this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
422 points (98.8% liked)

Atheism

4146 readers
384 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And this is a school run by evil Pearson who controls all the textbooks, so that's a bit of a comfort even as America's educational standards slip down the tubes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah it's not a point for science if the science teacher has to apologize for teaching science

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That doesn't look like an apology for teaching science to me at all. I'm not sure how you're interpreting it that way.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's the preemptive justifying and excusing of something that should need no justification or excuses to be teached.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Are you not familiar with America?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Live there, got a similar preface in my bio class 20 years ago. This isn't a victory. It's continuing to baby people who refuse to live in reality.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's the country which maybe half a century ago for a while was considered a shinny example for the rest of us.

Nowadays, not so much (even the far right around these parts avoids copying the religious shit from America)

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The point is this is the teacher saying "it doesn't matter what you believe, we teach science based on evidence and that's what your kid is going to learn if they want to pass this class." It's not an apology.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's a preemptive and unprompted justification, hence its existence implies that the authors believe they need to justify themselves.

I'm not criticizing the authors for it, I'm criticizing the environment that leads the authors to believe they need to justify themselves when teaching Evolution.

Generally people don't justify themselves unprompted unless they feel there will be some kind of negative impact to themselves if they don't do it.

So, it's pretty shit that the teacher feels he or she needs to preemptivelly justify themselves when teaching an area of Science.

I live in a supposedly very Catholic country - Portugal - and teachers don't go around explaining their actions and justifying themselves for even sex-ed (which touches tabu subjects) much less for Evolution, simply because even if some people disagree with it (very few, I might add), the teachers won't be affected by any kind of pressure around it as the system is such that it's not going to be loudmouth non-expert parents that define or change the Education curriculum - the only case of parents trying to block some kids from learning something around here (by forbidding their kids for attending specific classes) ended up with the kids being flunked and stopped from advancing to the next year, the parents suing, the parents losing their lawsuit (so the kids are still a year behind their cohort and still have to take that class in order to advance) and last I check the parents relented because they had no other option. The system simply doesn't indulge that shit and public opinion is on the side of the system in this.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s a preemptive justification, hence its existence implies that the authors believe they need to justifying themselves.

Yes. Because otherwise religious asshole parents try to get them fired for teaching evolution. Do you really not know that?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I am aware.

What I'm criticizing is the system which lets parents have that power.

The teacher preemptivelly justified him or herself because that's what they have to do because the system is so shit that teachers have to be subservient to ill-educated fairy-believing morons who have zero expertise in the domain of teaching (or Science, for that matter)

The fault is not in any way form of shape of the teacher, it's in the American^TM^ Culture and Society - the teachers are as much victims of the Backwards'R'US society as the kids.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Looks like an apology to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I feel like the tone of "There is NO option to opt out of this unit, it is required for all students to complete" along with "As as science class we will only focus on the scientific theory and evidence." is suggesting that their religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to science, which is far from an apology.

Acknowledging that they have those beliefs and this might upset them is not apologizing to them, especially when the overall message is "too bad."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like the tone of “There is NO option to opt out of this unit, it is required for all students to complete” along with “As as science class we will only focus on the scientific theory and evidence.” is suggesting that their religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to science, which is far from an apology.

Imagine if you saw an ice-cream stand with a sign saying "The price is 5$/cone. There is NO option to eat icecream without paying. We are aware that there are many cultural and political beliefs on economics. As a capitalist stall, we ONLY provide icecream in exchange for money. We are not trying to change your beliefs, but introducing what our standpoint is.". If you saw that sign, I imagine you wouldn't think "ah, what a totally normal shop", you'd think "oh boy, Something Happened Here".

This email is proactively defensive in the same way. In a saner world, this email would be way shorter or wouldn't exist at all, because you wouldn't need to specify that a particular unit is non-optional, etc. Your screenshot makes me think of USA as more weirdly religious, not less.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

Ice cream is optional. School is not.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well others have told you why it's an apology, you can disagree

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think they really have. They've just insisted it is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"They haven't told me, they've insisted" ..... what

Not sure how you can insist on something without it being communicated but ya sure

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because they haven't given any evidence for the claim?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So first off that's a completely different argument than the one you just made

Secondly they did, you just can't read apparently

But whatevs man do you if you've got nothing better to do than sit there, trying and failing to be pedantic and just acting confused for no reason then enjoy it I guess

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago

Secondly they did, you just can’t read apparently

If I can't read, it's very silly of you to respond to me. But perhaps you could point out where.