toldailytopic: In your opinion, what is the ONE worst thing about public schools?

[nicholsmom]

Ask Christine O'Donnell, I am sure she can help you out.

How about if schools taught Islamic values? Hindi values? Buddistic? Any other religion than Christian, would that be OK? Or is it just your Christian values that should be taught? And which Christian values? Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, your own private Biblical interpretation?

The difference is that Christian values are consistent with the Constitution - no so the others:
Islamic - have you had even a peek at Sharia law?
Hindi - the caste system is the opposite of freedom :nono:
Buddhist - mostly harmless except in regard to the Buddha's opinion of women: The Buddha is quoted as saying, "A nun, though she be a hundred years old, must reverence a monk, rise on meeting him, salute him with clasped hands and honor him with her respects, although he may have been received into the order only that day." And this position of being allowed to be even present and subservient to the men was hard won by women seeking to follow him. Not exactly consistent with equality for all...

While there are many denominations of Christianity, it is the (mostly) universal values embedded in the faith that underlie our Constitutional freedoms. It's that "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" stuff that guides it all. Christ said that all the law and the teachings of the prophets hang on the two great commandments to love God and love your neighbor.

So Christian values include stuff that pleases God like freedom of worship (nor forced worship) and acknowledging Him in our documents, on our money, and in our pledges - that sort of thing. And they include stuff that encourage love of each other like freedom of speech, no stealing, no murder, everyone is equal in value - that sort of thing.

These you won't find in Islamic law which forces worship at the point of a sword, subjugates women, and requires lying to and murdering the infidel and those who have been deemed to have harmed the honor of an Islamic man.
These you won't find in Hindi law which forces people to adhere to the caste into which they were born - no freedom there. All they do is dictated by their birth.
These you won't find in Buddhism - quite the opposite in regard to worship. Buddha taught that it is wrong to worship any god - that it will prevent your achieving Nirvana (which I figure is a good thing...), and that women are not fit companions of Buddhist men. So if your neighbor is a woman, you needn't love her as yourself.

So if we are to teach values/morals in public schools, those values ought at least to be consistent with our Constitutional rights and the notion of the equal value of humans.

 

[Granite]

The difference is that Christian values are consistent with the Constitution - no so the others:

Depends on what values you focus on.

The Buddha is quoted as saying, "A nun, though she be a hundred years old, must reverence a monk, rise on meeting him, salute him with clasped hands and honor him with her respects, although he may have been received into the order only that day." And this position of being allowed to be even present and subservient to the men was hard won by women seeking to follow him. Not exactly consistent with equality for all...

Neither is Paul telling gals to sit down, shut up, be seen and not heard, cover your heads, and not to have authority over men. I'd call this a push if we were playing blackjack.

It's that "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" stuff that guides it all. Christ said that all the law and the teachings of the prophets hang on the two great commandments to love God and love your neighbor.

So we can just as easily go with Judaism as Christianity then.

So Christian values include stuff that pleases God like freedom of worship (nor forced worship) and acknowledging Him in our documents, on our money, and in our pledges - that sort of thing. And they include stuff that encourage love of each other like freedom of speech, no stealing, no murder, everyone is equal in value - that sort of thing.

Christians here don't say that at all! We hear, indeed, that "no one is equal" on a regular basis. And I can't imagine how the almighty is pleased to see his name stamped on our mammon.

 

[chatmaggot]

Ask Christine O'Donnell, I am sure she can help you out.

How about if schools taught Islamic values? Hindi values? Buddistic? Any other religion than Christian, would that be OK? Or is it just your Christian values that should be taught? And which Christian values? Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, your own private Biblical interpretation?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part in this post where you showed where in the Constitution it even mentions a government funded public education system. And where in the constitution it prohibits the teaching of Biblical morals and values in such a system.

Could you be more specific and show me where the Constitution describes a government funded public education system?

Thanks.

 

[chatmaggot]

Uh, that's not exactly how a school board functions. And if there was a Hindu elected or a militant Muslim I can only imagine what you'd think about them advocating their own worldview.

Trust me. I am fully aware of how a school board funtions. However, Jukia believes that if I don't like the way something is taught in schools...I should apply for a position on the school board.

Now where is public education in the Constitution again? I must have misplaced it.

 

[Lon]

Either you're not reading my posts or you're just not understanding them. I'm not making any of this complicated, Lonnie.

Well, maybe not for you, but I'll go through it once and see.
1) I said things about religion should not be censored from schools. This doesn't mean creation science, persay, it just means no educational topic should be censored because of religious reasons. For me, the law is simply about indoctrination, instead of information. I'm all for that, but informational data concerning religions, (imho) is part of world concerns, history, politics, sociology, etc.
2) Keypurr and Persephone came in with "No religion in school" (my paraphrase).
Persephone went one step further and said morals and values should not be taught in school.
3) Every ensuing post, including those to you were all set about to disprove #2.

Who knows. At this rate I'm not sure. My posts are plain and speak for themselves. Ain't no big mystery here.:idunno:

So, I'm assuming you perhaps read a sarcastic tone, lightly baked - no spice, that was simply saying (in so many words) "Everybody believes moral values should be taught and upheld in school and any other place. Saying moral values shouldn't be in school is silly."

 

[Granite]

Trust me. I am fully aware of how a school board funtions. However, Jukia believes that if I don't like the way something is taught in schools...I should apply for a position on the school board.

Now where is public education in the Constitution again? I must have misplaced it.

Well you didn't sound like it at first. You may be able to marginally influence, say, the textbooks within the curriculum, but your initial post made it sound as though you'd be striding into a classroom. (Why don't you run, outta curiosity?)

If we're going to be using tax dollars to fund public education, I'd say that leaving religion out of the classroom--and I mean religion of any kind--is probably the prudent thing to do.

 

[Granite]

I said things about religion should not be censored from schools. This doesn't mean creation science, persay, it just means no educational topic should be censored because of religious reasons.

I disagree--if we're using tax dollars we should avoid the appearance of endorsing any religion. Best just to keep that out of the classroom and let students find their path either at home or on their own.

For me, the law is simply about indoctrination, instead of information. I'm all for that, but informational data concerning religions, (imho) is part of world concerns, history, politics, sociology, etc.

That I can meet you half way on: it's the idea of religious doctrines being taught that I'd shy from.

 

[Lon]

Depends on what values you focus on.

I too am against proselytizing. However, I have no problem with information appropriate to grade levels. I am not opposed to a social studies book, for instance, that discusses Mohamed and how his teaching affect current national policies. If that helps at all with our previous discussion to clarify points, I could hope

Neither is Paul telling gals to sit down, shut up, be seen and not heard, cover your heads, and not to have authority over men. I'd call this a push if we were playing blackjack.

In agreement, but again, I'm not opposed to teaching about these things, for instance, if one were addressing repression of women and the liberation movement. These ideas affected women's voting rights in America (among many concerns of women sufferage). Educationally, I would approve of discussion of religious influence for understanding the greater context. Most specifically, I'm against censorship of information and reiterate that I'm opposed to proselytizing.

So we can just as easily go with Judaism as Christianity then.

Yes. If, again, all the above concerns have been acquiesced.

-Lon

 

[Lon]

That I can meet you half way on: it's the idea of religious doctrines being taught that I'd shy from.

WhooHoo!

 

[Granite]

I too am against proselytizing. However, I have no problem with information appropriate to grade levels. I am not opposed to a social studies book, for instance, that discusses Mohamed and how his teaching affect current national policies. If that helps at all with our previous discussion to clarify points, I could hope

I'd call that more socio-political but that's pretty picking nits.

In agreement, but again, I'm not opposed to teaching about these things, for instance, if one were addressing repression of women and the liberation movement. These ideas affected women's voting rights in America (among many concerns of women sufferage). Educationally, I would approve of discussion of religious influence for understanding the greater context. Most specifically, I'm against censorship of information and reiterate that I'm opposed to proselytizing.

See above. You could even throw Prohibition in there as a similar subject.

 

[Lon]

I'd call that more socio-political but that's pretty picking nits.

Actually, I think this an important nit to pick. Even the "educational elite" (some of our teachers) don't understand the difference and go to censorship rather than being caught 'teaching religion' in the classroom. Teaching 'about' anything and how it relates to subject matter is what is actually getting censored uncritically. It'd be great if at least teachers would understand our laws and the difference. Personally, I think every new teacher ought to have more than one class on our laws, intent, and the difference between education and proselytizing. That I've witnessed a blanket of "no religion whatsoever" is, in my opinion, against school guidelines and many if not all, state laws (fear, reactionary).
They don't even know the difference between restrictions applied to teachers that don't apply at all to students!

 

[Aimiel]

Trust me. I am fully aware of how a school board funtions. However, Jukia believes that if I don't like the way something is taught in schools...I should apply for a position on the school board.

Now where is public education in the Constitution again? I must have misplaced it.

I always think it's funny that people take, "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free practice of religion..." to mean that anybody can pass any law against the free expression of anything even closely related to Christianity which is expressed in or around any governmental institution. Boggles the mind where that type of logic comes from. This nonsense isn't the freedom of religion that the founding fathers wrote or the current (read:updated) one which we should be enjoying, according to what the US Constitution states; it's the opposite: it's protection from anyone who might want to practice their religious freedoms, wherever they might want to do so. :hammer:

 

[Lighthouse]

Ask Christine O'Donnell, I am sure she can help you out.

How about if schools taught Islamic values? Hindi values? Buddistic? Any other religion than Christian, would that be OK? Or is it just your Christian values that should be taught? And which Christian values? Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, your own private Biblical interpretation?

Hypocrite.

 

[Jukia]

Hypocrite.

Why am I a hypocrite? Because I don't want any religion taught in public school? Or is that just your word for the day?

 

[Lighthouse]

Why am I a hypocrite? Because I don't want any religion taught in public school? Or is that just your word for the day?

You posted that chatmaggot should deal with it or join the school board if he didn't like what was being taught. Then when he asked you what you would do if he joined the school board and taught Christian morals your response was pretty much the same as his in response to the schools teaching something he didn't like. You derided him for his response and then made the same response when the table was turned. You are a hypocrite.

 

[Jukia]

You posted that chatmaggot should deal with it or join the school board if he didn't like what was being taught. Then when he asked you what you would do if he joined the school board and taught Christian morals your response was pretty much the same as his in response to the schools teaching something he didn't like. You derided him for his response and then made the same response when the table was turned. You are a hypocrite.

No, I have no issue with him joining the school board and attempting to do what he thinks is correct. My issue is that what he wants to happen is unconstitutional. I never suggested that should he get on the school board he had carte blanche.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, I have no issue with him joining the school board and attempting to do what he thinks is correct. My issue is that what he wants to happen is unconstitutional. I never suggested that should he get on the school board he had carte blanche.

Now you're going to have to provide evidence that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Jukia]

Now you're going to have to provide evidence that it is unconstitutional.

Learn some law.

 

[Lighthouse]

Learn some law.

That's your response to everything when you can't provide evidence, isn't it?

"Learn some [insert basic subject of argument here]."

:mock:Jukia

 

[Jukia]

That's your response to everything when you can't provide evidence, isn't it?

"Learn some [insert basic subject of argument here]."

:mock:Jukia

No, it is my response when I believe people are uneducated and I am too busy to educate them. Once you are a grown up your education should be your responsibility. Yours is lacking on a number of topics.