Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

Religion has no place in public schools. It is up to parents to educate their children on matters of religion, not the school system. If you want, send your children to sunday school, or a private school.

Now, a history course in 8th or 9th grade discussing religious history (of ALL the major religions) would be a good thing, but prayer, etc... has no place in public schools.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Religious teaching of any kind is inappropriate in public schools.

Religion has no place in schools, just as knowledge has no place in churches.

0 Replies

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?

How about looking at it as an excellent opportunity to teach the principle of separation of church and state.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

The flip side of this is that as the religious right gains ever more political power, we see increased attempts to force religious views on the public.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Rather than limit every word out of a teachers mouth to not disagree with every possible parental view, how about simply teaching to an approved curriculum? What is a teacher to do re teaching "political correctness" for the vocal child of a rabid white supremecist ?

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Sounds reasonable to me, but is contradictory to you first paragraph.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sounds reasonable to me, but is contradictory to you first paragraph.

It's not contradictory at all. I have been consistent for many year now that a public school teacher should teach honest history including an honest appraisal, both good and negative, of how religion has been a part of it, but a public school teacher should not be promoting or indoctrinating children with any form of religious belief nor should a public school teacher be promoting or indoctrinating children in any form of agnosticism or athiesm.

Putting samples of religious teaching, art, quotes, whatever on the classroom walls does not constitute any form of indoctrination in my opinion so long as no religion is intentionally favored or excluded from the mix. Most of the strident activism of the Christian right deals with that principle.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Putting samples of religious teaching, art, quotes, whatever on the classroom walls does not constitute any form of indoctrination in my opinion so long as no religion is intentionally favored or excluded from the mix. Most of the strident activism of the Christian right deals with that principle.

I am not sure what you mean by that last sentence.

0 Replies

I think Kicky that members of the activist Christian right who have objected to the public schools being stripped of all religious reference are objecting to their children being indoctrinated that it is somehow improper or shameful to believe in God or practice Christianity or whatever.

Activist athiests are just as guilty in insisting that their children be exposed to no religious anything whatsoever.

I advocate that both groups agree on a reasonable compromise that accomplishes the most important tenets of both without violating the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution.

0 Replies

And therein lies the rub. Neither side seems to want to ever give an inch.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Putting samples of religious teaching, art, quotes, whatever on the classroom walls does not constitute any form of indoctrination in my opinion so long as no religion is intentionally favored or excluded from the mix. Most of the strident activism of the Christian right deals with that principle.

I am not sure what you mean by that last sentence.

How about Judge Moore's monument? Talk about an activist judge!!

0 Replies

Foxfyre:

Give it up. The atheists and agnostics will never give you an inch.
I know that their anti-religious rants stem mainly from the fact that they want to live immoraly. Those who preach that President Bush needs a moral perspective are the ones who most seem to need a moral grounding.

No wonder they fear the expression of religion in the USA.

They cannot escape the Declaration of Independence as much as they try.

...TO WHICH THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD ENTITLE THEM.

and

THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR(not Karl Marx) WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

and

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

The learned Scholar. James Q. WIlson has written in hisbook- "The Moral Sense"

"Having thought about the matter for many years, I can find no complete explanation for the worldwide increase in crime rates that does not assign an important role to a profound cultural shift in the strength of either social constraints or internal conscience or both, and I can find no complete explanation of this cultural shift that does not implicate to some important degree OUR CONVICTIONS ABOUT THE SOURCES AND IMPORTANCE OF MORAL SENTIMENTS."

The left wing thinks that moral sentiments are found floating around in the air like so many balloons.

0 Replies

septembri wrote:

Foxfyre:

Give it up. The atheists and agnostics will never give you an inch.
I know that their anti-religious rants stem mainly from the fact that they want to live immoraly. Those who preach that President Bush needs a moral perspective are the ones who most seem to need a moral grounding.

No wonder they fear the expression of religion in the USA.

They cannot escape the Declaration of Independence as much as they try.

...TO WHICH THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD ENTITLE THEM.

and

THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR(not Karl Marx) WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

and

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

The learned Scholar. James Q. WIlson has written in hisbook- "The Moral Sense"

"Having thought about the matter for many years, I can find no complete explanation for the worldwide increase in crime rates that does not assign an important role to a profound cultural shift in the strength of either social constraints or internal conscience or both, and I can find no complete explanation of this cultural shift that does not implicate to some important degree OUR CONVICTIONS ABOUT THE SOURCES AND IMPORTANCE OF MORAL SENTIMENTS."

The left wing thinks that moral sentiments are found floating around in the air like so many balloons.

Thanks for that completely rational and unbiased opinion. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

And I thought the judge was improper in putting too much importance on the significance of those Ten Commandments in the courthouse--they were a work of art, not God. Removing them removed a work of art, not God.

And I thought the athiest idiots who demanded their removal were even more idiotic to believe that a marble art piece had any power to influence anybody and was anything more than a marble work of art.

0 Replies

And to both Kickyand September I would say that we cannot give up speaking out on ways to do things better. If we give up just because there are differences of opinion or because it is difficult, we will never move forward from the untenable places where we are.

I get very weary of those who can only slur, bash, criticize, condemn but have no clue how to do anything better. Whether I come to agree with them or not, I listen closely to those who genuinely try to reason out solutions to the inevitable dilemmas of humankind.

0 Replies

A work of art? Laughing

0 Replies

(Looks like something Albert Speers may have designed).

0 Replies

I didn't comment on the merits of the art LW. Just that a work of art is what the thing was. Smile

0 Replies

Commercial art.

0 Replies

Sometime when the thread is right I'll tell ya'll about the odyssey of Albuquerque's "Chevy on a stick".

0 Replies

Had judge Moore also placed a large statue of the Buddha, Maybe a 20' tall statue of Vishnu, and a rather vast collection of art that celebrated every religion that is valued in America then there would not have been as much a fuss.

By selecting a single religious art peice, he is stating that Judeo-Christianity is somehow more important than other religions. In America, we have the freedom to practice any religion or no religion. It is NOT up to the state to dictate that one religion is better or worse.

I think that is the major arguement against the 10 commandments being placed in the courtroom. A Judge should be expected to answer to the Law, not his/her personal Gods. IMO, he should have been removed from his position after that debacle as he has shown poor judgement and that is not something a Judge of his stature should do.

0 Replies

Now I'm going to have a morning cocktail. I'm agreeing with McGentrix.

0 Replies

Well the statue wasn't in the courtroom. It was in the lobby outside the courtroom. I agree that the judge behaved improperly.

To me the correct course of action would be to move the statue to a less conspicuous place but allow it to remain as a piece of art. The Ten Commandments aren't Christian anyway. They are Hebrew. It's just that many Christians do support the tenets they express as do proponents of many other religions that are neither Jewish nor Christian.

Now if some other group wished to donate a piece of art to the court that expressed some other religious group, I would have no problem with that either.

0 Replies

Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know