Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
in response to SPE825: I cannot stand when people use an excuse such as "educational materials that offend, are intolerant, are racist or biased in nature should not be used in our school system." That is too wide of a definition, which could in reality result in everything getting banned. Don't like a history book because women and blacks are not fairly represented (which may be true, of course), ban it! Don't like physics because it might offer a different explination about how the universe functions? Ban it! I could go on and on with Zimmerman's criteria above. I just think it was foolish of the writers of this text to use a phrase like "biblical myth." What did they expect to happen? Wether you believe or not, you should not degrade anyone by referring to what they believe in as a "myth." I don't like people banning science books for religious reasons anymore than I would like scientists banning the bible. It seems that Zimmerman should take up his concerns with the publisher/writers of the book as opposed to trying to ban a book that fits his criteria for only a certain few students. Who gives him the right (or the school board for that matter), the right to take away educational opportunities from other students that might have a different belief set? And come on, did you really think that your honors biology class was going to be religious in nature? If the faith of these students and Zimmerman is so weak that a high school text book can shake them, then I believe they have their own problems to deal with.
in response to SPE825:
I cannot stand when people use an excuse such as "educational materials that offend, are intolerant, are racist or biased in nature should not be used in our school system."
That is too wide of a definition, which could in reality result in everything getting banned. Don't like a history book because women and blacks are not fairly represented (which may be true, of course), ban it! Don't like physics because it might offer a different explination about how the universe functions? Ban it! I could go on and on with Zimmerman's criteria above.
I just think it was foolish of the writers of this text to use a phrase like "biblical myth." What did they expect to happen? Wether you believe or not, you should not degrade anyone by referring to what they believe in as a "myth."
I don't like people banning science books for religious reasons anymore than I would like scientists banning the bible.
It seems that Zimmerman should take up his concerns with the publisher/writers of the book as opposed to trying to ban a book that fits his criteria for only a certain few students. Who gives him the right (or the school board for that matter), the right to take away educational opportunities from other students that might have a different belief set? And come on, did you really think that your honors biology class was going to be religious in nature?
If the faith of these students and Zimmerman is so weak that a high school text book can shake them, then I believe they have their own problems to deal with.
It does not matter if the truth hurts people's feelings--- it is still the truth, and it should be spoken. Biblical mythology should not receive some kind of politically-correct "free pass" just because some people object to stating mythology is mythology. People who don't like the truth should just grow up.
Ban a textbook because it tells the truth?! Yet another example of "political correctness" gone amok.
"An angry backlash from atheists has prompted best-selling author Ray Comfort to stop answering questions about [the book]."
Rev Comfort wants people to believe that only atheists object to his lies and plagerism; Rev Comfort appears to believe, or at least wishes people to believe, that atheists hold the higher ethical and moral high ground.
In that, studies within the USA and studies among similar countries show Rev Comfort is correct: the more atheists a state in the USA has, the fewer crimes; the more atheists a country has, the fewer crimes and the higher standard of living. But I doubt Rev Comfort meant to tell the truth about this.
Seems to be one of the requirements for being a Fundamentalist Christian is a total lack of morality and ethics. Rev Comfort certainly offers yet another data point for this observation.
