I love the idea of starting off a class with a story that illustrates a point.

[doG]

...and you say he wasn't pushing a Christian ideology

 

It seemed to me, because he acted everything out, like bible stories were just another source of material for his moral-of-the-story acts, stories that taught some humanist value. He seemed to avoid stories that involved unique Christian activities like baptismals and never talked to anyone about being saved or any of that. He didn't present himself in a way that felt like he was pushing Christianity.

[blike]

Is his job to teach, or to rant? That's what I thought. He should be fired for not doing his job. If they want to sue him too, that's up to them, and will be very interesting.

Ranting can be teaching if it makes you think.

 

I know it made me think.