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

_{kairosfocus
November 30, 2015

Academic Freedom, Education, Media, News, Politics, rhetoric, worldview

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Education
Media
News
Politics
rhetoric
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

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:

Comments

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.kairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

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?Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

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.joehalfgallon_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

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.joehalfgallon_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

@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.Jack Jones_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

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?joehalfgallon_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

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.Robert Byers_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

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?mike1962_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

@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.Jack Jones_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Nope, no place for anti-religious belief either.LarTanner_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

LarTanner: Religious belief has no place in a public school. What about anti-religious belief?mike1962_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Religious belief has no place in a public school.LarTanner_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Well, at least PHV admits that coercing a public school student regarding a matter of religious belief is outrageous.Barry Arrington_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

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?Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

I don't think Dawkins, Lennox, or Plantinga can fill us in on the missing facts here.Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

F/N: The first Dawkins Lennox debate: http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate and Plantinga's comment: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

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?Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

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.Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

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.)Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

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? KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

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?Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

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?Pro Hac Vice_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next