Democracies and Mutual Respect

Foxfyre wrote:

But wasn't that your whole point with this thread LittleK? If I am wrong please correct me. I took the thesis to be that only when people can respect a different point of view, whether or not they agree with it, can democratic principles work.

Hatred, disrespect, enmity, intolerance, etc. are no different whether leveled against the Left or the Right. The teacher who indoctrinates his/her students in a particular point of view may very well be teaching a different form of hatred even as s/he despises another.

When only one point of view is allowed, we no longer have a democratic republic.

I wonder if the people who rile against teachers possibly "indoctrinating" their students think that their point of view is so correct that no other need be presented. For example, I am certain that almost everyone who says this also claims that PBS is a left wing organization that slants the news.

A history teacher has small signs in her classroom -- on pieces of paper about 6 x 8" -- that read, "Who were the most important figures in Amer. hist. and why?" "How will Amer. be in the future? Will we still hold the same principles {n.b: the word used was NOT values]?" "What does it mean to be an American?" "Are we really the greatest nation on earth?" "should we have separate months focused on minority history?" "Should we have hyphenated hist? Is hist. just facts or do we need to interpret them? "Who writes hist? Can we trust him/her to be accurate? Unbiased? Thorough?"

Now, seeing that THE ORIGIN OF THIS THREAD IS A BOOK THAT LITTLE K READ THAT DEALS WITH A SCHOOL, to bring this matter up is germane. Furthermore, I was not the person that mentioned schools first.

However, what do you (2nd person plural) think of these signs? I have the feeling that at least one respondant will say they're subversive.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
parados wrote:
Respect for different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions should have the same weight when contrasted with each other.

Intelligent design has little scientific standing in comparison to evolution.

Should Wicca have the same weight as Christianity in discussions about Baptists' religious beliefs?

Facts can lead to different opinions. It is when facts are denied or unsupported that derision occurs in debate. Personal experience can lead you to decide what is and isn't right in the world but don't expect it to convince other people. It is nothing but the story of the blind men and the elephant if you rely only on your personal experience.

I think it would depend on the context.
Read my sentence again. It gives the context.

No it doesn't. You put your opinion in a general context that could apply anywhere. I would agree with you re a science class. I would disagree with you re a theology class. That is putting it in context.

I said

Quote:

This would apply to many many issues and subjects. When there is mutual respect, one can argue the merits of his/her belief or opinion without feeling a need to disrespect the person who holds a different belief or opinion.

You said

Quote:

When someone refuses to understand or respect the context of a discussion why should they be given respect? They obviously aren't interested in giving respect. ebrown said it pretty well in his anecdote.

So who decides that the person is refusing? Me? You? Or wouldn't it be more respectful to understand that the person sees the context of the discussion differently than I do or you do? I watch discussions all the time in which you could swear the parties were discussing entirely separate issues while the parties involved, from their point of view, believed they were entirely on topic.

IMO, it is not respectful to expect everybody to see, comprehend, understand, or put equal importance on the same things that you do or to summarily dismiss them purely because they take a different, albeit appropriate approach.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But wasn't that your whole point with this thread LittleK? If I am wrong please correct me. I took the thesis to be that only when people can respect a different point of view, whether or not they agree with it, can democratic principles work.

Hatred, disrespect, enmity, intolerance, etc. are no different whether leveled against the Left or the Right. The teacher who indoctrinates his/her students in a particular point of view may very well be teaching a different form of hatred even as s/he despises another.

When only one point of view is allowed, we no longer have a democratic republic.

I wonder if the people who rile against teachers possibly "indoctrinating" their students think that their point of view is so correct that no other need be presented. For example, I am certain that almost everyone who says this also claims that PBS is a left wing organization that slants the news.

A history teacher has small signs in her classroom -- on pieces of paper about 6 x 8" -- that read, "Who were the most important figures in Amer. hist. and why?" "How will Amer. be in the future? Will we still hold the same principles {n.b: the word used was NOT values]?" "What does it mean to be an American?" "Are we really the greatest nation on earth?" "should we have separate months focused on minority history?" "Should we have hyphenated hist? Is hist. just facts or do we need to interpret them? "Who writes hist? Can we trust him/her to be accurate? Unbiased? Thorough?"

Now, seeing that THE ORIGIN OF THIS THREAD IS A BOOK THAT LITTLE K READ THAT DEALS WITH A SCHOOL, to bring this matter up is germane. Furthermore, I was not the person that mentioned schools first.

However, what do you (2nd person plural) think of these signs? I have the feeling that at least one respondant will say they're subversive.

I have not said anybody brought up schools first, but it was from that framework that LittleK started the thread; therefore, it is logical that the discussion would emerge from that framework.

I don't have any problem with the questions you cite so long as they are pertinent to the core curriculum you are teaching. Such questions encourage a child to think. I would, however, see it as indoctrination if the teacher interjected his/her opinions into the issues and I would have a huge problem if the teacher required the teacher's opinion to be the 'acceptable' answer to any one of the questions.

0 Replies

[

Hi Parados. I think Foxfyre made a real good point last post.

Parados, you are an example of a liberal viewpoint I think, based on my personal experience and impressions from debating you before. You probably think I am a good example of an ill informed conservative mindset that refuses to accept new evidence? Thats your privilege. I don't think you are correct, but anyway I do appreciate your thoughtful debate, sometimes with sarcasm, but you restrain yourself from name calling and gutter language.
Parados, I would submit to you that you are not crediting personal experience as highly as you should.

So in regard to personal experience, I know what happened when I was a child, I know where I've been, I know whats going on in this town now, and I get solid firsthand evidence of what is going on with the schools around here, and I know what friends and acquaintances think.

.[/quote]

Interesting. Parados is new to me but there was nothing in his(?) post that was inherently liberal.

Personal experience. Consider the Greek word that gave us our word history is historia, "I witness." Consider science is based on observation. Consider that social science is based on observation.

However, science goes on to test what is based on that observation.

If science is allowed to function. At the present time, scientists in the US are being deprived of their right to work as scientists and to express themselves.

I asked whether you, Okie, watched "60 Minutes." This past Sunday, 60 Minutes reported that the White House has been censoring scientific papers on global warming. Why? What good is to censor? Will the WH profit from the deaths of millions?

Okie, you believe that schools should not institute programs like Community of Caring yet you ask for your opinion to be respected. You believe that you are a moral person, but you doubt global warming and, I would gather from my experience of your statements here, that you believe nothing should be done about it.

During the 1960s, the lefties followed Jean-Paul Sartre who said not to decide is to decide.

Engagement is necessary and there may be a moral -- and I have written many, many times that morals are inferior to ethics -- reason to act, to engage oneself actively in the struggle to save the planet from man unkind.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Respect for different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions should have the same weight when contrasted with each other.

quote]

I am forced to agree. The doubters on global warming are a threat to us all.

0 Replies

Two things --

Okie -- Most conservatives on this forum and on the late lamented Abuzz refused to accept personal experience.

BTW, crime was very high during the Depression.

littlek -- Maybe one of the reasons why we do not debate respectfully is we have lost a context for debate. I know of no school in our area that still fields a debate team and debate was one of the chief intellectual outlets in my high school years. Also, presidential debates are something of a sham.

0 Replies

plainoldme, I don't know if I have time to answer all your points.

First of all, I think the debate here follows the subject, that of a book about a school and how it might relate to respect in a democracy. I was the one that asked a question about the book but never got an answer, and the thread has continued to talk about courtesy and respect, mainly in schools. I don't think we've done that badly about staying on topic, but I'm still curious about the book and my question.

About the Community of Caring program, I did not take a stance. I simply said I would be very suspicious of it and would like to know more about it. My reasoning is it does not seem to be consistent with the common opinion by liberal teachers in the past that they aren't supposed to teach morality, only to present the children choices.

And no, I did not watch 60 minutes. I heard about it later that day from someone. Frankly, I'm sick of sky is falling global warming, destroying rain forests, and all the rest. I've watched enough to know its slanted. Weather channel with all the creepy music, floods, tornados, and all the rest, it is laughable, and dire predictions of doom in a few years. Anybody can come up with a computer model to show virtually anything. And to correct you again, some areas of the globe may be warming. I simply point out that nobody has proof that it is man caused. I am simply a skeptic, and justifiably so from experience. And even if it is man-caused and the worst scenario would happen, Kyoto would have a very minimal effect. If it is that serious, then include the nations not included in Kyoto.

And give me some evidence that crime was much higher in the depression. A graph I have here shows it very low in 1933 when the graph starts, compared to now.

And I doubt any scientist is being deprived of his right to do science. He may be deprived of effecting political policies. They need to stick to sound science. Give me some evidence here with the accusations.

0 Replies

The thread started with a mention of a school but not in the context in which the thread was further derailed to talk about liberal/conservative schools.

Quote:

In Deborah Meier's "The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons For America From a Small School in Harlem", the author basis an ideology on the idea that ".... mutual respect is the bedrock condition of a healthy democracy...." What do you think? Is it?

Not having read the book I can't really talk on the merits of it. However the author of this thread asked us what we think of the ideology, "mutual respect is the bedrock condition of a healthy democracy?"

Ebrown brought up some good points. Can you have mutual respect for someone with an ideology you despise? What if someone had an ideology of segregating all Christians from non Christians in public places and stripping away their rights in society? How could you show a "mutual respect" for that person?

(Just a hypothetical example)

0 Replies

On the very first page of this thread, I asked the question: "Is there anything in the book about college professors and K-12 teachers respecting the political views of their students and the parents of the students, and thus stay clear of advocating political views in the classroom?"

I figured that would be an important element of showing respect for each other in a democracy, as supposedly demonstrated by the school. I never received an answer.

0 Replies

The likely reason you did not receive an answer was because the attempt to derail the topic was so blatant. In Eisenhower America, we were told on a nearly daily basis about the commies (and it was often inferred that they were mostly Jews), and warned about dangerous radicalism, and told about the virtues of the American system, and especially about freedom of speech and our obligation to speak up to defend our democratic values.

Then when the civil rights movement came along, people began to quickly assert that those n*ggers were financed by the commies, and J. Edgar Hoover put FBI agents on the case, at tax-payer expense, to prove that M L King was funded by commie front organizations. When students began to do what they had been taught was their civic duty all throughout the 1950s, and to protest an undeclared war which they considered unjust, they were branded as commies, and J. Edgar Hoover put FBI agents on the case, at tax-payer expense, to prove that anti-war demonstrators were funded by commie front organizations.

Is that what you meant about respect for the political views of students and their parents? Is that an answer to your blatant attempt to derail the thread into a channel leading to a dead horse you wanted to flog?

I strongly suspect that what we have here is Martin Luther's famous case of whose ox has been gored.

0 Replies

As the thread starter did not establish any criteria for what she had in mind re mutual respect and has elected not to elaborate on that after being asked, it is my opinion that any illustration of mutual respect is fair game for discussion including respect shown by teachers to students and parents and vice versa. Okie's question was therefore perfectly appropriate as has been discussion on the topic that actually does address the topic.

Those who dislike including mutual respect in education in the discussion can certainly show respect by skipping over those posts.

0 Replies

What? Setanta, I wasn't attempting to derail the subject. I asked a simple question which I thought tied directly into the problems of respect we are having now, and I wondered if the book addressed anything about how this was handled at the school as described in the book. That was the subject of the thread. I never brought anything up about communists, Martin Luther King, or whatever else Setanta is talking about??????

0 Replies

I wonder what okie and foxfyre think liberals are and what they think the conservative point of view is and if school teachers espoused the conservative viewpoint if it would then be permissable to teach it.

I have written many, many times that I think morality is bunk. Morality is the acceptance of handed down set of precepts that remain untested by philosophy and personal experience. Once a person lives and experiences and thinks then they may take the inherited morality and use it to develop an ethical system. Only ethical systems matter.

Okie -- I have grandchildren and I feel sorry for them that there are people who scoff at global warming: they've done nothing to deserve the threat that the inability to accept its reality -- and the sacrifices and responsibilities such acceptance entail -- poses to them.

If we do not teach kids how to get along with programs like the Community of Caring, then there is no hope of those children ever having open ears and eyes.

0 Replies

IMO, what Okie and I think about liberals or conservatives in this thread is absolutely moot. The thesis of the thread is that the democracy is weakened when people cannot respect differences of opinion and those who hold opinions with which we disagree.

Quote:

I wonder what okie and foxfyre think liberals are and what they think the conservative point of view is and if school teachers espoused the conservative viewpoint if it would then be permissable to teach it.

If you had read my posts in this thread Plainoldme, you wouldn't even ask the question. You would KNOW that I think any teacher who displays any ideology whatsoever in the classroom disrespects his/her position, his/her students and their parents. The kids shouldn't have a clue whether their teacher is liberal or conservative or something else because it should make absolutely no difference in what is said, what is taught, or what happens in the classroom.

0 Replies

So Fox, does this mean you are completely opposed to teaching Intelligent Design then?

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I wonder what okie and foxfyre think liberals are and what they think the conservative point of view is and if school teachers espoused the conservative viewpoint if it would then be permissable to teach it.

I have written many, many times that I think morality is bunk. Morality is the acceptance of handed down set of precepts that remain untested by philosophy and personal experience. Once a person lives and experiences and thinks then they may take the inherited morality and use it to develop an ethical system. Only ethical systems matter.

Okie -- I have grandchildren and I feel sorry for them that there are people who scoff at global warming: they've done nothing to deserve the threat that the inability to accept its reality -- and the sacrifices and responsibilities such acceptance entail -- poses to them.

If we do not teach kids how to get along with programs like the Community of Caring, then there is no hope of those children ever having open ears and eyes.

plainoldme,I don't know where to start.
I would prefer that schools mainly teach established skills that are neither conservative or liberal, things like reading, writing, math, science (sound science), and established history and government principles. Add in some trade skills in high school. I would prefer schools stay away from current politics, religion, and conroversial subjects as sex education.

I feel sorry for you if you think "morality is bunk." You apparently don't care if people lie, cheat, and steal? You don't care if people maim and kill each other, trespass and destroy other peoples property? You don't care if people destroy their lives and their family's lives due to illegal drug use. You don't care if people succumb to alcoholism and kill people on the road and abuse friends, family, and neighbors? Do you get the point?

I have grandchildren too, and I don't want mis-informed teachers telling them the sky is falling, based on politically charged, unproven information.

I've asked what "Community of Caring" actually does, and have gotten no satisfactory answers. I am not excited about each and every pet program that comes down the pike unless I know what it does. Are you?

All of this points out one thing, the Federal Dept of Education was unnecessary. We could save billions and give the schools back to the people in their local communities to run, manage, and pay for. It worked great before. We had the most educated and technologically advanced country in the world before the Federal Department of Education was formed, and I don't think its been beneficial, but has simply given us a bottomless pit in which to throw more money away.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So Fox, does this mean you are completely opposed to teaching Intelligent Design then?

Opposed to teaching intelligent design as science? Of course. It can't be taught as science. But I would be opposed to a science teacher instructing his/her class that intelligent design is bogus either as that also has nothing to do with science class.

Opposed to teaching intelligent design in a comparative religion or theology class? It would be absurd not to.

0 Replies

Fox,

How do you plan on teaching civics or government classes while avoiding current events? You would miss out on the best teaching opportunities.

Morality vs ethics... both are value systems. Plain didn't say she had no values. You obviously think ethics are bunk Fox since you rely only on morality so you must think it is OK to lie, steal, cheat etc.. You don't care if people maim and kill each other, trespass and destroy other peoples property? You don't care if people destroy their lives and their family's lives due to illegal drug use. You don't care if people succumb to alcoholism and kill people on the road and abuse friends, family, and neighbors? Do you get the point?
(There is your claim right back at you, making as much sense.)

The Federal Office of Education was first formed in 1867. (It has changed names and positions in the executive branch since then.) Rather a hard sell to tell us that education has gotten worse since 1867.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Fox,

How do you plan on teaching civics or government classes while avoiding current events? You would miss out on the best teaching opportunities.

Morality vs ethics... both are value systems. Plain didn't say she had no values. You obviously think ethics are bunk Fox since you rely only on morality so you must think it is OK to lie, steal, cheat etc.. You don't care if people maim and kill each other, trespass and destroy other peoples property? You don't care if people destroy their lives and their family's lives due to illegal drug use. You don't care if people succumb to alcoholism and kill people on the road and abuse friends, family, and neighbors?

(There is your claim right back at you, making as much sense.)

The Federal Office of Education was first formed in 1867. (It has changed names and positions in the executive branch since then.) Rather a hard sell to tell us that education has gotten worse since 1867.

What I, as a teacher, believe to be moral or immoral or what I care about is not pertinent to what I, as a teacher, am charged to teach in a classroom.

And I know from experience that a teacher can competently teach any subject, including the law, the purpose of it, civics and current events, without the class having a clue about the teacher's opinion on the right or wrong of any component or without the class having a clue about the teacher's religion, political affliliation, or personal ideology. And that, in my opinion, is the only way to competently teach anything. Anything else is preaching and/or indoctrination.

And until you know something about me and my vocations and avocations, I would be careful about making statements like:

Quote:

Morality vs ethics... both are value systems. Plain didn't say she had no values.

Please show me any place that I ever discussed or referenced any values that Plain does or does not have or even made any insinuations about her values.

Quote:

You obviously think ethics are bunk Fox since you rely only on morality so you must think it is OK to lie, steal, cheat etc..

Can you find a post anywhere in this thread in which I discuss or even mention my opinion on ethics or morality? You seem fixated on that and also seem to be unable to separate it from your responsibility as a teacher. Do you want your child's teacher instructing that child on ethics and morality if the teacher's sense of ethics and morality are different from yours? Or would you prefer to provide that instruction to your child yourself and have the teacher devote his/her time to teach science, English, math, history, etc.?

Quote:

You don't care if people maim and kill each other, trespass and destroy other peoples property? You don't care if people destroy their lives and their family's lives due to illegal drug use. You don't care if people succumb to alcoholism and kill people on the road and abuse friends, family, and neighbors?

Can you extrapolate a bit on how a discussion on trespass, assault, battery, burglary, domestic violence, etc. would be pertinent to an algebra class? Can you explain how drug abuse or drunk driving is pertinent to say a geography or English class? Do you know that I have devoted a good deal of my adult life to doing alcoholism counseling and working with families of alcoholics? Do you know that I helped start the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas? But you say I don't care? How did you draw that conclusion from anything I said?

It's really a fascinating interpretation of propriety to assume that any of that should be the focus of a class titled something else.. I rather think it would be inappropriate to bring it into my comparative religions class or a history of development of Christian thought class, too. Don't you?

Quote:

(There is your claim right back at you, making as much sense.)

What claim of mine do you address here? I haven't been able to connect anything you've said here to anything I've said. And no, what you're saying does not make much sense within the context of the discussion, but I am willing to hear your explanation for it.

Quote:

Do you get the point?

No, I don't get the point at all. You are either assigning somebody else's comments to me or you have not read what I have said at all or you are intentionally avoiding what I did say as it does not fit the uncomplimentary characterizations you are assigning to me.

And finally, is education worse since l867? In some ways no and in other ways yes. But I think that is more suitable to another thread than in a discussion of mutual respect and it would completely derail this thread to discuss it here.

My bottom line is that mutual respect requires noninterference in all matters in which nobody's legal, constitutional, or unalienable rights are compromised. In the classroom that means that the teacher respects his/her position, his/her students, and the students' parents by the teacher teaching the subject matter and leaving his/her personal politics, religion, ideology, and/or other opinions out of it. Respect for the law, respect for authority, and respect for the rights, person, and property of others are established by rules and enforced by the teacher's demeanor and example. Anything else is inappropriate in the classroom.

This principle can be carried forward into business, commerce, politics, and international relations too if people could be convinced that civility and mutual respect are superior to demands that one's own preferences are the only ones to be socially acceptable. Unfortunately too many people, governments, and even some A2K members don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.

Going back to the original question of a thread, can democracies survive without mutual respect? No they cannot for when one faction demands that their politics/ideology/religion/opinions are the only ones that count, you have a despotic or totalitarian system rather than a democratic republic or some other form of democratic government. Perhaps a discussion of how this applies in the school is particularly important since so many who want control at the expense of all others start with indoctrination of the kids.

0 Replies

The market for paranoid delusion will never falter . . . i should start writing books to cater to the Chicken Little crowd--i'll be rich . . .

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know