Too much moderation on these boards?

Not relevant.You should get out of this bad habit of ascribing motives to people.

The question didn't suppose something being taught which is not adhered to with certainty. It would be unfair to influence your students on something you weren't sure of yourself. I'm glad your type exists on the plantet. The world would be worse off without you. Spare a beggar a dime? Apart from not answering a not-unreasonably-posed question then I suppose nothing at all.

As you should supposing that English Teacher is some absolute entity which usurps all else. A person finds something which they come to understand usurps all else and they are meant to subvert this to a "job title". But, per definition, the job title is subserviant to what they have found out. Then what?

OK, just let me tell how much Calvinism influences this course I teach in American lit. When one teaches literature, one is teaching a history of thought. Now the 17th century in America is totally Calvinistic in nature.So we begin the course with Winthrop's sermon "A Model of Christian Charity," which may have been written on the way over on the ship. 1630. The reason I begin with that is that it leads right into The Scarlet Letter, which is about that same group of people. But before we get to that novel, we go over several other Calvinists, one of whom is very important: Jonathan Edwards. I include in my course excerpts that are not in the book because he has some important things to say. We go over that: it deals with the problem of predestination vs. sin profoundly.After that, we move into The Scarlet Letter, which is another profound document, that deals with the Puritan beliefs very judiciously.

The scarlet letter is one of the most poorly written crappy books I have ever read.(and I've read 1000s of books)

I will grant the style could be better. But the ideas . . .

Sorry robin, you just brought back a bad memory for me of 11th grade english.I am a voracious reader but I just couldn't get through that book.Just ranting

There you go, ascribing motivations (or suppositions) again.Just stop it.

Yes, of course. But it is a profound psychological study.Whether we find it entertaining or not doesn't matter. It's all about the freethinking mentality as opposed to the Puritan mentality.

Also, it has a nihilistic quality which I like. Note this:"My old faith [Calvinism], long forgotten, comes back to me, and explains all that we do, and all we suffer. By thy first step awry, thou didst plant the germ of evil; but, since that moment, it has all been a dark necessity. Ye that have wronged me are not sinful, save in a typical illusion; neither am I fiend-like, who have snatched a fiend's office from his hands. It is our fate. Let the black flower blossom as it may!"Good stuff.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This is all very interesting, don't get me wrong, but I'm forced to engage irony mode and moderate this thread. So tell me - is there too much moderation on these boards?

---

yes, and no. when the same standards that evolutionists are held to are applied to the creationists, they tend to whine that it's not fair. indeed, it isn't fair, really. one of the rules here is that you must back up your points with evidence. what evidence can there be for matters of faith?the problem is that equality isn't actually possible in the real world, because the two parties themselves have competing standards of what is acceptable.besides which, creationists are under represented here. there was a time in not too distant history here that the creationists WERE held to the same standards, and we had next to no creationist participation. it was just plain boring.

---

right, but that's a science debate. it is also quite possible to debate creationism of religious terms, as i know you are well aware. we both do it quite regularly.it's not just a side interest, it's actually integral to the argument, and a very important part of the debate. well, this is kind of what i was saying in my previous post. the two sides have competing standards -- and so to be FAIR, they have to be held to different standards. if we hold the creationists to the "evolutionist" standards of evidence, their point disappears. and vice versa. i really don't think it's as simple as that at all. there is so much more that goes on here than just "is it science? no." the board has grown beyond its original purpose.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

Logic, reason, observations of the world around us. These can be added to the argument. I don't think one should arbitarily limit evidence to be of a certain class in order for the evidence to be evidence. That imposes ones worldview on things- arbitarily I agree. And if someone wants to say "Godidit" then that is as good an evidence as any. The reason not to default to such responses would be so that discussion would be promoted - it serves any view to find areas of common evidential ground in order that both points of view may be better transmitted. There is no need for a two-tier system. The person who inappropriately resorts to Godidit when faced with a reasoned argument won't find many people to debate with. The problem will solve itself.No one is forced to debate anyone and all can make up their own minds as to the worthyness of the evidence presented in the context it is presented. That is sufficient control. So the two-tier system is imposed on the creationist in order that the other side won't be bored. This is even worse than I thought.

exactly. different standards of evidence.(though creationist posts often lack logic, reason or observation.) no, so that the debate keeps happening. if force our rules on the creationist -- and our standards of evidence -- they all disappear very quickly. very many (unfortunately) seem to disappear for other reasons, like behaviour. we can't call the board "EvC" if only the "E" is present, now can we?

---