Republicans are drumming up support amongst their base with tough talk of ‘rogue activist judges’ and the incredible danger they pose to our way of life. Bill Frist informs us that the judicial filibuster is, “being used against people of faith”, while Tom Delay delivers a speech entitled ‘Confronting the Judicial War on Faith’ to a conservative conference in Washington. And this past Sunday Pat Robertson told George Stephanopoulos and the nation that the out-of-control judiciary is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, trumping even the danger posed by al Qaeda. According to these men, ‘rogue activist judges’ are apparently eroding the bottom line of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with an ultimate goal of ending religion in America.
The entire campaign is an ideological myth that belongs in a science fiction novel, yet here we are in the year 2005 rehashing the same discussion that led people to brave the Atlantic and start this country in the first place. At a time of war when perspective is needed more than ever, the goal of these men is to get people riled up about ideological dead issues, while tangible living issues continue to stack up all around us. Some of these tangible issues alive and thriving right now present significant problems for the majority party, and what we’re seeing here is a suitable diversion that could last through this session of Congress and beyond. They’re hitting the playbook hard in getting the religious-right riled up. Of course this means flipping that ‘martyr-switch’ within to convince these free human beings that they’re in fact not free, but instead victims barely hanging on if it weren’t for these noble leaders rescuing them from the brink of oblivion.
In this country where religions are provided tax-exempt status, and the practice of ones religion is a right that cannot be taken away, somehow the end result is a feeling of oppression. Looking at the life of a Christian in America right now compared with that of any religion’s follower in the history of mankind, it’s absolutely absurd to claim the role of victim. Yet that’s exactly what the leadership of the religious-right and it’s political representatives are selling right now. Meanwhile convincing people that a difference of opinion is tantamount to persecution.
Simply put, the threat of al Qaeda equals dead Americans, while flipping a law that allowed states to execute criminals under the age of 18 merely angers people. There’s an enormous difference here that’s as obvious as the sky is blue, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. The role of judges in our society is to balance the power of elected officials versus the laws they must operate within, and thus creates a natural rivalry between the judge and the politician that has existed throughout our history. This rivalry is a transparent reality that demonstrates a deliberate aspect of the wisdom behind the very design of our highly successful form of government.
Judges are under attack for the death of Terri Shiavo, while the laws that guided their decisions are disregarded. Politicians are leveraging decisions that differ with the values of a segment of our society, yet the motive for doing so is all but ignored by those hopping on the bandwagon. The law and our method of self governance is what people are voicing contempt for, but they’re being tricked into thinking it’s about the men and women whose job it is to maintain our government’s adherence to both. At issue is not the worker operating the machine, but the design of the machine itself. Voters in many states cast their ballots in the last election to limit the definition of marriage to a man and a woman, thus altering the design. What Frist, Delay and Robertson are advocating is ignoring such mechanisms at their oppressed supporters’ disposal and shooting the messengers instead.
Politics at its very worst causes us to value our feelings and personal comfort above the necessary work of protecting the flesh and livelihood of our fellow man. On the table right now are issues pertaining to the lives of American troops, homeland defense, social security and an increasingly difficult challenge of providing affordable medical care to our people. When the battle being waged against judges occupies as much of the American discourse as it does right now, these other issues lack the necessary attention they deserve. Whether or not this is the intent of Republicans can only be speculated upon, but the shoe definitely fits.
I’ll take a whack at this not because I have much experience in this but I will soon when my kids go to school. And when you look at it in a logical step by step you can see what moderates and conservatives a talking about:
When my child enters public school there is no God.
Easter is about a Bunny that hides colored eggs.
Winter break is for family vacations.
The child is prohibited from mentioning the G-O-D word
Everything started with the big bang, any other answer on the exam is wrong
If my child doesn’t embrace other “cultures” such as hinduism, islam, or budda then the child is reprimanded
No more prayers at school functions, games, graduation or any other school venue.
Bibles are prohibited on school property
Being gay and engaging in homosexual activity is just fine irregardless of personal or religious beliefs
There is no reason abortion is bad, making choices is something everyone needs to learn.
Abstinance is ridiculous, here’s a condom and a banana, I’ll show you how it works
Religious people are to neither do nor say anything that might cause someone else to re-evaluate their life
The school district will decide what students will read and if that includes gay lifestyle promotional materials from special intrest groups then so be it
The problem with the Shiavo case is the massive conflict of interest by the ex-husband. Once the lawsuit was over the ex had a lot of money and a girlfriend with two kids by him. He should never have been able to make decisions for her since he breached the marriage contract by abandoning Terri. He left Terri and engaged in a new life with this new chick. Had Terri awoke suddenly do you think he would drop his girlfrind and two kids? Hell no, it would be “shit there goes the settlement money, thanks a lot bitch for waking up. Sign this divorce decree.”
He had about as much right to decide her fate as I have for that girl I dated for a few months in highschool.
Everyday I see some story where people are prevented from engaging in religious activity. Easter and Christmas have been stolen from Christians and repackaged in a horrendously offensive commercial holiday–at least change the day and show some humanity and class. Have your Spring Egg Festivals and Winter Holidays on other days.
You say religion is a right that cannot be taken away and in a way you are right. If children are never given a chance to find religion or are so indroctinated by the irrefutable science turning religion into a fairytale then, yes, their religion won’t be taken away because they never would have had it in the first place.
The public school is not only about your child, but all of our children. Around here in Massachusetts there are Catholic schools that parents can enroll their children in. You can enroll your children in Sunday School and take them to church with you. To me school is a place where children learn how to read, write, add, subtract and develop their social skills. There are plenty of opportunities within our society for parents to introduce religion in their lives. If public school were to acknowledge the Christian God, they would then have to do the same for Hindus, Muslims and any other religion represented in the school. That would divert time from education, and our kids need as much time focusing on their studies as they can get.
The resurection and celebration is not an exclusively Christian practice. Religious historians trace it back to the Pagan religion. I see the Easter Bunny as a way for all Americans to celebrate the holiday whether they’re Christians or not. At church it’s not about the Easter Bunny, and if you chose to bring your children there to celebrate the resurection of Jesus Christ you can.
There are more than just the winter break within a school year. I’m assuming you’re stating that a child is prohibited from mentioning the G-O-D word at school. They’re in school to learn…same as what I said above.
Are you suggesting that there is another explaination? The universe is expanding afterall. The story of Adam and Eve was hardly the first creation story to be embraced by human beings. Check out this link to see what I’m talking about:
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html
Why shouldn’t your child be tollerant and respectfull of other cultures?
Again, not everyone subscribes to your set of beliefs. We’re provided religious organizations who enjoy tax-exempt status, and are free to practice whatever religion we chose. Is it that important that your religion is mentioned at non-church events?
I carried a bible with me at school, but I’ll take your word for it. That seems rather petty, but my take on it is school boards are cautious these days. When a non-Christian parent complains about it, time is taken away from the task of actually educating the children.
If a Christian engages in homosexual activity, it’s on their conscious. I don’t think that my religious beliefs should affect the actions of anyone but my family. It is a free country. I have no right to tell a fellow American what they can and cannot do.
I think that the effect an abortion has on women who have them is understated. Many women carry that shame with them for the rest of their lives. While a person’s religion defines the fetus as a living being, that value is not embraced across our society. For you it might provoke an emotional/spiritual response, but for others it’s different. I consider it something personal, between a woman and her own soul or God. As a man, I’m inclined to reserve judgement on the subject.
Abstinance amongst born-again Christian children has been proven to lead to higher levels of oral and anal sex. Also, for the sake of public and personal safety, condoms are a good thing. Should five year olds be learning how to put one on a banana? No…but the answer of abstinance is an idea that works until it doesn’t work. And if a young person gives in to temptation, it’s better that they use a condom when they do.
I don’t see how this is accurate at all. Plenty of people turn to religion at various points in their lives. I don’t know anyone who was prevented from joining a church or practicing their faith.
Part of education is informing children of the reality of life. This includes science, ethical diversity and the fact that their classmate’s parents may both be the same sex and that it doesn’t make that kid any better or worse than they are. Equality is a valuable concept to instill in our children. They all have to grow up and live in the world. Once they enter the workplace, they can’t discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs or sexual preferance. Better to hip them to that realiy as children.
The law was still on his side. We cannot circumvent the law whenever it suits our fancy. Would you agree with this? It’s the judge’s job to uphold the law, not pick and chose when to uphold it.
According to the law he had every right to decide her fate. Instead of attacking judges, the activists should be working towards changing the law if they disagree with it.
This is a gloomy outlook. You are free to take your children to church and educate them on religion there or at home, no? Are you expecting everyone in our society to embrace your specific beliefs? I get the impression that for religious people in this country that when someone believes something different, it’s taken as an insult. We’re a diverse society, and co-existing is our only option. To promote one religion above all others would appease one portion of our society while diminishing another. How is that fair?
Churches are tax-exempt and there are plenty to go around. While in other countries in the world, people might not be free to practice their religion freely, why are we so angst ridden over our situation here when we happen to have it so good? There are Muslims and Christians killing each other in many countries in the world right now. Africa is plagued by this. I’m thankful for having been born here rather than there. I think we should all take a deep breath and get real about the fact that we do have it good here. And the idea of freedom is to not be forced to sumbit to someone else’s ideals or beliefs, but to decide for ourselves.
The italiacized sections are ideas that are presented to children in schools today regardless of what the parents want for their children. At first you say:
That would divert time from education, and our kids need as much time focusing on their studies as they can get.
So school is about reading, writing, math, science, etc. but then you say:
Why shouldn’t your child be tollerant and respectfull of other cultures?
So when a Christian value is discussed it is forced upon a captive audiance but when another religion is discussed in exactly the same way it’s being respectful and tollerant. Do you see the double standard.
All of these italicized issues have nothing to do with what you would do rather the rights of parents to pass their family values onto their children is being destroyed. If school is for learning as you say then everything not math, language, spelling and reading has to go. Social studies, history and some science.
Part of education is informing children of the reality of life.
No, it is not, education is just that, education of a curriculum of math and reading. The realities of life and social and religious issues are the domain of the parents. Unless of course you believe that parents are unable to made decisions for their children and the government must step in to provide government approved social training.
I get the impression that for religious people in this country that when someone believes something different, it’s taken as an insult.
Your very close, the insult is when someone who believes something different forces that belief upon my child behind my back, without my knowledge. Say I decide what is best for my child is the religion I was brought up in and that is how I want to raise my family. My child goes to school and they systematically damage and place doubt about my religion in my childs mind. Has my family been damaged? The authority of the state, in this case, has superceeded the athority of the parent.
To promote one religion above all others would appease one portion of our society while diminishing another. How is that fair?
It’s not, here’s an example of Judaism being selected over Christianity.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156283,00.html
Two questions that are identical in nature and different in hypothetical. Answer both but they have to be the same answer since they are the same question. Either both yes or both no.
1. Suppose my religion says homosexuality is bad and should be avoided at all costs. Do you believe the government has a right to subvert that belief in my child saying it’s alright?
2. Suppose my religion says rascism against Blacks is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. Do you believe the government has a right to subvert that belief in my child saying it’s alright?
Why does the government have the right to override my decisions about the beliefs child is raised with to substitute their own?
And with the Shiavo case the judge ignored laws that would have removed Michael as a conflict of interest. The judge followed selective laws, not all of them and that’s the problem. It would be then end of civilization if the law allows a husband to cheat on his wife, abandon his wife, kill his wife and then profit from it all because she is his wife. Even OJ went to court although he was found not guilty.
Are you suggesting that there is another explaination? The universe is expanding afterall. The story of Adam and Eve was hardly the first creation story to be embraced by human beings.
Completely irrelevant what the other explanations are, I have a core set of beliefs and I have a right to pass them on to my children. Early in the 1900s there were schools where natiive american children were force to go to get “educated” and their beliefs were eradicated.
Don’t you see the similarities here? Keep religion as far away from children as possible and you’ll eventually have an unchurched population. No pesky morals to get in the way of what liberals want.
And the idea of freedom is to not be forced to sumbit to someone else’s ideals or beliefs, but to decide for ourselves.
But that is what is happening isn’t it? What ever I teach my child is going to be “adjusted” by the government in school. The go for the math and reading but come home with “Teacher says I can’t talk about God in school, is God bad?” “Teacher says Adam and Eve aren’t real, is Jesus and God not real too?”
This is a very interesting discussion. In this post I would like to focus on the part regarding the Shiavo case as it relates to “Rogue Judges and Religious Oppression”.
The way Right Thinker frames the argument regarding Michael Shivo really helped me to get at the core of the Shiavo debate. It seems to come down to whether or not Michael should have the authority to act on behalf of his wife because of his seeming lack of morality.
I ask, which specific laws could have removed Michael as a conflict of interest? I know cheating is immoral, but am not aware of it being illegal.
I see how a prevalent cheat-abandon-kill-profit cycle would indeed be the end of civilization. In this case, however, the definition of the abandon-kill part of the cycle is open to interpretation and we look to the law for definition and for judges to interpret and apply the definition.
Well, I’m not a lawyer and could not name any statutes or legal codes. Cheating could be illegal, I have no idea, but since this was a civil action the lawfulness of the cheating is not relevant.
What is relevant is the breach of the marrital contract, the vows taken during marriage and the legal binding of said marriage. Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage but in this case Terri was unable to accept divorce due to her condition. Does there have to be a law that says guys with new girlfriends cannot absorb the marrital estate once he takes her off of life support?
Michael breached the marriage contract, he engaged in marital activites with another person, he sued a doctor and won a setlement based on Terri living out her natural life, he stopped all therapy that would have brought her closer to recovery to save money and essentially abandoned his wife. The marriage was functionally dissolved and Michael and his girlfriend were in a position to profit from Terri’s death.
The judge should have said Michael does not fit the description of legal guardian since he has shown no interest in Terri’s recovery and in fact her recovery would have been detrimental to Michael, his new girlfriend and his two new children. Terri had to die to secure Michael’s new life.
Can a Guardian be someone who benefits from the misfortune of their charge?
A Christian child and a Hindu child will be seated next to one another and partnered up for activities in school. Their religious difference shouldn’t affect their ability to get along with one another. That’s the social element of the benefit that school provides our children. It gives them a chance to assimilate and become accustomed with coexisting and working with others. Race, religion or the parental makeup of the children should not factor into that.
In a class where other cultures are discussed, the teacher isn’t presenting something that says, ‘Ancient Egyptians worshiped a God that represented the sun, and you can worship the sun God if you choose to as well.’ I think that when this argument gets presented, the assumption of someone arguing from your point of view will be that since other religions will be explained to the children, that it’s in a way that pushes beliefs. This is not true. Learning about the culture of other people is different than being inundated.
If this is true, then how can you explain subjects such as Social Studies, Antropology, Sociology, foreign languages, and specific cultural and history courses? During my four years in high school I had elective credits that had to be met in the arena of Social Studies and ended up taking World Geography, Area Studies I (Russia), Area Studies II (China and India), and Modern European History. This is absolutely a required and viable course of study for our kids. What is wrong with any of this?
I also had to take Sexual Education. This is a course I know the religious-right disagrees with, but think about what the public school system is in place to do. It’s to prepare these kids so they can grow up to become positive members of society. Their brains are commodities that eventually fuel our economy. In a day and age where there are sexually transmitted diseases that could kill you, it’s a matter of public safety that children learn how they would protect themselves. If a kid never learns about what a condom is used for, and their parents never mention it. Say they have sex without a condom because of this once they leave the house. Then spread a disease to their future partners. People in non-exclusive relationships having unprotected sex is very much a public safety issue. It happens quite a lot when they head off to college and alcohol enters the mix. This is where ideology and reality collide, and for the safety of us all, education on the matter should be a no-brainer.
Take what your kids are taught, read it yourself. Be involved in the material they’re presented with and present them your own take on it. Part of why Sexual Education is now necessary is because parents never get around to explaining such things to their children. This is an element of why unwanted pregnancies occur in the first place. Telling all children to practice abstinence and saying ‘that’s that’ is quite easy. It relieves the pressure of having to get real about it, and when a child makes a mistake we look at it like it was all their fault. It was them being ‘bad’ rather than them going through a tough part of their life…which is what growing up really is for these kids. It’s a period where they’re experiencing changes, both mental and physical. They’re growing. Preaching abstinence and demonizing the use of birth control just seems extremely lazy to me in this sense as we’re applying our own adult perspective to it and not considering what our real jobs are.
And like I pointed out. Children who are raised under this idea that they should just be told to adhere to abstinence end up participating in more oral and anal sex than children who are not brought up that way. They’re having sex, only not in the way they’ve been taught to fear. Kids will find loopholes…I remember being a kid.
How exactly did the school damage your parental influence? What specifically happened to make you think this way? Are you contesting that by teaching children the theory of evolution in school, they’re undermining you in some way? How does the school systematically place doubt about your religion in your child’s mind?
The larger question though is whether or not you’re approaching parenthood realistically in the sense that your children are going grow up and make their own decisions. Is your goal to raise children who are exactly like you or to raise children who are able to make good decisions for themselves once they’re on their own? I haven’t come across the situation where a teacher was deliberately downing a religion in class. If that’s happening, it’s wrong, but when and where? I’m quite sure it happens once in a while, but so do a lot of things in our society that aren’t right. The problem is reported and corrected most likely.
The argument you’re presenting here makes it sound like there’s a widespread conspiracy to steer your children away from Christianity. How? Is it really done on as large of a scale as you’re insinuating? Maybe the perception of it happening is something a bit more beneficial in the realm of political discussion than it is in actual educational discussion. An instance of it pops up on the news every now and then, but in every case I see, the education board addresses the situation and everyone moves on. A teacher who talks negatively about Christianity in a public school won’t have their job for very long. It’s something that’s not tolerated in this country that I know of. And if it is, the problem can’t be as widespread as the political arguments to the point consistently suggest.
If the school is there for the community, and the community contains same sex parents who send their kids there to learn. How would it be right to teach that children’s peers otherwise? At points of time in our history, changes have taken place within communities that changed the dynamic. Integrating blacks and whites in the schools comes to mind. Now if a child of a racist goes to that school, does that child’s parents have the right to demand that their personal ideology is promoted in the school?
You’re saying that the lifestyle of that child’s parents is not right, and at home you can go ahead and teach your kids that, but what right does the public school have to discriminate? Doesn’t the school belong as much to that American kid as it does your American kid? Was it up to that child to be born or adopted into a same-sex family? And wouldn’t we be punishing the wrong person by telling their peers that their family was anything other than viable? We’d be punishing the child for the sins of their parents.
Why can’t we just keep politics out of it? The Fox News story lends me to ask…did anyone actually believe that the child’s favorite book was the bible OR that the other child’s favorite book was the Jewish material? Wasn’t the point of it the child’s favorite book? The parent’s both used the assignment as an excuse to infuse their beliefs into the classroom. They were both wrong in doing so, and the school should have designed the assignment in such a way that wouldn’t have allowed the students’ parents to hijack it in such a way.
Just make it fair across the board. If that’s what your arguing, I agree with you 100%. If you’re arguing that evolution and creationism both deserve to be regarded in the same idea of ‘science’, then I disagree. Kansas wants to redefine the definition of the word science so that they can wedge ‘intelligent design’ into the curriculum. I believe it was in 1986 that the Supreme Court decided that using public schools to promote religious belief was unconstitutional. Intelligent design is an argument for creationism, only with different wording.
America is already falling behind when it comes to educating our children. Compared with China, India, Japan and other countries, we’ve already lost our edge. If the public school system were to teach that intelligent design and evolution were concepts on equal standing, how many future scientists, engineers, archeologists, geologists, etc would be steered in another direction at a young age?
Our government would never condone racism being accepted in pubic classrooms. You’re proposing a hypothetical that would never happen.
If you want your child to grow up believing that homosexuality is wrong, you can go ahead and do that, and your church can reinforce it. That point of view is judgmental. The public schools cannot endorse a judgmental point of view. Alongside this, they shouldn’t be holding ‘homosexual week’ celebrations either. I don’t know if this is in the works or not, but if the parents of Christians are occupying education boards with their demands, it wouldn’t be that hard to imagine homosexual parents doing the same. The school board just needs to make sure what they’re doing is equal under the law and stick to it.
All this rabble-rabble-rabble is at the expense of the students’ education. If we are approaching it like we want to make it all fair, then it shouldn’t take that long. If we’re approaching it like we want to rewrite the science books, we’ll be at it forever. The Fox News article, in the spirit of FoxNews, aims to pick a fight. Get an argument going on it about Christians being treated unfairly, rather than approaching it from the perspective that neither parent should have done what they did. The slant with Fox News is if they can convince a Christian that they’re being done wrong with any story they report on, they’ll jump at it. Their ratings come from the Midwest, and it’s all about ratings with ANY network, and FoxNews is no exception.
What laws were these? You refer to the ‘judge’, but this case was presented to appeals courts as well. Several judges heard the arguments from both sides and in the end they concurred. The state supreme court ruled unanimously in favor of the husband from what I’ve read about it. That happened years before it blew up as a national story. What law did they fail to uphold in your opinion?
FROM THE SECOND RESPONSE –
The argument isn’t that you shouldn’t be allowed to teach your beliefs to your children. The Native Americans were victims of genocide. The people who committed genocide against them set up their own schools and did not teach the mystical stories of their culture. That was passed down from generation to generation. Comparing what the Native American culture went through and what American Christians have faced in the past 100 years represents a lack of perspective.
Evolution has been taught in schools for decades, and there are an increasing amount of Christians every year. The amount of Christians in America is not going down, so I don’t see how the comparison with Native Americans is valid, nor do I see how the teaching of evolution affects it at all either. It’s the perpetual role of victim that the religious right insists on painting itself as just doesn’t wash with me.
‘No, God is not bad. What did the teacher say exactly? Were you talking about things you learned in Sunday School at school? What were you talking about? You know, not everyone goes to the same church that we do.’
‘How did the topic of Adam and Eve come up? Was it in science class? Well, science is the study of what is known and can be proven. Unfortunately, there aren’t fossils of Adam and Eve…all we have is the bible. But that’s where faith comes in. And that’s why they say, I’m of ‘this’ religious faith or of ‘that’ religious faith.’
Look at it as an opportunity to engage your children in meaningful discussion about it. The more a kid knows, the better…right? Did you look at the link with the ten intelligent designs that civilizations came up with? What do you make of those?
I was just trying to put forth the arguments that religious persons might try to make were they here. There is a strong aura of government control over parental rights and I am so against that. I do have to appologize, I set up a logic trap that maybe wasn’t all that fair but you kinda fell into it.
The two hypothetical questions were polar opposites in ideology but had to be answered the same way else the reasoning behind each answer is flawed.
Our government would never condone racism being accepted in pubic classrooms. You’re proposing a hypothetical that would never happen.
Yes, I know it would never happen, that is why it is hypothetical. If you feel it is the governments job to interceed in the parenting process like you indicate in these places:
It’s to prepare these kids so they can grow up to become positive members of society.
it’s a matter of public safety that children learn how they would protect themselves. If a kid never learns about what a condom is used for, and their parents never mention it.
This is where ideology and reality collide, and for the safety of us all, education on the matter should be a no-brainer.
Take what your kids are taught, read it yourself. Be involved in the material they’re presented with and present them your own take on it. Part of why Sexual Education is now necessary is because parents never get around to explaining such things to their children.
Historically, school is to make people economic members of society and religion either in school or church makes people responsible members of society. That is the part that is changing. I don’t want the government telling my child what is right or wrong, how would they know what I think is eight or wrong for my child? For me it comes down to the point that I knbow what is best for my children.
Is your goal to raise children who are exactly like you or to raise children who are able to make good decisions for themselves once they’re on their own?
The answer is the goal is entirely mine to set. Who is to say the government can raise my children better than I? Your trying to have it both ways, you want religion out of school but then you want to replace religion with government approved material. Replacing religion with some government citizzenship program attacks religion at it’s core.
If my child isn’t taught my religion in school that is fine but I’ll be damned if the values I have adopted for my family are replaced by government intervention. I don’t care what diseases are out there, if my family practices abstinance what right does some stranger have to come and tell my kids my beliefs are crap?
What I would like to see is the complete removal or religion from schools but schools could only teach the math, language, history, geography and other such arts & sciences.
Getting late, will add more later.
Right thinker:
part of the problem is that you cannot teach science that does not contradict some religious beliefs. The definitive work in christianity was written a long time ago, and since that time people have learned a lot. The catholic church in the last hundred years has done a good job of adapting to science, maybe they learned something from that whole the universe revolves around the earth debate.
the goal of most sex ed classes is to keep kids from getting diseases or pregnant which are both good goals in my opinion. We might disagree on that one, but unless things have changed recentely schools generally require parental permission to take sex ed, or health class as it is known now.
As a fairly recent high school grad I can tell you that most science teachers work very hard to accomodate religious views spending quite a bit of class time explaining that no one really knows how the first life forms were created thus leaving room for god.
Public schools seem to work very hard at striking a balance, most coaches that I had over the years encouraged membership in the fellowship of christian athletes and thier is quite a bit of peer pressure to join.
part of the problem is that you cannot teach science that does not contradict some religious beliefs.
I think the problem religious people have with this statement is that you can teach in a way that doesn’t show favortism of science. Now that religion is being eradicated form the campus only one ideology remains and that is evolution. Why not teach evolution as one of many theories, since religion is no longer able to speak on it’s own behalf in the classroom teachers now bear the burden of maintaining the balance.
the goal of most sex ed classes is to keep kids from getting diseases or pregnant which are both good goals in my opinion.
This is the point I was ineptly tying to get across to Chris above. Whether the sex ed class keeps people free of disease, or pregnancy is irrelevant to this discussion. Your opinion is also irrelevant because the issue is who has the right to mold the young minds of America.
While we are talking about the content of what kids are learning the issue is who has controlo over that content. In your opinion these classes are good and in someone else’s opinion these classes are destroying the fabric of society. Who are you to decide what my child will learn in school, especially when I pay the same taxes as everyone else? Why don’t I get a say in what my 1st grader learns? Why can’t I raise my family with my belief structure and be free from government interferrence?
I want to go back to these two questions:
1. Suppose my religion says homosexuality is bad and should be avoided at all costs. Do you believe the government has a right to subvert that belief in my child saying it’s alright?
2. Suppose my religion says rascism against Blacks is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. Do you believe the government has a right to subvert that belief in my child saying it’s alright?
Who has the ultimate right to determine what values my children have? If you say no to both questions then you believe parents have the right to raise their children. If you say yes to both questions then you believe the government has the right to raise people’s children.
BUT, if you say yes to one and no to the other then you believe your particular brand of ideology should be forced on everyone. If this is so then you just as guilty as the Christians are said to be of pushing an ideology that appears to be government endorsed.
What I am seeing in the news are stories about anti-Christian bias in schools, the teaching as fact that things like homosexuality is ok, pre-marital sex is ok, living without morals is ok. We must have a school system that teaches children academics regardless of our own views.
It doesn’t matter what you or I think is wrong or right, school is for learning a curriculum not indoctrination of a particular point of view, was conservative but has rapidly switched to liberal.
Check this out:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156398,00.html
Remember, when talking about adding and removing ideologies in and out of school it’s all or none. You can’t be selective about content or else your trampling parents rights. What you think is ok is completely irrelevant.
Is it the concept of right and wrong we’re accusing the schools of corrupting in our children, or their definition of freedom?
What you’re complaining about is the amount of freedom we have in this country. The fact that anyone has the freedom to be a homosexual if they chose to be is the offensive thing to people of faith.
The schools represent the laws of society. Whereas homosexuality is not acceptable in church, it is not against the law in sodiety. Where does the disconnect lie then, in religion’s expectation of the government to limit freedom for the sake of their beliefs?
Why don’t we leave freedom alone, and if people chose to bring up their children in a way that transcends our society, just send their children to private shool or homeschool them.
I’m comfortable with public schools representing the laws of our society. Change the laws and you can change the schools. If it’s too heavy for you, do it yourself or send them to a private school. Opt out of the sexual education, send them to Sunday school – do what you’ve got to do.
Your religion belongs to you. It’s yours. Why does society have to carve out time to teach your religious ideals to the rest of us? Because you pay taxes? That’s why? Hell, EVERYONE pays taxes! Now we’ve got to taper everything to everyone instead of using laws to decide that?
This ‘poor oppressed me’ argument, the ridiculous notion that parents can’t contend with what kids learn when they walk outside the door of the house. That it’s a battle of society versus me as a parent because I’m a Christian and my Christian principles don’t match the laws of this country exactaly. Poor me for that? Nonsence.
Poor me for getting shot in the face in a school, bad neighborhood or because I was taking money out of an ATM. Poor me for getting cancer or leukemia. Not poor me for having to raise my kids in a world that doesn’t agree with everything I think. Not when I could teach them myself or learn to rise above rather than expect the world to change on account of me.
To highlight my main point. People are free to be homosexuals if they want to. If what you want to do is ignore it or for your children to only hear that it’s wrong, you’re asking that a public school demonize a freedom all Americans have for your sake.
If we live in a free society, and a freedom of that society is against your beliefs. You have to either put up with it, change the law that provides that freedom or whatever you’ve got to do to be happy.
What the Christian-right does is this. Since they’re too scared to just insist that homosexuality be illegal, they’ll just muddy the waters by complaining about it in every other way possible. If they were at all real about it, they’d just fight to outlaw it or do what the Mormons and Catholics did…establish schools and teach what they want.
You want the public school I’m entitled to, to ingore or demonize the subject of homosexuality for your sake. I don’t care about it. I don’t care if my sons find out about it. It doesn’t scare me.
Right, you do realize what they’ve done to our heads with this article don’t you? The mission was to get us to read the most extreme theories of PETA. The best way to do this is to attach ‘your kids’ to the organization.
Do schools get to decide what material they want to use to fulfill the requirements of that law? YES
Are they obligated to use PETA as a vendor for their teaching material? NO
This is propaganda, pure and simple. There is nothing obligating schools to present to students that drinking milk is inhumane, yet the article continuously eludes to such a dynamic. What do you honestly take from this article? What is the reader to walk away from it with other than that PETA is insane? This is and has been common knowledge for years already. Let’s see FoxNews actually find a child who was told at school that drinking milk meant they were mean to animals.
Of course that hasn’t happened…but as far as the writer is concerned, as long as the reader ‘perceives’ that it has or will happen is all that matters.
Is it the concept of right and wrong we’re accusing the schools of corrupting in our children, or their definition of freedom?
What I am saying is a certain demographic of our society is marginalizing another demographic of our society and using schools as part one of the methods for doing so.
Why don’t we leave freedom alone, and if people chose to bring up their children in a way that transcends our society, just send their children to private shool or homeschool them.
Because not everyone can afford private school or home school and, thus, are at the mercy of what the public schools want them to believe. I agree with removing religion from schools, I’ve said this defore, but you can’t replace it with something else. atheism, budda or what ever or your just in the same boat. You don’t like religion forced on you? Fine, but don’t force your secularism on me!!!
Why does society have to carve out time to teach your religious ideals to the rest of us? Because you pay taxes? That’s why? Hell, EVERYONE pays taxes!
No one said anything about society carving out time to teach religion anyone. You still don’t see the damage that is done when you have religion completely wiped from all public places (Christianity anyway) on one side and then anti-religious teachings instituted in it’s place.
I don’t see what the problem with this is. Why should I pay taxes to have the government attempt to wipe my families values from my child? I’m fine with no religion in school but don’t then campaign against my religion in my childs class.
People are free to be homosexuals if they want to. If what you want to do is ignore it or for your children to only hear that it’s wrong, you’re asking that a public school demonize a freedom all Americans have for your sake.
Your exaggerating the issue to make a point. If I believe homosexuality is wrong and I bring my children up that way the school has NO RIGHT to subvert my parental rights. Some on, demonize? Seriously, how is respecting my heritage, parental rights, morals and religios beliefs demonizing someone?
If we live in a free society, and a freedom of that society is against your beliefs. You have to either put up with it, change the law that provides that freedom or whatever you’ve got to do to be happy.
Gay marriage isn’t legal in my state so why are children being taught about married gay couples with children being the same, morally, as traditional couples?
I don’t see how you can think that the non-academic stuff being taught in school to all children is ok because it’s “ok with you”. I don’t propose to teach all children only what I believe in so let’s agree that schools are for learning math, reading, writing, history and science and leave the social values and morays up to the parents.
I really am interested if you can provide an argument that legitimizes the overriding of parental rights in schools.
What demographic in this country is it that doesn’t feel the same way about being marginalized by another demographic within our society? Whoever doesn’t feel marginalized in some way can excuse themselves from the room, and the ones remaining will fight it out. Right now, the Christian-right, largely through FoxNews exist as the loudest demographic remaining in the room – but this argument is an inherent part of the lives of humans everywhere – and the people who figured out how to make laws in an attempt to even up the odds are the ones who saved us from a situation where the loudest automatically won the argument every time.
We’ve got laws. If an evangelist, parent or Fox News wants something to stop within our society, propose a law and your politician will take it from there. If the politician doesn’t fight hard enough, elect someone else and try again. That’s how we change things in this country. The TV and radio and internet can say something’s wrong all they want, but there’s something called ‘putting your money where your mouth is’, and because the interest is ratings, and getting us to return – it’s in their best interest to get us riled up, and keep us riled up.
Tap into the sense of being mistreated within a person and you have a loyal viewer, listener or whatever. Complain about a liberal slant in the media concerning the war, but never fund a staff to cover the war yourself – point out how you’re being done wrong by your schools, yet suggest no solution but to hate a specific person or group and of course, tune in tomorrow for more developments.
You hit the point right on the head. We can’t all afford to do that, hence the reason we have public schools. The fact is, you either believe that there is a God or you don’t. So with this being the case, everyone is either one or the other. If we are not allowed to have religion represented within our public school system, then how could it be anything BUT secular?
Having a problem with evolution is to have a problem with Science, not schools. But like the media example I posted above, it’s not about having the discussion about it in the place we need to pose it in order to make a real difference, it’s only about discussing it forever in the place where nothing can be done about it. If a school orders Science textbooks and the Scientific community is determining of what is in those books, how can you blame the school for teaching what is in those books? The subject is science, and scientists write the books. Convince Science to include faith within their material, and you have achieved your goal. Demonize the school system or slap labels in the books (which kids will not take seriously)…neither will make anything different but to prompt people to dislike one another. You and I can discuss such things in a civil manner, but we can’t say the same for the rest of society. At some point in all this, one of the people feels so enraged about their marginalization in American society that they do something radical in the name of their beliefs that shames us all.
Government is the venue for enacting change. If the leaders of the movement you believe in are not going there to take a shot at enacting that change. If they’re only keeping it in the public arena, then one has to ask why they’re wasting time? The answer to that question would lower ratings. That’s why we get the labels. The movement leader’s explaination of how the deck is stacked, and therefore they’re representing you well by merely facilitating the discussion rather than moving to enact change. In a democracy, the leader who convinces you of this for too long is lying to you.
You earlier said something about not having Athieism pushed on you. That is the absence of religion. It’s not to have most of it out, but still a little Christianity and a smidgen of Jewish left over.
I haven’t heard a convincing example of an ‘anti-religious teaching’ taking place in the public school system.
When has this happened? The evolution argument doesn’t qualify, and the children are sitting in Science class and the Scientists have been working on what’s in that book they wrote for thousands of years. It’s all been a culmination of millions of people who worked on all the discoveries of man up till now. If intelligent design is not admitted to the discussion, it’s time to convince the scientific community. Perhaps this is why the movement is attempting to change the definition of the word ‘science’. Again, rather than fight the good fight in the right place, attempt to alter the game in some way. Change the definition of a word that has meant the same thing for thousands of years.
That is the breakdown of that one, but there are other examples out there, and I’m saying that none of them hold water. I don’t know of a manner in which public schools are striping religion from it’s students.
Must a child be born to a married couple to be entitled to an education in America? Marriage has nothing to do with the argument. Two gay people could raise a child, send them to school and be completely within their rights in every state in the union. Their child would not be denied entry on the requirement that their parents be married or heterosexual. The school should just never mention homosexuality? Pretend it doesn’t exist? That’s what the legislation should read, and if that’s what you want, your politicians should be advocating for that. A solution to the problem.
I don’t consider the cases in the press represent cases where parents rights were infringed upon. A parent doesn’t have the right to dictate to a state’s school board what they do and do not teach. So that’s never been a right of the parents. The education boards are elected or appointed by the politicians who are elected. The parent has a right to vote and present legislation ideas to their representative.
When has that right been infringed? When has a parent been denied the right to vote or the right to propose legislation?
You hit the point right on the head. We can’t all afford to do that, hence the reason we have public schools. The fact is, you either believe that there is a God or you don’t. So with this being the case, everyone is either one or the other. If we are not allowed to have religion represented within our public school system, then how could it be anything BUT secular?
Now were getting somewhere :- ) The answer is not to address either the secular or religious. Math is neither secular or religious, the same is true with spelling, reading, comprehension, history (presented as history, not what went right or wrong), geography, critical thinking or language arts.
I think we agree on about 90% of this, I think that with the huge changes happening in the educational environment schools need to be completely reorganized. How about pubic school for 75% of the day and the other 25% is spent in private schools chosen by the parents. Citizenship, social studies, religion and family values would all be learned at the private school chosen by the parents.
Problem solved. The school districts will shed a ton of responsibility, law suits and be able to focus on the core curriculum. All parents no longer have to worry about what their children are learning and these children will be “better people”, kinder and gentler to their neighbors because of the strong moral upbringing within the family unit.
I’m curious as to how you’d envision the logistics of such a configuration. Are you saying the children would spend one full day at the sub-school, or that they would be transported from one to the other each day? Naturally the sub-schools would be constructed around religious ideology. Do you see this as a correct statement?
Now…from what I know of school funding, the school gets a set amount of money per student. Charter schools determine their budgets based on this per student income. The government subsidizes public education in this way. The hitch would be just that. Can public funds be subsidized for a particular sub-school ideology? If one sub-school would incorporate religious study, could they be funded with public funds?
If you’re saying, ‘no, the sub-schools are private’ – how would you get around the problem of some students not being able to afford it? See, I think something like this only works if there is funding for everyone. The schools have to develop their curriculum and standards based on the students accruing an equal amount of credits needed for graduation. If a percentage of their students spent 25% of their day at a sub-school, and their test scores were found to be lower than the student who spent 100% of their time in the regular classes…
There are a lot of issues that would come about if we were to put this idea into practice. What you’re saying in terms of the child’s education is entirely valid, but from where I sit…right now that can be fulfilled through the church and at home. Also at issue would be the idea of segregating the population of students based on their backgrounds.
So there’s the legal ramifications, both in the idea of equality as well as meeting the No Child Left Behind testing requirements – and the money issue.
Right – I think we see eye to eye on most of this as well, but differ in our perception of what the children are being exposed to whether the reports we read are sensationalized or accurate across the board. The sexual education material being presented to students in elementary school in my state of Massachusetts prompts protest here and there…and I can’t really blame the parents in a lot of instances for being upset. What I can’t go along with though is the notion that a high school is not an appropriate audience for sexual education.
Along with that, I’m ultra-conservative when it comes to fundamentally changing the definition of a course of study. The creationist material fundamentally changing the definition of ‘science’ is a step backwards.
I’m curious as to how you’d envision the logistics of such a configuration. Are you saying the children would spend one full day at the sub-school, or that they would be transported from one to the other each day? Naturally the sub-schools would be constructed around religious ideology. Do you see this as a correct statement?
Now…from what I know of school funding, the school gets a set amount of money per student. Charter schools determine their budgets based on this per student income. The government subsidizes public education in this way. The hitch would be just that. Can public funds be subsidized for a particular sub-school ideology? If one sub-school would incorporate religious study, could they be funded with public funds?
If you’re saying, ‘no, the sub-schools are private’ – how would you get around the problem of some students not being able to afford it? See, I think something like this only works if there is funding for everyone. The schools have to develop their curiculum and standards based on the students accruing an equal amount of credits needed for graduation. If a percentage of their students spent 25% of their day at a sub-school, and their test scores were found to be lower than the student who spent 100% of their time in the regular classes…
There are a lot of issues that would come about if we were to put this idea into practice. What you’re saying in terms of the child’s education is entirely valid, but from where I sit…right now that can be fulfilled through the church and at home. Also at issue would be the idea of segregating the population of students based on their backgrounds.
So there’s the legal ramifications, both in the idea of equality as well as meeting the No Child Left Behind testing requirements – and the money issue.
Right – I think we see eye to eye on most of this as well, but differ in our perception of what the children are being exposed to whether the reports we read are sensationalized or accurate across the board. The sexual education material being presented to students in elementary school in my state of Massachusetts prompts uprisals here and there…and I can’t really blame the parents in a lot of instances for being upset. What I can’t go along with though is the notion that a high school is not an appropriate audience for sexual education.
how would you get around the problem of some students not being able to afford it?
Excellent question. Since the other school (I’ll call it Citizenship School for now) will be about 1 day a week, that is about 52 days a year. The public schools will be able to concentrate more resources into the subjects they teach and give the teachers and admin a day for lesson planning, grading, taking care of facilities and other admin tasks.
The price for the private school would be significantly reduced and the individual communities would pay for the citizenship school (in communities I mean Lutheran community, Jewish community, etc.) Agnostics and Atheists cold teach their children how to be good citizens as well in their own way.
Scholarships for the poor would be easier to fund within the churches and communities and the middle class would be able to pay for it themselves. Initially I’d say nay to government funding but since every kid would have their own schools the States could kick in a few bucks and not worry about promoting any one ideology since they will be supporting the entire public all at once.
So public schools would focus on the core curriculum. Parents would choose which citizenship school to send their kids and the separation of church and state would be complete. No public property for any citizenship school is necessary, they could rent spaces or use church or community rental facilities.
This way I don’t push my beliefs on your kids and you don’t posh your beliefs on my kids and all the kids learn to be better citizens in their own traditions.
If a percentage of their students spent 25% of their day at a sub-school, and their test scores were found to be lower than the student who spent 100% of their time in the regular classes
There would be more time in public school to teach the basics since the “citizenship” issues are removed. Test scores in this area are mutually exclusive, one does not affect the other.
Also at issue would be the idea of segregating the population of students based on their backgrounds.
No more segregating than chosing T-ball over Soccer or music over ballet. Imagine, a Kenyan imigrant could have their children learn the American way of life but instill a sense of the cuture back home. Learn about their cultural history to share with their friends and learn how people treat each other well.
What you’re saying in terms of the child’s education is entirely valid, but from where I sit…right now that can be fulfilled through the church and at home.
Until you get to school and you can’t express what you believe, you can’t share your beliefs with anyone without fear of persecution. Imagine going to the principle’s office because your pre-exam prayer offended some other kids or being suspended for trying to pray before a football game.
So there’s the legal ramifications, both in the idea of equality as well as meeting the No Child Left Behind testing requirements – and the money issue.
I propse the task would be easier for schools in general. Lesson plans would be easier to make, if not pregenerated (2+2=4 and there are only so many ways to put it)and there would be fewer subjects with ambiguous grading criteria (again, 2+2=4 there isn’t a lot of latitude for interpretation in grading this). Also, if schools go year round with a 4 day public school week there is more time and money to cover what needs to be covered.
What I can’t go along with though is the notion that a high school is not an appropriate audience for sexual education.
I’ll agree with that, most of what I was referring to above was kindergarten and the first 8 grades (and preschool/head start) Once kids get to the highschool level they’ve essentially become the people they will be for the rest of their lives. What was that book? “Everything I needed to know I learned in kindergarten.”
What specific subjects do you feel fall under the ‘citizenship’ label? A bit further down in your last response I thought you may have been a bit liberal with how easy it would be to diferentiate…let me find it:
In the areas of math and science (minus the obvious evolution/creationism snafu), it’s an up or down grading system for the most part. You either know it or you don’t. In areas such as English and History it’s not so cut and dry. From my experience managing young people in the jobs I’ve had – any reduction of English class time wouldn’t be a good idea. It’s sad how poor the written/verbal communication skills of high school graduates are today.
My feeling in terms of education in America is that the students need more hours per day in school and less homework. A mandatory study period for every student in high school to work on their home assignments. Being able to accomplish what needs to be done during school hours would help. Getting teacher’s unions to agree to it would most likely be difficult.
Is it really that easy of a comparison? Once the infastructure is in place it would be I suppose. This whole thing reminds me of CCD – my friends used to go to it after school once a week.
I don’t think this happens. A kid praying before a test or a football game and being punnished in some way for it…have you heard of this happening?
The politicatos bearing crosses and threats…the evangelicals who are making the noise disagree with us on this one. AIDS education in high school is one of the things under attack.
You either know it or you don’t. In areas such as English and History it’s not so cut and dry.
I don’t think so. Comprehension is measurable as is grammar and spelling. Spanish, French, German or what ever is measurable also. Geography, Earth Sciences, Chemistry, Geometry, Algebra and Biology are measurable.
It’s the subjective right and wrong stuff, the “thou shalt not kill” and those moral aspects of such communities as Judaism, Atheism, Mormon, etc.
Even the evolution subject can be addressed in this school structure because all sides will have equal time with the student’s attention. Teachers get to teach their sciences and parents are assured their culture, beliefs and heritage is respected. All is fair and everyone wins.
My feeling in terms of education in America is that the students need more hours per day in school and less homework. A mandatory study period for every student in high school to work on their home assignments. Being able to accomplish what needs to be done during school hours would help.
Now your talkin’, reduce the latch key effect, get kids aclimated to the udult work week. Less pressure to learn a huge amount of material so fast, allows student to share comuters and other limited resources. I like the study period idea, kids could work on real life projects and long term experiments or scientific studys.
I don’t think this happens. A kid praying before a test or a football game and being punnished in some way for it…have you heard of this happening?
Granted, these are the only two instances I’ve heard of but I wonder if a lot of the religious persecution stories are down played. Christian bashing seems to be in vogue these days and I don’t ever read too much support from the media. I’ve read how the student antagonized his classmates by praying before the exam.
The politicatos bearing crosses and threats…the evangelicals who are making the noise disagree with us on this one. AIDS education in high school is one of the things under attack.
Yeah, that’s a tough one. I know the AIDS programs are one of the ways to tackle the problem but I’m really skiddish about usurping parental authority to deliver this message to an unwelcome audience.
I give more leaway to high school because the kids are almost adults, but then again, what I feel is or isn’t ok for someone else’s child is irrelevant. In the end it’s the quality of education that matters and the ACLU suing school districts is not conducive to a quality education.
Let’s just embrace the future and proactively remove all the subjective aspects of education from public schools and let parents continue to decide what is best for their children. I’d like to see teaching return to the pedistal it should be on, I have relative who are teachers and the religion thing is really causing problems.
Right – I’m going to read your last response tomorrow morning – just wanted to ask if you’ve signed up your username on the site. For some reason karl’s responses go straight through, but all of yours get hung up at the moderation queue. karl’s username is listed under my site’s userlist, but yours isn’t. I don’t want one of your comments to get hung up unnecessarily if I’m not able to clear out the queue on a given day. Can’t keep my eyes open – catch you later.
I don’t see where to do this, where do I go?
http://deadissue.com/wp-register.php
Here you go – Click on that and register. I think once you’ve done this, I’ll have to moderate one comment and after that it’ll go straight through.
OK, so how about the people who cannot afford to send their kids to this private sub-school? I’ve looked into it and public funds cannot be subsudized for this. With this in mind, the money would either have to come from the churches, donations or people’s own pockets. How would you get around this?
My sister is a teacher and has a class called ‘Life Skills’ where she uses her own fianancial history as part of the curiculum. She teaches kids about credit and the effect of bad credit. Her students complete resumes and mock interviews. These types of courses are vital in the same way that Sexual Education classes are. The pitfalls of adult life are different now than they were fifty years ago, and courses like these go a long way towards helping these kids assimilate.
I’d agree that there is a degree of Christian bashing in our society, but how much of it is self induced? In Massachusetts, the Catholic church is regularly criticized by callers on talk radio – but when you consider the sex abuse scandal and subsequent promotion of Cardinal Law, I can’t rightly say that the criticism is not deserved. My fiance is Catholic so it’s a difficult thing at home sometimes.
As for the born-again Christians and the evangelicals, it’s the statements made by their leaders – ala what Pat Robertson had to say regarding ‘activist judges’. It goes way over the line, and appeals to those on the far right, but steers ever so far away from the mainstream. When those of us who are not so devoted to their ideology hear this type of stuff, it stirs us negative thoughts.
While I’ve been a born again Christian in the past and can articulate what I find wrong with it in a respectful manner, it can’t be expected from everyone. And just like Sean Hannity feels right in speaking his mind every night on TV and the radio – he may get ultra-religious and it pisses off someone who’s not…and by the same token, another TV personality will say something anti-Christian and it has the same effect of you.
The Muslim religion has it far worse when it comes to this in America. Christian leaders have called the Iraq War a ‘crusade’ against Islam.
In a lot of ways, the religion brings it on itself. Mostly by not respecting a person’s choice to believe what they believe or believe something else in this country.
The ACLU is beaten to death on FoxNews…O’Rieley especially. I’d just like to move on from them, because even before FoxNews started broadcasting, this organization had a credibility issue. At this point it’s just piling on. What’s the ultimate goal? They’re not going to go away.
Maybe it’s the Army in me, but I’ve always been of the idea to avoid ‘borrowing trouble’. If I were running a school, the goal I’d have would be to somehow get around the politics, parents and teacher squabbles so that as much time as possible could be spent focusing on the kids. If this meant running the school like a warden at times, so be it. If this meant being ultra-careful in avoiding posibilities for the ACLU to come knocking on my door, so be it.
Where the schools go wrong is in promoting the wrong people, and a lack of competent leadership from the boards to the principals. They must have a high level of competence in the field of management. A good manager is most likely not going to be liked by everyone, but the bottom line is what it’s all about. As much as it may pain us for the more sentamental pieces of our culture to be excluded from public functions – in these squabbles with the ACLU and O’Rieley and religious leaders…the only victims are the kids. The managers who run the schools must be held accountable when their ineffective leadership leads to such things.
The instances where people cross the line in either direction are right to be exposed, but when a story is sensationalized beyond the level it should be – people start going out of their way to make a story of their own, the kids become conscious of it and feed it themselves. The teacher who allowed the parents to come in and read a book should have reviewed and approved what the parents brought in beforehand. The principal of that school should have had that teacher sign a warning to ensure it didn’t happen again.
Corporations across the globe are able to manage effectively and ensure that the law is respected and operate in a way that limits negative public exposure. The schools are in need of better managers. I’m convinced of this. I’d like to be a principal some day…always been a dream of mine. I love kids, and have had a lot of success in a manager role in the past. Maybe some day.
Here you go – Click on that and register. I think once you’ve done this, I’ll have to moderate one comment and after that it’ll go straight through.
Done and done.
OK, so how about the people who cannot afford to send their kids to this private sub-school? I’ve looked into it and public funds cannot be subsudized for this. With this in mind, the money would either have to come from the churches, donations or people’s own pockets. How would you get around this?
This is the sketchy part but I remember public funds cannot be used to promote one religion over another or one ideology over another. Since all children will benefit equally under the law I would imagine there woudl be away to get this done.
But, should the ACLU be successful in overriding parent’s wishes I would submit my original ideas. Since the citizenship school would only be in session for 52 days or fewer a year the annual cost per student would probably be around $400 per child.
Now most groups would have volunteers teach these classes and the materials would be provided by the non-profits already there really isn’t too much overhead. Get some social studies books and your golden.
Athiests, for example, would teach an approach to good citizenship and the treatment of others with a complete absense of religious connotation. Be treated as you wish to be treated is a universal idea, they can teach smart, responsible children treat eachother with respect. Catholics can say God is watching. You get the point.
The cost is spread out among the various groups who already have vigorous fund raising capabilities. The poor could get scholarships from the organization they wish to patronize, the Mormons would gladly pay for any of their students. American Indians could revitalize their cultures while instilling great social and spiritual traits.
My fiance is Catholic so it’s a difficult thing at home sometimes.
Yeah, the church heirarchy works in mysterious ways but the benefit of community is still the same. Is my afterlife contingent upon the workings of church bureaucracy? The bible hasn’t changed and the goals have not changed. Non-Catholics can call talk radio all the time and be as ignorant as they want the fact still remains that people are Catholic for the faith, not the bureaucracy.
In a lot of ways, the religion brings it on itself. Mostly by not respecting a person’s choice to believe what they believe or believe something else in this country.
Well, that is the whole point of religion. An angelic figure comes down from the heavens and dispenses laws to steer humanity in the right direction. So if Judaism is bringing it upon itself by promoting the ten commandments what would you have them do? They aren’t going to say “I know it says thou thalt not kill but we don’t want to trample of your beliefs that this guy deserved to die”
Gotta meeting to go to, be back later.
Why are your posts STILL going to the moderation queue?!?!?! I can’t figure this out for the life of me. OK – I just upgraded your access level, so hopefully this does it. The new poster had his first in the moderation queue last night, and his second, sent about an hour later went straight through. Perhaps a ‘right-wing’ filter I didn’t know about?
Oh, I don’t know about this number here. Is 400 dollars for 52 days proportinate to the per student cost for a whole school year, proportioned for only 52 days instead of the full year?
The mixture of ‘public’ with the ‘religion’ aspect of these classes will be the hangup. It will infringe upon the 1986 Supreme Court decision that says public schools cannot be used to promote religion. It is a private school, as you’ve said – but for the families who cannot afford the $400 (imagine a family of five on a tight budget, having to now spring for an extra $1200 per year), the money will have to be subsudized. Thereby making the school public. A state could work around this in some way, but it would basically amount to a money laundering scheme.
My high school was private for students who lived outside of Derry (Pinkerton Academy Derry, NH), but for residents it was free. A deal was made with the town in terms of property tax and other concessions I’m sure, but it works very well. There’s no conflict of interest for Derry, as the community gets an education for their residents that costs multiple thousands per year.
The money is being paid in property tax, and in the end it all comes out in the wash – Pinkerton profits highly and builds new facilities…but how to funnel the money through channels in this manner if the school would include religion. If Pinkerton Academy suddenly decided to become a Catholic School, I’m not sure that their arangements would be valid anymore.
There is a certain amount of money donated to charity every year in the US. Often times it’s up to the amount that is allowed to be deductable for a person or family. The amounts rise as the population increases, but it goes to a designated amount of places. When you divert funding in a major way like this, it shifts the balance across the board, and while schools are created that instill cultural and religous knowledge within students…that’s a lot of money, and the volunteers would mostly be senior citizens from what I know of the volunteer arena.
Hospitals are dependant on senior citizen volunteers to run at a profit…not saying they couldn’t be spared for the school, but when it’s money coming out of one charity and going into this new one…that’s a lot of convincing you have to do. It’s a seperate sell to each group who you’ll be looking to for funding. If three of them go for it, and three don’t…how can you pull three out for 52 days in a year and not the rest?
The answer to this would be it would have to be federally mandated. It would have to be written into law and funded with public money. That’s how I see it as being possible in all states and all segments of religion and race.
On the contrary, it’s Catholics who call up mostly. In this area of the country especially, it’s been salt on a deep would these past few years. The benefit of fellowship is not something that transcends the condoning of sexual abuse.
Judaism doen’t bring it on themselves by promoting the ten commandments. It’s the social issues that are covered lightly within the actual text of the bible that the church goes 100% extreme on. When the believers of these religions begin to lecture me or someone else on our being wrong in not believing in or fearing what they do – – – that’s where they’re borrowing trouble.
It’s the same for the Catholic church promoting Cardinal Law and expecting everyone to just nod in approval and go on with what they were doing. They have a choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing, and that choice dictates the amount of static they have to deal with.
The way we go wrong is in blaming the voices of discent for being critical when they very well have good reason for it. There’s a cause and effect for everything in this life…
Perhaps a ‘right-wing’ filter I didn’t know about?
Maybe that’s why the automatic doors at Old Navy don’t open for me :- )
I haven’t been able to get the password for it yet because I can’t get into my e-mail from work.
Oh, I don’t know about this number here. Is 400 dollars for 52 days proportinate to the per student cost for a whole school year, proportioned for only 52 days instead of the full year?
Remember, the curriculum for the citizenship school is set by each group and will probably provide the facilities and with all volunteer staffs or parents as teachers the cost is lower. So with little building, salary an materials costs you down to things like video equipment, printing and other splurge items. The kids already have paper and pencils.
It is a private school, as you’ve said – but for the families who cannot afford the $400 (imagine a family of five on a tight budget, having to now spring for an extra $1200 per year), the money will have to be subsudized.
No, I mean the government might pay the first 20% of the cost for all students and then to poor would have to only come up with $320 in scholarship if they were dead broke and the cost was $400 a year. Scholarships, waivers, barter work for tuition(parents that is) all can help in this endeavor.
The answer to this would be it would have to be federally mandated.
I would much rather have the states do it but this works too. I was trying to avoid adding a load onto the federal gov’t, especially when states are better equiped to handle it.
Hey, should we get a patent for this??? Do they show those commercials over there? “Snap your fingers and turn on a light, that was my idea but I never thought to get a patent!!! I could have been a millionaire.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/19/coach.lawsuit.ap/index.html
Here’s a question for the group. The story makes a claim that parents are increasingly interfering in youth sports. I have read stories where parents are going after teachers and administration the same way. I think it is because parents are being marginalized by the government and special interest groups who are eroding parental rights. We talk extensively about this above.
Do you agree or disagree that parents are fighting back against a school system that has become increasingly hostile to family values, family heritage and family religious beliefs? Why/Why Not?
HA! ‘No cheap boxer shorts for you!’ (soup nazi voice)
It seems to be working now. I think it’s a good idea for me to get all the users in the log with a password. I don’t know where the ‘login’ link went. My brother set this site up for me, I’ll ask him.
OK, so this will be largely run on a volunteer basis. There are many resources within each of our communities in retired people. In the next ten years there will be even more. I think this has to be exclusively private with no money coming from the government – federal or state or local – for it to work. I also think that it would have to be an addition to school, rather than a portion of the regular allotment of school hours.
See, that’s a deal breaker if religion is going to be a part of it. This has to be privately funded for it to be legal.
We’d have to establish a business model that would be feasable and legal in the US. Once that is drawn up, I wonder if we could go for a patent.
Right – what do you do for a living? You mixed in some business-speak in another thread…business analyst here, former operations manager. I’m the guy you hire when there’s a need for automation and business requirements/cost benefit analysis/etc. Technical writing is what I’m into now, but badly miss the leadership aspects of my past jobs. How’s the market in Vegas? Have you always lived there?
Sorry about not getting back to this thread for a few days. I was mentally wasted after Thu-Fri when I wrote the ‘Operation Win the War’ piece. I marketed that one pretty heavy on Friday morning, and the unique hits got up to 380 – but hit a wall that afternoon and had to get away from it for a while.
Hard work getting the traffic numbers up and keeping them there!
If a parent feels that the schools are doing something wrong. Take that specific thing and bring it up at the school board meeting. That is the venue for presenting such gripes. What this parent did is indicative of what I’ve been seeing happening more and more at youth sporting events. Soccer, baseball and basketball…I’ve been to many games where parents let their emotions get the best of them and voice an opinion that never should have been heard.
The effect this has on the kids is negative. They’re the ones the sports are for, and the lessons they’re supposed to learn are not being learned when a parent shows a lack of respect…that’s the example they follow. The coach is the boss, and the kids need to know that, respect that and do their best to help the team.
I can remember several instances in my own childhood playing little league baseball where politics played such a heavy role that looking back, it’s often the politics that I remember.
Parents acting out in such a way is clearly an example of bad behavior, and it’s unacceptable. The woman who brought the bible into the classroom for ‘my kid’s favorite book’ day was behaving badly. The woman who brought in the Jewish book was behaving badly. This father who publicly berated his kid’s coach was behaving badly.
It’s a critical time in the lives of our children, and the example we set for them is what will leave a lasting impression on them. If they see us responding to something we disagree with by yelling at a coach or picking a fight with a teacher, they will grow up to handle such situations in the same way. So my opinion is that parents need to set a good example and stay out of these things. Go trough proper channels and realize that everything in life is not going to go their way – and that fact doesn’t give anyone an excuse to resort to bad behavior.
Parents acting out in such a way is clearly an example of bad behavior, and it’s unacceptable. The woman who brought the bible into the classroom for ‘my kid’s favorite book’ day was behaving badly. The woman who brought in the Jewish book was behaving badly. This father who publicly berated his kid’s coach was behaving badly.
See, I think it’s much more than that. These people are only “behaving badly” around the schools. I don’t think the bible ladies show up to work and preech the gospel to coworkers.
There is a distinct lack of respect for the teaching profession with roots that go way deeper than bad behavior. Teaching used to be an honored profession but now you hear about parents going to these parent/teacher conferences for failing children and the parents yell at the teacher.
There is something going on in schools where parents feel powerless and are fighting back. Do you think that the school board that approved the same sex couples book for kindergardeners is going to change their minds at the request of parents?
Parents acting out in such a way is clearly an example of bad behavior, and it’s unacceptable. The woman who brought the bible into the classroom for ‘my kid’s favorite book’ day was behaving badly. The woman who brought in the Jewish book was behaving badly. This father who publicly berated his kid’s coach was behaving badly.
See, I think it’s much more than that. These people are only “behaving badly” around the schools. I don’t think the bible ladies show up to work and preech the gospel to coworkers.
There is a distinct lack of respect for the teaching profession with roots that go way deeper than bad behavior. Teaching used to be an honored profession but now you hear about parents going to these parent/teacher conferences for failing children and the parents yell at the teacher.
There is something going on in schools where parents feel powerless and are fighting back. Do you think that the school board that approved the same sex couples book for kindergardeners is going to change their minds at the request of parents?
This point of view requires an assumption that the teachers are wrong and the parents are right. I think it’s more of a sign of the culture than a fundamental change that’s taken place in the schools. Add in the talk radio and TV politicatos telling them day in and day out that they’re getting screwed and walla…
Just a thought, but I think that parents can marginalize themselves.
I was thirty-one when my oldest was born, so we’ve been “in the system” for five years now (he’s just finishing fourth grade). I can’t say I’ve been completely happy with everything that we’ve experienced, but generally teachers and the Administration have been very cooperative.
Our oldest has some learning issues. They brought those problems to our attention. They introduced us to services that would help attend to those problems. They designed a program to help him but fully explained it to us before it was implemented (and I mean fully – my wife and I and seven people from the school for the first meeting). We had concerns about the program’s original design. We laid them on the table. They pressed. We said NO, and they accomodated us completely.
Why did they “fold?” First, they didn’t. This wasn’t a contest. The child’s welfare was the primary concern. The school has financial and program constraints that it operates within, and we didn’t bump into those so that wasn’t a problem. Short of that, anything within reason was on the table?
Second, we respect what they do and what they have to say. They don’t know our son better than we do, but they are in a better position to address his behavior as a student than we are, and we respect their role in his education. It’s a positive relationship, born out of a mutual desire to see him succeed as a student and citizen of the community.
They have nothing to say about where he goes to church (and he does go), they are certainly an influence on him with respect to how they manage they enviornment in which he spends so much time. We think they do a damn good job.
When he was in second grade a sixth grader who also attended the school passed due to a rare blood disease. The child had been in the school since kindergarten, and he had older siblings, so the family was well known.
The principal sent a letter home with the kids that day. The letter expressed condolences to the family on behalf of the school, and to the rest of the parents it suggested how to handle the conversation if it came up at the dinner table that night.
What questions kids might ask. What services the school offered if a child required them. No religious implications were drawn. No prayers offered of any particular faith. Just warm wishes and expert advice that a qualified educator was in a position to offer.
We live in a major population center, and the kids come from all over the world. The school fosters an atmosphere of tolerance, which is only healthy. He will be living in this diverse world for the rest of his life. His mother and I teach his values, our church educates him as to the history of our faith.
We have 100% confidence in our ability to perform our role. When you have that people see it, and people give you the respect you deserve.
Tim
Tim, thanks for sharing that. I’ve got twin boys on the way, and when the only things you ever hear are negative it can get scary at times.
I watch FoxNews for research purposes only, and they pump this negativity into the public night after night after night. They complain about not hearing ‘good news’ from Iraq, yet treat an instution like the schools in the same exact way. The irony is enough to get depressed over.
differences in religion amount to who has the best imaginary friend. cause after all no religion can be proven. i am 32 and when i went to school we were not allowed to discuss evolution. this was what compelled me to look at religion closer. one conclusion i drew is religion is a form of government based in illogical idiology. form in order to bring order to society and controll the masses of people. not to bring hope or to advance the human race. but rather to hold it back(like christianity did with medicene).