The "book burners" are still alive behind the Orange curtain.
Mark Shapiro
Alberto Moreira
> Our latest commentary examines the attempt by Newport-Mesa
> Unified School District (Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, CA)
> board member Wendy Leese to ban the books Snow Falling on
> Ceders by David Guterson and Of Love and Shadows by Isabel
> Allende from high school AP English courses in the district.
> Read 'The "book burners" are still alive behind the Orange
> curtain" at
> http://members.home.net/mshapiro2/comments-1-29-01.htm
A parent should have power of veto on reading material passed to
his or her children.
Alberto.
Mark Shapiro
In fact, in California parents do have this right for works of fiction.
That was not what the article was about. It was about a school board member
who wants to impose her judgement on all students.
Dr. S.
"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
news:3A7575D6...@moreira.mv.com...
Joni J Rathbun
That, however, is not what is happening in this case. In this
case, one board member simply wants to ban the books from the
AP reading list. (She also wants to post the 10 commandments,
but that's a separate issue.)
Parents may have veto power over what their own children read.
I do not support giving them veto power over what *my* children
read.
As for "Snow Falling on Cedar," my freshman daughter has
already read it and was quite moved by it. It's an absolutely
beautiful book and provided a great deal of "stuff" for
thought -- some of which still comes up at our home though
it's been well over a year since we read the book.
Leece's fellow board members are currently reading the two books
in question in order to form informed opinions about them. It
will be interesting to see how the story ends.
katyb...@hotmail.com
> As for "Snow Falling on Cedar," my freshman daughter has
> already read it and was quite moved by it. It's an absolutely
> beautiful book and provided a great deal of "stuff" for
> thought -- some of which still comes up at our home though
> it's been well over a year since we read the book.
And as for "Of Love and Shadows" by Isabel Allende, this was my first
introduction to Allende's work when I was 16. Her passion for story
telling inspired me to not only read all of her books, but to travel
South America and to independently research and study the dramatic
political history of South America which she made seem so fascinating.
To hear of an individual's effort to deny others access to something
that was so inspirational and beneficial to me angers me immensely.
Any idea why she request that this book be banned? I actually
reread it only a few months ago, and aside from very vaguely worded
sexual content and the overall political climate of the story, I can't
imagine why a teacher would find this dangerous material for high
school students. Could I perhaps be missing something?
Thank you,
Katy Brendt
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Joni J Rathbun
A search of the LA Times for Wendy Leece gives you a list of available
articles related to the issue. Leece (or is it Leese?) appears to
be of the fundamentalist persuasion. IOW, it's a religious thing
(tho I suspect the majority of "religious" folks would not be
offended by either book).
Your response to Allende's work is inspiring. You should send a note
to the LA Times and/or the school district in question :)
BTW, Wendy is a school board member, not a teacher.
J.M. Ivler
> A search of the LA Times for Wendy Leece gives you a list of available
> articles related to the issue. Leece (or is it Leese?) appears to
> be of the fundamentalist persuasion. IOW, it's a religious thing
> (tho I suspect the majority of "religious" folks would not be
> offended by either book).
The best way to make sure that the Fundies don't get on the school boad is
to make sure that two questions are asked at every opportunity during the
campaign for the boad, and that the answers are well published.
1) Do you support the teaching of creationism as an alternative to
Darwinism?
2) Do you support prayer (or a moment of silence) as an official school
policy?
A third is the always popular, "If there was an offer to post the ten
commandments in our schools that would cost the schools nothing, would you
support the posting of them in the schools?"
By asking these questions you can highlight the fundies very visibly and
work to ensure that they never get elected to a position on the school
board.
Oh yes, I have added one more question to weed out school board
members... "Do you support any method of providing vouchers to people that
would permit them to use the vouchers to leave the public school system?"
Hard to believe, but we actually had a person running for the public
school board who activly supported the CA voucher initiative. And he
actually got votes!
Joni J Rathbun
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, J.M. Ivler wrote:
> In misc.education Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
> > A search of the LA Times for Wendy Leece gives you a list of available
> > articles related to the issue. Leece (or is it Leese?) appears to
> > be of the fundamentalist persuasion. IOW, it's a religious thing
> > (tho I suspect the majority of "religious" folks would not be
> > offended by either book).
>
> The best way to make sure that the Fundies don't get on the school boad is
> to make sure that two questions are asked at every opportunity during the
> campaign for the boad, and that the answers are well published.
>
> 1) Do you support the teaching of creationism as an alternative to
> Darwinism?
> 2) Do you support prayer (or a moment of silence) as an official school
> policy?
>
> A third is the always popular, "If there was an offer to post the ten
> commandments in our schools that would cost the schools nothing, would you
> support the posting of them in the schools?"
A representative in Albany, Oregon has written and submitted a (state)
bill that would require the posting of the 10 commandments in the schools
AND teaching about the importance of the commandments in history classes
(if the community voted and agreed that such should be done in their
schools).
She has written another bill that would require colleges in the state to
excuse a student from any major requirements they may object to on
moral grounds.
Alberto Moreira
>
> Dear Alberto,
>
> In fact, in California parents do have this right for works of fiction.
> That was not what the article was about. It was about a school board member
> who wants to impose her judgement on all students.
board member must address is the damaging effects of unbridled
controversy. Vetoing a book is a serious thing; if one parent
raises an issue, that's probably workable. If more than one
raises it, a compromise is imperative; if enough parents object,
that's as strong a red flag as I can see it.
While a curriculum must not be up to administrators to fiddle
with, it must also not be up to parents to shape. The point, as
I see it, isn't the book, but the war about the book. THAT is
what is damaging, THAT is what requires action and compromise.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> That, however, is not what is happening in this case. In this
> case, one board member simply wants to ban the books from the
> AP reading list. (She also wants to post the 10 commandments,
> but that's a separate issue.)
>
> Parents may have veto power over what their own children read.
> I do not support giving them veto power over what *my* children
> read.
But you have no right to impose what's read in a classroom where
their children go. For example, I don't care what you want your
children to read, I may object to reading an author that deals
with "young love" - an euphemism for bringing sex into a young
life before he or she is ready to handle it - or that conveys
"the high fire of eroticism". As I see it, and I'm not a right
winger but have my pragmatic feet firmly planted in solid center
ground, such book is undesirable reading in a high school, and I
don't care how many prizes it has won.
> As for "Snow Falling on Cedar," my freshman daughter has
> already read it and was quite moved by it. It's an absolutely
> beautiful book and provided a great deal of "stuff" for
> thought -- some of which still comes up at our home though
> it's been well over a year since we read the book.
There's a whole lot of other beautiful books out there which
don't bring in this degree of controversy. Why not use them ?
After all, we're talking about literature, not about sex
education.
> Leece's fellow board members are currently reading the two books
> in question in order to form informed opinions about them. It
> will be interesting to see how the story ends.
This is beyond the point. The point is that teaching sex in a
literature class is not a good idea, and under no circumstantces
a teacher should be allowed to deal with things that belong in
the home and not at school.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> And as for "Of Love and Shadows" by Isabel Allende, this was my first
> introduction to Allende's work when I was 16. Her passion for story
> telling inspired me to not only read all of her books, but to travel
> South America and to independently research and study the dramatic
> political history of South America which she made seem so fascinating.
> To hear of an individual's effort to deny others access to something
> that was so inspirational and beneficial to me angers me immensely.
> Any idea why she request that this book be banned? I actually
> reread it only a few months ago, and aside from very vaguely worded
> sexual content and the overall political climate of the story, I can't
> imagine why a teacher would find this dangerous material for high
> school students. Could I perhaps be missing something?
in that continent, and a lot more that would be more beneficial
to be read by a highschooler than Isabel Allende.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> The best way to make sure that the Fundies don't get on the school boad is
> to make sure that two questions are asked at every opportunity during the
> campaign for the boad, and that the answers are well published.
>
> 1) Do you support the teaching of creationism as an alternative to
> Darwinism?
> 2) Do you support prayer (or a moment of silence) as an official school
> policy?
>
> A third is the always popular, "If there was an offer to post the ten
> commandments in our schools that would cost the schools nothing, would you
> support the posting of them in the schools?"
And in doing that you efface any pretense whatsoever of freedom.
There's nothing wrong in believing in creationism, there's
nothing wrong in believing in prayer, schools aren't "congress"
and praying isn't "passing law". Evolution is a *theory* and a
model. And posting things one likes is, or should be, protected
by the first Amendment.
So, where's the evil here ? Those guys may be far to my right,
but the kind of points you raised are either far to my left, or
else they don't even belong in the scale: because I cannot even
make sense out of them.
> By asking these questions you can highlight the fundies very visibly and
> work to ensure that they never get elected to a position on the school
> board.
>
> Oh yes, I have added one more question to weed out school board
> members... "Do you support any method of providing vouchers to people that
> would permit them to use the vouchers to leave the public school system?"
>
> Hard to believe, but we actually had a person running for the public
> school board who activly supported the CA voucher initiative. And he
> actually got votes!
Which shows that not everyone agrees with you. Disagreement, you
know, is one of the healthiest things in politics.
Alberto.
Mark Shapiro
While I appreciate your views, I disagree that the public school curriculum
must be made inoffensive to everyone. In the end such an approach will lead
to a curriculum that is nothing more than pablum. The role of education
should not be to make ideas safe for students but rather to make students
safe for ideas.
I doubt that any high school senior would be corrupted by the romantic
content of either book.
Dr. S.
"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
news:3A76AD10...@moreira.mv.com...
Boojumhunter
Mark Shapiro wrote:
>
> Dear Alberto et al.,
>
> While I appreciate your views, I disagree that the public school curriculum
> must be made inoffensive to everyone. In the end such an approach will lead
> to a curriculum that is nothing more than pablum.
Unfortunately... it's too late, it's already happened.
Dan Wheeler
J.M. Ivler wrote...
> The best way to make sure that the Fundies don't get on the school boad is
> to make sure that two questions are asked at every opportunity during the
> campaign for the boad, and that the answers are well published.
> 1) Do you support the teaching of creationism as an alternative to
> Darwinism?
> 2) Do you support prayer (or a moment of silence) as an official school
> policy?
>
> A third is the always popular, "If there was an offer to post the ten
> commandments in our schools that would cost the schools nothing, would you
> support the posting of them in the schools?"
>
> By asking these questions you can highlight the fundies very visibly and
> work to ensure that they never get elected to a position on the school
> board.
>
> Oh yes, I have added one more question to weed out school board
> members... "Do you support any method of providing vouchers to people that
> would permit them to use the vouchers to leave the public school system?"
I agree! We cannot afford to have freedom of thought in schools. People
might misuse it and think things we do not want them to.
D. Halligan
> > A third is the always popular, "If there was an offer to post the ten
> > commandments in our schools that would cost the schools nothing, would you
> > support the posting of them in the schools?"
>
> And in doing that you efface any pretense whatsoever of freedom.
> There's nothing wrong in believing in creationism, there's
> nothing wrong in believing in prayer, schools aren't "congress"
> and praying isn't "passing law". Evolution is a *theory* and a
> model. And posting things one likes is, or should be, protected
> by the first Amendment.
Wait, this completely contradicts your argument against "Snow Falling on
Cedars," care to explain your hypocrisy? If literature that exposes racism
or has a minor sex scene should be left at home, why shouldn't the same
approach be used toward religious literature? Why should your religious
literature be any more protected by the first amendment than a book a
teacher chooses to use that might contain a minor sexual situation?
> So, where's the evil here ?
Evil is such a christian word. The problem is the 10 commandments back one
of 1000's of religious beliefs, opening the door for one religion to post
their literature in schools is unfair. It's like signing a contract with
Coke for all the soda machines in public schools (something I think is
horrible). It pretty much ends up looking like an endorsement of
Christianity, which is a really scary religion. I would happily let the 10
commandments get posted if posted along with them are the beliefs of other
religions and cults, as well as the beliefs of atheists. It would have to
be a level playing field of all belief systems. At that point it would be
a bit ridiculous, because I don't think there is enough space in a
classroom for that much literature to be posted...
If you want your kids to learn the 10 commandments in school, send them to
a catholic school. -dan
Herman Rubin
J.M. Ivler <iv...@basecamp1.netquest.net> wrote:
>In misc.education Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
>> A search of the LA Times for Wendy Leece gives you a list of available
>> articles related to the issue. Leece (or is it Leese?) appears to
>> be of the fundamentalist persuasion. IOW, it's a religious thing
>> (tho I suspect the majority of "religious" folks would not be
>> offended by either book).
>The best way to make sure that the Fundies don't get on the school boad is
>to make sure that two questions are asked at every opportunity during the
>campaign for the boad, and that the answers are well published.
>1) Do you support the teaching of creationism as an alternative to
>Darwinism?
>2) Do you support prayer (or a moment of silence) as an official school
>policy?
>A third is the always popular, "If there was an offer to post the ten
>commandments in our schools that would cost the schools nothing, would you
>support the posting of them in the schools?"
I would be surprised if much of the country would not vote FOR
the fundies, and remove the others. The majority should not
be able to impose on the minority.
We have cases now where some are trying to get prayers over the
school loud speaker system stopped. Also, I suspect that most
of the school districts in Indiana would post the text of the
ten commandments at the school's expense it legal; there is now
a court test of this.
>By asking these questions you can highlight the fundies very visibly and
>work to ensure that they never get elected to a position on the school
>board.
>Oh yes, I have added one more question to weed out school board
>members... "Do you support any method of providing vouchers to people that
>would permit them to use the vouchers to leave the public school system?"
Those who have been following my posts know that my
position on the previous topics is the same as yours, but
that my position on this topic is the opposite. I am
definitely against religious fundamentalism personally, but
I consider some effective disestablishment of the public
schools to be the only hope for making a real improvement
in education.
>Hard to believe, but we actually had a person running for the public
>school board who activly supported the CA voucher initiative. And he
>actually got votes!
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
kon...@my-deja.com
sure are...Read: Jacopo Timmerman, Ariel Dorfmann, Gabriel Marquez,
Pablo Neruda, Borges, to name only the first five i can think of...
theres a LOT of really spendid writers who survived the crypto-fascists
Alberto is so fond of...(in retrospect, cuz of course, he left)
coverin more ground,
cheerfully, chers
dr.j
Kevin
>But you have no right to impose what's read in a classroom where
>their children go.
You are right that a poarent does not have the right to dictate what is read
in a classroom. But a teacher does. And it was a teachers decision to read
these particular books.
Or should teachers not be able to assign reading because someone might
object. IN the past some parents have objected to Shakespeare because it is
violent and lewd. Should the students be able to opt out of Shakespeare??
>There's a whole lot of other beautiful books out there which
>don't bring in this degree of controversy. Why not use them ?
>After all, we're talking about literature, not about sex
>education.
>
Because literature reflects life, and in life there is sex. It's not even
supposed to be anything like sex education anymore than any prime time TV
show is.
>
>This is beyond the point. The point is that teaching sex in a
>literature class is not a good idea, and under no circumstantces
>a teacher should be allowed to deal with things that belong in
>the home and not at school.
Well. guess that literature classes now have to quit reading some
Shakespeare. Much of the Bible is off limits. Tolstoy is out.
At least there are still some great works available in the places that don't
ban them because of violence.
>
>
>Alberto.
Laura Higley
> That, however, is not what is happening in this case. In this
> case, one board member simply wants to ban the books from the
> AP reading list. (She also wants to post the 10 commandments,
> but that's a separate issue.)
>
> Parents may have veto power over what their own children read.
> I do not support giving them veto power over what *my* children
> read.
The school board exists to set curriculum. If the community
doesn't like the way the school board does it's job, then
the community should vote in new members of the board.
Moreover, the parents have a duty to make their voices heard
on this, and all other issues involving their children.
If a particular book is not read in school, a parent who
feels such a book is crucial to his child's education should
provide the book to his own children at home, not demand
that every child in the district be compelled to read it. If
here is a great need for the child to read the book, but
it's not available in any library, and the parent cannot pay
for it at a bookstore, many charitable organizations exist
to help get that book into the hands of a needy child.
There is a great deal of reading matter that is appropriate
and non-controversial: more than any person can read in a
lifetime, let alone in the twelve years of public school.
Save reading matter the school board, and therefore the
community, finds controversial for the home until the
children are of age and can make their own decisions on the
matter.
--
Laura Higley
J.M. Ivler
> J.M. Ivler wrote:
>
>> The best way to make sure that the Fundies don't get on the school boad is
>> to make sure that two questions are asked at every opportunity during the
>> campaign for the boad, and that the answers are well published.
>>
>> 1) Do you support the teaching of creationism as an alternative to
>> Darwinism?
>> 2) Do you support prayer (or a moment of silence) as an official school
>> policy?
>>
>> A third is the always popular, "If there was an offer to post the ten
>> commandments in our schools that would cost the schools nothing, would you
>> support the posting of them in the schools?"
> And in doing that you efface any pretense whatsoever of freedom.
How, I *DEMAND* that they make clear their beliefs since these beliefs, if
acted on, would effect me, my family and my community. I find those that
hold those beliefs to be supporting a stand which I am against. They know
where I stand, I have every right to know where they stand when they run
for public office. Expecially when they will be controlling my childrens
education. Now how do I "efface any pretense whatsoever of freedom" by
demanding that they state their postitions?
> There's nothing wrong in believing in creationism, there's
> nothing wrong in believing in prayer, schools aren't "congress"
> and praying isn't "passing law". Evolution is a *theory* and a
> model. And posting things one likes is, or should be, protected
> by the first Amendment.
I never said there was anything "wrong" with their belief systems. I just
don't want people with their belief systems trying top operate a
institution of public learning. These beliefs DO have an effect over that,
and I want to make sure that people who have these beliefs never get into
a position to enforce them on me.
> So, where's the evil here ? Those guys may be far to my right,
> but the kind of points you raised are either far to my left, or
> else they don't even belong in the scale: because I cannot even
> make sense out of them.
Faith is personal and private. It doesn't belong in the schools.
Creationism is based on faith. It is not taught as theory like Darwin's
Theory of Evolution, it is taught as a fact and the book it is taught
from is a piece of hogcrap in some peoples opinion. It starts with the
FACT that their is a higher power and that a book of fables is a book of
fact.
Prayer, organized, in school under any of its many names is another
attempt to make one persons FAITH the correct way to do things. A "moment
of silence" is recognized as a form of prayer by many western religions (a
moment of silent prayer). It's a crock. It doesn't belonmg in public
schools any more than ritual scrifice or canibalism [this is my blood,
this is my flesh].
Final note, the posting of some "commandments" given by the majority
populations version of the correct religion is just as wrong as posting
the eightfold path, the hindi equivelent, etc. Leave your faith outside
the public education. That is what families and churches are for.
>> Hard to believe, but we actually had a person running for the public
>> school board who activly supported the CA voucher initiative. And he
>> actually got votes!
> Which shows that not everyone agrees with you. Disagreement, you
> know, is one of the healthiest things in politics.
No Alberto, it shows that most people weren't aware that he supported
vouchers as it wasn't reported. I wouldn't have known it had I not ridden
past his house and noticed a lawn sign for vouchewrs on his lawn. His
support of vouchers was NEVER told to the people that voted for him in any
published press.
J.M. Ivler
Really, and where did I say that? Oh you think getting someone to say
where they stand on these issues when they run for the school board is
somehow the same as limiting the freedom of thought in the schools? I see,
and how does ensuring that the fundies don't get into the system and ban
books that they don't like, or promote their religious agenda mean that I
want to limit freedom of thought.
I want _My Two Dads_ to be in the library. Right next to the _Holy Bible_
and the _Quaran_ next to _Our Bodies Ourselves_ and _The Positive Aspects
of Masterbation_ and maybe even some other mythologies/religious
texts. Now find a fundie that supports student access to all text.
> People might misuse it and think things we do not want them to.
Again, where do you see that expressed in my piece? Didn't think so.
Joni J Rathbun
On 30 Jan 2001, Laura Higley wrote:
> Joni J Rathbun wrote:
>
> > That, however, is not what is happening in this case. In this
> > case, one board member simply wants to ban the books from the
> > AP reading list. (She also wants to post the 10 commandments,
> > but that's a separate issue.)
> >
> > Parents may have veto power over what their own children read.
> > I do not support giving them veto power over what *my* children
> > read.
>
> The school board exists to set curriculum. If the community
> doesn't like the way the school board does it's job, then
> the community should vote in new members of the board.
> Moreover, the parents have a duty to make their voices heard
> on this, and all other issues involving their children.
>
I was responding to a sentence that said something about a parent
having veto power over what their own child reads. Fine. But that
power does not extend to my child. Different issue in this
particular case but something parents try to do with some
frequency.
Jeff Potter
It seems like one way to get away from pablum would be to try to be more factual
and historic.
Isn't Western Civilization---and many of its practices, science, mores, culture
and folkways---strongly related to Christianity?
Detailed familiarity with Xianity would seem essential to understanding Western
Civ. Can it be done otherwise? Maybe this is where some of the air of ignorance
comes from in today's schools. ---From avoiding the obvious.
This kind of knowledge wouldn't be to endorse anything, but would just be
essential to education.
The study of non-Xian religions would be related to other types of civilization
and part of World History, etc., courses, for schools and grades that offer such
studies.
--
Jeff Potter j...@outyourbackdoor.com
"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Zine of Modern Folkways and Culture Revival
outyourbackdoor.com ... for a full line of alternative outdoor culture books,
bookstore & forum
Mark Shapiro
the newsgroups, and I apologize if you have had difficulty accessing the web
site. @home has been in the process of moving web pages from one set of
servers to another over the past few day, and response has been very slow.
The problem appears to have been resolved, and you should have no trouble
accessing articles from The Irascible Professor.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Editor and Publisher
http://www.IrascibleProfessor.com
PS... for what it's worth... the discussion has been a "quality" one in my
opinion.
Joni J Rathbun
On 30 Jan 2001, Laura Higley wrote:
> There is a great deal of reading matter that is appropriate
> and non-controversial: more than any person can read in a
> lifetime, let alone in the twelve years of public school.
> Save reading matter the school board, and therefore the
> community, finds controversial for the home until the
> children are of age and can make their own decisions on the
> matter.
>
Yes, a comforting thought. We shall all read only works
that offend the sensitivities no one.
Why even bother to read.
Joni J Rathbun
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> Joni J Rathbun wrote:
>
> > That, however, is not what is happening in this case. In this
> > case, one board member simply wants to ban the books from the
> > AP reading list. (She also wants to post the 10 commandments,
> > but that's a separate issue.)
> >
> > Parents may have veto power over what their own children read.
> > I do not support giving them veto power over what *my* children
> > read.
>
> But you have no right to impose what's read in a classroom where
> their children go.
How am I the parent doing that?
For example, I don't care what you want your
> children to read, I may object to reading an author that deals
> with "young love" - an euphemism for bringing sex into a young
> life before he or she is ready to handle it - or that conveys
> "the high fire of eroticism". As I see it, and I'm not a right
> winger but have my pragmatic feet firmly planted in solid center
> ground, such book is undesirable reading in a high school, and I
> don't care how many prizes it has won.
>
You should read the book, Alberto.
> > As for "Snow Falling on Cedar," my freshman daughter has
> > already read it and was quite moved by it. It's an absolutely
> > beautiful book and provided a great deal of "stuff" for
> > thought -- some of which still comes up at our home though
> > it's been well over a year since we read the book.
>
> There's a whole lot of other beautiful books out there which
> don't bring in this degree of controversy. Why not use them ?
> After all, we're talking about literature, not about sex
> education.
>
You should read the book, Alberto.
> > Leece's fellow board members are currently reading the two books
> > in question in order to form informed opinions about them. It
> > will be interesting to see how the story ends.
>
> This is beyond the point. The point is that teaching sex in a
> literature class is not a good idea, and under no circumstantces
> a teacher should be allowed to deal with things that belong in
> the home and not at school.
>
You should read the book, Alberto.
D. Halligan
> Isn't Western Civilization---and many of its practices, science, mores, culture
> and folkways---strongly related to Christianity?
>
> Detailed familiarity with Xianity would seem essential to understanding Western
> Civ. Can it be done otherwise? Maybe this is where some of the air of ignorance
> comes from in today's schools. ---From avoiding the obvious.
>
> This kind of knowledge wouldn't be to endorse anything, but would just be
> essential to education.
It's not knowledge, it's releigion. I don't think many non-Christians
would have a problem with treating Christianity as fiction or theory and
talking about it's influence on Western Civilization, in fact that's
pretty much currently how it is discussed in public schools.
> The study of non-Xian religions would be related to other types of
> civilization and part of World History, etc., courses, for schools and
> grades that offer such studies.
Religion relates to more than just history. I think the study of religion
is entirely appropriate to a theology class, but studying World History
doesn't need to involve studying the teachings of Christianity, and if it
does, it certainly shouldn't treat them as "knowledge" or fact. -dan
Laura Higley
> Yes, a comforting thought. We shall all read only works
> that offend the sensitivities no one.
>
> Why even bother to read.
What I said was, save the stuff the elected school board
deems inappropriate, that the parents want their child to
experience, for the home. If your community isn't doing a
good job setting the curriculum, there are appropriate ways
to handle the matter. Instead of forcing every child to read
what the school board the community has elected finds
unsuitable, that community should compel the school board to
change the curriculum. More importantly, parents have to
take responsibility for their own children, and are morally
obligated to fill the gaps in their child's education.
Education doesn't exist in a vacuum. It doesn't just happen
at school. If it did, school would need to be more than 6 or
so hours a day.
--
Laura Higley
Laura Higley
> I was responding to a sentence that said something about a parent
> having veto power over what their own child reads. Fine. But that
> power does not extend to my child. Different issue in this
> particular case but something parents try to do with some
> frequency.
Are you saying the parent singles out one child (not his
own), and prevents that child from reading material the
school board has put into the curriculum, while the rest of
the class is reading it in school? If that's what you said,
I agree, it's terribly wrong. And I'm certain that's a legal
issue you could effectively deal with.
Every parent has a right and a duty to be heard on
curriculum issues. After a parent has raised the issue, the
school board may decide a particular work is better left
outside school. I'm all for that. That's why we have school
board meetings. It means the school board is working
effectively to address the needs of the community.
--
Laura Higley, President http://www.nitelinks.com
Welcome to the world of electronic books!
Joni J Rathbun
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Mark A. Fernandez wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:10:02 -0500, Alberto Moreira
> <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>
> >"such book is undesirable reading in a high school, and I
> >"don't care how many prizes it has won.
>
> So I suppose Romeo & Juliet is out of the question? After all, not only is
> that story about "young love," it's also about suicide. Lord knows THAT
> story is a shameless euphamism!
>
Not only is that story about young love, it's also about forbidden love.
In Snow Falling, the concern is with the fact that the boy is white and
the girl is Japanese.
One might also note that unless I just don't remember what I'm talking
about, the pair in Snow Falling never actually has sex. They come
close in their last meeting -- before she leaves for the camps, before he
goes to war -- as Ishmael so desperately wants to consummate
something that can never be, "Like the only kind of wedding we
could ever have." But when Hatsue says no, he stops.
I can't help but think many teens have wrestled with similar emotions,
decisions and realizations.
> >"There's a whole lot of other beautiful books out there which
> >"don't bring in this degree of controversy. Why not use them ?
> >"After all, we're talking about literature, not about sex
> >"education.
>
> You are wrong. The "literary" value of the book, the "education" aspect of
> the "sex education" isn't about the "sex" (what about sex are you so afraid
> of, anyway?). The "literary" value is in making the reader question his or
> her values about sex. The book doesn't teach "sex," but asks the reader to
> examine his or her values and mores, and the consequences of your choices.
>
Anyone who believes the book approaches anything resembling "sex
education" has not read the book.
> If you have trouble grasping this and understanding it, you have no
> business criticizing the choices a teacher makes in teaching any particular
> work of literature, and you damn sure don't belong teaching literature.
>
> >"This is beyond the point. The point is that teaching sex in a
> >"literature class is not a good idea, and under no circumstantces
> >"a teacher should be allowed to deal with things that belong in
> >"the home and not at school.
>
> Well, just as you probably don't expect anyone to tell you what you should
> or shouldn't be teaching at home, you also shouldn't expect to have the
> right to force your beliefs of what "should" or "shouldn't" be taught in
> school. Your analysis of what is "right" and "wrong" to teach is faulty,
> shallow, and illiterate.
>
> You are entirely too obsessed with sex. ;)
>
>
And Snow Falling on Cedar is not a novel about sex. All totaled, there's
probably no more than a single page, maybe a page and a half, of words out
of more than 400 pages in which the topic is quietly described or
alluded to.
J.M. Ivler
> Joni J Rathbun wrote:
>> I was responding to a sentence that said something about a parent
>> having veto power over what their own child reads. Fine. But that
>> power does not extend to my child. Different issue in this
>> particular case but something parents try to do with some
>> frequency.
> Are you saying the parent singles out one child (not his
> own), and prevents that child from reading material the
> school board has put into the curriculum, while the rest of
> the class is reading it in school? If that's what you said,
> I agree, it's terribly wrong. And I'm certain that's a legal
> issue you could effectively deal with.
Actually, that "parent" is on the bloody school board. That parent has
determined that they wish to not have a book made available to the
students because THEY don't want their kid to read it. The book could be
_Catcher In The Rye_ or the current favorite, and the parent in question
has every right to not have THEIR child read it. The problem comes in when
the parent decides that no child should read it because they don't want
their kid to read it.
> Every parent has a right and a duty to be heard on
> curriculum issues. After a parent has raised the issue, the
> school board may decide a particular work is better left
> outside school. I'm all for that. That's why we have school
> board meetings. It means the school board is working
> effectively to address the needs of the community.
In this case it's one fundie who wants her will to replace that of the
individual parents. This is the same mentality that tries to ban _My Two
Dads_ because it deals with an acceptance of an alternative lifestyle that
they can't accept and don't want their kids to be exposed to, as if
stopping them from reading the book was going to make homosexuality
disapear.
Joni J Rathbun
Nope. I'm saying some parents aren't content with just
changing the curriculum but also wish to remove the books
from the libraries as well -- impacting access for all.
Laura Higley
> Nope. I'm saying some parents aren't content with just
> changing the curriculum but also wish to remove the books
> from the libraries as well -- impacting access for all.
Sadly, I've heard of that. And when the community allows
someone to remove what they feel are objectionable books
from the public library, not just the school library, they
go overboard.
--
Laura Higley
Laura Higley
> Actually, that "parent" is on the bloody school board.
<snipped -- see above post for entire message>
School board members are elected by the community to make
curriculum decisions for the community. Every parent is not
going to like every opinion of every board member; that's
why there's more than one member on the board. If a majority
of parents disagree with a board member's opinion on this or
other matters, the school board member should be replaced
through an election. I'll bet more than one parent agrees
with this board member's objection, unless she did a great
con job and the voters were terribly negligent in finding
out her views on curriculum prior to the elected.
--
Laura Higley
Jeff Potter
> [ ] studying World History
> doesn't need to involve studying the teachings of Christianity, and if it
> does, it certainly shouldn't treat them as "knowledge" or fact. -dan
It's needed to know the motivations and the culture behind what happened.
It's vital to understand the religion of an area if one wants to know anything about
its culture and then to go on and understand anything behind what it does or its
history. Each big Civ and region has its essential religious influence. I would
think that religion is the #1 influence.
Joni J Rathbun
On 31 Jan 2001, Laura Higley wrote:
If libraries pulled each book someone has complained about,
whether school libraries or public, there would be precious few
books left on the shelves. Even the bible would be gone.
Note, btw, that in what I believe would be *most* school districts,
a committee representing a broad range of community members is
given the task of reading, discussing and making recommendations
concerning challenged books. School boards may choose not to
agree to those recommendations but, I suspect, more often than
not, they do. I believe this is more representative than
leaving the task to only the school board -- which does not
always represent a balance -- and which sometimes plays a
power role vs a thinking role.
Laura Higley
> If libraries pulled each book someone has complained about,
> whether school libraries or public, there would be precious few
> books left on the shelves. Even the bible would be gone.
Your right, it's the community who controls the content via
elected officials. And as you say below, the school board
might not directly review each piece of content, but rather
have committees to work on these matters.
>
> Note, btw, that in what I believe would be *most* school districts,
> a committee representing a broad range of community members is
> given the task of reading, discussing and making recommendations
> concerning challenged books. School boards may choose not to
> agree to those recommendations but, I suspect, more often than
> not, they do. I believe this is more representative than
> leaving the task to only the school board -- which does not
> always represent a balance -- and which sometimes plays a
> power role vs a thinking role.
And if this is happening, the entire community which elected
the board is to blame. If they've allowed such a situation,
they have no business proceeding until they clean it up.
--
Laura Higley
Laura Higley
> If libraries pulled each book someone has complained about,
> whether school libraries or public, there would be precious few
> books left on the shelves. Even the bible would be gone.
You're right, the community controls the content via
elected officials. And as you say below, the school board
might not directly review each piece of content, but rather
have committees to work on these matters.
>
> Note, btw, that in what I believe would be *most* school districts,
> a committee representing a broad range of community members is
> given the task of reading, discussing and making recommendations
> concerning challenged books. School boards may choose not to
> agree to those recommendations but, I suspect, more often than
> not, they do. I believe this is more representative than
> leaving the task to only the school board -- which does not
> always represent a balance -- and which sometimes plays a
> power role vs a thinking role.
And if this is happening, the entire community which elected
samuel...@my-deja.com
junk...@moreira.mv.com wrote:
> There's a whole lot of other beautiful books out there which
> don't bring in this degree of controversy. Why not use them ?
> After all, we're talking about literature, not about sex
> education.
But all literature is controversial. You might object to one thing,
another parent may object to the language and tone of Catcher in the
Rye, another parent could call Huckleberry Finn racist, etc. It is the
controversial elements of these books that make them worth studying.
There's little objectionable in the Hardy Boys (largely because each
new edition censors and dumbs down) but no one would consider them
worth studying in literature class. If each parent could veto the
teachers' books than how could the teacher teach anything?
> > Leece's fellow board members are currently reading the two books
> > in question in order to form informed opinions about them. It
> > will be interesting to see how the story ends.
>
> This is beyond the point. The point is that teaching sex in a
> literature class is not a good idea, and under no circumstantces
> a teacher should be allowed to deal with things that belong in
> the home and not at school.
But what you think belongs in the home may not be what others think.
samuel...@my-deja.com
Laura Higley <La...@nitelinks.com> wrote:
> There is a great deal of reading matter that is appropriate
> and non-controversial: more than any person can read in a
> lifetime, let alone in the twelve years of public school.
> Save reading matter the school board, and therefore the
> community, finds controversial for the home until the
> children are of age and can make their own decisions on the
> matter.
Ah, but the list of censored works contain most of the great
literature. (Books that tell a truth about humanity inevitably get
attacked by those who would deny that truth.)
The list at http://home.nvg.org/~aga/bulletin43.html includes
BRAVE NEW WORLD
THE CATCHER IN THE RYE
CATCH-22
THE COLOR PURPLE
THE CRUCIBLE
DEATH OF A SALESMAN
DIARY OF ANNE FRANK
EAST OF EDEN
A FAREWELL TO ARMS
FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON
THE GRAPES OF WRATH
HUCKLEBERRY FINN
I KNOW WHY THE CAGED BIRD SINGS
LORD OF THE FLIES
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE
1984
OF MICE AND MEN
ONE DAY IN THE LIFE OF IVAN DENISOVICH by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
A SEPARATE PEACE
SILAS MARNER
SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
ULYSESS (James Joyce)
UNCLE TOM'S CABIN
This list of banned books could just as easily be a list of some of the
greatest books ever written (for they are). Do you honestly think a
parent should be able to stop a teacher from using 1984 or DIARY OF
ANNE FRANK or A FAREWELL TO ARMS just by saying there are less
controversial works out there?
Yes, there are less controversial books. But most of these books are
controversial precisely because they have something to say (that
noncontroversial books don't)
Laura Higley
And the consensus of each particular community will still
find what's right for that community. Not every book will be
banned in every community. And there are yet alternatives
for those who don't want to go along with what their
community has decided.
--
Laura Higley
Herman Rubin
J.M. Ivler <iv...@basecamp1.netquest.net> wrote:
>In misc.education Dan Wheeler <whe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> J.M. Ivler wrote...
................
>>> Oh yes, I have added one more question to weed out school board
>>> members... "Do you support any method of providing vouchers to people that
>>> would permit them to use the vouchers to leave the public school system?"
>> I agree! We cannot afford to have freedom of thought in schools.
>Really, and where did I say that? Oh you think getting someone to say
>where they stand on these issues when they run for the school board is
>somehow the same as limiting the freedom of thought in the schools? I see,
>and how does ensuring that the fundies don't get into the system and ban
>books that they don't like, or promote their religious agenda mean that I
>want to limit freedom of thought.
The point is that we should not have the school board
controlling what gets taught. This means that we need
affordable alternatives to the public schools. We do
not have freedom of thought in the public schools now,
and we will never have as long as the current setup is
an effective monopoly. YOU would also limit freedom of
thought in the schools as well. Even the idea that
children should be with their age group instead of
learning at their own pace limits freedom of thought
among the children.
>I want _My Two Dads_ to be in the library. Right next to the _Holy Bible_
>and the _Quaran_ next to _Our Bodies Ourselves_ and _The Positive Aspects
>of Masterbation_ and maybe even some other mythologies/religious
>texts. Now find a fundie that supports student access to all text.
You might get these in the library, but not next as you
say. Books in the library are classified by subject
matter, and religion is one of the main classifications.
>> People might misuse it and think things we do not want them to.
>Again, where do you see that expressed in my piece? Didn't think so.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
>> Mark Shapiro wrote:
>> > Dear Alberto et al.,
>> > While I appreciate your views, I disagree that the public school curriculum
>> > must be made inoffensive to everyone. In the end such an approach will lead
>> > to a curriculum that is nothing more than pablum.
>> Unfortunately... it's too late, it's already happened.
>It seems like one way to get away from pablum would be to try to be more factual
>and historic.
>Isn't Western Civilization---and many of its practices, science, mores, culture
>and folkways---strongly related to Christianity?
Not as much as one would think. Much of art, and a fair
amount of music, is related, but only as expression of the
beliefs. From the standpoint of the sciences and other
branches of real knowledge, Christianity has only been
interfering and actually destructive. There is some culture
based on the tenets and practices of Christianity, and it
should be studied as such, but more of our culture comes
from Egypt and Mesopotamia and Greece and Rome, which are
rarely adequately studied today. Islam has contributed
some, but not as much as claimed.
>Detailed familiarity with Xianity would seem essential to understanding Western
>Civ. Can it be done otherwise? Maybe this is where some of the air of ignorance
>comes from in today's schools. ---From avoiding the obvious.
I disagree about the "detailed", it is even the case that
the various branches of Christianity would object to many
of the details of other branches. The historical effects
of Christianity, even the various branches, as well as that
of Islam later, and of the other cultures earlier, are quite
important to understanding our civilization, but these have
little to do with the beliefs.
>This kind of knowledge wouldn't be to endorse anything, but would just be
>essential to education.
Try to do it in such a way as it would not be considered
even by many Christians to be highly sectarian; you are
almost certain to fail.
>The study of non-Xian religions would be related to other types of civilization
>and part of World History, etc., courses, for schools and grades that offer such
>studies.
I suggest you reconsider. Much of Christianity involves
knowledge of the Jewish religion and history; this includes
most of the Christian Bible. The names of the days of the
week are pagan. The names of the first six months come
from the Roman religion. The names of astronomical objects
are mainly from Greek, Roman, and Arabic; and especially
Greek theology is involved. A general discussion of religion,
with necessarily a fair amount of discussion of what is the
"basis" of Christianity, can be appropriate, but who can do
a reasonable job of teaching it?
Jeff Potter
> [ ]
> beliefs. From the standpoint of the sciences and other
> branches of real knowledge, Christianity has only been
> interfering and actually destructive.
Calvinism anyone? Catholic (and every other sect's) guilt vibe? ---Prime motivators
for the amounts of effort and the values involved in much science.
Herman Rubin
J.M. Ivler <iv...@basecamp1.netquest.net> wrote:
>In misc.education Laura Higley <La...@nitelinks.com> wrote:
>> Joni J Rathbun wrote:
....................
>Actually, that "parent" is on the bloody school board. That parent has
>determined that they wish to not have a book made available to the
>students because THEY don't want their kid to read it. The book could be
>_Catcher In The Rye_ or the current favorite, and the parent in question
>has every right to not have THEIR child read it. The problem comes in when
>the parent decides that no child should read it because they don't want
>their kid to read it.
If a class is going to discuss a book, everyone in the
class will have to read it. I think the conclusion from
this should be clear.
This is a major problem with literature. There is little,
if any, literature which is not the expression of a
philosophy. It would not be so bad if the class was taught
that way, but it is taught as a language course, not a
philosophy course. Unless the author uses considerable
"high class" vocabulary, reading a book is not going to
improve the students' use of the English language.
>> Every parent has a right and a duty to be heard on
>> curriculum issues. After a parent has raised the issue, the
>> school board may decide a particular work is better left
>> outside school. I'm all for that. That's why we have school
>> board meetings. It means the school board is working
>> effectively to address the needs of the community.
>In this case it's one fundie who wants her will to replace that of the
>individual parents. This is the same mentality that tries to ban _My Two
>Dads_ because it deals with an acceptance of an alternative lifestyle that
>they can't accept and don't want their kids to be exposed to, as if
>stopping them from reading the book was going to make homosexuality
>disapear.
While I do not necessarily agree, the reason for not
wanting their kids exposed to it is so that their
particular kids will not be influenced to adopt that
lifestyle. The fundies take this position with respect
to other children as well. The psychologists are still
arguing over whether such works have this effect.
Herman Rubin
If a parent does not agree with the prohibition of a book,
the parent can make the book available. If a parent
disagrees with the use of a book for his or her child,
the next election is going to be too late. The only
meaningful election is to immediately switch, and as long
as the public schools are massively subsidized, it is
even likely that the alternative school does not exist.
Herman Rubin
>> [ ] studying World History
>> doesn't need to involve studying the teachings of Christianity, and if it
>> does, it certainly shouldn't treat them as "knowledge" or fact. -dan
>It's needed to know the motivations and the culture behind what happened.
>It's vital to understand the religion of an area if one wants to know anything about
>its culture and then to go on and understand anything behind what it does or its
>history. Each big Civ and region has its essential religious influence. I would
>think that religion is the #1 influence.
Considering the history of the world, including Western History,
one would then have to put Islam up there close to Christianity.
One needs to know little about the religion, however.
Laura Higley
> If a parent does not agree with the prohibition of a book,
> the parent can make the book available. If a parent
> disagrees with the use of a book for his or her child,
> the next election is going to be too late.
In this case, the parent could insist on opting his child
out of that particular part of the curriculum.
> The only
> meaningful election is to immediately switch, and as long
> as the public schools are massively subsidized, it is
> even likely that the alternative school does not exist.
Home schooling is an alternative for those who cannot agree
with society and cannot find a school that meets their
ideals. Depends on how much the parent is willing to back up
his beliefs with action.
Herman Rubin
>In article <3A7742F7...@nitelinks.com>,
> Laura Higley <La...@nitelinks.com> wrote:
.................
>Ah, but the list of censored works contain most of the great
>literature. (Books that tell a truth about humanity inevitably get
>attacked by those who would deny that truth.)
But do they tell a truth? To take one example, _Uncle
Tom's Cabin_, which Lincoln credited for the Civil War,
was a description of what COULD happen under slavery, but
was it an accurate description of what generally did
happen? From more dispassionate accounts, it was highly
inaccurate. However, it "sold" many at the time, and even
most who read it now.
I believe that one of the items listed, and I would
question whether it is "great literature", is factual.
Most science fiction is almost unintelligible to English
teachers, as they do not know enough science to even
understand the difference between it and fantasy.
All the fiction is philosophy, and should be taught
as such, not taught as truth. Even to the extent to
which it was an accurate depiction, how accurate, and
how general?
Are there less controversial books? Not if they are any good.
But it is still philosophy which is being presented, not
language. It does not belong in an English class at all,
unless it is presented in terms of the organization and
presentation, with no reference to the philosophy
described. Using this criterion, Shakespeare might
qualify, but not most of the others.
Herman Rubin
If you claim that there is something "right for a community",
that community would have the right to enforce religion and
much more. The essence of freedom is the right to be
different, and ONLY that.
Herman Rubin
>> [ ]
>> beliefs. From the standpoint of the sciences and other
>> branches of real knowledge, Christianity has only been
>> interfering and actually destructive.
>Calvinism anyone? Catholic (and every other sect's) guilt vibe? ---Prime motivators
>for the amounts of effort and the values involved in much science.
Has it done anything to promote science? At best, it has
not interfered with it. But other branches have actively
interfered, from the destruction of the Greek academies
under the hands of the early Christians to the banning of
Galileo's work (and the suppression of Copernicus), to the
current activities of many Protestant sects today against
the idea of evolution.
BTW, Islam did not do that much better. For a short time,
they allowed the dissemination, with a little augmentation,
of Greek mathematics, and a little experimentation. But
then the Imams closed down their secular schools.
Herman Rubin
>> If a parent does not agree with the prohibition of a book,
>> the parent can make the book available. If a parent
>> disagrees with the use of a book for his or her child,
>> the next election is going to be too late.
>In this case, the parent could insist on opting his child
>out of that particular part of the curriculum.
In many places, it may well be required for graduation, or
for college admission. There is frequently a requirement
of so many units of English, not that any such requirements
are meaningful.
>> The only
>> meaningful election is to immediately switch, and as long
>> as the public schools are massively subsidized, it is
>> even likely that the alternative school does not exist.
>Home schooling is an alternative for those who cannot agree
>with society and cannot find a school that meets their
>ideals. Depends on how much the parent is willing to back up
>his beliefs with action.
This assumes that the parent(s) have the ability to conduct
the home schooling. What if it is desired to do this for
only one subject, or even part of that?
Credentials should only be based on knowledge and ability.
I cannot see universities requiring the same literature
books, or even an entire state school system.
Laura Higley
> If you claim that there is something "right for a community",
> that community would have the right to enforce religion and
> much more. The essence of freedom is the right to be
> different, and ONLY that.
Are we still speaking on matters of curriculum? Certainly an
individual community can come to agreement on enough
literature to comprise several good high school literature
courses, which meet the needs of the community. This is
(part of) what the school board is elected--by the entire
community--to do.
Laura Higley
> In many places, it may well be required for graduation, or
> for college admission. There is frequently a requirement
> of so many units of English, not that any such requirements
> are meaningful.
Opting a child out of one book, substituting it for similar
independent study is a possible avenue of compromise.
> This assumes that the parent(s) have the ability to conduct
> the home schooling. What if it is desired to do this for
> only one subject, or even part of that?
Then the individuals must compromise something, somewhere.
The school board mustn't be expected to pander to that one
theoretical individual who is unwilling to compromise. Home
schooling is one alternative, certainly not the only one. No
experience in life is without some less than perfect
aspects. The discussion degenerates into devil's
advocacy--completely unproductive.
> Credentials should only be based on knowledge and ability.
> I cannot see universities requiring the same literature
> books, or even an entire state school system.
Exactly my point.
--
Laura Higley
Jeff Potter
> In article <3A79B384...@glpbooks.com>,
> Jeff Potter <j...@glpbooks.com> wrote:
> >Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> >> [ ]
> >> beliefs. From the standpoint of the sciences and other
> >> branches of real knowledge, Christianity has only been
> >> interfering and actually destructive.
>
> >Calvinism anyone? Catholic (and every other sect's) guilt vibe? ---Prime motivators
> >for the amounts of effort and the values involved in much science.
>
> Has it done anything to promote science? At best, it has
> not interfered with it. But other branches have actively
> interfered, from the destruction of the Greek academies
> under the hands of the early Christians to the banning of
> Galileo's work (and the suppression of Copernicus), to the
Basically, the tendency to work super-long hours, sacrificing health, etc., for
misguided ideas about progress is due in large part to our Calvinist/Catholic roots.
And Judaism to an extent.
Jeff Potter
> In article <3A782842...@glpbooks.com>,
> Jeff Potter <j...@glpbooks.com> wrote:
> >"D. Halligan" wrote:
>
> >> [ ] studying World History
> >> doesn't need to involve studying the teachings of Christianity, and if it
> >> does, it certainly shouldn't treat them as "knowledge" or fact. -dan
>
> >It's needed to know the motivations and the culture behind what happened.
>
> >It's vital to understand the religion of an area if one wants to know anything about
> >its culture and then to go on and understand anything behind what it does or its
> >history. Each big Civ and region has its essential religious influence. I would
> >think that religion is the #1 influence.
>
> Considering the history of the world, including Western History,
> one would then have to put Islam up there close to Christianity.
>
> One needs to know little about the religion, however.
To know why people act the way they do in each region or civ type, I would think that
understanding quite a bit about the religions would be extremely helpful. The culture,
mores, business practices, etc., have their style and methods heavily influenced by the
religion.
Alberto Moreira
>
> Dear Alberto et al.,
>
> While I appreciate your views, I disagree that the public school curriculum
> must be made inoffensive to everyone. In the end such an approach will lead
> should not be to make ideas safe for students but rather to make students
> safe for ideas.
NO!
That is NOT the role of schooling education. That sphere is the
role and prerogative of parents.
> I doubt that any high school senior would be corrupted by the romantic
> content of either book.
Your call with your senior. My call with my senior. Not your
call with my senior, or anyone else's.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> Unfortunately... it's too late, it's already happened.
And it will happen again and again and again, until
schoolteachers learn to respect parental power and agree to stay
out of the parenting sphere.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> I agree! We cannot afford to have freedom of thought in schools. People
> might misuse it and think things we do not want them to.
Your freedom of thought stops where my parental rights begin. If
I don't want to expose my child to this or that thought, that's
my call. That is NOT any teacher's or administrator's call.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> sure are...Read: Jacopo Timmerman, Ariel Dorfmann, Gabriel Marquez,
> Pablo Neruda, Borges, to name only the first five i can think of...
> theres a LOT of really spendid writers who survived the crypto-fascists
> Alberto is so fond of...(in retrospect, cuz of course, he left)
Literature is, or it should be, content free. The moment you
emphasize your own concept of "fascists", or whatever ideology
you're pro or against, you're no longer doing literature, you're
rather hiding behind it to foster your own brand of ideology.
Which, as I see it does not belong, not for one second, in a
serious school.
As for myself personally, as far as literature goes I'm a
classicist, in the strongest ancient Greek and Roman tradition.
I don't care for ideology, left or right it makes no difference
to me; I'm a pragmatic man with my two feet firmly planted on
the center. But you know, like people say in my native Brazil,
"at dusk all cats are gray"; or, if you're from Patagonia,
everone else's from "the north" - so, seen from the far left,
people see a fascist in everyone who's not an equal.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>
> >But you have no right to impose what's read in a classroom where
> >their children go.
>
> You are right that a poarent does not have the right to dictate what is read
> in a classroom. But a teacher does. And it was a teachers decision to read
> these particular books.
> Or should teachers not be able to assign reading because someone might
> object. IN the past some parents have objected to Shakespeare because it is
> violent and lewd. Should the students be able to opt out of Shakespeare??
Like I said, a parent should have power of veto over what kids
read. And some leeway here is advisable, both ways; for example,
I wouldn't force a Jewish student to read "The Merchant of
Venice", nor would I force "Othello" on a muslim, and I would
hesitate before giving Henry the Sixth to some kids, for
example, a strongly Catholic family might be offended by
Shakespeare's portraying of Joan of Arc. There's some common
sense required here, and some strong self-control and judgement
demanded from a teacher. And again, literature is, or should be,
a content-free discipline, it should not be used as a shield to
push ideology onto students.
> Because literature reflects life, and in life there is sex. It's not even
> supposed to be anything like sex education anymore than any prime time TV
> show is.
Literature does *not* reflect life. Literature is an art, and as
such it is independent from life.
> Well. guess that literature classes now have to quit reading some
> Shakespeare. Much of the Bible is off limits. Tolstoy is out.
> At least there are still some great works available in the places that don't
> ban them because of violence.
Some of the Bible is indeed off-limits, Tolstoy may not be out
but what's the relevance ? There's a whole lot more to be looked
at before it comes into the radar screen. And here, as
elsewhere, a teacher needs balance and judgement, and
self-restraint: the one thing teachers should *not* be entitled
to do is to use literature to push ideology.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> How, I *DEMAND* that they make clear their beliefs since these beliefs, if
> acted on, would effect me, my family and my community. I find those that
> hold those beliefs to be supporting a stand which I am against. They know
> where I stand, I have every right to know where they stand when they run
> for public office. Expecially when they will be controlling my childrens
> education. Now how do I "efface any pretense whatsoever of freedom" by
> demanding that they state their postitions?
Religion is a private thing.
Repeat: Religion is a private thing.
Third time: Religion is a private thing.
You don't demand anything beyond your power of vote. If society
decides so, there will be anti-religious testing. But this
society seems to assert the exact opposite: that religious
litmus tests are unwanted.
> I never said there was anything "wrong" with their belief systems. I just
> don't want people with their belief systems trying top operate a
> institution of public learning. These beliefs DO have an effect over that,
> and I want to make sure that people who have these beliefs never get into
> a position to enforce them on me.
Belief systems are private things, and it is not up to you or to
anyone to demand that one drops his or her belief system just
because one's a public official. What is this, atheist
oppression ? You vote with your judgement, period - beyond your
vote, you have no right to demand that people drop their belief
systems.
> Faith is personal and private. It doesn't belong in the schools.
If I'm a teacher and I'm at a school, I carry my faith and my
beliefs with me. I shouldn't have to suppress them.
> Creationism is based on faith. It is not taught as theory like Darwin's
> Theory of Evolution, it is taught as a fact and the book it is taught
> from is a piece of hogcrap in some peoples opinion. It starts with the
> FACT that their is a higher power and that a book of fables is a book of
> fact.
But you see, a theory is just what it is: a THEORY. And what you
call "fables", some other people believe is true, and your take
is no worse than theirs. But those of us who dig into theories
and into how to build and operate them, know how to
differentiate theory from faith, and both theory and faith from
fact. If everyone had the intellectual honesty to teach theories
as THEORIES - not as "proven" fact - that alone would go a lot
further towards teaching our students in a real way, much
further than by supressing faith and belief.
> Prayer, organized, in school under any of its many names is another
> attempt to make one persons FAITH the correct way to do things. A "moment
> of silence" is recognized as a form of prayer by many western religions (a
> moment of silent prayer). It's a crock. It doesn't belonmg in public
> schools any more than ritual scrifice or canibalism [this is my blood,
> this is my flesh].
ANYTHING that forces one to go beyond one's belief system should
be frowned at in a school setting, INCLUDING the suppression of
religion and belief. I do not agree with "a minute of silence",
but I don't call it "a crock", and I don't see why it should be
suppressed on the name of anti-religious feeling. To me, this is
no worse a sin than to line up kids to meet a presidential
candidate or some other power-that-be, or to waste student time
in one of the myriad pieces of nonsense that permeate our school
life.
Someday people will learn how to leave other people ALONE with
their belief systems and their religion, and not to interfere
with them. But right now, all kinds of things happen just
because they're nice shields for pushing one's ideology onto
others. And THAT is why I'm against the moment of silence: not
because it's a "crock", but because it infringes on things I
find too personal to be tampered with.
> Final note, the posting of some "commandments" given by the majority
> populations version of the correct religion is just as wrong as posting
> the eightfold path, the hindi equivelent, etc. Leave your faith outside
> the public education. That is what families and churches are for.
I am against a mandate to post the commandments, but not because
I'm not religious, nor because I'm engaging in a crusade to
suppress religion. I believe that this kind of thing is none of
the business of anyone but the stakeholders in the specific
school: parents, students, teachers, and so on. These things
should be resolved LOCALLY, among the interested parties. Public
education should be DECENTRALIZED, enough that power of decision
is WITHIN THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY and not elsewhere. So, in a
predominantly Jewish school there should be nothing wrong about
displaying public signs of support to Jewish beliefs and mores,
just like it shouldn't be a sin to be predominantly African in a
predominantly black school or predominantly European or
Christian in a school where the majority are Christian.
> No Alberto, it shows that most people weren't aware that he supported
> vouchers as it wasn't reported. I wouldn't have known it had I not ridden
> past his house and noticed a lawn sign for vouchewrs on his lawn. His
> support of vouchers was NEVER told to the people that voted for him in any
> published press.
The very fact that one links vouchers with religion points to me
that the individual has no clue about the reality of schooling.
And if you have a beef with some candidate, go raise it with
that candidate. But if enough people vote for the candidate, and
vouchers have never been mentioned, then it's obvious that
voters didn't care whether vouchers were important in the
context. You know, your perpective isn't necessarily shared by
the rest of the country.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> You should read the book, Alberto.
That's beyond the point. The point is, first, to stay away from
parental turf. Second, to keep ideology out of the classroom.
And third, a question of priorities: there's a very large amount
of reading I would give to my students before I bothered about
Isabel Allende.
And again: teaching literature, is, or it should be, content
free. Literature is an art, not a social science.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> So I suppose Romeo & Juliet is out of the question? After all, not only is
> that story about "young love," it's also about suicide. Lord knows THAT
> story is a shameless euphamism!
How many high school students know enough English to read even
past the first paragraph of Romeo and Juliet ?
And you know what, the story and the plot and the young love and
all that are the least reason why we read Romeo and Juliet in a
literature class. So, the point is moot, who cares ? By the time
a kid can read Romeo and Juliet, the issue is probably no longer
there.
Yet the issue still remains: teacher invasion of parental turf.
> You are wrong. The "literary" value of the book, the "education" aspect of
> the "sex education" isn't about the "sex" (what about sex are you so afraid
> of, anyway?). The "literary" value is in making the reader question his or
> her values about sex. The book doesn't teach "sex," but asks the reader to
> examine his or her values and mores, and the consequences of your choices.
The point about sex is simple: sexual education is parental
turf. It shouldn't be up to a teacher to barge in. There is,
also, zero literary value in getting the reader to question his
or her values, about sex or anything else - that's not what
literature is about. Literature is, or it should be, content
free: it's art, not social engineering.
> If you have trouble grasping this and understanding it, you have no
> business criticizing the choices a teacher makes in teaching any particular
> work of literature, and you damn sure don't belong teaching literature.
You go patronize your own kind, and you keep your swearing to
yourself. I have at least as much culture as you, and I
frontally disagree with your point of view. The way I see it,
you display zero understanding about art and about literature,
and even less about parenting and schooling someone else's kid.
If a teacher's choice overflows into parental turf, that is NOT
a valid choice.
> Well, just as you probably don't expect anyone to tell you what you should
> or shouldn't be teaching at home, you also shouldn't expect to have the
> right to force your beliefs of what "should" or "shouldn't" be taught in
> school. Your analysis of what is "right" and "wrong" to teach is faulty,
> shallow, and illiterate.
Wrong again. It is MY child who's at school, and I demand that
teachers respect my parental prerogative at all times. Yes, sir,
I DO expect to have power of veto over what teachers push onto
my children - it's not a question of "right" or "wrong", it's a
question of how I decide to drive and conduct my childrens'
education.
You talk about faulty, shallow and illiterate ? Look in the
mirror.
> You are entirely too obsessed with sex. ;)
Or maybe some of you are ? You know, I'm Brazilian, there's no
society in this planet that's more open about sex than the one
I've been born, raised and educated within.
Sex, mind you, is a biological function - nothing to fret about.
You know what ? Cockroaches do it, rats do it, flies do it, and
none of them need to read Isabel Allende, nor even Shakespeare,
to be quite successful at it. Put sex back into the biological
context nature gave it to us, and things go quite allright, no
need for intellectualization or for big deals about it.
But then, when people can't live with their own animal side,
hey, that's when maybe you need external support. But then,
don't call it literature. And don't impose it on other people's
offspring.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>
> In article <3A76AF1A...@moreira.mv.com>,
> junk...@moreira.mv.com wrote:
> > There's a whole lot of other beautiful books out there which
> > don't bring in this degree of controversy. Why not use them ?
> > After all, we're talking about literature, not about sex
> > education.
>
> But all literature is controversial.
Not when it has passed the test of time. And believe me, there's
plenty of stuff out there that has, enough to fill many
semesters worth of literature classes several times over. No
need to invade parental turf or to foster controversy.
> But what you think belongs in the home may not be what others think.
And that's the subject of another thread. But as I see it, sex
education belongs at home.
Alberto.
J.M. Ivler
> J.M. Ivler wrote:
>
>> How, I *DEMAND* that they make clear their beliefs since these beliefs, if
>> acted on, would effect me, my family and my community. I find those that
>> hold those beliefs to be supporting a stand which I am against. They know
>> where I stand, I have every right to know where they stand when they run
>> for public office. Expecially when they will be controlling my childrens
>> education. Now how do I "efface any pretense whatsoever of freedom" by
>> demanding that they state their postitions?
> Religion is a private thing.
> Repeat: Religion is a private thing.
> Third time: Religion is a private thing.
Then maybe they should keep it the hell out of my schools. Since the
fundies don't believe that religion belings in the home, I believe that
the fundies don't belong in positions where they can force their religious
views on others. See, we actually agree. I just want to expouse the
fundies so that everyone knows those that want to promote their religious
viewpoint on others.
> You don't demand anything beyond your power of vote. If society
> decides so, there will be anti-religious testing. But this
> society seems to assert the exact opposite: that religious
> litmus tests are unwanted.
Alberto, I don't care what a persons religious preference is. I only care
when they use that as a basis for public policy that effects me. In those
cases I want everyone to know that these people will legislate or regulate
their religious beliefs BEFORE anyone has an opportunity to vote for them.
>> I never said there was anything "wrong" with their belief systems. I just
>> don't want people with their belief systems trying top operate a
>> institution of public learning. These beliefs DO have an effect over that,
>> and I want to make sure that people who have these beliefs never get into
>> a position to enforce them on me.
> Belief systems are private things, and it is not up to you or to
> anyone to demand that one drops his or her belief system just
> because one's a public official.
No, but I demand to know if they will legislate or regulate their belief
system into something I am required to follow. If they will then I have
every right to know what that belief system is BEFORE the election.
> What is this, atheist
> oppression ? You vote with your judgement, period - beyond your
> vote, you have no right to demand that people drop their belief
> systems.
As a voter I have every right. I have a right to know if the person I'm
voting for believes in animal sacrifice, if they believe in the fidelity
of wedding vows, if they believe that people who haven't accepted Christ
into their lives are going to burn in hell, if they feel that those who
believe in the Quar'an are sick nut cases and terrorists just waiting to
kill their kids, if they belive that Wiccans are evil and should be
burned at the stake, if they believe that Jews have horns and cloven
hoves. I have every right to demand that someone running for public office
tell me what they think of blacks, homosexuals, latinos, jews, hindus,
illegal aliens, space aliens, abortion, public display of faith, etc.
I have no right to demand that they change, but I do have every right to
demand that they expouse.
>> Faith is personal and private. It doesn't belong in the schools.
> If I'm a teacher and I'm at a school, I carry my faith and my
> beliefs with me. I shouldn't have to suppress them.
So you think that a member of the Cult of Scientology should have the
right to teach your kids the Scientology way? [www.xenu.net for all the
gory details of this mind bending cult]
If you are a teacher in a public school and you even start to teach your
"fairth" or religious bel;iefs to my kids you will find yourself racked
into a lawsuit faster than you can say "what the fu** happened?" *I* and
only *I* teach my kids "faith" as *I* want. No other person in an
authority figure role or position can even think about doing it.
>> Creationism is based on faith. It is not taught as theory like Darwin's
>> Theory of Evolution, it is taught as a fact and the book it is taught
>> from is a piece of hogcrap in some peoples opinion. It starts with the
>> FACT that their is a higher power and that a book of fables is a book of
>> fact.
> But you see, a theory is just what it is: a THEORY. And what you
> call "fables", some other people believe is true, and your take
> is no worse than theirs.
Creation is a theory? Please find me a priest, pastor, or any religious
leader who will support that statement. Creation is a fact. It is the word
of G-d! There isn't any maybe about it. It happened that way, period!
> ANYTHING that forces one to go beyond one's belief system should
> be frowned at in a school setting, INCLUDING the suppression of
> religion and belief.
So, if I was a teacher and taught good Christian children that Christ was
a whoremonger who slept with little boys (since that is in this example
the teachings of my faith) you feel that's okay?
> I do not agree with "a minute of silence",
> but I don't call it "a crock", and I don't see why it should be
> suppressed on the name of anti-religious feeling.
To some the "moment of silence" has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION and
doesn't belong in the schools. Many who see that those who support the
moment of silence also have belief systems that support and encourage a
"moment of silent prayer" can see that there is a underlying attempt to
sneek prayer into the schools. If you need a "moment of silence" do it at
home (where you and I seem to both believe religion belongs).
> Someday people will learn how to leave other people ALONE with
> their belief systems and their religion, and not to interfere
> with them.
No way in hell. As long as belief systems say "ours is right, theirs is
wrong." and you are supposed to show the heathens the light, there will
always be people butting in and demanding that everyone follow their
faith.
> I am against a mandate to post the commandments, but not because
> I'm not religious, nor because I'm engaging in a crusade to
> suppress religion. I believe that this kind of thing is none of
> the business of anyone but the stakeholders in the specific
> school: parents, students, teachers, and so on. These things
> should be resolved LOCALLY, among the interested parties. Public
> education should be DECENTRALIZED, enough that power of decision
> is WITHIN THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY and not elsewhere. So, in a
> predominantly Jewish school there should be nothing wrong about
> displaying public signs of support to Jewish beliefs and mores,
> just like it shouldn't be a sin to be predominantly African in a
> predominantly black school or predominantly European or
> Christian in a school where the majority are Christian.
LMAO. Albverto, if there is one agnostic in the school, it is wrong. If
there is one Wioccan in the school, it is wrong. If the school is public
and we require kids to attend, it doesn't matter what the majority is, in
this country we protect the MINORITIES rights from the majority.
> The very fact that one links vouchers with religion points to me
> that the individual has no clue about the reality of schooling.
The California voucher initiative would have given tax dollars to
religious schools. Again, there is a direct connection.
> And if you have a beef with some candidate, go raise it with
> that candidate. But if enough people vote for the candidate, and
> vouchers have never been mentioned, then it's obvious that
> voters didn't care whether vouchers were important in the
> context. You know, your perpective isn't necessarily shared by
> the rest of the country.
You right. Most people don't go to canidate forums. Most people don't
botyher to study issues or ask candidates questions. When I ran for
Congress in 1994 I was the only candidate that didn't have an unlisted
telephone number. I believe that people who are claiming to represent the
will of others should be the first to show that they have nothing to
hide. That they should be open about themselves, and answer any and every
question. Running for the school board and supporting the voucher
initiative that was going to take funds away from the public schools was
twisted at best, and the people deserve to know when they have a candidate
running for the school board that supports destroying the public school
system by moving tax dollars from public schools to private and religious
schools.
Laura Higley
> The point about sex is simple: sexual education is parental
> turf. It shouldn't be up to a teacher to barge in. There is,
> also, zero literary value in getting the reader to question his
> or her values, about sex or anything else - that's not what
> literature is about. Literature is, or it should be, content
> free: it's art, not social engineering.
In teaching (particularly young students) literature,
content must be discussed to demonstrate how content
develops style, theme, setting, plot, dialogue, and
character. Literature and art are social engineering in the
highest degree. That which doesn't make the reader question
his values isn't art or literature. And this has to be
explained to young children, who may miss the obvious
through inexperience.
--
Laura Higley
Kevin
>Literature is, or it should be, content free.
Content free literature?? I do not know of any literature that is content
free.
Would you be willing to suggest some books for students to read, so they can
still learn something, without having to deal with "content?"
The moment you
>emphasize your own concept of "fascists", or whatever ideology
>you're pro or against, you're no longer doing literature, you're
>rather hiding behind it to foster your own brand of ideology.
>Which, as I see it does not belong, not for one second, in a
>serious school.
I have never had a literature teacher who taught a fictional work as being
true. Anyone who understands that fiction is not factual knows that it is
the authors perspective, and that it may have elements of truth, or may be
all made up.
You are underestimating the ability of students to understand this basic
concept.
>
>As for myself personally, as far as literature goes I'm a
>classicist, in the strongest ancient Greek and Roman tradition.
>I don't care for ideology, left or right it makes no difference
>to me; I'm a pragmatic man with my two feet firmly planted on
>the center.
So what can you find of any value that was written with no basis in the
author's ideology?
Everything, including non-fiction, is based in the author's ideology. The
choice of a topic is even rooted in the authors ideology.
--
Kevin Blair
Don't Spend a Nickel on a Mt. Olive Pickle
Kevin
>
>Literature does *not* reflect life. Literature is an art, and as
>such it is independent from life.
How exactly does someone create art then? Art is a product of the artist,
the culture(s) to which they have been exposed, and their personal belief
system.
>Some of the Bible is indeed off-limits, Tolstoy may not be out
>but what's the relevance ? There's a whole lot more to be looked
>at before it comes into the radar screen. And here, as
>elsewhere, a teacher needs balance and judgement, and
>self-restraint: the one thing teachers should *not* be entitled
>to do is to use literature to push ideology.
>
So where is your ideology free literature?
I do not believe you can produce any significant works that have NO
Kevin
>Not when it has passed the test of time. And believe me, there's
>plenty of stuff out there that has, enough to fill many
>semesters worth of literature classes several times over. No
>need to invade parental turf or to foster controversy.
>
So now Alberto's true colors show. He says he wants not content in
literature, but what he really wants is the ideology of the status quo.
He just doesn't want people to think for themselves because they might start
to see that something is rotten in the status quo.
Kevin
>Your freedom of thought stops where my parental rights begin. If
>I don't want to expose my child to this or that thought, that's
>my call. That is NOT any teacher's or administrator's call.
>
I guess you get mad if you see someone with a sign on a street corner
exposing your children to dangerous ideas.
If any parent os so content on keeping all ideas from their children, they
can move out of society and live in the wilderness.
Part of being part of a society is learning about and dealing with ideas
that differ from ones own.
D. Halligan
> So now Alberto's true colors show. He says he wants not content in
> literature, but what he really wants is the ideology of the status quo.
> He just doesn't want people to think for themselves because they might start
> to see that something is rotten in the status quo.
Oh it's not just Alberto, it's all those that want to choose for others
what they can or can't read, see on television, play on their computers or
in arcades, see at the movies, see live, view on the Web, and listen to on
their stereos. There are thousands of people out there that are ready to
label, restrict, and ban some of the most creative, intelligent, and
entertaining art, literature, movies, publications, games, etc. They seek
to sterilize society to conform to their standards, dumb us down, stop
those that create, question, enlighten, and actively seek to diversify
things and give people alternatives to the status quo. I guess the
question is, do you let them or do you stand up and fight? To me the
answer is clear :) -dan
Joni J Rathbun
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Kevin wrote:
I'm trying to t hink of a title on any h.s. course list I've
seen that hasn't been challenged by some parent some where.
I can't think of any. Surely they're out there, but they're
not coming to mind at the moment.
Joni J Rathbun
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> You go patronize your own kind, and you keep your swearing to
> yourself. I have at least as much culture as you, and I
> frontally disagree with your point of view. The way I see it,
> you display zero understanding about art and about literature,
> and even less about parenting and schooling someone else's kid.
> If a teacher's choice overflows into parental turf, that is NOT
> a valid choice.
Every choice a teacher makes overflows into parental turf.
Joni J Rathbun
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> samuel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A76AF1A...@moreira.mv.com>,
> > junk...@moreira.mv.com wrote:
> > > There's a whole lot of other beautiful books out there which
> > > don't bring in this degree of controversy. Why not use them ?
> > > After all, we're talking about literature, not about sex
> > > education.
> >
> > But all literature is controversial.
>
> Not when it has passed the test of time.
You mean like LIttle Red Riding Hood or Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn?
Or Of Mice and Men or Catcher in the Rye? Or Lord of the Flies?
The Grapes of Wrath or Brave New World?
Joni J Rathbun
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> Joni J Rathbun wrote:
>
> > You should read the book, Alberto.
>
> That's beyond the point. The point is, first, to stay away from
> parental turf. Second, to keep ideology out of the classroom.
> And third, a question of priorities: there's a very large amount
> of reading I would give to my students before I bothered about
> Isabel Allende.
And I can find you a parent to object to every title you suggest.
There is no title that stays away from parental turf.
>
> And again: teaching literature, is, or it should be, content
> free. Literature is an art, not a social science.
>
No content, no literature.
Alberto Moreira
> In teaching (particularly young students) literature,
> content must be discussed to demonstrate how content
> develops style, theme, setting, plot, dialogue, and
> character. Literature and art are social engineering in the
> highest degree. That which doesn't make the reader question
> his values isn't art or literature. And this has to be
> explained to young children, who may miss the obvious
> through inexperience.
about how than about what, and beyond leading to the how, the
what is not very relevant. I do not agree, one minute, that
literature or art have anything to do with social engineering;
but I'm ready to admit that social engineering has hijacked art,
to the point that art is slowly choking and withering under the
parasitic pressure.
And you can't explain these things to young children; life
cannot be taught like that, it must be lived first. Content must
be understood within the context of one's experience, and not be
used as a replacement thereof!
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> Oh it's not just Alberto, it's all those that want to choose for others
> what they can or can't read, see on television, play on their computers or
> in arcades, see at the movies, see live, view on the Web, and listen to on
> their stereos. There are thousands of people out there that are ready to
> label, restrict, and ban some of the most creative, intelligent, and
> entertaining art, literature, movies, publications, games, etc. They seek
> to sterilize society to conform to their standards, dumb us down, stop
> those that create, question, enlighten, and actively seek to diversify
> things and give people alternatives to the status quo. I guess the
> question is, do you let them or do you stand up and fight? To me the
> answer is clear :)
The call to read, see, play, or whatever, as far as children go,
is on the parents and on the parents alone. It is not the call
of a teacher to question a parent on this. You have your web
site, your music, your film, your book ? Consume it yourself,
and let me make my own choice for my kids. It isn't me who are
trying to force my production on someone else, right ? It's them
who are trying to seize control of my kid's mind.
Diversity, like anything else, must not be forced. If I can't
choose, and am forced to consume something I would otherwise not
consume, I call it coercion and oppression.
Under whatever pretension, shield or excuse.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> Then maybe they should keep it the hell out of my schools. Since the
> fundies don't believe that religion belings in the home, I believe that
> the fundies don't belong in positions where they can force their religious
> views on others. See, we actually agree. I just want to expouse the
> fundies so that everyone knows those that want to promote their religious
> viewpoint on others.
"Your" schools are my schools too, and my neighbors', and your
neighbors'. Your individual will goes as far as your vote. And
you know what, as far as I am concerned, anti-religious
sentiment is a lot harder to swallow than many a fundamentalist
religious philosophy.
> Alberto, I don't care what a persons religious preference is.
I only care
> when they use that as a basis for public policy that effects me. In those
> cases I want everyone to know that these people will legislate or regulate
> their religious beliefs BEFORE anyone has an opportunity to vote for them.
Your care for whether or not it's used in public policy goes as
far as your vote goes. Period. But I still think that trying to
suppress religious action is a much worse alternative than a lot
of what religion offers us.
> No, but I demand to know if they will legislate or regulate their belief
> system into something I am required to follow. If they will then I have
> every right to know what that belief system is BEFORE the election.
If society decides to legislate something through its lawfully
appointed representatives, what's so wrong ?
> As a voter I have every right. I have a right to know if the
person I'm
> voting for believes in animal sacrifice, if they believe in the fidelity
> of wedding vows, if they believe that people who haven't accepted Christ
> into their lives are going to burn in hell, if they feel that those who
> believe in the Quar'an are sick nut cases and terrorists just waiting to
> kill their kids, if they belive that Wiccans are evil and should be
> burned at the stake, if they believe that Jews have horns and cloven
> hoves. I have every right to demand that someone running for public office
> tell me what they think of blacks, homosexuals, latinos, jews, hindus,
> illegal aliens, space aliens, abortion, public display of faith, etc.
As a voter you have as much right as your one vote gives you. I
bet some of the things you yourself believe are as damaging to
them as some of the things you have mentioned are damaging to
you. And if they don't tell you what they think about this or
that, your choice is simple: don't vote for them. But if society
puts them in office, chances are that they disagree with you as
to how important these things are. Man, try not to be so
self-centered for one moment! Other people have no less right
than you to cherish their own way of thinking, and their own
values.
> I have no right to demand that they change, but I do have every right to
> demand that they expouse.
I don't even think you have that right. You have the right of
voting for them or not, and to ask them to tell you what they
think. And you have, of course, the right to run for office
yourself.
> So you think that a member of the Cult of Scientology should have the
> right to teach your kids the Scientology way? [www.xenu.net for all the
> gory details of this mind bending cult]
You know, I keep saying, over and again, religion is a private
thing. Do you grok the meaning of "private" ? Really ? Teaching
your religion to others, or your dislike thereof, violates the
privacy of those others, or at least that's how I see it. On
those grounds, I don't want anyone teaching religion to my kids,
neither do I want anyone attacking my kids religion to them, or
dissecting it, or whatever - TO ME, RELIGION IS A PERSONAL THING
AND I WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE WITH MY OWN RELIGION. Is this hard
to understand ?
> If you are a teacher in a public school and you even start to teach your
> "fairth" or religious bel;iefs to my kids you will find yourself racked
> into a lawsuit faster than you can say "what the fu** happened?" *I* and
> only *I* teach my kids "faith" as *I* want. No other person in an
> authority figure role or position can even think about doing it.
And that's because the pitifully inadequate law system of this
country of ours has built a preposterous web of fantasy around
religion, all while encouraging people to attack other people's
religions as if the law demanded everyone to become an atheist.
This whole thing is a farse, I'm sorry, I cannot take it
seriously except to find it an oppressive manifestation of
institutionalized intolerance.
> Creation is a theory? Please find me a priest, pastor, or any religious
> leader who will support that statement. Creation is a fact. It is the word
> of G-d! There isn't any maybe about it. It happened that way, period!
Scientific theories can be as much of a fable as what's written
in a sacred book, nay, even more. I wish I could come back in
two or three hundred years, I bet much of what we take for
sacred truth will have gone the way of the flat earth and the
phlogiston.
> So, if I was a teacher and taught good Christian children that Christ was
> a whoremonger who slept with little boys (since that is in this example
> the teachings of my faith) you feel that's okay?
How many times do I have to repeat the word "private" to you ?
Do you know what it means ?
> To some the "moment of silence" has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION and
> doesn't belong in the schools. Many who see that those who support the
> moment of silence also have belief systems that support and encourage a
> "moment of silent prayer" can see that there is a underlying attempt to
> sneek prayer into the schools. If you need a "moment of silence" do it at
> home (where you and I seem to both believe religion belongs).
When I was a student, my teachers demanded forty minutes of
silence per class. Is that prayer ?
> No way in hell. As long as belief systems say "ours is right, theirs is
> wrong." and you are supposed to show the heathens the light, there will
> always be people butting in and demanding that everyone follow their
> faith.
Or lack thereof. Do you realize you're engaging in the same
thing ? Meaning, denying people the prerogative of being left
alone with their beliefs ? Of not having their beliefs
ridicularized or attacked by atheists ? You know, it takes being
in the center to see how similar left and right are, Einstein
was right, the universe seems to curve on itself after all.
> LMAO. Albverto, if there is one agnostic in the school, it is wrong. If
> there is one Wioccan in the school, it is wrong. If the school is public
> and we require kids to attend, it doesn't matter what the majority is, in
> this country we protect the MINORITIES rights from the majority.
Rubbish. We protect the INDIVIDUAL. This "minority" thing is a
recent distortion. But a people must have the power to govern
itself, and if power doesn't emanate from the MAJORITY of the
people, it cannot be legitimate.
> The California voucher initiative would have given tax dollars to
> religious schools. Again, there is a direct connection.
And I see no reason why not. Is it now legal to discriminate
against people on the basis of their religion ? Since when a
religious school is "congress" ?
> You right. Most people don't go to canidate forums. Most people don't
> botyher to study issues or ask candidates questions. When I ran for
> Congress in 1994 I was the only candidate that didn't have an unlisted
> telephone number. I believe that people who are claiming to represent the
> will of others should be the first to show that they have nothing to
> hide. That they should be open about themselves, and answer any and every
> question. Running for the school board and supporting the voucher
> initiative that was going to take funds away from the public schools was
> twisted at best, and the people deserve to know when they have a candidate
> running for the school board that supports destroying the public school
> system by moving tax dollars from public schools to private and religious
> schools.
A people will get the government they deserve. And when you run
for office, you're not running to impose your own agenda onto
others: you're running to be THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, meaning,
you're supposed to take THEIR agenda and further it on. It takes
a whole lot of humility to represent the voters and not our own
self, yet that's precisely what the position presuposes.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> You mean like LIttle Red Riding Hood or Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn?
> Or Of Mice and Men or Catcher in the Rye? Or Lord of the Flies?
> The Grapes of Wrath or Brave New World?
They're all great books in their own right. Whether or not
they're appropriate to children, it's a whole different story. I
for example am an unconditional fan of the Lord of the Flies,
Golding has built something fundamentally and intensely unique
that requires reading. Yet I wouldn't force it on my kids before
I deemed they're ready for it: and if a teacher wanted to force
it in before I found it appropriate, you bet I would put up a
jolly good fight. On the other hand, I am the kind of parent who
pushed kids well beyond the point schools do, and much earlier
too, so that by the time they come up with this kind of thing my
kid would be eons in front already.
You know, we're talking about education, not about literature.
Whenever education and literature clash, who cares about
literature, it's the kid's education that matters. And then,
parents must have the final say.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> Every choice a teacher makes overflows into parental turf.
Better not, or the education system has no claim to any kind of
credibility.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> And I can find you a parent to object to every title you suggest.
> There is no title that stays away from parental turf.
Therefore, we come full circle, back to the point I often
hammer: education must be individualized. No two kids are the
same.
> No content, no literature.
Literature isn't about content, it's about something quite
different. Content is just a vehicle, and it can often be
totally ignored. Try Neruda, for example,
"En mi patria hay un monte.
En mi patria hay un rio.
Ven conmigo."
You don't need to read ten lines to perceive the intense
literary value of this poem. Yet the content is iffy at best,
when I first read it I couldn't avoid the reaction, "oh, duh".
But whatever my private values or beliefs, whether or not I
needed to reexamine anything, the literary value is there, and
it sings to you, and it totally transcends the content.
Nah, literary value and content are often orthogonal.
Alberto.
Kevin
>If society decides to legislate something through its lawfully
>appointed representatives, what's so wrong ?
>
Well here is a major flaw! I do not know how it is where you live, but where
I live our representatives are lawfully appointed but are definitley not
done so in the spirit of the law.
For any partisan race, i.e party affiliation is listed on the ballot, anyone
who is not part of the Dem. or Rep. party faces very high obstacles to even
have their name appear on the ballot, much less be included in candidate
forums.
And even fro non-partisam races, even local campaigns here in NC have become
prohibitively expensive for most people.
So you assume that our representatives are representatives of the people.
They are representatives of the political establishment, not the citizens.
Kevin
Alberto Moreira wrote in message <3A7B6C83...@moreira.mv.com>...
I do not understand how literature and education can clash. Education is the
process of learning new information and ideas, and processing the
informatiom and ideas.
How can reading anything clash with an educative process?
I have never become less educated by reading something. I may have not
gained anything, but I never lost anything but a few hours by reading
something new.
D. Halligan
> appointed representatives, what's so wrong ?
Yeah, what was so wrong with slavery Alberto?
Gawd, use your brain man. Society has given a thumbs up to all sorts of
things that are wrong. -dan
D. Halligan
> who cares about literature
Probably everyone except you. -dan
D. Halligan
> The call to read, see, play, or whatever, as far as children go,
> is on the parents and on the parents alone. It is not the call
> of a teacher to question a parent on this. You have your web
> site, your music, your film, your book ? Consume it yourself,
> and let me make my own choice for my kids. It isn't me who are
> trying to force my production on someone else, right ? It's them
> who are trying to seize control of my kid's mind.
See, what isn't getting through to you is this- when you ban a book, label
or censor music, etc. You aren't just doing it for your kid, you are doing
it for my kid too, or for everyone. You don't just want to control what
your kid has access to, you are trying to control what other kids have
access too. That's why people like me will fight you tooth and nail, punch
to punch, to assert you have no right to decide what anyone besides your
own kids read. If you don't like what they are teaching in the public
schools, by all means, take your kids out of public school. Dumb your kids
down, restrict their access, and when they are 18 they will fly out the
door and won't look back.
> Diversity, like anything else, must not be forced. If I can't
> choose, and am forced to consume something I would otherwise not
> consume, I call it coercion and oppression.
You don't get it, free speech is not oppression, restricting it is. Your
logic is flip flopped, you are fighting for oppression and coercion, not
against it. It's easy to be a censor, to fall into the trap of thinking
you know what is best, not only for your kids, but for all kids and
society as a whole. What makes you think you have the right to decide
what's best for everyone elses kid? -dan
Alberto Moreira
> I do not understand how literature and education can clash. Education is the
> process of learning new information and ideas, and processing the
> informatiom and ideas.
Not even close. That's a lopsided and self-serving definition of
education. Education is the preparation of an individual to be
an integral part of the society he or she lives within. It is,
among other things, a process of acculturation, of gradual
inclusion into the existing culture and into the existing group
of people that make up society. Learning something just because
it's "new" is not, as I see it, a very good idea, neither is it
to dump something just because it isn't.
> How can reading anything clash with an educative process?
Easily: by dumping something on a kid before he or she is ready
to take it. By pushing onto the kid ideas that contribute
against the gradual acculturation process that is the core of
educating the kid. By throwing at the kid ideas that can be
noxious at a personal level and deny the kid the opportunity of
having an intellectually healthy life. By delegating the process
of educating a kid to third parties - like teachers - who have
little if any personal rapport with the kid, zero accountability
or responsibility for the kid's well being, and plenty of
personal agendas to push at the expense of the kid's and
parents' own.
> I have never become less educated by reading something. I may have not
> gained anything, but I never lost anything but a few hours by reading
> something new.
If you don't gain anything, you're losing: time is limited,
we're not eternal. But there's a lot that a kid can lose by
reading the wrong time at the wrong moment. If you can't get
yourself to see this very obvious point, I suggest you watch
yourself out and do a deep self-analysis before you go teach
other people's sons and daughters.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> How exactly does someone create art then? Art is a product of the artist,
> the culture(s) to which they have been exposed, and their personal belief
> system.
Art transcends all that. Art is a product of the artist, as an
individual. The belief system, as far as art goes, is
irrelevant; neither music nor painting nor literature have much
to do with belief systems.
> So where is your ideology free literature?
While the literary value of a book is pretty much independent of
its content, we still have to deal with the content. If we don't
have enough maturity to handle the content, and sublimate out of
it, we won't reach the artistic value of a book, yet we're going
to be mired in its ideology, value set, and belief system.
Meaning that whatever artistic value is lost in the process,
therefore, why bother reading ?
> I do not believe you can produce any significant works that have NO
> ideology.
I frontally disagree with this statement. Try high quality
classical music, for example, I mean, real high quality. It
totally transcends culture and ideology. But the converse is not
true: not everyone can see beyond ideology and belief, and
therefore there's a lot art-blind people out there.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> So now Alberto's true colors show. He says he wants not content in
> literature, but what he really wants is the ideology of the status quo.
> He just doesn't want people to think for themselves because they might start
> to see that something is rotten in the status quo.
Who cares either way ? I see no special benefit in shaking the
status quo, neither do I see any remarkable evil in keeping it.
But education is an acculturation process, and we're not going
to dump centuries of culture and tradition down the drain just
to satisfy some self-centered teacher who wants to invade
parental turf and push his or her own belief system and ideology
onto other peoples' kids, all while hiding it behind this kind
of strawman you're pushing.
The basic point is, education is parental turf. If a teacher
cannot work in synergy with a kid's parents, he or she should
not be teaching.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
I do not think it's a valid attitude to second guess times
bygone at the light of what we know today. We practise slavery
with animals today, in a much worse way than what we practised
with humans before, yet I don't hear anyone screaming against
it. Still, come back in a few years time, and human ethics may
have evolved to the point where our descendants will find us
evil because of the way we treat animals today, who knows ?
Fact is, a society must have the power to govern itself. If a
government isn't set up with the consent of the governed, on
whose power does it stand ? I, for myself, won't be governed by
cold bones, nor by sacred cows, nor by dead pieces of paper.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> See, what isn't getting through to you is this- when you ban a book, label
> or censor music, etc. You aren't just doing it for your kid, you are doing
> it for my kid too, or for everyone.
No, sir. As far as my kid goes, I have the call to allow or not
allow whatever reading I deem necessary. And you do not have the
call to blindly force a classroom consisting of twenty or thirty
sons and daughters of someone else to read the books you want
your kid to read.
> You don't just want to control what
> your kid has access to, you are trying to control what other kids have
> access too.
No, sir, I have nothing to do with what you do with your kid.
Just don't force my kid to do it too. Want your kid to read this
or that book, to access this or that book ? Do it at home.
> That's why people like me will fight you tooth and nail, punch
> to punch, to assert you have no right to decide what anyone besides your
> own kids read.
What your kid reads is your problem - but do it in your own
home. In a public place, there's going to be a strong push
towards accomodating the issues of EVERYONE involved, not just
you and your kid.
> If you don't like what they are teaching in the public
> schools, by all means, take your kids out of public school.
Why don't you follow that suggestion yourself ? Or am I now
going to be left without a voice because you want to dictate the
agenda of a public school, on the basis of YOUR belief system ?
Hello ?
> Dumb your kids
> down, restrict their access, and when they are 18 they will fly out the
> door and won't look back.
Been there, done that. My kids are young women now, cultured,
intelligent and successful. They're both Ph.D. candidates in two
of the best universities of this country, after having graduated
with a very high GPA from other two leading colleges in New
England. We are very, very good friends, keep in close contact,
and are no longer in a dependency relationship but equals in our
approaches to the world.
> You don't get it, free speech is not oppression, restricting it is. Your
> logic is flip flopped, you are fighting for oppression and coercion, not
> against it.
No, sir, I'm fighting for the right of not being indoctrinated.
I'm fighting for the right of ignoring what I don't want to
read. I'm fighting for the right of being left alone. I'm
fighting for the right to choose my own value system, my own
ideology, and my own beliefs. I'm fighting to bequeath this
freedom to my children. I'm fighting to keep free speech as free
SPEECH, and not as FORCED LISTENING. I'm fighting to prevent
your free speech from interfering with my right of free
association, and with my right not to listen to you.
It is YOUR approach that I find coercive and oppressive: you
won't keep your value system to yourself, but will actively
propose that I drop mine and listen to yours. As I see it it's
YOUR approach that violates MY freedom, by equating your free
speech with my presumed duty to listen to you and to mark and
even respect your values.
> It's easy to be a censor, to fall into the trap of thinking
> you know what is best, not only for your kids, but for all kids and
> society as a whole.
You call it whatever you want, I don't care. My point is simple:
I will not listen to what I don't want to listen. I won't let
you push onto my kids what I don't think is in their best
interest. And I DO call that freedom. FREEDOM. Whatever you do
with your kid, it's none of my business; but if you do it in a
public place where my kid is, you'd better refrain from
violating my personal space, or we have a real serious problem.
Whatever you assume to yourself as your right of free speech,
that right ends where my right of association begins.
>What makes you think you have the right to decide
>what's best for everyone elses kid?
I decide what's good to my kid, period. In a public place, I
will make sure that my kid's interest is well taken into
account, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep things within
proportion. Want your kid to read whatever ? Do it, by all
means.
But make sure you don't involve my kid in the process, not
unless I say so.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
If you quote me, please make sure you keep the context. Honesty
is paramount in a rational conversation.
Alberto.
Boojumhunter
Alberto Moreira wrote:
>
> Dan Wheeler wrote:
>
> > I agree! We cannot afford to have freedom of thought in schools. People
> > might misuse it and think things we do not want them to.
>
> Your freedom of thought stops where my parental rights begin. If
> I don't want to expose my child to this or that thought, that's
> my call. That is NOT any teacher's or administrator's call.
If you wish to lock your child's mind in a cage... then you have that
right. I hope the child appreciates it.
BUT... and this is where the game get's dicey... don't try to do the
same for my child. AND when anyone tries to 'ban' a book from school
that is exactly what they are trying to do.
>
> Alberto.
Boojumhunter
Alberto Moreira wrote:
>
>
> > Faith is personal and private. It doesn't belong in the schools.
>
> If I'm a teacher and I'm at a school, I carry my faith and my
> beliefs with me. I shouldn't have to suppress them.
No.... no way... read your own words....
>
> Religion is a private thing.
>
> Repeat: Religion is a private thing.
>
> Third time: Religion is a private thing.
Do us all a favour. Keep it private.
Alberto Moreira
> If you wish to lock your child's mind in a cage... then you have that
> right. I hope the child appreciates it.
Yes, it's my prerogative as a parent.
> BUT... and this is where the game get's dicey... don't try to do the
> same for my child. AND when anyone tries to 'ban' a book from school
> that is exactly what they are trying to do.
A school is a public place. If you want your child to read a
book, and other parents object, you get your kid to read it at
home. A public place requires that one respects other people and
other rights: your right ends where someone else's begin.
And schools shouldn't be in the business of pushing specific
books or forced reading anyway.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
> Do us all a favour. Keep it private.
You too. Simple, eh ? Leave other people's religion alone. None
of your business.
Alberto.
Joni J Rathbun
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> Joni J Rathbun wrote:
>
> > And I can find you a parent to object to every title you suggest.
> > There is no title that stays away from parental turf.
>
> Therefore, we come full circle, back to the point I often
> hammer: education must be individualized. No two kids are the
> same.
>
Let's deal with reality a bit here and get back to the original
thread.
Let's say a teacher has assigned "Snow Falling on Cedar." One parent
objects, 29 approve.
Should the teacher make an accommodation for the one parent/child and
have the other 29 read the book? Or should all 30 be given a different
book? And should SFOC be retained in the library collection or removed?
Herman Rubin
In article <3A79D7D4...@nitelinks.com>,
Laura Higley <La...@nitelinks.com> wrote:
>Herman Rubin wrote:
>> If you claim that there is something "right for a community",
>> that community would have the right to enforce religion and
>> much more. The essence of freedom is the right to be
>> different, and ONLY that.
>Are we still speaking on matters of curriculum? Certainly an
>individual community can come to agreement on enough
>literature to comprise several good high school literature
>courses, which meet the needs of the community. This is
>(part of) what the school board is elected--by the entire
>community--to do.
If you have a relatively homogeneous community, it might
be possible. Would a fundamentalist Christian approve of
the _Iliad_? Or an intellectual Marxist, for example.
The latter would not approve of most of Shakespeare, either.
Add to these groups mentioned above fundamentalists of
other religions, including some African American ones,
Greens, Secular Humanists, "Flower children", etc., and
I doubt if anything will be left. Not only will they
not be able to agree on literature, they will not be
able to agree on history, or even on many aspects of
science. But literature being almost pure propaganda
on the part of the authors is the worst offender, partly
because few of the teachers recognize it as such.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558