Seperation of Church and State?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by eskimo2

Let this woman wear her cross in school, and the next thing you know, Osama Bin Laden is YOUR kid's kindergarten teacher!  

Can't argue with logic. That being the case ... you're wrong. Let's talk some more about how the only place acceptable in the public sector to discriminate against a person is the educational system (bearing in mind that your example would have lesbian parents and white parents of black children up in arms ). If the teacher was a muslim woman and her religion required her to dress a certain way, then by law, she is supposedly protected from discrimination practices that deal with the way she dresses. Yet the way she dresses is a direct reflection of her religious belief. Certainly children would ask questions. Certainly the teacher will continue to dress that way if the school system demanded repeatedly that she dress "more neutral."

How is wearing a cross different? Is it different because it's supposedly optional? What if it isn't optional in the heart of that teacher's aide? She is certainly kept, by law, from actively witnessing. Is she also required by law to be ashamed of her belief? Is she required by law to dress a certain way when members of another faith are protected from such?

Wearing crosses isn't gonna brainwash the students one bit. Let go of the extreme paranoia.

Thanks.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Arlo
Then you completely misunderstand my challenge since no such claim was made. I asserted that if Chairboy preferred non-Christians over Christians when it came to professional and personal matters of life and death (or even serious issues that weren't life threatening) based soley on their faith and belief or lack thereof then I think his rationale is flawed.

Well, I don't know how else to read "Truly, if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity (no need to provide examples of hypocrisy amongst them as exists amongst all) then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," but whatever.  I don't think Chairboy mentioned anything about Christians other than a particular fundamentalist sect with a Creationist agenda.  I can only go by what he said in this thread, but it doesn't look like he had anything against Christians in general.  Maybe you know something I don't.

As far as making it a point to keep Christian beliefs and viewpoints out of education, doesn't that sound just a little bit more like an anti-Christian agenda and less like a well-rounded education?  After all, I never advocated the elimination of Darwinism or the big bang theory from the system.

As far as biology goes, I'm sure there are a ton of creation stories from all around the world that are all very interesting and quite suitable for a religion survey class.  

I will say that all theories in public school should be given an equal amount of creedence (without undue bias for or against one or the other) but to eliminate the Christian perspective yet allow all others is every bit as much an attempt to impress your own beliefs and morals upon the young without allowing them to form their own as it is your claim of Christians desiring the same.

I don't think there's any "Christian perspective" on evolution.  On one hand you have the Pope recognizing its veracity, on the other certain people who take the Genesis creation stories as a literal account of how life appeared on this planet.  I don't know how the big bang theory is taught, but giving equal time to every theory of the creation of the universe has at least some practical drawbacks.

Whether you seem to realize it or not, you have an anti-Christian bias that makes itself too readily apparent at the slightest perception, on your part, of pro-Christian/anti-anything else rhetoric. Was it your disillusionment after your seven years of Jesuit training that may have made you overly sensitive to this particular issue, you think? Not that that's truly the case but we both know that intensive religious training doesn't neccesarily result in one being a true disciple of Christ (or even result in an intimate knowledge of spiritual truths). Many a former priest can tell you that. Some current ones can if they can trust you to keep thier confessions in confidence. Christianity is no more immune to hypocrisy than any other religion, belief or philosophical claim. But to brand any and all of a particular belief as hypocrits based on your personal dealings in the past certainly seems like you're harboring unresolved issues.

Maybe I was unclear.  I went to a school taught by Jesuits for grades 6-12, not that I was in training to become a priest.  I can imagine, though, that after some discussion you would say that I actually have a pro-Catholic bias.  Perhaps it's just your admitted pro-Christian bias that is attributing me a bias I don't objectively have?  I have the suspicion that you're ascribing statements and beliefs to me that I never made or held - like when did I ever say anything like all Christians were hypocrites?  As long as we're playing armchair psychiatrists, is there some deep insecurity you have regarding your spirituality that causes you to falsely attribute statements in order to divert attention from the issues?  Paging Dr. Ripsnort.........hmm, how'd he end up on ignore???

[Dowding]

They should have religious studies lessons and teach the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. They did so at my school from ages 11 to 16.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
Well, I don't know how else to read "Truly, if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity (no need to provide examples of hypocrisy amongst them as exists amongst all) then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," but whatever.  I don't think Chairboy mentioned anything about Christians other than a particular fundamentalist sect with a Creationist agenda.  I can only go by what he said in this thread, but it doesn't look like he had anything against Christians in general.  Maybe you know something I don't.

Chairboy talks of the inferior education given in Christian private schools based solely on it's preference of creationism over evolution and talks of concern over doctors and pilots who receive such an education. I challenged, you defended, I countered, you countered. If it turns out that your defense/counter is based on an entirely different perception of what Chairboy wrote then I'll give you an opportunity to withdraw your defense (as I'm sure you'll gladly step back from such an aggressive stance in your defense of it should it prove that he really doesn't have a problem with the level of education provided by private Christian schools and the doctors and pilots that recieved their elementary education in them).

As far as biology goes, I'm sure there are a ton of creation stories from all around the world that are all very interesting and quite suitable for a religion survey class.  

Probably more of a social studies thing dealing with culture and religion and yes, there are.

I don't think there's any "Christian perspective" on evolution.  On one hand you have the Pope recognizing its veracity, on the other certain people who take the Genesis creation stories as a literal account of how life appeared on this planet.  I don't know how the big bang theory is taught, but giving equal time to every theory of the creation of the universe has at least some practical drawbacks.

The drawbacks being? Not enough time? This isn't a seminary or college we're talking about where more than the fundamentals need addressing. And everyone has a perspective on evolution. Some insist it didn't happen. That is a perspective. One need not agree with it, merely be presented with it. Same goes for a pro-evolution stance. And yes, there are Christians who accept evolution. Open-mindedness apparently isn't a trait only possessed by those with anti-Christian agendas.

Maybe I was unclear.  I went to a school taught by Jesuits for grades 6-12, not that I was in training to become a priest.  I can imagine, though, that after some discussion you would say that I actually have a pro-Catholic bias.  Perhaps it's just your admitted pro-Christian bias that is attributing me a bias I don't objectively have?  I have the suspicion that you're ascribing statements and beliefs to me that I never made or held - like when did I ever say anything like all Christians were hypocrites?  As long as we're playing armchair psychiatrists, is there some deep insecurity you have regarding your spirituality that causes you to falsely attribute statements in order to divert attention from the issues?  Paging Dr. Ripsnort.........hmm, how'd he end up on ignore???

Nonono .... my inserting a statement on Christian hypocrisy was anticipatory and pre-emptive in addressing that possible argument. If you don't think all Christians are hypocrits, well bully for you.

 My mentioning your having possible unresolved issues that make you overly sensitive to discussions involving Christianity on the boards was not meant as an attack on you, just an observation on your reactions (which seem more evident with the continuation of our discussion). You obviously didn't embrace whatever Christian teachings you recieved in grades 6-12 as truths, which is fine, but it does seem that it had a negative impact on your life. I can't imagine any other reason that you would bring it up other than to try to impress me with your superior knowledge of the spiritual side of Christianity and it's possible inspiration to do right by your fellow man. But since you seem to not hold with that point of view, I discounted it. Sorry for the "armchair psychoanalysis". It does seem to have touched a sensitive spot and it really didn't have a place in the discussion. Forgive?

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Dowding
They should have religious studies lessons and teach the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. They did so at my school from ages 11 to 16.

That's good. They only discriminated against all the other religions.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Arlo
Can't argue with logic. That being the case ... you're wrong. Let's talk some more about how the only place acceptable in the public sector to discriminate against a person is the educational system (bearing in mind that your example would have lesbian parents and white parents of black children up in arms ). If the teacher was a muslim woman and her religion required her to dress a certain way, then by law, she is supposedly protected from discrimination practices that deal with the way she dresses. Yet the way she dresses is a direct reflection of her religious belief. Certainly children would ask questions. Certainly the teacher will continue to dress that way if the school system demanded repeatedly that she dress "more neutral."

How is wearing a cross different? Is it different because it's supposedly optional? What if it isn't optional in the heart of that teacher's aide? She is certainly kept, by law, from actively witnessing. Is she also required by law to be ashamed of her belief? Is she required by law to dress a certain way when members of another faith are protected from such?

Wearing crosses isn't gonna brainwash the students one bit. Let go of the extreme paranoia.

Thanks.

I don't think the woman in your description should be allowed to wear her garb.

eskimo

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Dowding
They should have religious studies lessons and teach the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. They did so at my school from ages 11 to 16.

This is fine, as long as one religion is not advocated.

eskimo

[Toad]

Colorado's system of vouchers seems pretty "win/win".

One of the most important features of the voucher measure is that it preserves funding for a student's former public school, said Rep. Nancy Spence, the bill's main sponsor in the state legislature.

The scholarships are worth 75 percent of what the state and local districts pay to educate students - 85 percent for high schoolers.

The remaining 15 percent to 25 percent of per-pupil spending will remain with the public school as long as the child remains in school.
 
 

The school losing a student still gets 15-25% of the funding it used to get for that student, but no longer has to educate him/her.

So, class overcrowding would go down and funds available per remaining pupil go up. That's good, right?

The student that leaves gets 75-85% of what the state was going to spen on him/her anyway but MUST use it at an accredited school of his choice that agrees to take him.

Who's getting hurt here? I'm missing it.

[narsus]

Ex-Teacher here (decided to pursue other interests), I am of firm belief that teachers should not show any religious symbols or divulge their personal opinions within the classroom.

This doesn't mean that the children couldn't hold a debate and put their own views across on say nationalizing health care, or discussing pro's and con's on war with Iraq etc. That is healthy and let's them discuss their ideas with others. The teacher should be a moderator in such discussions but not inject their own opinion (that is what the students should develop on their own)

As far as the suspension I agree with Saurdaukar, both sides were extreme on this issue.

[AWMac]

Must we ALWAYS leave the Bhuddists out of the BIG picture?

[midnight Target]

Who's getting hurt here? I'm missing it.

Hurt? not sure.

I think this type of system will start building a huge gap in our society by subsidising the education of the richer members of society while drawing funds from the poorer members. If you think 85% of a public school education will allow parents to completely pay for a private education you are sadly mistaken. Consequently the rich will use the subsidy to HELP pay for private schooling, and the poor will be left holding the bag.

You make an 85% decrease in funds from a student sound like a raise! You sure you don't work as a CEO at American? Just because that student is no longer in the system, the overall infrastructure still needs to be maintained and now it will have to be done with less. Our schools here in California are falling apart around the kids....

[Rude]

I'm a Christian man who home schooled four children until this past year....they now are in public school in a strong and dedicated district here in Kansas City.

I believe teachers should educate...it's that simple. Again, being a Christian man, my witness is in my walk....how I conduct business, how I treat those under my employment and the example I show others each day is Christianity, not jewelry.

Since my children are now in public schools, I expect the teachers to educate them so they can grow and participate in our society....it's mine and my wifes job to raise them regarding spiritual issues...it's the schools job to teach them academically.

If the school has a dress code, teachers and students should comply...it's that simple.

Why are public schools failing...because families are failing...it's a social crisis and throwing all the money in the world at the problem will never fix it.

Midnight....I thought vouchers would only be available to those under a defined income level....the wealthy will not be eligible for the voucher offering....I may be mistaken, but that is my recollection of the finished legislation.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Rude
I believe teachers should educate...it's that simple. Again, being a Christian man, my witness is in my walk....how I conduct business, how I treat those under my employment and the example I show others each day is Christianity, not jewelry.

IMHO, you have just described the very best type of Christian.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Focus on the issue at hand, ignore the religious affiliation (as that article actually shows that yes, not only Christians get effected by these laws)...

She was warned, twice, she ignored it, twice.

She got an education on that matter, one she apparently never got in H.S.

When I was warned not to chew gum in class, I learned I had to either stop chewing gum or get detention.

I learned I could still chew gum, I just became conscious of it and made sure not to chew when the teacher looked at me.

She could of easily not been suspended if she had been intelligent about it, put the cross behind her shirt. She defied the administration, so she got her suspension.

Funny thing though, why is it so important to show to the world you have a cross on a necklace?

I have a tattoo that means something to me, but I don't go walking around with my shirt sleeves rolled up so everyone knows I have it.

She wanted to be a handsomehunk about the issue, she felt the repercussions. Religion is not allowed in public schools in any way, shape or form. She got her edumakatiun.
-SW

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Focus on the issue at hand, ignore the religious affiliation (as that article actually shows that yes, not only Christians get effected by these laws)...

She was warned, twice, she ignored it, twice.

She got an education on that matter, one she apparently never got in H.S.

When I was warned not to chew gum in class, I learned I had to either stop chewing gum or get detention.

I learned I could still chew gum, I just became conscious of it and made sure not to chew when the teacher looked at me.

She could of easily not been suspended if she had been intelligent about it, put the cross behind her shirt. She defied the administration, so she got her suspension.

Funny thing though, why is it so important to show to the world you have a cross on a necklace?

I have a tattoo that means something to me, but I don't go walking around with my shirt sleeves rolled up so everyone knows I have it.

She wanted to be a handsomehunk about the issue, she felt the repercussions. Religion is not allowed in public schools in any way, shape or form. She got her edumakatiun.
-SW

 sounds too much like common sense to me...

 Tronsky