NYC Schools Ban Words, Fox News

[Comet Tail 808]

That's true, and I didn't actually mean that when I brought up the First Amendment there. The thing is that it makes me clench my teeth because it's just like a bully getting to say a thinly veiled very rude insult to me and not getting punished for it because the staff of the school does not interpret it that way under their rules. I strongly disagree with that. The lack of a mention of God does not promote Atheism in the least, but the mention of God clearly does push religion. The concept of God is tied to religion for the vast majority of people. Even though there are some people who are nonreligious but do believe in a higher power, the word 'God' in the motto will still mean the Christian God when everybody sees it. Instead of promoting Atheism, it leaves a personal belief, which is very controversial even among people of the same religion, out of a motto that is supposed to be representing everybody. As I said earlier, this can't only bother Atheists. There are many other beliefs out there in regards to a higher power. There are people who don't refer to their higher power as a 'God', whether that be Allah or even just 'Goddess'. There are people who believe in many Gods/Goddesses, and not all of them put a single God up on enough of a pedestal to be put in a motto to represent them. Etc. That's the problem there. Is it so hard to create a motto without any references to God instead? I know it is for my state, but only because they want their religion and God to be the one that is represented.

(Wow, I really wish the browser would stop destroying all paragraph spacing on quotes...)

 

I think this really gets to a deeper issue of representation. As we face an ever-growing population, it becomes harder and harder to accomidate everyone because the range of people gets wider. As a result of this, a representative government doesn't make a government that everyone agrees with; people on the left will disagree with some laws, and people on the right will disagree with some laws, instead it's a matter of compromise, meeting on the middle ground, and pleasing the vast majority, because no matter what you do someone will be upset about it, out of the 300 million there are.

 

Really, changes in society come from an individual level, not a legal one. In a functioning representative government, the course of action to change law should be changing the way the people face an issue, because it's not "the government", if representation is working correctly, it's the decision of "the people". Though often kinks come up, and some groups have to make their voice heard, like with civil rights issues, (and sometimes this results in unproportional representation, like the tobacco company), I think the government does a fairly decent job of representing the will of the people when it comes to religion.

 

IMO, it seems there aren't many people who are very upset about how much government mentions religion, and the number of people who are upset it's not enough, and those who are upset it's too much, are about equal, which probably means they're representing the vast majority of people, who will lie in the middle of those two extremes.

 

Being a minority certainly has issues in a representative government, but through special interest groups it can be a vocal minority, bearing more political weight than is proportional to their demographic percentage. Whether this is fair or not, though, is up for lots of debate.

 

One thing, though, is to take "under God" out of the pledge, or removing God from the national anthem, I feel is a terrible betrayal to the founding fathers and the spirit of the nation, and to all the millions who have fought and died for it since it's foundation. It's rather sickening to think that millions have died for that spirit of this nation, and now just so a few people don't get upset it's becoming demonized, and people are supposed to be ashamed of it, as if religion is some sort of outdated traditional foolish superstition; for many it is, but not for those who really understand it.

 

I'm going to go ahead and assume that Fox got most of their facts wrong like they usually do. After the crap I've seen from them I don't feel any reason to believe this. Also, I don't want to believe it...

Read carefully; it's only the NYC BoE wants to for standardized tests.

Edited March 29, 2012 by EASA - Dr. Braun

[Killian Jones 2,655]

I'm a dinosaur and this offends me.

 

I'm a computer and I am also offended.

[Envy 6,161]

(Wow, I really wish the browser would stop destroying all paragraph spacing on quotes...)

 

I think this really gets to a deeper issue of representation. As we face an ever-growing population, it becomes harder and harder to accomidate everyone because the range of people gets wider. As a result of this, a representative government doesn't make a government that everyone agrees with; people on the left will disagree with some laws, and people on the right will disagree with some laws, instead it's a matter of compromise, meeting on the middle ground, and pleasing the vast majority, because no matter what you do someone will be upset about it, out of the 300 million there are.

 

Really, changes in society come from an individual level, not a legal one. In a functioning representative government, the course of action to change law should be changing the way the people face an issue, because it's not "the government", if representation is working correctly, it's the decision of "the people". Though often kinks come up, and some groups have to make their voice heard, like with civil rights issues, (and sometimes this results in unproportional representation, like the tobacco company), I think the government does a fairly decent job of representing the will of the people when it comes to religion.

 

IMO, it seems there aren't many people who are very upset about how much government mentions religion, and the number of people who are upset it's not enough, and those who are upset it's too much, are about equal, which probably means they're representing the vast majority of people, who will lie in the middle of those two extremes.

 

Being a minority certainly has issues in a representative government, but through special interest groups it can be a vocal minority, bearing more political weight than is proportional to their demographic percentage. Whether this is fair or not, though, is up for lots of debate.

My point is why choose something that a group of people is clearly going to be offended by and is clearly going to be so strongly disagreed with?

 

Religion is a huge thing to people. It's not just a minor disagreement here and there. It's a person's worldview. My point is that we should avoid going down that route altogether when making mottos. There are so many motto ideas out there that I'm sure are far less controversial. The word 'God' does not need to be included. No religion needs to be included at all.

 

Besides, the Constitution makes it clear that the majority should not rule over the rights of the minority right? While a motto saying 'God' isn't too bad of an offense, it is something that the majority believes trumping over the minority, and right in something that is supposed to represent everybody. In that 'spirit' of the founding of this country something like this should never be in an motto, nor the pledge.

 

One thing, though, is to take "under God" out of the pledge, or removing God from the national anthem, I feel is a terrible betrayal to the founding fathers and the spirit of the nation

Not the best example - 'Under God' was added to the pledge during the Red Scare. It was, for lack of an better term, immature. "We have God, we're so much better than those Godless Commies!". Now, personally, I don't think that falls in line with the founders' intentions, and is certainly isn't anything to be proud of. It wasn't in the original pledge, and that personally I find more disrespectful to the creator of the pledge then anything else here.

[Bolshevik 12]

est example - 'Under God' was added to the pledge during the Red Scare. It was, for lack of an better term, immature. "We have God, we're so much better than those Godless Commies!". Now, personally, I don't think that falls in line with the founders' intentions, and is certainly isn't anything to be proud of. It wasn't in the original pledge, and that personally I find more disrespectful to the creator of the pledge then anything else here.

 

Not to mention that the whole fetishization of the past is kind of bizarre. The difficulties of figuring out what the founding "spirit" of the country was aside, why should we defer to this as some kind of ineffable guide? Surely the people important to the founding and development of this nation could have been wrong about things, including what exactly is entailed in the establishment clause.

[Comet Tail 808]

My point is why choose something that a group of people is clearly going to be offended by and is clearly going to be so strongly disagreed with? Religion is a huge thing to people. It's not just a minor disagreement here and there. It's a person's worldview. My point is that we should avoid going down that route altogether when making mottos. There are so many motto ideas out there that I'm sure are far less controversial. The word 'God' does not need to be included. No religion needs to be included at all. Besides, the Constitution makes it clear that the majority should not rule over the rights of the minority right? While a motto saying 'God' isn't too bad of an offense, it is something that the majority believes trumping over the minority, and right in something that is supposed to represent everybody. In that 'spirit' of the founding of this country something like this should never be in an motto, nor the pledge. Not the best example - 'Under God' was added to the pledge during the Red Scare. It was, for lack of an better term, immature. "We have God, we're so much better than those Godless Commies!". Now, personally, I don't think that falls in line with the founders' intentions, and is certainly isn't anything to be proud of. It wasn't in the original pledge, and that personally I find more disrespectful to the creator of the pledge then anything else here.

I don't think not being offended is a constitutional right. We can't sanitize society of everything offensive, or we end up with this kind of insanity that started this whole thread, and the insanity that un-derped Derpy Hooves. At some point or other, people just have to chill and brush it off. It may be plainly offensive from your point of view, but obviously it wasn't to whoever was elected to be in charge, and whoever voted for those individuals apparently didn't care that they were religious, or supported them because they were. If you disagree, then just don't vote for them, or better yet vote for someone else.

 

But, there is a balance. Sure, the majority shouldn't trample in the minority's rights, like with Civil Rights, etc. etc. But at the same time, the minority shouldn't overpower the majority, as is the case with the Tobacco lobby. Furthermore, by definition, oppression and tyranny is when the minority is in absolute control. So there has to be a balance; at some point the minority has to accept that the majority is in charge, and the majority has to respect the rights of the minority. Personally, I don't think not being offended is one of them. Like I said before, cleansing society of offense leads to insanities like what started this thread and un-derped Derpy.

[Envy 6,161]

I don't think not being offended is a constitutional right. We can't sanitize society of everything offensive, or we end up with this kind of insanity that started this whole thread, and the insanity that un-derped Derpy Hooves. At some point or other, people just have to chill and brush it off. It may be plainly offensive from your point of view, but obviously it wasn't to whoever was elected to be in charge, and whoever voted for those individuals apparently didn't care that they were religious, or supported them because they were. If you disagree, then just don't vote for them, or better yet vote for someone else.

 

But, there is a balance. Sure, the majority shouldn't trample in the minority's rights, like with Civil Rights, etc. etc. But at the same time, the minority shouldn't overpower the majority, as is the case with the Tobacco lobby. Furthermore, by definition, oppression and tyranny is when the minority is in absolute control. So there has to be a balance; at some point the minority has to accept that the majority is in charge, and the majority has to respect the rights of the minority. Personally, I don't think not being offended is one of them. Like I said before, cleansing society of offense leads to insanities like what started this thread and un-derped Derpy.

 

I don't think that's comparable. This is a state motto. It's different from somebody's right to freedom of speech and right to be offensive. It's a motto which is put up there without any of our consents and is supposed to represent us all. I find it wrong, not so much offensive.

 

I respect the majority in that they have the right to have their beliefs, they have the right to have their churches, and they even have the right to publicly state their beliefs and even talk about them with me, including attempting to scare me with the threat of going to hell. But what I won't let them do is speak for me.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Envy

[Akemi Homura 7,680]

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

This is why I hate religion.

If they want to believe that fine, but the SECOND it affects anybody else is when it needs to be stopped.

 

Rofl, it's not affecting anyone, because it's not happening.

Fox has nothing better to do than post lies and rumors, so quite frankly if you hate someone it should be Fox

[DrOphthalmos 497]

I'm a computer and I am also offended.

 

What about all of us from Halloween town? We are deeply offended!

 

[Iris Melody 90]

Could we have a secondary source for this news, please? I'm about as willing to believe something stated by Fox News as I am willing to believe that the moon will suddenly transform into a colossal fruitcake that spits skittles the size of minivans into the Pacific Ocean.

 

Mental image Win

[Pinkieisbestpony 1]

Three words from a great movie: SCREW THE GOVENMENT!

[I_wesley125 393]

Rofl, it's not affecting anyone, because it's not happening.

Fox has nothing better to do than post lies and rumors, so quite frankly if you hate someone it should be Fox

 

All I meant by that was people who use religion to make laws, I hate it no more then I hate the idea of Santa Clause, but I would hate it if people were trying to make laws based off of Santa.

But I'm glad its false.

[Victoria and Co. 782]

Argh! Curse my dinosaur of a computer! I hope I get a new one for my birthday!

[Starswirl the Trixie 975]

Story is confirmed!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html?ref=education'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/dont-mention-dinosaurs-new-york-raises-the-bar-for-politicallycorrect-exams-7595020.html

 

HOWEVER: It's only on New York City issued standardized tests. There aren't very many of those, thankfully.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Starswirl the goateed

[L-PinkVsD-Pink327 177]

Hope in humanity has dropped down another cliff.

 

... The words they banned...

 

I am speechless.

Edited March 30, 2012 by OrangeVsPink327

[Future Allie Way 185]

"And now, kids, we're going to take our weekly science test. You'll have to write down the names of 5 dinosaurs and explain how dinosaurs became extinct and...-" "You're fired! Jail penalty! Banished to the moon!"

[FLARE 952]

Are you sure its not an April Fools joke?

[Matackable 534]

I'm glad I grew up when I did. Future generations are screwed.

[Randomiser 115]

I have always wanted a pet pony, but unfortunately I can't afford one. Therefore, the cartoon My Little Pony will be banned because it reminds me of my harsh economic background. Sorry guys.

[Espionage 113]

Absolutely hilarious. "Dinosaur" is banned? Great way to make America scientifically literate NYC...GREAT WAY. This planet is doomed.