Job Discussion Forums

johnslat · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: My way or the highway

Dear rusmeister,
I suppose, if one tries hard enough, one can find "evidence" of "intolerance" anywhere, even if it's only the "intolerance" against those true believers who KNOW they have found the one and only truth and try to use a public school classroom to promote that specific faith.
But I'd say "intolerance" is a relative term (not an "absolute" one), and that saying the USA is "intolerant" is a lot like a male chauvinist saying the USA is "intolerant" because it allows women a lot more freedom to choose whether to work or to stay at home, when, according to the chauvinist true believer, a woman's place must be strictly in the home.
Actually, I'd call you the "intolerant" one - one who is "intolerant of tolerance."
Regards,
John

arioch36 · Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 3589

Actually, reading further on Rusmeister's musings, I believe I understand his point, and agree with a major point . You are allowed to have your view, but you ae not allowed to say someone else's view is wrong. You are allowed to believe, but not allowed to say the logical conclusion of your beliefs. if I am a public school teacher, and I say homosexuality is wrong, outside the classroom, I can get in trouble (well, at least in New York State, every state and disctrict can be different). Many curriculums force the teacher to teach homosexuality is natural (again, in New York, perhaps the most liberal state) I can remember the contreversy and fight parents had over the books for children that were supposed tom be part of the teaching in New York City about mommy's lesbian friend, etc.
I think though that most Americans have the common sense idea that homosexuality is not something to teach in the classroom, nor is a person's faith, stick to R R and R. And the thread is about the classroom, theoretically. Dogmas don't belong in the classroom. Even religious schools rarely teach dogmas in the classroom/

However, modern day PC "tolerance" often seeks to take the backbone, the heart out of traditional religious beliefs, leaving a watered down meaningless version, propogating the idea that all religions basically tell us the same thing, that we should love each other, etc.
Well, jesus said he was God, and that there was no other way to heaven except through him. Bhuddism (well, there are so many different sects) basically teaches we make our own path to "heaven" by learning to deny our desires. Hinduism, reincarnation. I reminded of a Dire Starits lyric. "two men say they are jesus, one of them must be wrong". But it is not PC to say such and such religion is wrong. But hey, if you are really going to be a practitioner of Hinduism, then christianity is false, and vice versa. Publically saying this in not tolerated, keeping the polite PC fiction that all ways are good ways (which really means if all ways are good ways, then my way is also good for me, so you can criticise me). But there is no light without darkness, and for something to be right, something must also be wrong. But this is not PC

The "scientific community", referring specifically to the evolutionist aprt of a scientific community that is opposed to any who dare question evolutionism, is extremely intolerant. Their refusal to allow basic tenants of evolution to be challenged in the public school system reminds me of how the "christian" element was totally intolerant to even allow the considration of evolution back 100 years ago.

On the other hand, America right now is, I would say, the most tolerant country I can think of in the world when it comes to professing faith in God. In some European countries you would lose your job as leader if you were to say homosexuality is wrong. In America we have our leaders specifically talking about faith,and Hucakabee, a born again Pastor as the number two republican presidential candidate? When it comes to religion, i don't know of another country where faith is more freely talked about.

rusmeister · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia

Mr. Kalgukshi · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:13 am Post subject:

I bring to your attention (again) the following from our Index regarding the General Discussion Forum:

"Non-teaching/job-related postings will be deleted"

The thread is now unlocked. This will be the final opportunity for everyone to post only what relates to teaching/job-related information.

SueH · Joined: 01 Feb 2003 Posts: 1022 Location: Northern Italy

Well, I wasn�t going to bother to post again, but seeing as I�m still up and with no girl-friend on a Valentine�s night I�ll stir the pot again.

Ultimately this how we relate to our students and how we deal with them [hope this is going in the right direction Mr K! ]. I�m not so sure as language teachers we should be presenting any particular world-view, and of course we have to account for local sensibilities, but we can�t be completely self-effacing to the nth degree; a lot of what makes us effective teachers is our personality. Whatever our views though, I don�t think they should affect our relationship with the students. So for example I might have some right-wing, evangelical nutter in my class, but I should relate to him as best I can, give him marks which reflect his abilities, and so forth. As long as they don�t disrupt the class I don�t mind. It can sometimes be difficult to relate equably with individual students: I once had a racist student who was arrogant, disruptive, had poor hygiene and smelt of rancid cabbage, but I can assure you the low marks he got were entirely the result of his additional characteristic of stupidity.

So if someone has a gay couple in their class who have (in the UK anyway) contracted a civil partnership what are you going to do about if you personally don�t agree with such things. Go off on one [such a gloriously expressive British phrase], argue against their status, ignore it, refuse to teach them, what?

There have been some lengthy posts on here which have gone round the houses a bit in a way which is in my opinion vacuous, pseudo-intellectual and self-justifying: others can decide for themselves if they agree (and who the poster(s) are!). I prefer to think of the practical impacts, exactly as in the example given by the OP and mine above.

BobbyBan · Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 201

Sometimes, I think the argument of "traditionalism" vs. "Political correctness" can be summarized as following:

rusmeister · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia

I see no point in participating further here. These issues are 100% related to teaching - they are not tangential at all, but the very motivation out of which teaching springs. Teaching is transmission. WHAT we transmit depends on what we believe. Since (some of us) cannot discuss how our view of truth or lack thereof impacts our teaching, I think any further discussion will be completely superficial, and reflect only one particular ideology.
I'm outta here.