|
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: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
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?
|
Oh, we should dump those too, not too mention pro sports and a lot of other things. Doesn't take away that religion should be dumped and if so, they could afford even better education than what they are giving now. See the Peace Corps, and they are just one of many.
| Quote: |
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.
|
For the great thinkers, all there was for most of history were religious schools. That's like saying most of the great thinkers were men. It's true, only because humans were stupid for most of history and discounted 50% of the population.
There are many non-religious organizations that manage to do it without converting. Peace Corps for example. I won't touch the bolded part with a ten foot pole.
| Quote: |
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.
|
It creates more "religious people" which in turns costs the world more wasted money for starters. Teaching about religion is social science. Preaching religion is anti-education. By the way, beating children is comparable. The effects it has on society when children who are beaten end up violent and in jail, which is what, 250000 a year per inmate. I forget. Beating doesn't get to the heart of the child's problem, and their problem is ignored and they end up useless to society (or in the army). This is completely leaving out any moral factor and using economics to decide this, which isn't right in itself.
| Quote: |
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. |
Wow! So sleeping with whores in Thailand should actually be applauded??? Guys are bringing much needed money (commodity) to these girls who are probably supporting their entire family (are in need). Some guys I met actually think they are doing a good thing, though we all know what their agenda was.
Anyways, religous missionaries' atlernative agenda is education, not preaching. Preaching is their first agenda (check out one of the training camps for missionaries). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
Doesn't take away that religion should be dumped and if so, they could afford even better education than what they are giving now. See the Peace Corps, and they are just one of many. |
I'm familiar with the Peace Corps. I was in the Peace Corps. They are government funded, not truly volunteer. How many people, without a religious agenda, are voluntarily teaching English to those in need? Take away the religious agenda and who is going to fill the gap?
| Quote: |
For the great thinkers, all there was for most of history were religious schools. |
What do you think is the only education available to a lot of people in the world? The Buddhist schools in SE Asia are pretty much the only quality education available. How many kids from poor families in Korea are getting free English lessons from foreign teachers without a religious agenda? In the absence of secular schools, religious schools and teachers have filled a small part of that void.
| Quote: |
There are many non-religious organizations that manage to do it without converting. Peace Corps for example. |
There are probably half the number of English teachers in the Peace Corps, spread across the globe, as there are in Korea alone. And considering that Peace Corps doesn't even go to places like Korea leaves a lot of people without access to the education the need. Do you think that all of the religious organizations, plus all the non-religious organizations have the educational needs of the world met? Of course not. What makes you think pulling out the religious organizations is going to improve that situation?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
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.
|
It creates more "religious people" which in turns costs the world more wasted money for starters. Teaching about religion is social science. Preaching religion is anti-education. By the way, beating children is comparable. The effects it has on society when children who are beaten end up violent and in jail, which is what, 250000 a year per inmate. I forget. Beating doesn't get to the heart of the child's problem, and their problem is ignored and they end up useless to society (or in the army). This is completely leaving out any moral factor and using economics to decide this, which isn't right in itself. |
Yeah, I didn't doubt that beating students was bad. You don't have to sell me on that point. Now where are the costs of religious education? How many religiously educated students end up violent or in jail? How do "religious people" cost the world money?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
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. |
Wow! So sleeping with whores in Thailand should actually be applauded??? |
Dude, where the hell does that come from? That's the non sequitur from space. When and where did I ever advocate that? Besides, how many Mormon missionaries, Buddhist monks, or other religious teachers are sleeping with whores? I'd venture to guess a lot fewer than then teachers who are working for money.
| Quote: |
Anyways, religous missionaries' atlernative agenda is education, not preaching. Preaching is their first agenda (check out one of the training camps for missionaries). |
I'd have to see some proof of that. Back in Chicago, I volunteered for an organization that taught English to immigrants. It was run by some Catholic sisters. At no point was religion ever brought into the picture. Besides, if they are teaching them English (which is a valuable skill) then who cares what their primary motives are. Are you going to fill the void if they pack up and leave?
Given the choices:
1. Education with religious strings attached. Or, as you say, religion, with education strings attached.
or
2. No education at all.
And realistically, that is the only choice for a lot of people. Which do you choose? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Len8
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Location: Kyungju
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Being a Pasteur or Preacher in a Korean church is supposed to be quite prestigious. I met an English teacher who was also a pasteur in the local Church, and he was held in high esteem by the people in the community.
Combining both English teaching and evangelical work can be quite lucrative it seems.
I am at an English camp now, but there is another camp being run simultaneously by a church organization. (paster of the church is the head teracher). There sure are a lot of hotties in attendence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
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. |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
Wow! So sleeping with whores in Thailand should actually be applauded??? Guys are bringing much needed money (commodity) to these girls who are probably supporting their entire family (are in need). Some guys I met actually think they are doing a good thing, though we all know what their agenda was. |
Dude, where the hell does that come from? That's the non sequitur from space. When and where did I ever advocate that? Besides, how many Mormon missionaries, Buddhist monks, or other religious teachers are sleeping with whores? I'd venture to guess a lot fewer than then teachers who are working for money.
|
I was making fun of your statement, and you left out the rest which I thought explained it. My statement is actually the exact same as yours. You just missed it. By your cost-benefit only argument, sleeping with Thai whores and teaching religion with English on the side are no different.
Anyways, I already answered most of your points as my opinion on them are the same as before. But to be honest, I don't want to live in the cost-benefit only decision world you would have this argument create. Executing prisoners is extremely cost-beneficial. Legalizing crank would also be extremely cost-effective. I could go on and on, but us humans have "morals" and we try to live by them. These missionaries are too, but their morals are antiquated and wrong. Converting children before they can choose themselves is wrong. This is my opinion, and we all have our own opinions. But I highly doubt many people, including yourself, would like someone involved in the KKK teaching your children that black people should be sent back to Africa, even if it came with extra benefits. Even worse are the ones who are doing this (and yes there are many) behind the backs of parents, at any normal hagwon or in school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
I was making fun of your statement, and you left out the rest which I thought explained it. My statement is actually the exact same as yours. You just missed it. By your cost-benefit only argument, sleeping with Thai whores and teaching religion with English on the side are no different.
|
Ahh, okay. But your statement is only true if you place the same negative valuation on religion as you place on sleeping with whores. And I guess that's the point we differentiate on. From personal experience, I don't buy the whole brainwashing thing. Nor do I place an inherently negative value on religion. You, on the other hand, seem to view any and all religion in an absolutely negative light. But that's a whole different topic.
| Quote: |
| But to be honest, I don't want to live in the cost-benefit only decision world you would have this argument create. |
Cost-benefit analysis often involves quantifying unquantified outcomes. And obviously that involves some subjectivity. But it can be done. And frequently is. See airport security for one. The devil is in the quantification.
| Quote: |
| Even worse are the ones who are doing this (and yes there are many) behind the backs of parents, at any normal hagwon or in school. |
I agree that trying to push a dogma where it is not appropriate is bad. But we were on the point of a free English lessons v. the religious message attached to it. Ideally, any parent worth having children is going to know what the heck the stranger wanting to talk to their children is talking to them about. And if the parents are okay with the religious content included in the free English lessons (and in a place like Korea, I'm sure there are plenty of parents happy to have a free missionary teacher), then I don't see where anyone else has the right to disparage or denigrate the missionary for spreading education to those in need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Real Reality
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Draven wrote: |
...When Real Reality has been asked to clarify his meaning of missionary, he's said
| Real Reality wrote: |
| They think English should be given away. You are doing good deeds by teaching English for little or no charge. "Education should be free." Whatever you are paid is fine. |
So I'm going to avoid the religious meaning of missionary. But this makes me wonder, do any people like this really exist? People whose goal is to spread English with little regard for their own comfort or financial gain? If they do, they must be independently wealthy, 'cuz while I believe in accessible education, papa still needs a new pair of shoes. Know what I mean? |
They apparently do exist.
How about somone using English education in Korea as pro bono publico (or a service for the public good)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zpeanut
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Location: Pohang, Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't mind a missionary English teacher as long as they kept their religous views out of the classroom. True, all teachers mould their students in some way, but religion is restrictive which is very different to say, freedom of thought and expression.
If they charge peanuts and do it for their own satisfaction, without putting in their two cents about how 'homosexuality is wrong' (or some other religous view..) then that's great!
~
oh yes, I read a previous post about how Mormon teachers end lessons with a chosen teaching, where they also ask parents to join. I would agree that that is bollucks. Korean parents only care about whether their kids are learning English. They have better things to do than sit down and listen to some preaching, especially if they're not religious. If they're a poorer family, they'd be busy working. If a wealthy one, they wouldn't need a free tutor and would probably be active in church anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Teufelswacht wrote: |
Well, since no one else has, I guess I'll volunteer. When I came to Korea in 2000 I had what others would describe as a "missionary" attitude. If asked, I would do things and help others for no charge, just to help them with their English. Some, not all, of the things I did included:
* Judging English speaking contests for a local middle school (x2)
* Constructed an hour long audio tape for a city English contest
* Proofread/Edited academic papers for teachers
* Offered to teach police officers 3x a week in prep for the World Cup
* Taught a 3 hour seminar on pronunciation teaching techniques to 75 Korean English teachers from around the province
Mind you, all of the above was free of charge. I was an idiot (and still am some would say).
Thankfully, all of this changed during the fall and winter of 2002. Watching the anti-American/anti-foreigner orgy unfold in Korea changed my attitude towards providing anything for free. I must admit I did enjoy turning down requests to do things free of charge. I did not hesitate to inform the teachers/college professors/company managers/city officials exactly why I refused to work for free any longer.
The most important lesson I took away from my bout of temporary insanity is that the mindset that providing free services will "get you in good" with the locals or that you can expect some "reciprocity" or the locals will "respect" you is incorrect. Generally speaking, the willingness to spend endless hours helping will not be of benefit to you in any way, shape, or form. You may be led to believe it does, but in the end it definitely does not. You are just another foreign idiot that can be squeezed for freebies. Don't ever fall for the "Oh, we don't have enough money..." line. I can tell you from experience it is absolute crap.
My life changed for the better once I realized that English is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other. I am much happier now that I changed from being a "missionary" to being a "mercenary."
For what it's worth.........
Take care
T |
This is very interesting and warrants repeating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
