I like this guy!

[Seven Words]

Here is the kind of voice Christianity in America needs....actually, more voices like his in Christianity around the world.

www.csmonitor.com/2009/0507/p09s01-coop.html

[rusmeister]

Just a brief word... OK, maybe six, or even seven words...
On the article - I'll always say that it comes down to what you believe to be true - in this case what the author of the article (and the owner of the publication) believe to be true.

One thing that I found to be completely absurd from my point of view was the claim regarding US high schools. From my standpoint you have an entire system that denies any truth by de facto denying the discussion of it - which is automatically hostile to Christianity - and the author complains of a small number of extremists who are certainly violating the rules and regulations governing schools (ie, also a wrong, but a drop in the sea of a system whose philosophy is opposed to serious consideration of moral/religious truth). Every Christian staff member who wishes to participate - not even lead, but merely participate - in student-led prayer (just for one example out of a thousand) is not allowed to do so - and need I go on?

That the article sees 'religious bullying' in one light only, and completely fails to see the reverse bullying that is not an exception, but the rule of public schools, completely disinterests me in the article as a whole. It reveals the world view of the author; one that is both ignorant and widely shared.

[rdhopeca]

Just a brief word... OK, maybe six, or even seven words...
On the article - I'll always say that it comes down to what you believe to be true - in this case what the author of the article (and the owner of the publication) believe to be true.

One thing that I found to be completely absurd from my point of view was the claim regarding US high schools. From my standpoint you have an entire system that denies any truth by de facto denying the discussion of it - which is automatically hostile to Christianity - and the author complains of a small number of extremists who are certainly violating the rules and regulations governing schools (ie, also a wrong, but a drop in the sea of a system whose philosophy is opposed to serious consideration of moral/religious truth). Every Christian staff member who wishes to participate - not even lead, but merely participate - in student-led prayer (just for one example out of a thousand) is not allowed to do so - and need I go on?

That the article sees 'religious bullying' in one light only, and completely fails to see the reverse bullying that is not an exception, but the rule of public schools, completely disinterests me in the article as a whole. It reveals the world view of the author; one that is both ignorant and widely shared.

You pre-suppose it is the job of the schools to educate on Christianity. In my view, that's what the Church is for; all religions should be kept out of the public education system. And if you provide for some sort of way for prayer for one group, then you provide it for all equally. Christianity is not entitled to some sort of exclusion just because it's Christianity.

[Seven Words]

Just a brief word... OK, maybe six, or even seven words...
On the article - I'll always say that it comes down to what you believe to be true - in this case what the author of the article (and the owner of the publication) believe to be true.

One thing that I found to be completely absurd from my point of view was the claim regarding US high schools. From my standpoint you have an entire system that denies any truth by de facto denying the discussion of it - which is automatically hostile to Christianity - and the author complains of a small number of extremists who are certainly violating the rules and regulations governing schools (ie, also a wrong, but a drop in the sea of a system whose philosophy is opposed to serious consideration of moral/religious truth). Every Christian staff member who wishes to participate - not even lead, but merely participate - in student-led prayer (just for one example out of a thousand) is not allowed to do so - and need I go on?

That the article sees 'religious bullying' in one light only, and completely fails to see the reverse bullying that is not an exception, but the rule of public schools, completely disinterests me in the article as a whole. It reveals the world view of the author; one that is both ignorant and widely shared.

Christian faculty are not allowed...but neither are Muslim, or Jewish, or any other faith. How is that bullying? It's not discriminatory if NO ONE is allowed.


The laudable attitude I was speaking of is

1: his approach to different faiths. He feels no need to get in people's faces (figuratively or literally) about his beliefs. THIS is what genuine tolerance is. Nowhere does he indicate he approves of any non-Christian belief system. Approval is NOT tolerance.

2: He is willing to call attention to, and speak out against, the fanatic fringe. EVERY belief system (not just religious ones) needs its members to do this. Otherwise, everyone outside your group sees the lunatics as the true face. Best example, Muslims and jihadists.

It's not automatically hostile to Christianity. It simply seeks to NOT address issues which are wholly subjective in an arena meant for OBJECTIVE reality.

Christianity has NO PLACE in a science class room for discussion. Now, a World History class? Yes, as it has affected history...but it should neither be lauded nor condemned. Just as Islam should be.

Moral and religious truth? Show me how those things can be objectively measured, and then I'll agree they are a fit subject for PUBLIC schools. I have no objection at all to a PRIVATE school teaching religion. But a public school should leave religion to the children's parents.

[Cybrweez]

7W, show me the OBJECTIVE measure that proves only OBJECTIVE reality should be taught in any arena. Or to be specific, the OBJECTIVE proof that public school should leave religion to the parents. Or, show the OBJECTIVE proof public school should do ANYTHING it currently does.

[Seven Words]

By demonstrable objective things, I mean like....Chemistry. Avogadro's number. molarity, molality, concentration, enthalpies of formation.

Physics....moments, displacement....

Math


History needs to include multiple perspectives, as so much of it is written by the winners. Such as...no one disputes the fact of the Tet Offensive occurred. But...was it a success? depends how you define success.
But those can be presented based on unarguable fact. Religion.....there isnt' even a common unarguable fact for all religions to start from, other than "what we perceive is not the sum of what is"...and that is an assumption.

A Philosophy class is an excellent place to discuss religions. But no public school should be even implying that one is right, or better.

School should leave religion to the parents? Second Amendment. Its language is objective. Public schools are an agency of the government, so they MUST neither affirm nor oppose any faith.

[rusmeister]

7W, Rob -
You guys misunderstood me (so no, I do not pre-suppose what you suppose I do).
I'm saying that the school system is in fact constructed on the basis of a particular philosophy/worldview, which it DOES teach by default without ever saying a word about it. It is impossible to teach (or even do) anything without having a worldview on it, and it is impossible to construct an education system without proceeding from an overarching worldview in doing so.

The modern school system proceeds from the view that moral/religious truth cannot be known - I'd like to say 'that the only truth is material truth', but I'm afraid it's worse than that, but for practical purposes, that is the base that is proceeded from. And a majority of people here are products of that system and subsequently do not believe that moral/religious truth cannot be known - as demonstrated right here on this forum.

That view is hostile to any worldview that says that moral/religious truth CAN be known, and automatically works against it. It appears to do so in a nice way in our system of seeming freedom, but it is rather heartless in the consistency with which it does treat questions of faith, God, and the purpose of man's existence as unimportant - as matters of mere personal opinion. So the idea that school (or the public sphere in general) is an equal playing ground is false.

[Seven Words]

7W, Rob -
You guys misunderstood me (so no, I do not pre-suppose what you suppose I do).
I'm saying that the school system is in fact constructed on the basis of a particular philosophy/worldview, which it DOES teach by default without ever saying a word about it. It is impossible to teach (or even do) anything without having a worldview on it, and it is impossible to construct an education system without proceeding from an overarching worldview in doing so.

The modern school system proceeds from the view that moral/religious truth cannot be known - I'd like to say 'that the only truth is material truth', but I'm afraid it's worse than that, but for practical purposes, that is the base that is proceeded from. And a majority of people here are products of that system and subsequently do not believe that moral/religious truth cannot be known - as demonstrated right here on this forum.

That view is hostile to any worldview that says that moral/religious truth CAN be known, and automatically works against it. It appears to do so in a nice way in our system of seeming freedom, but it is rather heartless in the consistency with which it does treat questions of faith, God, and the purpose of man's existence as unimportant - as matters of mere personal opinion. So the idea that school (or the public sphere in general) is an equal playing ground is false.

Believe that moral/religious truth cannot be known? Not so, not so at all. And I speak as having attended ONLY public school (apart from second grade at a Lutheran school). The position is that religious/moral truth cannot be PROVEN, and as such are NOT within the purview of public education. This was true in Buffalo NY, Cheektowaga NY, Charleston WVa, Winchester VA, Greensboro NC, Harbor Beach MI, Houston TX and Flint MI.

School certainly is an even playing ground. All you have to do is have objective evidence to back your position up. Evolution has comparative DNA analysis, fossil record, radiological dating, etc., etc. All religions lack this. This does NOT mean they (singularly or en masse) are wrong...simply unsupported.

--edit to clarify--I am NOT trying to imply that Rusmeister doesn't believe in evolution....I simply used that as an example of a concept being challenged for being taught in schools, and the reason it is taught. No one's views on evolution are even remotely relevant, and if I seem to be trying to drag THAT debate in, I'm not. Sorry if my example totally sucks, best one I came up with on spur of the moment.

[rusmeister]

Just a brief word... OK, maybe six, or even seven words...
On the article - I'll always say that it comes down to what you believe to be true - in this case what the author of the article (and the owner of the publication) believe to be true.

One thing that I found to be completely absurd from my point of view was the claim regarding US high schools. From my standpoint you have an entire system that denies any truth by de facto denying the discussion of it - which is automatically hostile to Christianity - and the author complains of a small number of extremists who are certainly violating the rules and regulations governing schools (ie, also a wrong, but a drop in the sea of a system whose philosophy is opposed to serious consideration of moral/religious truth). Every Christian staff member who wishes to participate - not even lead, but merely participate - in student-led prayer (just for one example out of a thousand) is not allowed to do so - and need I go on?

That the article sees 'religious bullying' in one light only, and completely fails to see the reverse bullying that is not an exception, but the rule of public schools, completely disinterests me in the article as a whole. It reveals the world view of the author; one that is both ignorant and widely shared.

Christian faculty are not allowed...but neither are Muslim, or Jewish, or any other faith. How is that bullying? It's not discriminatory if NO ONE is allowed.


The laudable attitude I was speaking of is

1: his approach to different faiths. He feels no need to get in people's faces (figuratively or literally) about his beliefs. THIS is what genuine tolerance is. Nowhere does he indicate he approves of any non-Christian belief system. Approval is NOT tolerance.

2: He is willing to call attention to, and speak out against, the fanatic fringe. EVERY belief system (not just religious ones) needs its members to do this. Otherwise, everyone outside your group sees the lunatics as the true face. Best example, Muslims and jihadists.

It's not automatically hostile to Christianity. It simply seeks to NOT address issues which are wholly subjective in an arena meant for OBJECTIVE reality.

Christianity has NO PLACE in a science class room for discussion. Now, a World History class? Yes, as it has affected history...but it should neither be lauded nor condemned. Just as Islam should be.

Moral and religious truth? Show me how those things can be objectively measured, and then I'll agree they are a fit subject for PUBLIC schools. I have no objection at all to a PRIVATE school teaching religion. But a public school should leave religion to the children's parents.

By demonstrable objective things, I mean like....Chemistry. Avogadro's number. molarity, molality, concentration, enthalpies of formation.

Physics....moments, displacement....

Math


History needs to include multiple perspectives, as so much of it is written by the winners. Such as...no one disputes the fact of the Tet Offensive occurred. But...was it a success? depends how you define success.
But those can be presented based on unarguable fact. Religion.....there isnt' even a common unarguable fact for all religions to start from, other than "what we perceive is not the sum of what is"...and that is an assumption.

A Philosophy class is an excellent place to discuss religions. But no public school should be even implying that one is right, or better.

School should leave religion to the parents? Second Amendment. Its language is objective. Public schools are an agency of the government, so they MUST neither affirm nor oppose any faith.

Believe that moral/religious truth cannot be known? Not so, not so at all. And I speak as having attended ONLY public school (apart from second grade at a Lutheran school). The position is that religious/moral truth cannot be PROVEN, and as such are NOT within the purview of public education. This was true in Buffalo NY, Cheektowaga NY, Charleston WVa, Winchester VA, Greensboro NC, Harbor Beach MI, Houston TX and Flint MI.

School certainly is an even playing ground. All you have to do is have objective evidence to back your position up. Evolution has comparative DNA analysis, fossil record, radiological dating, etc., etc. All religions lack this. This does NOT mean they (singularly or en masse) are wrong...simply unsupported.

--edit to clarify--I am NOT trying to imply that Rusmeister doesn't believe in evolution....I simply used that as an example of a concept being challenged for being taught in schools, and the reason it is taught. No one's views on evolution are even remotely relevant, and if I seem to be trying to drag THAT debate in, I'm not. Sorry if my example totally sucks, best one I came up with on spur of the moment.

You are saying what all public schools say, but you are simply not getting what I am saying, which is that there is no way that any system can operate, no thought that can be considered true or false, no way of teaching anything outside of a philosophical world view. Whatever is taught starts from basic assumptions which are part of a philosophy that is assumed to be true. Your very use of the word "discriminate" indicates public education - it automatically assumes, without questioning, that the act of discrimination itself is bad. That discrimination might be good never crosses the public mind. That when I choose an edible mushroom over a poisonous one I am discriminating. That when I choose healthy food over junk food I am discriminating. That when I choose a kind mate over a selfish mate I am discriminating. Etc. Therefore the school system, teacher certification programs (which control who teaches the children of the nation), the state requirements, etc all reflect a specific worldview. They do not, and can not, merely "teach the facts". In order to even think about the facts, one must teach a definition of what a fact is, what "objective" is, what, in a word, truth is. Any belief system that claims truth to be subjective must inevitably clash with one that claims it to be objective. Traditional Christianity DENIES that questions like sin are subjective, for example. Christians may disagree on the nature of the objective phenomenon, but not that it is objective - just as an example, and it IS an unarguable fact that religions do start from. Why is it that we have the words "ought" and "should" in our language? Why "ought" I anything? Human behavior is also demonstrable. It is by no means always predictable, but any given behavior can be taken to demonstrate the fact of sin. The Christian position is that sin can be proven, but that people will (in our time especially) often deny that objective truth due to their human (fallen) nature. For me, behavior in traffic is proof of sin - the fact that so many drivers place their own desires ahead of others - and sin is already proven (again, as an example) - for that is the nature of sin - to place one's own good ahead of others.

When you say that no public institution should imply that any one is better, you have implicitly adopted a stand denying that one of them can actually be right, and are effectively denying truth - all that says is that you agree with the public ideology, which you cannot insist on the truth of by the logic of that philosophy - but as soon as you insist on teaching that none should be said to be better, you are engaged in self-contradiction, for you are stating as a truth that there is no truth. Appealing to the government and constitution does not change that.

In applying the example of evolutionary science to religion, you automatically place scientific standards as the ultimate measurement of truth. That is based on a specific philosophical position, which Christianity denies. What this adds up to is that you simply agree with the side that happens to dominate in our time. But it also proves that that position really IS discriminatory against the traditional Christian position, which denies that science is the measure of all truth.

History may have multiple perspectives, but it also has ultimate truths regarding those perspectives. The same goes for religious/philosophical views.

When I speak about public schools, I make a distinction between the experience of having been a student (pupil) in one, and having worked in one. Between someone who has seen what goes on behind the scenes in closed doors and one who has not. Between one who has undergone all of the requirements, taught in the classroom, dealt with the district and state machinery and one who has not. Between an employee who has left the system and one who is dependent on it. Between someone who has studied the history of compulsory education and one who has not. Not all experience is of equal weight. So here I do claim a form of "gnosticism", in the sense that this kind of knowledge is necessary to say anything authoritative about public education. Most people really don't know these things, and that's why none of their solutions EVER work.

If I may digress biographically, I happen to be someone who was both educated in public (thru 8th gr), pulled out, was broken of public conditioning - although media continued to play a role in forming my thought - in a Baptist high school and taught both to accept that there is truth, and to think for and teach myself, spent 20 years after that as an agnostic, during which time I got my degrees. I went on to teach abroad for several years, returned home, worked both public and private in both NY and CA, and got my cert in CA. It was the moral and spiritual climate, in which the public requirements in both the teacher prep programs and the schools played no small role - the aggressive insistence on the embracing of all points of view and the denial that ultimate truth could be found behind them, which eventually drove me to faith. I then returned to Russia and am still teaching there. It was a year after my "escape" from the system, that I began reading about the history of public ed, and gradually came to the conclusions that I now hold.

Further debate is probably useless, but hopefully you can see that people can hold views that disagree with the official public line (which you also support) and do so rationally - that if looked at from another perspective, concepts like tolerance, discrimination, multiculturalism and pluralism can all be seen quite differently. According to the logic of the view, you must at least hold it to be equally valid as your own.

[Fist and Faith]

Public school should be teaching facts. Things that everyone agrees on, because they can be demonstrated, over and over and over, in different ways. The reason this is what public school should be teaching is because everyone is paying for it with our taxes. Nobody should be allowed to push their own agenda/views/beliefs. If they want such a thing, they should fund their own school, and teach whoever wants to go to it. But the school that everybody pays for should be teaching things that everybody knows are inarguable facts.

What anyone does with the facts learned in public school, how those facts are interpreted, is, of course, another matter. I believe each individual should choose.

[rusmeister]

Public school should be teaching facts. Things that everyone agrees on, because they can be demonstrated, over and over and over, in different ways. The reason this is what public school should be teaching is because everyone is paying for it with our taxes. Nobody should be allowed to push their own agenda/views/beliefs. If they want such a thing, they should fund their own school, and teach whoever wants to go to it. But the school that everybody pays for should be teaching things that everybody knows are inarguable facts.

What anyone does with the facts learned in public school, how those facts are interpreted, is, of course, another matter. I believe each individual should choose.

But Fist, you're not trying to understand what I'm saying either.

I DON'T agree that public schools should be teaching facts, unless they are also teaching truth. You cannot teach facts without teaching some kind of attitude toward facts, and it is precisely that attitude that we disagree about. You are saying the same things 7W has already said, and parroting (my word, as I see it) the public line (which just proves my point).

Children can't choose at all, and most parents don't know enough (in the sense of do not understand the FACT that there IS a baseline philosophy that the school system DOES teach, while pretending that it does not).

[Fist and Faith]

But Fist, you're not trying to understand what I'm saying either.

I think I understand you. I just strongly disagree.

I DON'T agree that public schools should be teaching facts, unless they are also teaching truth. You cannot teach facts without teaching some kind of attitude toward facts, and it is precisely that attitude that we disagree about.

Yes, we do, indeed, strongly disagree. I do not agree that "some kind of attitude" should be taught, because we will never agree on what that attitude should be. My money is helping pay for this, just as yours is, so we should only teach things we agree on. Do we agree that the earth's gravity pulls things toward it at 9.8 meters/sec/sec? Do we agree that most matter in its solid form sinks when placed in its liquid form, and that water is an exception? Do we agree on why water is an exception? There are many things that we do agree on already, and we can find many more. There are likely millions of things we would agree on; that we could not argue about: facts. But I will not agree to put my money into an education system that teaches your attitude toward those facts. And, since your money is going into the system too, it would be unfair for us to make that system one that teaches an attitude I do agree with that you don't. So no attitude. Just teach the facts that none of us can argue are facts.

And one of those facts is that religion is one of the biggest aspects of humanity. I am not aware of a culture that ever existed that was free of all religion. (Dictators who declare the society to be an atheist-state do not count. That's not the same thing as the culture the dictator comes from; that continues, even if in secrecy, while that system of government is in power; or that publicly returns when that system of government is gone.) I believe such a huge part of humanity should be taught, just as music and art should be taught. All cultures have them. We can teach the role religion plays in cultures. The kinds of questions it addresses; the similarities between them; the differences between them; when they began; when those that ended ended; etc.

Children can't choose at all, and most parents don't know enough (in the sense of do not understand the FACT that there IS a baseline philosophy that the school system DOES teach, while pretending that it does not).

I don't care what baseline philosophy Laura Ingalls-Wilder was operating under when she taught her students, or what philosophies were later forced on the system. They should all be done away with. Just teach the things we all agree are facts.

[Cybrweez]

By demonstrable objective things, I mean like....Chemistry. Avogadro's number. molarity, molality, concentration, enthalpies of formation.

Physics....moments, displacement....

Math


History needs to include multiple perspectives, as so much of it is written by the winners. Such as...no one disputes the fact of the Tet Offensive occurred. But...was it a success? depends how you define success.
But those can be presented based on unarguable fact. Religion.....there isnt' even a common unarguable fact for all religions to start from, other than "what we perceive is not the sum of what is"...and that is an assumption.

A Philosophy class is an excellent place to discuss religions. But no public school should be even implying that one is right, or better.

School should leave religion to the parents? Second Amendment. Its language is objective. Public schools are an agency of the government, so they MUST neither affirm nor oppose any faith.

I know what you meant by demonstrable things. I asked, show me the proof that school should do whatever it is it currently does.

[Cybrweez]

[ I do not agree that "some kind of attitude" should be taught, because we will never agree on what that attitude should be.

I thought the point was, there is an attitude taught in regards to the facts. You don't learn facts in a vaccuum.

[Fist and Faith]

[ I do not agree that "some kind of attitude" should be taught, because we will never agree on what that attitude should be.

I thought the point was, there is an attitude taught in regards to the facts. You don't learn facts in a vaccuum.

Why not? What attitude, what world-view, is required for the fact that the earth's gravity pulls things toward it at 9.8 meters/sec/sec?

[rusmeister]

[ I do not agree that "some kind of attitude" should be taught, because we will never agree on what that attitude should be.

I thought the point was, there is an attitude taught in regards to the facts. You don't learn facts in a vaccuum.

Why not? What attitude, what world-view, is required for the fact that the earth's gravity pulls things toward it at 9.8 meters/sec/sec?

At least Cyberweez gets it.
Like he said, you can't speak about facts in a vacuum, Fist. There is, behind the teaching of every fact, a "why you should learn this". The universe is being described, and it is being described from a point of view. The attitude (POV) comes along with the fact like a Trojan. (OK, not the best analogy.) Point is, it is unavoidable. And if you exclude certain worldviews you can only do so by inserting another one. It's not taught in the sense that subjects are taught. It is part and parcel of every subject, and in public schools is highly regulated. It is what every teacher who would get their certification must profess in EVERY. SINGLE. COURSE. that they take in public cert programs (I speak from personal, objective experience), and what they must continue to profess at mandatory staff meetings and training, so that they can effectively teach that worldview (regardless of what they profess to believe), one that pretends to embrace all while really teaching one, to all children who pass through their doors and become the next generation. Which is what has happened and why we are even having these discussions. Only for the public philosophy/ideology, the answers are pre-supposed. Like I said, in that view, discrimination - bad. Tolerance - good. No further thought allowed. the idea that discrimination could be good and tolerance bad (just as examples) are denied the very beginnings of thought. The knee-jerk reaction has been successfully programmed into the children.

There IS an attitude (worldview) publicly taught, and yet is couched in language that makes it difficult to define. Put simply, it is: You can believe whatever you want. But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual. In a word, there is no truth. There are only facts. Only what can be "proven" (in the scientific sense) is true.
This, uh, contradicts traditional Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. It actively discriminates against them and denies that they can be actually true. It works against what the parents try to teach their children in the home. It teaches an attitude toward religion. Finally, a generation of adults appears with these incompatible ideas in their heads - that a religion is both true and that truth is a matter of personal opinion (and THAT'S the religious ones!). They go on to be our policy-makers, media producers, and, well, us. This is the state that we actually have, and we are the products of that system. We have been indoctrinated to think the way we do.

How would you feel if Morpheus told you the bad news?
(One reason I like the Matrix films so much - because they are true in a very real sense.)

[Fist and Faith]

Like he said, you can't speak about facts in a vacuum, Fist.

Perhaps they aren't. Perhaps the conspiracy you speak of does exist. But that doesn't mean it must exist. We can speak about facts in a vacuum. At least I can. I can speak of anything we can demonstrate to be fact without forcing it into any attitude/world view.

There is, behind the teaching of every fact, a "why you should learn this". The universe is being described, and it is being described from a point of view.

It need not be. I can be nothing but a description of the universe. "From what we can see, with our eyes and all tools and telescopes we've been able to construct, the universe is X lightyears in diameter. The farthest edges are moving away from each other at a rate of Y." I do not believe this suggests a creator. I do not believe it suggests the lack of a creator. I believe it suggests that the universe is X lightyears in diameter, and its farthest edges are moving away from each other at a rate of Y. If you cannot discuss it without insisting on teaching that a creator did it, then please do so in places like your home and church. I will oppose you teaching it in an education system that I am helping pay for. And I will oppose anyone teaching that there isn't a creator in an education system that I am helping pay for.

The attitude (POV) comes along with the fact like a Trojan. (OK, not the best analogy.) Point is, it is unavoidable. And if you exclude certain worldviews you can only do so by inserting another one.

Then let's exclude all worldviews, and simply teach what neither of us can say is not a fact.

There IS an attitude (worldview) publicly taught, and yet is couched in language that makes it difficult to define. Put simply, it is: You can believe whatever you want. But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual. In a word, there is no truth. There are only facts. Only what can be "proven" (in the scientific sense) is true.

Facts by that definition are all I want taught in an education system that I am helping pay for. If you want to force those facts into your worldview, I will try to make sure you cannot do so in that education system. Just as I will try to make sure the guy who wants to teach that there is no creator cannot do so in that education system.

The idea is to let everybody see all the facts that none of us can deny, and let everybody see the picture they form for themselves. How do the pieces of the puzzle fit together? You can have your absolute truth, and I can have mine. If neither of us insists that the other must share that absolute truth, what does it matter? Why would you oppose such a system?

This, uh, contradicts traditional Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. It actively discriminates against them and denies that they can be actually true.

Do they not contradict each other?? Do they not activelly discriminate against each other (sometimes violently), and deny that each other can be actually true?

It works against what the parents try to teach their children in the home. It teaches an attitude toward religion.

What I'm talking about would not.

Finally, a generation of adults appears with these incompatible ideas in their heads - that a religion is both true and that truth is a matter of personal opinion (and THAT'S the religious ones!). They go on to be our policy-makers, media producers, and, well, us. This is the state that we actually have, and we are the products of that system. We have been indoctrinated to think the way we do.

How would you feel if Morpheus told you the bad news?
(One reason I like the Matrix films so much - because they are true in a very real sense.)

I would most definitely want to know the bad news. Just as I would rather know that my spouse is cheating on me, and end a marriage and life that I falsely believed was good and happy. I don't want to live under a happy umbrella of lies.

[aliantha]

As a practical matter, the public schools pretty much *have* to teach tolerance. By definition, students of all races and creeds get a free public education in the US. If you didn't teach the kids to be tolerant of their classmates' differences, you'd have all-out war in the schools. Doesn't seem like that would create much of an atmosphere conducive to learning....

Not only that, but kids grow up and become adults whose work, and whose daily life, brings them into constant contact with people of other races and creeds. If those adult workers didn't practice tolerance, their daily lives would be hate-filled and miserable. Alternatively, we'd all have to live in hermetically-sealed communities where everybody is just like us -- which seems kinda limiting to me....

I dunno what your beef is about multiculturalism anyhow, Rus. You married a Russian woman, right? So aren't you living in a multicultural home yourself?

[Seven Words]

By demonstrable objective things, I mean like....Chemistry. Avogadro's number. molarity, molality, concentration, enthalpies of formation.

Physics....moments, displacement....

Math


History needs to include multiple perspectives, as so much of it is written by the winners. Such as...no one disputes the fact of the Tet Offensive occurred. But...was it a success? depends how you define success.
But those can be presented based on unarguable fact. Religion.....there isnt' even a common unarguable fact for all religions to start from, other than "what we perceive is not the sum of what is"...and that is an assumption.

A Philosophy class is an excellent place to discuss religions. But no public school should be even implying that one is right, or better.

School should leave religion to the parents? Second Amendment. Its language is objective. Public schools are an agency of the government, so they MUST neither affirm nor oppose any faith.

I know what you meant by demonstrable things. I asked, show me the proof that school should do whatever it is it currently does.

The correlation (NOT a direct causal relationship) between academic success and a successful life, according to our society's majority definition of success. People who do well in school tend to have successful lives. Measured by the most commonly held yardsticks..financial and LACK of criminality. Straight-A students can, and often do, fail spectacularly out of school (Enron, anyone?)....and we have a C student former president. I'm NOT speaking in absolutes, just a general correlation, subject to the effects of MANY other variables. But those other variables are not matters on which school can have an effect.

[Cybrweez]

7W, a good reason why education is important. But not answering my question at all. Private schools, which tend to be religious, usually have even better rates, and they certainly teach religion.