The article titled: “L.D.S. looks to improve education,” with the lede, below, appeared in the Samoa Observer a few days ago.
The Lede:
Raising the level of education in Samoa has now become the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ main priority. In doing so, the church has partnered with government ministries and Non Governmental Organizations to lift educational standards across the region.
The comments to the article became a source for the “debates” among the respondents; with some, as always, denigrating the LDS Church (and religion in general) despite the generous nature of the Church's contribution and offer to improve education. Most posters were skeptical and paranoid about the offer as well as being suspicious about the motives behind the gesture.
The more active and sustained exchange (below), however, is the one between me and a user/poster named Impensable, who was the first to comment and criticize the offer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comments:
(The seeming lapse in the order of comments, hence disrupting their flow and order, is due to the dual threads in which the conversations are held.)
Impensable:
"Raising the level of education in Samoa has now become the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ main priority. "
All very good, but perhaps they should start by removing any reference to religion, no matter how small, from education. There can be no true freedom in education unless the shackles of ignorance are removed. And religious is the worst of shackles for Samoan children.
LV:
Sorry but LDS schools are private/religious schools - not public. Removing religious references and curriculum will defeat one of the main goals of these schools. The trend among public school systems in the US and other countries is secularization and church schools help to countervail the marginalization of God in education.
"And religious [sic] is the worst of shackles for Samoan children."
Really? Sorry buddy but that's an ignorant claim! You can say this about any other country but NOT Samoa. The young people today need God in their lives and Samoan children have always been raised that way from the a'oga a le faife'au (pastor's school) to the many church schools (Catholic, SDA, LDS, Methodist, CCCS, etc.) in Apia. These churches all have primary and secondary schools that have served Samoa's youth for years.
Impensable:
Wherefore the "sic", "buddy"? Knowest thou thy English grammar or not?
Who's the ignoramus here?
Claiming young people need an Invisible Friend is the biggest joke of all time, this is exactly the kind of ignorance that keeps Samoan children in poverty. But I imagine that's precisely what people of your ilk seek to achieve, isn't it?
LV:
There's good grammar, better grammar and then there's awkward grammar.
Anyway, methinks that thou wast not born and/or raised in Samoa or you would have known about the Samoan children's religious upbringing. Or if you were, you may have been one of those who had a silver spoon in your mouth as a child, and therefore unable to identify with most of the Samoan children who were certainly poor temporally but not spiritually. The fruits of such spiritual orientation become one's anchors later in life manifested in charity, service and love for others. And "that's precisely what people of [my] ilk seek to achieve."
LV: A follow-up post on the reason for the [sic] tag.
Why the "sic" and who's the ignoramus here? Heheee .... Ok, here we go. Here’s the part in question:
You wrote:"There can be no true freedom in education unless the shackles of ignorance are removed. And religious is the worst of shackles for Samoan children."
Both sentences are related/connected in thought and construction. It’s actually one sentence if you remove the period (.) after “removed”. So if I were proofreading the above, I would definitely use “amb” (ambiguity) and “cl” (clarity) for my symbols - oh, and “awk” (awkwardness).
So what happened was that you went from a noun phrase (“shackles of ignorance”) to an adjective/adjectival phrase (“religious is the worst of shackles”) within the same thought. And that’s awkward, if not wrong.
Two ways you can rewrite to avoid the mistakes and awkwardness:
1. There can be no true freedom in education unless the ignorant shackles are removed. And religious is the worst of shackles for Samoan children. (adjective with adjective)
2. There can be no true freedom in education unless the shackles of ignorance are removed. And religion is the worst of shackles for Samoan children. (noun with noun)
Re: Parallel Structure rule.
Hence, for the second sentence, a much better rewrite would be:
"And the shackle of religion is the worst for Samoan children."
In that way "shackle of religion" parallels "shackles of ignorance" in the original text.
That’s the reason for the [sic] tag, ignoramus ... or should I say sicnoramus? ...LOL!
Cheers!
Impensable
"shackle"
5. Often, shackles. anything that serves to prevent freedom of procedure, thought, etc.
I rest my case. Try and teach others, you have nothing to teach me.
LV:
Alright buddy! I hope you rest your case for good now. By the way, thank you for reminding me the meaning/definition of "shackle". Indeed according to the context of your example, poor grammatical skills can also be a shackle. So here's an advice, be teachable! No matter how stubborn you are in saying that I have nothing to teach you, you actually will (if you haven't already) in a very quiet way, and during some quiet time, thank me for teaching you something in this exchange. Believe me Impensable; if you keep making the same grammatical mistakes, here or elsewhere, someone else will correct you again. But then it's times like these that you would be grateful for aliases because no one knows who you truly are, so you don't have to be defensive to the point of denial. Just admit it! Anyhow, it was good meeting you. Hope we'll still be friends. GB!
Impensable:
Nothing awkward about my grammar, buddy. Just acknowledge your error, it's a very Christian thing to do, isn't it?
As for "The fruits of such spiritual orientation become one's anchors later in life manifested in charity, service and love for others,", well, hahaha.
The same old story, perpetuated by old men seeking to retain old male power within a patriarchal order. I rest my case. It's kind of weird when you would rather have children in poverty, hungry, dirty, uneducated, but ensuring their "spirit" is rich. Their opinion is never asked, is it? What happens to them if they question the "traditional order" that screws up their lives? Be honest, do not dissemble. Are they physically punished? Yes or No? "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child"?
LV:
Impensable, I’ll get to the grammar issue in a moment.
Meanwhile, how did we get from churches and education to “old men seeking to retain old male power within a patriarchal order,” and the “traditional order” screwing up children’s lives? Are you trying to pull a red herring here? Or are you someone with a feminist agenda, or just a lad with a bone to pick with the traditional system? In that case, you’re right you should “rest [your] case.” You’re definitely prevaricating.
Now to the, perhaps, more important issue and lesson. Grammar.
You:
Nothing awkward about my grammar, buddy. Just acknowledge your error, it's a very Christian thing to do, isn't it?
Me:
Well, let me try to do the “Christian thing” (again) per your appeal. I’ve already clarified your first mistake in a separate post, but now you have another similar, yet more glaring one. It’s in this sentence (re: underlined words):
”It's kind of weird when you would rather have children in poverty, hungry, dirty, uneducated, but ensuring their "spirit" is rich.”
Again you have a mixture of a noun and adjectives. Correct grammar would call for all nouns/noun forms, based on the syntax and context of the sentence. The applicable grammar rule is called Parallel Structure or Parallelism.
So therefore the following would be the better - and correct - rewrite:
“It's kind of weird when you would rather have children in poverty, hunger, dirt, illiteracy, but ensuring their "spirit" is rich.”
Yes, use all nouns following the first one - poverty. Try removing "poverty" and see how terrible and wrong the rest of your list will be. Using "than" instead of "but" is also recommended.
Have a good day and Happy Halloween (if you celebrate it).
Impensable
Hahaha. Amusing.
No red herring, if you see no connection between Christianism [sic] and the patriarchal order in society, then you're wilfully blind.
Enjoy your pagan festivities. Nothing Christian about Halloween in its oorigins, [sic] as you should know. But you'll probably ignore the facts, as is your wont.
LV:
I'm glad that you find the grammar lessons amusing - now go do likewise.
If no red herring then it must be equivocation of which you're guilty. Incidentally, Christianity is the more standard term than Christianism - and the latter is not a "parallel" for many other similar "isms" (Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Methodism, Mormonism, Evangelicalism, etc.) in case it's the reason you're using a non-standard term. So if there's nothing Christian about Halloween, then it seems like the perfect celebration and holiday for you and your pagan "invisible friend" since there's a lot of "invisible friends" associated with Halloween. Ghosts! ...LOL!
(... to be continued? We'll see.)
(Note: For those who are interested in the other comments to the article, including the rest of my comments to other posters, click this link, then scroll to the comments section at the bottom of the article.)
