"Preaching" in class?

[Bryan]

Bryan, since you like logic, let me point out that your post is a good example of a fallacy of definition, in this case, an over-narrow definition.

You're welcome to try.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/define_index.htm

It is true that "murder is wrong" is a religious opinion.  It is, however, not JUST a religious opinion.

The argument to which I responded did not state that it was improper to preach something if it were "just" a religious opinion.

Are you asking me to read into arguments what is not stated in the argument?

In fact, most religions and all secular law systems (at least those with which I have any familiarity) also define murder as a wrong.

Isn't that just their opinion?

We don't have any scientific evidence that murder is really wrong do we?

If "murder is wrong" were merely a religious opinion, unique to one sect or branch of Christianity (for example), then I would agree it should not be taught in public schools.

So, some opinions are okay to express in the public school classrooms, then?

Is that a fair way to describe your present argument?

But your false dilemma (teach or not teach) fails because your definition and its implication (prohibition of murder is ONLY a religious opinion) is too narrow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leigh, your attempt to catch me in a fallacy was a fantasy trip.

I'm taking the argument as it was presented to me at face value. I'm using the terms as they appear to be used and building the case for absurdity.

That should prompt the person who presented the argument to refine his definition or abandon the argument, and that is a result of reductio ad absurdum; there is no fallacy on my part.

I encourage you to examine my arguments for fallacies (we need to keep each other on our toes), but for goodness' sake don't waste my time with more inept attempts like this one.

In the present case I did not recommend any conclusion at all. Given that condition, it is absurd to accuse me of committing a fallacy.

I carefully designed my response in the form of questions, which allows the person making the original argument to clarify if he/she feels that the argument is not fairly represented.

It is fair, on the other hand, to suggest that the original argument contained the fallacy of definition that you accused me of committing.

"He may not express a view in class supporting a religious opinion"

(The description of what is prohibited includes "items which should be included" (such as opinions that are not "just" religious opinions)).

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/narrow.htm

Oops! Paul LaClair again!

[Guest Guest]

LaClairs or LaClair supporters: 

What sense of "preaching" is forbidden in class?

Preach

1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).

2. to deliver (a sermon).

3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.

–verb (used without object)

4. to deliver a sermon.

5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.

6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.

(American Heritage Dictonary)

  1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.

  2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

  3. To deliver (a sermon).

v.  intr.

  1. To deliver a sermon.

  2. To give religious or moral instruction, especially in a tedious manner.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preach

IOW, when Matthew accuses Paszkiewicz of "preaching" his views, what does he mean by it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matthew means a public school teacher shouldn't be saying, "I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell... [God] put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying 'Please, accept me, believe!' You reject that, and you belong in Hell."

Is this defined as preaching in Bryan's Collegiate Dictionary?