The Problem with Protecting the "Sacred"

Sigh, you're assuming he's trying to offend. Actually he is just presenting an oppertunity to push your thinking forward and not giving a damn if it does offend you.

He could instead start the class with showing a video of a suicide bomber at work. He could start the class with a hate speach from a Christian Identity follower. He could list the numbers of political prisoners that have been murdered in what used to be Burma.

The problem with this is it only reinforces the natural line of thinking most early undergrads have in all the wrong ways. If you show a suicide bomber to a die hard, bible thumper in the beginning, they won't be thinking this kid is 15 years old with a 4th grade education who is only doing this because their handler promised to feed their family while they destroy the infidels. They see it as a dirty Muslim. I know this because I have seen this happen in other classes.

So he found a method that got their attention and pushed their buttons. It's worth it. He doesn't do it for every class.

I don't know if anyone else here has taught on a college level, but it isn't easy. You think it would be. I would love if I can just make my kids do push ups instead. I am exhausted over how many times people just assume everyone is Christian, answer questions with because the bible said or their preacher said, or refuse to accept basic cultural educations because it makes them uncomfortable.

Maybe if my state wasn't so screwed up, my professor wouldn't ever need to jump on a book. But when you have people in graduate level seminars who attempt to say things like interracial relationships didn't exist in America before the 1970s and all Muslims are trying to kill Americans, you can't treat them the same as other communities.

Hell, come to my colleges and see how hard it is to teach when your state is home to some of the major christian militia movements, several white supremacy groups (one internationally connected), two national KKK headquarters, they guys who trained Tim Mc Veigh, and several of the best domestic terrorist schools in the country.

EDIT: I have sworn while giving a lecture. I have heard others swear in their lectures from several different institutions. That's not uncommon. I have also confronted scholars who are twice my age on their work quite candidly. I've even flat out told a professor he was wrong on the idea of Karma and was pulled before the Dean. The Dean had my back because I was right and the professor was wrong.

In my experience, it's never been a problem to be aggressive or to teach in as comfortable or as stiff a style as you like so long as what your teaching is correct and your students are processing it correctly.

edited 13th Jun '12 10:09:48 PM by Gabrael

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

No, I am not. I don't find swearing anymore offensive than, say, somebody turning up in pyjamas to a royal ball. I just find stomping on books as inappropriate as that, regardless of what he is trying to do.

And that's what I disagree with, basically. There's a difference in teaching in a comfortable style and acting like a kid. I cannot respect you as a professional once you've crossed that line.

edited 13th Jun '12 10:18:14 PM by IraTheSquire

I have not yet but I wish to do so. I would also like to teach at lower levels and from entirely religious levels as well. My dream is to become a nun when my lover passes.

If this is truly the best method he can use in terms of teaching a lesson, aiding the individual, and prevention of harm then sadly it must be done in certain cases. Only in those in which this is the best method and only with the intent to teach and aid. Just as exposure therapy must only be doled out with the intent to gradually treat the patient and never with desire to see their suffering and discomfort. I'm not certain that stamping on books is the only way to achieve such goals, however. If it is as such then the action is judged as fine. Perhaps not good. But at the least permissible.

edited 13th Jun '12 10:07:54 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Slight Thread Hopping: The post about consecrated host and human life gives me chills. Consecrated host is not a thousand year-old relic. A priest can make more a dime a dozen!

How would any sane people value something such easily reproduced, and short-lived enough than it's very unlikely to develop a "sentimental value" for one in particular, over their own life?

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Because of what it means to them? It's apparently more than just a symbol. It is something very concrete and special. I myself wouldn't die for them or something like a juzu and it is somewhat disconcerting but I do find it respectful. There's deep strength of character and belief to be able to do that. Though in some cases this is not so. As there is more to character than being able to willingly die for something you believe in. There is also why you do this, how you do this, and much more.

I wish to be willing to die for the Dhamma. Which would mean being willing to die for the lives and well being of other living beings. I don't feel that copies of the Tipitaka or juzu are so valuable to die for them nor do I feel the Dhamma is in enough jeopardy to die for Buddhism itself. At least where I currently am. Though I do hope that I would be willing to die for the official reformation of the bhikkhuni of Theravada when and if I do take up the orange myself. It's a very difficult issue within Theravada and Thai Theravada in particular due to the presence of bhikkhuni in the nation. It's an issue that is deeply important to me as I feel that there should be equal opportunity to devote oneself to the Dhamma regardless of sex and it is something I myself wish to do at some point. If my death could potentially influence and aid the effort for the liberation of females in terms of Dhamma practice in the Theravada then it would be a good death.

Though I'm potentially worth much more alive than dead. Potentially.

Effects need to be taken into consideration...Is it more worthy to teach further or to die and serve as a symbol of what is wrong and why things must change?

edited 13th Jun '12 10:59:17 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Haha Ira my good sir, your standards are different, but my students and fellow classmates understanding is my top priority. If they won't respond or understand the official, then I'll move to the vernacular. All I can recommend is just come to one of my lectures or sit in a class before you judge so absolute.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I'll do that, once I learnt how to teleport to where you are from Australia .

Personally, though, I'd say that while one can be relaxed while teaching, a teacher should lose respectability because it shuts people off. If I can't find you respectable, why should I listen to what you have to teach me?

edited 13th Jun '12 11:09:53 PM by IraTheSquire

You told us he does it specifically to offend people badly enough to weed them out of his class!

The people I respect the least are the ones I listen to the most intently.

I can't stand most religious leaders and politicians because of what I perceive to be hypocricy, especially with religion. That is one reason why I went into this field. If I think a certain congregation is just jacking off to Jesus or using religion to excuse certain logical and moral problems, I use their words, literature, and actions to judge how right or wrong I am as well as how right or wrong they are.

It keeps me on my toes and keeps my academics valid. I went from religious art research to religious terrorism as my focus. Sometimes I have done research for the sole intent of shutting people down who I didn't respect. Going up against a tenured professor who lost my respect for just teaching garbage wasn't easy. But oh it was worth it.

Respect should come from truth. I don't disrespect people for how casual or formal they deliver or handle the material, but how honest and accurate their material is.

I don't care if the preacher at the free speech zone is screaming how I am going to hell or somberly praying for my soul. Either way I'll be fact checking their claims both biblically and logically.

Is blasphemy offensive because it hurts the individuals feelings and makes them feel as though they are slighted? Or does it hurt because in some cases, it's true? Either way, blasphemy gives religious people a chance to grow regardless if it's in a more secure faith, positive reforms to their cultures, or just a stronger shell.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Not the same thing at all. Still a stupid act, however: I would not rip pages out of any book, especially not to try to prove a (idiotic) point. "It's only a cracker"? Golly, I could have never guessed that that's what an atheist thinks of the Sacrament.

Even assuming, for a moment and for the sake of discussion, that atheism is right, what he did was akin to pissing into the Sacred Fire of Vesta because "it's only a bonfire". By the way, did you know? The guy who had the Sacred Fire of Vesta extinguished was Emperor Theodosius I, also known as "that guy who destroyed the Library of Alexandria and banned Paganism." Not a good role model for an atheist, or for any decent human being.

I am not clear how anybody could have a consecrated Host as "his property". If you take it out of the building without the priest's permission, that's obviously stealing; and I doubt that a priest or a deacon/acolyte (sometimes, deacons and acolytes are given consecrated Hosts to bring to people who cannot come to the Mass) would be very much inclined to bring it to Myers (and obviously, if a deacon or an acolyte did that, it would still be stealing — that's not something they own). And I doubt that a priest would be willing to bring a consecrated Host to Myers (and if he did, he would be excommunicated automatically. Hard.)

That cracker is precisely the guy who died for me: and no, I am not more precious than Him. I am not trying to convince you of this, here and now: but this is where we Catholics are coming from, so you should see how we see desecrating a Host as a lot worse than ritualistically damaging a book. The latter is a stupid and rude action, the former is an unspeakable sacrilege.

edited 14th Jun '12 12:11:05 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

You do know you routinely destroy those consecrated hosts with your saliva and stomach acid, right? They were mass-produced in order to be destroyed ritually the day they're consecrated. And yet they're somehow more precious than a copy of the Bible?

I perfectly understand giving a great value to the True Cross, the Shroud or a preserved tooth of a saint or whatever. Or a particular copy of the Bible that was used by a bishop for years. But not something that was made and blessed on the spot.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Well, while we may not agree on whether or not stomping on a Bible is offensive/childish, I assume we can all agree that nobody should be charged with a crime for it, right?

And Christ giving His body as food for humankind is quite the point of the Sacrament — and, I might add, a very big part of the point of Catholicism.

I would rather have the Shroud destroyed than a single consecrated Host. The Shroud was what covered the Body of Christ (perhaps; or perhaps, it was a medieval forgery. I actually consider the latter possibility more likely); but the Host is the Body of Christ. I am not being metaphorical here in the least.

On this I can agree. Although, for example, if I were an employer and an employee of mine did something like that on the job, I would fire him so hard that his offspring up to the seventh generation would mystically receive pink slips out of thin air (and once again, I would do exactly the same if he stomped on a non-Christian sacred text.)

edited 14th Jun '12 1:52:25 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Call me an idealist, but I think it doesn't matter what color or creed you are, what matters is that you know you are not special and are not entitled to any special treatment or respect because of your personal background or beliefs.

hashtagsarestupid

So, wait... if the holy biscuits are the body of Christ, and people eat the biscuits... isn't that cannibalism?

In a sense.

Discussing the doctrine of Transubstantiation here is probably a bad idea, especially since I am no theologian and I have about as many chances of arguing correctly on this topic as I have of eating the Moon; but suffice to say, we do belive that the consecrated Host is the body of Christ, and we also believe that all of its appearance remains that of a loaf of bread — if you examined a Host at the microscope, quite obviously you wouldn't find anything unusual. It is related to the philosophical notions of Substance and Accident, that are not particularly popular in modern philosophy but that nonetheless make a lot of sense IMO.

And now somebody is going to mention invisible dragons in 3... 2... 1...

edited 14th Jun '12 6:14:47 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I was gonna say, in response to this:

that the thing about stuff like this is, in the logic, there's a step somewhere that says "insert magic here." Or "a miracle occurs here," which is the same thing.

Then I thought that this would just invite the stock response of "It's more complicated than insert magic here!" so I chose not to say it.

But, you know, fuck it. That's really what's going on here: "insert magic here." It really is. There's loads of philosophy and theology that's been stacked on top of it. But at the bottom of it all, it's "insert magic here."

I really don't think I'm making a caricature of it or anything. If you really say that it is the body of Christ, then you really are saying that it's magic.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

If by "magic" you mean a miracle, yes, I suppose that I am. Even the doctrine of Transubstantiation merely gives a more detailed explanation of what happens, not of how it is possible for it to happen.

But in any case, the issue is irrelevant. Even assuming that the Catholic beliefs on this subject were wrong — laughably wrong, completely retarded, untenable under any point of view — stealing and desecrating an object that Catholicism (or any other religion, really: I am not asking for special consideration for my religion here) holds these beliefs on would still be far, far beyond "dick move" territory.

One could certainly argue against these views, and try to convince as many people as one can that they are incorrect; but the moment in which one commits such a heinous action as desecrating a Host is the moment in which I lose even the tiniest scrap of respect for them.

I am not a Buddhist, and I do not believe in Buddhism in the least; but I would never dream of stealing or dirtying the consecrated water that Aodeung mentioned, and I would disapprove most extremely of anybody who would.

edited 14th Jun '12 6:49:45 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

While we all agree there shouldn't be any jailtime for offensive professors, or communion desecraters, or douche documentary filmmakers, I'm trying to say that engaging in the same small-mindedness as your opponents is generally not a good idea.

I understand Gabe, I truly do, about narrow-minded Christians. You'll never be able to tell me more about fundie Christian assholes than I've already experienced.

The thing is though, now that I am attempting to be a true Christian, I'm loathe to engage in the same adolescent tactics as the poser Christians. Because if You Taunt Him Ill Be Just Like Him.

Your professor is engaging in the same tactics of "I'm pissing you off to open your mind to a bigger point. Shame on you if you don't get that." But Gabrael, that's the precise thing you're accusing those "narrow-minded" Christian stooges of. Just because your professor's academic stature and skill overcome a lot of that, doesn't make it damaging. He's feeding the same ignorance he's trying to teach others to outgrow.

Look, I don't have experience teaching college, I simply don't have the sufficient skills for it, unlike you and your professor.

But, I do have experience speaking with people and sharing ideas. As a Christian in the most liberal city on the East Coast and who hangs out on a liberal fiction website, I've learned long ago that nothing will give someone a moment of pause like not playing to the stereotype.

I won't lie, I smile a little bit, everytime somebody goes "Go ahead Starship and condemn us all to hell and try to save our souls with a sermon. You know you want to," and I'm just like "Actually, I just wanted to say I think you rock and have a nice day."

It was an honor

If I were being the same as the Christian fundies, I would be horrible and judgemental, not explain my actions any more than because I feel that way based on a book, and kick everyone who didn't agree with me out of class because they're just going to fail anyway.

Maybe because you're in such a sheltered city you have never had to deal with people telling you that you are going to hell just for teaching a different faith, or encountered continous racism. But that's where I live. That's the mentality my professors are trying to break. Some say they should just move on and go where their talents could be better appreciated. Heaven's knows I can't wait to escape.

Then again this is also the very place we are needed the most. I shudder to think what would happen to some of the people I studied with if they weren't encouraged to think outside of their town.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Do you really think that stomping on a Bible would help breaking that mentality, and not simply validate it in the minds of your "opponents"?

That sort of behaviour is not likely to get people to see the error of their ways: if anything, it would get them more and more sure in their belief that atheists are hateful jerks, and blind them even further to the fact that they are being hateful jerks.

What about instead, I dunno, talking about interpretations of the Bible and authorship issues and contradictions and so on? I'm not asking to ease up on the criticism; but I think that it would be nice if the level of the "culture wars" could be elevated a little bit above "You are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! Nuh-uh, you are a jerk! ..."

edited 14th Jun '12 7:14:53 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

If it didn't work, he wouldn't still use it. But it does work. The number of kids who walk out is very small and isn't a problem because he always has a waiting list for those who want in but the class was in overflow.

Some kids take his classes because they think he is a hero. Others take it because they want to challenge him.

It is a very potent and moving stragedy. Almost all of his student evals are always in the 90% marks because even if they don't like one action, by the time they finish the course, no matter if it's ethics or a specialized philosophy seminar like justice, they get why he did it and they have gained so much on the way. Most of the kids who graduate under his department go to law or like me, graduate colleges.

Whether they think it's awesome or atrocious, they absorb the information better and more importantly critically apply it to whatever means they try. They learn how to investigate, apply logic, and come to conclusions all while leaving their bible at home.

This mentality continues in the other coursework. You can tell on the spot which students have been in this professor's class(es) and who hasn't by how engaged and analytical they are in the discussions.

I just wish more students would go for the program, or at least just a few classes. Then maybe we could help break this stupid cycle of ignorance and inability to think for yourself down here.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

People trying to stay inside their comfort zone while studying philosophy need to be woken up, in my opinion. Otherwise, they'll be more likely than not to evaluate ideas and different trains of thought based on how comfortable or uncomfortable they feel when they encounter those trains of thought or ideas for the first time.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

If they don't walk out, these kids — no matter their lack of critical spirit or whatever — are certainly not the "fundies" that you are talking about. I don't think that I count as a "fundie", or even as somebody particularly strict; and you can bet that I would walk out of such a class, and that I would protest formally.

So who would remain in the class, I think, would be the kids who were not Christian to begin with, who will feel smug about their perceived superiority and high-mindedness; and the ones who are feeling too self-conscious to take a stand, who will learn that if you are in a position of authority you can engage in insulting behaviour scot-free. Neither "lesson" really advances the cause of reason, I think.

Now, it may well be that, as you said, that professor does an excellent job; but if that's the case, I would say that he does that despite that behaviour, not thanks to it.

I am extremely suspicious about all forms of "teaching" that are based more on force of personality and melodramatic acts that about, you know, teaching. I quite doubt that this sort of thing might convince people to evaluate ideas more carefully and dispassionately; rather, it might convince them that they have, as you say it, "woken up", and hence lead them to dismiss arguments that do not fit with their worldview as "irrational" without taking the time to, you know, consider them.

There is no deeper sleeper than the one who believes to have woken.

edited 14th Jun '12 7:52:55 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Is it so hard to believe that one professor can take a kid who grew up in a meth capital, bible-beating county who is scared to death taking a philosophy class will send them to hell, and empower them to make their own decisions based on their own logic?

I guess it is pretty hard to break into such a narrow mind considering it sometimes takes stepping on a bible to do so.

I can't wait until I have been teaching long enough to experience that reward, to be able to see one kid overcome their surroundings. No wonder my professors stay where they do. It must be an awesome feeling if it can sustain them to continue trying to teach these kids while living in such a draining enviroment.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur