Teaching Christianity in the Public Schools...

[Nepenthe]

Are there really so many of these nutters that they warrant "all those"?

I must admit I have never met or seen any such teachers (but I am not American and frankly I can't put up with Dawkin's diatribes so I couldn't sit through the Darwin programs).

I must admit that I am an American and have never met or seen any such teachers, either. I'm assuming that they generally teach at Christian private schools. Luckily, you can choose whether you send your child to one of these. I also agree with you about Dawkins.

 

[Sybarite]

I must admit that I am an American and have never met or seen any such teachers, either. I'm assuming that they generally teach at Christian private schools. Luckily, you can choose whether you send your child to one of these. I also agree with you about Dawkins.

So what is this 'non-liberal' education, then? I mean, if there's a 'liberal' education, there must be a 'non-liberal' education, mustn't there?

Can anyone define it? I assume you'll have brilliantly easily defined the 'liberal' sort first, mind. But, rather shockingly, nobody has done that yet, although our dear friend Robert certainly implied that such a thing existed.

However, that aside, it's quite cute how some posters are getting antsy about my very tame questions, as though they're defending something.:devil:

BTW, Nepenthe, what in particular do you disagree with that Richard Dawkins has said? What of his work have you read? Have you read any Darwin?

 

[Nepenthe]

So what is this 'non-liberal' education, then? I mean, if there's a 'liberal' education, there must be a 'non-liberal' education, mustn't there?

Can anyone define it? I assume you'll have brilliantly easily defined the 'liberal' sort first, mind. But, rather shockingly, nobody has done that yet, although our dear friend Robert certainly implied that such a thing existed.

However, that aside, it's quite cute how some posters are getting antsy about my very tame questions, as though they're defending something.:devil:

BTW, Nepenthe, what in particular do you disagree with that Richard Dawkins has said? What of his work have you read? Have you read any Darwin?

I don't know what a "liberal" education. I never coined the term. You tell ME what it is. I also don't know what a "non-liberal" education is. I also never used that term. All I stated was that I don't know any of any schools that teach Creationism as a science.

If you would like to tell me what a you think a "liberal" education is, I will tell you whether I would have my child receive one or not. I believe in teaching my children to think for themselves, so keep that in mind.

No, I haven't read any of Richard Dawkins work. I know enough that I don't choose to. (Hint: God and religion are two different things. Also, there is no scientific evidence of an "altruistic gene".) If you like his work, it's none of my business what you read or don't read.

No, I haven't read any Darwin. Why do you ask?

I am also curious why you seem so defensive towards me. This is only my second post here. I haven't said all that much yet. :whistling:

 

[joderu95]

I must admit that I am an American and have never met or seen any such teachers, either. I'm assuming that they generally teach at Christian private schools. Luckily, you can choose whether you send your child to one of these. I also agree with you about Dawkins.

I am also American and have never met such a teacher and I absolutely believe they exist. Generally they would be at Christian schools but those aren't the problem or even the issue in this thread for that matter. It's the ones who do it in a public setting which is paid for by tax dollars and try to undermine the separation of church and state.

 

[Nepenthe]

I am also American and have never met such a teacher and I absolutely believe they exist. Generally they would be at Christian schools but those aren't the problem or even the issue in this thread for that matter. It's the ones who do it in a public setting which is paid for by tax dollars and try to undermine the separation of church and state.

What separation of church and state? Is that in the Constitution? Could you tell me where?
Also, could you tell me where education funded by federal tax dollars is found in the Constitution?

 

[Libra]

 

[joderu95]

What separation of church and state? Is that in the Constitution? Could you tell me where?
Also, could you tell me where education funded by federal tax dollars is found in the Constitution?

The separation that you should very much be in favor if you don't want your church tainted. Why should it need to be written into the Constitution? There are any number of examples of things that are not expressed by the U.S. Constitution but have still become basic rights. Maybe this will help answer your question. It seems like a handy argument though doesn't it. If it isn't written in there it must not be so.

 

[Sybarite]

I don't know what a "liberal" education. I never coined the term. You tell ME what it is. I also don't know what a "non-liberal" education is. I also never used that term. All I stated was that I don't know any of any schools that teach Creationism as a science...

I didn't say that any schools taught "creationism as science". Did I? :twisted:

I said that there are schools (including in the UK), where evolution in condemned and creationism is proclaimed. That is not the same thing.

Anyway, I'm glad that I'm wrong and a large percentage of the population of a supposedly educated and sophisticated nation don't actually believe that the world was created by some invisible magician in the sky in six days about 6,000 years ago – in the face of all scientific evidence.

If you would like to tell me what a you think a "liberal" education is, I will tell you whether I would have my child receive one or not. I believe in teaching my children to think for themselves, so keep that in mind...

I did not introduce the phrase in this thread. However, earlier in this thread (you must have missed it), I said that a 'liberal education' was about teaching young people to think for themselves. Someone came on and said that was nonsense, that a 'liberal education' taught people what to think, that there was no morality anymore because that had been destroyed by political correctness and political correctness had also been to blame for "Hitler's Germany". It was a very funny post – I recommend it for anyone in need of a laugh. I hope that also provides you with a little bit of context.

I have also been asking SGF75 what he thinks a 'liberal education' is, since he's fixated on how awful one is and how apparently incapable of instilling any 'morality'.

... No, I haven't read any of Richard Dawkins work. I know enough that I don't choose to...

How seriously would you take a film reviewer who wrote a review of a film without seeing it?

... (Hint: God and religion are two different things...

Indeed. Religion exists.

... Also, there is no scientific evidence of an "altruistic gene".)...

Boy, that was out of leftfield. :lol: Who has suggested otherwise and what does it have to do with this discussion?

... No, I haven't read any Darwin. Why do you ask?

... I am also curious why you seem so defensive towards me. This is only my second post here. I haven't said all that much yet. :whistling:

Me defensive? :lol: You seem to be the one who dived in to agree over a comment about Dawkins – that was also made completely out of the context of this debate, but some of those religious types get so defensive about Dawkins. And Darwin. And evolution.

Now, perhaps someone can comprehend what SGF75 was meaning when he seemed to suggest that a 'liberal education' (there we go again) could not teach morals. I'm so curious.

 

[joderu95]

What separation of church and state? Is that in the Constitution? Could you tell me where?

Here you go.

The Establishment Clause of The First Amendment

 

[PipPirrip]

Me defensive? :lol: You seem to be the one who dived in to agree over a comment about Dawkins – that was also made completely out of the context of this debate, but some of those religious types get so defensive about Dawkins. And Darwin. And evolution.

Sorry about my comment. The context was, I assumed that when you were talking about a seeing a teacher teaching creationism on a recent program about Darwin, you were refering to something on the series presented by Dawkins earlier this month.

So, my message might be more clearly expressed as

"are there really lots of such nutters? I wouldn't have thought so as I have no experience of them - but I do allow for the possibility that they are more prevelant in America than the UK and there may be lots of references on the programs about Darwin".

 

[Revised]

Wow, this certainly has become an interesting thread! :lol:

 

[SFG75]

I didn't suggest it was But you're exceptionally naive if you think that one example, anecdotally posted on a message board, is 'liberal' education per se.

The thread deals with the teaching of Christianity in public schools. As a related matter, it's a fact that thousands of children are not in public schools due to a perceived "adversarial" climate that exists towards Christian values. To many, the permissive or "loose" values of educators, personifies the case that public schools are antithetical to what they believe from top to bottom.

Are your prisons all full of atheists, by the way?

I teach at a juvenile facility for adjudicated youth. I would say on average that most of them are for the most part, atheist or indifferent. Their parents definitely are, with a few notable exceptions. To me, that is quite telling.:whistling:

So, you state that someone here is wrong for (apparently) telling students their beliefs (and I don't necessarily disagree with you on this point – although telling them what someone believe is not the same as saying that they should believe the same) – but you just want your (unprovable, unscientific) beliefs taught to children as fact, eh? Not a lot of difference really, is there?

Well, I wouldn't tell them about drug use and other illicit behavior, more out of a professional obligation, than a theological one. My job is to create a neutral environment, which doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with relativism or nihilism. My beliefs aren't given to my students at all. If they write an essay about their beliefs or create an art work out of some important icon to them, then so be it-that's not indoctrination. It's furthering their own talents and interests across the disciplines. I am not Catholic, a Jehovah's Witness, nor do I follow a Native American religious practice. When I respect and allow those beliefs to be expressed through examples as cited earlier, they are learning "critical thinking" and higher learning skills. All without my own bias. However, I expect perfection according to the grading rubric.

 

[Champagne]

For information about teaching of creationism in the USA, you can check out the front page (and the news archives) of this organisation:

National Center for Science Education

There are hotbeds of creationism, intelligent design, "teach the controversy," and other euphemisms for creationism popping up all over the place. The Kitzmiller vs Dover trial put a bit of a crimp in their style but it won't stop them. As the ID people themselves have said, science education is just the first step; the actual aim is to remake society as a Christian nation with the laws of the land adjusted accordingly.

The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture

Interesting how their wishlist for the future looks a lot like the right wing of the Republican party. For these people, "liberal" and "tolerant" are dirty words. The only time they're interested in people being tolerant is in their expectation that scientists should tolerate having creationism taught as science even though it isn't.

As for the situation in Britain, it's a bit harder to keep creationism under control because there's no constitutional requirement for public education to have a secular basis, and several American creationist groups have set up shop in Britain. One of the most high-profile creationist infiltration into mainstream education is that of the Vardy academies; a high-profile case involving Emmanuel College hit the headlines in 2002.

Emmanuel Schools Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was an article, written by the Head of Science (yes, science) at Emmanuel College, posted at the Christian Institute site but taken down "temporarily" at the time of the controversy. Fortunately, a cached version has been preserved here:

Science Teaching for creationists

There are still all sorts of articles about teaching other subjects from a Christian perspective (by which they mean a fundamentalist biblical literalist perspective) at the Christian Institute website here:

Education lectures

There are reports of creationist teaching around Britain, and until recently (and I hope it's been removed but I don't know) the National Curriculum Key Stage 4 science standards specifically mentioned Darwin's theory of evolution as controversial.

BCSE : Current Campaigns

 

[Champagne]

What separation of church and state? Is that in the Constitution? Could you tell me where?

Right next to "right to a fair trial."

 

[joderu95]

And for the driving force behind Intelligent Design in the U.S. get a load of the Discovery Institute, much to Seattle's embarrassment.

 

[Sybarite]

The thread deals with the teaching of Christianity in public schools. As a related matter, it's a fact that thousands of children are not in public schools due to a perceived "adversarial" climate that exists towards Christian values. To many, the permissive or "loose" values of educators, personifies the case that public schools are antithetical to what they believe from top to bottom...

And what values are these that are unique to Christianity? And what "permissive" values are these? I'm curious to see the evidence for all this – imagine, mass swathes of teachers shagging and smoking dope in front of the children! Oooo, I can feel the outrage already. Now, obviously you have the evidence for all this – and can post it here. Because you cannot possibly be objecting to what teachers do in their private lives, could you?

... I teach at a juvenile facility for adjudicated youth. I would say on average that most of them are for the most part, atheist or indifferent. Their parents definitely are, with a few notable exceptions. To me, that is quite telling.:whistling:

Oh well. At least the government/state won't have to worry employing any clergy to minister to all the inmates of prisons and other such institutions, will they? I mean, all the inmates will be atheists – 'cos only those dodgy godless types will commit crimes, won't they?

Actually, there are times that I like the idea of a hell – so that murdering scum like George Dubya Bush and his poodle Tony Blair might themselves actually suffer for the suffering that they cause. But I'm sure that nice Christians like them will be going for one big love-in with their maker, won't they?

... Well, I wouldn't tell them about drug use and other illicit behavior, more out of a professional obligation, than a theological one...

So teachers in 'liberal' educational establishments teach pupils about "illicit" behaviour, do they? Because this is the implication of what you've posted here. I do hope that history teachers don't teach students about the Holocaust then, because to continue this logic, it would be to teach them about murder and genocide, and we can't have things like that now, can we?

... My job is to create a neutral environment, which doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with relativism or nihilism. My beliefs aren't given to my students at all...

Ah. So, in terms of education, you want a "neutral environment" for students. Which is why you're coughing up loads of cash to send your own children to a school with a particular religious creed because the state sector won't be "neutral" enough for your taste. Does the word "neutral" have a different meaning in the US, perchance?

... If they write an essay about their beliefs or create an art work out of some important icon to them, then so be it-that's not indoctrination...

Who said that it would be? Oh, that's right. Nobody.

... It's furthering their own talents and interests across the disciplines. I am not Catholic, a Jehovah's Witness, nor do I follow a Native American religious practice...

Well good for you. I'm not sure what relevance it has to the question under discussion, but good for you.

... When I respect and allow those beliefs to be expressed through examples as cited earlier, they are learning "critical thinking" and higher learning skills. All without my own bias. However, I expect perfection according to the grading rubric.

What you "expect", on the basis of your earlier posts, is not this. What you "expect" is that a teacher will teach things that you agree with – specifically a 'moral education' (I think that that was your phrase) that you agree with, which, on the basis of your comments here is based on a specific religious ethos.

 

[SFG75]

And what values are these that are unique to Christianity? And what "permissive" values are these? I'm curious to see the evidence for all this – imagine, mass swathes of teachers shagging and smoking dope in front of the children! Oooo, I can feel the outrage already. Now, obviously you have the evidence for all this – and can post it here. Because you cannot possibly be objecting to what teachers do in their private lives, could you?

You answered the first half of your question by your statement in the latter half. I took issue with our member who stated that they talked about pot smoking and "other matters" and related as to why that kind of attitude harms public education in the states. I oppose doing so only on professional grounds that your private behavior should not be brought into the workplace. For a dedicated Christian, it's another reason to homeschool and to view public education with a raised eyebrow.

Oh well. At least the government/state won't have to worry employing any clergy to minister to all the inmates of prisons and other such institutions, will they? I mean, all the inmates will be atheists – 'cos only those dodgy godless types will commit crimes, won't they?

Personal observation only, but the fact still remains. Oh yeah, and "religious cordinators" are hired to conduct services and to arrange visits for our incarcerated youth with their respective clergyman/woman if they so desire. The pews are rather empty on average, which also plays a role in my observation on the matter. I didn't say "all," that was your fabrication.

Actually, there are times that I like the idea of a hell – so that murdering scum like George Dubya Bush and his poodle Tony Blair might themselves actually suffer for the suffering that they cause. But I'm sure that nice Christians like them will be going for one big love-in with their maker, won't they?

I'm not a conservative at all, and yes, I agree that it's rather ironic that a "pro-life" president is viewed as being such when his own policies have led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers needlessly.

So teachers in 'liberal' educational establishments teach pupils about "illicit" behaviour, do they? Because this is the implication of what you've posted here. I do hope that history teachers don't teach students about the Holocaust then, because to continue this logic, it would be to teach them about murder and genocide, and we can't have things like that now, can we?

Apples and oranges comparison there. It's one thing to teach a historical event of such a large scale, as opposed to a person of questionable ethics and morals going on and on in class in front of young people who have yet to solidify, to a large extent, what they believe.

Ah. So, in terms of education, you want a "neutral environment" for students. Which is why you're coughing up loads of cash to send your own children to a school with a particular religious creed because the state sector won't be "neutral" enough for your taste. Does the word "neutral" have a different meaning in the US, perchance?

Not "neutral" enough, good enough. That is also reflected through testing data, not to mention the fact that on average, parents who send their children to private schools are more satisfied with the results. I'm not worried about "heathen" teachers, just bad ones. The phrase "loads of cash" is an overstatement if there ever was one. Crude Marxism aside, the amount of money I pay for their education doesn't equal out what kids blow to maintain a colletion of Nikes or video games.:lol:

What you "expect", on the basis of your earlier posts, is not this. What you "expect" is that a teacher will teach things that you agree with – specifically a 'moral education' (I think that that was your phrase) that you agree with, which, on the basis of your comments here is based on a specific religious ethos.

[/QUOTE]

Please post the exact quotation from me where I state specifically, that I will only send my kids to a place where their education will only "agree" with that of mine own.

 

[Sybarite]

You answered the first half of your question by your statement in the latter half. I took issue with our member who stated that they talked about pot smoking and "other matters" and related as to why that kind of attitude harms public education in the states. I oppose doing so only on professional grounds that your private behavior should not be brought into the workplace. For a dedicated Christian, it's another reason to homeschool and to view public education with a raised eyebrow...

You used one anecdotal example to lambast "liberal education" and to complain about the lack of "moral education" in public schools. Please make your mind up.

... Personal observation only, but the fact still remains. Oh yeah, and "religious cordinators" are hired to conduct services and to arrange visits for our incarcerated youth with their respective clergyman/woman if they so desire. The pews are rather empty on average, which also plays a role in my observation on the matter. I didn't say "all," that was your fabrication...

If the US situation is anything like the UK, then I suspect, as shown time and time again by the UK census, a considerable majority of people still describe themselves in some form of religious manner. Only a very small percentage of people actually list themselves as 'atheist'. Most people will list themselves as 'CofE' (Anglican) or 'Catholic' or whatever other religion they still have a sense of belonging to. They night go to church once or twice a year at most (weddings and funerals), but it's still there.

...I'm not a conservative at all...

I didn't actually say that you were, but I would suggest that, on the basis of reading your posts here (and elsewhere), you are conservative rather than 'liberal' (meant in the loose, social sense and not the economic one). I certainly wouldn't describe you as politically left of centre.

... and yes, I agree that it's rather ironic that a "pro-life" president is viewed as being such when his own policies have led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers needlessly...

It's not just the 'pro-life' nonsense and irony, it's all the 'born again' rubbish, it's the 'Presidential prayer team' (have you seen that website? It's nauseating). It's the blocking science when he's too dumb to even understand what he's blocking. And on the basis of what? An unprovable, subjective belief that was not, as far as I am aware, a written part of any electoral manifesto upon which Bush and Cheney stood in 2000. The same sort of thing pissed me off about Blair, BTW – and continues to piss me off with Brown to a degree and other members of the current British government.

... Apples and oranges comparison there. It's one thing to teach a historical event of such a large scale, as opposed to a person of questionable ethics and morals going on and on in class in front of young people who have yet to solidify, to a large extent, what they believe...

You've taken the anecdotal claims of one anonymous poster on an internet forum and extrapolated that into being "liberal education". As I said earlier, I didn't necessarily disagree with your sentiments about those comments. But I'm now intrigued by "a person of questionable ethics and morals". Given the Constitution, who gets to judge this and do you want it part of the interview process for teaching jobs?

Interviewer: 'Well Mr X, and what's your sex life like? Are you a heterosexual, monogamous, married man who never wanks and never watches porn?'

Interviewee: 'I admit to having read The Story of O when I was much younger ...'

Interviewer: 'That's it! No way we're hiring you!'

Again, your assertion is based on a subjective idea of "ethics and morals". Now this is not actually a debate about saying that 'your ethics and morals and bad and mine are good' etc. But it needs to be clear that those ethics and morals ARE subjective. Just as subjective as someone else's who thinks that there is nothing wrong with sleeping around with fellow consenting adults and smoking the occasional joint.

... Not "neutral" enough, good enough. That is also reflected through testing data, not to mention the fact that on average, parents who send their children to private schools are more satisfied with the results. I'm not worried about "heathen" teachers, just bad ones. The phrase "loads of cash" is an overstatement if there ever was one. Crude Marxism aside, the amount of money I pay for their education doesn't equal out what kids blow to maintain a colletion of Nikes or video games.:lol

So it was nothing to do with the "moral education" that you posted about earlier, then, and everything to do with the quality of education?