The atheist bus

[Avatar]

I find it hard to just accept that the US school system is designed to repress religion. It excludes it, sure, but suppress? That seems a little overstated, especially given the still overwhelming majority of christians in the country.

The point about converting people to modern consumers sounds quite interesting though. How exactly do you think this is achieved? By the school system specifically I mean? What changed in order to create the change?

--A

[Loredoctor]

I find it hard to just accept that the US school system is designed to repress religion. It excludes it, sure, but suppress? That seems a little overstated, especially given the still overwhelming majority of christians in the country.

I have to agree with you, Avatar. Unless Rusmeister intended colleges/universities. However, with the latter they encourage critical thinking not conformity to atheism.

[Fist and Faith]

I thought our public school system started as one-room schoolhouses whenever a community became large enough to pay for a teacher to be there.


My opinion is that religion is a GIGANTIC part of humanity, and should be a part of public education. I think there should be more than one class teaching different aspects of it.
-Teach about several major religions of today. When and where they began; their most important teachings...
-Teach about many of the past's mythologies. (They were religions, after all.)
-Teach whatever we might know about the first religions. (Zoroastrianism? Shamanism? Australian Aboriginies?)

-Most important, when all that's done, have a class called Why Is Religion So Prevalent In Human Culture? After learning about the history and teachings of religions, perhaps some people will see patterns. Common teachings throughout a large percentage of the world? Common questions being asked, even if the answers (teachings) are different? Who knows what any particular student will write a paper about. The point is, religion would be thought about and discussed.

[Loredoctor]

Good points, Fist. If Rusmeister has an issue with atheism being encourage in schools, surely he cannot be so bold as to suggest that only Christianity should be taught. In my opinion, every religion is as valid as each other. Arguing that one's spiritual belief is 'more right' is like arguing which colour is objectively more pleasing - a pointless exercise.

[Fist and Faith]

To be sure, I'm suggesting religion be a part of public education, not that the public education system become a Christian education system. Go to a Christian church to learn specifically about Christianity, and how to be a Christian. Go to a synagogue to learn specifically about Judaism, and how to be a Jew. Go to an ashram to learn specifically about Hinduism, and how to be a Hindu. (Is "ashram" the right word?)

[Avatar]

I'd be all in favour of a class in comparitive religion. Very interesting. Many perspectives. (Yes, ashram is right, although they don't have to be hindu in common usage.)

--A

[rusmeister]

I'm suggesting you guys dig deep and learn the history of public education, like Gatto did.
His book "The Underground History of American Education" is free online.
www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/
And if you examine Gatto's qualifications and experience, you would be hard-pressed to call him a quack or nutcase.

Once you get that the Prussian connection is not a joke or hoax but historical fact, you can see that the design is indoctrination of qualities and virtues of benefit to the state (rulers), not the individual.

If you can tolerate something aimed at a Christian audience (that I put together) and extract information that would be relevant and of interest to you, I'll invite you to take a look at this thread - it's an incomplete work - I've been stalled on it for the past year or so - but gives some background as to what I'm talking about.
christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6072877

Unfortunately, a short post cannot cover stuff that took years to learn.
I'd like to address the concept of nominal faith vs 24/7 faith (in regard to describing America as "overwhelmingly Christian", but one thing at a time.

Hey, LM - I mean specifically the public school system - although what school system do you think most professors graduate from? And a counter question is whether all opinions are of equal value. Certainly, in serious disciplines we would generally acknowledge that varying levels of experience and knowledge make the value of opinions to vary. When you speak of your own area of expertise you would probably not suggest that Joe Schmoe the plumber knows as much about it as you do, and that his opinion on your specialty isn't worth as much as, say, a colleague of yours.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm suggesting you guys dig deep and learn the history of public education, like Gatto did.

No need. Whether public education is screwed up for the reasons Gatto says or not, public education is screwed up. It should be fixed. And, IMO, one of the most important aspects of our species - religion - should be a part of it.

[Avatar]

Haha, I'm not gonna go study somebody else's research for a discussion in here on this. Just give me your understanding of it. 10 lines or less. A precis.

--A

[lurch]

When the first monkey man clamored out of the trees and looked around and saw the nite sky and was able to put together the thought,," Why Am I Here?," it didn't realize its question is what damned him and all those who would follow. Here we are today still dealing with the eternal question...and still damned by it by the answers we find.

There is no finite answer. The answer is infinite as the universe we find our selves in...heck..maybe its universes! Point is..the answer is the question. Why am I here?..to explore the I and the Here. There is no end to either. To say otherwise is a damnation of that which makes us Human. To argue the " how" of that exploration by insisting on parameters, is again a self defeating of that which makes us Humans. We observe. We explore. The open ended " LOVE" that the mystic Jesus hinted at,,revolutionary for his time and still revolutionary today,,is still hardly being understood because to "get it " requires a freedom that no longer requires organized religions., a freedom from dogma and parameters.

To experience I and Here,,free of Time and Place..is a Love unbounded and maybe shared with any Omni Being we may call " God."

Any advertisement for the liberation of the Human quality to Explore Unfettered,,is okay by me.

Over the last couple of years many advertisements have sprung up on bus stops here in Phoenix. In Very Large Font it is asked, " Christian Single?" A meet other Christian Singles soiree' is offered in smaller font...I assume that a Christian Single,,probably goes to the Church of his or her choice at least on a somewhat regular basis..Plenty of social opportunity offered there. Thats what Churches do...So what is this campaign on the Bus Stops? A new Christian Only religion in Town?..exclusive to Christians? ..I could go on..but ..I am embarrassed by this ad campaign. Not as a Christian, but as a Human Being, I am disappointed by such gaudy, tacky, shallow advertisements...But like the great Mystic said.." give on to Rome, what is Rome's.

[rusmeister]

Haha, I'm not gonna go study somebody else's research for a discussion in here on this. Just give me your understanding of it. 10 lines or less. A precis.

--A

I've already said that public schools were specifically designed for purposes that are entirely at odds with their mission statements. Hopefully you don't mean that one may be ignorant of something and still hold opinions on it...?

Many things cannot be expressed in extreme short and be taken seriously. Too much context is required to understand the reasoning behind a position.

[rusmeister]

I'm suggesting you guys dig deep and learn the history of public education, like Gatto did.

No need. Whether public education is screwed up for the reasons Gatto says or not, public education is screwed up. It should be fixed. And, IMO, one of the most important aspects of our species - religion - should be a part of it.

I agree entirely with your sentiment about religion. But you cannot fix something if you do not have a philosophy from which you are fixing it and most certainly can't fix it if you don't know its existing philosophy.

A teaser:
I'd like to offer you 2 critical questions raised by John Stormer:

...If you ever get the opportunity, ask your state or local superintendent these two questions. The questions were:
1) What do you see the nature of man to be?
2) What should be his purpose in life?

...invariably an educator will answer, "We don't deal with questions like that."...
It is impossible to construct a system or philosophy of education without consciously or unconsciously making a definite determination about a child's basic nature and what his purpose in life should be. Those answers ultimately control all other education decisions.

[Loredoctor]

Many things cannot be expressed in extreme short and be taken seriously. Too much context is required to understand the reasoning behind a position.

You mean you are unable to summarise essays others have written? Everyone else have been. It would be like going to a live debate and one side says "oh yes, good point, but you know I think you're wrong - go read Henderson's book on Jesus to see why." It does not take much effort to realise that this style of 'argument' can lead to both sides mentioning books or articles in place of reasoned debate. You're essentially appealing to a book to replace your argument.

This is called an Appeal to Authority.

[Fist and Faith]

I agree entirely with your sentiment about religion. But you cannot fix something if you do not have a philosophy from which you are fixing it and most certainly can't fix it if you don't know its existing philosophy.

We don't need to now about any Prussian origins of our education system to see whether or not it is educating our children. If it is not, we can make changes to it. We don't need to know its existing philosophy to do that, we only need to know whether or not it is doing what we want it to do.

...If you ever get the opportunity, ask your state or local superintendent these two questions. The questions were:
1) What do you see the nature of man to be?
2) What should be his purpose in life?

...invariably an educator will answer, "We don't deal with questions like that."...
It is impossible to construct a system or philosophy of education without consciously or unconsciously making a definite determination about a child's basic nature and what his purpose in life should be. Those answers ultimately control all other education decisions.

Rubbish. Just as you are within your rights to say I'm wrong, and there are objective answers to those questions, I am within my rights to say there are not objective answers to those questions. And I would strongly - and I'm talking strongly - oppose a public education system that is based on the belief in specific answers and tries to instill them in my children.

[Loredoctor]

Agreed, Fist. And I might add that questions 1 & 2 are irrelevant for most courses. The only use I can see for them is for religious fundamentalists to affect a child or adult's mindset when it is really up to the individual.

[rusmeister]

You guys are missing something big, with all due respect. How on earth do you propose establishing an education system with no philosophy whatsoever??? You MUST be able to answer Stormer's questions if you propose to do so.

If you have no concept at all of the nature of man and his purpose, you are not offering a reason WHY you should (for example) build a school, let alone along the same model as the Prussians. If you build a school, that means you believe certain things about what people need and why, which means you have a philosophy - you may be consciously unaware of it, but the people who organized public education certainly were.

Also, if the "system" were, say, a guillotine, designed to fix behavioral problems (by removing heads), how would you "fix" it so it produced the result YOU desire? If you don't understand WHY the beast in front of you is doing what it's doing, then it is extraordinarily difficult to fix. Or take a car. A mechanic who doesn't know why the car doesn't start can't fix it. he need to know things about the car's design and the purpose of all the little doohickeys if he's to have a hope of fixing it (but that's a worse example because a car, unlike a school, actually does succeed at performing its publicly understood function).

LM - you are thinking in terms of teaching the discipline that you teach. I am talking about organizing a school or university system period. Where will you put people to teach them? In private booths? Small classes? Lecture halls? For how long of a period? What will be the requirements for teachers? And it's not the details of the answers, but the basis on which you make the decisions. You have to have a clear idea of what you want to accomplish. You have to have a philosophy of the education that you intend to offer.

I am saying that the schools accomplish exactly what they are designed to do, and like the guillotine, are not broken at all, and that's why nobody has been able to fix them.

[Loredoctor]

You guys are missing something big, with all due respect. How on earth do you propose establishing an education system with no philosophy whatsoever??? You MUST be able to answer Stormer's questions if you propose to do so.

Who says we have to answer Stormer's questions? As I said, the questions are completely irrelevant and no one can answer them anyway.

It sounds like you are saying the system is broken which justifies your problem with the education system for promoting atheism. I really don't see what the problem is. I went to school and then university and got an education which allowed me to further educate myself and earn an income. The system works . . . .unless you are advocating a Christian agenda?

[Fist and Faith]

You MUST be able to answer Stormer's questions if you propose to do so.

No. There is not a single, objectively correct answer to those questions that can be verified by any method. Until any given answer can be verified, it is all opinion. As I said, teaching such answers is the job of churches, mosques, etc. It is wrong to base our public education system on any specific answers.

[lurch]

the only responsibility of an education system to the questions 1 and 2 is to provide the tools for an individual to find the answers themselves and then to also find that the questions are answered differently by each individual....and wait, theres more!..but to further find, that the answers one finds today,,may soon dissolve to a different answer tomorrow. What are the " tools"? A healthy inquisitive, questioning mind. This is the challenge for every generation's education systems.

There is the subtle supposition that Agendas rule the education systems, then therefore its justified for the religious right to have an agenda of their own,...to that I say this is more of the Holy Church of Victims R Us. I do not accept the Agendas rule our education systems as a basis for having an agenda of your own. To reach back to the "Prussian" model is weak. How is it you stop there? Lets go all the way back to the blow hard Greeks. Heck they were the one who introduced Logic to Mans way of thinking and seeing, and we've been victimized by it ever since. Talk about Agendas!! Trading one supposed agenda for another is what? Give the kids the ability to comprehend the world around them and the world inside of them,,then the ability to create from that.

[Avatar]

the only responsibility of an education system to the questions 1 and 2 is to provide the tools for an individual to find the answers themselves and then to also find that the questions are answered differently by each individual....

Well said Lurch.

--A