2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

this comment is meant as a rebuttle to scottmil, two comments above — Wed Feb. 10th 10:56a.m.,

You make a false assumption by implying that all ideologies are employed the same way by individuals or even entire organizations.  It is “all or nothing thinking” to assume that because an institution is run by a religious ideology that other viewpoints are inapplicable to its theology.

When you cynically say, “I accept the 'diversity' of your right to hate me”, it seems you are referring specifically to the intolerance of American evangelicalism ‘heaven or hell’ doctrines.  Regardless, there is a difference between proselytizing and the use of outward expressions of inner-faith. The difference being, proselytizing is persuading others to one’s own belief system and this act has its own spectrum with messages of intolerance on one extreme. While the expression of  outward garments/jewelry worm by public school teachers actually propagates tolerance by exposing children to teachers who can both teach a secular curriculum and maintain their religious ideological integrity.

I will grant you, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.  That is to say, diversity can be a double edged sword, i.e. should it go so far to include hate speech, etc.  However, you make the mistake of assuming that the root of all religious ideologies is a message of intolerance.  Religiously affiliated teachers who buy into a secular curriculum are a living example of tolerance. You entirely miss the virtue they represent by reducing their actions to the stereotypes affiliated with religious intolerance

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Not allowing teachers to have religiouse expression is sending a falitic message that organized religion and secular curriculums, i.e. natural sciences, do not coincide.  THEY CAN and do.... Laws that force teachers to hide their religion will only divide our communities . Its like using negative reinforcment when it is not necessary. We should be enableing these teachers, even rewarding them for sending a message that religion does not always end with extremeism...

There is no problem with religiously expressive teachers sending a message that teaaching secular curriculums are not at odds with their religious practices.

Diversity is a healthy message!

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context