[quote=jstoesz][quote]I don’t believe that there is a fear or distrust of religion in, and of, itself. I think the fear is based on what many people on the right are doing in the NAME of religion, and supposedly in the name of God. [/quote]
Eavesdropper…For every atrocity done in the name of religion, there has been similar done in the name of Secularism (or in the name of selfishness)…Look no further than Salin and Moa. The inquisition has nothing on the modern day implementation of Communism…
Fact is evil people do evil things. It doesn’t matter in what name they do it. Evil people justify their evil actions in all sorts of ways. At least Religion upholds community, morality, responsibility, and many other socially beneficial beliefs. But evil things are done by many in religion and many out…because both groups are comprised of people. [/quote]
I agree, js. In fact, the tactics in such battles are the same, and the script outlines virtually indistinguishable from each other. This is because, as in almost all situations in which human beings inflict cruelty upon other human beings, the stated reason is never the real reason.
But I think that people who wage war and inflict death “in the name of the Lord” are a special breed. Their belief that an omnipotent God has placed a mantle of power upon their shoulders opens the doors to a wealth of possibilities where warfare is concerned. But it is the belief of the masses in an omnipotent God that not only excuses, but endorses and encourages the actions of the “chosen” leader. I think that recognition of this limitless potential is truly frightening to people who cannot reconcile deliberate executions of evil with the God of love portrayed in the Bible and other religious texts.
[quote=jstoesz][quote]There are many, many people who describe themselves as politically liberal and who actively practice some form of Christian religion. In addition, there are a large number who, although they do not follow or belong to a formal religious group, describe themselves as believers in God and observant of Judeo-Christian laws and principles[/quote]
I completely agree that Religious people are not all conservative. In fact I have many friends who are strong Christians and are liberal. Anyone who says differently is quite frankly wrong. I was saying that the resistance from the liberal piggs who have responded to God in public schools seemed to border on fear of God. Fear of your child’s exposure to God. But in my view of a public school, you should be able to send your Child to a parochial school or secular school. It should be your choice, and you should not be at a disadvantage if you wish the parochial.
If we had a voucher system and open districts, you would get that choice.
[/quote]
I can’t speak for others, js, but I will say that I am NOT afraid of my children’s exposure to God. However, over the years, I have been stunned and very distressed and disillusioned by the way I see God portrayed, and the twisted and perverted manner in which religion has been used – to frighten people, to bribe them, to make them do things completely against their natures, to rob them of hope by making them believe in false hopes. I was raised Catholic, taught by a group of highly educated Sisters of St. Joseph, and received a (mostly) well-balanced education that taught me to have faith, but also to question, which was a privilege I had as a result of my God-given free will.
I was fortunate. I’ve known several hundred Catholics over the years, and I never would have believed such a firmly-structured religion could be interpreted in so many different ways. When I add in all of the many people that follow non-Catholic faiths, and then those who are non-Christian, and some who believe in no religion at all, the thought of God and religion being “taught” in the schools is really disturbing. Religion is very subjective, and very open to interpretation, for lack of a better phrase. There’s a reason they don’t teach philosophy or ethics in elementary or secondary schools, and I believe that religion belongs in that category.
I don’t understand the fuss. A student is free to take classes in a wide variety of religions and religious topics when he/she enters college, even using taxpayer-funded college loans at taxpayer-funded state and regional colleges. As you say, parents can also choose to send their kids to parochial or church-sponsored private schools (as my parents did). However, I cannot agree with the voucher system, even though I fully recognize that many children would receive a higher quality education, and that vouchers would ease the significant burden on middle-class families.
(1) Money spent on vouchers would be unavailable to the public schools, and that would create serious operational shortfalls for them, and an unfair advantage for students who could not attend any school but their local public institution.
(2) Education would become a free-for-all, with unqualified individuals and groups opening “schools” in an effort to access federal and state education funds.
(3) The administration of education would become a bureaucratic nightmare (yes, far worse than presently exists). Assessing school and teacher qualifications, approving curricula and teaching materials, facility inspections, liability and risk management……the list is endless. This would create an even more serious restriction on funding.
So, no, I can’t agree with the voucher system as proposed. But I do think that parents that send their children to qualified private schools should receive some sort of tax relief to try to ease the burden. I also believe that property-based school taxes should be limited to some extent for taxpayers whose children have been out of the school system for over 20 years. There are too many seniors losing homes paid for in the 1980s because they are strapped by unreasonable school taxes based on property values that rose exponentially in the 2000s.
[quote=jstoesz][quote][quote]js, I like the suggestions you make in your second paragraph IN THEORY, and I applaud you for your concern about content and diversity. However, it is simply not possible or practical in the public schools. There are too many children at a variety of basic knowledge capacity and learning capabilities whom the schools are expected to educate at a minimum level so that they can leave school at 18 and gain employment. It used to be that the only way you could get the kind of diversity in content you suggest was to send your child to private school. [/quote]
Didn’t you just say that there are too many kids coming from too many different places? Why don’t we want them all entering the world with different sets of knowledge? I agree everyone should be able to read, write, and understand math at some basic level, but I would like some schools to focus more on literature or philosophy or engineering or geopolitics. I see it as the solution to the diversity of children that we have in society. We should not seek to pump out drones like every other child out there. Why couldn’t every school be a private school, or something like a private school? Why do we need state control, owning the buildings and paying the teachers directly.
To your comment on parents…I completely agree! This is actually why most private schools have higher achieving students. It may be that their kids are smarter, but more likely it is that there parents care. If they are willing to sacrifice to send their kids to private school, they almost certainly care about their children’s welfare in a big and involved way. Good schools can help foster kids, but without good parents their efforts are largely wasted. Our society has left our children to be raise by video games and tax payer paid babysitters (teachers) while the parents work two jobs to stay in the middle class. It is really sad.[/quote]
I did, indeed, say that we have kids coming into school at widely-varying levels of preparedness. I do agree with graduating kids with as many skill sets as possible. However, the sheer numbers of students alone prohibits public school teachers from tailoring the curriculum.
Further down in my response, I mentioned magnet schools as a potential source of specialized education. Many of them have enjoyed great success over the years. I think that they probably could use many more of them, and I’m not sure what the issue is with that. But for many years now, there have been public high schools that specialized in engineering, the sciences, performing arts, literature and language arts, and more. Students flock to them, and admissions can be very competitive, which engenders academic excellence.
Something I didn’t mention, but in which I am a great believer, is vocational-technical education. I don’t know why there seems to be such resistance to it, and why financial cuts always seem to hit these programs first, but it’s been shown that not only are these students better prepared for actual paid work when they graduate, but they do better academically in traditional school subjects (especially math and science), and are more than competitive in their rate of acceptance to four-year colleges.
There is going to be a massive unprecedented shortage of medical specialty graduates (physician assistants, medical technicians, registered nurses, skilled technologists, etc.) within 7 to 10 years, in large part due to a lack of fully developed programs at the post-secondary level. It will be almost impossible to get even with the demands once programs are up and running. It could significantly ease the strain if concentrated preparatory programs in these areas could be set up at the high school level to take care of many of the pre-requisite courses that are necessary for college study in these professions.
You’re correct about the level of interest of many of the parents who send their children to private school. However, I don’t think that it is always lack of money and a need to be away from home at a job that keeps middle class parents from showing interest. Unfortunately, I know many parents who appear to just not give a damn. They have a difficult time even acting in a parental role, and this difficulty starts at age 2 or 3. I see parents looking at their babies and toddlers like they are space aliens, having absolutely no clue as to how to interact. They expect these children to entertain themselves, and while this is something that many children can do once they’ve had some guidance in playing with toys, they can’t learn that in a vacuum. They start putting the kids in front of a TV set when they are 3 or 4 months old, and they think spending quality time with their child means letting him or her sit next to them on the couch while they’re guzzling wine and watching “Nightmare on Elm Street”. The kids crave attention, and they begin to not care whether it engenders negative or positive feedback from their parents. They quickly learn the effectiveness of a tantrum: the parents will do anything to quiet the child down, including buying him/her toys they don’t need or want, and that the parents can’t afford. It would be a fascinating phenomenon to watch, if you could ignore the pain that you know the child is feeling.
I hate to say it, but I think that high school should include mandatory classes in child care and development, along with household budget and financial management, and “borrower” education that teaches the cold, hard facts of debt. Normally, I would say that these are things that the parents should be teaching their kids, but it’s sadly apparent that the parents have no clue how to do any of these things.
