academic freedom Darwinist rhetorical tactics Education Media News Politics/policy and origins issues Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

Grade VII classroom, TX: Is God real — fact, opinion, myth, common (but questionable ) view

Spread the love

Here (make sure to watch the embedded Fox26 video which I doubt I can embed at UD).

God_myth_sch_test

Is it reasonable to be putting such a question to 12 year old students in class? (And if you think this was just one teacher, note how it came up the next day in other classes and in multiple classes on the day in question; somebody with responsibility wrote this into a curriculum with intent to create the view that per critical thinking, belief in God is little more than a widely believed, religiously backed [itself a loaded issue] questionable opinion with little warrant.)

Is the view that God is real merely a religious belief with no serious weight of evidence or argument?

What are the implications, given the close link between God and grounding of morality? END

PS: A Straight Thinking 101 short presentation, and a guide to straight vs spin.

PPS: As there is dismissive commentary, I now add a screen shot from 1:47 in the Fox26 news item which confirms the nature of the assignment and that it was expected to be scored, note also the general content of the chained news clips:

Fox26_God_myth_20pts

49 Replies to “Grade VII classroom, TX: Is God real — fact, opinion, myth, common (but questionable ) view

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Mung says:

    fact : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

    Obviously, God is a fact.

    A teacher who has no idea of what a fact is has no business teaching.

  3. 3
    ppolish says:

    Fact, duh. Mountains of evidence. Mountains of religions.

  4. 4
    LarTanner says:

    Considering that Fox and WND are some of the sources of information, it’s worthwhile to see if there is more to the story.

    See Snopes.com:

    By the time the Katy controversy reached Fox News viewers on 28 October 2015, the district had already provided additional detail on the dispute that strongly contradicted Fox’s subsequent on-air assertions. Between the above-reproduced image of the assignment (shared on 27 October 2015 by KHOU) and the district’s statement, it appeared clear students were simply asked to properly identify faith as an opinion or assertion (not fact), and pupils were never encouraged by a (Christian) teacher to deny the existence of God. Nevertheless, the Katy Independent School District revised the lesson and implied the teacher had been reprimanded over the misrepresented controversy.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    LT, did you view the video clips, especially the Fox26 which has direct evidence that is not in the major mainstream sources and is evidently not in Snopes? Where in the very first line of the OP, next to the link in the first word I wrote: “make sure to watch the embedded Fox26 video which I doubt I can embed at UD.” I particularly note that the local news is showing that the young miss’ testimony is backed by other families not willing to stand up publicly but willing to tell local journalists they trust. Besides, the direct issue is undeniable, a test that by virtue of the use in multiple classes and by at least two teachers and the admitted intervention at Board level was not an idiosyncrasy. There is no doubt that an utterly inappropriate question, loaded with agendas, was written into a curriculum and used on 12 year old kids, in a context where the section in question has, 20 points. A sign that this was in fact intended to be graded, which is a specific point other families support. Further to this, the reality of God can in fact be substantiated as a well grounded worldview level fact not opinion or popular but dubious religious sentiment, at multiple levels and in multiple ways; just, not in the reach of typical 12 year olds or even 17 year olds. Substantiated to moral certainty, but the case would never be allowed in today’s radicalised classrooms. Which is the context to be discussed. Your attempt to divert and to taint is duly noted. KF

  6. 6
    LarTanner says:

    I’m glad you enjoyed the additional information.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    LT, you obviously have not checked the LOCAL source. E.g. have you seen the clip that shows the 20 points and informs as to answer to that being pointed out? Where also it is plain that no it was not a little counselling session, as part of a critical thinking unit in reading, students were asked and evidently publicly challenged to evaluate the claim that God is real as a part of a critical thinking assignment where the “correct” answer evidently was , ill grounded popular sentiment. Which was patently out of order on several levels, even before the particularly abusive manipulative classroom “values clarification like” techniques are brought to bear. But even that is secondary, the main and telling issue is that at some curriculum level such a question was set into the unit and pushed into schools, a flag that points to what is wrong. With of course the underlying issue there, that the reality of God is in fact quite evident and is defensible at serious level, it is not mere dismissible ill-grounded popular sentiment. KF

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    PPolish, on evidence you may want to actually start, here on. But thst is just for the worldview level issues. In fact the key way people know that God is real is by experience of him in life changing encounter. By the millions, for thousands of years. KF

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I have added a clip from 1:47 in the first Fox26 clip, substantiating the context. KF

  10. 10
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Seems like it would be helpful to know how the materials define a “commonplace assertion.” Perhaps even prior to clutching the pearls.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, If you had consulted the linked materials, you would have seen that a commonplace assertion is widely believed at popular level but very open to doubt, indeed the student’s one word summing up was “myth.” In other words, popular notion as opposed to well substantiated fact or seriously tenable view or opinion. KF

  12. 12
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Sorry, what linked materials? You’ve got several links up there, but none of them seem to go to the school’s materials. I note that other students apparently did not corroborate the assertion that the school called God a “myth.” I’m curious whether the actual materials used in this lesson do. I’m curious that you’re not curious about these facts. Perhaps they would be inconvenient?

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Related Definition:

    http://www.criticalthinking.or.....-terms/496

    >>cultural assumption: Unassessed (often implicit) belief adopted by virtue of upbringing in a society. Raised in a society, we unconsciously take on its point of view, values, beliefs, and practices. At the root of each of these are many kinds of assumptions. Not knowing that we perceive, conceive, think, and experience within assumptions we have taken in, we take ourselves to be perceiving “things as they are,” not “things as they appear from a cultural vantage point”. Becoming aware of our cultural assumptions so that we might critically examine them is a crucial dimension of critical thinking. It is, however, a dimension almost totally absent from schooling. Lip service to this ideal is common enough; a realistic emphasis is virtually unheard of. See ethnocentricity, prejudice, social contradiction.>>

    >>ethnocentricity: A tendency to view one’s own race or culture as central, based on the deep-seated belief that one’s own group is superior to all others. Ethnocentrism is a form of egocentrism extended from the self to the group. Much uncritical or selfish critical thinking is either egocentric or ethnocentric in nature. (Ethnocentrism and sociocentrism are often used synonymously, though sociocentricity is broader, relating to any group, including, for example, sociocentricity regarding one’s profession.) The “cure” for ethnocentrism or sociocentrism is empathic thought within the perspective of opposing groups and cultures. Such empathic thought is rarely cultivated in the societies and schools of today. Instead, many people develop an empty rhetoric of tolerance, saying that others have different beliefs and ways, but without seriously considering those beliefs and ways, what they mean to those others, and their reasons for maintaining them.>>

    >>faith:

    1) Unquestioning belief in anything.

    2) Confidence, trust, or reliance. A critical thinker does not accept faith in the first sense, for every belief is reached on the basis of some thinking, which may or may not be justified. Even in religion one believes in one religion rather than another, and in doing so implies that there are good reasons for accepting one rather than another. A Christian, for example, believes that there are good reasons for not being an atheist, and Christians often attempt to persuade non-Christians to change their beliefs. In some sense, then, everyone has confidence in the capacity of his or her own mind to judge rightly on the basis of good reasons, and does not believe simply on the basis of blind faith.>>

    >>prejudice: A judgment, belief, opinion, point of view — favorable or unfavorable — formed before the facts are known, resistant to evidence and reason, or in disregard of facts which contradict it. Self-announced prejudice is rare. Prejudice almost always exists in obscured, rationalized, socially validated, functional forms. It enables people to sleep peacefully at night even while flagrantly abusing the rights of others. It enables people to get more of what they want, or to get it more easily. It is often sanctioned with a superabundance of pomp and self-righteousness.

    Unless we recognize these powerful tendencies toward selfish thought in our social institutions, even in what appear to be lofty actions and moralistic rhetoric, we will not face squarely the problem of prejudice in human thought and action. Uncritical and selfishly critical thought are often prejudiced.

    Most instruction in schools today, because students do not think their way to what they accept as true, tends to give students prejudices rather than knowledge. For example, partly as a result of schooling, people often accept as authorities those who liberally sprinkle their statements with numbers and intellectual-sounding language, however irrational or unjust their positions. This prejudice toward psuedo-authority impedes rational assessment. See insight, knowledge.>>

    >>social contradiction: An inconsistency between what a society preaches and what it practices. In every society there is some degree of inconsistency between its image of itself and its actual character. Social contradiction typically correlates with human self-deception on the social or cultural level. Critical thinking is essential for the recognition of inconsistencies, and recognition is essential for reform and eventual integrity.>>

    In short the term or its near equivalents is utterly loaded and dismissive.

    Something is very wrong here, and the adroit side stepping at Board and US National media levels trips warning flags.

    KF

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, There are live videotapes and there are clips of materials fully sufficient to warrant my core concern on what was going on with this curriculum, and to strongly suggest that this young Miss despite the dismissals spoke the truth. The smoking gun on the matter was the clip in which we see the 20 point value and hear a question to the educators in panel that they had no answer to. It is more than enough to warrant that there was a lot of after the fact administrative back pedalling after in several classes students stood up on the point. This young miss is only the one willing to go on public record, and there is here clear evidence that the local media have evidence that is not making it through the national media story editors. KF

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Observe, the absence of take-up on the worldview question and agenda at the core of this story. KF

  16. 16
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    I was too busy observing the absence of take-up on the accuracy question and agenda at the core of this story. To wit, is this story true? This, apparently, is not relevant to the question of how outraged we should be about it: the acceptable choices are Very Outraged and Nuclear Tripwire Tripped Outraged.

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    Pro Hac Vice let us assume for the sake of argument that the factual core of KF’s post is correct: A public school in Texas attempted to coerce a student regarding a matter of religious belief.

    Now, answer your own question. How outraged should we be:
    1. Not outraged at all.
    2. A little outraged.
    3. Moderately outraged.
    4. Very outraged.
    5. Nuclear Tripwire Tripped Outraged

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, The central fact is that a critical thinking curriculum is being manipulated to make believing in the reality of God out to be a popular, ill-informed, prejudice based notion, under false colours of education. Notice, the vid clips show that several classes and at least two teachers are involved and are using the same questions which are being addressed at District Sup level, this is the first accuracy issue that you failed to deal with. Second, we have two document screen shots of it looks like this young Miss’ work paper showing the key curricular facts. This miss and others were subjected to indefensible educational abuse, just by that context. The 20 points snapshot lends credence to her claim and that reported of other families, that it was communicated that grades were seriously on the line on a matter where for one who takes the 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection seriously, “if one is ashamed to confess me before men, I will be ashamed to confess you before My Father.” The inability of the Principal, on tape, to answer as to why the section was set up: 20 points, is telling. Likewise, it is highly suspicious that the Supt by his admission spoke to no parents, unlike the reporters and that while the principal reports speaking to one other parent, she is unable to do more than blandly say no this was not for grades. The young miss further reports arguments, a girl slamming books on her desk, another girl going home in tears for being multiply crossed out for saying God is factually real, finding herself pounced on socially, and more. With reporters saying multiple parents back up the accuracy of the complaint. The message is, in the name of critical thinking so called, a highly dubious ideological agenda is being subtly and dishonestly imposed. That, in a context where real evidence and substantial argument that would readily demonstrate that the reality of God is at minimum a serious and responsible worldview alternative, by the impact of much the same forces is censored out and would likely be targetted for legal action. So, yes, this is a red warning flag issue, and the way it is being played at national level further underscores the lack of genuine credibility of the national media on anything more involved than sports scores or the like. KF

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, recall how not so long ago when an Islamic student brought what seemed to be a repackaged Micronta digital chip clock in a pencil case — much in appearance like the timing ckt for a bomb, and it hit the media it became a matter for not only media but US presidential opinion and attention on alleged anti religious and racially tinged bias. With scholarship offers. And now it looks like a US15mn lawsuit. It is the divergent approaches that are ever so diagnostic here. KF

  20. 20
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Pro Hac Vice let us assume for the sake of argument that the factual core of KF’s post is correct: A public school in Texas attempted to coerce a student regarding a matter of religious belief.

    That would be outrageous. (How outrageous exactly would depend on the circumstances, which are ambiguous–both in the hypo and in the news reporting KF cites.) It would be totally inappropriate for a school to tell a child that God is a myth. Is that what happened here? Should we expend any effort on that question?

  21. 21
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    PHV, The central fact is that a critical thinking curriculum is being manipulated to make believing in the reality of God out to be a popular, ill-informed, prejudice based notion, under false colours of education.

    Is that what’s happening? It seems to me that having basic facts at hand—like what “commonplace assertion” means in this assignment—would be useful in determining whether that’s the case here.

    Perhaps I could just ask, what facts do you think you would need to pass judgment here? Or do you think you have enough right now?

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, all that you are showing (inadvertently) to one and all is that you have not actually taken time to look at the videos of the sessions and relevant evidence as cited above, which comes from the district — there is a tape of the Miss’ five minute testimony and thee are snippets of questions — as well as from interviews with the Miss and her mom as well as the news reporter’s own summary on her investigations. If you are so unable to engage with facts that are mere clicks away, what does that say about weightier matters? KF

  23. 23
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    I have watched the videos. They have as much information as one would expect snippets of sensationalist reporting to contain–very little. They do not explain what the terms in the assignment mean, nor do they address conflicting reports that other students in the class failed to corroborate “the Miss'” version of events. They also don’t address why a Christian teacher would be telling her kids that God is a myth, or why the Katy school district of all places would devise such a scheme. (As a onetime Houstonian, I cannot overemphasize how conservative Katy is.)

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, Above, you had a summary from video as to the meaning of a key term backed up by contextual info from critical thinking dot org’s glossary. It is instantly apparent that the curricular term is an adaptation and simplification for students of cultural assumptions/assertions akin to prejudices and ethnocentrism. Again, you failed to adequately interact with cogent answers readily accessible to you. Further to this when curricular materials are presented, on report appear in multiple classes and are addressed at District level, they are not teacher prepped materials, they are prepared curricula. The next level of investigation should be following up on that curriculum and those responsible for it. KF

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, If you cannot glean the relevant facts from the 5 minute testimony, the clipped documents and the interaction of sources in the four videos I am indicating but choose to shoot off loaded terms to dismiss, that speaks volumes. KF

    PS: Given that “Christian” has a wide range of meanings these days depending on who is speaking, and given a major movement known as modernism or liberal theology, also the known impact of professional induction exercises, it is no surprise at all for me to find a teacher professing Christianity but being confused enough to categorise the reality of God as in effect popular but poorly substantiated opinion. Especially if said tutor has not been equipped to answer adequately as to the reason for the core credibility of Christian faith and/or has been indoctrinated with widely held dismissive notions about general worldview level evidence and arguments on God’s reality. Cf here, the poorly instructed high estimation often given to arguments of sophomoric character in Dawkins’ The God Delusion about a decade past.

  26. 26
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    KF, I have a lot of irrelevant material “above.” When you drop in large blocks of text from criticalthinking.org, is that the source of the assignment and its definitions? That’s a useful thing to establish, and I apologize if you’ve done that and I missed it. I did assume, that when you started defining terms like “ethnocentricity,” you were going off on a wild tangent.

  27. 27
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    PHV, If you cannot glean the relevant facts from the 5 minute testimony, the clipped documents and the interaction of sources in the four videos I am indicating but choose to shoot off loaded terms to dismiss, that speaks volumes.

    Perhaps you can help me. What words did the teacher use? How do the materials define “commonplace assertion”? If you can glean those facts from the videos, you’re a better gleaner than I.

    In the absence of such information, perhaps–just perhaps!–you’re jumping to conclusions.

    If you had to rate the odds that your understanding of the facts is inaccurate or incomplete, what would you say they are?

  28. 28
  29. 29
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    I don’t think Dawkins, Lennox, or Plantinga can fill us in on the missing facts here.

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, You have the duty of care to correlate the relevant materials, and pretending that my summaries above and linked do not exist or are dubious does not answer to the core matter of a curriculum agenda as substantiated through document shots. Nor, to the substance of the incident as can be gleaned from multiple interacting sources that support what this Miss has said. As was pointed out the Principal was unable to answer to the 20 points, having spojen with the teacher and one parent in her investigation which has evidently been treated as definitive. That is the smoking gun. KF

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, Dawkins, Lennox and Plantinga give us a first exposure on the issue of dismissing the reality of God as a popular but poorly grounded notion, which is at the centre of the matter. KF

  32. 32
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    PHV, You have the duty of care to correlate the relevant materials, and pretending that my summaries above and linked do not exist or are dubious does not answer to the core matter of a curriculum agenda as substantiated through document shots.

    In other words, you do not have the facts but would like to substitute a relatively modest amount of table-pounding in their place. The “document shots” use terms that aren’t defined. How do we know how they were used? Look at this how this other website defines this other term! That is not a very good basis for assuming accurate knowledge of the facts.

    Nor, to the substance of the incident as can be gleaned from multiple interacting sources that support what this Miss has said.

    But there are other sources that don’t support what she said–such as reports that the ISD interviewed other students, who did not corroborate her version of events. Shall we acknowledge that fact, and the resulting limitations on our knowledge of these events? Or shall we instead pound the table and bellow about assumptions, while ignoring the fact that they’re assumptions?

  33. 33
    Barry Arrington says:

    Well, at least PHV admits that coercing a public school student regarding a matter of religious belief is outrageous.

  34. 34
    LarTanner says:

    Religious belief has no place in a public school.

  35. 35
    mike1962 says:

    LarTanner: Religious belief has no place in a public school.

    What about anti-religious belief?

  36. 36
    LarTanner says:

    Nope, no place for anti-religious belief either.

  37. 37
    Jack Jones says:

    @34 “Religious belief has no place in a public school.”

    Oh, I don’t see why they shouldn’t teach Darwinism in R.E classes.

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    LT, meanwhile, the evident fact is right there in black and white of coercion to in the name of critical thinking dismiss the acknowledgement of the reality of God as a popular but ill supported notion. While backed up by activists and lawsuits, the provision of evidence that would at minimum warrant accepting God as a serious and defensible worldview is studiously locked out. We were not born yesterday, the only acceptable option on that Assignment 9 would be at most, popular, dubious notion. Backed up by something very ugly. No wonder this case trips a red warning flag about what is going on. KF

  39. 39
    mike1962 says:

    LarTanner: Nope, no place for anti-religious belief either.

    Fair enough. So, by “no place”, do you mean students should be forbidden to have private conversations among themselves about their views on religion?

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    PHV, turnabout projection on your part to dismiss inconvenient truth. I did my homework, watched, read, correlated, clipped, linked. The core issue is this is an obvious, district level curriculum that is giving Assignment 9 with a section 20 points, Q2, evaluate the reality of God as to fact, opinion, popular but dubious notion, with clear evidence the official position for marks is dubious popular notion. Reports indicate multiple arguments with 12 yo students. One stands up to publicly complain, is backed up as being accurate by parents of her peers. Officials cut off follow up questions while she is there on procedural excuse. Officials cannot answer as to the gap between the official line it’s not for marks and the black and white 20 points, Assignment 9 was it Part A. Sup speaks to no-one, Princ to just one other parent. This is obvious back-pedalling and damage control. That last is my assessment as one experienced with education administration and as having seen a cover up or two. The rest comes from readily confirmed evidence that is not in serious doubt. That you react like this to facts readily accessible to you speaks volumes. KF

  41. 41
    Robert Byers says:

    Its okay to ask or present this question. As long as thery ask IS EVOLUTION true?is gay marriage moral or legal relative to a free and moral people?
    And so on. 12 year olds are smart enough.
    Creationists should be the leaders in free thought and expression in schools and life.
    YES the bad guys ban creationism and push atheism etc etc .
    so the people must take back who decides and then deciode on freedom.
    it would make everyone smarter and more interesting and maybe push kids into subjects beyond their demographics.

  42. 42
    joehalfgallon says:

    KF, I think all that PHV is saying is that you may be jumping to conclusions. And I have to agree. You may be correct, but I just don’t see enough evidence.

    I don’t think that anyone is saying that it is OK for a school to coerce kids into thinking that God is a myth. It is not. And I say this as an atheist. But are you also willing to step out onto that branch and state that it is also wrong for a school to coerce kids into thinking that God is a fact?

  43. 43
    Jack Jones says:

    @42 joehalfgallon aka brian douglas aka pro hac vice aka William Spearshake etc says ” I think all that PHV is saying is that you may be jumping to conclusions”

    Why are you talking about one of your sock accounts as a different person?

    “I don’t think”

    You clearly don’t. The rest of your post shows that you have not followed what KF posted.

    You really are stupid William.

  44. 44
    joehalfgallon says:

    Joe: “You clearly don’t [think]. The rest of your post shows that you have not followed what KF posted.

    You really are stupid William.”

    Again, thank you for the kind words. They contribute so much to the discussion. We will talk again when you grow up.

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    JJ:

    The possibility of a cast of sock puppets emanating from the circle of hate sites that tries to surround and denigrate UD was clear from long since. That itself speaks volumes.

    Never mind, this is just a beginning, and the answer to insistent darkness is to shine the light of truth.

    You will notice that never once have the objectors taken up the worldview foundation challenge laid down in the OP and in comment no 1. That itself speaks volumes on what they have no answer to and can only seek to distract from and poison the atmosphere.

    In this case, I believe it is well within the reach of an intelligent twelve year old to quote a US founding document to expose what is at stake here and dispel the notion that belief in God is merely a suspect, inconsequential and ill-founded popular notion that can be locked out of the class room.

    I of course speak of the US DoI, 1776 — and dare these who shoot from the shadows to ban the foundation document and charter of modern liberty and constitutional democracy:

    When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .

    There are self evident, morally freighted great truths, and the foundations of rights, legitimate and accountable statehood and the civil peace of justice in the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our nature is precisely a cluster of such truths.

    Those who sought to slyly overthrow such under false colours of critical thinking and discrediting one who dares to object, thereby reveal that they cling to absurdities and are in fact in the lists as enemies of the civil peace of justice.

    KF

  46. 46
    joehalfgallon says:

    KF: “The possibility of a cast of sock puppets emanating from the circle of hate sites that tries to surround and denigrate UD was clear from long since. That itself speaks volumes.”

    KF, if you are going to make an accusation about my identity, or PHV’s or William Spearshake’s, or Brian Douglas’, then do so. I can’t speak for the identify of any of the others, but if you are stating that I am a Sockpuppet of any of them then I have no problem calling you a liar.

    Either make the claim or apologize. If I have said anything that offends you, or you disagree with, point it out and explain why. Inferring things like this without any supporting evidence is the act of a coward. I expect that sort of behaviour from JJ and Joe, but I thought better of you. Maybe I was wrong.

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    JHG,

    it is quite obvious that your anonymous identity is associated with the current wave of “we have to swarm UD again,” emanating from the broader membership of a circle that so ostentatiously walked away in a huff a few months ago.

    You patently have had little of any merit to say, and need to pull up your socks or else will be called what you increasingly manifestly are, a SJW style sock puppet and evolutionary materialist scientism and/or fellow traveller troll playing at cultural marxist front group agit prop games using drearily familiar tactics: red herrings dragged across the track of inconvenient truth and led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere.

    Such generally distract, distort, denigrate, deceive, double down and project.

    (There, I have given a more accurate, dialectical form of Day’s three laws of SJW agit prop activism.)

    Where, the case in view in this thread requires responsiveness to evident facts and linked issues, exactly what you and your circle have refused to address cogently.

    So, Bob Marley is right, as he puts a classic J/can proverb borrowed from the English into memorable song: who de cap fit, let ‘im wear it.

    And no, I do not owe you an apology — oh yes, you must confess your guilt before the tribunal of Red Guards shouting you down and trying the shaming and smearing game (so that they can seem justified in their thuggish destructive tactics) — for pointing out say how you popped up suddenly when PHV was clearly reduced to silence, a typical tag team talking point behaviour pattern for a cast of such sock puppets. Nor do you need to be any particular individual to be part of such a circle. Nor, have I asserted or implied that you are such so you can drop the snide suggestion that I am a liar . . . an underlying theme in much of the distractive commentary above that has so studiously avoided engaging core facts, documents and statements in evidence and pivotal issues.

    If you want to be taken seriously, instead start from the issues linked in the OP and especially at comment 1 above, which is where I am going.

    And by the way, further trollish conduct will lead to locking down this thread’s comment feature. If the next thread is similarly side tracked, a series of comment free OPs will be put up to address the issue and then only at the end will there be a forum post for discussion.

    What is on the table now is far too soberingly serious to put up with further silly agit prop games.

    KF

    PS: The higher the monkey climbs, the more he exposes himself.

  48. 48
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    when PHV was clearly reduced to silence

    What else is there to say? I dropped in to point out that you were jumping to conclusions based on partial and questionable facts, to which you’ve responded with long, stentorian sermons about how wicked people are for questioning you. Par for the course.

    typical tag team talking point behaviour pattern for a cast of such sock puppets.

    I’m not a sock puppet, and if JHG is, he’s not mine. In another thread, in which you’re also preaching, I linked to my real-world name and identity. It’s not hard to confirm. If you’re curious I’m sure Barry would confirm that our IP addresses are different. (Mine probably changes a lot over time as I travel for work, but not minute-to-minute in a single evening.)

    But how can one be a martyr if one isn’t being persecuted by the wicked?

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    Okay, game over for this thread.

    The studious avoiding of the focal issue to indulge distract, distort, denigrate speaks for itself. And I have spoken to the issue of trollish misconduct and associated sock puppetry already.

    In a context where corruption of curriculum to promote atheistical propaganda under false colours of critical thinking education was in question.

    Note the studiously ignored and distracted from focal questions in the OP:

    Is it reasonable to be putting such a question to 12 year old students in class? (And if you think this was just one teacher, note how it came up the next day in other classes and in multiple classes on the day in question; somebody with responsibility wrote this into a curriculum with intent to create the view that per critical thinking, belief in God is little more than a widely believed, religiously backed [itself a loaded issue] questionable opinion with little warrant.)

    Is the view that God is real merely a religious belief with no serious weight of evidence or argument?

    What are the implications, given the close link between God and grounding of morality?

    KF, thread owner.

    PS: I believe it is fair use to use the term sock puppet to denote pseudonymous trollish internet identity used to promote the pattern: distract, distort, denigrate, deceive, double down, project. Not just creating a false sense of crowd, there is no material moral difference between a one man band and a circle of trolls playing the same derailing and denigration game. Especially where there is a concert of such used to derail discussion of a serious matter in a sober fashion.

Comments are closed.