Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peace in our time.

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) writes | more than 2 years ago

Education 4

This has garnered lots of comments along the lines of "Great, now schoolkids in TN can give answers based on Islam / Buddhism / Hinduism / FSMism and get full credit and there's nothing they can do about it! Be careful what you ask for, fundies! Hah hah hah!"

This has garnered lots of comments along the lines of "Great, now schoolkids in TN can give answers based on Islam / Buddhism / Hinduism / FSMism and get full credit and there's nothing they can do about it! Be careful what you ask for, fundies! Hah hah hah!"

It does not work that way. Here's how it will work. Religious answers which will be acceptable, and more generally, religious challenges to school authority which will be acceptable, will be those based in Christianity, specifically fundamentalist Protestantism. And students who profess other beliefs will be even more ostracized than they already are. This is what the sponsors of the bill wish to achieve, and if the bill becomes law and survives the inevitable court challenges, it is what they will achieve. To think anything else is naivete of the highest and most dangerous order

cancel ×

4 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Precedent says otherwise. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39455151)

Your dramatic rhetoric is a bit out of touch with reality. In North Carolina [about.com] , which is equally Bible-belt territory, a school instituted a policy that allowed people to distribute religious texts at the school. And while a round of Bibles went out, it was soon followed by a round of plethora of Pagan/Wiccan literature that caused the school to toss out the policy.

The justice system in the US has quite clearly demonstrated time and time again that no public policy will be allowed to selectively exclude religions. If there is any religion, it must be all religion or no religion. I would be extremely surprised if you could dig up any precedent to the contrary newer than the last three decades.

Re:Precedent says otherwise. (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39533519)

This is a quite different policy Daniel is talking about. It's not about proselytizing or distributing the public school equivalent of Chick tracts, it's about the inclusion of theological discourse as part of the educational process.

So, if the teacher asks the seventh grade class, "Why was the Civil War fought?" and a student answers, "Because God was angry with America for its fornicating ways," it will have to be accepted.

This is from the story in the Tennessee paper:

Under the bill, school districts also would require teachers to treat a student's faith-based answers to school assignments the same as secular answers. But while the bill allows faith-based answers, those responses must be justified like any other student's.

How long before "justified" will mean, "justified in the eyes of God". And, by God as long as it's mainly good God-fearing Christian kids in that class, that justification will be Christian justification to the exclusion of others.

This isn't about outside groups bringing tracts to school and passing them around, this is about making those tracts part of the actual educational process and therefore part of the curriculum.

It's a big difference.

Re:Precedent says otherwise. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590901)

It's not different, and you too speak of exclusion as though it will be allowed, all precedent to the contrary. The point remains that if Johnny can say 'because God...' and be right, Muhammad can say 'because Allah...' and be right. As soon as that happens and gets challenged, the policy will all get tossed out, either by the courts or a school administration's fear of the courts.

My challenge remains unmet, show me a precedent from recent decades that demonstrates that this is anything more than paranoia. This is very well-traveled ground in the courts, but all of it points to a quick overturn, nothing more.

Re:Precedent says otherwise. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39591131)

As soon as that happens and gets challenged, the policy will all get tossed out, either by the courts or a school administration's fear of the courts.

The more I think about it, the more I think you're probably right. As soon as someone steps up and answers a science question, "..because Allah" the whole thing will be tossed out.

Except that the communities where this law will be most applicable don't really cotton to muslims or pagans or pastafarians. These are mainly Christian communities, bible belt, and there will be kids who will figure out pretty quickly that if they didn't study they'll be able to say, "...the orbits of the planets are decided by God's will" or "The War of 1812 started because God was angry at Americans and British for their fornicating ways" and get patted on the head.

I really think the law will get thrown out when parents start to realize that their kids are doing horribly on college admissions exams. But maybe they'll just start pushing for universities to start accepting "...because God..." as correct answers, too.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>