Disturbing Christian material . . . . . . . .

[El_Machinae]

Well, maybe it's not rational, but you have to understand that for a lot of people their religion is as true, and in the same way, as mathematics.

Mathematics are a lot like a good religion - a system of thought based on a few assumptions.

A real circle might not exist, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss it in detail.

 

[Perfection]

That said, the school in the OP is a private school. They could have a curriculum tailored to revolve around the worship of Santa Claus and his elves and it would be nobody's business but their own, because all who study there will be doing so voluntarily and exclusively. Non-believers won't be studying there in the first place.

Not neccearily the case, generally it's the parent's decision to place a kid in one of these schools.

Your right but i don't see how that is much diffrent to other places. Other religous schools also are highly intollerent of dissent, i don't see why this place is particulary different and newsworthy

It's not, we're just pointing at it and saying "that's bad"

 

[DBear]

Why hasn't this thread been closed? There is another bashing thread that go closed after 7 posts. This has 7 pages of posts and is still open.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I have to say that going to a Catholic high school was good for me. I found the religious education not particularly bothersome, and monthly masses and prayers in class not at all a burden; I also got a good education, and the student body (coming from all over two counties, rather than a few neighborhoods) far more diverse, especially considering the small size (another plus), than I would have seen in a public school.

 

[Leatherneck]

I have to say that going to a Catholic high school was good for me. I found the religious education not particularly bothersome, and monthly masses and prayers in class not at all a burden; I also got a good education, and the student body (coming from all over two counties, rather than a few neighborhoods) far more diverse, especially considering the small size (another plus), than I would have seen in a public school.

I went to Catholic school 1-10 (that's all they had) I didn't have to take religion classes as I'm Methodist, but when I got to public school to do 11-12, the kids from the Catholic school went to the 12th grade advanced classes because we were so far ahead of the 11th graders when we got there, so private school in my opinion advances much faster because it's not held back by government regulation to only go as the slowest student, either that or nuns don't care about there pay check and care about their job.

 

[Whomp]

I went to Catholic school 1-10 (that's all they had) I didn't have to take religion classes as I'm Methodist, but when I got to public school to do 11-12, the kids from the Catholic school went to the 12th grade advanced classes because we were so far ahead of the 11th graders when we got there, so private school in my opinion advances much faster because it's not held back by government regulation to only go as the slowest student, either that or nuns don't care about there pay check and care about their job.

I think there's another aspect of the Catholic schools that should not be discounted. My buddies who went to the Catholic school have a phenomenal network. They have alumni events all the time. You can't teach networking. The only guys I see from high school are the guys I played ball with.

 

[Leatherneck]

I think there's another aspect of the Catholic schools that should not be discounted. My buddies who went to the Catholic school have a phenomenal network. They have alumni events all the time. You can't teach networking. The only guys I see from high school are the guys I played ball with.

Sssshhhh .... networks are not to be revealed. Don't want the public school grads to feel left out and yes I still do a lot of business with folks I went to Catholic school with even if I'm infidel of Mary. Same is true with the Service, tend to favor doing business with former Marines (first) and the other branchs next, and non service last. Clearly there are exception to every rule and every network. It can get complex if you have people in one network, yet they don't like people in another network and you are dealing with most ... gee seems like politics.

 

[Truronian]

Did people ignore me. I said that most of the private schools give their kids a better education.

Truonian how old are you 14 or 15? you sound like you are rebeling from your parents at the moment.

Thanks. It was my choice to go to the school I went to, but not all my freinds has such a luxury. 18 by the way.

Schools also force reading and mathematics on children. It is their purpose. To view a school as anything but an extension of parental/guardian authority is wrongheaded, hence the self contradictory comment. If a school teaches a specific religion along with reading, writing and arithmatic, then it is doing its job.

J

No, the job of schooling is to train kids for life. Are maths and reading necessary in life? Yes. Is religion? No.

 

[CurtSibling]

Why hasn't this thread been closed? There is another bashing thread that go closed after 7 posts. This has 7 pages of posts and is still open.

Oh golly!

People making opinions...We must move to close this thread down!

Next, please!

.

 

[Kosez]

I'm a atheist. If later in my live I find out that some religion suits me I'll embrace it. But it will be my own choice. Choosing your own religion is a constitutional right in my country and I believe is also a basic human right.

Now, if you are sent to school from original post, it will be a bit difficult to exercise that right.
It may be possible later in you life but it certainly will be more difficult than if you originate from non-religious school. Reasons: itsy-bitsy of indoctrination, fear of being excluded from your social network you developed in school, etc...

I don't know, I'm glad we don't have religious schools and that I wasn't sent to one. Not for sake of my atheism but for sake of my social networking, understanding of other cultures and religions,...

 

[classical_hero]

And the fundamental problem in your idea , dear friend , is : who decides what is a "proper education" ? For the Christians , it is one thing , for the Muslims , it is another , and for you , it is something else .

That is why I hold that even though I might consider this school's actions disturbing ( at least in the material they teach ) , they must still be given the freedom to teach as they wish ( as long as , of course , the children they teach are properly educated in the secular subjects which are mandatory for all students , and can perform normally on standardised tests ) .

Freedom of religion is very precious , and I would not have it compromised .

Excellent post.

 

[Truronian]

And the fundamental problem in your idea , dear friend , is : who decides what is a "proper education" ? For the Christians , it is one thing , for the Muslims , it is another , and for you , it is something else .

That is why I hold that even though I might consider this school's actions disturbing ( at least in the material they teach ) , they must still be given the freedom to teach as they wish ( as long as , of course , the children they teach are properly educated in the secular subjects which are mandatory for all students , and can perform normally on standardised tests ) .

Freedom of religion is very precious , and I would not have it compromised .

The question is, why must a child obey the tenants of his parent's religion, especially if they themselves do no believe it? Does freedom of religion only apply to adults?

 

[aneeshm]

The question is, why must a child obey the tenants of his parent's religion, especially if they themselves do no believe it? Does freedom of religion only apply to adults?

Below a certain age , a child is not qualified to make his own decisions . It is the fault of the parent if they are coercive . This school is meant to be used by Christain parents who want to give their willingly Christian children a Christian education . If some close-minded or intolerant Christian parent sends his non-Christian ( atheist , agnostic , or some other ) child to this school , it is not the fault of the school that this happened .

It is the fault of the parent . Because it is parents who are responsible for their child's education .

The same thing can happen when a child from a public school wants to attend a Christian one , but the parents refuse because they are close-minded atheists . In both cases , the fault lies with the parent for not giving due consideration to the wishes of the child , not on the schools . This school was set us as a haven for Christians , and someone else who sends his child there is committing a mistake , plain and simple .

The school , you will notice does not want non-Christains . It wants people who it agrees with , and who will agree with it . If you disagree and still send your disagreeing child there , that's just dumb on your part . How can you fault the school for just existing ?

As for why a child must adopt his parents' religion - there is nothing that forces him to . Religion evolves with time , precisely because each generation's interpretation of their ancestral religion is different . As to why most children do , in fact , adopt their parents' religion - that is because of the way they are raised .

What exactly do you want - that parents do not teach their children about any religious idea whatsoever ? That they leave their child's religious education ( as in education about their own religion ) to the public school system - which by definition cannot provide a religious education , secular as it is ( due to the law prohibiting the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion ) , and is usually actively anti-religious ?

 

[shadow2k]

I don't understand why religion and school is intertwined anyway. I mean, I was always taught religion in the home, or on the weekends in church/sunday school/whatever.

As long as the kids are getting taught what they are supposed to be taught, I don't see a big problem. It's a private school. I feel bad for the kids, but parents teach their kids all sorts of stuff that not everyone is going to agree with. And they'll do it regardless of what type of school the kid gets sent to.

I do wonder how history and science differ in a religion school though.

 

[Truronian]

Below a certain age , a child is not qualified to make his own decisions .

They are qualified to make some. You can't really decide what a child believes for them.

It is the fault of the parent if they are coercive . This school is meant to be used by Christain parents who want to give their willingly Christian children a Christian education . If some close-minded or intolerant Christian parent sends his non-Christian ( atheist , agnostic , or some other ) child to this school , it is not the fault of the school that this happened .

It is the fault of the parent . Because it is parents who are responsible for their child's education .

The same thing can happen when a child from a public school wants to attend a Christian one , but the parents refuse because they are close-minded atheists . In both cases , the fault lies with the parent for not giving due consideration to the wishes of the child , not on the schools . This school was set us as a haven for Christians , and someone else who sends his child there is committing a mistake , plain and simple .

So then we punish the children that have bad parents?

The school , you will notice does not want non-Christains . It wants people who it agrees with , and who will agree with it . If you disagree and still send your disagreeing child there , that's just dumb on your part . How can you fault the school for just existing ?

Because it forces the religious aspect on its students. Why cannot it not simply leave the religious aspects as optional?

As for why a child must adopt his parents' religion - there is nothing that forces him to . Religion evolves with time , precisely because each generation's interpretation of their ancestral religion is different . As to why most children do , in fact , adopt their parents' religion - that is because of the way they are raised .

I disagree, in my opinion children adopt their parents religion because thats all they know. If you've been sent to church and Sunday school for ten years you can't blame a child for believing in Christianity rather than, sy, Islam. This is not really relevent to this thread however.

What exactly do you want - that parents do not teach their children about any religious idea whatsoever ? That they leave their child's religious education ( as in education about their own religion ) to the public school system - which by definition cannot provide a religious education , secular as it is ( due to the law prohibiting the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion ) , and is usually actively anti-religious ?

I would prefer it if schools stuck to teaching facts and figures rather than beliefs. Religious education is still nessecary, because religion is a major part of this world. However, none of these belief system should be presented as the truth, they should be presented from an neutral viewpoint.

 

[aneeshm]

They are qualified to make some. You can't really decide what a child believes for them.

No , you can't . The point ?

So then we punish the children that have bad parents?

What you fail to realise is that the education of the child is the parent's job - not yours , not mine , and very definitely not the state's . Thus , any interference in that process is unjustifiable - unless the parent is abusing the child , in which case standard criminal law is applicable .

And how do you define "bad parents" ? Is wanting your child to grop up in your religion and being exposed to your religion or culture now a bad thing ? Most children passionately believe that they do not want to go to school . Does that mean that all the parents who send their children to school against their wishes are bad parents ?

Because it forces the religious aspect on its students. Why cannot it not simply leave the religious aspects as optional?

Because its avoved purpose is to provide a Christian education ? It explicitly says that it is meant for Christians , not for others . Of other choose to come there , that is their decision . If a child who is not Christian feels stifled in this atmosphere , he should tell his parents and request them to put him in another school .

They are not defrauding anybody - they say it out loud for everyone to hear that they provide a Christian education . If someone does not like it , they are free to choose some other school .

As I said before , putting a child in an environment which he is not fit for or which is not fit for him is the parent's fault , not the environment's .

I disagree, in my opinion children adopt their parents religion because thats all they know. If you've been sent to church and Sunday school for ten years you can't blame a child for believing in Christianity rather than, sy, Islam. This is not really relevent to this thread however.

I was exposed to a very diverse set of viewpoints and religions . I have chosed Hinduism by conviction , not because that is the only thing I know . I know more about some other religions that do most of their adherents themselves .

I would prefer it if schools stuck to teaching facts and figures rather than beliefs. Religious education is still nessecary, because religion is a major part of this world. However, none of these belief system should be presented as the truth, they should be presented from an neutral viewpoint.

And here we run into the same problem - who decides what viewpoint is neutral ? Do the Christians decide ? Or the Muslims ? Or the Hindus ? Or the atheists ? Or the agnostics ? Or , as you seem to suggest , whoever happens to control the state apparatus at the moment ( which I consider the scariest option ) ?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

First of all, I'm talking in general terms - that parents should not be allowed to send their children to useless or indoctrinating schools. Schools should all live up to certain standards simply because we're talking about children here, they don't have a choice of where they're going, so they better be guaranteed at the very minimum a reasonably decent school.

There are choices to where a student can go. Cass Technical high school in Detroit is a wonderful school in the school district otherwise full of ancient outdated buildings and insane legacy costs burdening the city. The best students get in to Cass Tech.

Talk about student choice... If the child wants the best education he or she will study, usually with the parent's help and get the grades that it takes to get into the good school. Kids have a choice. They just have to perform. Most large public school districts have opportunities like this for the students that want the best education. The community simply doesn't have the means to give every student the opportunity of a Cass Tech.

Public Schools are run by local school boards and funded primarily by local property taxes, with some subsidy from the states (which tends to go down from year to year). A community full of $100,000 houses and very little business won't be able to compete for the best teachers and won't be able to put in the best modern educational facilities that a community full of $450,000 houses and high-tech/high-taxed corporations would be able to afford. Good teachers aren't cheap. Being able to buy new school books every ten years isn't always an option in some school districts. The Detroit suburbs have those high priced houses and usually win the best teachers and can afford the best facilities. The City of Detroit, unlike the Detroit suburbs, can't, period.

School control is local. Accreditation is statewide. Some districts will fail just because of where they are. That's what private schools are generally for since they are almost always better than the worst public schools. It's a way to escape. If you are Christian, a christian school is a fine choice. It's not usually an option for the poor, though, since these Private schools are generally quite expensive. Good teachers aren't cheap.

If your government runs useless schools then you had better start changing your government. Saying that parents should have the right to subject their children to any kind of horrible school because 'the government schools suck too' is an inane argument. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Detroit school board was replaced by a state appointed board to manage the schools in the City. Educational achievement and graduation rates hardly budged. They are moving back to an elected board. We'll see whether educational achievement and graduation rates will move. That is the fourth change in school government in the Detroit Schools in recent memory, IIRC. I'll keep you posted if it ever has an effect.

The tax base is still deteriorating so we'll see what the new school government comes up with to manage the situation. The state doesn't have the financial ability to bail the city out permenently, and education is not the responsibility of the Federal government (we like our separation of powers... it helps keep the Federal government out of state affairs). They can give you the Federal standardized tests and threaten to withhold all the federal education funding your state gets if you don't follow them, but they can't micromanage how your state deals with preparing the kids for the test without spawning dozens of lawsuits.

 

[Truronian]

What you fail to realise is that the education of the child is the parent's job - not yours , not mine , and very definitely not the state's . Thus , any interference in that process is unjustifiable - unless the parent is abusing the child , in which case standard criminal law is applicable .

I disagree. I say its the state's job, with the support of the parent. THis way children have as equal a start in life as is possible.

And how do you define "bad parents" ? Is wanting your child to grop up in your religion and being exposed to your religion or culture now a bad thing ? Most children passionately believe that they do not want to go to school . Does that mean that all the parents who send their children to school against their wishes are bad parents ?

I don't really see an advantage to growing up in religion, and its pretty hard not to grow up in "a culture".

Because its avoved purpose is to provide a Christian education ? It explicitly says that it is meant for Christians , not for others . Of other choose to come there , that is their decision . If a child who is not Christian feels stifled in this atmosphere , he should tell his parents and request them to put him in another school .

So whats the harm in making the Christian elements optional? If they're all Christians then they'll all go to the assemblies/services etc.

And here we run into the same problem - who decides what viewpoint is neutral ? Do the Christians decide ? Or the Muslims ? Or the Hindus ? Or the atheists ? Or the agnostics ? Or , as you seem to suggest , whoever happens to control the state apparatus at the moment ( which I consider the scariest option ) ?

Well, in a democracy the people are the state A neutral viewpoint is one devoid of opinions.

 

[aneeshm]

I disagree. I say its the state's job, with the support of the parent. THis way children have as equal a start in life as is possible.

Than here is the root of our divergence . I say it is the job of the parent . If the job of the state was to give everyone an equal start , then private schools for rich kids should be outlawed , because it gives them an unequal advantage over those who go to the state system . You are talking basically about curtailing the rights of a person who has worked hard all his life to pass on the fruits of the same hard work to his children .

I don't really see an advantage to growing up in religion, and its pretty hard not to grow up in "a culture".

But I see one . Who is right ? It is definitely not the state which decides .

And trying to stop me from communicating this to my children through the medium of their schooling is curtailing my freedom to practice and propogate my religion .

So whats the harm in making the Christian elements optional? If they're all Christians then they'll all go to the assemblies/services etc.

It changes the atmosphere of the school . I'll explain further .

Imagine that this school is academically better than others in its area ( as private schools usually are ) . This means that lot of people will want to join it for academic reasons . But they do not want a lot of people - they want devout Christians . If they make them compulsory , it provides an incentive to a Christian child who might be too lazy to do them on his own to attend the school , and it provides a dis-incentive to other , non-Christians form coming to the school . If the activities are optional , the incentive and dis-incentive , both of which are vital to the maintainance of the atmosphere of the school as the founders want it .

Secondly - who are you to dictate what they can or cannot do as long as they are not abusing children ? They provide a perfectly good secular education , better than the state system's , which they supplement with a religious education befitting their own beliefs . They have a right - yes , a fundamental , inalienable RIGHT - to teach anything which does not constitute child abuse .

As I told you - the responsibility lies with parents . You are objecting to the very existence of such a school - which was not my criticism at all . The should not , must not , and does not have a right , to intevene .

Well, in a democracy the people are the state

Not all the people - only a majority of people - and that is why we have a concept of rights , which no democracy can take away - to prevent abuse of the powerless minority by the majority which controls the state apparatus .

A neutral viewpoint is one devoid of opinions.

And who decides whether or not a certain viewpoint is devoid of opinions ? You or me ? Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims ? Atheists ? Or some governmental committee ( which point I've just refuted in the last paragraph ) ? You can't get away from the fundamental difficulty that somebody has to decide , and this freedom ( to decide what is appropriate for their children ) is given to every man by the nature of the rights flowing from the right to life itself .

You do not seem to realise that even if you are presenting facts , there are ways in which purely factual statement can be used , simply by shifting the language and the ordering of statements , to serve an agenda . You want them to serve your agenda . I don't want all of them them to serve any agenda , I simply want to let people decide what way the facts will be presented do their wards .




Another point - are you against parents being allowed home-schooling their children ? The fundamental debate is the same in both cases .

 

[Truronian]

Than here is the root of our divergence . I say it is the job of the parent . If the job of the state was to give everyone an equal start , then private schools for rich kids should be outlawed , because it gives them an unequal advantage over those who go to the state system . You are talking basically about curtailing the rights of a person who has worked hard all his life to pass on the fruits of the same hard work to his children .

Pretty much, yeah. To be honest, I feel money is the wost thing you could give a child.

It changes the atmosphere of the school . I'll explain further .

Imagine that this school is academically better than others in its area ( as private schools usually are ) . This means that lot of people will want to join it for academic reasons . But they do not want a lot of people - they want devout Christians . If they make them compulsory , it provides an incentive to a Christian child who might be too lazy to do them on his own to attend the school , and it provides a dis-incentive to other , non-Christians form coming to the school . If the activities are optional , the incentive and dis-incentive , both of which are vital to the maintainance of the atmosphere of the school as the founders want it .

Secondly - who are you to dictate what they can or cannot do as long as they are not abusing children ? They provide a perfectly good secular education , better than the state system's , which they supplement with a religious education befitting their own beliefs . They have a right - yes , a fundamental , inalienable RIGHT - to teach anything which does not constitute child abuse .

As I told you - the responsibility lies with parents . You are objecting to the very existence of such a school - which was not my criticism at all . The should not , must not , and does not have a right , to intevene .

The real question IMO is "Is forcing religion upon an unwilling child child abuse?". I'd say yes, although there are far more detrimental forms of it. (I know I'm not gonna get many agreements on this point)

Not all the people - only a majority of people - and that is why we have a concept of rights , which no democracy can take away - to prevent abuse of the powerless minority by the majority which controls the state apparatus .

And who decides what these rights are? The majority Another disscusion though.

And who decides whether or not a certain viewpoint is devoid of opinions ? You or me ? Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims ? Atheists ? Or some governmental committee ( which point I've just refuted in the last paragraph ) ? You can't get away from the fundamental difficulty that somebody has to decide , and this freedom ( to decide what is appropriate for their children ) is given to every man by the nature of the rights flowing from the right to life itself .

Hows about those knowledgably on their subject decide. Who decides what's taught in science? Scientists. Who decides what taught in history? Historians.

Another point - are you against parents being allowed home-schooling their children ? The fundamental debate is the same in both cases .

Yes

Anyway, this debate seems to have wandered. Lets just agree to disagree.