Mariotti thread offshoot

[Wise Master Buehrle]

I hate it when people freak out over someone calling Jay Mariotti gay just so they make sure the feelings of one gay person on the board don't get hurt.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I am not insulting an entire innocent group of people I do not know. I am expressing my opinion of the public persona you have created under the screen name Juggernaut. That persona is that of a pathetic human being. If that is how you act in public, than my observation and opinion also pertains to you as a person.

 

I could care less what your personal opinion is of me. It's childish to even mention but I guess you've been bullying people that way all your life to make up for a lack of acumen & knowledge of subjects. You even need SS to fight your battles for you apparently. Since you have a mind of a child I'll refer you to sticks & stones.

 

What you have stated is that you find it perfectly acceptable to publicly humiliate, & make discouraging & deragatory remarks toward a single person in the most vile & evil means you are capable of but you find it unacceptable to allow the use of slang & ethnic slurs that are rooted in sarcastic comedy because YOU feel people can be hurt by them.

 

You're opinion has been noted. Since you have nothing further to offer than your childish methods of name calling you can drop off the face of the Earth now.

 

For those who have the intellect to actually debate the issue I would like one of you to provide some links or references to data that proves your point. That is that the use of the word mick or dago or any other ethnic slang term causes serious harm to others. Likewise please explain how it is acceptable to use words & terms that irrefutably cause pain & suffering to someone & yet it is unacceptable to use words & terms that MAY cause pain & suffering to someone. I say may because there is no data justifying this harm. At best we could say there is the possibility of inconsequential harm because that's what the data suggests.

 

What do we know about ethnic slurs & slang?

01-They are popularized by entertainment media

02-The FCC receives next to nothing in complaints when they occur

03-There is no uprising by constituents upon elected officials to prevent their usage

04-They are common among bars & sporting events

05-The overwhelming majority of the people when hearing one .. laugh.

06-Hillary uses them

07-They are common on comedy shows & pay cable shows

08-They are common in gangsta rap

09-No one has ever been sued for slander or libel from their use

10-Only people who are more concerned about other people's behavior than their

own have a stink fit over them.

 

Want's some more real factual evidence in support of my point?

The N word is back. This was taboo in my home. I would scold any one (kids, & adults a like for using). But it's back. Why? Because apparently some who identify with the word feel a sense of kinship in it's usage. Apparently they aren't offended or appauled by what it represents to their history. Now they do have unwritten rules as to who can use it but the reality of it appearing in film & music entertainment again is real.

 

In case that went over your head let me simplify it for you: if you are a member of a group then it's ok to use slang terms for it. So a dago can use dago, a mick can use mick, & an N can use N. But if you aren't a member of the group then it's still taboo. That's the gist I get out of it. It seems to me the younger generation is re-writing the rules to subvert your need to censor what everyone says, thinks, & does in this country. It's natural for all humans to want to form group associations.

Even slang ones. It's natural for them to be proud of that association.

 

Based on some of your posts I can only imagine the number of people some of you

must have crushed in your path to get to where you are. Of course that's morally sound for you because it's personal. Don't harm the group itself but crush the people within it. That's a real fine moral code you live by.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I hate it when people freak out over someone calling Jay Mariotti gay just so they make sure the feelings of one gay person on the board don't get hurt.

Ach, there's nobody actually freaking out over it, as far as I can tell. And it's not that everyone is rushing in to protect anyone or spare spare anybody hurt feelings - gays have to endure a whole lot more than the coopting of their title every day of their lives in a 'straight and narrow' world.

 

It's more about trying to be respectful, regardless of who is looging on to read. People who put on one vulgar, slur-ridden persona in some social settings and then another, "PC" persona at other times are rather two-faced individuals.

[Texsox]

I could care less what your personal opinion is of me.  It's childish to even mention but I guess you've been bullying people that way all your life to make up for a lack of acumen & knowledge of subjects.  You even need SS to fight your battles for you apparently.  Since you have a mind of a child I'll refer you to sticks & stones.

 

What you have stated is that you find it perfectly acceptable to publicly humiliate, & make discouraging & deragatory remarks toward a single person in the most vile & evil means you are capable of but you find it unacceptable to allow the use of slang & ethnic slurs that are rooted in sarcastic comedy because YOU feel people can be hurt by them. 

 

You're opinion has been noted.  Since you have nothing further to offer than your childish methods of name calling you can drop off the face of the Earth now.

 

For those who have the intellect to actually debate the issue I would like one of you to provide some links or references to data that proves your point.  That is that the use of the word mick or dago or any other ethnic slang term causes serious harm to others. Likewise please explain how it is acceptable to use words & terms that irrefutably cause pain & suffering to someone & yet it is unacceptable to use words & terms that MAY cause pain & suffering to someone.  I say may because there is no data justifying this harm.  At best we could say there is the possibility of inconsequential harm because that's what the data suggests.

 

What do we know about ethnic slurs & slang?

01-They are popularized by entertainment media

02-The FCC receives next to nothing in complaints when they occur

03-There is no uprising by constituents upon elected officials to prevent their usage

04-They are common among bars & sporting events

05-The overwhelming majority of the people when hearing one .. laugh.

06-Hillary uses them

07-They are common on comedy shows & pay cable shows

08-They are common in gangsta rap

09-No one has ever been sued for slander or libel from their use

10-Only people who are more concerned about other people's behavior than their

own have a stink fit over them.

 

Want's some more real factual evidence in support of my point?

The N word is back.  This was taboo in my home.  I would scold any one (kids, & adults a like for using).  But it's back.  Why?  Because apparently some who identify with the word feel a sense of kinship in it's usage. Apparently they aren't offended or appauled by what it represents to their history.  Now they do have unwritten rules as to who can use it but the reality of it appearing in film & music entertainment again is real.

 

In case that went over your head let me simplify it for you:  if you are a member of a group then it's ok to use slang terms for it.  So a dago can use dago, a mick can use mick, & an N can use N.  But if you aren't a member of the group then it's still taboo.  That's the gist I get out of it.  It seems to me the younger generation is re-writing the rules to subvert your need to censor what everyone says, thinks, & does in this country.  It's natural for all humans to want to form group associations.

Even slang ones.  It's natural for them to be proud of that association.

 

Based on some of your posts I can only imagine the number of people some of you

must have crushed in your path to get to where you are.  Of course that's morally sound for you because it's personal. Don't harm the group itself but crush the people within it. That's a real fine moral code you live by.

Why thank you Juggs. I appreciate your opinions.

 

The world will judge us both and I am confident, in the end, decency, and respect for other people will win out.

 

Enjoy this dickhead persona you have created for yourself. You crack me up

[JUGGERNAUT]

Why thank you Juggs. I appreciate your opinions. 

 

The world will judge us both and I am confident, in the end, decency, and respect for other people will win out.

 

Enjoy this dickhead persona you have created for yourself.  You crack me up   

Keep telling yourself. Keep living the lie. Since it's obvious your fragile ego will bust if your don't.

 

You are without question the most vulgar, vindictive, abusive, ill-mannered, disrespectful, rude, & indecedent poster I have ever met. If you need a clue do a search on your posts & count the number of personal attacks that exist within them.

If you have the time read the context of your abusive words.

 

You confuse decency & respect for your own pompous opinions with that of real human beings. I'm sure the fictitous persons in your mind who you think you are protecting from references like dago, mick, & pollock applaud your efforts. You should thank them personally when you see them some day.

 

As for those of us who live in the real world I've never met any one who was a dago, mick, or pollock whoever took offense to the term. But of course I live around people who believe in MYOB & let other's live as they choose to live. They aren't devoting their time & effort to mandating what people should say, think & feel like you do. They don't subscribe to the theory "It Takes a Village".

 

Still waiting for any factual evidence that your cause is even needed in this world.

Or I guess for that matter that you are as well.

[Texsox]

Keep telling yourself.  Keep living the lie.  Since it's obvious your fragile ego will bust if your don't.

 

You are without question the most vulgar, vindictive, abusive, ill-mannered, disrespectful, rude, & indecedent poster I have ever met.  If you need a clue do a search on your posts & count the number of personal attacks that exist within them.

If you have the time read the context of your abusive words.

 

You confuse decency & respect for your own pompous opinions with that of real human beings.  I'm sure the fictitous persons in your mind who you think you are protecting from references like dago, mick, & pollock applaud your efforts.  You should thank them personally when you see them some day.

 

As for those of us who live in the real world I've never met any one who was a dago, mick, or pollock whoever took offense to the term.  But of course I live around people who believe in MYOB & let other's live as they choose to live.  They aren't devoting their time & effort to mandating what people should say, think & feel like you do.  They don't subscribe to the theory "It Takes a Village".

 

Still waiting for any factual evidence that your cause is even needed in this world.

Or I guess for that matter that you are as well.

Thank you again for you insight. I will try harder to earn your approval.

Nice to see your wife is letting you post again.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Texsox

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And I'm waiting to hear why praying to an invisible uber-daddy is needed in schools.

[Texsox]

And I'm waiting to hear why praying to an invisible uber-daddy is needed in schools. 

A person should be free to say a prayer whenever they like. I do not think it should be mandatory, but if a student wishes to organize a morning prayer, he/she should have the freedom to do that. If he recited the previous night's box score, no one would complain. Again, not making it mandatory.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I could care less what your personal opinion is of me.  It's childish to even mention but I guess you've been bullying people that way all your life to make up for a lack of acumen & knowledge of subjects.  You even need SS to fight your battles for you apparently.  Since you have a mind of a child I'll refer you to sticks & stones.

 

What you have stated is that you find it perfectly acceptable to publicly humiliate, & make discouraging & deragatory remarks toward a single person in the most vile & evil means you are capable of but you find it unacceptable to allow the use of slang & ethnic slurs that are rooted in sarcastic comedy because YOU feel people can be hurt by them. 

 

You're opinion has been noted.  Since you have nothing further to offer than your childish methods of name calling you can drop off the face of the Earth now.

 

For those who have the intellect to actually debate the issue I would like one of you to provide some links or references to data that proves your point.  That is that the use of the word mick or dago or any other ethnic slang term causes serious harm to others. Likewise please explain how it is acceptable to use words & terms that irrefutably cause pain & suffering to someone & yet it is unacceptable to use words & terms that MAY cause pain & suffering to someone.  I say may because there is no data justifying this harm.  At best we could say there is the possibility of inconsequential harm because that's what the data suggests.

 

What do we know about ethnic slurs & slang?

01-They are popularized by entertainment media

02-The FCC receives next to nothing in complaints when they occur

03-There is no uprising by constituents upon elected officials to prevent their usage

04-They are common among bars & sporting events

05-The overwhelming majority of the people when hearing one .. laugh.

06-Hillary uses them

07-They are common on comedy shows & pay cable shows

08-They are common in gangsta rap

09-No one has ever been sued for slander or libel from their use

10-Only people who are more concerned about other people's behavior than their

own have a stink fit over them.

 

Want's some more real factual evidence in support of my point?

The N word is back.  This was taboo in my home.  I would scold any one (kids, & adults a like for using).  But it's back.  Why?  Because apparently some who identify with the word feel a sense of kinship in it's usage. Apparently they aren't offended or appauled by what it represents to their history.  Now they do have unwritten rules as to who can use it but the reality of it appearing in film & music entertainment again is real.

 

In case that went over your head let me simplify it for you:  if you are a member of a group then it's ok to use slang terms for it.  So a dago can use dago, a mick can use mick, & an N can use N.  But if you aren't a member of the group then it's still taboo.  That's the gist I get out of it.  It seems to me the younger generation is re-writing the rules to subvert your need to censor what everyone says, thinks, & does in this country.  It's natural for all humans to want to form group associations.

Even slang ones.  It's natural for them to be proud of that association.

 

Based on some of your posts I can only imagine the number of people some of you

must have crushed in your path to get to where you are.  Of course that's morally sound for you because it's personal. Don't harm the group itself but crush the people within it. That's a real fine moral code you live by.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

Juggernaut

[hammerhead johnson]

You are without question the most vulgar, vindictive, abusive, ill-mannered, disrespectful, rude, & indecent poster I have ever met.

Or in other words, poster of the year!

[JUGGERNAUT]

And I'm waiting to hear why praying to an invisible uber-daddy is needed in schools. 

Because it's not about God, nor about a reason to pray. It's about freedom & free-speech rights.

 

It's ridiculous to suggest that a person should censor that which they feel strongly about simply because you or someone else doesn't agree with it.

 

If a teacher wants to interject God into the classroom as a metaphor or a possibile explanation of a mystery you have no right to censor them from doing so.

 

If a student wishes to interject God into the classroom as part of their explanation of something when called upon you have no right to censor them from doing so.

 

If 99% of the students, faculty, & parents wish to begin the day with a morning prayer you have no right to censor them from doing so.

 

If you claim that right then you do not believe in democracy or freedom.

 

It is impossible & impractical to legislate society such that anything that someone says or does will not offend any one else. When you take away someone's right to prayer or right to mention God you are offending that person. The stronger they feel about that right the greater your offense.

 

Since it is impossible not to offend someone democracy or if you will majority rule should decide which is the greater offense: To deny someone's right or to deny someone's right to censor another.

 

Yes this is relevant to use of slang & slurs because it is a similar form of censorship.

Which is the greater offense: To deny someone's right to use slang or to deny someone's right to censor slang.

 

I'm against censorship of any kind. I think human beings are intelligent enough to know when it's ok to say certain things & when it's not. I also believe in communative inteligence to help that process. People get the message without having law enforcement rules taking away their rights. What Hillary said was not wrong wrt to the community of people she was speaking to. That is way she got a loud & supportive response to it. But as a Senator of the US Congress whenever she speaks she is speaking to the nation & in that context it was wrong. Ghandi is above ethnic slurs. She should have known better.

 

With respect to the use of the word gay I have a few questions for the pc people:

If the poster had made the reference to something Mariotti said, did, or wore would you still consider that a sexual slur? It's clearly not a reference to a person or a sexual reference in that context. It's slang usage of a past idiom that was common at one time.

 

In a broader sense what if the poster had made an historical reference to something in the past in which an athlete was quoted using the word. Are historical references to slangs & slurs objectionable? If you believe it is then are you likewise stating that it's ok to re-write history such that it fits the current context of your opinions?

[FlaSoxxJim]

A person should be free to say a prayer whenever they like. I do not think it should be mandatory, but if a student wishes to organize a morning prayer, he/she should have the freedom to do that. If he recited the previous night's box score, no one would complain. Again, not making it mandatory.

I heartily agree with that - because you seem to intimate that this would be before or after, but NOT DURING class time in any organized sense.

 

That said, if a teacher at the end of the Pledge of Alliegence (the after-the-fact added 'under Gawd' part completely optional, of course) says, 'please take this silent moment to add your own personal thoughts,' and students decided to use that time to ponder a real or imagined Divine Agent... I have no problem with that.

 

Kids are in extracurricular chess clubs, pep clubs, debate clubs, creepy Dungeons and Dragons clubs... certainly they should be allowed to be in extracurricular religion-centered clubs as well.

 

And aside from any in- or out of class time set aside, what goes on in kids' heads during the day is not controllable. If a teenage boy can manage to think about sex 27 or whatever times a day, who's going to fault the kid that thinks about more spiratual things for an equal amount of time.

 

In the end, what everyone needs to keep in mind is that kids are only in school 6 or 7 hours a day, and they aren't getting enough done academic0wise during that short span as it is. If students want to use some chunk the other 16 or 17 hours to worship a head of lettuce because that is their chosen faith, then love and do what you will.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Schools already provide time for silent reflection at the beginning of the day. They don't need to have officially endorsed prayer by the school.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Allow me to take some liberties - in the spirit of being against sensorship of any kind.

 

If a teacher wants to interject scientifically defensable cornerstone concepts of EVOLUTION into the classroom as a metaphor or a possibile explanation of a mystery you have no right to censor them from doing so.

 

If a student wishes to ridicule God (as a concept on par with Santa Clause, for example) in the classroom as part of their explanation of something when called upon you have no right to censor them from doing so.

 

If 99% of the students, faculty, & parents wish to begin the day railing against force-fed morning prayer you have no right to censor them from doing so.

 

Casting off the old ways is tough, but strides are being made. Hell, the Greeks and Romans had dozens of really cool friggin' Gods, and we've managed to explain away just about all of them. The god of death and fear and the unknown is a hard one to kill off though, to be sure.

Edited December 31, 2004 by FlaSoxxJim

[JUGGERNAUT]

Schools already provide time for silent reflection at the beginning of the day.  They don't need to have officially endorsed prayer by the school.

Why is it so important to you? Why can't you just mind your own business & let people live as they choose? In the case of a school it means the people who attend that school should decide what is best for them.

 

Why is that concept so objectionable to you?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Why is it so important to you?  Why can't you just mind your own business & let people live as they choose?  In the case of a school it means the people who attend that school should decide what is best for them. 

 

Why is that concept so objectionable to you?

Because I'm going to be a teacher.

 

And when schools try to be back-water idiots like the Scopes Monkey trial etc. etc., they screw over education and academic freedom.

 

Putting endorsed prayer in schools demeans prayer and religion.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Because I'm going to be a teacher.

 

And when schools try to be back-water idiots like the Scopes Monkey trial etc. etc., they screw over education and academic freedom.

 

Putting endorsed prayer in schools demeans prayer and religion.

Have I got one for you Apu...

 

10 years ago I was courted away from grad school for a year to teach AP Biology in the public school system. Despite my best efforts, they hired me anyway.

 

Well, in the job inerview, the school administrators down here in the southern extreme of the Bible Belt finished up by asking me how I planned to tip-toe through the "controversial" subject of evolution. Beilng prepared for the Inquisition, i was quickly able to produce the table of contents of all four county-approved textbooks, and show that each of them devoted THREE OR MORE CHAPTERS to the subject, and so I planned to be a good county teacher and stick witth the curriculum they had ordained.

 

It was soooo great to see the thumpers speachless when they couldn't demand I deviate from the approved curricula. But, in the interest of fairness and equal time we talked about Intelligent Design/Creation "science" etc. as well. Oh boy, did we have a hoot talking about that.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Because I'm going to be a teacher.

 

And when schools try to be back-water idiots like the Scopes Monkey trial etc. etc., they screw over education and academic freedom.

 

Putting endorsed prayer in schools demeans prayer and religion.

What makes you qualified to JUDGE that they screw over eduction & academic freedom? And how exactly does it screw over academic freedom?

 

It's a very simple concept. Go become a teacher & go find the right school for you to teach in. Don't assume you know everything or that you are right about everything & everyone else is wrong. That's pompous & historically people who are pompous to that extent hurt society more than they help it.

 

Learn a little humility. Competition is a prime characteristic of humanity. It's aristocratic of you to believe that you are the all-knowing all-seeing entity of the Universe that should limit competition because your way is the right way.

 

Can you say with a strong level of certainty that a school that CHOOSES to begin each day with a prayer won't outperform a school that doesn't? If you can I certainly would like to see your basis for doing so. What measure of performance should we use? How about graduation rates? That's a pretty important aspect of performance for a school. Yes? Some might argue it's the most important.

 

Again, it's a simple concept to understand. Those who attend/run the school (local school board, parents, students, & teachers) should decide what is best for them.

Standardized testing & graduation rates will push those methods that work to the top & weed out those that don't. That's the basis of competition. The strongest survive.

[Rex Kickass]

Why is it so important to you?  Why can't you just mind your own business & let people live as they choose?  In the case of a school it means the people who attend that school should decide what is best for them. 

 

Why is that concept so objectionable to you?

Because a Republic is a land where the rights of the minorities are respected and protected. It's what sets us apart from true democracy. If 99% of a school believes in prayer and starts off each day with it, the 1% who find it morally objectionable should not be compelled to participate.

 

Now you tell me an 8 year old Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu/Zoroastrian kid in a class doesn't feel compelled to participate in someone else's religion if the class he's in starts off the day with a Christian prayer.

[Rex Kickass]

What makes you qualified to JUDGE that they screw over eduction & academic freedom?  And how exactly does it screw over academic freedom?

 

It's a very simple concept.  Go become a teacher & go find the right school for you to teach in.  Don't assume you know everything or that you are right about everything & everyone else is wrong.  That's pompous & historically people who are pompous to that extent hurt society more than they help it.

 

Learn a little humility.  Competition is a prime characteristic of humanity.  It's aristocratic of you to believe that you are the all-knowing all-seeing entity of the Universe that should limit competition because your way is the right way. 

 

Can you say with a strong level of certainty that a school that CHOOSES to begin each day with a prayer won't outperform a school that doesn't?  If you can I certainly would like to see your basis for doing so.  What measure of performance should we use?  How about graduation rates?  That's a pretty important aspect of performance for a school.  Yes?  Some might argue it's the most important. 

 

Again, it's a simple concept to understand.  Those who attend/run the school (local school board, parents, students, & teachers) should decide what is best for them.

Standardized testing & graduation rates will push those methods that work to the top & weed out those that don't.  That's the basis of competition.  The strongest survive.

Teachers who are forced to curtail academically sound curriculum for matters of politics (i.e. Intelligent Design forced inclusion into a discussion on Evolution) is by definition - curtailing academic freedom.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Have I got one for you Apu...

 

10 years ago I was courted away from grad school for a year to teach AP Biology in the public school system.  Despite my best efforts, they hired me anyway. 

 

Well, in the job inerview, the school administrators down here in the southern extreme of the Bible Belt finished up by asking me how I planned to tip-toe through the "controversial"  subject of evolution.  Beilng prepared for the Inquisition, i was quickly able to produce the table of contents of all four county-approved textbooks, and show that each of them devoted THREE OR MORE CHAPTERS to the subject, and so I planned to be a good county teacher and stick witth the curriculum they had ordained.

 

It was soooo great to see the thumpers speachless when they couldn't demand I deviate from the approved curricula.  But, in the interest of fairness and equal time we talked about Intelligent Design/Creation "science" etc. as well.  Oh boy, did we have a hoot talking about that.

open-minded intelligence: Darwin's natural selection theory has it's strengths & weaknesses as a tool for describing cross-generational change among species. It stands alone on it's strengths but there are stronger alternative explanations with respect to it's weaknesses. Those are rooted in physics, philosophy, & metaphysics.

 

close-minded intelligence: Darwin's natural selection theory is the de-facto standard & anything alternative explanations or theories are ridiculous.

[Rex Kickass]

Open Minded Intelligence in the classroom: including science that has been for the large part validated by the vast majority of scienticians across the globe.

 

Closed Minded Intelligence in the classroom: presenting "scientific theories" that have very little science to back it up and has been repudiated by the scientific community in general as an equally valid option in a "debate" that frankly doesn't exist in the scientician community.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Standardized testing & graduation rates will push those methods that work to the top & weed out those that don't.  That's the basis of competition.  The strongest survive.

The recent militant emphasis on standardized testing is the single worst thing that has happened to our educational system in our lifetime. Teachers now spend the entire year 'teaching to the test,' and schools that get failing grades are gutted rather than fixed. Teachers have resorted to cheating and administrators to turning a blind eye because it is now vastly more important to be an "A" school than to teach honesty, integrity, or any kind of work ethic.

 

"No Child Left Behind" is true enough though, because:

 

1) there are no children being allowed to excel and we are now embracing mediocrity as an acceptable goal;

 

2) Not enough teachers give a f*** enough to hold students back when they need it. Low-grade morons matriculate through the system with the full blessing of the powers that be because it would just be such a hassle to actually HOLD THE STUDENTS ACCOUNTABLE for the academic competencies they are supposed to have mastered.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Because a Republic is a land where the rights of the minorities are respected and protected. It's what sets us apart from true democracy. If 99% of a school believes in prayer and starts off each day with it, the 1% who find it morally objectionable should not be compelled to participate.

 

Now you tell me an 8 year old Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu/Zoroastrian kid in a class doesn't feel compelled to participate in someone else's religion if the class he's in starts off the day with a Christian prayer.

I'm sorry but I can't buy your argument. You are essentially it is right to offend 99% of the people in order to be satisfy the needs of 1%. It's ridiculous to suggest that the 1% feels any stronger about their faith than the 99%.

 

And there is nothing about our being a republic that suggests that such censorship is reaosnable or desireable.

 

It is more desireable & reasonable of the 1% to respect the needs of the 99% over their own. That's called being kind, respectful of others, good-natured, good-willed, well-manned, polite, & charitable.

 

I would tell you that a true student of Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu/Zoroastrian

would be mindful of the tenets of their faith & show respect to the overwhelming majority faith in the class.

[Rex Kickass]

It would also help if Education departments weren't among the easiest to be accepted in at most colleges. And if teachers, rather than schools were held accountable for the general "range of improvement" of their students rather than schools at large.