Why a Marine dad was banned from his daughter's school for objecting to Islam essay

[exboyfil]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/1030/Why-a-Marine-dad-was-banned-from-his-daughter-s-school-for-objecting-to-Islam-essay

http://www.somdnews.com/article/20141029/NEWS/141029042/1074/la-plata-hs-student-x2019-s-dad-banned-from-school&template=southernMaryland


The studies included worksheets that ask the students to know The Five Pillars, the details about the early caliphate, that Islam was typically tolerant of other faiths (but no mention of the tax that non-believers were expected to pay)

I would argue that a comparable knowledge should be expected of the students of The Ten Commandments, The Great Commandment/Great Commission, Jesus, Paul, the early Christian church, Abraham, Moses, the early Jewish church along with other similar knowledge of other major religions.

[notrightatall]

1. The subject of his disdain is irrevevant...

He conducted himself like an asshole, and threatened school staff. This stupid X marine should be prosecuted. His ban from the school should be the least of his knuckle-draggin' worries.

[exboyfil]

4. I agree totally if he threatened to cause a disruption

He should at the very least be barred from the school and charged if he made specific threats. My point is whether the worksheets and study are appropriate, and in fairness should not the other religions be covered in the same fashion. I cannot find out whether the school does or not.

[notrightatall]

9. specific enough??

"...you can take that Muslim-loving piece of paper and shove it up your white ass...."

Some "marine" This guy is just a POS. He should be locked up. He is unfit to raise children.

[exboyfil]

10. That does not sound like a specific threat

A threat would be, "If you teach this to my daughter, then I will come over and shove it up your ..."

The school district did act appropriately by restraining him from school grounds after that utterance, but there is nothing to charge him with.

[elehhhhna]

30. they are all covered within the context of

Their impact in history/ civilization. Duh.

[cbayer]

59. Agree, he is a major jerk and a bigot to boot.

I think they have cause to press charges against him.

[upaloopa]

2. Why? I don't think kids need to be taught what religions

believe at all unless you are a church sponsored school. If they, out of curiosity, want to learn about religions they should be free to research them. I think we put religion on too high of a pedestal in this country.
Non belief is as valid as belief but we don't spend time teaching our kids the reason for non belief.

[notrightatall]

3. Ignorance is bliss.

[upaloopa]

6. Did you read my post? I said they should be free

to research what they want. But in your blissful state it didn't register!

[notrightatall]

7. The more they are taught, the better decisions they can make.

I do not trust that most parents would do the leg work to teach such things.

The more people know about "other" religions, the more likely they are to reject them all as fantasy. And, that, is a GOOD thing.

[upaloopa]

8. It is not up to you to decide what most parents

do or do not teach their kids!

[notrightatall]

12. Bullshit.

As a citizen of this country , what children are taught or not taught IS MY BUSINESS. That is why we have public schools. Leaving those decisions up to parents is a bad bad policy. In fact, I would make the argument that parents who force their children into any religion maybe a form of abuse, it is at least counter productive to humanity.

[upaloopa]

13. A citizenship does not give you the right to teach

other people's kids anything! Your arrogance is unbelievable!
That's why we have private schools. I did not go to public school and I am no threat to you!

[notrightatall]

15. Teaching children the fantasies of religion as fact is child abuse.

[upaloopa]

17. Glad you don't rule the rest of us.

I may agree with you but still you don't get to take the place of a parent because you disagree with them.

[notrightatall]

18. Parents do not "own" their children.

[upaloopa]

22. Neither do you but they do have a responsibility

that you don't

[notrightatall]

25. Wrong. That responsibility for those children is a shared responsibility.

Shared by all of society. Parental control of schools and curriculum is poor policy at best. Parents DO NOT ALWAYS KNOW BEST. In fact to leave it up to parents is in it self irresponsible.

[upaloopa]

26. You will have a hard time convincing the courts

you are right.

[notrightatall]

28. THAT does not make me "WRONG", now does it?

[cbayer]

61. Child abuse? Are you suggesting that people that raise their children in a religious household

should be charged, tried and punished for this?

[notrightatall]

65. I would say that society is punished for that.

[cbayer]

66. But what you said is that parents that raise their children in religious households are guilty

of child abuse.

So do you think they should be charged, tried and punished for this?

[notrightatall]

67. They are punished, we all are.

[cbayer]

68. Again, you don't answer the question but just reply with some hollow rhetoric.

You are accusing people of a very serious crime here. Do you think they should be charged with such, or is this just snark on your part?

[notrightatall]

69. ?.

[cbayer]

70. So your answer is an oblique angle? That makes about as much sense as you other non-answers,

I guess.

[notrightatall]

38. Great, that means another generation of knuckle-dragging idiots. Thanks!

[notrightatall]

45. ..

[randys1]

33. Agreed, from a scientific approach, children should be taught about the various religions

and how they do NOT promote hatred of Gays or killing non believers.


That all religion is an opiate for the masses is something the parent can explain, but the school absolutely better start teaching kids that all mainstream religions do NOT preach the terrible shit some say they do.

The rightwing Christians use a perverted interpretation of the christian bible to say God hates Gay people, and they hate Gay people and that is a good thing.

Perverted and fucked up Muslims (small percentage) use the Quran to teach that all non believers are to die.

I wish I could say that it is a SMALL percentage of American rightwing Christians who DEEPLY hate Gay people and want to teach that hating Gay people is good, but it is a majority of them...



please note ALL the words I am using, not some of them...if you are a christian and not rightwing, please make sure you read all my words...

[cbayer]

62. I agree with you.

When all you hear is one side from the MSM, it is particularly important to teach about the varieties of POV's that are out there.

[rug]

14. I bet they'll throng to research Eucildean geometry on their own.

[upaloopa]

16. What does it matter?

[rug]

19. Schools at a minimum should teach about the world.

The beliefs of a fifth of the world and the applications of geometry are part of it.

[upaloopa]

21. So we have elected school boards and we are

free to select the schools we want to send or kids to thus selecting the curriculum.
I feel the beliefs of one fifth of the world are superstition as are all religions. I don't feel they deserve the time and thought you do.

[notrightatall]

29. Only "time and thought" will end the scourge to humanity that is religion.

[exboyfil]

5. Then The Five Pillars should not be taught

I tend to agree and, while the father was wrong in making unspecified threats, his reason for complaining was sound.

[F4lconF16]

11. I disagree.

I think there is a large amount that people can learn by looking at religion. It's a major force in our world, like it or not, and I think it would be a failure on the part of our educational system to not teach at least about the major religions of the world. (Figure spending about equal time on the top 5-10 as part of a poly sci, international studies, or more general social studies class. At my high school, we covered the three main monotheistic religions and the basic differences between each, without having to know too many specifics, as well as a smaller amount about the polytheistic religions. It was a very helpful basic introductory course that gave a lot of people in the classes a new perspective. Admittedly, I think it's disappointing that we can't teach just straight science and why religion is a load of hooey, but I think we all know how that idea would go.

[upaloopa]

24. I don't see religion as a positive force in the world.

I don't have kids but if I did I would teach them how and why I feel as I do. I would also teach them the importance of learning and researching things on their own to form their opinion and their philosophy of life.

[F4lconF16]

27. This is exactly what I plan to teach my kids.

Though I will probably introduce them to religion and explain why I don't believe in it as well. I do intend to keep them from attending Sunday school or church during their younger years, unless it's going with a friend after a sleepover or something. I see no reason to sponsor the degradation of my child's brain, and the less they're exposed to it, the less likely they'll be to believe.

That said, the best way to teach a kid to be an atheist is to teach them to love science, discovery, and rational thought, and those will always be my primary focuses. Teaching against religion is a secondary, or even tertiary or further focus. Understanding the natural world/universe will always be the best vaccine against religion.

[upaloopa]

34. I think I like most of what you say

If I were hiking along the beach with my kid (which I don't have) and we discussed the surf and oceans and the beach etc. I sure as hell would not say that god made all this for our pleasure.

[F4lconF16]

37. Yes, that is a better way to put it.

I think that's more what I'm meaning to say

[peace13]

42. Pretty much sucked if your religion wasn't in the top three, huh? nt

[F4lconF16]

44. Yup.

Which is why I like the idea of lumping them all in together. Christianity should get equal time with the Greek gods. Understandably, in a political science course or something more specific than a general required class, it would be necessary to focus on the more mainstream contemporary religions.

[Goblinmonger]

20. How does one teach world history

without covering the major religions of the world?

How does one teach any significant American literature without having the kids understand the biblical references (and I'm talking about writers that are atheists, too, that are drawing from the symbolism pool)?

[upaloopa]

36. In context with other things it is relevant.

But teaching the beliefs of a religion in a vacuum as if there was some value to them is not what I would want for any kid of mine.
I was taught that some people worshiped trees. That was historic but with what we know now it seems idiotic. I feel the same about modern religion.

[F4lconF16]

39. Ah, that explains your objection better.

It's not that you're opposed to teaching religion, but opposed to teaching contemporary religion as if it's somehow different than any old mythological system or deity worship, correct?

[upaloopa]

43. I think so. I hate that our society places

importance of religion out there as if a person cannot be a good citizen or human being without a religious belief.
So many of our great leaders were non believers and we need to point that out too.
And yes I equate modern religion with ancient beliefs.

[F4lconF16]

46. Yes, and I think we need to combat the anti-intellectualism to make headway.

We can't start demonstrating that we can be morally and ethically "good" people without good examples of atheist leaders and persons of importance (of which there are many). However, so many people in this country will simply reject anything you say because it doesn't match what they want to think. We need to re-establish (or perhaps simply establish) the scientific method as the primary driving force behind understanding our society. Without that, efforts will be in vain as people will rarely evaluate their own beliefs.

[upaloopa]

47. Emmanuel Kant says it well I think. I was in college at a Catholic school when they said we could

not be taught about Kant in philosophy class. The profs went out on strike for educational freedom. They won and I learned about Kant and have ever since made him one of my favorite philosophers.


What Is Enlightenment?
Immanuel Kant 1

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

much more

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

[F4lconF16]

48. That is quite interesting... Bookmarked for reading after class! Thanks nt

[upaloopa]

51. He wrote that in 1784 as a reply to a contest

"What is Enlightenment" it is very relevant today

[elehhhhna]

31. try teaching world history without it

Good luck when you get to the crusades for example

[riqster]

50. Yup. Religion has had an enormous impact on the world's history.

[NutmegYankee]

52. It's key to understanding culture.

Social studies can't teach about the world without studying religion.

[upaloopa]

53. I get that. As long as it is neutral and non believers

are also taught about.
I don't remember the discussions in school of the non believers who were signers of the Constitution.
Our society teaches religion in such a way that an atheist can not run for President.
How do you propose we teach that non belief has value too?

[NutmegYankee]

54. In a public school, that's guaranteed.

The actual faith, or non, that the children practice is determined by the parents, which of course is a core facet of freedom of religion. But everyone should learn about other religions to understand the culture.

[upaloopa]

55. I disagree. You could teach that religion plays a roll

in some cases without teaching the belief system of the religion. That would be for an elective course called comparative religions. I would think that you would also have to teach about the harm religion has done such as the 500,000 Native Americans killed in the mission territories of California in just two years.
I just don't want religion raised on a pedestal like it is now. That is teaching only a part of history.

[NutmegYankee]

56. I guess we will disagree.

[upaloopa]

57. Yep

[cbayer]

60. Religion is a major factor both in history and current politics.

It's not being put on a pedestal, it is being including in curriculum appropriately. I also think it would be appropriate to include information about non-belief when it a part of a particular history or political event.

[upaloopa]

63. I think it is put on a pedestal.

We could not elect an atheist as President. In a country with a separation of church and state the President has a public prayer breakfast. We have in god we trust on our money and elsewhere.
We don't teach in school the brutality religious people brought on native peoples in this country and it's possessions.
When that happens I might agree with you.

[cbayer]

64. Oh I agree that there is religious privilege when it comes to christianity, but

not so much when it comes to Islam. I don't think we could elect a muslim President either. It will be interesting to see which happens first, hopefully in my lifetime.

Actually i think the brutality towards native people is taught, but probably not everywhere.

Excluding religion from the curriculum is not the answer. Including it in a truthful way is the key, imo.

[Maedhros]

23. Given the widespread misinformation about Islam coming from terrified, warmongering reactionaries,

teaching our children about Islam is important so that they have the opportunity to be less ignorant than most Americans.

[F4lconF16]

32. +1

There is far too much hate in many people to miss an opportunity to prevent some of it at a young age. It's amazing how the better educated you are, the (usually) less bigoted you are.

Though I can't stand religion, I am fully for the teaching and understanding of it's primary principles and ideals. There is no way my children are growing up with the meme "Muslim = terrorist" in their heads.

[Maedhros]

41. There is a common misperception in this country that examining a subject

is the same as advocating it. One sees it a lot in reference to film and literature, and certainly in education.

[riqster]

49. How very true.

Thanks for this post.

[cbayer]

58. The article says that they do teach about other religions when they are studying

the history of other regions of the world.