PDA

View Full Version : The ArchBishop's Hypocrisy



AnyOldIron
10-27-2006, 04:49 AM
The Archbishop of Canterbury has entered the Muslim veil debate by saying people should be free to wear visible religious symbols.
Dr Rowan Williams said aiming for a society where no symbols such as veils, crosses, sidelocks or turbans would be seen was "politically dangerous".

It would treat the state as a "central licensing authority" which creates public morality, he told the Times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6089988.stm

What hypocrisy! The church has been a "central licensing authority" which creates public morality for centuries.

This bitch is just pissed off that someone else is getting in on his racket.

Care4all
10-27-2006, 04:57 AM
i agree with him, government can not determine what you should wear or not wear, via laws.... and they never should be able to do this, outside of decency in public laws, for the protection of our children.

and sure the ''church'' has had its say on how their parishioners dress, but guess what? you don't get arrested for not following their church dress code requirements and with freedom of religion, you can change religion if you don't agree with them.

AnyOldIron
10-27-2006, 05:04 AM
i agree with him, government can not determine what you should wear or not wear, via laws.... and they never should be able to do this, outside of decency in public laws, for the protection of our children.

This comes from a recent case where a Muslim class assistant was suspended for wearing a full veil whilst assisting with teaching children. When you wear a full veil, you cannot communicate properly, so she was damaging the children's prospects. She then through a wobbly fit, claiming descrimination as the religious always do.

Religion and religious concepts shouldn't be protected. They aren't like race, where an individual has no choice, they are a set of ideas and thus should be afforded no protection.

and sure the ''church'' has had its say on how their parishioners dress, but guess what? you don't get arrested for not following their church dress code requirements and with freedom of religion, you can change religion if you don't agree with them.

It is only since the rise of secularism that this has been the case. Until recently I could have been executed by the church for my views. I can still be arrested for blasphemy.

But that is beside the point. The Archbishop is being hypocritical, by stating that government shouldn't impose morality, when he and his church has been imposing their twisted morality for milenia.

chewinthecud
10-27-2006, 06:19 AM
I think the distinction teaching 'Assistant' is an important one . Would you have the same problem with a tape recorder being used to assist in teaching ??! Or would your argument be the same?

AnyOldIron
10-27-2006, 06:36 AM
I think the distinction teaching 'Assistant' is an important one . Would you have the same problem with a tape recorder being used to assist in teaching ??! Or would your argument be the same?

Teaching Assistants have a specific role in the classroom, providing face to face support for children.

There is no comparison between the role of a tape recorder and a TA.

The majority of human communication is silent, conducted by body and facial language. This women could not have performed her duties as a TA whilst wearing the veil.

chewinthecud
10-27-2006, 06:50 AM
I have to wonder did you hear this TA explaining that she was happy to reveal her face in front of her students but not in front of male coworkers - of course if this was more publicised then I dont suppose we would all be able to get so worked up about it

AnyOldIron
10-27-2006, 07:00 AM
I have to wonder did you hear this TA explaining that she was happy to reveal her face in front of her students but not in front of male coworkers - of course if this was more publicised then I dont suppose we would all be able to get so worked up about it

Then she still cannot do her job if she is assisting a male teacher.

She is also hypocritical, arriving for her interview (with males) for the job without the veil and only putting it on in classroom.

chewinthecud
10-27-2006, 07:09 AM
I would like to think that we could all be inclusive and flexible enough to work around this . I think the benefits to children of being exposed to a wide range of cultures and beliefs would far outweigh any minor scheduling issues that would arrise to allow this TA to work with female staff

AnyOldIron
10-27-2006, 07:17 AM
I would like to think that we could all be inclusive and flexible enough to work around this . I think the benefits to children of being exposed to a wide range of cultures and beliefs would far outweigh any minor scheduling issues that would arrise to allow this TA to work with female staff

Cultures yes, beliefs no. Religion has no place in the classroom. The class was made up of children from a wide range of cultures anyway.

As for rescheduling, in small schools, this is not often not possible, and she shot herself in the foot by being inconsistent by arriving at her interview without the veil.

Besides, if I were a teacher or TA, I wouldn't be allowed to wear a mask in the classroom, no matter how strongly I wanted to. Schools have dress codes for staff.

Why should she be given a bye, simply because her opinions are classed as a religion?

chewinthecud
10-27-2006, 07:46 AM
Do you not think that banning religion from classrooms we are setting our society up for a fall .. when the next generation are released into an increasingly multicultural nation I cant help but think their ignorance of other beliefs will only cause further tension

AnyOldIron
10-27-2006, 08:10 AM
Do you not think that banning religion from classrooms we are setting our society up for a fall.

Banning religion from the classroom would improve society, faith schools are little more than indoctrination camps for children...a form of child abuse.

Without religious interference children are free to challenge these 'beliefs', without the 'absolute truth' being drilled into them.

Religion is an anthropological study only, a branch of mythology.

Seems the majority of Brits agree....

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=4522&start=0&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20061027145054&#paginator

As for creating tension, the only thing that is causing tension is religion itself, with Muslims and Christians decrying freedom of speech whenever they feel slightly offended.

uscitizen
10-27-2006, 08:13 AM
Religion is a family thing not a public education thing. Except that I think that some basic history dealing with religion should be taught. How religions cause tensions and wars in the world, that kind of thing.

Jarod
10-27-2006, 08:16 AM
I agree with him, but he is being a hypocrate as his institution has been doing the thing he complaines about the government doing for thousands of years.

AnyOldIron
10-27-2006, 08:19 AM
Religion is a family thing not a public education thing. Except that I think that bome basic history dealing with religion should be taught. How religions cause tensions and wars in the world, that kind of thing.

Religion shouldn't be written out of the history books, and should be taught in anthropology classes, but the indoctrination of children through these 'faith-schools' should stop....

uscitizen
10-27-2006, 08:22 AM
Religion is a family thing not a public education thing. Except that I think that bome basic history dealing with religion should be taught. How religions cause tensions and wars in the world, that kind of thing.

Religion shouldn't be written out of the history books, and should be taught in anthropology classes, but the indoctrination of children through these 'faith-schools' should stop....


I agree, You say things much more clearly than I. Unfortunately it is moving the other way in the USA with the help of the republican party. ie school vouchers....

Jarod
10-27-2006, 08:28 AM
IN recient past in England this mans church WAS the government and they did just what he is bitching about!

Damocles
10-27-2006, 10:22 AM
Religion is cultural, one cannot have cultures in a classroom minus the religious beliefs of those that participate in those cultures.

Those same people born in India would more than likely be Hindu rather than Muslim or Christian and the religion effects the culture. Hence women with veils... The idea that we must somehow separate the two just for the classroom is silly. If we are to learn about cultures it is important that people should be allowed to adhere to their cultures.

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 05:50 AM
Religion is cultural, one cannot have cultures in a classroom minus the religious beliefs of those that participate in those cultures.

Those same people born in India would more than likely be Hindu rather than Muslim or Christian and the religion effects the culture. Hence women with veils... The idea that we must somehow separate the two just for the classroom is silly. If we are to learn about cultures it is important that people should be allowed to adhere to their cultures.

It isn't silly. Communication isn't just conducted verbally, if this woman has her face covered she cannot effectively teach the children. If she can't effectively do her job, she should be let go.

She is also hypocritical insomuch as she attended her interview for the job without her veil, only insisting on wearing it in the classroom.

She is also a British citizen, her culture is British. Britain is, despite the CoE, a largely secular nation.

Care4all
10-30-2006, 06:26 AM
well, was there a dress code in writing that she signed on to when she was hired? If there wasn't and she feels it necessary to wear her veil and full dress, then she can not be fired for it anyold....she has rights too...

and I agree with damocles, this will help the children learn about different cultures and freedom of religion from our government.

Was she preaching her "religion" in the classroom? Or just robed in her cultural "dress"?

care

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 06:38 AM
well, was there a dress code in writing that she signed on to when she was hired? If there wasn't and she feels it necessary to wear her veil and full dress, then she can not be fired for it anyold....she has rights too...

So, you are happy that these children's education will suffer just because she wants to 'exercise' her religious mental issues?

How about if I were a teacher and turned up in a mask, that restricted my communication and caused me to be unable to do my job, that would be ok?

You don't see it as hypocritical that she would attend the interview without the veil, without indicating she wore one, and then insisted she wore one in class?

and I agree with damocles, this will help the children learn about different cultures and freedom of religion from our government.

It doesn't help them learn, it merely restricts her ability to communicate with the children.

This isn't primarily a secularist issue, though the issue still stands about protecting government's freedom from religion.

Was she preaching her "religion" in the classroom? Or just robed in her cultural "dress"?

It restricts her communication.

If my job entailed constantly face to face communication and I arrived at work with my face covered, I wouldn't be able to do my job.
She deserved to be suspended, until she decided she could do her job properly...

Care4all
10-30-2006, 06:53 AM
well, was there a dress code in writing that she signed on to when she was hired? If there wasn't and she feels it necessary to wear her veil and full dress, then she can not be fired for it anyold....she has rights too...

So, you are happy that these children's education will suffer just because she wants to 'exercise' her religious mental issues?

How about if I were a teacher and turned up in a mask, that restricted my communication and caused me to be unable to do my job, that would be ok?

You don't see it as hypocritical that she would attend the interview without the veil, without indicating she wore one, and then insisted she wore one in class?

and I agree with damocles, this will help the children learn about different cultures and freedom of religion from our government.

It doesn't help them learn, it merely restricts her ability to communicate with the children.

This isn't primarily a secularist issue, though the issue still stands about protecting government's freedom from religion.

Was she preaching her "religion" in the classroom? Or just robed in her cultural "dress"?

It restricts her communication.

If my job entailed constantly face to face communication and I arrived at work with my face covered, I wouldn't be able to do my job.
She deserved to be suspended, until she decided she could do her job properly...

was there a dress code that she signed on to when she was hired, that she is breaking?

answer the question....

if there was not, then she has the right to wear her cultural dress....

and she is not harming the children, she is teaching them about tolerance or another's cultural dress....something you could have benefited from....when you were young :D lol

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 06:57 AM
and she is not harming the children, she is teaching them about tolerance or another's cultural dress....something you could have benefited from....when you were young lol

How much of communication is done verbally, and how much through facial expression.

By restricting this expression, she made herself unable to do her job.

Simple as that. If I turned up for work unable to make decisions, ie drunk, I would be sacked....

Religion and culture are seperate. I am very culturally aware.

But religion is nothing more than a set of ideas. The notion that ideas should be pampered to, protected, is laughable....

Damocles
10-30-2006, 07:17 AM
However, if it is her culture to actually wear the veil then learning to live with people would be to learn to read body language through veils. It's silly to pretend that they don't use these... In those cultures they learn to read other visual cues, there is no reason that we cannot as well.

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 07:20 AM
However, if it is her culture to actually wear the veil then learning to live with people would be to learn to read body language through veils.

That's ridiculous. If I were a teacher, turned up for work wearing a mask and demanding that the children don't learn via the ususal facial methods that they will use in life and instead try to work out my body language I would be suspended on the grounds that I couldn't do my job properly.

Facial expression is an important method of communication in all humans.

Damocles
10-30-2006, 07:32 AM
However, if it is her culture to actually wear the veil then learning to live with people would be to learn to read body language through veils.

That's ridiculous. If I were a teacher, turned up for work wearing a mask and demanding that the children don't learn via the ususal facial methods that they will use in life and instead try to work out my body language I would be suspended on the grounds that I couldn't do my job properly.

Facial expression is an important method of communication in all humans.
Except in cultures where people wear veils. If it is as important to learn about, and to live with, other cultures making them not follow their culture simply is directly against that goal. Multiculturalism has within it certain responsibilities and hardships ignoring them because you don't like their religion isn't one of them.

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 07:43 AM
Except in cultures where people wear veils. If it is as important to learn about, and to live with, other cultures making them not follow their culture simply is directly against that goal. Multiculturalism has within it certain responsibilities and hardships ignoring them because you don't like their religion isn't one of them

In countries where the full veil / Burkha is worn, female teachers aren't common. In Muslim countries wear women are allowed to teach, they mostly wear the hijab.

It was children from many cultures that complained that they couldn't communicate with this TA. There are plenty of Muslim women that teach in British schools without wearing the full veil.

This isn't a matter of multiculturalism, this is a matter of being effective in your job.

Damocles
10-30-2006, 07:48 AM
Except in cultures where people wear veils. If it is as important to learn about, and to live with, other cultures making them not follow their culture simply is directly against that goal. Multiculturalism has within it certain responsibilities and hardships ignoring them because you don't like their religion isn't one of them

In countries where the full veil / Burkha is worn, female teachers aren't common. In Muslim countries wear women are allowed to teach, they mostly wear the hijab.

It was children from many cultures that complained that they couldn't communicate with this TA. There are plenty of Muslim women that teach in British schools without wearing the full veil.

This isn't a matter of multiculturalism, this is a matter of being effective in your job.
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

I understand that the kids complained about problems understanding the TA, but if multiculturalism is important then it should actually be adhered to rather than simply discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Damocles
10-30-2006, 07:49 AM
They will meet people in that culture that are less restrictive, and some that are more restrictive on that particular issue. Saying, "Others are willing to work without..." is simply pretending that all within a culture are the same and must act the same. It is directly opposite to understanding and multiculturalism.

Care4all
10-30-2006, 07:50 AM
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

I understand that the kids complained about problems understanding the TA, but if multiculturalism is important then it should actually be adhered to rather than simply discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient.

could not have said it better!

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 07:58 AM
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

This woman's case might be a little better if she showed some consistency.

She attended her interview for the job without the veil, and only wore it once in the classroom.

If I attended an interview dressed in a suit, yet when I started the job began to insist on wearing a face-mask, I would expect to be suspended...

This is entirely about making sure the children get the best education they can, not pandering to one woman's whims. It was children from many cultures who complained that they couldn't communicate effectively, so the multicultural thing doesn't really come into it.

Damocles
10-30-2006, 08:08 AM
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

This woman's case might be a little better if she showed some consistency.

She attended her interview for the job without the veil, and only wore it once in the classroom.

If I attended an interview dressed in a suit, yet when I started the job began to insist on wearing a face-mask, I would expect to be suspended...

This is entirely about making sure the children get the best education they can, not pandering to one woman's whims. It was children from many cultures who complained that they couldn't communicate effectively, so the multicultural thing doesn't really come into it.
It would come into it even more if it was children of many cultures... Those many cultures need to learn to live and work with this one as well. That the complaints came from many cultures doesn't change the necessity in this to adhere to multiculturalism if it were to be considered important...

It is societal inconsistency to say, "multiculturalism is important" then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient.

I agree it would have been better for her had she been consistent. As I said I can see both sides of this issue.

How important should we make multiculturalism?

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 08:24 AM
It depends on your definition of multi-culturalism. Where do you draw the line when conflicts occur?

How far are you willing to go to accommodate the whims of certain religions when they become detrimental?

Is a woman's right to wear a veil more important than the children's right to effective, face to face teaching? (pretty much every teacher I have discussed this with agrees that face to face is the most effective form).

If I belonged to a religion that meant I wore shrunken heads from my coat, and this upset the children to the extent that they couldn't concentrate, would my religious rights supercede the children's right to a good education and my employer's right that I carry out the work I was employed to effectively...

If nudism were a religious belief, and I wanted to be a teacher.... How would that work...? [/B]

Damocles
10-30-2006, 08:30 AM
It depends on your definition of multi-culturalism. Where do you draw the line when conflicts occur?

How far are you willing to go to accommodate the whims of certain religions when they become detrimental?

Is a woman's right to wear a veil more important than the children's right to effective, face to face teaching? (pretty much every teacher I have discussed this with agrees that face to face is the most effective form).

If I belonged to a religion that meant I wore shrunken heads from my coat, and this upset the children to the extent that they couldn't concentrate, would my religious rights supercede the children's right to a good education and my employer's right that I carry out the work I was employed to effectively...

If nudism were a religious belief, and I wanted to be a teacher.... How would that work...? [/B]
Right, let's throw up strawmen. Like the people who say that bestial marriages would be the end result of gay marriage! Let's pretend that "this and this" is a religious belief so we can be fundamentally disingenuous and pretend that the problem is larger than it is!

Come on, Anyold. I expect better than silly "nudist" strawmen from you!

Anyway, it depends on the importance you put on multiculturalism. The children would get used to your silly (strawman) heads, the children can learn, just as those within that culture can, to read other body language...

If multiculturalism is truly important, and learning to live with such aspects of other cultures is clearly part of that, then we must allow such inconveniences to be present in order to get that done. If we take away the difficult portions of multiculturalism because it gets in the way there is no reason to even pretend to make it an important aspect of society.

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 09:28 AM
Right, let's throw up strawmen. Like the people who say that bestial marriages would be the end result of gay marriage! Let's pretend that "this and this" is a religious belief so we can be fundamentally disingenuous and pretend that the problem is larger than it is!

It isn't a strawman. It is more reductio per absurdum than strawman.

I'm asking how far we should go to pander to religious desires when they become detrimental?

What you describe as inconvenients are often detrimental, for example the teaching of children in face masks. Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face interaction is vital. You could claim that it teaches about multiculturalism, why not find a method of teaching that doesn't damage the kid's education? You state that the kids should learn to communicate without facial expression; these kids live in the UK and will spend the whole of their lives expressing themselves facially.

How would you feel if a teacher refused to teach parts of the curriculum that contradict their religious beliefs. Are they entitled to do this?

Those that wish others to pander to their religious desires are often those that restrict multiculturalism and intergration far more with faith schools that great ghettoisation of education along religious grounds.

Damocles
10-30-2006, 09:32 AM
Right, let's throw up strawmen. Like the people who say that bestial marriages would be the end result of gay marriage! Let's pretend that "this and this" is a religious belief so we can be fundamentally disingenuous and pretend that the problem is larger than it is!

It isn't a strawman. It is more reductio per absurdum than strawman.

I'm asking how far we should go to pander to religious desires when they become detrimental?

What you describe as inconvenients are often detrimental, for example the teaching of children in face masks. Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face interaction is vital. You could claim that it teaches about multiculturalism, why not find a method of teaching that doesn't damage the kid's education? You state that the kids should learn to communicate without facial expression; these kids live in the UK and will spend the whole of their lives expressing themselves facially.

How would you feel if a teacher refused to teach parts of the curriculum that contradict their religious beliefs. Are they entitled to do this?

Those that wish others to pander to their religious desires are often those that restrict multiculturalism and intergration far more with faith schools that great ghettoisation of education along religious grounds.

An argument can be Reduction ad Absurdam and a Strawman at the same time. Pretending that anybody mentioned nudity and shrunken heads is a strawman.

Once again, the detrimental factor is only there as long as the children do not understand the new culture that they are facing. Taking away their chance to learn the new culture is directly opposite to multiculturalist ideals.

The teacher cannot refuse to teach portions of the curriculum because of that, they too must take some aspects of mutliculturalism on and this is what would be required of them.

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 09:45 AM
An argument can be Reduction ad Absurdam and a Strawman at the same time. Pretending that anybody mentioned nudity and shrunken heads is a strawman.

That is why it is reductio and not strawman. I didn't pretend anyone mentioned nudity or shrunken heads but used them as a comparison argument 'in extremis'...

Once again, the detrimental factor is only there as long as the children do not understand the new culture that they are facing. Taking away their chance to learn the new culture is directly opposite to multiculturalist ideals.

Not being able to understand a teaching assistant doesn't help them understand a new culture, it simply makes it harder for them to understand and thus learn. If anything it is likely to damage respect for the culture as the children become frustrated.

Teaching about cultures is fine, but why inflict it on the children in a method that detrimental to their education? Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face is essential in education.

The teacher cannot refuse to teach portions of the curriculum because of that, they too must take some aspects of mutliculturalism on and this is what would be required of them.

If we were playing chess, Damo, this would be a fatal move....

Why shouldn't the TA take on some aspects of multiculturalism and remove her veil in the classroom, as communicating with the children is required of her?

Damocles
10-30-2006, 09:50 AM
An argument can be Reduction ad Absurdam and a Strawman at the same time. Pretending that anybody mentioned nudity and shrunken heads is a strawman.

That is why it is reductio and not strawman. I didn't pretend anyone mentioned nudity or shrunken heads but used them as a comparison argument 'in extremis'...

Once again, the detrimental factor is only there as long as the children do not understand the new culture that they are facing. Taking away their chance to learn the new culture is directly opposite to multiculturalist ideals.

Not being able to understand a teaching assistant doesn't help them understand a new culture, it simply makes it harder for them to understand and thus learn. If anything it is likely to damage respect for the culture as the children become frustrated.

Teaching about cultures is fine, but why inflict it on the children in a method that detrimental to their education? Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face is essential in education.

The teacher cannot refuse to teach portions of the curriculum because of that, they too must take some aspects of mutliculturalism on and this is what would be required of them.

If we were playing chess, Damo, this would be a fatal move....

Why shouldn't the TA take on some aspects of multiculturalism and remove her veil in the classroom, as communicating with the children is required of her?
Because her veil is the part of the culture that the children are learning to live with. This is foolishness. If you are teaching people to understand other cultures you must allow them to deal with the other cultures.

Now curriculum is not part of their culture that you are teaching to children, they are two separate things.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument....

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 10:16 AM
Now curriculum is not part of their culture that you are teaching to children, they are two separate things.

So, religious beliefs are now not part of the culture?

Why are we discussing the face veil then, which is a religious belief?

If a teacher refusing to teach part of the curriculum because it contradicts his religious beliefs is wrong, why is a teacher who hampers children's education by wearing a full veil, right?

Bishop and knight move in to trap the king..... lol

Damocles
10-30-2006, 10:18 AM
Curriculum is unchanging. The people that they work with are changing. One does not follow the other. This is another fallacious argument and beneath your usual level of good argument. You have a blind spot for the religion of others that makes you spew fallacies as soon as you see it.

Checkmate.

Damocles
10-30-2006, 10:22 AM
I find it hilarious that the one that normally would argue for multicultural causes, the liberal, is the one attempting to defend this... and all because of the religious blind-spot.

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 10:43 AM
Curriculum is unchanging.

In the UK, the curriculum is constantly changing....

That however doesn't answer the question.

Why do you consider that are the religious beliefs of one respected (the veil), yet another's (the curriculum restrictions) not respected?

Both are making demands according to their religious beliefs (ie cultural) that could damage the prospects of the children.

As modes of teaching about other cultures, shouldn't both be respected?

Why should we discriminate?

Not a blind spot at all, I apply the same philosophical criteria as I would for any question. This is in part just mental exercise....

Check mate? Roflmao!

Damocles
10-30-2006, 10:47 AM
Curriculum is unchanging.

In the UK, the curriculum is constantly changing....

That however doesn't answer the question.

Why do you consider that are the religious beliefs of one respected (the veil), yet another's (the curriculum restrictions) not respected?

Both are making demands according to their religious beliefs (ie cultural) that could damage the prospects of the children.

As modes of teaching about other cultures, shouldn't both be respected?

Why should we discriminate?

Not a blind spot at all, I apply the same philosophical criteria as I would for any question. This is in part just mental exercise....

Check mate? Roflmao!
Curriculum is decided upon at a different level, her culture is not.

One can easily see the difference unless one is simply attempting to look for ridiculous reasons to deny something.

This is the extension of the "Bestial Marriages" type of argument you presented earlier and is the same logical fallacy. "If we let her wear a veil then we have to let her change the curriculum!" it is total rubbish and you know it! It is definitely the same fallacy as before, couched a little differently, but still beneath you.

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 10:54 AM
I find it hilarious that the one that normally would argue for multicultural causes, the liberal, is the one attempting to defend this... and all because of the religious blind-spot.

Its a philosophical question that needs to be answered. I won't work from liberal premise or from a religious blindspot.

I just argue the point. It's mental masterbation....

Damocles
10-30-2006, 10:57 AM
I find it hilarious that the one that normally would argue for multicultural causes, the liberal, is the one attempting to defend this... and all because of the religious blind-spot.

Its a philosophical question that needs to be answered. I won't work from liberal premise or from a religious blindspot.

I just argue the point. It's mental masterbation....
Nah, the whole premise here for your argument is that if she does it for religion it must be bad. If it were for a different aspect of her culture you'd be all for it and up in arms about her dismissal.

Honestly, I am neither. I can see both aspects especially since she wasn't wearing the veil during the interview...

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 11:00 AM
Curriculum is decided upon at a different level, her culture is not.

What level is her culture decided on then? lol This isn't an answer.

Her culture is set by her own perspective. Culture and religion are a set of ideas only, nothing more.

As for the rest of your post, I've already explained that this is called reductio per absurdum and is argued by presenting comparison situations to put the argument into perspective.

You still haven't answered my point. What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?

This is the last post for today. Continue tomorrow.....

Damocles
10-30-2006, 11:03 AM
Curriculum is decided upon at a different level, her culture is not.

What level is her culture decided on then? lol This isn't an answer.

Her culture is set by her own perspective. Culture and religion are a set of ideas only, nothing more.

As for the rest of your post, I've already explained that this is called reductio per absurdum and is argued by presenting comparison situations to put the argument into perspective.

You still haven't answered my point. What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?

This is the last post for today. Continue tomorrow.....
Rubbish. Teachers, or TAs, are the variable here, not the curriculum. This is the same, slippery slope argument as before.

I did answer your point. You just refuse to see it because of the blinders. "If it is due to religion it must be bad!"

The curriculum is never fully decided by a teacher, to attempt to argue such is total fallacy. However her culture is simply part of what makes her what she is.

Do you have more easily dismissed slippery-slope drivel to spew at me in defense of "religion bad"?

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 11:03 AM
Nah, the whole premise here for your argument is that if she does it for religion it must be bad. If it were for a different aspect of her culture you'd be all for it and up in arms about her dismissal.

Not at all. I'm not easy to perform pop-psychology on.

The religious part might have sparked my interest, but it is the conundrum that keeps my interest. If her (non religious part of) culture decreed that she should teach with a giant phallus covering her face I'd still be arguing the point. As I said, it's just mental masterbation.

I'll argue on any subject you like; what came first, chicken or egg? Is black white? etc etc

AnyOldIron
10-30-2006, 11:07 AM
The curriculum is never fully decided by a teacher, to attempt to argue such is total fallacy. However her culture is simply part of what makes her what she is.

No, but whether she / he teaches the curriculum is up to them. They can ignore the curriculum.

And again you are avoiding the point...

"What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?"

Both the decision to not teach part of the curriculum and to wear a veil are personal decisions made by individuals. Nothing is set anywhere else except in the minds of the two teachers.

So why the inconsistency?

Prakosh
10-30-2006, 11:09 AM
Nah, the whole premise here for your argument is that if she does it for religion it must be bad. If it were for a different aspect of her culture you'd be all for it and up in arms about her dismissal.

Not at all. I'm not easy to perform pop-psychology on.

The religious part might have sparked my interest, but it is the conundrum that keeps my interest. If her (non religious part of) culture decreed that she should teach with a giant phallus covering her face I'd still be arguing the point. As I said, it's just mental masterbation.

I'll argue on any subject you like; what came first, chicken or egg? Is black white? etc etc

You obviously just don't understand. The what came first question is internally contradictory. Everyone knows it wasn't a chicken or an egg that came first; it was GAWD Almighty that came firtst!!!!!!

Damocles
10-30-2006, 11:14 AM
The curriculum is never fully decided by a teacher, to attempt to argue such is total fallacy. However her culture is simply part of what makes her what she is.

No, but whether she / he teaches the curriculum is up to them. They can ignore the curriculum.

And again you are avoiding the point...

"What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?"

Both the decision to not teach part of the curriculum and to wear a veil are personal decisions made by individuals. Nothing is set anywhere else except in the minds of the two teachers.

So why the inconsistency?
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Clearly one can see the difference, and I have answered this three times now and pointed out the "slippy slope" fallacy.

Prakosh
10-30-2006, 12:13 PM
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Clearly one can see the difference, and I have answered this three times now and pointed out the "slippy slope" fallacy.

This is a really confused post and shows a complete lack of understanding of what consistitues Curriculum and who chooses it. You really should read The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America by Jonathan Kozol. The argument is quite involved and not nearly as cut and dried as you are making it appear here. But the choice of curriculum, in public schools, may or may not be up to the teacher, or even the district, and certainly may or may not be up to the teacher in private schools where teachers may or may not have, depending on the corporate or religious group's desire for control, more or less contol than they would in the public schools. In short, like many things it is not an either/or situation. Some teachers have much more control over their curriculum than others.

Damocles
10-30-2006, 12:21 PM
This is a really confused post and shows a complete lack of understanding of what consistitues Curriculum and who chooses it. You really should read The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America by Jonathan Kozol. The argument is quite involved and not nearly as cut and dried as you are making it appear here. But the choice of curriculum, in public schools, may or may not be up to the teacher, or even the district, and certainly may or may not be up to the teacher in private schools where teachers may or may not have, depending on the corporate or religious group's desire for control, more or less contol than they would in the public schools. In short, like many things it is not an either/or situation. Some teachers have much more control over their curriculum than others.
Correct, we however are speaking of the curriculum in a specific public school and not the private schools at all. In this case this is a fundamental disconnect with the original subject matter, an attempt to obfuscate the argument by attempting to add variables that in this case do not exist.

If the teacher has 100% control of the curriculum you would have no recourse to sack her for a lack of using the approved curriculum. In this case she does not have that choice and the introduction of such a non-existent variable is a logical fallacy and a direct attempt to obfuscate. It is a bold faced attempt to add to the slippery slope fallacy from before.

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 04:00 AM
Everyone knows it wasn't a chicken or an egg that came first; it was GAWD Almighty that came firtst!!!!!!

LOL! The almighty egg!

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 04:23 AM
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Let's look at the variables...

Only the method in which they damage the children's education varies, one through restricting the method of communication, one through restricting the content of that communication.

And the comparables....

In both, you have individuals who are, because of their religious sensibilities, inflicting damage on the children's education. Both are not fulfilling their jobs effectively.

Essentially, aside from the methods used, the two are doing the same thing, both are working from the premise that their own personal ideology (ie religion) supercedes the rights of the children getting a good education.

So why is one ok and one not?

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 04:31 AM
If the teacher has 100% control of the curriculum you would have no recourse to sack her for a lack of using the approved curriculum. In this case she does not have that choice

You are missing the point, Damo.

Even if she has no control over what the curriculum states, she has control over what part of the curriculum she decides to teach.

If she decides not to teach part of the curriculum because it conflicts with her religious belief, she isn't doing her job, just as a person who, because of religious belief, restricts her ability to communicate with her class.......

Damocles
10-31-2006, 07:11 AM
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Let's look at the variables...

Only the method in which they damage the children's education varies, one through restricting the method of communication, one through restricting the content of that communication.

And the comparables....

In both, you have individuals who are, because of their religious sensibilities, inflicting damage on the children's education. Both are not fulfilling their jobs effectively.

Essentially, aside from the methods used, the two are doing the same thing, both are working from the premise that their own personal ideology (ie religion) supercedes the rights of the children getting a good education.

So why is one ok and one not?
Not true. Many people learn to read other factors of body language when a face is not readily available. This is just a new way to teach children better communication skills. Over time the children would get used to the teacher and her methods.

Damocles
10-31-2006, 07:12 AM
If the teacher has 100% control of the curriculum you would have no recourse to sack her for a lack of using the approved curriculum. In this case she does not have that choice

You are missing the point, Damo.

Even if she has no control over what the curriculum states, she has control over what part of the curriculum she decides to teach.

If she decides not to teach part of the curriculum because it conflicts with her religious belief, she isn't doing her job, just as a person who, because of religious belief, restricts her ability to communicate with her class.......
However, if the curriculum is proscribed (and it is) then what she chooses can be used to sack her. One is not an actual variable. Much like I can choose not to pay taxes, but when it comes right down to it I will end up in jail. She will be sacked for simply not doing her job. The secondary one is a variable over which she did have control, her clothing. One allows the children to learn the same material as all other children at the same time as learning a cultural aspect they otherwise would not be party to. It is beneficial to the children to learn to read other than facial body language.

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 07:44 AM
Not true. Many people learn to read other factors of body language when a face is not readily available.

Most educational experts state that it is vital, and this is the UK, facial expression is used in everyday contact. The children don't live in an environment where they will need to learn other factors.

In essence, it is like attempting to teach children without using your voice.

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 07:46 AM
The secondary one is a variable over which she did have control, her clothing.

Of course she has control, religious sentiments aren't a medical necessity.

Religion is only a set of ideas.

If she wished to cover her face and thus restrict communication, she should have informed them at her interview so they could take that into account when assessing her suitability for the post...

Damocles
10-31-2006, 07:47 AM
Not true. Many people learn to read other factors of body language when a face is not readily available.

Most educational experts state that it is vital, and this is the UK, facial expression is used in everyday contact. The children don't live in an environment where they will need to learn other factors.

In essence, it is like attempting to teach children without using your voice.
Which can be done as well. If the teacher were deaf would she be sacked?

Multiculturalism is exactly that. I believe it is beneficial and would be beneficial to the children to learn other factors of body language. Saying "They don't need them" is not the same as saying, "It will never benefit them to know this".

Damocles
10-31-2006, 07:48 AM
The secondary one is a variable over which she did have control, her clothing.

Of course she has control, religious sentiments aren't a medical necessity.

Religion is only a set of ideas.

If she wished to cover her face and thus restrict communication, she should have informed them at her interview so they could take that into account when assessing her suitability for the post...
Correct, I agreed with that long ago. The argument has long progressed past this point. She should have worn the veil for her interview.

uscitizen
10-31-2006, 07:49 AM
Multiculturalism as long as no veils ???

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 07:53 AM
Which can be done as well. If the teacher were deaf would she be sacked?

If she were deaf, then she would have to notify the interviewing board that she was deaf and that can be taken into account.

If she became deaf, her ability to conduct the job should be considered.

The prima factor is the education of the children, not the teacher themselves.

Maybe it would be beneficial to learn other body language, but not to the point where it was detrimental to learning facial expression.

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 07:57 AM
Multiculturalism as long as no veils ???

Veils, as long as they don't interfere with the ability to do the job?

What if a female Muslim fighter pilot wanted to wear a veil?

Damocles
10-31-2006, 07:57 AM
Which can be done as well. If the teacher were deaf would she be sacked?

If she were deaf, then she would have to notify the interviewing board that she was deaf and that can be taken into account.

If she became deaf, her ability to conduct the job should be considered.

The prima factor is the education of the children, not the teacher themselves.

Maybe it would be beneficial to learn other body language, but not to the point where it was detrimental to learning facial expression.
She was not the sole contact with the children. It gets ridiculous to say that they could not learn facial expression from the Teacher rather than the TA.

Damocles
10-31-2006, 07:57 AM
Multiculturalism as long as no veils ???

Veils, as long as they don't interfere with the ability to do the job?

What if a female Muslim fighter pilot wanted to wear a veil?
What if there were a female muslim fighter pilot?

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 08:48 AM
She was not the sole contact with the children. It gets ridiculous to say that they could not learn facial expression from the Teacher rather than the TA.

The TA's role is to provide face to face support with the children...

Ever get the feeling we aren't going to agree on this particular case? :)

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 08:49 AM
What if there were a female muslim fighter pilot?

Who insisted on wearing a veil......

Damocles
10-31-2006, 09:02 AM
She was not the sole contact with the children. It gets ridiculous to say that they could not learn facial expression from the Teacher rather than the TA.

The TA's role is to provide face to face support with the children...

Ever get the feeling we aren't going to agree on this particular case? :)
I'm pretty sure we won't. The thing is though, I really have no strong opinion. I can see both sides and really am not all that upset with either result.

Damocles
10-31-2006, 09:03 AM
What if there were a female muslim fighter pilot?

Who insisted on wearing a veil......

What if there were an Elf who insisted on using bows and arrows?

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 09:35 AM
I'm pretty sure we won't. The thing is though, I really have no strong opinion. I can see both sides and really am not all that upset with either result.

To tell you the truth, I'm losing interest in the subject, as I said yesterday, the religious thing pricked my interest but I was really arguing for the sake of a good argument....

AnyOldIron
10-31-2006, 09:36 AM
What if there were an Elf who insisted on using bows and arrows?

He'd have to join the Royal Elf Corps...