The Death of Reason

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

The Death of Reason

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I agree, Shiz. But as I mentioned on another thread, that kind of thinking takes too many processor cycles. It's much easier to just demonize one's opponent and throw some emotionally- charged language into a 15 second sound bite. Who has time or energy for reasoned discussion anymore? And if one attempts that kind of discourse, one is labeled as inteligentsia--out of touch with the "common people" and the "real world." And the bottom line: The money goes to crusaders. So choose a cause, dust off your propaganda, and go fight some demons already.

arbilad · Head Chef

You are right, Shiz - we are told to build on common beliefs when we're missionaries; I think that the same principles apply to political discussion.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I think there's just too much at stake right now. Too much money for the victors and too much money is invested in winning a position at the trough.

I too worry that we're all afraid to employ our thinking caps to issues anymore. Critical thinking skills and the scientific method are both disdained by religious groups for fear that science will be used to destroy people of faith.

There's so much cynicism and hardening of hearts... I think a lot of it comes from simplistic entertainment as well. Satan is trying hard on many fronts.

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 21:20, 2007-03-01

Fregramis · Senior Member

I am politically conservative, but am always interested in hearing the other side's opinion, as long as it is free from ad hominems. I remember watching on tv an hour long "town hall meeting" style discussion with commentators, professors, senators and governors. I forget who moderated it, bit it was extremely informal, almost like a classroom. There was a large audience seated behind these 15 or so persons, and the discussion was the federal government's role in public education. It was wonderful. It was filmed back in the mid 1980's because Seantor Hatch was there with browner hair and Senator Daniel P. Moynihan was there. Very civil discussion, well articulated viewpoints, cordial disagreement. I wish it could always be like that.

On another point, I love President Bush as an American, but to hear him speak is like nails on chalkboard. Listening to President Clinton back when he was in office was like drinking motor oil (smooth yet toxic). We don't always have great orators as Presidents. People in the U.S. I am afraid are being "dumbed down" so to speak, my evidence being how the media and the political machine speak to us. So here's a question: is it the media dumbing us down or public education, or both? Does one lead to the other?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Fregramis, I can speak with some coherency about how public education contributes to the "dumbing of America" as former NPR Morning Edition host Bob Edwards called it.

The focus on accountability that NCLB brought to public education has had both positive and negative results on student learning.

Positive

- Professionalization of the teacher corps. Pre-service teachers must demonstrate a higher level of competence in both content knowledge and pedagogy before obtaining a state license to teach. In-service teachers have more rigourous standards for continuing education.

- Alignment of curriculum and assessment. With standardized assessment came standardized curriculum objectives that defined key benchmarks for student learning.

- Student assessment. Schools, parents, and communities receive regular reports of student academic achievement.

- School accountability. Schools must demonstrate to stakeholders that they use the provided resources to improve student academic achievement.

Negative

- The primary method of ensuring accountability is summative assessment, better known as standardized testing. Standardized tests overly emphasize the memorization of procedures and facts.

- Lack of formative assessment. Formative assessments are the informal assessments that teachers use to determine student learning on a day-to-day basis. Teachers can use those assessments to provide immediate feedback to students and make small "course corrections" along the way. Teachers now rely almost exclusively on summative assessment.

- High-stakes assessment. Many schools use the standardized tests to determine advancement to the next grade. Additionally, student performance on standardized tests determines a school's overall academic rating, which in turn determines the amount of funding received for the next year.

So that's a long answer to your question, Fregramis. As a teacher, I strongly support standards-based education. As implemented, however, the tendency is to help kids prepare for standardized tests instead of helping kids prepare for life. That means focusing on memorization of facts and procedures instead of focusing on developing higher-order thinking skills like application, analyzation, and evaluation. It also means focusing on high-stakes summative "snapshots" instead of using formative assessment as a tool to guide students in learning on a day-to-day basis. Finally, school administration focuses on ensuring more funding for the next year instead of focusing on student learning. These negative results of "accountability," as currently implemented, contribute to the dumbing down of our children.

eta: Several years ago, I read an interesting book called "Dumbing Down: The Strip-mining of American Culture." It's a collection of essays that discuss many contributors to the dumbing of America--Hollywood, universities, permissive parenting, etc.

-- Edited by Roper at 08:54, 2007-03-02

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

fear of shiz wrote:

Down in the Humor section Cat made a comment about how the dogma of the "evangelicals" would not be much different than the indoctrination of the madrassas of the radical Muslims. I have had this thought before--that many of the "evangelical Christians" that I run into (and I do that often down South here) are just as narrow-minded in their worldview as I perceive the radical Islamists to be. They have their worldview, and they are afraid of the Other--the outsider, and any ideas that threaten their comfortable worldview. Honestly, this doesn't just apply to Evangelicals--I see it as well in Liberals--who have their own secular faith, or in Environmentalists, who have their neo-paganism. None of these groups give much critical thought to their own worldview, and denounce those who belong to another group as being ignorant, dangerous, and even evil.

To be honest, there are some Mormons who fit this description as well. I suppose it is a common human trait. But I feel that it is growing in our times--especially in this country. The Right and Left are so polarized, and they see each other, not as fellow citizens, but as enemies. There is talk on the Left of the coming theocracy, of the Bush H**ler, the Fascist Republicans, etc. for instance. Many on the Right see the Left as Godless, as treasonous, as threats to society, etc. I know that many of us here are sympathetic to those accusations. But I worry that reasonable discussion and reasonable examination of other's worldviews is going the way of the dodo.

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 21:02, 2007-03-01

I think the key difference between Islam and Evangelical Christians is that even Evangelical Christainity is not teaching their congregations that they will convert us or kill us. There is no fear in media or government that you will be the subject of a fatwa or suicide bombing by evangelicals if you criticise them in the media. Just look what happened when some cartoons depicting Mohammed were printed. You can make "art" showing all kinds of horrible, sacraligous things about Christianity and you run a pretty low risk of having anything bad happen to you, in fact your rights will be defended under free speach. But heaven help you if you do something like that involving Islam. With Islam it is convert or die, with Evangelical Christains it is convert or you will end up in hell. I realize that in the past there have been nutball Christains killing abortion doctors and such but the evangelicals are Christains and Christianity is a religion that tells people to turn the other cheek. I went to an evengelical Christain school and I can tell you that I was not treated very kindly for being mormon but I was never assaulted physically for my beliefs nor did I live in any fear that I would be. We were told daily as students that physical violence was never justified and that we should just "turn the other cheek" if we were struck. A far cry from what the Mullahs in the middle east and Europe are spouting. If I am an evangelical christain and I speak out against the radical elements in the religion the chances that I will be raped or killed for speaking out are almost zero. Glen Beck has had a woman on her show several times who has spoken out against the radical and violent elements of Islam and she basically is in danger of losing her life. She has people come up to her all the time thanking her for speaking out and saying the things they are too afraid to say. Another key difference is that the Evangelicals, while they may wish someday to have their beliefs codefied into law and have control over the government will most likely never see it happen. Radical Islam actually controls some countries and their policies. Sharia law is actually making inroads in Europe. In Saint Paul, Minneapolis the Muslim cab drivers are actually refusing to drive anyone who may have alcohol or who may have consumed alcohol because it violates Sharia law even though their refusal to do so is in violation of the real law. There is a danger that the authorities may cave and Sharia law may actually trump the state and local cab laws. I don't fear Budhists, Taoists, Athiests, or Evangelicals killing me. I do fear Sharia law and muslims killing me if I speak out against them. Just look at what is happening in Europe and the middle east. Just ask Theo Van Gogh or Salmon Rushdie. Oh wait, one's dead and the other had to live in hiding for years because they dared use there freedoms to speak out.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Thanks for starting this discussion thread up here Shiz

... Me forgetted that the thread I made the comment on was supposed to be a humor thread

... and the topic has been something I have pondered now and again over the past couple years.

Nice to hear other folks candid thoughts on it.

Right now evangelical fundamentalism is no where near as threatening as islamic fundamentalism and sharia law aside from the sheer intolerance of "Others" that so often gets displayed. But, I can see the climate change fairly easily to where certain elements of evangelical fundamentalistism could shift towards vigilantism that could eventually wrest the law. It has happened in the past on limited, geographic basis. People are essentially the same today as they were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 150 years ago. The only thing that restrains certain groups and people from excess in our nation is they public outcry that follows the over the top stuff.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

GREAT discussion.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Jason, you will get no argument from me that the physical threat from Islamists is the great concern right now. No, my evangelical neighbors down the street are not threatening to kill me if I don't convert. But they are pretty eager to get me to come to their church. And I guess I was speaking more of the mental attitudes, rather than the applications of those attitudes.

And I can see a future in which the Christian world responds more militantly to the Islamist threat. Then things will get pretty nasty.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

The Crusades, but with modern weapons.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

This is pretty funny but also scarry at the same time and goes along with this topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS4v_kj9rw4

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'd just like to say "Death to America" to all my friends watching! (Btw, Jase, this actually belongs in the Humor section... :P )

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 18:48, 2007-03-02

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

btw, I do think that because evangelicals found their doctrine upon Christ that they are 200x more stable than the other fundamentalists in the world. :)

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

btw, I do think that because evangelicals found their doctrine upon Christ that they are 200x more stable than the other fundamentalists in the world. :)

--Ray

In most cases I would have to agree with that, but then again, most of the people who were in the mob which killed Joseph probably considered themselves to be christian.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Sure there's that element, and that's not right, but most people recognize that such behavior is not Christian. One can make an appeal to their Christian beliefs. Who do you appeal to in the case of an Islamic Fundamentalist?

Despite their peculiar biases, Christian fundamentalists are not equivalent Islamic fundamentalists. I also think that the media tries to equate the two, which I think is a really bad mistake. Fundamentalist Christian doctrine would be returning to the basic fundamentals of Christianity, which doesn't involve killing people. It may be a bit Puritanical, but the puritans were never as horrible as the Taliban and it's a huge mistake to equate the two.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Fundamentalist Christian doctrine would be returning to the basic fundamentals of Christianity
Slight derail here... then that makes the LDS church and doctrine fundamental christian...

The problem with any religious group trying to "return" to the basic fundamentals is that unless they believe in modern revelation, they can not claim to know what fundamental doctrine in the early church really was. And there are only a few other religious groups in the christian viewpoint that claim to believe in modern revelation to some extent.

The interpretation that is left open to humans with their "learning" and political agendas, regardless of the religious belief involved, can all be equally as dangerous when used as a tool to control and gain control, be it christian, hindu, muslim, athiest, communist, shintoist, buddhist, or what have ya...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

rayb wrote:

It may be a bit Puritanical, but the puritans were never as horrible as the Taliban and it's a huge mistake to equate the two.

--Ray

Salem witch trials or stoning of adulterers.....I think you're right, I'll take the puritans over the Taliban.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

I love what Australia is doing with radical muslims.

Either conform to Austalian law or get out.

I wish we could do that here.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Mahonri wrote:

I love what Australia is doing with radical muslims.

Either conform to Austalian law or get out.

I wish we could do that here.

Those hate filled Australian bigots. How dare they demand that radical muslims follow the law!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Cat, you're right about fundamentalism in general. It is never a true restoration. But when a man studies the words of Christ, with a sincere heart (rather than a heart to take power) it cannot help but affect them for better. The WORD has that power.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

And, at the core of things, one (okay, maybe it is just me) has to ask himself how many individuals who "feel the call to the ministry" and go to a seminary or theological college and get the piece of paper to say they are ordained ministers are really doing it with sincere heart in the long run and not for power or money?

You've all seen it on your missions... men and women who were ministers of local parishes or what have you who admit to you they are in it for the money and that they don't even believe in God... And, I bet you've all got those non-denominational or quasi-denominational mega churches in your areas that everything is peachy keen and ecumenical as long as they have thousands of people attending services and making donations but should any competition arise from them durn Mormons who just want to build a chapel in town, well the world is going to hell in a handbasket and you will to if you associate in any manner with them Mormons.

Many of the members of these churches are good, honest people who, truely are blinded by the cunning of man. And yes, to whatever level of truth they obtain and hold onto, it will better them individually. It is their "spiritual" leaders that are the problem though... And, they look to them in a secular manner as intermediaries with God without even realizing it.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I had a young man who worked for me that went into the ministry at the local baptist church and I think the young man was honestly sincere in his beliefs. The chances of him making a lot of money were pretty slim. He felt that this was his calling in life and he is very happy doing it today. His parents were inactive LDS so he wasn't exposed to it growing up probably like he should. I think he is honestly seeking truth but just is looking in the wrong place for the complete light. But knowing this guy I would have to see that he honestly feels he is doing the Lord's work. Now I know there are others out there in it for the money but I think there are many that do it because they honestly believe that they have been called by God.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

there are many that do it because they honestly believe that they have been called by God
What does being "called by God" actually mean to people outside the Church? What does it mean to people inside the Church?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

there are many that do it because they honestly believe that they have been called by God
What does being "called by God" actually mean to people outside the Church? What does it mean to people inside the Church?

Well our church it means one who was called via the proper authority aka the Priesthood. Outside the church it probably means that someone feels that God wants them to preach the gospel, become a minister, or do some other service. They may have had a religious experience in their minds. I do believe that the spirit can inspire good men to do certain things like Columbus was inspired and by the language of the world you could say he was called to find this land and set into motion the events foretold that would lead to the restoration of the gospel. I believe that you could legitimately state that Martin Luther and other reformists were probably guided by the hand of called to do what they did and set in motion many of the events that would eventually lead to the restoration. Right place, right time, right man for the restoration but certain things had to happen before hand. I think the one could say the founding fathers of this nation were in a way called by God to do what they did. If God chooses someone and inspires them to do something then one could loosely use the terminology that they were called by God to do that. Throughout history there have been many righteous men that were not of our faith that did great deads and seemed to have the inspiration or guidance of the Almighty in their actions. Obviously, they didn't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost like we know it but they were inspired, chosen men lacking only the full gospel truth and the laying on of hands to make it an official calling. But God did choose them. Perhaps they were even chosen in the pre-existence as we know others have been. And I think that great men are still chosen and inspired today whether it is some inner city preacher who sets up a center to get kids off the street and clean up the neighborhood or some great world leader.

My old martial arts instructor believed he had been called by God to be a minister and his karate school was also a part of his minstry. He began each class with a prayer and would often talk to the students about God and making good decisions. I remember sometimes he would go on for half an hour if he felt passionate about something. He didn't care what religion we were and I think for the most part the message he shared was inspired. I watched him counsel and pray with people who were experiencing problems and ask us to pray for those who were having difficulties. He didn't make an extra dime for doing this other than what he got for the martial arts lessons. I had a lot of respect for the man and I felt the spirit when I was there. Perhaps God had chosen and inspired him to do what he was doing.

In our verbiage though there is a difference between what one would consider being called of God in the Church versus those who are not of our faith. Maybe the better term is inspired or chosen by God for a particular task or mission. While we are called by Priesthood authority to act.

Maybe I'm way off base here. What do you think?

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 16:42, 2007-03-06