Seperation of Church and State

[Guest HecateRose]

How can you say for a fact that we are more immoral now than "ever before?" I hate to say it but there are plenty of times in US history where we were more immoral than we are now in my opinion.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

On what standard do you judge immorality?

 

Do you go to church? Probably.

 

Do you have premarital sex?

 

Do you drink?

 

Do you smoke?

 

Do you (insert random bad thing here)?

 

 

 

So, what's your point? The teachings haven't changed. Does church really influence people to change their lives? Some, but then you still have the immorality, don't you?

 

By forcing religion on everyone, you're fucking ASKING for a rebellion.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Verne, I think just seperating the government from running religion was intended. BTW GOD is used in every major document this country sues, in the pledge, before congress sessions, in courts. That is why I believe that it was only intended to seperate the gv. from running religion.

 

--Rob

To paraphrase Justice Scalia, it doesn't matter what a legislator INTENDS, it's what he wrote. It's an invitation to tyranny to allow the government to write one thing as a law, and to turn around and say that it MEANT something else.

 

The first amendment prohibits the govt from establishing religion. Putting the ten commandments in public schools is an endorsement of religion. Whether or not you believe govt. "endorsement" of religion amounts to a law "respecting the establishment of religion," you can decide for yourself. I think it is.

 

As far as the bible study group goes, the state cannot prohibit the free excercise of religion either. If your high school has other extra-curricular groups, than your high-school can not discriminate against the bible study group for its religious content.

[Guest bob_barron]

You mean in the 1950s when there was segregation and blacklisting?

 

That doesn't sound too morally right too me

[Guest Eagan469]

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You mean in the 1950s when there was segregation and blacklisting?

 

That doesn't sound too morally right too me

Good point, Bob.

 

Heh, I didn't even notice that.

[Guest Ace309]

It's true that the wall of separation doctrine was not included in the Constitution. However, it HAS been implemented into the interpretations of the Constitution through various Supreme Court cases (right offhand, it's quoted and repeated as fact in Everson (1947), 330 US 1). Keep in mind that since the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, and their opinions can only be overruled by the court itself or by Constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court's opinions do have the weight of the supreme law of the land as per the Constitution's supremacy clause.

 

And, incidentally, the establishment clause of the first amendment goes both ways. Congress may make no law either respecting the establishment of the religion (which has been interpreted as endorsing or supporting religion), nor may it prohibit the free exercise of a religion. We can't prevent you from practicing your religion (provided, of course, you're not one of those happy little human sacrifice people), and the government (by extension, branches of the government as well - this includes schools and school boards) may not establish (or endorse) a religion. Regardless of their content, the 10 Commandments are an implicit endorsement of the religions based on Old Testament scripture, and as such have no place being endorsed in a school. Free exercise permits you to teach your children values, and free speech allows you to proselytize; take advantage of that.

 

The idea that it's unconstitutional for a municipality to collect school taxes from parents who send their children to private schools has not to my knowledge been decided, and until it is, it will be presumed Constitutional. By all means, set up a test case. I'm interested to see what the outcome would be. My guess is that the general welfare component of the police power of the states would allow them to continue to tax, but, of course, I am not a lawyer.

 

If we decide to have a public school system, who should run it? This will further eliminate questions about what is taught. If the local community wants to impart their values to the students, and they are paying the salaries, then their values should be taught.

 

Interesting point and interpretation. The problem, as I see it, is that in that case you establish a small society that prevents anyone who doesn't have those precise morals from joining. This creates issues with freedom of movement and settling, as established in a long line of civil rights cases. This is, of course, in addition to the fact that it would create a branch of the government (school board) using tax money to teach a religious position not everyone buys into, which is a violation of the establishment clause.

 

I imagine you'll protest that evolution is taught; The Supreme Court has yet to recognize evolution as a religion, and I doubt they ever will. Until they do, it's considered a purely scientific position, no different than teaching the cell structure of plant and animal cells.

 

Again, it doesn't matter what your religion is; the Constitution is the Constitution, and we're all bound and protected by it.

 

 

 

EDIT: Removed pledge link that Rose added earlier. Wow, I took a long time writing this post.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

As far as the school issue goes, nobody is stopping you from taking your children to a private school. By taking money out of the public schools, though, you are disadvantaging other people who cannot afford to/do not want to send their children to a private, religious school.

 

Also, you then run into problems of admissions (are you going to let the outspoken Atheist in, or is he doomed to go to an underfunded, subpar public school) in these private schools. You can't expect all the schools to be able to take in ten thousand children, can you? In fact, most private schools in the area I used to live... had a long waiting list to allow children into them.

 

So, you're gonna remove that tax money (of the richer folks who can afford to give a buck or two) from the public schools, furthering their plight, just so some kid can go to a private school?

 

Controlling your tax allocation is not a constitutional right either, last time I checked.

[Guest BDC]

Seperation of church and state is good. Why? Because, since the Supreme Court showed that in the prayer-in-school issue, they won't be swayed by the majority and will apply the same ruling across the board to all religions. I read a letter sent out by the National Islamic League or something requesting public schools have seperate classes for boys and girls and special showering facilities for their religion.

 

The school told them to screw off and was right in it. Keep religion out of school and you don't have to worry about having religions you don't like forced on your children.

[Guest JMA]

You know as I was reading in the other thread, most are against Speration of Church and State. It got me think, how bad is it really? What would be the pros and cons of teaching some parts of the christian religion in tax funded public classroom. Now before I go on let us go over the Ten Commandments. They are something that seams to be a consensus that no on wants in the school system. Let's take a look.

Which thread? The thread I created about politics? If so, you'd be wrong. Most posters are FOR separation of church and state. Simply put, in the United States we have FREEDOM of religion. Therefore, you can't have a church dictate what the state does. I have no problem with Christianity being taught in classrooms--as long as other religions are talked about equally. Personally, I believe the goverment should be fully secular, and stop trying to force its own brand of morality on others.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You know as I was reading in the other thread, most are against Speration of Church and State.  It got me think, how bad is it really?

First off, you guys better get ready for as much as a half-dozen posts or so as I go through this thread and reply to bullshit. And put on your flame retardant suits.

 

To answer the above question: Very bad. Our country was founded on a group of settlers who left their country because they didn't want to follow the state-sponsored religion.

 

What would be the pros and cons of teaching some parts of the christian religion in tax funded public classroom. Ok so now let's cover this again.  The Ten Commandments in school would be bad because let's see...  It teaches kids to not

 

steal,kill,lie,decieve, and to be faithful to their spouse

 

and it teaches kids to honor their parents.

 

I am sorry but how is this bad to be in the schools?

 

Religion is an interesting subject. It teaches good morals at first, but because of how broad it is at times, people take the message differently.

 

I was raised believing that we were all Jesus' children and he loves us all equally. And Jesus forgives you for all your sins as long as you believe in him.

 

Then later I find out there's a whole bunch of really active religious people who tell me that I'm wrong. Apparently, Jesus hates me because I'm gay and I need to convert RIGHT NOW or else I'll go to hell where there's pain and suffering and fire and smoke forever and ever until the end of eternity.

 

Well, gee... That's sure a REALLY different message than the warm fuzzy stuff that I was told and grew up believing.

 

Then you've got the matter of schools. Science seems to dicatate that the planet has been here much MUCH longer than we have, and that the entire human race is rather late to the party. Religion teaches that humans are only five days older than the entire planet.

 

I would also like to add that it is unconstitutional to pay school taxes if their said children go to a religious non-secular school.

 

I'll agree with that, if only because school taxes are supposed to be funding your children's education. If your children aren't in public schools, then who's education are you funding anyway?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The official religion has always been christianity and no dude, the pope is just for catholics.

There has been NO OFFICIAL RELIGION.

 

The Constitution mentions powers granted by "The Creator." That could just as well be Allah, or Buddha, or whoever. When you see statements such as "In God We Trust," the references are to this non-demonational God. The U.S. was founded to be flexible to all religions.

 

Just becuse Christianity as a whole has decided to give their God the name of "God," it is easily mistaken that it is explicitly mentioning THAT GOD. It is not.

 

Religion should be taught to teach morals so people do not go around braking the law and killing unborn babies..

 

I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, but I guess you might as well consider me someone in favor of killing unborn babies or whatever.. Not because I think it's a cool thing, in fact, I think it sickens me. My belief though is that if people want to get abortions bad enough, they'll do it. If they can't do it in the U.S., they'll go do it in Mexico or somewhere else, where they risk sickness, infections, and more because their medical facilities are not as advanced as ours.

 

Besides, I think that kind of thing should be decided by the individual States, and left alone by the Feds.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Take a look at the 1950's compared to now.

The 1950s is an odd phase because everything was controlled by Conservatives. The kids dressed like good little boys and girls for the same reason kids do many other things today, because their TV/Radio told them to. The Conservatives controlled everything, including the media and the styles of the day.

 

In the mid 60s, if you turned on Walt Disney Presents or what have you, all the teenagers were still doing as their parents told, dressing like clean-cut young men, and never kissing on a date. If you turned off those images and looked at what was going on in the real world, you'd see the opposite. Rock concerts. Protests. Young men with wild hair and long beards. Wild sex acts with random partners. Sure, it wasn't a GOOD thing, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

That's what all the protesting and Woodstock and everything was about man, was breaking the wills imposed on them. By the time the next election came around, that grip on the pulse of the nation was broken as the Conservatives had lost their overwhelming majority. And I can safely tell you that as bad as some people make out Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/etc out to be, we'll never see days like the 50s/60s again. Just like how we won't see 3 lone men hijack a full commercial plane again. The people will just not allow that to happen.

 

As for today, it's a pretty good mishmash of Conservatives and Liberals. There's extremists on both sides that think the other side is inheritantly evil just because they don't agree with them on some debatable issues, but they're in the minority. Most Americans are rather centerist. They want to protect their children and teach them morals, but they don't want to give the government the power to violate their own freedoms (such as by bringing religion into schools and destroying Freedom of Religion, or censoring violent movies and destroying Freedom of Speech.) It's a good balance of the two.

 

 

...And with that, I've run out of content to fume about in this thread.

[Guest BDC]

I've got to say some stuff to Jobber.

 

First off, Jobber, ppl that just love to toss around the term "God hates gays" don't seem to understand. The New Testament is about love and forgiveness, not condemning. People that love to condemn convieniently skip over direct statements as "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without a sin throw the first stone". Pretty straightforward and they're pretty in the wrong.

 

Okay, stepping off the soapbox...

 

Abortion: I don't like it. My religious beliefs conflict with it, my personal beliefs conflict with it (yes, they are different, pm me for reasons), but I still support Roe v Wade. Why? Because ppl are going to get abortions done regardless of what the law is. Meaning? Let's legalize them and at least make sure that they have sanitized facilities. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

First off, Jobber, ppl that just love to toss around the term "God hates gays" don't seem to understand. The New Testament is about love and forgiveness, not condemning. People that love to condemn convieniently skip over direct statements as "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without a sin throw the first stone". Pretty straightforward and they're pretty in the wrong.

Perhaps, but those people could probably come back at you with more scripture that supports their beliefs.

 

It's kind of like the episode of The Simpsons where Krusty's Dad and Lisa were coming up with different scriptures of the Torah debating whether Dad was justified or not for walking out on Krusty. You can debate this stuff until you're blue in the face, but the meanings and teachings are so broad and go in so many ways that it's very difficult.

 

Me? I grew up in a Protestant school, but am afraid of being misrepresented and thus consider myself unreligious. I don't force my beliefs on anyone else, although I do personally think if more people saw things my way and held no bonds to religion that we'd still have the World Trade Center and an innumerable amount of people who didn't deserve to die.

 

However, I understand my chances of changing anybody else's will is about as low as them changing mine. Thus, I choose not to preach about that sort of thing and just deal with what results. I take a stand, however, when one religion starts invading our government process.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

As far as the school issue goes, nobody is stopping you from taking your children to a private school. By taking money out of the public schools, though, you are disadvantaging other people who cannot afford to/do not want to send their children to a private, religious school.

 

Tyler, I am sorry that I do not agree with your socialist opinion. I believe that while schools are controlled by our government they are not good for us. Private schools decided upon by each any every person will be the best way to get the education you would like for your children. Some schools could be better because they get more funding and only accept a certain religion but, that is fair. I really could care less about a school that my children were not going to attend.

 

Interesting point and interpretation. The problem, as I see it, is that in that case you establish a small society that prevents anyone who doesn't have those precise morals from joining. This creates issues with freedom of movement and settling, as established in a long line of civil rights cases. This is, of course, in addition to the fact that it would create a branch of the government (school board) using tax money to teach a religious position not everyone buys into, which is a violation of the establishment clause.

 

Ace there is no need for a governemt run BOE. I am saying that if your kids do not attend a public school funded by the government then they should not pay taxes into it. Any other way would be taxation without representation. Then parents could take the money they would pay in taxes to the state, and use that as tuition for their child to a good private school that is within their beliefs. Once again, I could care less about putting money into public schools if my children do not attend them, and paying money into such a system is socialism at work.

 

I was raised believing that we were all Jesus' children and he loves us all equally. And Jesus forgives you for all your sins as long as you believe in him.

 

Then later I find out there's a whole bunch of really active religious people who tell me that I'm wrong. Apparently, Jesus hates me because I'm gay and I need to convert RIGHT NOW or else I'll go to hell where there's pain and suffering and fire and smoke forever and ever until the end of eternity.

 

I am sorry for you jobber. I do think homosexuality is morally unjust and it creates bad situations to me that offend me. I do not have children as of yet but, when I do how do I explain johnny having two daddy's or sarah having two mommies? That offends me. After reflecting on the gay people I have met in the past, it is ok with me if you are gay, it is the people that flaunt it at gay pride rally's that bother me. The whole sexual revolution really corrupted our society and now we are paying for it with homosexuality, bi-sexuality, aids, higher divorse rates, etc.....

 

There has been NO OFFICIAL RELIGION.

 

The Constitution mentions powers granted by "The Creator." That could just as well be Allah, or Buddha, or whoever. When you see statements such as "In God We Trust," the references are to this non-demonational God. The U.S. was founded to be flexible to all religions.

 

Just becuse Christianity as a whole has decided to give their God the name of "God," it is easily mistaken that it is explicitly mentioning THAT GOD. It is not.

 

It is quote obvious that our country's founding fathers were mostly judeo/christian faith based people. When they used the term Creator they were using it in regards to a Judea/Christian Creator or GOD. Any other interpretation is just ignorant to the fact.

 

Abortion: I don't like it. My religious beliefs conflict with it, my personal beliefs conflict with it (yes, they are different, pm me for reasons), but I still support Roe v Wade. Why? Because ppl are going to get abortions done regardless of what the law is. Meaning? Let's legalize them and at least make sure that they have sanitized facilities. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

 

Fuck that. If there were strict abortion laws and people chose to get the abortion done anyway, either in this country or outside of it and they get sick, all I can say is Oh well. Murdering babies is murdering babies anyway you look at it. And if you support murdering babies you are almost as bad as the people acually doing it.

 

Me? I grew up in a Protestant school, but am afraid of being misrepresented and thus consider myself unreligious. I don't force my beliefs on anyone else, although I do personally think if more people saw things my way and held no bonds to religion that we'd still have the World Trade Center and an innumerable amount of people who didn't deserve to die.

 

 

We would stil have the WTC is Clinton acted on the bombing of the U.S.S Cole. Your intelligence pointed to Bin Laden and Clinton did nothing. Also if we did not put our noses in foreign affairs like we do we would have less tensions put upon us.

 

--Rob

[Guest bob_barron]

As far as posting the 10 commandements- stuff like dont steal and kill is all well and good but if I didn't believe in God or was of another religion I would have a problem with those commandments being posted.

 

Rob-

Do you want schools to teach Christianity? I'm just a bit confused by what you're trying to say

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Bob I do not like government sponsered schools. I want a bunch of private schools run by communityies and such so you can choose the type of environment your kid grows up in. Also in a religous based school you probably wouldn't have to wait 15 minutes to pass through the metal detectors.

 

--Rob

[Guest bob_barron]

I never had to pass through a metal detector and I don't know anyone who did.

 

So instead of public school- you want each town to fund their own faith based schools or would there be just one religous school?

[Guest JMA]

Thomas Jefferson (writer of the Declaration of Independence) really helped us get separation of church and state. Jefferson believed the Bible had many interesting philosophy ideas, but tended to ignore the mythological aspects of it. He even edited them out. True story. Here are some quotes of his.

 

"And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.... error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.... I deem the essential principles of our government.... Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; ... freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected."

-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

 

"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and ... if any act shall be ... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:546 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

 

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)

 

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

 

"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

 

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

 

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

 

Truly a man ahead of his time.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Each community, not necessarily a whole town. And those people that wish to fund for that school, go to that school, and those who don't will fund for another school. It is not a perfect system but for what is intended it works fine until it can be made better. Anyway pulic schooling is not perfect either.

 

--Rob

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, Rob is a rich piece of shit that doesn't care if we have a 20% literacy rate for the United States.

 

Sorry, bud, you lost all credibility with that last post.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Okay, first off, the whole religion in school issue. Teaching kids not to steal, not to kill anyone... doesn't have to involve religion. If you think it should as a parent or whatever, fine, take your kids to church on Sunday, that's what it's there for. Religion can very easily be a part of a kids everyday life, but it shouldn't be public school's responsibility to fill that role.

 

Second, this is the land of opportunity, and a melting pot, Little Joe Gump going to public school in Dumpwater, GA should have the same access to textbooks that Simon Fauntleroy in the nice private school on the hill has. If that's "socialist" or whatever, fine, I'd rather call it equal opportunity for the nation's citizens, which is what it is.

 

I can see (to a point) that folks sending their kids to private school shouldn't pay for the public schools, but what about those other kids? Sure, it's easy to dismiss it by not giving a shit, but that's a fucking stupid and ignorant way to look at it. A whole lot more kids go to public school than go to private, and not all of us have the money to send Junior to the private institute. Should all of those working-middle class kids just get the shaft because their dad works at the mill instead of in an office?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Okay, first off, the whole religion in school issue. Teaching kids not to steal, not to kill anyone... doesn't have to involve religion. If you think it should as a parent or whatever, fine, take your kids to church on Sunday, that's what it's there for. Religion can very easily be a part of a kids everyday life, but it shouldn't be public school's responsibility to fill that role.

 

Second, this is the land of opportunity, and a melting pot, Little Joe Gump going to public school in Dumpwater, GA should have the same access to textbooks that Simon Fauntleroy in the nice private school on the hill has. If that's "socialist" or whatever, fine, I'd rather call it equal opportunity for the nation's citizens, which is what it is.

 

I can see (to a point) that folks sending their kids to private school shouldn't pay for the public schools, but what about those other kids? Sure, it's easy to dismiss it by not giving a shit, but that's a fucking stupid and ignorant way to look at it. A whole lot more kids go to public school than go to private, and not all of us have the money to send Junior to the private institute. Should all of those working-middle class kids just get the shaft because their dad works at the mill instead of in an office?

^^^

 

A more eloquent way of saying what I just did.

 

[Guest The Hamburglar]

The official religion has always been christianity and no dude, the pope is just for catholics.

I see this a lot around the Internet, is it an American thing? Since when were Catholics not Christians? Just because the Catholic Church is the single biggest Christian organisation doesn't make it separate from Christianity itself. Its not like there are any vast differences. Anyhoo, Church and State was sorted out by the British centuries ago during the Reformation. State consumes and dominates the Church. What is being advocated by Rob = teh suck.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

"We would stil have the WTC is Clinton acted on the bombing of the U.S.S Cole. Your intelligence pointed to Bin Laden and Clinton did nothing."

 

Cole was in October 2000, and Clinton was out of office in three months. So, how was he supposed to do anything about the Cole?

 

"I see this a lot around the Internet, is it an American thing? Since when were Catholics not Christians?"

 

since some Americans decided that Catholics worship statues or when they said that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

 

Anyways..

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Okay, first off, the whole religion in school issue. Teaching kids not to steal, not to kill anyone... doesn't have to involve religion. If you think it should as a parent or whatever, fine, take your kids to church on Sunday, that's what it's there for. Religion can very easily be a part of a kids everyday life, but it shouldn't be public school's responsibility to fill that role.

 

Second, this is the land of opportunity, and a melting pot, Little Joe Gump going to public school in Dumpwater, GA should have the same access to textbooks that Simon Fauntleroy in the nice private school on the hill has. If that's "socialist" or whatever, fine, I'd rather call it equal opportunity for the nation's citizens, which is what it is.

 

I can see (to a point) that folks sending their kids to private school shouldn't pay for the public schools, but what about those other kids? Sure, it's easy to dismiss it by not giving a shit, but that's a fucking stupid and ignorant way to look at it. A whole lot more kids go to public school than go to private, and not all of us have the money to send Junior to the private institute. Should all of those working-middle class kids just get the shaft because their dad works at the mill instead of in an office?

I am in the lower bracket of the middle class AOO and yes, parents should send their children to public school. Like I said earlier it's not a perfect system and needs to be outlined alot, but it will work for the purpose it has.

 

Rob E, ok let's forget about the U.S.S Cole. What about the american embassys bombings in kenya? What about that?

 

Aler, the literacy rate would go up easily if parents made kids stop watching television and did something crazy like, I don't know, MAKE THEM READ.

 

Also I used to be catholic but I converted. I do not believe one man is holier than the rest of us and I do not believe we need to go through other people to go to GOD. That is why I converted.

 

--Rob

[Guest Ace309]

Rob, this just occurred to me...

 

ignoring anything else in the thread, why do you feel that morality needs to be taught in schools at all, rather than simply enforced? By that, I mean, what's wrong with morality (above that which is necessary for running an orderly, respectful school) being taught exclusively at home?

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Because, society is different than it was before. Not a bad thing but harded to teach morals because instead of women being homemakers they are out working. So you have more 2 income houses, and less time for parents to teach morals. THat is why I believe it needs to be taught in the schools.

 

--Rob

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Society has always had some form of immorality, so saying "before" is subject to backing yourself.