Posted on Oct 31, 2014
Former Marine banned from daughter’s school after dispute over Islam lesson
13.9K
116
91
4
3
1
Former Marine banned from daughter’s school after dispute over Islam lesson
I came across a shared link on another social media website earlier that generated a debate on the issue. There were so many people split on the topic so I figured I'd bring it to RallyPoint as well. Read the article and/or watch the video and let me know what you think.
My comment was as follows:
"I read the article and I watched the video. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the assignment. It was a history class. We teach kids about World War II and the Holocaust, that doesn't mean we're trying to breed Nazi children. The fact that the father got banned from the school probably was warranted. You don't get banned from a school for disagreeing with an assignment; you get banned for acting like an ass. And I don't like how media sometimes labels service members (in this case, "Former Marine" in the title) so as to infer they are somehow incapable of being in the wrong. Just because you are/were in the military doesn't mean you can't be ignorant or incompetent. I'm on the school's side on this one."
----
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/30/marine-dad-upset-with-assignment-on-islam-banned-from-daughters-high-school/?intcmp=latestnews
I came across a shared link on another social media website earlier that generated a debate on the issue. There were so many people split on the topic so I figured I'd bring it to RallyPoint as well. Read the article and/or watch the video and let me know what you think.
My comment was as follows:
"I read the article and I watched the video. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the assignment. It was a history class. We teach kids about World War II and the Holocaust, that doesn't mean we're trying to breed Nazi children. The fact that the father got banned from the school probably was warranted. You don't get banned from a school for disagreeing with an assignment; you get banned for acting like an ass. And I don't like how media sometimes labels service members (in this case, "Former Marine" in the title) so as to infer they are somehow incapable of being in the wrong. Just because you are/were in the military doesn't mean you can't be ignorant or incompetent. I'm on the school's side on this one."
----
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/30/marine-dad-upset-with-assignment-on-islam-banned-from-daughters-high-school/?intcmp=latestnews
Schools
Religion
Islam
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 20
10
10
0
"Wood's wife, Melissa, wondered how teaching about one religion is considered a history lesson while teaching about Christianity would be viewed differently."
"We cannot discuss our Ten Commandments in school but they can discuss Islam's Five Pillars?"
And they shouldn't. However, if we can't include every religion, we should include none.
I've tried explaining this concept to the administrators at my own kids' school. You can't keep the door open a crack, may as well open it all the way. Or better yet, close the damn thing while you have the chance.
"We cannot discuss our Ten Commandments in school but they can discuss Islam's Five Pillars?"
And they shouldn't. However, if we can't include every religion, we should include none.
I've tried explaining this concept to the administrators at my own kids' school. You can't keep the door open a crack, may as well open it all the way. Or better yet, close the damn thing while you have the chance.
(10)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Religion is religion, if one isn't allowed, then none should be allowed. Period!!!
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SP5 Michael Rathbun
I believe that the correct attribution is Szygny's Law - "Once you have opened a can of worms you need a bigger can to re-close it." - although I have absolutely no idea who Szygny is/was. (My suspicion is that he/she was a cousin of "Murphy".
I believe that the correct attribution is Szygny's Law - "Once you have opened a can of worms you need a bigger can to re-close it." - although I have absolutely no idea who Szygny is/was. (My suspicion is that he/she was a cousin of "Murphy".
(1)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
COL Ted Mc
I suspect that this is a sufficiently widespread bit of wisdom that dozens if not hundreds of attributions, of variable quality, can be found.
I suspect that this is a sufficiently widespread bit of wisdom that dozens if not hundreds of attributions, of variable quality, can be found.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
SSG Andrew Dydasco, I generally agree with your comment. The guy "got worked up," and that probably means he deserved to be banned.
My one question would be ... Was there a similar assignment for the benefits of Christianity? I don't know, but I'll bet I know the answer: a resounding NO. And that's a problem in my opinion.
My one question would be ... Was there a similar assignment for the benefits of Christianity? I don't know, but I'll bet I know the answer: a resounding NO. And that's a problem in my opinion.
(8)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - I could not find a definition directly from the National Academy of Science (NAS). I did find the following:
"Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science*
__Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
__Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
__Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
__Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
*Adapted from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science by the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998).
It seems to me that in this explanation the NAS wants it both ways. They call evolution a theory but by their definition a theory must "... incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and TESTED (my emphasis) hypotheses." This explanation does not say OR testing. What testing has been done to verify the theory of evolution?
Even though the definitions of esoteric terms has dominated the words in our present discourse, the above semantic discussion is still nothing more than a side show. The central question is can/should the state set itself up as a certifying authority on the veracity of a religion. I hold that it cannot/should not, either by direct statement, implication, inference or binary choice. If it can/should, then should a school district/system become dominated by literal biblical fundamentalist would the minority have to live with the new "certifications"?
"Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science*
__Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
__Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
__Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
__Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
*Adapted from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science by the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998).
It seems to me that in this explanation the NAS wants it both ways. They call evolution a theory but by their definition a theory must "... incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and TESTED (my emphasis) hypotheses." This explanation does not say OR testing. What testing has been done to verify the theory of evolution?
Even though the definitions of esoteric terms has dominated the words in our present discourse, the above semantic discussion is still nothing more than a side show. The central question is can/should the state set itself up as a certifying authority on the veracity of a religion. I hold that it cannot/should not, either by direct statement, implication, inference or binary choice. If it can/should, then should a school district/system become dominated by literal biblical fundamentalist would the minority have to live with the new "certifications"?
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - If I may, let me try to make my position on the theory of Evolution as clear as I can.
__I BELIEVE in the theory evolution.
__I BELIEVE the theory of evolution should be taught in public school.
__I DO NOT BELIEVE the theory evolution is beyond question or examination.
__I DO NOT BELIEVE that the theory of evolution conflicts with my understanding of Divine Creation.
__I DO NOT BELIEVE the full force of the scientific method has been applied to the theory of evolution, nor do I believe that is possible to do so. To my understanding, the scientific method includes experimentation (the test) with identification of the independent and dependent variables, and controlled manipulation of variables, with experimentally consistently reproducible results. This is one of the reasons that macro theories like evolution and global climate change can be so controversial. How do you experimentally test a macro theory? I breed for certain characteristics in my livestock. I understand that selective breeding to a large degree supports natural selection as a evolutionary force. But I cannot in my lifetime hope to create a flying goats through selective breeding. I'm not saying it isn't possible to eventually create a flying goat, but I suspect the government grant would run out or I'd be on display next to the shrimp on a treadmill (which actually had a valid and economically meaningful scientific purpose).
I hesitate to include the above. It has not been my intent to discuss the theory of evolution. That has been a distraction. I am not attacking the Theory of Evolution. I am questioning any agent of the state that treads on turf (a child's religious instruction) that does not belong to them.
It is all well and good for you to tell people to take their kids out of school if they do not approve of the curriculum. Private school tuition is not a financially viable option for most. And the state will not return the funds it takes to pay for a curriculum parents find unacceptable.
I did remove my kids from public school for a year. Convinced enough parents to do the same so that the school board issued corrective instructions to the principal and teacher in question. It had nothing to do with anti-theist teachings, and everything to do with instruction in: anti-capitalist theory, eco-terrorism social activism, and defiance of parental authority.
__I BELIEVE in the theory evolution.
__I BELIEVE the theory of evolution should be taught in public school.
__I DO NOT BELIEVE the theory evolution is beyond question or examination.
__I DO NOT BELIEVE that the theory of evolution conflicts with my understanding of Divine Creation.
__I DO NOT BELIEVE the full force of the scientific method has been applied to the theory of evolution, nor do I believe that is possible to do so. To my understanding, the scientific method includes experimentation (the test) with identification of the independent and dependent variables, and controlled manipulation of variables, with experimentally consistently reproducible results. This is one of the reasons that macro theories like evolution and global climate change can be so controversial. How do you experimentally test a macro theory? I breed for certain characteristics in my livestock. I understand that selective breeding to a large degree supports natural selection as a evolutionary force. But I cannot in my lifetime hope to create a flying goats through selective breeding. I'm not saying it isn't possible to eventually create a flying goat, but I suspect the government grant would run out or I'd be on display next to the shrimp on a treadmill (which actually had a valid and economically meaningful scientific purpose).
I hesitate to include the above. It has not been my intent to discuss the theory of evolution. That has been a distraction. I am not attacking the Theory of Evolution. I am questioning any agent of the state that treads on turf (a child's religious instruction) that does not belong to them.
It is all well and good for you to tell people to take their kids out of school if they do not approve of the curriculum. Private school tuition is not a financially viable option for most. And the state will not return the funds it takes to pay for a curriculum parents find unacceptable.
I did remove my kids from public school for a year. Convinced enough parents to do the same so that the school board issued corrective instructions to the principal and teacher in question. It had nothing to do with anti-theist teachings, and everything to do with instruction in: anti-capitalist theory, eco-terrorism social activism, and defiance of parental authority.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
We can't fly off the handle every time "school" and buzz words like "Islam", "Nazi", etc. are used in the same sentence. I believe a well rounded education should expose our children to many different cultures, beliefs and facts to allow them to explore and learn.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google