|
Post by NewFoundGlory on Feb 16, 2005 17:06:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by UICJason on Feb 16, 2005 21:44:06 GMT -6
Interested to know what you mean by "one-sided." I've been meaning to get back to that thread, but haven't been motivated. I found it very interesting.
On to the topic at hand. This quote is disturbing.
Without religious classes, he said, "kids get into trouble and have no moral structure on which to combat drugs, sex, pornography and all that."
That is a ridiculous notion. I have not an ounce of religion in me...and there's nothing about me that is lacking in ethics.
Getting past that, I am a staunch supporter of Church and State separation. I imagine I even go too far sometimes, but I don't like god on money or in the pledge. I don't like commandments on courthouse property, and I don't like religion in schools. If the public school wants to rent out space to a church to teach CCD AFTER SCHOOL hours to willing participants, go ahead.
I understand the program is voluntary, but during school hours, this should not even be an option.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Feb 16, 2005 22:50:28 GMT -6
Let me start off by saying that I don't particularly debate politics well, and I don't know why, but the subject certainly does fascinate me.
I guess deep down inside I will always be a "traditionalist" with conservative, but not far right views. I'm for "God" being in the pledge and I'm also for things like tying religion into the presidential inauguration and having the nativity scene displayed in public around Christmas time. Why am I for these things? It's tradition. It's what our founding fathers believed in and it's what our country was/is based on. On top of that, it's stuff I grew up with and it's important to me.
UICJason, I completely agree that the quote from the article NFG cited was ludicrous, but I think the voluntary classes should continue. It appears to me those parents should've done their research before signing their kids up for the school. Now, because of their laziness, they want to go ahead and try and change the system which appears to be supported in the heavily religious town.
|
|
|
Post by UICJason on Feb 16, 2005 22:55:39 GMT -6
Let me say first, BigD, that I don't think you had any issue making your point.
Secondly, I disagree for a few reasons, but one is this: let's say random muslim dad is forced to transfer his job to random religous town, VA. In this job market, he really has no choice, and his family has to go with him. Being someone who doesn't have a ton of money, his kids will naturally go to public school. In this town he's moved to, he's already a bit alienated by random WASP tradition of this town. To make it worse, his kids now either have to go to this Christian church for religion class, or be singled out more by being the few kids who stay behind and sit in the school doing nothing, while everyone else heads off the St. Random Church for religion class.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Feb 16, 2005 23:15:46 GMT -6
That's a good point UICJason, and that really is a big problem, but when it comes down to it, I don't think everybody can be pleased. We live in an extremely diverse country and so many people believe in so many different things. It's just impossible to please everybody. I don't think that because one "different" family moves into town and disagrees with the current situation, things should automatically be changed.
I know this may be a bad analogy, as religion is a much more sensitive subject, but people have to adapt. For instance, if you, as a non-english speaker, live in Brazil and only speak Portuguese, and you decide to get up one day and move to Russia, you can't expect everybody there to learn Portuguese just to communicate with you. In this situation, I think if a particular person is that against the Bible classes, then they should have their kids not go...and at least they have that choice (Involuntary classes in public school would be very, very wrong). As an alternative, they could try to find another public school.
One thing I would suggest to the school would be to have the kids who choose not to go to Bible class be part of another group which learns something else for the time period the others are gone. I think this is the most fair situation and the kids would not lack any additional teaching.
I'd be for cancelling the classes if the majority says cancel, which clearly would not happen based on the article. However, this is something that he could take to court and likely win.
|
|
|
Post by NewFoundGlory on Feb 17, 2005 5:04:43 GMT -6
Interesting stuff. About the idea of ethics ? Why can't there be a class on ethics alone, teaching how to treat people, what's right, what's wrong, without crossing over the line into religion..... why does everyone always assume that the only way to teach ethics is with a religious method...
|
|