I remember as far back as High School there was talk of stuff like this rearing its ugly head. I was a fuzzy agnostic back then, and even a Southern Baptist friend of mine knew it was a bad thing. Well, looks like things have gone there again.Yes, I can understand including some mentions of the Bible in a literature course. Reading it has convinced me it's a rather crappy book, full of morally dissonant tales, but for better or worse, it's a major influence on Western literature. The first big problem, though, is that most teachers who handle these courses are fundies who use it as an excuse to proselytize, a business that has no place in a government institution. Given what I've seen of stuff like this, I simply can't find the trust to think the teachers could work honestly, or that the system would bother to punish the dishonest ones.
And there's this wallbanger
"It can't go off into other religious philosophies because then it would be teaching religion, when the course is meant to teach literature..."Ow. He expects us to buy the argument for his religion, but not any others, even if they're influential enough on literature?
5 comments:
....so taking that class my senior year if it's still around.
It's like they want to lose any lawsuits that may come....
It's like they want to lose any lawsuits that may come....
Well, then they can play the "martyr," "atheist nation," "persecution," and "activist judges," cards. That's like a blow job to these people.
The first big problem, though, is that most teachers who handle these courses are fundies who use it as an excuse to proselytize
Yeah, I don't trust any teacher at any high school to teach religious texts objectively as literature.
There is a word for this. Double think. That's all I can say.
Even when I was a christian I was still aware enough to note this sort of blatant hypocracy.
The Daily Show recently highlighted a similar astonishing level of self-obliviousness. Someone interviewed a random passerby about gay marriage and the guy was saying "they have the same right as we do, they can marry someone of the opposite sex too" (or something to that effect). So, that interviewer (I think it was Rob Riggle) said "right, they can have all the rights they want so long as they don't actually BE gay". Then the guy said this chestnut, which my memory will do it's best to report as exactly as possible:
"There's no law that gives someone of a particular sexuality more rights than everyone else."
Rob agreed and said "bam, that's right", to which the guy responds "you won't find that in the constitution".
I THINK that in this guy's mind, the right to marry the same sex would be some ADDITIONAL right granted exclusively to homosexuals. However, by his idiotic logic, a straight person would have those rights to marry someone of the same sex that a gay person has. Wall banger indeed, preferably with that guy's head.
Post a Comment