Christian Taliban alive and well in the United States

[HomerJS]

While people are wasting breath decrying Sharia Law a Christian form of Talibanism reared its ugly head in Utah. A teacher was fired for showing classic paintings to his students that contained nudity. People accused the teacher of distributing pornography. Local sheriff said the art didn't rise to the level of porn but the teacher was still fired.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...aintings-shown-elementary-students/994572001/

 

[Atreus21]

What does Christianity have to do with this?

 

[realibrad]

While people are wasting breath decrying Sharia Law a Christian form of Talibanism reared its ugly head in Utah. A teacher was fired for showing classic paintings to his students that contained nudity. People accused the teacher of distributing pornography. Local sheriff said the art didn't rise to the level of porn but the teacher was still fired.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...aintings-shown-elementary-students/994572001/

Why bring the taliban into this?

Is there an Abrahamic religion that would not call just about any nudity bad? I read this and found it absurd, but a growing trend. Even many countries in Europe have started covering up more and more. Facebook is known to try and hide any nudity, art or not painting or picture. Religion is the cause of this and not just one. The biggest difference here is that the teacher was fired and not thrown off a bridge.

Western societies are becoming far more prudish while Middle Eastern has long been extremely prudish. Imagine a woman trying to protest topless in say Egypt, Iran, S.A., Iraq ect. Then, imagine what the actual Taliban would do. All you need to do for this is to point out the prudes that cant take nude paintings and point out how its due to Christian disdain for the human body and sex.

 

[realibrad]

What does Christianity have to do with this?

Ugh, this is the other side of what I just called out the OP for. Christianity for a long time has hated nudity. Hell, Catholics don't eat meat for the following reason.

Fasting was instituted by the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth, and of those that breathe the air and their products.

For, since such like animals are more like man in body, they afford greater pleasure as food, and greater nourishment to the human body, so that from their consumption there results a greater surplus available for seminal matter, which when abundant becomes a great incentive to lust. Hence the Church has bidden those who fast to abstain especially from these foods. - Thomas Aquinas

Christians are super worried about people getting horny. If they think food causes you to get turned on, imagine what painted boobs might do!

 

[HomerJS]

What does Christianity have to do with this?

Its not atheists or Jewish people firing teachers for displaying art.

 

[interchange]

Others are already roasting you for the words and sentiment "Christian Taliban". This happened in an elementary school (6th graders). I personally would not mind my children at this age seeing famous paintings of nudity, but I believe there is no religious hypocrisy in ruling that inappropriate for a public elementary school. However, per the article, the teacher was fired for this and did not know the nudes were among about 100 cards of famous artwork. If this is indeed a mistake, I see no justice in firing him.

 

[realibrad]

Its not atheists or Jewish people firing teachers for displaying art.

No, they fire teachers for living with their boyfriends/girlfriends because its sinful.

 

[realibrad]

Others are already roasting you for the words and sentiment "Christian Taliban". This happened in an elementary school (6th graders). I personally would not mind my children at this age seeing famous paintings of nudity, but I believe there is no religious hypocrisy in ruling that inappropriate for a public elementary school. However, per the article, the teacher was fired for this and did not know the nudes were among about 100 cards of famous artwork. If this is indeed a mistake, I see no justice in firing him.

Also, they were district approved images. The teacher did not know and thought if the district had approved them it was fine. The mistake the teacher made was thinking that people were not as prudish today as they were a few years ago. Funny that nudity in art was far more accepted in the past.

 

[interchange]

Also, they were district approved images. The teacher did not know and thought if the district had approved them it was fine. The mistake the teacher made was thinking that people were not as prudish today as they were a few years ago. Funny that nudity in art was far more accepted in the past.

They were the schools images according to the article. I don't think the teacher is at fault for exposing them to the images given they belonged to the school for student use. But your argument isn't exactly right either going with the statement that he didn't know the nudes were there. Maybe he himself believes they shouldn't be shown.

 

[realibrad]

They were the schools images according to the article. I don't think the teacher is at fault for exposing them to the images given they belonged to the school for student use. But your argument isn't exactly right either going with the statement that he didn't know the nudes were there. Maybe he himself believes they shouldn't be shown.

I do not think I was clear. The teacher did not know there would be a problem because the images were district approved. Why have images that cannot be shown? Does the school also have porn but its not allowed for the kids? What it sounds like is that the images were approved a while ago during a time when nude art was far more accepted, and nobody went over their art assuming that people were more prudish in the past so it must be okay.

 

[interchange]

I do not think I was clear. The teacher did not know there would be a problem because the images were district approved. Why have images that cannot be shown? Does the school also have porn but its not allowed for the kids? What it sounds like is that the images were approved a while ago during a time when nude art was far more accepted, and nobody went over their art assuming that people were more prudish in the past so it must be okay.

I guess, but I'm having trouble applying your point unless the teacher ever had a conscious idea that there might be something inappropriate in the images and chose not to review them because he failed to appreciate change in culture over time.

But this is a very academic discussion. I don't see how it's material to the case.

 

[Paladin3]

If the teacher got fired for using district approved teaching materials then he's got a damn good case for a lawsuit. Such stupidity on the schools part deserves punishment. Assuming there isn't more to the story.

 

[realibrad]

I guess, but I'm having trouble applying your point unless the teacher ever had a conscious idea that there might be something inappropriate in the images and chose not to review them because he failed to appreciate change in culture over time.

But this is a very academic discussion. I don't see how it's material to the case.

The teacher was teaching about a subject, and used images that were approved from the district. Using materials approved by the school to teach a subject approved by the school, I would not think there was any problem either. Its painting of nudes, in a style that is not even close to graphic. If they were not appropriate, then why were they approved?

If the teacher had sought out the images because he thought they were missed by the district, that might be different, but I see no reason to blame this teacher when it was approved. Knowing or not knowing there were nudes is not an issue as the human form is part of art.

 

[Zorba]

Others are already roasting you for the words and sentiment "Christian Taliban". This happened in an elementary school (6th graders). I personally would not mind my children at this age seeing famous paintings of nudity, but I believe there is no religious hypocrisy in ruling that inappropriate for a public elementary school. However, per the article, the teacher was fired for this and did not know the nudes were among about 100 cards of famous artwork. If this is indeed a mistake, I see no justice in firing him.

Meanwhile, I was shown nude art on purpose by teachers in fourth grade. We even took a field trip to the local art museum and discussed the period art there, including multiple nudes. This was in Oklahoma just 20ish years ago.

I don't understand how in a time people have become far more promiscuous, porn has become ubiquitous, even church dresses have become very showy, and more than a majority of evangelicals don't think per-material sex/living together is a sin we have become so afraid of a kid seeing a naked body. Also if you look at classic art and see porn, you have some seriously repressed sexuality.

Edit: I still remember the teacher gives us a lecture before she first showed us David about how it was art, blah, blah. It was a good lecture and I don't think anyone even giggled, or anything.

 

[Thebobo]

Suppression = power.

 

[realibrad]

Meanwhile, I was shown nude art on purpose by teachers in fourth grade. We even took a field trip to the local art museum and discussed the period art there, including multiple nudes. This was in Oklahoma just 20ish years ago.

I don't understand how in a time people have become far more promiscuous, porn has become ubiquitous, even church dresses have become very showy, and more than a majority of evangelicals don't think per-material sex/living together is a sin we have become so afraid of a kid seeing a naked body. Also if you look at classic art and see porn, you have some seriously repressed sexuality.

Welcome to the west right now. People like to fancy that we are becoming less prudish, but in reality we are all over the place.

 

[woolfe9998]

Why bring the taliban into this?

Is there an Abrahamic religion that would not call just about any nudity bad? I read this and found it absurd, but a growing trend. Even many countries in Europe have started covering up more and more. Facebook is known to try and hide any nudity, art or not painting or picture. Religion is the cause of this and not just one. The biggest difference here is that the teacher was fired and not thrown off a bridge.

Western societies are becoming far more prudish while Middle Eastern has long been extremely prudish. Imagine a woman trying to protest topless in say Egypt, Iran, S.A., Iraq ect. Then, imagine what the actual Taliban would do. All you need to do for this is to point out the prudes that cant take nude paintings and point out how its due to Christian disdain for the human body and sex.

Where is your evidence that western societies are "becoming far more prudish?" This one case doesn't prove much of anything.

 

[realibrad]

Where is your evidence that western societies are "becoming far more prudish?" This one case doesn't prove much of anything.

Define what you would consider evidence.

Germany is now asking people to cover up, some cities in Spain do not want you walking around in bathing suits from the beach because its too much skin, topless ads that were not uncommon banned in the UK.

Would you consider things like that evidence? If not then please let me know what I should supply.

 

[interchange]

The teacher was teaching about a subject, and used images that were approved from the district. Using materials approved by the school to teach a subject approved by the school, I would not think there was any problem either. Its painting of nudes, in a style that is not even close to graphic. If they were not appropriate, then why were they approved?

If the teacher had sought out the images because he thought they were missed by the district, that might be different, but I see no reason to blame this teacher when it was approved. Knowing or not knowing there were nudes is not an issue as the human form is part of art.

What I find academic is whether the teacher had any idea he was or might be exposing them to nudity. I absolutely agree that, at best, he committed a slight oversight and should not be fired for it. If the information presented is believed at face value, I think more strongly that he did nothing wrong whatsoever and should not have specific consequence of any kind.

Meanwhile, I was shown nude art on purpose by teachers in fourth grade. We even took a field trip to the local art museum and discussed the period art there, including multiple nudes. This was in Oklahoma just 20ish years ago.

I don't understand how in a time people have become far more promiscuous, porn has become ubiquitous, even church dresses have become very showy, and more than a majority of evangelicals don't think per-material sex/living together is a sin we have become so afraid of a kid seeing a naked body. Also if you look at classic art and see porn, you have some seriously repressed sexuality.

Edit: I still remember the teacher gives us a lecture before she first showed us David about how it was art, blah, blah. It was a good lecture and I don't think anyone even giggled, or anything.

While I agree that I have no problem with 6th graders (or even 4th graders) being exposed to nude art (actually, I think it would be a valuable educational experience), I also have no problem with a public school choosing not to allow that or require some sort of consent. I believe that is up to the constituents of that school district to decide. Passing around cards of nude paintings without the teacher providing context, however, I think would be wrong. But if he didn't know they were there, hard to fault him for not talking about it first.

 

[soulcougher73]

Those poor children and their fragile eggshell minds....

 

[woolfe9998]

Define what you would consider evidence.

Germany is now asking people to cover up, some cities in Spain do not want you walking around in bathing suits from the beach because its too much skin, topless ads that were not uncommon banned in the UK.

Would you consider things like that evidence? If not then please let me know what I should supply.

I would consider things like that evidence, assuming they are sufficient to suggest a shifting rule rather than exceptions. I just don't see it here in the US. The truth is that we're being exposed to nudity possibly 100 fold more than 20 years ago simply because of the internet, and while some religious people and some feminists seem to oppose this, there doesn't seem to be any serious effort to censor it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No, they fire teachers for living with their boyfriends/girlfriends because its sinful.

No that’s the christians as well. Gay. Pregnant out of wedlock. They love firing for their dictated morality.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ah, Utah, snowflakes. got it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I would consider things like that evidence, assuming they are sufficient to suggest a shifting rule rather than exceptions. I just don't see it here in the US. The truth is that we're being exposed to nudity possibly 100 fold more than 20 years ago simply because of the internet, and while some religious people and some feminists seem to oppose this, there doesn't seem to be any serious effort to censor it.

maybe ISP's can get in on it....HD pr0n tier, priced too high for average joe to afford.

 

[Amused]