ollie Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Does it really come down to calling people 'wankers' for self-expressing?Self-expressing in an inappropriate context. He could have whipped out his cack in an act of self-expression. Are you going to defend that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 birdy, look at how you choose to phrase things here. its actually quite impressive how you (mis)interpret virtually everything here to suit your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak By Night Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 birdy, look at how you choose to phrase things here. its actually quite impressive how you (mis)interpret virtually everything here to suit your argument. Amen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 hahaha... ok! tell me what i've mis-interpreted, please. my point is, nothing in this article would tell me this teacher has done anything WRONG based on what 'I' consider wrong. Yes, he talked about his beliefs and Noah's Ark, but did he come right out and say 'you're all going to hell if you don't convert'? i don't think so. then we have a kid who for some reason gets offended because his teacher leaks his beliefs into a classroom and talks about his own god. why? really, why? i guess i've never understood why people get so uptight and defensive about people who are in some position of authority talking about god(s). to the point where we feel comfortable with saying what this particular teacher was 'implying' WITHOUT even hearing or reading a single word. i find that unbelievable and a testament to where secularization has advanced our collective mindframes and how far we take it. please don't get me wrong, i'm not defending this teacher, but criticizing the action of the student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Am i still totally misinterpreting?Self-expressing in an inappropriate context. He could have whipped out his cack in an act of self-expression.Yah, bad choice of words. However, that is a much more appropriate definition of the word 'wanker'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Johnson Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Birdy, I cant help but feel that your arguing with yourself. No one here is saying christianity shouldnt have been part of the lecture. All anyone is trying to say is that in a situation like this, the teacher should not preach to the students. Since neither you nor I know the student or the teacher personally, it is completely irrelevant to say we believe one over the other. It has nothing to do with the actual issue and merely convolutes the argument to the point that its at now. Edited November 4, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 I’m not trying to argue with myself.And I’m not trying to believe one person over another.I don’t even really know anymore how to get across what I’m trying to say. Agh.I guess I’ll just say this:I think it sucks that we assume the worst in people (this teacher).I think it sucks that the New York Times would feel the need to make this an issue when this particular case is nothing but a ‘he said/she said’ argument.I find it pretty interesting that most people in this forum didn’t read the story as I had read it and think it says something about how we tend to get our backs up when stuff like this gets mentioned. Especially considering that we acknowledge we can’t believe one or the other because we weren’t there and we don’t know them.I find this kind of trend (not being critical, the need to make a story, the getting defensive) increasing as we continue to promote secularization.And I don’t like it.That’s all I’m trying to say.And I don’t think I’m mis-interpreting anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Johnson Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) I find this kind of trend (not being critical, the need to make a story, the getting defensive) increasing as we continue to promote secularization.And I don’t like it.That’s all I’m trying to say.But why dont you like it? There's so many different religions in North America, the only way to govern us and to educate our kids in public school is to not choose a side. I mean, its kind of a sensitive issue to a lot of people. I think situations like this need to be brought to the attention of educators and school boards - for legitimate reasons. Edited November 4, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Oh, I totally agree. I guess i'm not on the side of those who think in order to appease we must eliminate all traces of religion from our sight. I'd rather we have some kind of buffet of choice where people can freely and openly discuss their beliefs and be able to be challenged. Thing is, I don't know how to accomplish this and nor does anyone really and probably why this continues to go case by case in how to deal with it. And then I further go on to wonder if this sensitivity is heightened because of how we deal with it. So the reason I don't like it is that it creates this sensitivity in people that I think for the most part shouldn't exist. Why care if your teacher talks about his God? You can surely talk about your God, can't you? That kind of thing. I know it becomes super sticky when say a teacher would insist upon a belief that say, all non-christians are going to hell. But I guess i'd rather have some kind of divisionary line drawn up to say what takes it too far, rather than assume EVERYTHING takes it too far. Ya know? Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. Edited November 4, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) and please don't tell me I'm being a bully by posting this one: Edited November 4, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Johnson Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Cool, I got it.But, Why care if your teacher talks about his God? You can surely talk about your God, can't you? That kind of thing.It just isnt that simple, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Yah I know. Hence the problem, as I see it. Kev - sorry, I don't mean to imply you're a bully... that was the wrong phrase to use when I was feeling frustrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Kev - sorry, I don't mean to imply you're a bully... that was the wrong phrase to use when I was feeling frustrated. LOL ... no worries. It can be totally frustrating when a simple little conversation becomes so difficult when typing. BTW Birdy, did you hear? Do you know the WORD?!?! http://jambands.ca/sanctuary/showpost.php?post/558113/ Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 I just had an IPA-inspired idea re: separation of church and state.I would be willing to live in a state not separated from church provided we rotated through the churches.So, for example, next year would be the state notsepraratedfrom the Roman Catholic Church. The year after would be the state notseparatedfrom Reform Judaism, followed by a year of the state notseparatedfrom Sunni Islam, than a year notseparatedfrom The Church Of Scientology, and so on. Applications for churches to be included in the rotation would be accepted.And, of course, the laws would all change, so that when it was a year of the state notseparatedfrom a church that allowed gay marriage, that year, it'd be allowed; if the year after it was the state notseparatedfrom a church that didn't allow gay marriage, then it wouldn't be allowed that year.Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Brad you continually get my vote with every one of your ideas. I'm not so sure I agree with your second paragraph explaining the idea, but the first is great. Seems to me things along these lines would make us so much more accepting of each other as a religious and non-religious culture. hahah... thanks Kev!! I know the WORD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 I think Bradm's second paragraph was meant to demonstrate the need for the formal seperation of church and state - it gets misunderstood as a division to exclude religiously-informed voices, but its initial intent was to protect the political machinery, ostensibly now in the hands of the citizenry, from the over-reaching influence of an all powerful church which was itself the domain of an elite cadre or any other inidividual / collective that could claim political legitimacy by virtue of divinity (or having the exclusive ear of divinity, depending on what religious notions are popular at the time).Stop me when I am putting words in your mouth, Brad. I'm just trying to explain how I personally understood it.I think that this is why we end up having these sorts of debates a lot. There is no longer any monolithic 'church' that wields disproportiante power, and so the motive of separation that was once a tool of inclusion can now be seen (probably sometimes correctly) as a weapon of exclusion (which seems to be what has gotten you upset in the case that you referenced Birdy .. though I have hesitation about agreeing with your interpretation in that specific case).The pendulum has swung very far in that regard, which is pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 birdy, i was concerned about your continual use of the trivializing word "mention" and your insistence that there was insufficient evidence to back up the claims of the student and thus this was a "he said/he said" situation. i sense that most here felt the teacher was doing much more than simply "mentioning" his beliefs and that there was indeed sufficient evidence supporting the student's claims otherwise nothing would have ever come of this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 I think it sucks that we assume the worst in people (this teacher).Once again, speak for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 birdy' date=' look at how you choose to phrase things here. its actually quite impressive how you (mis)interpret virtually everything here to suit your argument. [/quote']Amen!That's what I've been saying for over two years!! There is no room for anyone to breath in the politics forum due to the constant battle with Birdy in every thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Maybe if those who disagreed with my interpretation would come out and offer a different interpretation we could all carry on merrily. I'm stuck here defending myself against an entity whose side or interpretation I'm not really sure of.That would help me out quite a bit, i think.Phishtaper - the article was a he said/she said case. It just was. We don't have any direct quotes do we? We have this kid who provides a subjective intepretation of what the teacher said in the classroom. He then goes on to make an even bigger implication over the teacher's sick child. I see what many have 'sensed' here and by all means, sense away. I sensed differently. I also think, as I mentioned earlier, that maybe you sense the way you do because these types of occurences have led the very utterance of god-talk make people more 'sensitive'. I really don't see sufficient evidence in existence here. It's all very subject to interpretation to take it to the level it was took to. In my opinion, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 birdy' date=' look at how you choose to phrase things here. its actually quite impressive how you (mis)interpret virtually everything here to suit your argument. [/quote']Amen!That's what I've been saying for over two years!! There is no room for anyone to breath in the politics forum due to the constant battle with Birdy in every thread.Spare me your insults Ollie.How f'ing tiring you are sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 I was just thirding the "insult", if you insist on calling it that.Right back atcha on the tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Harsh guys! C'mon Ollie, Birdy is one of the rare dissenting voices that keeps this place from becoming an echo chamber. I'd be sad if she left, even though she makes me mad a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Thank you d_jango.I guess i'm not granted the same rights as those in the echo chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts