Thinking inside the Box

Browsing Facebook generally yield gems in the form of games I can play to waste time, news events about friends and people I don't remember, and occasionally a 'who are you' when I encounter someone I've friended, but do not know. However, tonight it yielded a wonderful Youtube video involving Bill O'Reilly discussing with a student about the harmful discrimination of a teacher against Christians.

Link to the Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdRGo5rAm54

Let's go over the facts. From as far as I can gather from the news piece (and I'm going to use this Youtube video as the basis for facts on the initial case tonight), a teacher, Dr. James Corbett, reaches Advanced Placement European History in a manner that focuses heavily on religion- including espousing upon the bad influences of religion with phrases such as 'If you put on Jesus glasses, you can't see the proof.' One of the students, Chad Farnan, a sophomore at the time coming from a Christian religious background, was so offended by the statements that he decided to sue the school system (under the establishment clause, stating that any public official cannot show hostility towards a given religion). Within the interview, the lawyer on air with Chad states that the teacher in question has an 'Atheist club' and 'numerous people' who state this teacher has done harm to good people everywhere, with a case that turned a daughter into an 'intolerable know-it-all.' Clearly, Dr. James Corbett is wrong, as the audio tapes (which the student did secretly) prove.

Frankly, this is bullshit.

Do I approve of Dr. Corbett's remarks, first of all. I can't say because the tapes are taken completely out of context. Unfortunately, in order to properly judge statements, one must also make mention of the context in which said remarks are spoken in. I could clearly admit to any number of crimes on a given day, but if I was outside on the street with a bunch of my dorky friends saying 'I killed someone yesterday,' it's extremely difficult to say that is at all anything other than a frivolous statement. These statements are not in context. European History is wrought with instances where religion was a major influencing factor, from setting up the groundwork for the Protestant Reform and the Enlightenment to directly financing movements such as the crusades and the Renaissance. For a teacher to remark that the best way to get 'peasants to oppose something that's in their self-interest' is religion, if taken in the context of a lecture on say, medieval times, is simply put, not at all offensive. It is a reasoning that has firm, historical basis and thus, should be taken as such. I simply cannot fathom how the statement about Jesus glasses blinding people, when taken from the same 'pool' of statements as this one, can be taken as anything being more than provocative. Sure, it's a head turner, but is it offensive?

Not in context.

There are two counterpoints to my point; one is that the context is wrong, and one is that context doesn't matter and empirical statements do. Because no context was provided to me in the video that I am using as my source for facts on this case, I will respond only to the second point. Appropriately enough, it shall be with another video.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related
Time: About 1:55

No double standards with me. I'm applying context as a crucial factor in judgment here. Lest all conservatives want to argue that McCain's defense of Palin's position is invalid because it is also applying context, my point's going to stand.

The larger theme in all of this, of course, is the 'fairness' mindset that is being stated in this particular video. Take, for example, O'Reilly's cheeky comment towards Chad asking him if he asked Dr. Corbett why they weren't explaining 'the other side.' The same sort of reasoning applies to people who believe creationism (which is not, for the record, a legitimate scientific theory because it violates falsifiability and hence, should be discussed elsewhere) should be taught alongside evolution in schools. Certainly, as modernism and post-modernism begin to shift the world away from 'traditional values,' one might easily apply the 'fairness' mindset to conservative and argue for the balance; however, to apply 'fairness,' one must see if it was consistent with the past forms of conservatism. Did conservatives argue for social equality towards gays, lesbians, and transgenders because it would be fair? No. Did conservatives argue for evolution to be taught in schools along side the Bible during the Scopes trial? No. Did conservatives argue that prayer in school might, you know, offend people who aren't Christian? No.

How can conservatives plead for 'fairness' when they haven't shown a tolerance- no, a precedence for 'fair thinking' in their own historical past? While I applaud socially laissez-faire conservatives (e.g. those who believe people should be allowed to live as they choose, but apply conservative values to themselves), I cannot tolerate the 'old school' conservatives who believe in a standing mantra of 'our way or the highway.' One has no right to plead for anything one has not shown in the past and in this case, the heavy right wing has no foot left to stand to argue fairness. Instead, their use of 'fairness,' particularly in this case, shows only a willingness to manipulate the mindset of many in order to secure the position of a single sect of people. I cannot and do not condone this.

Following up on this story, I am pleased that while the teacher did not get off completely scot-free, he did only get convicted on one of the more than twenty comments caught on audio tape. I am somewhat disheartened that it wasn't a complete dodge, but reading that the statement was simply denouncing Creationism for being 'religious, superstitious, nonsense (a position I, as a someone interested in science, share from both my experiences and readings),' I will state that semantics do make it seem anti-Creationist and hence, anti-Christian and while my contextual reading will lead me to believe it to be a simple statement of fact, others might not readily agree. Fair enough.

What I am more worried about, however, is what this conviction will do for the state of education and for the state of free-thinking. This case presents a massive blow to education, as it essentially provides a precedence for limiting what teachers can or cannot say. To learn isn't simply a matter of rehashing old ideals from those who know better, but is also a process in which a youngster makes his own worldview, affirming and rejecting concepts based on solid foundational knowledge as well as personal and shared experiences. However, silencing teachers in this manner limits what sorts of viewpoints children can be exposed to and hence, reduces the overall variety of things one would be able to learn. I understand that to many parents, educators, conservatives, and even liberals, this is not inherently a bad thing; we should 'teach what is [we think] is right,' as opposed to 'teach everything.' However, is this really fair? I guess the essential question for me here is the following.

Shouldn't we trust our children enough to make the right decision? And if it opposes us, shouldn't we first see if we have been mistaken, rather than to denounce their choices as wrong?

As one can see, I am very much a belief in free thinking- that is, with heavy logical rigor and sound basis. This case and the subsequent verdict present to me a very compelling fear; one in which only one dogma unites the world and variance of thought dies out like some sort of poison. Such a stifling metaphysical mindset is sure to bring about unity, but at the cost of difference, color, and most of all innovation. As an outside observer who delights in comparing the viewpoints of the many, this would truly be my anathema.

Today is not raining, and therefore, I am not lazy. Hence, I would like to leave with two caveats- just little things I was thinking of, instead of my normal message.

The question is simple; 'If you believe in 'fairness to all (which I never stated, but let's say I do),' do you believe Creationism should be taught in schools?'

Of all the questions to ask me, this one took some time but I finally arrived at a single conclusion; absolutely. However, Creationism is not science for various reasons; it should not be taught alongside scientific theories but rather, either used as an example of what science is not (that is, theories are exclusively things that can be proven wrong). It should also be taught in humanities courses as an interesting construct that is used to bolster a return to social ideals, and probably in law courses too to study the impact of seemingly secular idealisms with heavy religious influence upon our current laws; this would impact, I would think, education the most. This also brings me to my second caveat of the night.

Dr. Corbett was convicted because of his statement against Creationism violated the Establishment Clause, which stated that a public figure cannot show hostility against a religion. I am not an expert on law, nor will I profess to be anyone other than a simple user of 'if p then q' statements but, doesn't this ruling suggest that Creationism is equivalent to religion? And not so much 'suggest' and 'explicitly state' and if so, doesn't that mean that any movement to teach Creationism alongside evolution in schools has a legal precedent going against it inherently? It's an interesting thought to consider and I welcome anyone capable to enlightening me more about this.

Cheers. From outside the box.

Link to Corbett's final end: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna
Link to Corbett's editorial on the subject: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/students-myth-socrates-2399735-think-parents