Oh my, well I must start off by saying that I am completely in love with this novel. Spiegelman is an absolute genius and the way that he constructs this novel is genius. Okay, so I have many potential thesis topics, so here I go.
One thing that really interests me is the whole concept of how Spiegelman created this graphic novel. For one, why did he even choose to make his father’s story in the form of a comic book/ novel? This holocaust was a a serious the tragedy and the fact that he decided to make this story into a comic book must be done on purpose. Also, within this comic book structure version of the novel, the metaphor that Spiegelman uses in which the people are different types of animals is also significant. I would enjoy deciphering this within my essay.
Another subject that really interests me is all of the relationships in Maus II. The entire book, most of the characters are selfish and abusive towards one another. One of the only people that I believe is not selfish in this novel would be Mancie. For example, in the novel when Vladek writes a letter to Anja he says, “and Mancie took it. She was so good. Always she took” (pg. 63). Mancie’s relationship with both Vladek and Anja instills hope in both of them. Mancie does this for no benefit to herself, but to the couples’ benefit. Also, Art abuses the fathers’ willingness to talk about the Holocaust. Art even believes that his father always is a source of “tension”. But, in reality he is the one who is making the father bring up tense stories. I could back this theory up by mentioning Art’s visit to his therapist in which the therapist said, “It sounds like you’re feeling remorse-maybe you believe you exposed your father to ridicule” (pg. 44). This exemplifies how Art knows that he took advantage of his father. I then think after I characterize this relationship, I would go on with other relationships provided in his novel.
Finally, one subject I could go on about is the key theme of luck within the novel. Vladek is a “survivor” of the Holocaust, but how much luck was actually involved? It seems like to me, ever since he got his number interpreted by the priest, he was instilled with this hope that led him to strive and encounter all the luck that he did. Also, I would like to deliberate on how this luck affected him. Vladek seems to feel remorse for surviving the camps when so many didn’t. What affect did his luck play to this?
Anyways, I believe in the first thesis idea that I stated, I could incorporate Scott McCloud pretty well, I could use his arguments on the nature and structure of comic books to show how and why Spiegelman constructed his novel the way he did. I’m sure there is so much more I could do, but that’s all for now.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Let's Talk About Accuracy
Taylor argues that, ““In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future the system must be first.” Just take a look at this quote. It seems all wrong. I understand that productivity enhancement is a primary goal for people of the technological fields, but I don’t believe it needs to be taken this far.
The thing with these companies is that they are only focused on one thing. That thing is productivity. But why is it productivity? It’s productivity just to enhance their profits. Therefore, the information that they provide their consumers with is not all faithful. What people don’t realize is that the internet and all the “factual” sites out there are not completely reliable. I mean just look at Wikipedia for example. Anyone can modify that site. And yet, we take it as if it is pure and accurate information.
Okay, so I mean this is kind of bound to happen. Every company does what they have to do to get where they need to get. I mean that’s just the mechanics of business. I’m not scolding the people who created this. Rather, I am concerned with us, the American population. We are the ones who allow this shift of power to happen. We are the ones who rely on these databases as if there is no tomorrow. Or rather I should say, as if there were no libraries. I guess what I’m trying to get across is that there are other access points to information out there, but we don’t use them. I believe that the reason we don’t use them is purely because we Americans are rather lazy. We can’t take the extra five minutes to go to a library and get more faithful and accurate information. Besides, Google and Wikipedia are so much more convenient. Just type in one phrase and all of your information pops up. Anyways, we rely on these internet data bases that may or may not give us reliant information. So therefore yes, I do agree with what Carr said.
The thing with these companies is that they are only focused on one thing. That thing is productivity. But why is it productivity? It’s productivity just to enhance their profits. Therefore, the information that they provide their consumers with is not all faithful. What people don’t realize is that the internet and all the “factual” sites out there are not completely reliable. I mean just look at Wikipedia for example. Anyone can modify that site. And yet, we take it as if it is pure and accurate information.
Okay, so I mean this is kind of bound to happen. Every company does what they have to do to get where they need to get. I mean that’s just the mechanics of business. I’m not scolding the people who created this. Rather, I am concerned with us, the American population. We are the ones who allow this shift of power to happen. We are the ones who rely on these databases as if there is no tomorrow. Or rather I should say, as if there were no libraries. I guess what I’m trying to get across is that there are other access points to information out there, but we don’t use them. I believe that the reason we don’t use them is purely because we Americans are rather lazy. We can’t take the extra five minutes to go to a library and get more faithful and accurate information. Besides, Google and Wikipedia are so much more convenient. Just type in one phrase and all of your information pops up. Anyways, we rely on these internet data bases that may or may not give us reliant information. So therefore yes, I do agree with what Carr said.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Natural Humanity?
In Kirby’s article, while he discusses the new shift towards a new “Pseudo-modernism” type of lifestyle he says, “I believe there is more to this shift than a simple change in cultural fashion. The terms by which authority, knowledge, selfhood, reality and time are conceived have been altered, suddenly and forever”. He is right with this. The American lifestyle has changed drastically. It has evolved into a more technologically enhanced society, and due to this humanity is slowly dismantling. The people of this day and age have become more and more reliant on technology and therefore, the natural humanity of the American’s is disintegrating.
What do I mean by the “natural humanity”? Well, I consider “naturalness” to be anything that isn’t reliant on technology. Something that Americans can do on their own, without the help of machines. The sad thing is, is that this idea seems impossible in this day and age. I mean, just recall some of the facts that were brought up in the video we watched on Friday. First, there are 1,000,000,000 internet devices in this world as of 2008. Second, in the duration of five minutes 67 babies are born in contrast to 694,000 songs being downloaded in that same amount of time. Third, by the year 2049 there shall be a $1,000 computer that will exceed the knowledge of the whole entire human race. So, what does this mean?
It means that Americans have started a new era, an era of technological subservience. I guess you could say that American’s are past postmodernism and are now embarking on a journey that resembles one exemplified in Brave New World or 1984. We have all the signs right in front of us. I mean, look at the examples I brought up from the video! The number of internet devices has more than tripled since 1992, and this isn’t bad? Of course it is, why are we devoting so much to this technological invention? What if another incident such as Y2K happens again? We American’s would not be able to function. Also, this computer will exceed the entire human race’s intellectual capacity? This seems like a great set up to a 1984 scenario. If we give to much power to technology, then we will ultimately become the ones controlled, not the other way around.
Anyways, that’s my opinion on what this all means.
What do I mean by the “natural humanity”? Well, I consider “naturalness” to be anything that isn’t reliant on technology. Something that Americans can do on their own, without the help of machines. The sad thing is, is that this idea seems impossible in this day and age. I mean, just recall some of the facts that were brought up in the video we watched on Friday. First, there are 1,000,000,000 internet devices in this world as of 2008. Second, in the duration of five minutes 67 babies are born in contrast to 694,000 songs being downloaded in that same amount of time. Third, by the year 2049 there shall be a $1,000 computer that will exceed the knowledge of the whole entire human race. So, what does this mean?
It means that Americans have started a new era, an era of technological subservience. I guess you could say that American’s are past postmodernism and are now embarking on a journey that resembles one exemplified in Brave New World or 1984. We have all the signs right in front of us. I mean, look at the examples I brought up from the video! The number of internet devices has more than tripled since 1992, and this isn’t bad? Of course it is, why are we devoting so much to this technological invention? What if another incident such as Y2K happens again? We American’s would not be able to function. Also, this computer will exceed the entire human race’s intellectual capacity? This seems like a great set up to a 1984 scenario. If we give to much power to technology, then we will ultimately become the ones controlled, not the other way around.
Anyways, that’s my opinion on what this all means.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Felix, a Man of Reason
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” (pg. 8). Postmodernism for Beginners text conveys this sense that the “Age of Reason” has long ago prevailed and now the people have begun to look towards more relaxed notions, or you could say less scientific based facts. There has been a transfer of knowledge from the more scientific based ideals to ones such as narratives. Within the novel Cat’s Cradle, the readers begin to see the development of Felix, one of the main creators of the atom bomb. As we, the readers, begin to see the development of Felix, we get a sense that he is totally and completely against what one may consider non- scientific facts. A relation that Postmodernism might convey as “non-scientific” would be narrative, and how they serve a higher purpose to enlighten people and provide a better understanding. Felix, you could say would be most likely to object to this sort of “nonsense” information.
So, when one begins to read the first seven chapters of this book it comes off as sort of ironic. Felix, this person who still believes in the ideals and viewpoints of the “Age of reason”, who would most likely object to any sort of use of narratives to explain anyone or anything’s behavior is solely characterized by one very large metanarrative. Jonah/John or whatever you would like to call him relies on people’s local narratives to contribute to this gigantic metanarrative of Felix’s life in relation to the “humanitarian” side of the bomb. I mean, just look at his letters back and forth between the youngest son Newt and Jonah/John. They’re one narrative after another. And of course, Felix is characterized differently each time the narrator hears a narrative about him. In the viewpoint of Newt, we sense that Felix is a crazy insane man. For example, little Newt says in his letter to Jonah/ John,”… my father was the ugliest thing I had ever seen I still dream about it all the time” (pg. 12). But then on the other hand, later outside of the seven chapters; we see Felix idolized by Dr. Breed. These two contradicting views of Felix reveal the instability of non-scientific evidence. Wait, back track, how can it even be called “evidence”? It can’t, therefore, we begin to see why Felix has remained true to the “Age of Reason” thinking. Poor Felix, he is characterized by the one thing true scientists dislike.
Well, now that I have probably confused about half of you who are reading this, I’m going to stop. I know this is probably really hard to follow, but I tried to make my ideas at least a little understandable.
So, when one begins to read the first seven chapters of this book it comes off as sort of ironic. Felix, this person who still believes in the ideals and viewpoints of the “Age of reason”, who would most likely object to any sort of use of narratives to explain anyone or anything’s behavior is solely characterized by one very large metanarrative. Jonah/John or whatever you would like to call him relies on people’s local narratives to contribute to this gigantic metanarrative of Felix’s life in relation to the “humanitarian” side of the bomb. I mean, just look at his letters back and forth between the youngest son Newt and Jonah/John. They’re one narrative after another. And of course, Felix is characterized differently each time the narrator hears a narrative about him. In the viewpoint of Newt, we sense that Felix is a crazy insane man. For example, little Newt says in his letter to Jonah/ John,”… my father was the ugliest thing I had ever seen I still dream about it all the time” (pg. 12). But then on the other hand, later outside of the seven chapters; we see Felix idolized by Dr. Breed. These two contradicting views of Felix reveal the instability of non-scientific evidence. Wait, back track, how can it even be called “evidence”? It can’t, therefore, we begin to see why Felix has remained true to the “Age of Reason” thinking. Poor Felix, he is characterized by the one thing true scientists dislike.
Well, now that I have probably confused about half of you who are reading this, I’m going to stop. I know this is probably really hard to follow, but I tried to make my ideas at least a little understandable.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The Beginning of a Thesis
From the very start of reading Brave New World, the novel starts putting ideas into one’s head of the structure of the society and how the people accommodate themselves to the morality that is tied within this structure. I am sure that there are people within this class, myself included, that have thought this society was twisted and dark. But in reality, doesn’t our society have similarities to this “Brave New World?” And where do we fit in amongst the “savages” and the “civilized?” I believe that our society today can relate to the character of John. And I am interested in expanding on this idea within my essay. But yet, I have not finished reading this novel. And because of this, I may change my opinion on whether or not I want to incorporate this theory in my essay at all. Well, with this said within this blog I will outline what I believe may be a possibility of my thesis of my essay.
As I was reading BNW, I began thinking that if our society was characterized in BNW it would most likely be portrayed as John. John is the best of both worlds. He is the best of the new world and the savage world. Our society has similarities to both the savage and the civilized as well. Our society still contains the parental asset, but yet it is becoming more and more relaxed on the subject of sexuality as in the new world. With this said, are we not the best of both these worlds too? I believe this is what Huxley was aiming for. I truly believe that he wanted us to relate ourselves to John, who is a combination of both these societies.
So, my thesis will probably answer the question of: What type of society does our country reflect today, a civilized or uncivilized one? Within answering this question I will most likely incorporate the idea that our society would be relatable to the character of John. I will most likely make relations to Postmodernism and 1984. I will also try to find another source that relates to this topic outside of these two novels.
I know my ideas are not totally coherent. I hope that you interpret them they way I intended them to be. But then again, I’m not sure that they do make any sense. But this is why we are outlining, right?
As I was reading BNW, I began thinking that if our society was characterized in BNW it would most likely be portrayed as John. John is the best of both worlds. He is the best of the new world and the savage world. Our society has similarities to both the savage and the civilized as well. Our society still contains the parental asset, but yet it is becoming more and more relaxed on the subject of sexuality as in the new world. With this said, are we not the best of both these worlds too? I believe this is what Huxley was aiming for. I truly believe that he wanted us to relate ourselves to John, who is a combination of both these societies.
So, my thesis will probably answer the question of: What type of society does our country reflect today, a civilized or uncivilized one? Within answering this question I will most likely incorporate the idea that our society would be relatable to the character of John. I will most likely make relations to Postmodernism and 1984. I will also try to find another source that relates to this topic outside of these two novels.
I know my ideas are not totally coherent. I hope that you interpret them they way I intended them to be. But then again, I’m not sure that they do make any sense. But this is why we are outlining, right?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
What Postmodernism Says of Narratives
To everyone who is reading this blog, I should forewarn you my ideas are probably going to come off as unstructured gibberish, but nevertheless I am going to try my hardest to mold my beliefs into words that will be comprehendible to everyone in this class. So, with that all said here I go.
This week in Dominguez’s class we focused on the theory of postmodernism in relation to the viewpoint of Lyotard. Although we learned much more from Lyotard than just his theories on narratives, I’m going to focus on his theories of “Metanarratives” and “Local Narratives”. Okay, so really what is the difference between these two? I guess the best way I would explain it would be that Metanarratives are used to explain the Local Narratives., or better, Local Narratives are only a small piece of the bigger Metanarratives.
So, now that we understand the difference between these two, let’s figure out why they are so vital in societies. To me, I would say that the Narratives function to explain a phenomenon of the world without getting into the scientific elements of the subject. We must remember that there was a time when people did not have the technological resources available to explain some things occurring in the world. So, for the sake of everyone’s sanity, when a question came up like: “How was the Earth created?” it was natural to come up with a huge Metanarrative that would explain how it came to be. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that these Narratives all presented truth in their telling, but they served as acceptable answers to the people who had no logic or science to back up their questions. Also, it is much more soothing to the minds of people to have an answer to these sorts of questions than to simply say “I don’t know how that came to be.” Even in Brave New World, we see this happening. Recall if you will, when John asks Linda of the process on how to make chemicals. Her response of uncertainty makes John uncomfortable, he wants an answer and so he goes to the old men of the pueblo for answers. The men tell him a story of how the world came to be with “the Fog of Increase” and the “Four wombs”. Recall again what John says in his thoughts to this, “The old men of the pueblo had much more definite answers” (pg.130). As you can see, people are more willing to accept answers to their questions, no matter how illogical the answer seems to be, it is easier to accept that than to accept an abstract concept of “I don’t know”.
So, with all this said let’s find out some actual situations where Narratives actually have controlled societies. Well, in ancient tribes such as the Aztecs, Narratives served as the cornerstone of their societies. Narratives were told about everything, such as: the weather, the harvests, and the health of the tribe. So, if a bad harvest took place that year, it would be natural to come up with a Narrative that explained it. Such as, “The Gods are angry at us, and therefore we have been plagued with this terrible famine.” This was much more likely to be accepted in the society than the realization that maybe the plants were just not capable of being grown in that area. And due to the tribal belief that the Gods were upset with the people, more human sacrifices would be made that year. As you can see, Narratives had great power in some societies. Not until the human population becomes more civilized will scientific discourse be able to overrule the narrative discourses
This week in Dominguez’s class we focused on the theory of postmodernism in relation to the viewpoint of Lyotard. Although we learned much more from Lyotard than just his theories on narratives, I’m going to focus on his theories of “Metanarratives” and “Local Narratives”. Okay, so really what is the difference between these two? I guess the best way I would explain it would be that Metanarratives are used to explain the Local Narratives., or better, Local Narratives are only a small piece of the bigger Metanarratives.
So, now that we understand the difference between these two, let’s figure out why they are so vital in societies. To me, I would say that the Narratives function to explain a phenomenon of the world without getting into the scientific elements of the subject. We must remember that there was a time when people did not have the technological resources available to explain some things occurring in the world. So, for the sake of everyone’s sanity, when a question came up like: “How was the Earth created?” it was natural to come up with a huge Metanarrative that would explain how it came to be. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that these Narratives all presented truth in their telling, but they served as acceptable answers to the people who had no logic or science to back up their questions. Also, it is much more soothing to the minds of people to have an answer to these sorts of questions than to simply say “I don’t know how that came to be.” Even in Brave New World, we see this happening. Recall if you will, when John asks Linda of the process on how to make chemicals. Her response of uncertainty makes John uncomfortable, he wants an answer and so he goes to the old men of the pueblo for answers. The men tell him a story of how the world came to be with “the Fog of Increase” and the “Four wombs”. Recall again what John says in his thoughts to this, “The old men of the pueblo had much more definite answers” (pg.130). As you can see, people are more willing to accept answers to their questions, no matter how illogical the answer seems to be, it is easier to accept that than to accept an abstract concept of “I don’t know”.
So, with all this said let’s find out some actual situations where Narratives actually have controlled societies. Well, in ancient tribes such as the Aztecs, Narratives served as the cornerstone of their societies. Narratives were told about everything, such as: the weather, the harvests, and the health of the tribe. So, if a bad harvest took place that year, it would be natural to come up with a Narrative that explained it. Such as, “The Gods are angry at us, and therefore we have been plagued with this terrible famine.” This was much more likely to be accepted in the society than the realization that maybe the plants were just not capable of being grown in that area. And due to the tribal belief that the Gods were upset with the people, more human sacrifices would be made that year. As you can see, Narratives had great power in some societies. Not until the human population becomes more civilized will scientific discourse be able to overrule the narrative discourses
Monday, September 21, 2009
Better Put, Twisted New World
From what I have read from this novel has already disturbed me greatly. This whole idea of "progress" is what gives me the most trouble. After reading about the typical day in this society I was completely and utterly disgusted. The whole "decanting" process is just wrong. How can taking away individuality and uniqueness be qualified as progress? It can't be. It seems to me that this new society has "progressed" in the wrong ways. I suppose that technically speaking, the society has become more technologically and intellectually enhanced, but they are using it the wrong way. They use it to strip the humans (I use that term loosely, for how can they be qualified as human beings when they have no individual conscious?) of any chance of deviation from the structured social classes that they set for them.
Furthermore, I was bothered by the whole concept of the words mother and father as "smut". I especially found it amusing how the director said,"...in those days of gross viviparous reproduction, children were always brought up by their parents and not in State Conditioning Centres." If you ask me, the children are better off without these State Conditioning places. What they do at these centers is cruel and wrong. They electricute babies for crying out loud! How can any mother or father-oops I mean "crash" "crash"- be raising a child worse than that!? Okay, I understand that the whole concept for the electricuting is to keep these children from developing any individual mind frame in which they may acquire traits that are not beneficial to the society as a whole, but honestly this concept is ridiculous. Also, I was really disturbed when I read about these kids already involved in "erotic behavior"! This was seriously twisted, I literraly laughed when the director was explaining how in the old days children didn't start erotic behavior until their twenties and the D.H.C. was stunned about this crazy concept. This whole concept of early sexual behavior was just perverted and wrong, I was kind of disgusted with Huxley for including this.
Lastly, I was amused by the fact that in this society they relate averything to Henry Ford. To me, they seem to take him as their God. I also realized that Christianity no longer is existent in this new world. Once Ford came along, he seemed to have taken that place. Also, it was interesting when the Director used the phrase: "Oh Ford!" I related it to how people in today's society say "Oh my God". This quotation made me realize that God no longer has a place in this new world.
As I have said about twenty times within this blog, this new world that Huxley creates for us really disturbs me. I'm really both interested and a little bit scared to read on.
Furthermore, I was bothered by the whole concept of the words mother and father as "smut". I especially found it amusing how the director said,"...in those days of gross viviparous reproduction, children were always brought up by their parents and not in State Conditioning Centres." If you ask me, the children are better off without these State Conditioning places. What they do at these centers is cruel and wrong. They electricute babies for crying out loud! How can any mother or father-oops I mean "crash" "crash"- be raising a child worse than that!? Okay, I understand that the whole concept for the electricuting is to keep these children from developing any individual mind frame in which they may acquire traits that are not beneficial to the society as a whole, but honestly this concept is ridiculous. Also, I was really disturbed when I read about these kids already involved in "erotic behavior"! This was seriously twisted, I literraly laughed when the director was explaining how in the old days children didn't start erotic behavior until their twenties and the D.H.C. was stunned about this crazy concept. This whole concept of early sexual behavior was just perverted and wrong, I was kind of disgusted with Huxley for including this.
Lastly, I was amused by the fact that in this society they relate averything to Henry Ford. To me, they seem to take him as their God. I also realized that Christianity no longer is existent in this new world. Once Ford came along, he seemed to have taken that place. Also, it was interesting when the Director used the phrase: "Oh Ford!" I related it to how people in today's society say "Oh my God". This quotation made me realize that God no longer has a place in this new world.
As I have said about twenty times within this blog, this new world that Huxley creates for us really disturbs me. I'm really both interested and a little bit scared to read on.
Monday, September 7, 2009
subject to controversy; debatable
The question of how much religion should be incorporated into the schooling system is controversial. Due to the fact that it is a controversial question, we should probably remind ourselves on what controversial actually means. The dictionary refers to the word controversial as: subject to controversy; debatable. Therefore, a controversial question will never truly have a set in stone correct answer. Although everyone would like to say that there is a middle unbias ground, this "ground" in reality is unexistent. Everyone has their own opinions on this subject, and no matter how much we would like to believe that we are capable of being totally objective, we are not. Naturally, everyone likes to believe that he or she is correct, and therefore this hinders humanity at any real chance of creating this "middle ground". Therefore, as I am a typical human, I will be realistic to what I personally believe; even though I wish I could say that there should be no bias in school education.
I believe that religion does have a vital role on American history. Therefore I am not saying that religion should be completely left out of our histories. Rather, I believe that religion should be taught in relation to history, not as the foundation of our history. I know, you may argue that religion is the reason why American history even came to be, but this technically is not true. There were other reasons to the foundation of this great nation also, such as political and economical. Therefore, how can we teach history as if Christianity is the sole purpose of America's existence today? We can't.
While reading The Wall Street Journal's article, I perceived the social conservative's goals and aspirations as to censor any part of history that seemed to taint the Christian faith. For example, the quote "The curriculum...should clearly present Christainity as an overall force for good", this alone is what seemed to give me the most trouble. This "editing" of history is only manipulating history to make Christainity more appealing. Therefore, this is not the right thing to do. I can understand incorporating the Christian faith into history as it relates to it, but censorship is an entirely different concept. History should be told as it happens, whether it gives Christianity a positive or negative outlook. To be fair, not incorporating religion into history is also a censorship, therefore both sides pro-religion teaching or anti-religion teaching must try to be represented.
When it all comes down to it, there will be a bias no matter what. The subject of religion's involvement in education will always be debatable. After all, we are all human, and part of the beauty of humanity is having the capacity to hold our own viewpoints even if they vary from one another. The way I view this subject, religion should be taught in schools only if it has a direct "cause and effect" relation to history. The rest of religion, be it Chritianity or not, should be taught outside of the educational environment.
I believe that religion does have a vital role on American history. Therefore I am not saying that religion should be completely left out of our histories. Rather, I believe that religion should be taught in relation to history, not as the foundation of our history. I know, you may argue that religion is the reason why American history even came to be, but this technically is not true. There were other reasons to the foundation of this great nation also, such as political and economical. Therefore, how can we teach history as if Christianity is the sole purpose of America's existence today? We can't.
While reading The Wall Street Journal's article, I perceived the social conservative's goals and aspirations as to censor any part of history that seemed to taint the Christian faith. For example, the quote "The curriculum...should clearly present Christainity as an overall force for good", this alone is what seemed to give me the most trouble. This "editing" of history is only manipulating history to make Christainity more appealing. Therefore, this is not the right thing to do. I can understand incorporating the Christian faith into history as it relates to it, but censorship is an entirely different concept. History should be told as it happens, whether it gives Christianity a positive or negative outlook. To be fair, not incorporating religion into history is also a censorship, therefore both sides pro-religion teaching or anti-religion teaching must try to be represented.
When it all comes down to it, there will be a bias no matter what. The subject of religion's involvement in education will always be debatable. After all, we are all human, and part of the beauty of humanity is having the capacity to hold our own viewpoints even if they vary from one another. The way I view this subject, religion should be taught in schools only if it has a direct "cause and effect" relation to history. The rest of religion, be it Chritianity or not, should be taught outside of the educational environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
