Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Joe wrote: "Ahh...the contentious rankling nature of the religious argument..it's an old one, very old, and will never be solved to anyone's satisfaction. It hasn't yet and I doubt ever will be solved, as long..."Anything can be used to divide people: Burma, the old Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Rwanda and a whole bunch of other situations point to the fact that people can be quite cruel enough without religion. Religion like science can be used to heal as well as harm.
No harm done. It is almost 100 degrees in my area and my brain is rather "clunky" today. What I was trying, clunkily, to say is that Hitler's extermination did have a lot to do with religion, since many of the ones killed by the Nazis were killed because they would not renounce their religion to support the party.
Hitler also killed people and races he considered weak like homosexuals, handicapped or mentally ill people, children, women, etc etc.
Maria wrote: "No harm done. It is almost 100 degrees in my area and my brain is rather "clunky" today. What I was trying, clunkily, to say is that Hitler's extermination did have a lot to do with religion, si..."
I don't think that people and history are trying to ignore those other groups the nazi's went after.
My feeling is after wiping out 6 million people, I don't feel I need more info to convince me Hitler was an asshole.
that may sound snarky, I'm not sure, but it's not meant to be. It's still too hot here.
Agreed. Not snarky at all. He killed them and that was abominable, whatever his reasons.
Maria wrote: "Agreed. Not snarky at all. He killed them and that was abominable, whatever his reasons."My thing is the people who use the 'he also killed the handicapped and kids' to despite the religious aspect of the nazis really make me scratch my head.
Do they think bringing up the 'killing the handicapped' is a good defense in the debate and we'll all go 'Oh, that's different! I guess Hitler wasn't a bad guy, just misunderstood.'
It's a head scratcher.
Travis wrote: "I don't think that people and history are trying to ignore those other groups the nazi's went after. "
You know, I don't think people and/or historians try to ignore the other groups. It is true, though, that many don't know the facts of it. When I taught at the high school ... not just at the middle school, students didn't know about those other groups. Can you imagine?
Can you imagine being an 18 year old senior and hearing, for the first time, that Hitler also exterminated homosexuals, like your uncle, or people with mental illnesses, like your mom, or people with special needs, like your little cousin. That's how my students reacted to that newfound knowledge. First, shock. You must be wrong. Then, dawning horror. Finally, they made it personal, made it their own.
Now, worse, in my estimation ... well, maybe not worse ... as bad ....
In my nine years at the high school, maybe only one or two of my students knew there had been other "holocausts" of other people throughout history. They thought Hitler's holocaust was the very first. Hello! Further, they thought Hitler and the Germans were the first to "hate" the Jews. Yeah.... And, no, our kids aren't mentally challenged and our school isn't woefully pathetic. (Things like history aren't taught as much or as well in some of our schools here ... given that history isn't tested ... we need for the kids to pass the test ... so ...)
Given that and the fact that I've known many adults, including members of my own family, who didn't know about the additional 5 million who were targeted and exterminated with the Jews, I think it's important to point such things out.
You know, I don't think people and/or historians try to ignore the other groups. It is true, though, that many don't know the facts of it. When I taught at the high school ... not just at the middle school, students didn't know about those other groups. Can you imagine?
Can you imagine being an 18 year old senior and hearing, for the first time, that Hitler also exterminated homosexuals, like your uncle, or people with mental illnesses, like your mom, or people with special needs, like your little cousin. That's how my students reacted to that newfound knowledge. First, shock. You must be wrong. Then, dawning horror. Finally, they made it personal, made it their own.
Now, worse, in my estimation ... well, maybe not worse ... as bad ....
In my nine years at the high school, maybe only one or two of my students knew there had been other "holocausts" of other people throughout history. They thought Hitler's holocaust was the very first. Hello! Further, they thought Hitler and the Germans were the first to "hate" the Jews. Yeah.... And, no, our kids aren't mentally challenged and our school isn't woefully pathetic. (Things like history aren't taught as much or as well in some of our schools here ... given that history isn't tested ... we need for the kids to pass the test ... so ...)
Given that and the fact that I've known many adults, including members of my own family, who didn't know about the additional 5 million who were targeted and exterminated with the Jews, I think it's important to point such things out.
Travis wrote: "My thing is the people who use the 'he also killed the handicapped and kids' to despite the religious aspect of the nazis really make me scratch my head. Do they think bringing up the 'killing the handicapped' is a good defense in the debate and we'll all go 'Oh, that's different! I guess Hitler wasn't a bad guy, just misunderstood.'"
Need a little clarification, Travis, because I'm scratching my head now.
What are you saying? Do you think people, today, have brought up Hitler's targeting of people with special needs to ... what? Prove something regarding religion? Prove Hitler wasn't a bad guy? Huh? I've got to say, I'm more than a little confused.
As I said, yes, religion played a part in Hitler's holocaust. But, it didn't play the only part. That's just the truth. I, for one, say that not to prove that religion is good ... or that Hitler wasn't as bad as he was ... or anything else. For me, it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with religion and everything to do with the facts.
It's important to deal with facts for a lot of reasons ... including learning from our past. To decimate a country after war, to leave them completely and totally without any economy or any means to take care of their families, is really, really bad ... on a lot of levels. One possible outcome is what happened in Germany in the 1930's. People were beyond desperate and that left them vulnerable and willing, on a certain level, to accept and do horrible things. Some politicians and military historians talk about this, write about this, acknowledge this. Hence, on a certain level, nation building.
If we truly want to never have something like Hitler's holocaust again, we'd do well to do more than say something like ... it was all about religion and we should do away with religion ... if we just did that, all wars and evil things would end. What a crock! It would be nice, frankly, if it were so. But, it just isn't. We need to look at, in my opinion, all of the reasons for the thing ... all of the facts.
And, ....
I think killing people with "handicaps" is horrible, totally and completely vile. That doesn't, in my eyes or the eyes of anyone I know, make Hitler less bad.
??
Need a little clarification, Travis, because I'm scratching my head now.
What are you saying? Do you think people, today, have brought up Hitler's targeting of people with special needs to ... what? Prove something regarding religion? Prove Hitler wasn't a bad guy? Huh? I've got to say, I'm more than a little confused.
As I said, yes, religion played a part in Hitler's holocaust. But, it didn't play the only part. That's just the truth. I, for one, say that not to prove that religion is good ... or that Hitler wasn't as bad as he was ... or anything else. For me, it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with religion and everything to do with the facts.
It's important to deal with facts for a lot of reasons ... including learning from our past. To decimate a country after war, to leave them completely and totally without any economy or any means to take care of their families, is really, really bad ... on a lot of levels. One possible outcome is what happened in Germany in the 1930's. People were beyond desperate and that left them vulnerable and willing, on a certain level, to accept and do horrible things. Some politicians and military historians talk about this, write about this, acknowledge this. Hence, on a certain level, nation building.
If we truly want to never have something like Hitler's holocaust again, we'd do well to do more than say something like ... it was all about religion and we should do away with religion ... if we just did that, all wars and evil things would end. What a crock! It would be nice, frankly, if it were so. But, it just isn't. We need to look at, in my opinion, all of the reasons for the thing ... all of the facts.
And, ....
I think killing people with "handicaps" is horrible, totally and completely vile. That doesn't, in my eyes or the eyes of anyone I know, make Hitler less bad.
??
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I don't think that people and history are trying to ignore those other groups the nazi's went after. "You know, I don't think people and/or historians try to ignore the other group..."
Definitely, important to keep trying to educate people.
Keep teaching your kids the important stuff, because if I have to explain the Beatles, what movies were based on books or a remake, or some bit of politics from waaay back in the 90's, I'll slap somebody.
My quibble, is when adults use those other groups the nazis targeted in some BS argument to prove the nazis weren't influenced by religion.
Since this thread is made up of pretty smart people ( their obsessions with certain Irish celeberties aside), I'm going on the assumption we know about WW2 and don't really require those extra spoonfuls of 'evil asshole' to understand that nazis are bad.
Travis wrote: "Definitely, important to keep trying to educate people. Keep teaching your kids the important stuff, because if I have to explain the Beatles, what movies were based on books or a remake, or some bit of politics from waaay back in the 90's, I'll slap somebody.
My quibble, is when adults use those other groups the nazis targeted in some BS argument to prove the nazis weren't influenced by religion.
Since this thread is made up of pretty smart people ( their obsessions with certain Irish celeberties aside), I'm going on the assumption we know about WW2 and don't really require those extra spoonfuls of 'evil asshole' to understand that nazis are bad. "
First, I'd guess that my students think Beatles are bugs. Sorry. I've not thought to educate them on that. ;)
Regarding the nazis, yes, they were influenced by religion, but they were influenced by other things. And, don't forget the "children" who pop up from time to time ... who are flunking science 'cause it's dumb and boring ... they might be reading these posts. I wonder if they're aware of that info. Finally, I've known a lot of people, even intelligent adults, who don't know anything about certain aspects of history, including what we've talked about today. Do the people who read these posts know about those aspects? I don't know. Some might not.
My quibble, is when adults use those other groups the nazis targeted in some BS argument to prove the nazis weren't influenced by religion.
Since this thread is made up of pretty smart people ( their obsessions with certain Irish celeberties aside), I'm going on the assumption we know about WW2 and don't really require those extra spoonfuls of 'evil asshole' to understand that nazis are bad. "
First, I'd guess that my students think Beatles are bugs. Sorry. I've not thought to educate them on that. ;)
Regarding the nazis, yes, they were influenced by religion, but they were influenced by other things. And, don't forget the "children" who pop up from time to time ... who are flunking science 'cause it's dumb and boring ... they might be reading these posts. I wonder if they're aware of that info. Finally, I've known a lot of people, even intelligent adults, who don't know anything about certain aspects of history, including what we've talked about today. Do the people who read these posts know about those aspects? I don't know. Some might not.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "My thing is the people who use the 'he also killed the handicapped and kids' to despite the religious aspect of the nazis really make me scratch my head. Do they think bringing up t..."No, I'm referring the original post that said there was no religion involved in the holocuast.
It's not the sole reason, but to say it had no influence is ignorant beyond belief.
To defend that point of view, people then list the gays, handicapped, gypsies etc...like that's a winning argument and that in order to defend the 'not religious' idea you are now giving the appearance of defending/explaining nazis.
I believe a lot of stuff, but I have never thought it would ever help my case to bring Hitler into the debate.
That's the head scratchy part.
The other stuff going on in this discussion is interesting and gives me hope that I can at least find a few well informed folk in this world.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "My thing is the people who use the 'he also killed the handicapped and kids' to despite the religious aspect of the nazis really make me scratch my head. Do they thi..."
Okay. I get you now.
Okay. I get you now.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Definitely, important to keep trying to educate people. Keep teaching your kids the important stuff, because if I have to explain the Beatles, what movies were based on books or a re..."So, it's not enough that I'm trying to fix the reading habits of the world with my insightful reviews, you want me to teach kids about nazis too?
I tell you, I gotta do everything...
no not at all, but don't just start talking about Hitler, we all know what he did, we don't need to revisit the past. The next generation will hear all about the wars.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Definitely, important to keep trying to educate people. Keep teaching your kids the important stuff, because if I have to explain the Beatles, what movies were based ..."
Nazis, Beatles vs. beetles, and, well, let's face it ...
No.
Even I could not put Nazis and ... in one sentence.
So, I'll give him his own sentence. And, you need to teach kids about all things Sean Bean.
Ahahahahaha ....
Now that I know you'll start teaching on his virtues, I might need to go and read some of these reviews you're talking about .... I'm into fixing the reading habits of the world .... ;)
Nazis, Beatles vs. beetles, and, well, let's face it ...
No.
Even I could not put Nazis and ... in one sentence.
So, I'll give him his own sentence. And, you need to teach kids about all things Sean Bean.
Ahahahahaha ....
Now that I know you'll start teaching on his virtues, I might need to go and read some of these reviews you're talking about .... I'm into fixing the reading habits of the world .... ;)
Robin wrote: "yay, Shannon. I'm rooting for you."
Rooting for me in that one day I'll meet the amazing Sean Bean?
Sigh ....
One can hope. And, Travis, I promise, if that day should come, that I'll be on my best behavior and won't end up being arrested.
Rooting for me in that one day I'll meet the amazing Sean Bean?
Sigh ....
One can hope. And, Travis, I promise, if that day should come, that I'll be on my best behavior and won't end up being arrested.
well yes and no. I was rooting for you to fix the reading habits of the world, just kidding!
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Definitely, important to keep trying to educate people. Keep teaching your kids the important stuff, because if I have to explain the Beatles, what mov..."I think you've got teaching kids about Sean Bean all covered and don't need help from us.
You may in fact be over qualified.
Robin wrote: "well yes and no. I was rooting for you to fix the reading habits of the world, just kidding!"
Oh! Oops. Ahahahahahahahahaha ....
Leave it to me, an English teacher, not to have thought about reading habits first.
Double oops!
Bad teacher ... for having thought about Sean Bean first! Maybe Travis is right! Maybe I should seek help of some kind!
Oh! Oops. Ahahahahahahahahaha ....
Leave it to me, an English teacher, not to have thought about reading habits first.
Double oops!
Bad teacher ... for having thought about Sean Bean first! Maybe Travis is right! Maybe I should seek help of some kind!
no worries, just thought I would bring a touch of levity into the discussion, it was getting way to serious, why is it Hitler's name always comes up in these kinds of threads.
Shannon wrote: "Robin wrote: "well yes and no. I was rooting for you to fix the reading habits of the world, just kidding!"Oh! Oops. Ahahahahahahahahaha ....
Leave it to me, an English teacher, not to have th..."
' Sean Bean and the bad teacher'.
I think Shannon just found the title for her novel.
I would prefer a world that can be questioned and tested and explored rather than explained and matter-of-fact.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "' Sean Bean and the bad teacher'.
I think Shannon just found the title for her novel. "
Ahahahahahaha!
I think Shannon just found the title for her novel. "
Ahahahahahaha!
Shannon wrote: "Rooting for me in that one day I'll meet the amazing Sean Bean?..."'Rooting' has an amusing meaning here in Australia, which kinda fits with the Sean Bean thing.....
Robin wrote: "no worries, just thought I would bring a touch of levity into the discussion, it was getting way to serious, why is it Hitler's name always comes up in these kinds of threads."Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin&#...
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Rooting for me in that one day I'll meet the amazing Sean Bean?..."'Rooting' has an amusing meaning here in Australia, which kinda fits with the Sean Bean thing....."
Oh yes be carefull how you use that word with us Aussies. LOL
Shanna wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Rooting for me in that one day I'll meet the amazing Sean Bean?..."
'Rooting' has an amusing meaning here in Australia, which kinda fits with the Sean Bean thing......"
Ummm ...
I ...
Ummm, I'm sure Robin and I have no earthly idea what you and Cerebus are referring to.
However, given the fact that I'm here for understanding, I'm going to go and spend some time pondering what "rooting" might mean and how it might relate to Sean Bean.
Anything for understanding and clarity ...
'Rooting' has an amusing meaning here in Australia, which kinda fits with the Sean Bean thing......"
Ummm ...
I ...
Ummm, I'm sure Robin and I have no earthly idea what you and Cerebus are referring to.
However, given the fact that I'm here for understanding, I'm going to go and spend some time pondering what "rooting" might mean and how it might relate to Sean Bean.
Anything for understanding and clarity ...
May I suggest a box of nice chocolates and a glass of good wine, you know, for the understanding and clarity...
Shannon wrote: "I try not to stereotype ... people or the "isms" to which they belong."Good to know.
Shannon wrote: "Then, there were, in my experience, women, who would invite all of their friends over to have a mass scrapbooking extravaganza. Yes, a rather dark chapter in my and our history."
That is distinctly... odd... :-)
Shannon wrote: "Regarding Sharia .... You originally said something along the lines that Sharia isn't as frightening as American right-wingers think and not as frightening as what evangelicals want to do."
Oh don't get me wrong, I am strongly opposed to Sharia Law being accepted at all, voluntary or not. I find it ironic though that right wing conservatives tend to fear it because in Islam there is no separation of Church and State, yet the First Amendment is what right wing evangelicals are constantly trying to get around. Full Sharia Law and full Mosiac Law are all but identical, mainly because they are based on the same underlying hygiene and religious rules. The only difference is that the Muslims have never obfuscated their desire to have rule by "Holy" law.
My comment about being relatively benign but slightly bias was based on the perceptions of a friend who is a UK Muslim. However, perhaps you are just stating the extreme examples in the news and leaving out the moderate cases? ;-)
Shannon wrote: "Now, I start to wonder. How were the questions asked of the parents? Were they allowed to give their primary reason and only their primary reason?"
As far as I can tell they were given a choice of reasons that they could freely select from, and then they rated which one was the most important in their choice.
The point in the end is that despite your protestation of my bias the 2007 data shows that over four fifths of homeschoolers do it because of religious reasons, which is an increase over the almost three quarters that did so in 2003, and that notable (or notorious) evangelicals are on record as recommending that children should be homeschooled if parents cannot afford to send them to private religious schools.
Shannon wrote: "People would be wise to think things through and to do their own research and thinking. We both agree on that."
Indeed.
Shannon wrote: "Sadly, not everyone does think things through, including the two of us, from time to time. Given that, in my opinion, it's very, very important to be mindful of that and to be careful with one's arguments and words."
Indeed, and I will endeavour to do so. Though I'm afraid that there will always be some who will read what they think you mean rather than what you mean.
Maria wrote: "This is a common misconception."
80%+ is not a misconception, it perhaps may be an exaggeration or even an oversimplification, but just because some people may have good reasons other than religious indoctrination, the majority admit that is one of their reasons.
Maria wrote: "My decision had absolutely nothing to do with religion."
Please may I ask if biological evolution was part of your curriculum? After reading a few reviews of homeschooling resources, the comments were depressingly familiar.
Maria wrote: "It had everything to do with the dangerous, dumbed-down school system in my area. In an effort to have "no child left behind", if a kid couldn't pass, the work was made simpler, catering to the lowest common denominator."
I did hear that NCLB was a particularly retarded (if you'll forgive the pun) policy. I agree that would be a good reason to avoid a school.
Maria wrote: "So homeschooling is not just a bunch of religious fanatics who don't want their kids exposed to "Satanic influences"! "
No I am willing to admit that not all are frothing at the mouth loons, but with Creationism so prevalent in the US what seems reasonable by comparison really isn't.
Shannon wrote: "the majority do not homeschool for religious reasons ... at least as their primary reason."
I'm afraid that statement is misleading. More than 80% do homeschool for religious reasons, and though they don't necessarily rate it as the primary reasons, the other reasons given do not preclude or detract from the religious importance. A Christian who believes the deceptions of Creationists may easily list a concern with a schools academic abilities, while a Christian who believes the common right wing claims about Christians being persecuted in public schools could list a concern for the school environment being the primary reason.
The only thing we can say for certain is that more than 8 in 10 homeschoolers are doing it for religious reasons at some level.
Maria wrote: "That's why I'm so glad that we went the route we did with curriculum and teacher support included in the tuition."
If you're going to do it, it seems the only sensible way.
Shannon wrote: "I do totally support a mandatory curriculum, supplied by the state, with accountability along the way. "
It would be a good idea, but it depends on how easily states (we all know which ones) could mandate a school curriculum that violates the First Amendment.
Rob wrote: "Religion and science should complment one another. "Exactly how can religion compliment science? Religion is about belief, science is about not trusting belief but making observations, questioning and testing.
Religious people keep saying we need both, but that itself is a belief as so far no one has clearly justified why religion is necessary.
Maria wrote: "Religion scared Hitler because he knew that he could not compete with God for people's devotion and worship."There is little evidence that Hitler feared religion, and plenty that he both participated in it and used it. He claimed to believe strongly that he was divinely inspired and judging on some of his actions it certainly correlates that he thought he would have divine aid. In fact his successes at the start of the war may have fed into his divine mandate delusion considerably.
The reason why Hitler went after Jews and Religious Zealots? For the exact same reason why it is illegal to be an atheist or to preach Christianity in Iran, Monotheistic religions will tolerate no rival if they have any choice. The First Commandment.
Hitler believed. That is religion. Anders Behring Breivik believed and he is religious. There is no point trying to paint either as godless because it serves the religious delusion that faith can do no wrong.
Graham wrote: "Religion like science can be used to heal as well as harm."How can religion heal?
Gary wrote: "It would be a good idea, but it depends on how easily states (we all know which ones) could mandate a school curriculum that violates the First Amendment. "
They could try. But, they'd also be stopped. Something else is alive and well in the US. It's called the ACLU. Our leaders, for example, might attempt to force Bibles on all American students ... no, actually, I don't foresee that happening ... but, if they did, they'd be stopped. The ACLU ... and most within our legal system ... would never stand for states enforcing violations of the First Amendment.
Regarding Sharia .... It seems we'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion that Sharia is benign and only a little bias against women seems based on the opinion of a Muslim friend/acquaintance. My opinion is based on countless articles from your country and mine, not by right-wingers, but by or quoting countless Muslim women who don't find it very benign ... and documentaries on PBS. I actually do not believe I'm sighting extreme examples given in the news, but, then, I believe the Muslim women who speak out against Sharia ... in the UK and elsewhere. Hopefully people reading these posts will investigate Sharia, if they haven't already, and develop their own opinions and take their own stance on this issue.
They could try. But, they'd also be stopped. Something else is alive and well in the US. It's called the ACLU. Our leaders, for example, might attempt to force Bibles on all American students ... no, actually, I don't foresee that happening ... but, if they did, they'd be stopped. The ACLU ... and most within our legal system ... would never stand for states enforcing violations of the First Amendment.
Regarding Sharia .... It seems we'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion that Sharia is benign and only a little bias against women seems based on the opinion of a Muslim friend/acquaintance. My opinion is based on countless articles from your country and mine, not by right-wingers, but by or quoting countless Muslim women who don't find it very benign ... and documentaries on PBS. I actually do not believe I'm sighting extreme examples given in the news, but, then, I believe the Muslim women who speak out against Sharia ... in the UK and elsewhere. Hopefully people reading these posts will investigate Sharia, if they haven't already, and develop their own opinions and take their own stance on this issue.
As to homeschooling, a friend told me it has already gained a bad reputation as the brainwashing method of religious fanatics, so I wouldn't want to perpetuate this stereotype any further :)Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "It would be a good idea, but it depends on how easily states (we all know which ones) could mandate a school curriculum that violates the First Amendment. "
They could try. But, they..."
ACLU is probably my favorite human rights NGO in the US, b/c even though I may not agree with them 100% all the time, they are really willing to uphold their principles.
As to Sharia law in UK & South Africa, from what I've read in western Muslim blogs it seems to me that most female bloggers & male bloggers who are political progressive hate it. Personally I tend to believe what Turkish constitutional court said about Sharia law (according to Wikipedia), i.e. it is the antithesis of democracy & they (a country where 90% citizens are Muslims btw) want nothing of it.
Xdyj wrote: "As to Sharia in UK & South Africa, from what I've read in western Muslim blogs it seems to me that most female bloggers & male bloggers who are political progressive hate it. Personally I tend to believe what Turkish constitutional court said about Sharia law, i.e. it is the antithesis of democracy & they want nothing of it. "
I'm heartened to hear the Turkish court made that statement. Thanks for sharing that information! :)
I'm heartened to hear the Turkish court made that statement. Thanks for sharing that information! :)
Shannon wrote: "They could try. But, they'd also be stopped. Something else is alive and well in the US. It's called the ACLU."The ACLU was unable to stop the unconstitutional giving of taxpayer money to faith-based initiatives by GWB. I admire a lot of what the ACLU does, but they are not universally successful and their opponents have a lot of influence and deep pockets.
Shannon wrote: "Your opinion that Sharia is benign and only a little bias against women seems based on the opinion of a Muslim friend/acquaintance."
In the same way that your homeschooling opinion seems based on 17% of Homeschoolers.
I am quite willing to agree with you that Sharia Law in its entirety is horribly bias, vicious and cruel. Bias and bigoted against women, people of other faiths, homosexuals etc. My only point is that from my perspective the difference between Sharia Law and the kind of Law that evangelicals and Catholics would like to see is not incredibly different.
Law should be based on rational principles, not ancient scriptural dogma.
Xdyj wrote: "Personally I tend to believe what Turkish constitutional court said about Sharia law, i.e. it is the antithesis of democracy & they (a country where 90% citizens are Muslims btw) want nothing of it"*High Fives Turkey* (Metaphorically!)
Gary wrote: "In the same way that your homeschooling opinion seems based on 17% of Homeschoolers."
Well ....
A couple things have come from this.
We now know that at least 17% of parents who homeschool aren't doing so to teach their children about the devil and hell. Personally, I believe that number might be even higher. Why? Something we've not considered. Morals and ethics. How many people, WRONGLY, make a religious argument based on morals and ethics ... on this very thread? If we didn't have religion, we'd live in an immoral society ... they have said. How many of the 80% of parents who cited religion as one of the factors in their decision making (the majority of whom didn't list it as their primary reason) weren't thinking of religion as you do ... teaching creationism and the evils of Lucifer ... and thought of it in terms of ... society is becoming more and more immoral and I want to teach morals and ethics to my kids. We'll never know. But, we do know one thing ... not all parents who homeschool are radical nuts who scare children ... and society at large.
The other thing, in my opinion, is to be careful with one's pronouncements. Some might read them as truth.
Sometimes they're true. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes they contain some truths. Words are important. Arguments can sway people. In my mind, due to that fact, it's important to speak responsibly ... and question.
Well ....
A couple things have come from this.
We now know that at least 17% of parents who homeschool aren't doing so to teach their children about the devil and hell. Personally, I believe that number might be even higher. Why? Something we've not considered. Morals and ethics. How many people, WRONGLY, make a religious argument based on morals and ethics ... on this very thread? If we didn't have religion, we'd live in an immoral society ... they have said. How many of the 80% of parents who cited religion as one of the factors in their decision making (the majority of whom didn't list it as their primary reason) weren't thinking of religion as you do ... teaching creationism and the evils of Lucifer ... and thought of it in terms of ... society is becoming more and more immoral and I want to teach morals and ethics to my kids. We'll never know. But, we do know one thing ... not all parents who homeschool are radical nuts who scare children ... and society at large.
The other thing, in my opinion, is to be careful with one's pronouncements. Some might read them as truth.
Sometimes they're true. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes they contain some truths. Words are important. Arguments can sway people. In my mind, due to that fact, it's important to speak responsibly ... and question.
Shannon wrote: "society is becoming more and more immoral and I want to teach morals and ethics to my kids."Well despite the fears of many common people, the only really measurable indicator of morality, the crime rate, has been falling for ten years in the US not increasing. Yet it is easy to see how religious organisations want to paint the picture of a society in decline as they are in decline.
Shannon wrote: "The other thing, in my opinion, is to be careful with one's pronouncements. Some might read them as truth. Sometimes they're true. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes they contain some truths. Words are important. Arguments can sway people. In my mind, due to that fact, it's important to speak responsibly ... and question. "
Fair enough. I agree.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "society is becoming more and more immoral and I want to teach morals and ethics to my kids."
Well despite the fears of many common people, the only really measurable indicator of m..."
And, to clarify ... I don't believe society is becoming more and more immoral and do not want to teach morals and ethics to my kids. I think societies' morality or lack thereof is likely more consistent than we realize. However, having said that, I also think we've made great gains. And, I don't have kids.
I don't know whether or not the people who have those fears are common or not. I do think, regardless of the crime rate, that people see an increase in certain things that they link to immorality.
Foul language among children. They see more and more of it ... I have as an educator. People see younger and younger children wearing clothing that is more and more revealing ... I have as an educator. Frankly, I'm disgusted by clothing companies who, for all intents and purposes, sexualize little girls. No, I'm not a prude. Well, maybe I'm a bit prudish. But, when we have 12 year olds who want to abide by the dress code but can't find pants or shorts that aren't low-cut at the waist and shorts that aren't short-shorts ... unless they buy boys' clothing, well, I have a problem with that and do think clothing companies are sexualizing very, very young girls. And, that doesn't even take all of the low cut shirts for small girls into account. So, people see that. A few years ago, a bunch of young kids and teens were playing a video game in which they were drivers who got to run over prostitutes. Our librarian heard a very, very, very small child commenting on the fact that he "hit a whore" ... upon questioning, it was discovered that he'd played this video game. In addition, these parents constantly see stories on the news about bullying and harassment in the schools. You can hardly go a week or two here without hearing such stories. Has bullying and harassment increased? As an educator, speaking from my limited experience, I don't believe it has. The difference, I think, is the training educators have been given in the last five to ten years ... the new rules that have been adopted by schools ... the legal cases that have been brought as a result.
I think some people see all of this, regardless of crime rates, and think the world is going down the tubes.
In addition, many of these people, due to culture, conditioning ... you name it, think morality and religion are linked. I do NOT think that, as I've stated many times in this thread. But, many do. Interestingly, when Cerebus has questioned them, when I've questioned them, etc..., they back off. I think they back off from their original statement because, for the first time, they actually think about what they're saying. It's something they've heard all their lives, maybe. It's this thing, almost an unwritten thing, in our society ... this idea that religion is good and the teachings of religion are good and, thereby, those without religion aren't good ... or, at the very least, aren't as moral. Even people who aren't religious and don't attend services make this link ... link a belief in God with morality. I don't believe this, but I've thought it through. Some haven't. Often, when they actually take the time to think and challenge their assumptions, they realize they don't really and truly mean what they originally said.
The key is to question. However, regarding parents who see the foul language and the dress and the crazy and violent video games and the culture and the bullying and harassment and decide to pull their kids, due to the fact that they want their children to be in a safer and more moral environment ... well, I'm not going to question them on that. Those parents might have, due to their upbringing and not thinking it through, linked morals with religion, but, having said that, they might still teach their kids science ... actual science ... evolution, etc.... I don't question those parents. They should questions themselves. But, I don't question them. It would be interesting to attempt to discover how many of those parents exist. Yes, the extremists who teach creationism exist. For sure. I think, though, based on personal experience, that a lot of others exist.
One of the good things I see happening on this thread ....
When people mention religion and morality, they are questioned. Sometimes kindly and sometimes a bit more heatedly. But, they have the ability, if they choose, to truly think it through ... to allow their beliefs to be challenged ... then, they can make an informed opinion. I, personally, think there are moral and immoral believers and moral and immoral agnostics and atheists. Therefore, when I see people realize that, something I believe to be true, I'm heartened.
But, that's just one very specific example. In general, I think one of the good things about threads of this nature, if people are open to it and reflect, is that people, all people, regardless of standpoint, can learn and grow. The opportunity is there ....
Well despite the fears of many common people, the only really measurable indicator of m..."
And, to clarify ... I don't believe society is becoming more and more immoral and do not want to teach morals and ethics to my kids. I think societies' morality or lack thereof is likely more consistent than we realize. However, having said that, I also think we've made great gains. And, I don't have kids.
I don't know whether or not the people who have those fears are common or not. I do think, regardless of the crime rate, that people see an increase in certain things that they link to immorality.
Foul language among children. They see more and more of it ... I have as an educator. People see younger and younger children wearing clothing that is more and more revealing ... I have as an educator. Frankly, I'm disgusted by clothing companies who, for all intents and purposes, sexualize little girls. No, I'm not a prude. Well, maybe I'm a bit prudish. But, when we have 12 year olds who want to abide by the dress code but can't find pants or shorts that aren't low-cut at the waist and shorts that aren't short-shorts ... unless they buy boys' clothing, well, I have a problem with that and do think clothing companies are sexualizing very, very young girls. And, that doesn't even take all of the low cut shirts for small girls into account. So, people see that. A few years ago, a bunch of young kids and teens were playing a video game in which they were drivers who got to run over prostitutes. Our librarian heard a very, very, very small child commenting on the fact that he "hit a whore" ... upon questioning, it was discovered that he'd played this video game. In addition, these parents constantly see stories on the news about bullying and harassment in the schools. You can hardly go a week or two here without hearing such stories. Has bullying and harassment increased? As an educator, speaking from my limited experience, I don't believe it has. The difference, I think, is the training educators have been given in the last five to ten years ... the new rules that have been adopted by schools ... the legal cases that have been brought as a result.
I think some people see all of this, regardless of crime rates, and think the world is going down the tubes.
In addition, many of these people, due to culture, conditioning ... you name it, think morality and religion are linked. I do NOT think that, as I've stated many times in this thread. But, many do. Interestingly, when Cerebus has questioned them, when I've questioned them, etc..., they back off. I think they back off from their original statement because, for the first time, they actually think about what they're saying. It's something they've heard all their lives, maybe. It's this thing, almost an unwritten thing, in our society ... this idea that religion is good and the teachings of religion are good and, thereby, those without religion aren't good ... or, at the very least, aren't as moral. Even people who aren't religious and don't attend services make this link ... link a belief in God with morality. I don't believe this, but I've thought it through. Some haven't. Often, when they actually take the time to think and challenge their assumptions, they realize they don't really and truly mean what they originally said.
The key is to question. However, regarding parents who see the foul language and the dress and the crazy and violent video games and the culture and the bullying and harassment and decide to pull their kids, due to the fact that they want their children to be in a safer and more moral environment ... well, I'm not going to question them on that. Those parents might have, due to their upbringing and not thinking it through, linked morals with religion, but, having said that, they might still teach their kids science ... actual science ... evolution, etc.... I don't question those parents. They should questions themselves. But, I don't question them. It would be interesting to attempt to discover how many of those parents exist. Yes, the extremists who teach creationism exist. For sure. I think, though, based on personal experience, that a lot of others exist.
One of the good things I see happening on this thread ....
When people mention religion and morality, they are questioned. Sometimes kindly and sometimes a bit more heatedly. But, they have the ability, if they choose, to truly think it through ... to allow their beliefs to be challenged ... then, they can make an informed opinion. I, personally, think there are moral and immoral believers and moral and immoral agnostics and atheists. Therefore, when I see people realize that, something I believe to be true, I'm heartened.
But, that's just one very specific example. In general, I think one of the good things about threads of this nature, if people are open to it and reflect, is that people, all people, regardless of standpoint, can learn and grow. The opportunity is there ....
Gary wrote:"Please may I ask if biological evolution was part of your curriculum? After reading a few reviews of homeschooling resources, the comments were depressingly familiar."
Big time. He took Biology and Environmental Science - all of which promoted the theory of evolution.
Shannon wrote: "I think societies' morality or lack thereof is likely more consistent than we realize. However, having said that, I also think we've made great gains. And, I don't have kids."Well I have a daughter and I work at an inner city college so I have a reasonable amount of experience too. As far as I have seen the kids in general have not really diminished in morality though I can definitely see an increased resentment to the unfairness of society that I really cannot blame them for. Too many kids seem to want the "Big Brother" dream of easy money and celebrity status but what can you expect in a society where their parents are commonly called scroungers for being on welfare but there are on average 5 applicants for every job that becomes available. I think its only fair to call people lazy scroungers if there was reasonably paid work for everyone who wanted it.
Shannon wrote: "Foul language among children."
I think this is one of those things that the more it changes the more it stays the same. Foul language always seems to get worse as the point of profanity is to push social boundaries. It used to be that people took religious profanity a lot more seriously so "taking the Lord's name in vain" or curses involving "damn" and "hell" where as shocking at the time as the worst sorts of sexual vulgarity is now.
Saying that I was literally commenting yesterday about a particularly funny but vulgar video by Tim Minchin that both myself and my daughter found hilarious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfu... (Warning Profane and NSFW, a response to the issues of the current Pope's previous edicts on the issue of priestly paedophilia)
Both of us found the video funny and the tune terribly catchy, which ironically meant my daughter would not sing along to it. I swear, though working in education means I do restrain myself commonly, and also I tend to use profanity for effect rather than for punctuation like some people seem to. Her mother is the same, but neither of us have ever particularly banned my daughter from swearing and she has never seemed to feel the need. I think it may be because we have never made an issue of it, their is no real envelope for her to push hence she has not been encouraged to try.
Shannon wrote: "People see younger and younger children wearing clothing that is more and more revealing ... Frankly, I'm disgusted by clothing companies who, for all intents and purposes, sexualize little girls."
This one is a little more difficult to address and obviously quite emotive, all of which has worsened considerably due to several media fuelled paedophilia scares, which while it is horrific and disgusting is also not as prevalent as people seem to fear.
The first thing I would say is that grow uncomfortable with the idea that a girl wearing "revealing" clothes or that bare skin is a bad thing, this seems to me to be the traditional patriarchal religious society once more placing modesty as the responsibility of the girl and implicitly excusing men for their behaviour because they were seduced. The idea of clothing and make-up "sexualising" our little girls has as its cousin the idea that if a woman wearing a revealing outfit was raped then she deserved it.
I am not advocating that parents shouldn't be aware and advise their children caution, yet statistics show that abuse of children is most commonly by someone well known to the family which means that clothing standards are likely to be less influential, and the highest rates of teen pregnancy tend to happen in places of abstinence-only education.
The fact is that there is much worse sexualising of children in more modest terms where boys and girls are still being culturally segregated into gender roles, and these roles still have enormous influence on the way women are treated in modern western society. Boys are encouraged in engineering, management and leadership, girls are encouraged to be domestic, submissive and superficial. That is a far worse threat to equality.
Young girls will always be encouraged to dress attractively from as soon as they hit puberty just as (straight) boys will be interested in girls irrespective of the percentage of bare skin on display (in fact many people would say that 'modest' attire does not suppress this allure and may indeed enhance it.)
I think it is far more important to change our attitudes and to let both men and women know that unwanted sexual advances are never justified. I do not care if a woman is naked, it is still not right for a man to touch her without consent, and it is wrong to let women think that it is their own fault they were attacked. I have met one too many women who have that fear or guilt.
Shannon wrote: "A few years ago, a bunch of young kids and teens were playing a video game in which they were drivers who got to run over prostitutes. Our librarian heard a very, very, very small child commenting on the fact that he "hit a whore" ... upon questioning, it was discovered that he'd played this video game."
That comes up constantly from the "moral majority" and yet repeated studies show no link between violence and video games, horror films or rock and roll. Yes the child may have referenced the game, but it does not mean the game caused the behaviour, it just means that the child used that content to express himself.
Shannon wrote: "Has bullying and harassment increased? As an educator, speaking from my limited experience, I don't believe it has. The difference, I think, is the training educators have been given in the last five to ten years ... the new rules that have been adopted by schools ... the legal cases that have been brought as a result."
Agreed. There will always be bullying and harassment, children after all have evolved to push at barriers until they know their limits and their struggle of social hierarchy is understandable if unpleasant. What the problem tends to be is our reaction to it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/...
We fail our children when we support the intolerance that is conformity. In my opinion some of this blame falls on the religious concepts inherent in our society that makes unsupported moral judgements. If we showed children by example that intolerance should be challenged and stood up to, perhaps more of them would stand up for bullied children themselves instead of blaming the victim for being different.
As an aside I think this problem is at the very core of insecurity in the US. A common theme in a lot of American media is someone being called a "freak". It seems the deadliest insult you can give in a US film or TV show, and it is never resolved only denied. (i.e. someone assures them that they are not a "freak", rather than somebody just shrugging and saying what's bad about being a "freak"?)
Shannon wrote: "It's this thing, almost an unwritten thing, in our society ... this idea that religion is good and the teachings of religion are good and, thereby, those without religion aren't good ... or, at the very least, aren't as moral."
Yes, and that's the difficulty for people like me, because the idea is so culturally embedded that people cannot even see it as anything but "obvious". The worst part being is that it means that religious dogma carries enormous ability to justify terrible things because they are religious and therefore defined as "good".
The irony is that much of religious morality does seem to have developed from old reforms of previous injustice, but just like a virus hijacks our cells function to replicate itself so religious faith hijacks morality to replicate itself, resulting in the ultimate failures of morality, the idea that anything is justified in the name of god, the idea that faith, not good works, earns gods favour and of course the idea that god forgives as long as you believe. A recent study has indicated that religious belief may actually harm morality - particularly in moderate faiths were forgiveness is emphasised over hellfire and punishment.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/d...
(Obviously, the question is highly complex, and this is just an indication of a potential link rather than a proven effect.)
Shannon wrote: "I, personally, think there are moral and immoral believers and moral and immoral agnostics and atheists."
Without doubt.
Maria wrote: "Big time. He took Biology and Environmental Science - all of which promoted the theory of evolution."Thank you. That is reassuring. :-)
Gary wrote: "this seems to me to be the traditional patriarchal religious society once more placing modesty as the responsibility of the girl and implicitly excusing men for their behaviour because they were seduced. The idea of clothing and make-up "sexualising" our little girls has as its cousin the idea that if a woman wearing a revealing outfit was raped then she deserved it. "
I don't know what it means to the parents who complain about this. I'd have to question them more fully ... as conversation stops at ... the sexualizing of young girls. I agree with them.
For me, it has nothing to do with religion or patriarchy or conformity. In my mind, it has to do with valuing girls for what matters. What truly matters is their intellect and their character and their athletic abilities and their gifts and talents. It would be nice to live in a world that values little girls and women for those things ... not just for beauty.
I hadn't thought of the idea of young girls being sexualized by society as akin to saying women who are raped got what they deserved due to their dress. I'm pretty horrified by that idea. I know I've gone several very serious rounds with people who have made the ... she deserved it ... argument in my presence.
I'll have to give this idea some consideration. Perhaps people would see my statements regarding the sexualization of pre-teens to mean they'd deserve it if something bad happened to them. The idea makes me almost physically ill, but I will think about it ... as that is the polar opposite of what I'm talking about and my intent.
I don't know what it means to the parents who complain about this. I'd have to question them more fully ... as conversation stops at ... the sexualizing of young girls. I agree with them.
For me, it has nothing to do with religion or patriarchy or conformity. In my mind, it has to do with valuing girls for what matters. What truly matters is their intellect and their character and their athletic abilities and their gifts and talents. It would be nice to live in a world that values little girls and women for those things ... not just for beauty.
I hadn't thought of the idea of young girls being sexualized by society as akin to saying women who are raped got what they deserved due to their dress. I'm pretty horrified by that idea. I know I've gone several very serious rounds with people who have made the ... she deserved it ... argument in my presence.
I'll have to give this idea some consideration. Perhaps people would see my statements regarding the sexualization of pre-teens to mean they'd deserve it if something bad happened to them. The idea makes me almost physically ill, but I will think about it ... as that is the polar opposite of what I'm talking about and my intent.
Shannon wrote: "For me, it has nothing to do with religion or patriarchy or conformity. In my mind, it has to do with valuing girls for what matters. What truly matters is their intellect and their character and their athletic abilities and their gifts and talents. It would be nice to live in a world that values little girls and women for those things ... not just for beauty. "Yet judging women (or girls) for what they wear is part of the same problem, whether you are objectifying them or judging them for lack of modesty. People, male or female, will not value women or girls for who they are as long as they judge them on what they wear.
This is why I think there is a strong correlation between places where women are expected to dress modestly and where women are generally oppressed.
I occurs to me that I wasn't clear ... regarding what some parents discuss regarding morality and immorality and schools. Regarding the sexualization of girls, when I think back to conversations I've had with parents and people in my family and other teachers, we haven't discussed it in terms of ... oh, my gosh, the kids are going to start having mad/crazy sex. Not that kind of morality. The ... sex is bad and skin is bad and the body is bad ... "morality" is not what we talked about.
We were talking about the morals of society, in general, when discussing that. The fact that we live in a society that objectifies our girls. It's not about their minds, whether or not they can use their minds, or hitting the books. It's about how "hot" they can look and how "hot" people think they appear.
When my cousins moved to North Carolina, they dealt with more than a little culture shock. They were in middle school and starting high school. In New Hampshire at the time, looks might have been important to a certain extent; however, it just really wasn't about what they wore or how they looked. They were both very smart and talented. One had been in a "gifted and talented" program. They'd always been valued for their intellect and their athletics. When they hit North Carolina, they had a really hard time. I can't say that all of NC was or is this way, but their particular high school/city was totally and completely into looks, when it came to girls, at least. It was all about hair, makeup and clothing. It was all about looking like "Miss America" and such. My cousins didn't have friends and didn't fit in ... until ... they started pretending not to be smart and started dressing the same as the other girls. It actually got to the point that my "gifted and talented" cousin, by the time she finished high school, didn't even acknowledge the fact that she'd ever been considered "gifted" ... literally said the fact that she'd been placed in the "gifted" program was a mistake. :o
Further, I know teachers who used to teach down south or grew up there themselves. Again, this is a gross generalization and based only on limited experience ... however ... they all talk about the same things. Girls aren't valued for their intellect but for their looks. One educator from down south actually said to me, "All of y'all don't really care about how you look, do you?"
Now, we've noticed, for the last few years, that a similar thing is starting up here. I know some parents who actually wish we'd move to having male and female classes ... at least when it comes to math and science. There have even been some educators who have discussed that idea. I, personally, think that's extreme.
Yes, for some, I'm sure sex and the sex is bad argument figures in ... especially when they hear some extreme stories ... like 4th graders having sex in a classroom. For some, it's more about finding themselves in an area or in a society that objectifies girls and doesn't focus on their education but on their sexual appeal which is the problem.
We were talking about the morals of society, in general, when discussing that. The fact that we live in a society that objectifies our girls. It's not about their minds, whether or not they can use their minds, or hitting the books. It's about how "hot" they can look and how "hot" people think they appear.
When my cousins moved to North Carolina, they dealt with more than a little culture shock. They were in middle school and starting high school. In New Hampshire at the time, looks might have been important to a certain extent; however, it just really wasn't about what they wore or how they looked. They were both very smart and talented. One had been in a "gifted and talented" program. They'd always been valued for their intellect and their athletics. When they hit North Carolina, they had a really hard time. I can't say that all of NC was or is this way, but their particular high school/city was totally and completely into looks, when it came to girls, at least. It was all about hair, makeup and clothing. It was all about looking like "Miss America" and such. My cousins didn't have friends and didn't fit in ... until ... they started pretending not to be smart and started dressing the same as the other girls. It actually got to the point that my "gifted and talented" cousin, by the time she finished high school, didn't even acknowledge the fact that she'd ever been considered "gifted" ... literally said the fact that she'd been placed in the "gifted" program was a mistake. :o
Further, I know teachers who used to teach down south or grew up there themselves. Again, this is a gross generalization and based only on limited experience ... however ... they all talk about the same things. Girls aren't valued for their intellect but for their looks. One educator from down south actually said to me, "All of y'all don't really care about how you look, do you?"
Now, we've noticed, for the last few years, that a similar thing is starting up here. I know some parents who actually wish we'd move to having male and female classes ... at least when it comes to math and science. There have even been some educators who have discussed that idea. I, personally, think that's extreme.
Yes, for some, I'm sure sex and the sex is bad argument figures in ... especially when they hear some extreme stories ... like 4th graders having sex in a classroom. For some, it's more about finding themselves in an area or in a society that objectifies girls and doesn't focus on their education but on their sexual appeal which is the problem.
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "society is becoming more and more immoral and I want to teach morals and ethics to my kids."Lots of good stuff
FYI I homeschooled my kids, teaching them science and literature and a number of things I thought were important. But the main thing I taught them wasn't taught at all. I just told them to read and study whatever they wanted to. Reading levels didn't matter. Appropriate ages were just myths. They weren't bored because they picked the subjects. And they wound up self-reliant researchers who could learn whatever they set their minds to. Which, to my way of thinking, is far more the purpose of school than anybody's curriculum.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Didn't mean to sound like I was calling just you out there. I was reacting to a bunch of comments and that sentence where you reference the jews as a race and then follow with the Jehovah's as the next example just caught my eye as kind of odd and clunky.