If I lived in a society where such things were legal I would think 1. I would have to put up with that, or 2. I should move (Personally, I would move- since I don't want to live where extremists are in charge- not ANY kind of extremist). I think you have no right to try to change the laws of the land via the machinery of the school. Change them in the legislature, or take your lumps.
I never see much point to outrage. It's a poor excuse for logic.
So no, I'm not "brushing it aside- I'm looking at the problem differently than you do, and you can't even acknowledge that as valid. That's fine, but not particularly constructive as far as dialog is concerned.
And of course none of this has anything to do with honor killings being per se religious, which was the original question. Did you decide to agree with me, that it isn't per se religious? Or did you brush that part aside...
"Teaching about gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, really.
No? Let's suppose that instead of speaking in a neutral or approving way about gay marriage, the textbook spoke in neutral or approving way about the honor killing of errant female family members.
Still nothing to do with religion?"
Now here's the deal- I never said "nothing to do with religion"- I said things like pork and honor killing and marriage are not per se religious. They are not, I repeat, the same "set". If you drew a Venn diagram with cirles of "secular" and "religious", these subjects would be found in both circles. That was my point, and continues to be my point. I'm no longer sure what yours is. |
