- This topic has 1,060 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
patb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2010 at 8:26 PM #623104October 23, 2010 at 8:27 PM #622003
jstoesz
ParticipantI don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.
My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.
If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.
I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools
Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.
Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…
October 23, 2010 at 8:27 PM #622087ParticipantI don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.
My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.
If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.
I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools
Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.
Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…
October 23, 2010 at 8:27 PM #622647ParticipantI don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.
My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.
If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.
I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools
Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.
Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…
October 23, 2010 at 8:27 PM #622771ParticipantI don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.
My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.
If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.
I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools
Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.
Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…
October 23, 2010 at 8:27 PM #623089ParticipantI don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.
My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.
If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.
I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools
Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.
Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…
October 23, 2010 at 8:50 PM #622023Shadowfax
ParticipantLucky for you that you are already there. I really want to go–but work and family demands will not allow. There is a satellite rally in LA that is a possibility.
As for the bus—I did 24 hours on a bus once for spring training in college (from NYC to Tampa, FL). NEVER AGAIN.
October 23, 2010 at 8:50 PM #622107ParticipantLucky for you that you are already there. I really want to go–but work and family demands will not allow. There is a satellite rally in LA that is a possibility.
As for the bus—I did 24 hours on a bus once for spring training in college (from NYC to Tampa, FL). NEVER AGAIN.
October 23, 2010 at 8:50 PM #622667ParticipantLucky for you that you are already there. I really want to go–but work and family demands will not allow. There is a satellite rally in LA that is a possibility.
As for the bus—I did 24 hours on a bus once for spring training in college (from NYC to Tampa, FL). NEVER AGAIN.
October 23, 2010 at 8:50 PM #622791ParticipantLucky for you that you are already there. I really want to go–but work and family demands will not allow. There is a satellite rally in LA that is a possibility.
As for the bus—I did 24 hours on a bus once for spring training in college (from NYC to Tampa, FL). NEVER AGAIN.
October 23, 2010 at 8:50 PM #623109ParticipantLucky for you that you are already there. I really want to go–but work and family demands will not allow. There is a satellite rally in LA that is a possibility.
As for the bus—I did 24 hours on a bus once for spring training in college (from NYC to Tampa, FL). NEVER AGAIN.
October 23, 2010 at 9:54 PM #622028gandalf
Participantjstoesz – with all due respect, you’re missing the point. Religion is already taught in public school — as part of various history, culture, social studies curricula. Christianity receives ample coverage.
The issue with Christine O’Donnell, with the Texas School Board, with the psychotic facist Christian right-wing base, is they want to teach the Biblical Creation Story as SCIENCE. That was context of O’Donnell’s remarks during the debate, Intelligent Design in Science Class. That is the issue.
Genesis is not Science. The Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Religion and faith, by definition, do not lend themselves to Scientific Inquiry. If we believe the Bible and practice Christianity, faith and the nature of God is not something that can be experimentally ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’.
Teaching Adam and Eve in Science Class is not a CHOICE that broadens one’s horizons. It’s a bastardization of truth, education and knowledge. It’s completely NOT SCIENCE. It’s the opposite, it’s untrue, and it’s STOOPID.
My objections aren’t a ‘liberal’ thing, or an ‘anti-Christian’ thing, or a ‘secular humanism’ thing. It’s an objection to stupidity. The truth is not relative here.
October 23, 2010 at 9:54 PM #622112Participantjstoesz – with all due respect, you’re missing the point. Religion is already taught in public school — as part of various history, culture, social studies curricula. Christianity receives ample coverage.
The issue with Christine O’Donnell, with the Texas School Board, with the psychotic facist Christian right-wing base, is they want to teach the Biblical Creation Story as SCIENCE. That was context of O’Donnell’s remarks during the debate, Intelligent Design in Science Class. That is the issue.
Genesis is not Science. The Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Religion and faith, by definition, do not lend themselves to Scientific Inquiry. If we believe the Bible and practice Christianity, faith and the nature of God is not something that can be experimentally ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’.
Teaching Adam and Eve in Science Class is not a CHOICE that broadens one’s horizons. It’s a bastardization of truth, education and knowledge. It’s completely NOT SCIENCE. It’s the opposite, it’s untrue, and it’s STOOPID.
My objections aren’t a ‘liberal’ thing, or an ‘anti-Christian’ thing, or a ‘secular humanism’ thing. It’s an objection to stupidity. The truth is not relative here.
October 23, 2010 at 9:54 PM #622672Participantjstoesz – with all due respect, you’re missing the point. Religion is already taught in public school — as part of various history, culture, social studies curricula. Christianity receives ample coverage.
The issue with Christine O’Donnell, with the Texas School Board, with the psychotic facist Christian right-wing base, is they want to teach the Biblical Creation Story as SCIENCE. That was context of O’Donnell’s remarks during the debate, Intelligent Design in Science Class. That is the issue.
Genesis is not Science. The Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Religion and faith, by definition, do not lend themselves to Scientific Inquiry. If we believe the Bible and practice Christianity, faith and the nature of God is not something that can be experimentally ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’.
Teaching Adam and Eve in Science Class is not a CHOICE that broadens one’s horizons. It’s a bastardization of truth, education and knowledge. It’s completely NOT SCIENCE. It’s the opposite, it’s untrue, and it’s STOOPID.
My objections aren’t a ‘liberal’ thing, or an ‘anti-Christian’ thing, or a ‘secular humanism’ thing. It’s an objection to stupidity. The truth is not relative here.
October 23, 2010 at 9:54 PM #622796Participantjstoesz – with all due respect, you’re missing the point. Religion is already taught in public school — as part of various history, culture, social studies curricula. Christianity receives ample coverage.
The issue with Christine O’Donnell, with the Texas School Board, with the psychotic facist Christian right-wing base, is they want to teach the Biblical Creation Story as SCIENCE. That was context of O’Donnell’s remarks during the debate, Intelligent Design in Science Class. That is the issue.
Genesis is not Science. The Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Religion and faith, by definition, do not lend themselves to Scientific Inquiry. If we believe the Bible and practice Christianity, faith and the nature of God is not something that can be experimentally ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’.
Teaching Adam and Eve in Science Class is not a CHOICE that broadens one’s horizons. It’s a bastardization of truth, education and knowledge. It’s completely NOT SCIENCE. It’s the opposite, it’s untrue, and it’s STOOPID.
My objections aren’t a ‘liberal’ thing, or an ‘anti-Christian’ thing, or a ‘secular humanism’ thing. It’s an objection to stupidity. The truth is not relative here.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.