Just stating that the tour director--who worked for the Supreme Court by the way--said they referred to the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. She could have been wrong.
Quote:And the only time I have seen such paranoia and hand wringing over any profession of faith by a president has been here on A2K
That's another false statement which misrepresents what has been said here.
The thing of it is, fox, that I'd be happy to see the Ten Commandments up in school, if they were there for the moth of september, then in october they'd be replaced by Buddha's Eight Fold Path, then in november by a passage from the Koran...etc. It would be just fine with me to have kids educated in religious teachings...but NOT JUST ONE RELIGION.
Would that be ok with you?
Yes!!! And thank you. Except that I would prefer the 10 commandments be hung side by side with the Eight Fold path, the Quran, a mantra from Hinduism, etc. etc. etc. and left there year round. I have never insisted on (and would object to) the presumption of Christianity being taught in a public school--Catholic school etc. of course but not public school. My only quarrel has been the presumption to make God, by whatever name children call Him, and a child's faith unacceptable in school. This I believe has been harmful and I would like for it to be remedied.
It seems to me that Irving Kristol has shown the fundamental error made by liberal secularists.
Liberal society is a secular society why disestablishes religion. People of faith have predicted that such a society would lead to a diminution of religious faith.
Kristol says that the consequences of such absolute secularism would be that more and more demands would be placed upon liberal society in the name of temporal happiness.
How does a person then define civic loyalty?
What prompts civic loyalty?
Kristol says that no merely utilitarian definition of civic loyalty is going to convince someone that it makes sense for him to die for his country.
Well, fox, I'd almost given up hope we might find a point of agreement in all of this. Bravo to both of us.
Where we might yet disagree is important, however. I think that the impetus behind restrictions on religion in schools has been to avoid the very real possibility that such expressions of faith would be singular. That would be the desire and goal of the Christian Coalition, for example. Or of Franklin Graham. Or perhaps even the goal and desire of the majority of parents in a school district or a state. So it seems to me that the problem in schools is precisely the problem that the founders sought to address ("congress shall make no law...).
However, given some system whereby multiplicity is guaranteed, then I think the proper concern your founders voiced could be mitigated. And as the function of public schools ought to be education (as contrasted with indoctrination) then students would be better equipped to understand the world. And that's a very good thing.
Also, I suspect we would disagree regarding your last sentence. I don't think 'harm' (using the meaning I suspect you have in mind) caused by the absence of religious ideas on school property or in school curricula could be established in any empirical way, other than educationally in the sense I just noted.
There may be some persons who do not have religious beliefs and display all of the virtues that are usually associated with religious teaching. That might seem to suggest that religion is unnecessary to morality.. Some people do indeed talk a great deal about the need for morality but such people are living on the moral capital of prior religious generations. That Moral Capital will be used up eventually and we will see a culture that is primarily nihilistic.
Moral reasoning requires a place to start. It requires major premises.
Where are these major premises to come from?
But you see I think children benefit from having a faith, a belief in something larger than themselves. And I think they are harmed when their education system by commission or omission suggests that their faith/God/belief is unacceptable, it is only one more step for them to believe that it is wrong. If the fear that the school will 'indoctrinate' children by exposing them to religious things is valid, then would not the opposite be true--they could be indoctrinated in athiesm by denying all references to faith/God/religion.
Also it is absurd to omit religion from education related to sociology, politics, history, language, the arts, etc. as religion has had such profound involvement and influence on the history of humankind.
The key is 'Congress shall pass no law. . ." I have always thought the courts way overstepped the intent and purpose when it seemed to strip education of all religious content of any kind. Forbidding singing of Christmas carols in the winter concert, for instance, is absurd.
Apart from that, I agree completely that it would be improper and violates all the intended principles for a teacher or public school to attempt to indoctrinate children with belief in any faith including Christianity. I disagree that the Christian coalition wants that either--they only want Christianity to not be a pariah in their children's schools.
But, foxfyre, the left wingers do indeed want Christianity to become a pariah.
The late Christopher Lasch, who was by no means a conservative wrote in his book-"The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy"( P. 215) that
"what accounts for our society's wholesale defection from the standards of personal conduct- civility- industry-self-restraint- that were once considered indispensable to democracy, was the gradual decay of religion" Lasch claimed that the Liberal elites had attitudes to religion which range from indifference to active hostility and that they had succeeded in almost removing religion from public recognition and debate.
septembri wrote:But, foxfyre, the left wingers do indeed want Christianity to become a pariah.
Taking that seriously, nearly all of our protestant churches would be "out of Christianity pariaHs" - including the World Council of Churches.
It's not what they "would be". It is what the left wing would like the Churches to become.
Lasch is even more pessimistic about the situation IN THE UNITED STATES(not the world council of churches).
Lasch says:
quote
"The collapse of religion, its replacement by the remorselessly critical sensibility exemplified by psychoanalysis and the degeneration of the "analytical attitude into an all-out assault on ideals of every kind have left our culture in a sorry state"
Let me take this point by point, because we do share some ideas here and this is kind of the nitty gritty.
Foxfyre wrote:But you see I think children benefit from having a faith, a belief in something larger than themselves.
The 'larger' word I agree with, but it isn't necessarily faith that might fill that requirement. For many people, the sciences, the arts, or history, or volunteer work, or peering through a telescope, or just the wondrous fact of self-consciousness provides a sense of membership in something larger than self alone. I think that the nature of the family and community one grows up within is really the more important factor here. Several years ago, I would now and again bump into a fellow who'd grown up in Libya and had moved to Canada as a young adult. He had a LOT of crazy (and very false) ideas about politics and the world. One day he was absolutely thrilled and excited because he'd just learned how the human eye works. He'd had no idea of this before, because nothing like it had ever been part of his 'education' in Libya. There, he'd been indoctrinated in a curriculum of Gaddafian politics and religion. And I think they are harmed when their education system by commission or omission suggests that their faith/God/belief is unacceptable, it is only one more step for them to believe that it is wrong. If the fear that the school will 'indoctrinate' children by exposing them to religious things is valid, then would not the opposite be true--they could be indoctrinated in athiesm by denying all references to faith/God/religion.
This is a tough one, because education and local religious ideas (or political ideas, or ideas of any sort) can be contradictory. The most acute example here is evolutionary theory. For many religious people, evolutionary theory (let's just call it that for simplicity here, but meaning the fundamental Darwinian notion of random genetic selection operating over long periods of time, possibly hastened by critical environmental events) poses no philosophical or faith problem. They might, and commony do posit that such is just the machinery set up by the hand of a bright and creative god. For a Christian biblical literalist however, it does pose a problem. It isn't coincidental that political or religious fundamentalists don't much like broad education of the young. Old and cherished ideas and agreements will be put at risk - its actually unavoidable. But as your first universities down there were established by the Puritans, one would be wrong to indict religion generally as an enemy of education.
I defintely do not agree that the absence of faith elements in schools constitutes indoctrination in atheism. Faith elements are missing when we fill up our gas tank or when we go shopping or sit in the dentist's chair. So it isn't the absence which is the problem, rather it is contradiction and the possible threat to the faith that parents might wish their children to continue to hold. That is why, even where a nation such as the US, which has managed something close to an ideal of freedom to believe and practice according to one's personal religious preferences, this school problem arises.
Also it is absurd to omit religion from education related to sociology, politics, history, language, the arts, etc. as religion has had such profound involvement and influence on the history of humankind. On this, we are entirely in agreement. Given only that a full and proper education will not always shine a favorable light on humans in faith communities, or on the tenets and central ideas of a faith.
The key is 'Congress shall pass no law. . ." I have always thought the courts way overstepped the intent and purpose when it seemed to strip education of all religious content of any kind. Forbidding singing of Christmas carols in the winter concert, for instance, is absurd.
Up until about a decade ago, I had saved a carol sheet from my elementary school (and I'm 56!). I'd saved it because of the very fond memories I have of Christmas celebrations at school, at church, and out caroling when we were young. It was nostalgia for times past and warm cuddly grandmothers. Again, the problem is somehow establishing school policies such that singularity of religious mention is avoided. As all our communities become more diverse, that just becomes more logistically problematic. Do we celebrate one main holiday of all faiths represented in the school? The courts, even moreso than a local principal, is faced with this problem because of the burden placed on them by the constitution. I'm glad you said 'seemed' above, because all religious content has not been stripped away by the courts.
Apart from that, I agree completely that it would be improper and violates all the intended principles for a teacher or public school to attempt to indoctrinate children with belief in any faith including Christianity. I disagree that the Christian coalition wants that either--they only want Christianity to not be a pariah in their children's schools.
That's not really a tenable argument, fox. The quote here is from Pat Robertson's book "The New World Order" (p. 18)
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'"[/[/color]quote]
The Ten Commandments are not represented on the doors of the Supreme Court. There are tablets with Roman numerals I through V and XI through X. Weinman, the designer of the friezes has stated that these represent the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments. The tablet symbol occurs again in the main room as I through X. Amateur religious sites consistantly misdirect one to believe they are the Ten Commandments. They also tout that Moses in in the friezes over the door and, in fact, he is the same size and depicted with other famous makes of law like Confucius. Do we have any practioners of all the other religions on the boards at A2K? You're all well represented within the edifice that is the Supreme Court building.
When a child is not allowed to lead his/her classmates in a simple prayer for somebody or about something that concerns the class - when a child is not allowed to read a passage from the Bible for 'show and tell' - when a teacher is prohibited from posting anything religious on the classroom walls - when a traditional Christmas carol cannot be sung at the winter choir concert -what else can a child think other than faith is bad, God is unacceptable, and the only acceptable belief is some form of athiesm?
September is making some very critical points here re the views of the founding fathers in matters of religion. Not one, not even the staunchest diests and/or athiests, thought the constitution could work other than with people of faith. And as the country becomes more and more secular, we see increased attempts to eradicate religion from the public view, more commentary on the 'historical evils of religious influence', and more court decisions that fly in the face of religious convictions and social norms.
When it comes to indoctrination, I believe it improper for a public school teacher to indoctrinate children with any religious belief or with any notion that belief is stupid, irrational, or improper. And I further believe it improper for a public school teacher to indoctrinate children with notions about sexuality, political correctness, artistic expression, etc. etc. etc. that contradict the value system of the parents and/or community.
I personally want the public schools to concentrate on teaching honest history, math, English, government, geography, economics, and the arts and leave social engineering and ideological indoctrination to parents, the churches, and the community at large.
Oh, and I do believe GWB would appoint a pro-choice judge to the bench if he was confident that the judge would interpret the law and not make law. I would guess that issue never came up with a number of his appointments to date. And I'm quite sure he has not inquired of the religious beliefs of his appointments.
Foxfyre wrote:When a child is not allowed to lead his/her classmates in a simple prayer for somebody or about something that concerns the class - when a child is not allowed to read a passage from the Bible for 'show and tell' - when a teacher is prohibited from posting anything religious on the classroom walls - when a traditional Christmas carol cannot be sung at the winter choir concert -what else can a child think other than faith is bad, God is unacceptable, and the only acceptable belief is some form of athiesm?
When a child is allowed to lead his/her classmates in a christian prayer; when a child is allowed to read passages from the Bible for "show and tell;" when a teacher posts christian messages on the classroom walls; when songs about the religious significance of the birth of Jesus are sung at a winter choir concert; what else can a non-christian child think other than his/her faith is bad, his/her beliefs are unacceptable, and that the only acceptable belief is some form of christianity?
Read the whole thread Joe. I do not advocate that ONLY expressions of Christianity be allowed but that expressions of whatever religion, but not indoctrination, should be allowed. The child who does not believe in anything should not be allowed to dictate the policy any more than the policy should be geared to the Christian child only.
I would have no problem whatsoever for the athiest child to post something like "Some put their faith in science, not religion." I would hae a huge problem with something posted that said "Put your faith in science, not religion." The difference is one acknowledges what is. The other is indoctrination that religious belief is unacceptable.
Isn't a public school a government institution, and therefore, shouldn't religion of any kind be kept out of it? Isn't that basically what separation of church and state is all about?
Not to me or to 90% of Americans. Religion is a part of our culture, our history, our art, our values. To deny that is to deny what America is. It was never the intention of the Constitution to deny it. The founders wanted no church to be able to dictate to others what they would be required to believe to be citizens in good standing and wanted no government to be able to dictate to the church what it must be or that it could not be. That is the principle that should be observed.
To forbid religious expression is as much anathema to the constitution as to require religious expression. Once America can agree on that principle, the issue should be settled.
I think religious expression should be denied in state-run institutions.
