The rise of faith schools

Sneer? That was a completely straight statement. Should I put a smiley after it or something?)

It's the monochrome nature of the internet heres a good quote on washington and adams from: Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)you are right religion was thought to be importiant for morality but it was general religion not just christianity, considering neather of them was a christian but a diest (if you want to bring up thier beliefs i got quotes from people who knew them, including reverends)washington in his farewell speech did consider religion nessicary for happiness as well ibis

does the american government have the responsibility to provide every child with a free education?if so it should have a say in how every child is educated. I think that this means that every child’s education should be free from other people’s beliefs being taught to them. Peoples beliefs have nothing to do with education.If a parent wants to explain to a child what they believe in and why of they can do so but it should not be done in the classroom!If of course the government doesn’t have this responsibility then my point is mute.

Yes, thanks for the quotes, that's what I was thinking of. The word "religion" back in those days was commonly used to refer to Christianity, and that included the deist or unitarian forms in their minds by that time. Christians used the term all the time that way, though these days it has come to include all the world's religions.

I believe so but I'm not familiar with the laws about this. It does. It has something to do with authorizing educational standards at least, and homeschoolers and religious schools also have to meet these standards. This is why Christians want to leave the public schools, because as a matter of fact other people's beliefs ARE taught to their children there. Other religions are presented to them, and the "religion of secularism" is taught implicitly, and their Christian moral standards are undermined. Christians disagree with you about that. Christianity is a worldview that impinges on every subject taught in the schools.

Faith,I am agnostic but support your position on schooling 100%.I think it's a great benefit to have freedom of choice for schools for more than just religious reasons:
1. Competition makes for better quality and effort (and lower cost)
2. Faith-based schools are more likely to produce honest, ethical, law-abiding citizens (this is based on what peer pressure is exposed to the children)
3. One method/standard, especially from the government, is not conducive to continued improvement. It's just not evolutionary!

quote:

---

I have to pay for every church in my town. My property taxes are higher because those churches don't pay property taxes.

---

That would be an interesting "trade" for Congress to consider:
Make churches pay property tax, and in return, allow vouchers so that church-goers can choose where to spend the money for their kids education.

Good points. Thanks.

as though you spoke for all, or even most Christians. Some Christians want to leave the public school system. But Christian Schools are not some new invention. The one that I went to was founded in 1849. There was another spate of Christian schools created when some Christians objected to all them little darkies going to their public schools. Other religions are taught in many Christian schools as well. I know that we spent many years studying Judaism, Islam, Taoism, the writings of teachers like the Buddha, Mencius, Confucius and the different philosopies and philosophers. We had to build the case for Atheism, and also for Agnosticism. Our beliefs were challenged, and tempered.Not exposing someone to other points of view leaves a weak faith, one that is easily mislead and subverted.So far you have never even been able to supoort the existence of some "religion of secularism" and it is certainly not a subject in an public school. Nor is there any courses that I know of that undermine Christian moral standards. If you know of any perhaps you can start a thread and we can discuss them. If you change that slightly, I would certainly agree with you. Religion is a force that impinges on every subject. For example, without the contributions of the Muslim and Hindu scholars we would not be able to hold this conversation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, I will try to remember to use some qualifier like Bible-inerrancy Christians.Or how about you use some qualifier since your beliefs are the nontraditional ones.Yes there have always been Christian schools, some very good ones. In fact most of the first universities were founded to train Christian ministers. But for the most part all these originally orthodox Christian institutions have lost their first inspiration.Nobody is recommending "not exposing" children to anything. There is nothing wrong with studying other religions and I expect Christian schools to encourage this, but from a Bible-inerrancy Christian perspective. The public schools teach religion from an anthropological or literary perspective, but also allow some proselytizing, as from Muslims in recent years. As I said about the "religion of secularism" it is implicit.Bible-inerrancy Christians want to teach all subjects from the Christian worldview and that includes teaching other religions from the Christian worldview.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 11:02 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 11:04 AM

Yes, that is a very apt description. But it's also not teaching, but rather propagandizing.You cannot teach Islam from the Christian perspective anymore than you can teach Non-Euclidian Geometry from the Euclidian perspective.To teach a subject you must teach it within context. To teach Islam from the Christian Perspective is to lose sight of what teaching really means.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I disagree with everything you said except about teaching Euclidean v. nonEuclidean geometry -- only because I don't know anything about it.As for the rest, you teach nothing worth learning if you do not have a strong coherent point of view. Point of view is everything.ABE: I'll add that I don't think you teach the ability to think and criticize either, unless you teach from a strong point of view. If you just teach everything as a smorgasbord from its own point of view you make critical thinking difficult to impossible.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 11:44 AM

Yes, that is the big disagreement. What you describe is not teaching but indoctrination.I think this is a very important point. I do not believe that indoctrination is education. If Christianity is really worthwhile, it will stand up to direct honest comparisions with any other religion. To determine that you must also teach the other religions from their perspective. Teaching Islam from a Christian perspective is as wrong as teaching Christianity from the Islamic perspective.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's look at this smorgasbord analogy, shall we? When I go to a smorgasbord, I try some of the old stand-bys - roast beef, peas and carrots, etc. - and I also try a few new things ("What the heck is that?"). I was first introduced to stuffed peppers at a Hungarian smorgasbord - now I never pass them up.I didn't look at stuffed peppers in a "roast-beef context". That would be like comparing apples and oranges. The only way to understand unfamiliar things is to try them on their own terms. When it comes to food, I still rely on the old stand-bys (as we discussed in another thread), but my life is enriched by the new things that I tried on their own terms.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Again, I disagree.