Nothing to lose? You think that our worldview is any less vital to our sense of self, or to what we believe is good for our society and children than yours just because it doesn’t include God? You think that our freedom from religion isn’t important to us in the same way your freedom to practice yours is? Let me tell you this plainly: I do not want anyone forcing my child to listen to prayers in school because what she believes is important to me. I want her to be able to come to her own conclusions without having to feel separated from her peers by her beliefs should she choose something other than the ‘sponsored’ religion. If she chooses to go to church and learn about God that is fine by me (although I reserve the right to rebut!), but she should not be forced to listen at school.
Look at this issue logically. If our beliefs were not as important to us as yours are to you, would we have fought so long and hard to keep religion out of schools in the first place?
Unfortunately, we have gotten fairly used to laws being idiotic. It doesn’t even bother a lot of people when the Governor’s race in a state is based mostly on whether or not to repeal a tax over which the Governor’s office has no legal jurisdiction. Idiocy is the mainstay of American politics.
Your last comment should provide you with some enlightenment, if you reflect on it for a moment. There is no enforcement mechanism. There aren’t going to be jack-booted thugs running down the halls of the schools to make sure everyone is thinking “correct” thoughts.
Instead, the list of ideals is just that. A set of ideals which teachers should aspire to instill in their students. In large measure, it is voter candy, designed to allow the legislators to go back home and brag to their constituents about how they are “looking out for our kids”.
Even so, I see nothing wrong with spelling out some societal and personal ideals. As I said above, maybe it will strike a chord with some teachers, and make them think about the importance of their role in the lives of students.
And again I answer. It would be great if all parents instilled values in their children, but the sad truth is that many don’t. Maybe you live in a nice neigborhood, where all the kids live in loving, two-parent homes, and their parents are shining examples of moral rectitude. Maybe, but I doubt it.
Furthermore, think about the amount of time children spend with their teachers in a given school day. Hell, kids interact more with teachers on a daily basis than with their own parents. Are you saying that teachers should maintain strict moral neutrality on all issues during this time, and make no efforts to impress upon their students the importance of good character?
And sadly, the home life of many children provides them with few such examples. This is another reason that examples from history might be used to good effect to instill values. If the kid has no good role model at home, why not provide a George Washington or a Mohandas Gandhi or a Chief Joseph to emulate (at least in some aspects)?
Sorry; I don’t see the harm.
Schools have provided lessons in morals, character and citizenship as long as there have been schools. Go dig up an old McGuffey Reader and see how kids being taught to read in the 19th century were also being given moral lessons. Think back to the school books that were used when you learned to read. Did those stories not contain moral lessons? Do you object?
It is only a recent development that some folks have tried to impose a sort of “moral neutrality” on schools and teachers. The hell with that, sez I. We do, as a society, have a set of common values (common morals if you will), and I for one hope that during the school day, when parents are not there for their children, that someone in a position of authority will be upholding those values, and yes, teaching those values.
(And by the way, excepting the “creator” business and the “school spirit” business, are there any virtues on the Georgia list with which you have a problem? Mightn’t they fairly be considered common values?)
Should the government be foisting religion, or a belief in “the creator” on students? Absolutely not.
Does that mean that there are no “values” or “morals” which should be taught? Again, absolutely not!
Oh, I dunno. Maybe it’s the idea that there are enough messed up kids who get no attention or outright neglect and abuse as it is, without the extra burden of having to learn how to read at the hands of their abusers. Maybe it’s that we think public schools amount to at least a shot at eventual success for kids whose parents are woefully uneducated to begin with. And maybe, sometimes, for some folks, “sink or swim” really is the cruelest thing you can do to them.
Ahhh, just as I thought. It is the righteous, upstanding, morally correct school system whose job it is to teach values that all those evil, abusive, good-for-nothing parents can’t manage. And apparently it’s the governments job to ensure that the schools do it.
Why don’t we just simplify, cut out the middle man, and have all children relegated to government institutions upon birth, so we don’t have to take any chances that the parents screw up. Yeah, that’d solve it.
[sub]…whoops, look like I blew another sarcasm filter…[/sub]
My quote was taken out of its original context, which was directed at Shaky Jake’s discussion on exchanges between private individuals.
I agree 100% with the separation of Church and State and I am adamantly against prayer, or even religious assemblies in schools.
In fact, I don’t believe that religious schools should exist, because the interests of religious indoctrination frequently conflict with the interests of balanced education.
While that very well be what you believe it means, there is no guarantee that this will be what school officials will believe it means. One of the many things that I have learned in my time on Earth is that humans are very good at perverting good idea into bad ideas.
You’re completely misrepresenting my point, and I resent it.
beakerfx:
Actually, you’re missing an even bigger problem with Saint Zero’s position: there is absolutely nothing illegal about worship in public schools! If students want to spend their lunch holding a Mass, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Saint Zero
Just because he was elected, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t hurt by his Catholicism.
So… who is “they”? And just how are “they” going to get the power to stop public worship? Remember, something like 95% of Americans believe in God. Really think the other 5% are going to be able to (or even interested in) eliminate public worship?
Sweet_Lotus
First of all, do not pretty much all religions say that all others are wrong? Why is it okay for a Christian to say “I’m right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong”, but not this is not okay when an atheist says it? Secondly, what’s wrong with saying that someone’s faith is childlike (Not childish, childlike. You’re the one that brought in the word “childish”, not Shaky Jake). In Catechism, we were taught they we were supposed to have the faith of a child.
So some of you think that an atheist candidate could get elected, if she/he weren’t so “militant”? Could you please enlighten me as to how an atheist candidate could publically state her/his belief system and not appear “militant” in your eyes?
I’m not one of the “some of you” . . . but I am Catholic, if that makes a difference.
So long as people don’t go trying to shove their religious beliefs down my throat, I’m fine. Someone saying “I don’t believe in the existence of any god(s), God, creator, etc” doesn’t strike me as militant any more than I would hope me saying “I believe in God” would strike any of you who don’t believe that. I’m just stating my belief, not trying to say anything about myself or you through it.
BTW, the tenets at my grade school: Courtesy, Honestly, Industriousness, Positiveness. In a word, Ha. I can count on one hand the number of students in my grade who were all four at any one point in time to me.
Firstly, just when did anyone say anything about trying to take away someone’s faith? Secondly, this implies that a faith, any faith, is better than no faith at all. This is exactly the pompous, intolerant attitude that will keep any atheist from winning the presidency any time soon.
I’m sorry, I missed the point when it was declared that Shaky Jake speaks for all atheists.