OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[gandalf]

jstoesz – 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.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I 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…[/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. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

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. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

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. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I 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…[/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. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

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. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

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. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I 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…[/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. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

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. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

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. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I 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…[/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. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

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. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

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. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I 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…[/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. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

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. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

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. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[Anonymous]

[quote=walterwhite]True story; my kid was in a fancy super liberal Montessori school around 9-11. There was a Muslim kid. The schools response was to organize an intro to Ramadan event.[/quote]

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Anonymous]

[quote=walterwhite]True story; my kid was in a fancy super liberal Montessori school around 9-11. There was a Muslim kid. The schools response was to organize an intro to Ramadan event.[/quote]

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Anonymous]

[quote=walterwhite]True story; my kid was in a fancy super liberal Montessori school around 9-11. There was a Muslim kid. The schools response was to organize an intro to Ramadan event.[/quote]

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Anonymous]

[quote=walterwhite]True story; my kid was in a fancy super liberal Montessori school around 9-11. There was a Muslim kid. The schools response was to organize an intro to Ramadan event.[/quote]

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Anonymous]

[quote=walterwhite]True story; my kid was in a fancy super liberal Montessori school around 9-11. There was a Muslim kid. The schools response was to organize an intro to Ramadan event.[/quote]

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[gandalf]

That’s great, pri_dk. Where’s that quote from?

Is it from ‘South Park’? Wait… WWBBD?

Urban – open photoshop, replace Indy with the skater guy and you’ll jump the shark — er, nuke the fridge.

[gandalf]

That’s great, pri_dk. Where’s that quote from?

Is it from ‘South Park’? Wait… WWBBD?

Urban – open photoshop, replace Indy with the skater guy and you’ll jump the shark — er, nuke the fridge.

[gandalf]

That’s great, pri_dk. Where’s that quote from?

Is it from ‘South Park’? Wait… WWBBD?

Urban – open photoshop, replace Indy with the skater guy and you’ll jump the shark — er, nuke the fridge.

[gandalf]

That’s great, pri_dk. Where’s that quote from?

Is it from ‘South Park’? Wait… WWBBD?

Urban – open photoshop, replace Indy with the skater guy and you’ll jump the shark — er, nuke the fridge.

[Author]

Posts