Reflecting on another Darwin Day (Metlakatla: homes, rent, job)

[User 2]

Originally Posted by coffeehound

If you've got your doubts, it's apt to look like a left-wing hostile takeover of American thought.

Oh good Gawd,

....there it is again, ..introducing a wholly undefined term as if it describes any reality at all.

Dogma without literate understanding of even the most basic concepts you think you're espousing.

.
..

[coffeehound]

Originally Posted by User 2

Piety has no definition that remotely connotes any correctness.

Secularism denotes attitudes or activities that have no religious basis.

Nothing in the misuse and abuse of basic definitions of words has anything to do with anything being at all 'relevant'.

It's the totality of the irrelevance of misusing and not understanding what words mean that is relevant.

Ideas and concepts cannot be expressed without having uniform meanings.

Introducing 'unity' or 'diversity' where there is no applicable sense to doing so, only further muddles the chance that any coherent concept is actually being proposed.

Before one attempts to discuss abstractions, one has to have a basic understanding of what is definitely not abstract.

When you see no distinction between the two, all you have is nonsense.

.
..

See, I simply disagree that secularism as we know it in our school system and politics is utterly a matter of logic without a sizable dose of faith. You have to have faith that diversity is our strength. You have to have faith that tolerance is a virtue.

There's not a whole lot of "evidence" for either of the above claims, but there IS a lot of strong faith, and even mild questioning will get you pilloried at any secular government institution, including the school system.

Which is cool, since every reigning ideology since the dawn of time has had some Tenets that Must Not Be Questioned; I just don't see it as being any different than faith in the infallibility of the Pope, you know?

At least kids attending a Catholic school are well-aware that good portions of the population think the latter doctrine is sheer poppycock. I'm not so sure public-school kids are ever taught that the possibility of secular humanism being nonsensical even exists... and this is quite to the benefit of the federal government, in my view. Convenient to have kids being brought up in the actual faith tradition of the ruling elite, no?

[coffeehound]

Originally Posted by User 2

Oh good Gawd,

....there it is again, ..introducing a wholly undefined term as if it describes any reality at all.

Dogma without literate understanding of even the most basic concepts you think you're espousing.

.
..

Which term do you feel is not sufficiently defined? I do try to be clear.

[Alice2]

(EDIT: I am a few posts late with my response, here! Was addressing User2)

The point for me was, whether what he(?) was saying is understandable or not. You claimed it was not.

In an attempt to get back on topic, my summary of the issue itself is:

The public school system (which now may as well encompass college, the way things are going) is where children (like it or not) get socialized into what society is and how they perceive it -- how they are TAUGHT to perceive it. Materialism is God now, or has become God. Spiritual values and spiritual development do not have to include religion as in the religion = dogma definition. Spiritual values are developed from the inside while the 'information input' ---- (please 'scuse my continual butchering of the English language in an attempt to quickly get my thoughts written and posted before they become obsolete to the topic!) ---- all comes from the outside.

See, like it or not, for the most part, children's learning comes from the school classroom, the hallways, and the television set, mostly. If the parents are non-religious they are not even exposed to the concept of a higher intelligence running the universe, whether you call it religion or God or whatever.

Whether we are religious or not we are all mind + body + spirit, and the dimensions above the 3rd physical dimension are concepts to be picked up by the spirit.

We are not taught (anymore) about having anything above an animal nature. It leaves a windy, hollow place inside.

There's got to be that search for that something else, even if we can't find it. Children need to be given the chance to know about mankind's search for meaning because it's in all of us and it helps them to be allowed to realize life is a big adventure, a quest, a mystery ---

We QUASH the SPIRIT if we take all the color out of the classroom.

I can not explain such a big concept any clearer than that, tonite, but I am convinced that is EXACTLY what we have been trying to talk about here.

[Metlakatla]

But I don't think they really do. I think what they want is some kind of actual, er, respect and recognition for their beliefs and value system, which the public schools don't accord.

It isn't the job of the public schools to do so. Respect, perhaps...recognition as in how?

As I've stated before...Western civilization is largely a study of Christianity, and history is taught in every public school in this country.

I don't know what kind of recognition you're really thinking about...but it seems as if we grant recognition to the Christian faith, we must grant it to all faiths and beliefs, and then we've got that hodgepodge of diversity problem again.

When I was in college I took some wonderful classes in religion and I believe they have their counterparts in the public schools.

For the record, my son did not graduate from a public high school. He went to private school of his own accord, but of course his father and I backed him on that. It wasn't a religious one, though, just a very academically oriented one.

It wasn't so much the "value system" of the public schools that I found objectionable but rather that most public school teachers have graduated at the bottom third of third and fourth rate colleges and tend to teach to the lowest common denominator.

[coffeehound]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

It isn't the job of the public schools to do so. Respect, perhaps...recognition as in how?

As I've stated before...Western civilization is largely a study of Christianity, and history is taught in every public school in this country.

I don't know what kind of recognition you're really thinking about...but it seems as if we grant recognition to the Christian faith, we must grant it to all faiths and beliefs, and then we've got that hodgepodge of diversity problem again.

When I was in college I took some wonderful classes in religion and I believe they have their counterparts in the public schools.

For the record, my son did not graduate from a public high school. He went to private school of his own accord, but of course his father and I backed him on that. It wasn't a religious one, though, just a very academically oriented one.

It wasn't so much the "value system" of the public schools that I found objectionable but rather that most public school teachers have graduated at the bottom third of third and fourth rate colleges and tend to teach to the lowest common denominator.

Yeah, but Christianity is taught as being essentially a dusty and faintly embarrassing relic of the past, not something that lives and breathes today.

If you actually believe in the religion and want fervently for it to live in the present through the beliefs and actions of your society (I know, it's hard for me to imagine, too, lol) then that is going to be like presenting, say, MLK, as a philandering, plagiarizing communist sympathizer who might've made a few nice speeches here and there.

To me, public schools are sort of untenable just for that reason. Short of reducing education to a deadly-dull list of factoids, it's virtually impossible to come up with an utterly bias-free worldview, and I don't see why it's really all that desirable in the first place.

I want my kids to believe in something, and I want them to believe what I believe, not what a bunch of idiocrats in DC claim to believe.

I think conservative Christian "fundies" feel the same way. They thought, incorrectly, that local control over their tax-funded schools still existed. I think they've gotten the message now.

[Metlakatla]

I want my kids to believe in something, and I want them to believe what I believe, not what a bunch of idiocrats in DC claim to believe.

Well, that's an easy fix. As a parent you have much more influence over their lives than public school does. It's a shame that isn't the way for a lot of children these days whose parents seem to consider the school system to be some sort of surrogate parent. But I think you've got more going on than that.

Academics sans religious fervor doesn't have to be dull. But whatever kind of school that you choose for your children, realize that the school will not be the deciding factor in who your children become as adults. And also realize the dangers in wanting them to become just like you, because for some parents that can backfire exponentially.

Teaching them your values is as easy as pi, though, if you go about it the right way.

They live up to expectations. Assume that your children are good, decent human beings, and they will not prove you wrong. And unless you're living in urban hell where the very act of going to public school is dangerous for your kids, the school won't screw them up too badly if they've got a solid foundation at home.

[User 2]

Originally Posted by Alice2

...

Alice, you posit over and over again, what it is that 'we' are.....

Like it or not, understand it or not, ....'we' are not defined by what you posit.

The generalizations you make about what is 'correct' or necessary aren't beliefs shared by all.

Therefore, we have a system that separates or limits the influence of religion on matters of state.

Public education is a matter of the state, and as such, religion isn't the responsibility of public education.

The 'spirituality' you describe does not encompass all the many ways that spirituality can be expressed or believed.

Your desire to impose only certain precepts or generalizations on others is exactly why that isn't a good idea.

It's not the responsibility of the state to promote singular beliefs, and what you proscribe is nothing but your own singular belief.
.
..

[coffeehound]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Well, that's an easy fix. As a parent you have much more influence over their lives than public school does. It's a shame that isn't the way for a lot of children these days whose parents seem to consider the school system to be some sort of surrogate parent. But I think you've got more going on than that.

Academics sans religious fervor doesn't have to be dull. But whatever kind of school that you choose for your children, realize that the school will not be the deciding factor in who your children become as adults. And also realize the dangers in wanting them to become just like you, because for some parents that can backfire exponentially.

Teaching them your values is as easy as pi, though, if you go about it the right way.

They live up to expectations. Assume that your children are good, decent human beings, and they will not prove you wrong. And unless you're living in urban hell where the very act of going to public school is dangerous for your kids, the school won't screw them up too badly if they've got a solid foundation at home.

Eh, I do think the schools have a demonstrable effect on the sort of people kids turn out to be-- I don't think it's a strange mistake that so many publically-schooled kids are outright surly toward their parents, and that so many homeschoolers tightly identify with the family value system. You can't spend 8 hours a day in any environment without becoming at least somewhat identified with its beliefs.

I don't expect my kids to be just like me (and I was homeschooled) but I also don't want them to be turned against their people and culture by whatever PC dogma happens to rule the day down in DC.

I just really don't think that "values" are a separate category from "learning," and if you view the local tax-funded school system as being hostile to your belief system, it isn't a completely bizarre reaction to try to reform the school to your preferences.

In the case of the fundies, it just didn't work. And I think they do a poor job of articulating why they have any business injecting themselves in the public-school debate.

But then, I think the civil-service 'crats do a poor job there, too. They have the good fortune of having the zeitgeist on their side, that's all.

but you know what they say about the zeitgeist.

[Alice2]

Originally Posted by User 2

Alice, you posit over and over again, what it is that 'we' are.....
I only mean to post my concepts as to why it is bad to ban religion from school (as a topic, not as indoctrination, as I said before).

Like it or not, understand it or not, ....'we' are not defined by what you posit.

The generalizations you make about what is 'correct' or necessary aren't beliefs shared by all.

Therefore, we have a system that separates or limits the influence of religion on matters of state.
The separation of church and state -- of course. The problem is that has been taken to the extreme of separating religion from teachings in the school. Again, I don't mean trying to convert anyone, only that religion is part of mankind's DIMENSION and needs to be taught, just like gravity and evolution and 'do unto others' and all that stuff.

Public education is a matter of the state, and as such, religion isn't the responsibility of public education.
Again, I never meant the state should teach kids to be religious.

The 'spirituality' you describe does not encompass all the many ways that spirituality can be expressed or believed.
I am not an all-encompassing mind, I will be the first to admit. But do you agree we don't want to ban the whole concept of spirituality (which, of course, has to include religion as a non-taboo topic!) from the classroom?

Your desire to impose only certain precepts or generalizations on others is exactly why that isn't a good idea.
The last thing I want to do is impose limitations, which is what the current definition of 'separation of church and state' when applied to the school system is doing, in a very stifling way.

It's not the responsibility of the state to promote singular beliefs, and what you proscribe is nothing but your own singular belief.
..

Where do you see the balance, then, r-- er -- User2? I do not mean to impose SINGULAR beliefs, but expose the kids to a multitude of beliefs, so they can know about them, just as we teach them people used to think the world was flat, and such!
.