This is getting re-goddam-dicululous...
A publicaly funded St. Paul charter school is changing the school’s art curriculum to avoid offending
Muslims.
As violent protests over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad continue around the world, a St. Paul charter school is quietly negotiating the delicate question of how to teach art to Muslims.
Any depiction of God and his prophets is considered offensive under Islam, and disrespectful representations are even worse, as the recent worldwide outrage over the Danish cartoons has shown. But some Muslims also refrain from producing images of ordinary human beings and animals, citing Islamic teaching.
That presented a challenge for Higher Ground Academy, a K-12 school just west of Central High School on Marshall Avenue that has about 450 students. About 70 percent of them are Muslim immigrants from eastern Africa.
Executive Director Bill Wilson said he had concerns for some time about how to reconcile the school’s art curriculum with the views of Muslim families, but the departure of the art teacher at the end of last school year gave him a window to act.
This fall, he hired ArtStart, a St. Paul-based nonprofit organization, to offer more options for about 150 kindergartners through second-graders, including visual arts and drumming. But parents were still upset that their children were drawing figures, Wilson said, and some pulled their children out of art class altogether.
Wilson then sat down with teacher and parent liaison Abdirahman Sheikh Omar Ahmad, who also is the imam at an Islamic center in Minneapolis, to work with ArtStart in determining how to meet state standards without running afoul of Muslim doctrine.
Out the window right away went masks, puppets and that classic of elementary school art class, the self-portrait, said Sara Langworthy, an artist with ArtStart. Revamping the curriculum “definitely requires stepping outside of the normal instincts that you fall back on,” she said.
In their place came nature scenes and geometric forms and patterns, said Carol Sirrine, ArtStart’s executive director. This week, the class was cutting out shapes to make into cardboard pouches. Another project involved taking photographs and mapping the neighborhood around the school.
The conversation about what is appropriate is still open.
In a meeting this week, Langworthy asked Ahmad whether the students can do silhouettes of hands. That’s fine, he said.
Hands are OK too. As long as they’re just silhouettes.
This is a public school. And its caving to a religious interest. But, apparently, its okay because...well...we need to kiss the collective assess of the poor, downtrodden "religion of peace."
Fuck. Seriously. This pisses me off.
These islamo facists will end up taking over this country wihout firing another shot, or flying another plane into a building, because we'll let them.
As long as it's not Christianity, America will bend over backwards for anyone.
Yet this country re-elected the practically evangelical Christian George W. Bush....
Yeah, but that still doesn't mean that those in charge of the boards of education will suddenly have a change of heart.
Didn't we recently discuss a movement in some public schools to begin teaching Creationism alongside evolution?
At least that offered a choice. Here, the school is telling non-Muslim kids they have to take the "islamocentric" class.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Didn't we recently discuss a movement in some public schools to begin teaching Creationism alongside evolution?
Yeah, but that keeps getting shot down all across the country so I wouldn't consider it a success.
Quote:
the G-man said:
At least that offered a choice. Here, the school is telling non-Muslim kids they have to take the "islamocentric" class.
The school has to demonstrate how and why this class fits into the State's course of study.
And were it me, I'd still fight it.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Didn't we recently discuss a movement in some public schools to begin teaching Creationism alongside evolution?
Questioning a questionable status-quo is hardle bending over backwards for extremists. Your own post contains the telling term "alongside".
I avoided any religious problems by going to a private school. I suggest Muslims do the same. The public school system is not there to appease everyone, it's there to make sure those who can't afford a private education get a secular education. Unfortunately, certain religious extremists, not only Muslims, but Christians as well, have been perverting the purpose of the public school education.
The solution is simple.
If you don't like what's being taught by the state in public school, send your kid a private school that will teach to your religious standards.
End of discussion.
Fuck the PC shit.
Well said! At first, there was a part of me that wanted to argue with you but then I realized that you were absolutely right.
I agree up to a point. No everyone can afford to go to a private school, at least not pay for a private school while at the same time paying for public school. If you really want to make it fair, let poor folks go to the school of thier choice as well.
Quote:
the G-man said:
At least that offered a choice. Here, the school is telling non-Muslim kids they have to take the "islamocentric" class.
What exactly is "islamocentric" about taking an art class that teaches using nature scenes and geometric forms?
As noted in the article, the class was and is specifically designed to cater to Islamic views. In fact, the article notes, the art teacher calls up the local imam to get his approval on what can and can't be drawn.
And how is that any more "centric" than adding Creationism to a curriculum? One removes material to cater to the religious whims of a few, the other adds.
Unless you're referring to the 60's or some other bygone era, creationims, or more likely intellegent design, is most often taught alongside the theory of evolution. Nature scenes and geometric shapes are not being taught alongside portraits and other traditionally taught art forms, instead they're replacing them entirely.
Besides, if you don't agree with intelligent design because it is replacing secular education with religious nonsense, why the hell would you support this art class which replaces a standard, secular curriculum with one twisted by religion?
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Questioning a questionable status-quo is hardle bending over backwards for extremists.
Then taking this material away from the art class is hardly bending over backwards for extremists. See, the people here are, in their own view, questioning a questionable status-quo.
And you really shouldn't toss the term extremists around that way. You could find it pointed in your direction if you're not careful.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Your own post contains the telling term "alongside".
What does that prove? Is that supposed to mean that the move to add of Creationism is somehow better because Creationism's supporters aren't arguing against teaching evolution? Or perhaps you feel that adding a theory of our beginnings to the curriculum is less than subtracting projects that teach children to draw people's faces and masks. I'd like to know, seriously.
Quote:
Killconey said:
Besides, if you don't agree with intelligent design because it is replacing secular education with religious nonsense, why the hell would you support this art class which replaces a standard, secular curriculum with one twisted by religion?
Quote:
Killconey said:
Nature scenes and geometric shapes are not being taught alongside portraits and other traditionally taught art forms, instead they're replacing them entirely.
Based on?
Quote:
Killconey said:
Besides, if you don't agree with intelligent design because it is replacing secular education with religious nonsense, why the hell would you support this art class which replaces a standard, secular curriculum with one twisted by religion?
I don't.
Quote:
Killconey said:
Nature scenes and geometric shapes are not being taught alongside portraits and other traditionally taught art forms, instead they're replacing them entirely.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Based on?
Quote:
the posted article at the top of this thead, you know, the one that started this whole discussion, that specifically said:
Out the window right away went masks, puppets and that classic of elementary school art class, the self-portrait...In their place came nature scenes and geometric forms and patterns...Langworthy asked Ahmad whether the students can do silhouettes of hands. That’s fine...As long as they’re just silhouettes
This is where reading comes in real handy.
I mean what is the supposed move to faces and masks based on.
But while we're on that subject, I live with an art and music teacher. He teaches based on the elementary school curriculum he's given, which focuses on the "elements of art": line, shape, color, value, texture, pattern, space, movement, neatness, blah, blah, blah. While I can see that faces would be a better way to teach proportion and symmetry, landscapes, he says, are better for teaching the stuff listed above.
So if landscapes are being replaced, why so? What is the move based on?
You shouldn't jump to conclusions about what I type. Don't assume that I'm asking him what he's basing his facts on, and don't assume I support the move of removing these materials from the curriculum. Read then judge.
What was it you said?
I guess giving decent thought is too.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
And how is that any more "centric" than adding Creationism to a curriculum? One removes material to cater to the religious whims of a few, the other adds.
I guess you've never heard of the "marketplace of ideas..."
Adding material expands the number of ideas the students are exposed to. Taking material away limits the number of ideas the students are exposed to.
i don't think it's because they stopped with self potraits and puppets, so much as they did so and got it ok'd by a religion. it wasn't a choice to say let's try this, it comes of more as a let's make this group of people happy.
Quote:
the G-man said:
I guess you've never heard of the "marketplace of ideas..."
Adding material expands the number of ideas the students are exposed to. Taking material away limits the number of ideas the students are exposed to.
Agreed (to an extent). I actually like the idea of adding more material to our curriculum. I support the teaching of religion and philosophy in schools. However, it's the how and why of its addition we should be mindful of.
Teaching ID in the science curriculum is the wrong way. It's not accepted by an overwhelming majority in the scientific community, and most who would disagree have as much business saying what they think a science teacher should teach as I do drawing up a syllabus in underwater basket weaving.
I'd rather rant in the appropriate thread, though.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
And how is that any more "centric" than adding Creationism to a curriculum? One removes material to cater to the religious whims of a few, the other adds.
I think you point out the crucial difference and you don't even realise it. If you don't see the difference between inclusion and exclusion, then we have a problem. Is allowing blacks to vote afro-centric? no, but to deny any group the vote would be wrong. Can you not see the difference?
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
And how is that any more "centric" than adding Creationism to a curriculum? One removes material to cater to the religious whims of a few, the other adds.
I think you point out the crucial difference and you don't even realise it. If you don't see the difference between inclusion and exclusion, then we have a problem. Is allowing blacks to vote afro-centric? no...
That's...what I'm saying. Such a move isn't necessarily centric.
Thanks.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...but to deny any group the vote would be wrong.
That's incorrect. We deny people under the age of 18 the ability to vote in general election for a reason.
There are good reasons to exclude.
Quote:
And you really shouldn't toss the term extremists around that way. You could find it pointed in your direction if you're not careful.
Arround what way? I use it in a way i think is appropriate. Of course there are moral equivilance types who could
use the term however they want. That doesn't change anything, just because you want to compare inclusion to exclusion, that's your problem, not mine.
Quote:
What does that prove? Is that supposed to mean that the move to add of Creationism is somehow better because Creationism's supporters aren't arguing against teaching evolution?
Yes, acctually, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Quote:
Or perhaps you feel that adding a theory of our beginnings to the curriculum is less than subtracting projects that teach children to draw people's faces and masks. I'd like to know, seriously.
Perhaps you feel the theory of evolution is so fragile that to simply question it is the same as banning it. I don't. seriously. But perhaps if you would like to make the Muslims more comfortable perhaps gisrls shouldn't be in teh class where they're drawing or at least not allow them in any classes with thier faces uncovered.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
And how is that any more "centric" than adding Creationism to a curriculum? One removes material to cater to the religious whims of a few, the other adds.
I think you point out the crucial difference and you don't even realise it. If you don't see the difference between inclusion and exclusion, then we have a problem. Is allowing blacks to vote afro-centric? no...
That's...what I'm saying. Such a move isn't necessarily centric.
Thanks.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...but to deny any group the vote would be wrong.
That's incorrect. We deny people under the age of 18 the ability to vote in general election for a reason.
There are good reasons to exclude.
I meant racially, wich should have been apperant from teh context, but if you're going to ignore the greater context of what I'm saying just to avoid the point, then this conversation is getting old quick. Yes there are cases were exclusion is right, but my point is there is a fundamental difference between inclusion and exclusion. Will you grant that to allow the qutioning of an idea is fudamentally differant than banning it?
Quote:
Then taking this material away from the art class is hardly bending over backwards for extremists. See, the people here are, in their own view, questioning a questionable status-quo
Oh and by the way, no they aren't questioning the status quoe, they are removing it! There is a difference.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
And you really shouldn't toss the term extremists around that way. You could find it pointed in your direction if you're not careful.
Arround what way? I use it in a way i think is appropriate. Of course there are moral equivilance types who could
use the term however they want. That doesn't change anything, just because you want to compare inclusion to exclusion, that's your problem, not mine.
It hasn't posed a problem at all. At least, not for me.
If you want to call these people extremists, that's fine, I suppose. I have a feeling you've been called that and will be again.
And thus, the balance is restored.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Yes, acctually, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Oh. Okay, then. I disagree.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Perhaps you feel the theory of evolution is so fragile that to simply question it is the same as banning it. I don't. seriously.
No, I don't feel that way. See the link above.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
But perhaps if you would like to make the Muslims more comfortable perhaps gisrls shouldn't be in teh class where they're drawing or at least not allow them in any classes with thier faces uncovered.
See my answer to Killconey above.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I meant racially, wich should have been apperant from teh context, but if you're going to ignore the greater context of what I'm saying just to avoid the point, then this conversation is getting old quick.
I'm not avoiding your point, I'm showing that in greater context exclusion can be the proper path. If we're to speak only of race, then no, exclusion isn't right. However, my point is, once again, that while there are differences between inclusion and exclusion, the difference between right and wrong is not one of them.
Quote:
It hasn't posed a problem at all. At least, not for me.
If you want to call these people extremists, that's fine, I suppose. I have a feeling you've been called that and will be again.
And thus, the balance is restored.
Great point! I especially love how you used facts and cojent reasoning to back up your point. Terrorists are extremists too. Does the fact that I use the same term to describer them as you (or others) use to describe me make us the same? I'm calling them extremists, because they are banning something from the education. See, I put a reason behind my discription. We get it, you don't like Christians, but letting that disdain get so out of hand that you would then abandon core fundamental differences to compare them to a group BANNING ideas from class is just rediculouse.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I meant racially, wich should have been apperant from teh context, but if you're going to ignore the greater context of what I'm saying just to avoid the point, then this conversation is getting old quick.
I'm not avoiding your point, I'm showing that in greater context exclusion can be the proper path. If we're to speak only of race, then no, exclusion isn't right. However, my point is once again that while there are differences between inclusion and exclusion, the difference between right and wrong is not one of them.
Yea, that has nothing to do with what I was saying in any way. Basically if you want a comparrison, the comparrison would be between those who want to BAN intellegent design from teh classroom and those who want to BAN the drawing of human faces. Not to those who want an open diologue between differing points of view.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
See, I put a reason behind my discription. We get it, you don't like Christians, but letting that disdain get so out of hand that you would then abandon core fundamental differences to compare them to a group BANNING ideas from class is just rediculouse.
I'm Christian.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Terrorists are extremists too. Does the fact that I use the same term to describer them as you (or others) use to describe me make us the same?
I never called you an extremist. I said that people would, and pointed that fact out because you probably wouldn't like it.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I'm calling them extremists, because they are banning something from the education. See, I put a reason behind my discription.
Okay, people may call you an extremist because you want to add something to the curriculum, thereby altering it.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I'm Christian.
Well, let me take that back (sorta). To say I'm Christian might be considered...extremist.
I believe in many of the fundamental Christian beliefs, but I don't subscribe to any particular religion. I read the Bible more than most churchgoers I've met, but I don't go to Church. Most would say I'm not Christian, then, since I'm not religious, though I would argue that I am based on my spirituality.
But whatever. My beliefs are besides the point. I won't address them further (in this thread).
Quote:
Wednesday said:
You shouldn't jump to conclusions about what I type. Don't assume that I'm asking him what he's basing his facts on, and don't assume I support the move of removing these materials from the curriculum. Read then judge.
What was it you said?
I guess giving decent thought is too.
Sorry about that. That was actually why I kept asking because I wasn't sure whether you were playing the devil's advocate or whether you honestly supported the change. You arguments seemed contradictory when I read them, so I was trying to clear it up.
My reading post was supposed to be longer where I would explain some of this, but my boss came around the corner and I suddenly needed to look like I was doing work so I posted prematurely.
No problem. I can totally relate.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Terrorists are extremists too. Does the fact that I use the same term to describer them as you (or others) use to describe me make us the same?
I never called you an extremist. I said that people would, and pointed that fact out because you probably wouldn't like it.
You'll note the parentathes. As far as telling me people might call me an extremist, thinking it would bother me or I wouldn't like it, you'll need to brush up on your phych profiling abilities. People can call me whatever they want. I may question thier accuracy, but that's as bad as it gets for me.
Quote:
Okay, people may call you an extremist because you want to add something to the curriculum, thereby altering it.
That would be interesting if they did. (I like the ever commital Wednesday use of "some people") I know there are people who would consider the simple altering of a curriculum extreme, but I think they would have a great deal of trouble gaining popular support for thier position.
Extremist is definitely too harsh of a word. Perhaps we should try passionately religious. Lots of Amish people live in the rural areas surrounding my hometown of Ft. Wayne, IN. Many of their school age children attended the public schools that were offered in their area. The Amish definitely have very strong beliefs. Should the school change it's curiculum for them? Personally, I think not.
The Muslims in question are most likely much more similar to the Amish than to the terrorists, but that still doesn't mean that the art class should be entirely reworked just for them.
My two cents. I think it's well and good to culturally sensitive to various groups including Muslims. But the USA is a nation of people from somewhere else. Most of us have a different cultural heritage and none is more important than any other. Muslims need to know us just as we need to know them. The art curriculum should be the same as other schools with perhaps a greater empasis on the art of Islam but solid in the art of Europe and Asia as well.
They need to learn to live among us as we need to learn to live with them.
The Alhambra, Spain
That wasn't two cents. That was a whole nickel!
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
My two cents. I think it's well and good to be culturally sensitive to various groups including Muslims. But the USA is a nation of people from somewhere else. Most of us have a different cultural heritage and none is more important than any other.
I will disagree with this to a point. There is, I think, an American culture that's been developed and should supercede others. Not wipe out, not invalidate, but supercede others. And the ostensible fact that "we're all from somewhere else" does not offset that.
I would never move to another country and insist that my newfound home now cowtow en toto to every iota of the culture and heritage I bring with me.
I thought that was what he was saying.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Me too.
Me too! American culture didn't spring fully formed from the head of Zeus. It is and was created by synthetic process over time. My post was about that process of amalgamation by which individuals become part of a greater whole.
No puppets? No papier-mache' masks? Craziness! Next they'll be taking "John Jacob Jingleheimer-Schmidt" out of music class, and do you know what we'll have then? Bedlam! Pure unadultarated bedlam!
Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!
Rack!
Because the religion is, you guessed it,
Islam:
In our brave new schools, Johnny can't say the pledge, but he can recite the Quran. Yup, the same court that found the phrase "under God" unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school. In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises.
Parents of seventh-graders who were taught the pro-Islamic lessons as part of California's world history curriculum sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment.
They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam. But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told them in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another "culture."
So the parents appealed. Unfortunately, the most left-wing court in the land got their case. The 9th Circuit, which previously ruled in favor of an atheist who filed suit against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, upheld the lower court ruling.
The decision is a major victory for the multiculturalists and Islamic apologists in California and across the country who've never met a culture or religion they didn't like - with the exception of Western civilization and Christianity. They are legally in the clear to indoctrinate kids into the "peaceful" and "tolerant" religion of Islam, while continuing to denigrate Judeo-Christian values.
In the California course on world religions, Christianity is not presented equally. It's covered in just two days and doesn't involve kids in any role-playing activities. But kids do get a good dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other peoples. In contrast, Islam gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation,"
The Bible and any other religious text does not belong in a public school. In fact, the only place religion should be aloud to be taught outside of private schools is at the university level in classes that students choose to take.
This decision cannot stand.
But it probably will. In politically correct America, we feel the need to "understand" the people trying to kill us, don't you know. That need trumps everything, even the constitution.
We are dangerously slipping away from a nation of laws. Too many judges are ignoring the Consitution. The scary thing is, the current adminsitration hasn't exactly been perfect, either.