Our Kids belong to everyone ....collectively...?????

[2LaneCruzer]

I fully agree with the idea that parent need to teach kids right from wrong at the earliest possible age. This can happen with or without a religious context.

Indoctrination without education makes for a fragile, precarious, and at times dangerous belief system. It may fail for all but the most obstinate. By the time a teacher asks the student to stomp on Jesus the student should have enough (religious) education in place to deal with it in a no fuss way. It should not be a crisis for the student or his parents.

Conceptually, I cannot disagree. However, in today's reality, these crises do happen...and the big question in my mind is whether or not, pursuant to a course of instruction, should an instructor direct a student to stomp on a piece of paper upon which he/she has just written the name "Jesus". There are a myriad of names or phrases or objects that could be substituted for "Jesus" with a similar, predictable effect. What, do you suppose, would have been the effect if the object were the Koran, and there were several devout Muslims in the class? How about the word "Gay"...or "Lesbian"...or "Obama". Tempest in a teapot? Intellectually, perhaps, but as I said before, the same thing could be accomplished with a bit more aforethought and common sense. There are more ways than one to skin a cat; and it's been my experience that college instructors and PhD's are as subject to a lapse in judgement as any one else.

 

[clemsonfor]

I considered that aspect. I will leave it to the historians to decide if the schools became more liberal, or some of the population took a right turn. :laughing: If he was indoctrinated, then why did he react as he did?

College should involve some challenging of beliefs and attitudes. A young person should be forced to discover and examine their beliefs, and to develop the ability to rationally support their opinions.

Since the course where this occurred was titled "Intercultural Communication", I would assume it involved developing an awareness of what may be offensive in various cultures. Stepping on "Jesus" sounds like an attempt to demonstrate that within our culture, some actions can cause resentment or squeamish feelings, and the same applies to various actions in other cultures.

Choosing an action that would be considered by many a blatant disregard for our culture, is intended to get the point across I suppose.

While what you say is true, it's not to unreasonable to expect a bit of sensitivity, good taste and good judgement not only in our professors, but in the course of study. It seems to me that the comment by the retired teacher, where in he asked the students what their reaction would be if he stomped on the bible, seemed to accomplish the same thing, without interjecting what I believe was utter disrespect. After all, this is a college atmosphere, a little common sense isn't to much to expect.

I think the whole thing is that they were TOLD to do it not asked and he was talked down upon or scolded for not doing this. Now imagine if they were to draw a picture of muhhamud (which if you know anything about the koran or muslims that muhammud is to never be depicted) and then stomp on it, that would of been all over the headlines even if no one refused to do it etc. They may have done this but i really doubt that they did and in my opinion if you even have one person in the class stomping jesus you need to do the exact thing to other culturs to get the point across and be fair. Not everyone is a beleiver and that is thier choice, we can only hope and pray to lead them to God as one of his followers as part of our devotion to him but ultimitly that is thier choice in life, burn or be saved?

I would have no problem stomping koran or any like that cause as a cristian you dont belive in that or that it even exists, that said do i want to blow up muslims or kill them all like they (or what some want you to believe is only a "few" of them) want to do to us cristians, NO. But this is part of i guess the point they are making, what is sacred to you and what you beleive in is not to others thats they way our world is today, but we are also free and if i choose not to stomp on something i belive in which is protected under our constitution as freedom of religion said person should not be penalized for it.

 

[Bellafx]

Or for nine year olds the word weapons may be less confusing than arms.

arm
1 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
the upper limb of the human body, especially the part extending from the shoulder to the wrist.

2.
the upper limb from the shoulder to the elbow.

3.
the forelimb of any vertebrate.

4.
some part of an organism like or likened to an arm.

5.
any armlike part or attachment, as the tone arm of a phonograph.

arm
2 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.

2.
arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.

verb (used without object)
3.
to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.

verb (used with object)
4.
to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.

5.
to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.

6.
to cover protectively.

7.
to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.

8.
to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments

weapｷon
[wep-uhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

2.
anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

3.
Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

Weapons | Define Weapons at Dictionary.com

My point: Ask a 9 year old to define, arm, arms, weapons. Ask an adult to define what the meanig of "arms" was in the minds of the authors of the 2nd.

It's very reasonable to believe that the educator was just trying to educate. If you check the definition arms means either the two things below your shoulders or weapons.

Loren

Why is the word "Firearms" not in the educators dictionaries? A firearm not used in your above descriptions is not a weapon, IT'S A FIREARM. Then again the college student in Texas yesterday was using a knife and not a weapon then, correct?
Would your hand, car or baseball bat be a weapon then? People have been prosecuted for using these as a weapon. A weapon is anything used in an aggressive or defensive fashion.
Unless there is a lib in the room.

Again, in my opinion

 

[3v0]

Conceptually, I cannot disagree. However, in today's reality, these crises do happen...and the big question in my mind is whether or not, pursuant to a course of instruction, should an instructor direct a student to stomp on a piece of paper upon which he/she has just written the name "Jesus". There are a myriad of names or phrases or objects that could be substituted for "Jesus" with a similar, predictable effect. What, do you suppose, would have been the effect if the object were the Koran, and there were several devout Muslims in the class? How about the word "Gay"...or "Lesbian"...or "Obama". Tempest in a teapot? Intellectually, perhaps, but as I said before, the same thing could be accomplished with a bit more aforethought and common sense. There are more ways than one to skin a cat; and it's been my experience that college instructors and PhD's are as subject to a lapse in judgement as any one else.

I think the entire point of the exercise is to challenge with something that seems deeply wrong. What good would it do to have him stomp on something he does not feel strongly about? It there were Muslims the word most likely be Mohamad but keep in mind that they view Jesus as a profit and may also object to stomping on it.

One can not broaden the mind without challenging what is already there.

 

[schoolsout]

Good missive on Common Core being implemented all over
Comments below are worthy of a read, too.

"Common Core" Must Be Blocked in [Market-Ticker]

Last night I was invited to lead a discussion of "Common Core" as it relates to the school systems at our local Tea Party meeting. The meeting was interesting, with one gentleman who showed up "loaded for bear" defending the premise that Common Core consisted of "mere standards" much like our current Sunshine State Standards.

I pushed back hard with the following arguments which, astonishingly, he actually tried to argue against!

•We live in a nation best-described as a Federated Constitutional Republic. Nowhere in the Constitution appears "education", in whole or part. This means that the power in question belongs to the States or The People, respectively. The effect of this is to establish 50 state laboratories in which education is practiced, and if you don't like one of them you can freely move to another.


•Common Core is intended to, and will, eliminate this choice and laboratory environment. It will make homogeneous the educational environment in all public schools, assuming it works -- this is its stated intent.


•There is no evidence that "Common Core" is superior to any given state's standards, nor any scientific proof that what is to replace or supplant those standards will lead to superior outcomes. When you are the one who wishes to change an established principle, especially one that bears directly on a Constitutional separation of powers, you are the one with the burden of proof and that burden is extremely heavy. The presumptions all run against you, in short.

Much more at link

 

[toppop52]

Or for nine year olds the word weapons may be less confusing than arms.


arm
1 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
the upper limb of the human body, especially the part extending from the shoulder to the wrist.

2.
the upper limb from the shoulder to the elbow.

3.
the forelimb of any vertebrate.

4.
some part of an organism like or likened to an arm.

5.
any armlike part or attachment, as the tone arm of a phonograph.


arm
2 [ahrm] Show IPA

noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.

2.
arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.

verb (used without object)
3.
to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.

verb (used with object)
4.
to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.

5.
to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.

6.
to cover protectively.

7.
to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.

8.
to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments


weapｷon
[wep-uhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

2.
anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

3.
Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

Weapons | Define Weapons at Dictionary.com


My point: Ask a 9 year old to define, arm, arms, weapons. Ask an adult to define what the meanig of "arms" was in the minds of the authors of the 2nd.

It's very reasonable to believe that the educator was just trying to educate. If you check the definition arms means either the two things below your shoulders or weapons.

Loren

Then why not just explain the double meaning and use the actual wording the Constitution of The United States? Have we made 9 year old's so stupid by our failure of a public school system that they can't be simply shown the different meanings?
Poor excuse...

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Glad we have the right to bear arms so they are not cut off at birth.

 

[toppop52]

Common Core is being implemented in the Socialist Republic of Maryland over the next few years.

 

[don45640]

That's right,Gale!(post#40) We home-schooled our last boy,in the late 90s to 2000s(he was born in 90) and I could see even back then that intimidation and resentment growing among teachers and higher ups.
The way they support EXCLUDING your child from things the State supplies and you have to ask a few times to get the benefit,like the way we tried to get him into the spelling bee,but they said no, and we got in thru the home-schooling spelling bee.(Weston placed 6th in the Columbus dispatch district spelling bee one year).I almost gave out,and my wife was doing most of the work.
This administration has fed the arrogance of the liberals who `KNOW BETTER' how to raise your children and what beliefs they need. don-ohio ^)

Try homeschooling your kids and one may learn how the system can intimidate parents who think they have a right to train up the children into agreeing their kids belong to the state/federal governments.

While there are cases of abuse in and outside public schools this debate may not last much longer as she speaks for the top 1% in national education circles I expect today.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Obama: Put Nation's 4-Year-Olds in

This will save the day I hope.