Socialists and Religion Capsize Harvard
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Good, I say. "Know thy enemy!"
While I don't believe in the supernatural or the divine, I do believe that religion has some good moral lessons to teach...
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I do believe that religion has some good moral lessons to teach...
Yeah, it's just the stick that people use to teach them. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
To my mind this is all based upon such a logically flawed mandate. If multiculturalism is the objective, how do you judge one culture versus another? On what basis do you describe one culture as 'parochial' juxtaposed to another? If a culture is 'parochial', on what basis do you legitimize trying to make that culture non-parochial - considering that all cultures are equal based upon the very philosophy of multi-culturalism you are trying to promote? If my culture is 'parochial' why is that something that needs to be remedied? Why would it not be equally valid to require other cultures to tolerate my parochialism? Clearly, multi-culturalism is nothing more than anti-american, and more generally, anti-western. The only thing being achieved is to engender in the minds of the student the inherent principle that their own culture is flawed and can only be remedied by requireing that all other cultures be viewed as equals at the very least.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
To my mind this is all based upon such a logically flawed mandate. If multiculturalism is the objective, how do you judge one culture versus another? On what basis do you describe one culture as 'parochial' juxtaposed to another? If a culture is 'parochial', on what basis do you legitimize trying to make that culture non-parochial - considering that all cultures are equal based upon the very philosophy of multi-culturalism you are trying to promote?
Speaking of logical flaws, where in the article does it say that the objective is to promote "multi-culturalism" or that "all cultures are equal"?
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
To my mind this is all based upon such a logically flawed mandate. If multiculturalism is the objective, how do you judge one culture versus another? On what basis do you describe one culture as 'parochial' juxtaposed to another? If a culture is 'parochial', on what basis do you legitimize trying to make that culture non-parochial - considering that all cultures are equal based upon the very philosophy of multi-culturalism you are trying to promote?
Speaking of logical flaws, where in the article does it say that the objective is to promote "multi-culturalism" or that "all cultures are equal"?
John Carson
One of the eight new required subject areas -- "societies of the world" -- aims to help students overcome U.S. "parochialism" by "acquainting them with the values, customs and institutions that differ from their own," said a 34-page Harvard report on the changes. Describing one culture as 'parochial' is a judgemental declaration on that culture. Requireing it be 'cured' by becoming 'acquainted' with the values and customs of other cultures is the very definition of multi-culturalism. If it had not been based upon such a negative connotation towards our own culture, I would have not problem with it. But to suggest that we need to understand other cultures any more than they need to understand us is not education, it is agenda driven indoctrination.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
One of the eight new required subject areas -- "societies of the world" -- aims to help students overcome U.S. "parochialism" by "acquainting them with the values, customs and institutions that differ from their own," said a 34-page Harvard report on the changes. Describing one culture as 'parochial' is a judgemental declaration on that culture. Requireing it be 'cured' by becoming 'acquainted' with the values and customs of other cultures is the very definition of multi-culturalism. If it had not been based upon such a negative connotation towards our own culture, I would have not problem with it. But to suggest that we need to understand other cultures any more than they need to understand us is not education, it is agenda driven indoctrination.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Describing one culture as 'parochial' is a judgemental declaration on that culture.
Of course.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Requireing it be 'cured' by becoming 'acquainted' with the values and customs of other cultures is the very definition of multi-culturalism.
"Acquainted" doesn't mean "agree with" or "endorse". If not being ignorant of other cultures is all you mean by "multi-culturalism", then I can't see why you are against it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But to suggest that we need to understand other cultures any more than they need to understand us is not education, it is agenda driven indoctrination.
And where is it suggested that the US has a greater need to understand other cultures than other cultures have a need to understand the US?
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Describing one culture as 'parochial' is a judgemental declaration on that culture.
Of course.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Requireing it be 'cured' by becoming 'acquainted' with the values and customs of other cultures is the very definition of multi-culturalism.
"Acquainted" doesn't mean "agree with" or "endorse". If not being ignorant of other cultures is all you mean by "multi-culturalism", then I can't see why you are against it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But to suggest that we need to understand other cultures any more than they need to understand us is not education, it is agenda driven indoctrination.
And where is it suggested that the US has a greater need to understand other cultures than other cultures have a need to understand the US?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
"Acquainted" doesn't mean "agree with" or "endorse". If not being ignorant of other cultures is all you mean by "multi-culturalism", then I can't see why you are against it.
The fact that it is a requirement means it is whatever the instructor and the university desires it to be. These are not electives where a student pursues a critical study of various cultures. The very rationale for the course as a cure for parochialism automatically serves as an endorsement of those cultures to be studied. They've been selected, and that is an endorsement. Otherwise, why teach it?
John Carson wrote:
And where is it suggested that the US has a greater need to understand other cultures than other cultures have a need to understand the US?
Suggested? The very course shouts it from the roof tops. I'm sure that other students in other countries learn a great deal about the US - but I'm reasonably certain that it is not an aspect of some sort of cultural angst about how parochial they are.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
"Acquainted" doesn't mean "agree with" or "endorse". If not being ignorant of other cultures is all you mean by "multi-culturalism", then I can't see why you are against it.
The fact that it is a requirement means it is whatever the instructor and the university desires it to be. These are not electives where a student pursues a critical study of various cultures. The very rationale for the course as a cure for parochialism automatically serves as an endorsement of those cultures to be studied. They've been selected, and that is an endorsement. Otherwise, why teach it?
John Carson wrote:
And where is it suggested that the US has a greater need to understand other cultures than other cultures have a need to understand the US?
Suggested? The very course shouts it from the roof tops. I'm sure that other students in other countries learn a great deal about the US - but I'm reasonably certain that it is not an aspect of some sort of cultural angst about how parochial they are.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very rationale for the course as a cure for parochialism automatically serves as an endorsement of those cultures to be studied. They've been selected, and that is an endorsement. Otherwise, why teach it?
Bollocks. People also study diseases. Is that an endorsement of diseases?
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Carson wrote: And where is it suggested that the US has a greater need to understand other cultures than other cultures have a need to understand the US? Suggested? The very course shouts it from the roof tops. I'm sure that other students in other countries learn a great deal about the US - but I'm reasonably certain that it is not an aspect of some sort of cultural angst about how parochial they are.
There you go again, illustrating your deficiencies in logic. Your original claim was: "to suggest that we need to understand other cultures any more than they need to understand us is not education, it is agenda driven indoctrination." So who is making that sugggestion? Presumably Harvard. You have, however, offered no supportive evidence for this claim. Harvard clearly thinks that the US needs to study other cultures more than it has in the past, hence the use of the term "parochial". That has no logical implications for how much Harvard thinks the US needs to study other cultures relative to how much those other cultures need to study the US. As is not unusual for you, you have an emotional rather than a logical reaction to the use of an unflattering word ("parochial") to describe the US.
John Carson
-
Religion and/or religious people are the enemy? Wow - that's a lot of enemies Marc.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
John Carson wrote:
"Acquainted" doesn't mean "agree with" or "endorse". If not being ignorant of other cultures is all you mean by "multi-culturalism", then I can't see why you are against it.
The fact that it is a requirement means it is whatever the instructor and the university desires it to be. These are not electives where a student pursues a critical study of various cultures. The very rationale for the course as a cure for parochialism automatically serves as an endorsement of those cultures to be studied. They've been selected, and that is an endorsement. Otherwise, why teach it?
John Carson wrote:
And where is it suggested that the US has a greater need to understand other cultures than other cultures have a need to understand the US?
Suggested? The very course shouts it from the roof tops. I'm sure that other students in other countries learn a great deal about the US - but I'm reasonably certain that it is not an aspect of some sort of cultural angst about how parochial they are.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I do believe that religion has some good moral lessons to teach...
Yeah, it's just the stick that people use to teach them. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very rationale for the course as a cure for parochialism automatically serves as an endorsement of those cultures to be studied. They've been selected, and that is an endorsement. Otherwise, why teach it?
Bollocks. People also study diseases. Is that an endorsement of diseases?
Stan Shannon wrote:
John Carson wrote: And where is it suggested that the US has a greater need to understand other cultures than other cultures have a need to understand the US? Suggested? The very course shouts it from the roof tops. I'm sure that other students in other countries learn a great deal about the US - but I'm reasonably certain that it is not an aspect of some sort of cultural angst about how parochial they are.
There you go again, illustrating your deficiencies in logic. Your original claim was: "to suggest that we need to understand other cultures any more than they need to understand us is not education, it is agenda driven indoctrination." So who is making that sugggestion? Presumably Harvard. You have, however, offered no supportive evidence for this claim. Harvard clearly thinks that the US needs to study other cultures more than it has in the past, hence the use of the term "parochial". That has no logical implications for how much Harvard thinks the US needs to study other cultures relative to how much those other cultures need to study the US. As is not unusual for you, you have an emotional rather than a logical reaction to the use of an unflattering word ("parochial") to describe the US.
John Carson
Do FACTS confuse you????:confused:
John P.