Stuff, stuff, stuff.

[silveradept]

Things on this front are about to get hectic. Papers are starting to come down the pipe for being due. I did, however, assure myself of at least having something to do over the summer. It's not paid, so it sits somewhat in the back of the queue for acceptance, but it's a good thought, and if it can get something with it that will pay, I'll be very happy and that will improve its standing considerably. So I've got plenty to do, along with a monster string of intramural refereeing set up for the next two weeks. So paper time is a premium now. I'm going to love my weekends, perhaps.Anyway, here's the other detritus that clutters my web browsers.

An update on Scalia's rude gesture: here's a photo. Considering that an expletive was with it, there's no doubt that the Justice did something akin to flipping the bird. Isn't that a lovely thought - Scalia's finally expressing what the entire administration and its appointees really think about us.

A rule that cannot be stated often enough: Be nice to your tech support!. las tells us about some of the things to keep in mind when you want good service from the techs.

Regardless of its truth-value, one could conceive of this story happening at a Wal-Mart near you. So read all about the associate who had no ribbon to sell for Mardi Gras. As it turns out, the colours probably weren't right for what was being thought of, but again, regardless of truth-value, I can clearly imagine the exchanges in question happening somewhere in this country, not necessarily at a Wal-Mart, perhaps, but somewhere.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, apparently a mother purchased a DVD player from there and found out that the tray wasn't empty when she turned it on. What was in it? Pr0n, of course. And her children were exposed to a small amount of it, so much that apparently the mother is looking into counseling for them. I'm torn between "Eh, they'll be seeing more of that in their lives anyway" and "Hrm. Might have been a bit too young to see something like that." (Horrible of me, isn't it?)

Georgia high schools have begun to offer courses of study on the Bible. This would not necessarily be a bad thing in and of itself, if we were certain that the course could be taught stripped of any religious message at all. We're not certain, and we do agree with the poster that there are far too many thorny issues to still be worked out before such a thing can be offered. Plus, there's no comparative element, and that immediately sinks the proposal in my mind.

In side-by-side comparisons, two articles. The first, The chimps could be out-evolving us. The second, the schools are using MEINDPOWERZ to CONTROL KIDS, oh noez! Well, Skinnerian behaviourist techniques, which apparently reduce our God-given free will to animal training (the God-given facet doesn't surface until the end) One wonders how much of this is alarmism and how much of it is the deplorable condition many schools are in, being so very strapped for resources that they cannot educate at all.

Comments

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

I had a great Religious Studies course in Secondary School. (For those of you wondering, AS-level religious studies is awesome. I can't remember the examiner, though.)

My response to the Bible class is threefold:

If you want religion in the classroom, make it a religious philosophy class. I agree with the Senate that religion shouldn't be hidden from schools just because it's religion, but hiding ones religious agenda behind the veneer of "it's literature" is pure bull. Intelligent debate is, however, intelligent debate. The class I took discussed theology, ethics and ramifications of religion. We looked at proofs for the existance of God, supporting and opposing arguments, the definition of free will and of evil and how all manner of religious philosophers have taken a rational approach to religion. Ethics were discussed in terms of free will as well as appropriate usage of religious texts. For all intents and purposes it was a Bible-based class (comparative religion was the second year, which I never took) but we read very little of the Bible and lots of texts discussing the Bible, Christianity and religious philosophy.

My second argument is this: try the class. Why must legistature insist that it knows how best to teach kids based solely on the feedback from parents and students? Pick 10 of the better schools across the state and ask them to teach this class. This way you find what the shortcomings are and what worked. Then make it a requirement.

Lastly, in college, everyone reads the Bible, it's too important a document to not. However, they are college students and they have critical analysis skills and the class in which the reading is assigned always uses it for a specific purpose. I agree that the Bible is a good concept for a class, however, it's too broad. Teach a class on the historical development of Christianity and possible political reasons behind various factions, or teach a class on religious philosophy, or teach a class on the Bible as a literary precedent (my parents made me read the Bible when I was little so I could read other books), in this vein, compare to other books of literary precedent, and discuss how no work exists in a vacuum. But these are all college-level work and they involve very wide reading. And when presented with so many options, the core requirement will be very narrow... I'm afraid as proposed, the class is more along the lines of read and reflect on the Bible in a vacuum which is precisely what is the worst possible idea.

Sorry, religious context is a very important part of how I process human interactions (we've had this discussion before) and to see it subverted is very very frustrating for me.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

I probably should have posted this in my own journal... ooops.

[silveradept]

It's not a problem, C. I like to hear other takes on all the things that I post and link to, in favor of fostering that intelligent debate that everyone needs. My collegiate English Bible (as a work of literature, but with its context in the religious traditions) course was excellent.

I'd rather see the sorts of courses that you had, that drag in context and present viewpoints for study and debate, that don't take the book as the beginning and the end of the world of study.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) Ehh...? On the pr0n: I fail to see the problem. If a child is in a position of such a thing being able to scar him/her for life, then that stinks of a bad (ignorant? 'shielded'?) upbringing.

...then again, since it doesn't say what sort of thing was being watched, it certainly might be disgusting, but as one is likely to be exposed to such things sooner or later anyway, the younger one comes to terms with it the better.

The later one learns of things that violate one's world view, the more damage the learning is likely to do. (The longer one has grown accustomed to and been certain of one worldview.)

(And now, I shall daydream about a semi-utopian society without taboos or pointless clothes while rushing to put on slippers for harp practice.)

...heh. Actually, that's an interesting thought.

Metaphorical first woman: *gives birth to female baby*
Female baby: *looks around at unclothed adult(s); is scarred FOR LIFE (or if not then, later)*

...any 'scarring' is not natural, but rather a result of unrealistic expectations about the world fostered by those who control one's perceptions.

[silveradept]

Agreed. At that age, they're around the age where they take their government-mandated abstinence class. So they, in theory, should be getting exposed to anatomy soon enough.

Certainly agree that such things should be exposed at the earliest age that one things they can be handled. Of course, parents are notoriously bad judges of that, or they don't want to believe in such themselves. And very much concur that taboos of a society require constant examination and rexamination to determine whether they actually serve some evolutionary or useful purpose.