|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| MorgolKing wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| EdInstead wrote: |
| kiwiboy_nz_99 wrote: |
| They are a cancer on the bowels of any society which they infest ... |
An old, yet interesting comment from this bloke.
Tell me what's more of a cancer on the bowels of society:
A mormon missionary giving English lessons for free, and trying to spread his/her version of religion along the way, or a teacher fired for coming on to his university students?
Some people just can't handle anyone else doing something that makes them think about how truly empty, selfish, and devoid of purpose their lives are. |
Really, the answer to your question is both are bad, doesn't matter which is worse. Most teachers don't even teach university, so that example is extreme, not to mention, unlike the missionaries who tend to target little, naive children to spread their 2000 year old silly superstitions, the university profs are atleast screwing around with adults who can make their own decisions (though both are bad). Your example sucks, both are unprofessional and bad.
By the way, I have always wondered how it is the non-Christians who are devoid of purpose and empty. They don't need to follow some 2000 year old story book and fill whatever empty hole they have with a mythical God. |
I can't say for all missionaries, but Mormon missionaries are not allowed to meet with children unless they have expressed consent by their parents. Their english program works like this: They teach english to the someone, usually to someone's kids, and then share the religious message they want to share. During the religious portion the parents are asked to sit in. This is because they're not trying to "brain wash" little kids but share their message with those who can make decisions for themselves. That's important b/c Mormon missionaries are instructed to "share" (most people only know stereotypes and misinformation about Mormons) their message with others and "invite" those who learn about the Church to join. If they don't want to join--no problem, they go on to someone else to share and invite. I don't think there's a lot of brainwashing, bigotry, etc going on there. |
My only guess is it has been hidden from you because you are quite wrong. Or maybe I have just seen the underworld of Mormon missionaries. Either way, while you might be right about some, to say all, or even most is wrong. Most missionaries (and Mormon ones too) do not work like that. I know this for a fact, no guessing on my part. Second, I don't even get that, with the parents there. There are many problems with this too. By the way, do they offer these free lessons to already converted Mormons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MorgolKing wrote: |
| alinkorea wrote: |
My pet hate: missionary christians. The underlying purpose of their work, be they missionary teachers or whatever, is to spread 'the word.'
If they teach children it's wrong of them to attempt to push their ideology onto kids. If adults, then pure arrogance.
Why oh why, can't they just leave the world in peace. I'm certain in thousands of years time, when people look back upon christianity they'll view it the same way we now view people who once worshipped the sun. Absurd |
sorry you feel that way |
Why do you feel sorry about that? There is nothing insulting in there, just an opinion. Anyways, religion is dying, as is Christianity, and in 2000 years people will look at Christianity pretty much the same way we view the Roman and Greek Gods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Speaking of Romans I still think their use of lions was basically a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MorgolKing
Joined: 18 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| MorgolKing wrote: |
| alinkorea wrote: |
My pet hate: missionary christians. The underlying purpose of their work, be they missionary teachers or whatever, is to spread 'the word.'
If they teach children it's wrong of them to attempt to push their ideology onto kids. If adults, then pure arrogance.
Why oh why, can't they just leave the world in peace. I'm certain in thousands of years time, when people look back upon christianity they'll view it the same way we now view people who once worshipped the sun. Absurd |
sorry you feel that way |
Why do you feel sorry about that? There is nothing insulting in there, just an opinion. Anyways, religion is dying, as is Christianity, and in 2000 years people will look at Christianity pretty much the same way we view the Roman and Greek Gods. |
I agree that you can't judge people as a group. You have to take people on person at a time...that's why I feel sorry about the statements made earlier. Anyways everyone's entitled to their own opinions about this, I just gave my two cents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Through out much of history, education has been based upon religion. Even today, the best education available in some countries is religious based. Why do you think there are so many young monks in SE Asia? So to complain about religion in education is to dismiss the history and influence of religion on education.
On an micro level, should those who are unable to afford a secular education be denied the opportunity to learn? Most religions are quite socialistic, and provide the best and most available means for the poor to gain education. Both historically as well as currently. Unless someone else is providing a free secular education, what other choices are there? And to complain about the situation, without providing a replacement, smacks of elitism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
Through out much of history, education has been based upon religion. Even today, the best education available in some countries is religious based. Why do you think there are so many young monks in SE Asia? So to complain about religion in education is to dismiss the history and influence of religion on education.
On an micro level, should those who are unable to afford a secular education be denied the opportunity to learn? Most religions are quite socialistic, and provide the best and most available means for the poor to gain education. Both historically as well as currently. Unless someone else is providing a free secular education, what other choices are there? And to complain about the situation, without providing a replacement, smacks of elitism. |
Tell you what, dump religion, use even 20% of the money wasted on it, and bam, good schools all over the place.
Just because something has been done forever doesn't mean it's right. Teachers hit students all through out history, luckily, atleast in my opinion, that is not true anymore. (see bold for this next part) I have no idea why complaining about people preaching instead of educating (or after) is dismissing the history or influence of religion on education. Do you mind explaining how complaining about something and wanting it to change dismisses what was done. I don't dismiss the fact that teachers used to beat the crap out of students with big sticks 100 years ago, and smacked them around even 30 years ago by saying it's bad and shouldn't be done  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
Through out much of history, education has been based upon religion. Even today, the best education available in some countries is religious based. Why do you think there are so many young monks in SE Asia? So to complain about religion in education is to dismiss the history and influence of religion on education.
On an micro level, should those who are unable to afford a secular education be denied the opportunity to learn? Most religions are quite socialistic, and provide the best and most available means for the poor to gain education. Both historically as well as currently. Unless someone else is providing a free secular education, what other choices are there? And to complain about the situation, without providing a replacement, smacks of elitism. |
Tell you what, dump religion, use even 20% of the money wasted on it, and bam, good schools all over the place. |
In an ideal world, sure. But realistically, how many people are giving free English lessons or donating money to English schools without a religious agenda? When it comes to volunteering here, almost everyone here scoffs at the idea. Without these "missionary teachers" who do you expect to teach those who can't afford it? Or to go places where good schools can't be found? Furthermore, why not just dump gambling, prosititution, drinking, cigarettes, and all other drugs and give 20% of the money wasted on them to schools?
| Quote: |
Just because something has been done forever doesn't mean it's right. Teachers hit students all through out history, luckily, atleast in my opinion, that is not true anymore. (see bold for this next part) I have no idea why complaining about people preaching instead of educating (or after) is dismissing the history or influence of religion on education. Do you mind explaining how complaining about something and wanting it to change dismisses what was done. |
It's ignoring the benefits that religious based education has played. Both historically and currently. How many great thinkers and leaders were educated in religious schools (when no other alternative was available)? Too many too count. How many poor children have learned / are learning to read and write via religious based education (where no other alternative is available)? Again, too many to count. And what's the down side? Some children are "brainwashed" and indoctrinated into religious beliefs. But those children probably aren't the ones who would have been great thinkers, regardless of the religious content. No loss there, as I see it. Meanwhile, they've benefited from the education and can be more productive members of society. Cost-benefits. You can't ignore one side of the equation.
| Quote: |
| I don't dismiss the fact that teachers used to beat the crap out of students with big sticks 100 years ago, and smacked them around even 30 years ago by saying it's bad and shouldn't be done |
Again, cost-benefits. If you're going to compare religious based education with something like beating, you're going to have to show a similar cost-benefit association. i.e. beating is harmful to the students with very little benefit. With that, I agree. Religious education, on the other hand, may have some harmful effects, but also has the benefit of providing education to those who would not otherwise have access to it. Unless you can show that the harm of religious based education outweighs the benefits, the two are not comparable.
Education is a commodity. Teachers deserve to be paid, and schools deserve to make money. That people are willing to bring that commodity to those in need, even with an alternative agenda attached, should not be condemned. In fact, as educators and humans, we should applaud them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: |
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
