Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:59 pm
|
|
|
|
ಠ_ಠI disagree with the article.
Even if the bible were to be given a "trigger warning", for how politically-incorrect it is, there's a difference between how the Bible reads and how these secular books read. Some secular books make you repeat expletives in your heart—or imagine the scene in lewd detail—just to get through the book. The bible doesn't do that to you. Even when scripture speaks about rape or slavery, I don't walk away feeling violated or having visualized much of anything.
The bible is detailed enough to be specific, but not detailed enough that you're living vicariously through the speaker, going through an experience. But the way these secular books are written, they do put you through that. They want you to immerse yourself into the character and into the environment. They want you to vicariously "feel" things in your flesh from their description alone—anxieties, fears, and lusts.
Maybe that's why, despite being a bestseller, the bible doesn't get read as often as it should: it does not appeal to one's flesh—but to one's spirit—and no one really reads it unless they fall in love with God's mind or really want to know about him (even if they reject him later, they were curious enough about him to pick it up and read).
Sometime after being saved, not sure how long after, but it was over the summer: my little cousin read The Catcher in the Rye and she asked me if I wanted to read it. Innocently enough, I said "sure" because my classes never assigned it to me, and I was curious. But despite my enthusiasm, I couldn't make it passed the first chapter. The language was too much. It felt like I was taking daggers to the heart.
I suppose this is why Jesus did not save me until after I was done with school. Back when I was not saved, reading obscene language didn't feel like a violation to my very being. Back then, it use to be a delight and something to ignorantly laugh at. But now? Torture. It's a misuse of words, with so much hate, anger, and carelessness behind them (not caring how they affect the listener).
A "trigger warning" would not have helped if I were now to be forced to ingest the material to pass a class. Nor do I think a trigger warning would've helped someone with PTSD who had suffered verbal abuse and obscene language was their trigger. Unless, because of the trigger warning, they could be assigned another book...? or not buy the book in the first place if they're reading it for leisure's sake or curiosity.
If the bible does get a trigger warning, and people avoid reading it because of the trigger warning, that could be a problem, but it would be mislabeled because the bible is not graphic at all nor uses expletives. You will not walk away thinking you just relived your moments in a war zone or walk away feeling sexually or verbally assaulted.
I think this phenomenon is just a failed way to deal with a very real problem going on in the classroom.
From a different article: link, because of copyright and terms of use, they don't allow you to even provide excerpts without permission, but it's the sixth paragraph. A professor showing a graphic film depicting rape :l
Why do college professors think that, just because you reach a certain age, that you all of a sudden need to have your conversation become sexually graphic (either by them feeding you pornographic material, whether visually or with their words, or discussing sex in a pornographic way in class), as if that was okay? This was one of many factors that played into my decision of not returning to university. I wasn't even saved yet, but I felt violated by my English class. Specifically, her discussions.
And that college class was not the first time I'd be violated by an English / literature class. Similarly, in high school, 11th grade English, not so much because of the content, but the teacher: he had an obsession with psychology, liked to "crack" certain students in class, get inside their minds, even against their will (mental rape). I don't know if anyone else had an issue with the way he acted, but I didn't give him permission to know me and yet he's still trying to probe my mind, invading, against my will, trying to crack me and figure me out, letting me know he's trying to do that—this has nothing to do with the material in class at all by the way.
Some teachers are overstepping a line they shouldn't cross. But people applaud them for being edgy, innovative, and not afraid to make their students violate their boundaries (what if their boundary is staying within the commandments of God, and the teacher wants to push them out of it? are we going to applaud them then?). Certain boundaries shouldn't be crossed. If they're violating the boundaries God set up, that isn't right. "Respecting free will" and "not violating someone's conscience" are two such boundaries.
All that said: trigger warnings are useless if the person has PTSD, and they still have to participate / interact with the material to pass the class. What's the point? They never addressed how this helps them? However, at least people are getting warned ahead of time, given an opportunity to decide whether to proceed or not without getting "surprise" violated first by the material.
Maybe this is a move of God to protect the consciences of people—assuming they have the choice to not read the material. Technically, we all have a choice even if the alternative is to flunk the class lol. Or maybe it is their "test" to prove what is in their hearts and what they prioritize more: if they flunk, so as not to violate their conscience/psyche and avoid the torment the material will wreak on them, then so be it. Choosing God over the world— even if they don't know it yet. Afterall, the reason they want to pass is to advance in the world, but what if you have to violate your conscience in the process?
1 Timothy 1:19 (NIV)
19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.
Matthew 16:26 (NIV)
26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
Even if we choose the path that the world warns is not conducive to preserving "self" or "prestige", we can't violate our conscience.
edit: if it wasn't clear, I don't agree with the article. God's commands serve to protect our emotional well-being. He's saying emotional well-being is a tyrant. How is this article on a Christian website? He's idolizing Western civilization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|