Bobby Jindal

[quote author="trrenter" date=1235699329][quote author="Oscar" date=1235689775]



Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?

</blockquote>


IMVHO the difference is one is being taught as history the other as Science. The History of Greece or Rome would be incomplete without teaching about the religious beliefs at the time. Beliefs that have obviosly been disproven.



I am a Christian by birth and I don't want my kids sitting in class learning about Jesus any more then I want them to learn about Mohamad or Vishnu. Because we are a religiously diverse country we should leave the teaching of religion to parents.



I can't imagine a Jewish family wanting their children to learn about Jesus.</blockquote>


That's a good point. And in the same spirit, I can't imagine why we allow schools to teach children sex education. That's really more of a job for parents than it is for educators.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1235700092][quote author="trrenter" date=1235699329][quote author="Oscar" date=1235689775]



Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?

</blockquote>


IMVHO the difference is one is being taught as history the other as Science. The History of Greece or Rome would be incomplete without teaching about the religious beliefs at the time. Beliefs that have obviosly been disproven.



I am a Christian by birth and I don't want my kids sitting in class learning about Jesus any more then I want them to learn about Mohamad or Vishnu. Because we are a religiously diverse country we should leave the teaching of religion to parents.



I can't imagine a Jewish family wanting their children to learn about Jesus.</blockquote>


Religion is an integral part of history. There is no possible way anyone can study history seriously while ignoring the impact of religion.</blockquote>


I am not arguing that religion taught in a hitorical context is wrong. They want to teach creationism in Science. That is a big difference. If that is the case then each religion should get their "belief" on how the world began inserted into the Science class as well.
 
Thanks, tr for the clarification. History and science are definitely two very different classes. However, as educators, we have to deal with parents who want history to be taught only if it agrees with their religious views and the same occurs in science.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1235703182]However, as educators, we have to deal with parents who want history to be taught only if it agrees with their religious views and the same occurs in science.</blockquote>


It appears that Jindal agrees - with the parents who only want thier world view taught. He certainly went a long way to empowering them.
 
<blockquote> author="WINEX"



That's a good point. And in the same spirit, I can't imagine why we allow schools to teach children sex education. That's really more of a job for parents than it is for educators.</blockquote>


So you think simple human reproductive science should be kept from 7th graders ?

Never mind what they are exposed to everyday in this world with the Internet

and in todays social environments.



Personally I think Condoms should be available for all High School Students.

Teaching Abstinence to Teenagers is like letting them play with a loaded gun.



Your ideas are straight out of a "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" episode.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1235706458]<blockquote> author="WINEX"



That's a good point. And in the same spirit, I can't imagine why we allow schools to teach children sex education. That's really more of a job for parents than it is for educators.</blockquote>


So you think simple human reproductive science should be kept from 7th graders ?

Never mind what they are exposed to everyday in this world with the Internet

and in todays social environments.



Personally I think Condoms should be available for all High School Students.

Teaching Abstinence to Teenagers is like letting them play with a loaded gun.



Your ideas are straight out of a "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" episode.</blockquote>




Kids should learn about sex in school simply because having sex with the wrong person can be a death sentence.



I believe Abstinence should be taught and stressed. You can never get an STD, HIV or pregnant from abstinence. Since we know that kids will have sex even after being taught abstinence is the prefered route we should empower them to then make better choices if they do decide to have sex.



I would say leave it to the parents but my dad didn't have the talk with me until I was already sexually active. Day late and a dollar short.
 
actually, after being 'taught' abstinence, teenagers have *more* sex, STDs, pregnancies and abortions that students taught regular sex ed, and even slightly more than students not taught at all, iirc
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1235707867][quote author="bltserv" date=1235706458]<blockquote> author="WINEX"



That's a good point. And in the same spirit, I can't imagine why we allow schools to teach children sex education. That's really more of a job for parents than it is for educators.</blockquote>


So you think simple human reproductive science should be kept from 7th graders ?

Never mind what they are exposed to everyday in this world with the Internet

and in todays social environments.



Personally I think Condoms should be available for all High School Students.

Teaching Abstinence to Teenagers is like letting them play with a loaded gun.



Your ideas are straight out of a "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" episode.</blockquote>




Kids should learn about sex in school simply because having sex with the wrong person can be a death sentence.



I believe Abstinence should be taught and stressed. You can never get an STD, HIV or pregnant from abstinence. Since we know that kids will have sex even after being taught abstinence is the prefered route we should empower them to then make better choices if they do decide to have sex.



I would say leave it to the parents but my dad didn't have the talk with me until I was already sexually active. Day late and a dollar short.</blockquote>


My dad was late to the game as well. But I was VERY open with my son at an early age.

Abstinence is a great idea. But the human instinct to procreate has been refined over

millions of years. We are still just animals when it comes to sex. Better to keep it very open with family and avoid demonizing it like the Catholic Church does. Its a natural and important act of life. Keeping children from the truth and reality of life is not good parenting. But for some keeping your head in the sand is how they were raised and that

poor trait is just passed along to the next generation.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1235708471]actually, after being 'taught' abstinence, teenagers have *more* sex, STDs, pregnancies and abortions that students taught regular sex ed, and even slightly more than students not taught at all, iirc</blockquote>


When I took sex ed Abstinence was taught as part of the class and it was stressed. The disclaimer was something like, at your age it is best not to have sex and here is why blah blah blah. Then they taught us the other stuff. That was my regular sex ed. Are they leaving that out these days?



Are you saying if we teach abstinence with sex ed kids have more sex and ignore the rest of what they learned?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1235709170][quote author="freedomCM" date=1235708471]actually, after being 'taught' abstinence, teenagers have *more* sex, STDs, pregnancies and abortions that students taught regular sex ed, and even slightly more than students not taught at all, iirc</blockquote>


When I took sex ed Abstinence was taught as part of the class and it was stressed. The disclaimer was something like, at your age it is best not to have sex and here is why blah blah blah. Then they taught us the other stuff. That was my regular sex ed. Are they leaving that out these days?



Are you saying if we teach abstinence with sex ed kids have more sex and ignore the rest of what they learned?</blockquote>




the GOP has controlled this issue since 1994 (newt), such that if the states/schools teach anything more than 'abstinence only' (ie not the second part of your lesson), they lose all their federal money for this education.



only the richest states and districts have taught the kind of sex-ed you had for the past 15 years.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1235640114]Boy, this guy got some bad press today. He's been alluded to a few times on the boards today, so I'd like to hear some views. Aside from horribly bad acting and some crazy GOP pimping to be their version of Obama, I didn't really think he had anything bad to say. Any views?</blockquote>


Agreed. Terrible optics for Jindal. Super bright guy. Great in interviews. Clearly not very good with a script. Did anyone else feel like they needed a shower after that? Super creepy. A perfect example of how you can do yourself a disservice by trying to be something/someone you're not.
 
Maybe the problem was that he didn't do his homework. He was clearly reading from a script. You can see his eyes darting side to side as as he's reciting the words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top