I’m not for promoting one religion over another, I’m just worried that no one will be able to even mention it public if this trend keeps up. I guess I could be a tad paranoid about it, but I keep worrying that one day we will end up screening political canidates on the basis of religion.
Konrad wrote:
Of course not. As I said, there are more subtle ways to teach these character traits. I think the best way is to use stories from history to illustrate such points. For example, the story of the Scopes monkey trial would be a good illustration of the character trait of courage. Ditto the story of Galileo. 
This sort of thing was once done routinely – remember all the stories about “Honest Abe” or George Washington, who “couldn’t tell a lie?” Granted, a lot of those stories were hokum, but there is no shortage of true stories from history to illustrate admirable character traits.
Sorry, but I think some of these character traits are worth instilling. It would be nice if kids could get these lessons at home, but you know what? They don’t. Or at least a significant number of them don’t.
No, you see, it’s all because we were born a Christian nation and we’ve been going downhill since we stepped away from our own roots.
At least, that’s what they would say.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, one day, 12 hours, 29 minutes and 20 seconds.
5500 cigarettes not smoked, saving $687.60.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 20 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
You’re too late, the same people who put “respect for the creator” in the Georgia education bill were also the people who screened the presidential candidates of 1928 and 1960 according to their religion.
spoke sez:
So kids were routinely told lies in order to teach them to be honest? I dunno, but I’m guessing this only had a positive effect on the really stupid ones.
Why teach unreachable goals like perfection when it will only cause them to be dissillusioned even more when they get older? To survive the real world they’ll need more modern role models like Bill Clinton or Madonna (the new one). If you want them to be successful you should stress mediocrity in all things.
But really, do you honestly believe that you have to teach what’s wrong and right? Are there kids out there who believe virtue and courage are bad things? Do they steal because they haven’t been told they shouldn’t? Like they just have to be told it’s wrong and they’ll go “Oh! I didn’t know that! Ok, I’ll stop doing that now.”
Sure, teachers are supposed to encourage good behaviour but making a special program won’t make them any better at it.
All that’s been done is that a law is passed to tell teachers they should be doing what they already know they should be doing and categorized it. How exactly does this help?
Wow, Konrad! If they ever hand out a Nobel Prize for cynicism, you’ve got my vote. Hell, I’ll campaign for you.
Of course we should teach children to strive toward an ideal. As individuals, and as a nation, we should strive toward ideal goals, even if we never fully achieve them. Do you genuinely disagree with that, or are you just being contrarian?
tomndebb wrote:
Tom, please do your research. If Georgians had the anti-Catholic bias you seem to presume, please explain why Georgia (and much of the South) voted for Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
It strikes me that you may be denouncing bigotry and perpetuating it in the same breath.
I was not associating the issue with Georgians. I was associating the issue with people who will insist that their religious views be put forth on the public. The people who insist on sneaking “creator” language into law are the spiritual descendants of those who campaigned against Smith and Kennedy for their religion, regardless how the overall population voted.
And why would you presume that legislators who are seeking to promote a belief in “the Creator” are necessarily anti-Catholic?
By presuming bigotry, it seems to me that you are engaging in bigotry.
Sorry, Tom, but I am as sensitive to anti-Southern slurs as you are to those of an anti-Catholic nature.
Yeeesh, first Georgia, now The South?
C’mon, the Klan held lots of public rallies against Smith in Indiana (with others in Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey), making his Catholicism their only complaint against him.
My comments had to do with a mindset among certain people (regardless where they live) who would make religion a public issue. There were plenty of people who opposed Smith and Kennedy on religious grounds living in the North, as well.
Had I realized how you were going to read my first quip, I’d have been sure to throw in George Romney, except that then I would have had to explain the opposition he got over 35 years ago for being a Mormon running for governor of Michigan and the quip would have gotten bogged down in explanatory detail.
Let’s go back:
Saint Zero expressed concern that some current trends were going to result in people being prevent from participating in politics (or, at least, getting elected) because they held religious beliefs.
My point is that we have already had the experience of people being “screened” for public office because of their religious beliefs. The two most prominent examples happened to be two Catholics running for president. As it happens, (and here I find it less coincidental) the identifiable group that raised the largest objections to Smith and Kennedy on religious grounds were Fundamentalist Christians who are of the same movement of people who seek to insert religion (“the creator”) into public education.
Jews did not oppose Kennedy or Smith for being Catholic or Romney for being Mormon and they have not demanded store closings on Saturday or the study of Talmudic principles in public schools.
Episcopalians and Lutherans and Unitarians did not oppose Smith or Kennedy or Romney on religious grounds (except as individual members were aligned with Fundamentalist beliefs) and they have not sought to impose religious doctrine in schools.
Some (not all) Fundamentalist Christians did oppose Smith and Kennedy and Romney on religious grounds and it is from that group that we find attempts to put religious language into school curricula.
So I find irony in Saint Zero’s concerns when the one group that has most pushed that their religion be put into public schools is the same group that has already committed the act against which he is concerned.
Georgia is not an issue. The South is not an issue. Members of Fundamentalist Christianity are not an issue.
That one specific element of Fundamentalist Christianity that would tear down the protections of religious separation is the issue.
Tom, I’m pretty sure that nearly all of the “Fundamentalist Christians” who opposed Smith on religious grounds are dead. The problem is that you are imputing past sins to people who weren’t even alive when those sins were committed.
Let me turn this one around on you to try to help you understand my perspective:
Let’s take a heavily Catholic state, Massachussets, for example. Now let’s imagine that the legislators of Massachussets had passed a bill similarly calling for “respect for the creator”.
Let’s suppose further that I had reacted to that with the following comment:
Would your hackles be raised yet?
Suppose I further stated:
Would that get your dander up? You know it would.
My hypothetical remarks contain several presumptions:
-
That the legislation was sponsored by Catholics. (Probably true, but for all I really know, it could have been forwarded by a Protestant legislator.)
-
That the motives of the legislature are sinister. (Perhaps they were motivated by a sincere and well-intentioned, though misguided, desire to save souls.)
-
That the legislation’s proponents, being Catholic, must also necessarily be anti-Semitic. (Well, their Catholic forebears were anti-Semitic weren’t they? It stands to reason then, doesn’t it?)
See what I’m saying?
If I may, tomndebb and spoke-, my take is more basic. We already screen positively for religion - atheists need not apply. At least not for major political positions.
My own hypothetical: A candidate comes forward with a kick-ass plan for saving social security, fixing the education system, fostering economic prosperity, providing healthcare for all, and holding the line on taxes. But he doesn’t believe in God - he states there is no God, the concept is merely a construct of humanity. What do you honestly think his chances are, regardless of his acumen regarding “the issues”. How badly would his opponents get injured falling all over themselves to harp on “godlessness” as if it were a vile stain on one’s character?
You bet we screen on the basis of religion. I don’t deny people the right to vote for whomever they choose, for whatever reason they choose. That is their right, and I support that right even if I don’t agree with them in their particular motivations. I do get a kick out of people who worry that the pointy-headed liberals are going to prevent politicians from “playing the God card”, if you will. Sheesh, when pigs fly. No big-time pol ever misses a photo op going in or out of church, or praying, or invoking God for some reason or another. Worried about religion being removed from politics? See if a week goes by without it being involved. It is as endangered as the pigeon.
Shaky Jake
Why do you include this statement?
I have not imputed sinister motives to anyone.
As to your attempt to “turn it around”, there are several differences.
I have not appealed to “past history” (such as claiming that the authors of the Georgia statute are “the same people who burned witches” or anything from a remote past). I have not even linked them to the Know-Nothing Party which is considerably more recent. There is a current group with a specific philosophy to which they are entitled that has, in the course of its 120-or-so-year lifespan, opposed candidates whom they feared would interject personal religious beliefs into the legislation or enforcement of the law. This same philosophical group, with a continuous thread of leadership, has for the last 20 years or so attempted to interject their own religious beliefs into law and public education. (Scientific Creationism anyone?)
The radio shows I hear from the Moody Bible Institute (out of Chicago, IIRC, but with sources throughout the U.S.) make a great deal out of their connections going back through the 1960’s and the 1920’s to the mid-nineteenth century. They take great pride in their singleness of purpose and their continuity. Smith’s opponents may have died, but the people they taught and sent into the world are still with us.
Your presumptions, point by point:
-
The only Catholic who would sponsor this sort of legislation is the sort of historically ignorant individual that fails to remember the tradition of persecution of Catholics in this country. (You would have been safer moving the issue to contraception, or something.) Every Catholic that I have seen stand up and support this sort of legislation has strong ties to the Fundamentalist Christian “religious right.” (e.g., Pat Buchannan).
-
As noted, above, I do not think they are acting from sinister motives.
I simply find ironic the fact that the people in the philosophical tradition of opposing Kennedy (who would take his orders from Rome) or Romney (who would take his orders from Salt Lake City) because it was not right to have a person in office who would interject his personal beliefs into law are willing to insert their religious beliefs into public schools. -
Irrelevant issue. Aside from a few Anabaptists in the Low Lands, all Christians have a solid history of oppressing the Jews. Martin Luther called for their extermination. Claiming an anti-Jewish bias is not part of the discussion any more than an anti-Catholic bias, specifically, is. My earlier point was not the opposition to any specific belief, but the fact that their opposition to a person was couched in terms in which they identified the person by his religion–the point that Saint Zero feared.
If I found a Massachusetts law that prevented the sale of contraceptives (or that tried to tell public school children that contraception was wrong), and a poster expressed concern that the Catholic bishops might someday be forced to stop speaking in public, I would make the same ironic observation that I did here.
If I may interject something here…
We still screen candidates based on religion. What was the first comment made about Gore’s choice of Lieberman as a running-mate?
That he was Jewish. And there will be people who vote against him based on that. Right or wrong, spoke, people DO screen candidates based on religion, and Tom is right…the type of Fundementalist Christians that would pass this law HATE Catholics. Even today. And if you want proof, I have a message board full of proof I can show you.
Tom, unless you have information tying a majority of the Georgia legislature to some (perceived) monolithic fundamentalist conspiracy, then your observations are based entirely upon stereotype, generalization, and your own bias. I hope you will step back and think about this rather than respond in knee-jerk fashion.
And before you respond, you might consider that most of Georgia’s legislators belong to the Democratic Party, an organization hardly known for its close ties to the religious right.
You might also consider that they come from a dozen different faiths. The term “Protestant” (or even “fundamentalist”) does not describe one particular faith, but dozens of contentious, bickering denominations. Before they can all get together in some imagined back room and decide on an agenda for converting the rest of us, they’re going to have to fight it out to figure out which denomination they’re converting us to.
No conspiracy afoot here, fellas. This is the work of well-meaning, but misguided individuals in the legislature.
spoke-
Well, what exactly does it mean to teach that certain character traits are “admirable”? I don’t think it’s a good idea to be teaching depressed teenagers that they’re bad people because they aren’t cheerful, or socially ackward children that they’re bad people because they don’t have school spirit, athlectically challenged students that they’re bad people because they are lacking in sportsmanship. That seems like an incredibly good way to have another Columbine. “What, you don’t fit in? Must be something wrong with you, then!”
Saint Zero:
How do you from “You can’t endorse religion in public schools” to “You can’t mention religion in public”?
Do you think this unnamed “group” is behind the Georgia legislation? By the way, what is the name of this “group”? Where is it headquartered? I’d like to write them a letter and tell them to cut it out.
Go back to my earlier post and see. I suggested using examples from history to illustrate admirable qualities. E.g.:[ul][li]Citizenship - Perhaps a viewing of Kennedy’s inaugural address, followed by a discussion of what he meant by “Ask what you can do for your country.”[/li][li]Honesty - Maybe some discussion of John Adams, who, whatever his faults, was a principled, honest man.[/li][li]Fairness - Perhaps the history of organized labor would illustrate this one. Davy Crockett comes to mind as well, in this category, as an early proponent of the rights of Native Americans.[/li][li]Respect for others - Martin Luther King, Jr.[/li][li]Kindness - Florence Nightingale, perhaps?[/li][li]Cooperation - How about a discussion of the concept of the corporation, as a way for individuals to pool their resources and cooperate toward a common goal. Or perhaps a discussion of the Home Front during World War II.[/li][li]Perseverance - Valley Forge ring a bell?[/li][li]Sportsmanship - Some sportsmanlike words from the history books: “With malice toward none, with charity for all…”[/ul][/li]
Need I continue? If you really think teaching lessons like these will lead inevitably to “another Columbine,” then you are making an astounding logical leap. In fact, it seems like lessons on “fairness,” “tolerance,” and “compassion” would have just the opposite effect.
Again I’d like to thank everyone for their input and for helping me find people to help get the law off the books.
On another Religion in my School note, the school announcements (every morning!) advertises the meeting of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (motto, which they say on the announcements: "Remember, you don’t have to be an athlete to join.). I have retaliated by starting a club, and coming close to finding a teacher sponsor (he’s checking with the principal.) The club: Students For First Amendment Rights. Motto: You don’t have to be a student to join.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes meets in a school room, is sponsored by a teacher at the school, and is advertised by the school every morning during homeroom. Right now the Respect for the Creator is the main thing I’m going to focus on fighting by letters to people, since it applies to the entire state.
Thanks again, everyone.
So much for Saint Zero’s fear of religion disappearing from the schools, eh?
The Supreme Court has ruled that Christian student groups can utilize school facilities in the manner you describe, Jello. You are of course free to form a club advocating First Amendment rights, atheism, or paganism, for that matter.
Good luck on the “Creator” business. The law is on your side there (though I wouldn’t expect anyone to budge without litigation or at least the threat thereof).