Interesting story from the US.
Gotta love his guts:
“[The teacher] showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited … religious beliefs in artwork…
The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. “
« If I become a Christian… (I) Publishers Would Not Publish Jane Austin »
A few things.
1) As terrible as the kids artwork was (That was a LANDSCAPE!?) there are two ways you can look at it. First, no it shouldn’t have been rejected because it was religious. However it’s “draw a landscape” not “draw a few wavy lines, add a cross and a reference to a bible passage”. The artwork was shit and should have gotten a crappy grade, but it shouldn’t have been censored either.
2) It’s a slippery slope. Allow religious themes in art class when the subject matter has nothing to do with religion and before you know it we have that case used as precedent for allowing religious answers to science questions. For example, “How old is the Earth, and how do scientists know this age?” Answer: “12,000 years, and scientists don’t because they don’t read the holy bible”. I’m almost certain a few of your readers, Hayes, wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever with that happening but the rest of us are worried.
3) Kid didn’t have to be a little bitch, he could have bought the matter up with a lawyer later instead of throwing a little tantrum.
Once again, thanks for the comment! You raise a few good issues:
1) No, its not fantastic. But its a good deal better than I could do, the clouds and mountains in particular show at least some landscape-y talent. And it didn’t get a crappy grade, it got 0.
But that aside, we agree that it shouldn’t have been censored (which is really the key issue here).
2) At least now I can start using the slippery slope argument again. I had thought it was frowned upon in atheist circles, but maybe not.
I would have thought that the slope, however slippery, from religious drawings in art to religious teachings in science was more of a leap than a slide. Perhaps even a change in kind. (My understanding of the slippery slope argument is that one moves from less severe to more severe cases of the same kind.
Artists, unlike scientists, are not searching methodically for the truth, though some do. They can draw inspiration from anywhere, paint anything real or imaginary, in any style, realistic or impressionistic or minimalistic or abstract.
While I might agree with you that religion has very little place in science*, I find the idea abhorrent that there is no place for it in art. The statue of David, The Last Supper painting, the Sistine Chapel, stained glass windows, hymns, and symphonies – religion has inspired and featured in a multitude of great artworks.
All this to say that I find it a very different animal to then move to science classrooms.
I think you’re too kind when you refer to ‘a few of my readers’, I suspect you and I are the majority of my readership. And those whom have commented or I know personally, they would certainly have a problem with that – as do I.
3) This may be a fair point. I don’t really care, I think it is quite amusingly anti-authoritarian. I like his cheek and his courage. Whether or not its a tantrum… meh.
And I will get around to your comment from aaaages ago…. soon.
*I say very little because I think that when one reaches the edges of some scientific knowledge it naturally invites metaphysical speculation
“*I say very little because I think that when one reaches the edges of some scientific knowledge it naturally invites metaphysical speculation”
That’s stupid. When you reach the edge of science, intelligent people don’t say “I don’t know any more, God must be the answer”.
You don’t reach the edge of current scientific theory and then STOP – that’s what Young Earth Creationists/IntelligentDesign people do. Look at something science can’t yet explain and shout “Huzzah! GOD!”
No it does not naturally invite metaphysical speculation Hayes, it invites additional research.
Can it not do both?
Agreed, of course it invites additional research.
“When you reach the edge of science, intelligent people don’t say “I don’t know any more, God must be the answer”.”
No. I wasn’t talking about looking at the gaps, I was talking about turning around and looking back at what you have just discovered. Intelligent people say “Woah! I wonder what that means. What are the implications of [scientific discovery]?”
I would argue that anyone who doesn’t think those things have their head in a hole, ostrich-style.
Next time I am home, I will post the last paragraph of my Physics textbook to give you an idea of what I mean.