TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:
Honestly, IMO, folks who feel compelled to bring religion into public education are just wrong. If they can't manage to satisfy their religious needs in the other 17 hours of the day, then the best solution is to go to a religious-affiliated school. We live in a country where the freedom to practice religion is counterbalanced by the temperance required to accommodate more than one religious view. For me, it really is that simple.

I think I'm about done on this topic, but, thanks for the discussion.

why? I agree somewhat, teaching to convert is wrong. The schools teach Darwin's theory of evelution. So why not also teach some of Genises from the Bible (creationism)? I personally think Darwinism and the Bible teach some of the same, and that the Bible is mostly a Jewish history. I do agree with the sect of Jewdeaism that believes that one must argue the ideas. Look at what we are doing here.
You yourself have expressed an opinion about reporters that are biased about reporting the "news.". Why be biased about what is taught in the school, as long as it is balanced both pro and con. This is a major issue with college teaching, they want you to think inside the box, think along the norm, think the way we direct you to think.
Prayer in school? "Iwant everyone to stand and join me in prayer" would be wrong, they are being directed. "Those of you that would like to join with me in a moment of prayer" would be ok because it gives a choice.
Enough of my rant.

There's a clear difference (to me) teaching about the history and practices of various religions in schools vs. "Prayer", which is actually "practicing" religion. At the university level certainly, and in many HS's, I've seen classes on "Major Religions" that I have never had any concerns about.... Even in lower grades (these topics started coming up for my kids in 1st or 2nd grade, IIRC), an understanding that people have different religious beliefs and some age appropriate information about those various beliefs is, IMO, appropriate. I think it's a necessary part of anyone's education, actually.

A teacher, or some other "prayer leader" taking time from class (or lunch, or recess) to actually say prayers (or just one), to actually "practice religion" at a time when it would be unavoidable for my child to opt out or avoid the experience or the fallout from not participating .... is entirely unacceptable.

Again... I can pray any time during the other 17 hours in the day. Why is prayer in public school such a necessity? The need for this honestly baffles me. I want religion taught to my children BY ME and those I specifically choose to do so. The idea of a public school doing it is simply not ok.... Public schools don't do a good enough job with Math and Science, I'm going to trust them with Religion? And what version of who's religion would that be anyway? Would Protestants be ok with Baptists or Catholics (oh my.! ) leading prayer? How about a Buddhist?

Ok.. maybe THIS will be my last post...

jmra wrote:The problem I see with your argument is the assumption that the "middle" is attainable or that it even exist. I believe the reason we are where we are today is because in the past republicans have taken an appeasement approach in order to move the nation to the "middle". The "middle" was never achieved because the left has no interest in the "middle" and will never have an interest in the "middle".

By asking people to ignore abortion (right to life), prayer in schools (freedom of speech) and States Rights (what the gay marriage issue is really about) You are in effect asking people to set aside what they believe to be constitutional issues in order to protect the constitution. That simply doesn't fly.

Interesting ... Interesting also that you didn't respond on the questions I posed in my next post. it's difficult stuff, sure, but to suggest you have a "freedom" and not acknowledge how the exercise of that freedom affects others is avoidance. Go out on the limb a bit... what would you propose? It's easy to talk about high-level concepts, but it's the details of execution where things get sticky.

RoyGBiv wrote:Really? I would argue that we all have a myriad of opportunities to engage in whatever prayer we choose, outside of non-secular activities such as public school. I can't imagine any public school teacher or student or school-chosen clergy that I would consent to advise my children on religion. Is there some advantage in that plan that escapes me? And what religion would we practice in public school? Would this practice require my child to attend religious events that do not teach the same things I am teaching them at home and in Church? How do I reconcile my childs now-unavoidable exposure to religious teachings that I do not control with my rights under the First Amendment?

I can pray any time during the other 17 hours in the day. Why is prayer in public school such a necessity?

"Appeasement" is not the correct view of what I'm suggesting. Appeasement is, at best, a temporary solution. Sometimes I do things to appease my children, but I know the day of reckoning will come eventually.

I truly believe that there's a large (very large) middle ground of issues and activities where the vast majority of Americans can feel comfortable that government is involved in things that fall under its Constitutional authority (Federal and State). Much of the rest of it (not all, but much) should be relegated to freedom of choice, exercised as private individuals in private settings. Unfortunately, the agenda has been defined by the extremes on both sides for way too long. In management we call it "managing to the amplitude of the scream", or, "governing to the lowest common denominator". This is a losing proposition. Leadership, IMHO, is the ability to cut through the rhetoric and identify and affect the real issues that make a real difference.

It's difficult stuff to communicate topics like this on the interweb. It's too easy for someone to say "here's the one or few examples why your argument doesn't work".... rather than focusing on the far greater number of areas where the argument does work.

Honestly, IMO, folks who feel compelled to bring religion into public education are just wrong. If they can't manage to satisfy their religious needs in the other 17 hours of the day, then the best solution is to go to a religious-affiliated school. We live in a country where the freedom to practice religion is counterbalanced by the temperance required to accommodate more than one religious view. For me, it really is that simple.

I think I'm about done on this topic, but, thanks for the discussion.

jmra wrote:Not offended. I do not believe you should accept prayer in school as a thank you. I think you should accept it as freedom of speech.

Really? I would argue that we all have a myriad of opportunities to engage in whatever prayer we choose, outside of non-secular activities such as public school. I can't imagine any public school teacher or student or school-chosen clergy that I would consent to advise my children on religion. Is there some advantage in that plan that escapes me? And what religion would we practice in public school? Would this practice require my child to attend religious events that do not teach the same things I am teaching them at home and in Church? How do I reconcile my childs now-unavoidable exposure to religious teachings that I do not control with my rights under the First Amendment?

I can pray any time during the other 17 hours in the day. Why is prayer in public school such a necessity?

BTW, I am very much in favor of school vouchers. If you'd prefer to send your kids to a religious-based school, I think you should be able to do so and take your childs funding with you to offset the cost. Creating competition in education is a good thing, IMHO.

Salty1 wrote:

jmra wrote:"If the religious right ever "dies" the republican party and the constitution as we know it dies with it."

well said and I could not agree more, the liberal left has already shown us what they think of the Constitution and especially the 2nd Amendment. Just look at the Chicago vs McDonald case as a point of fact. Obama's recent SCOTUS appointees did exactly what they claimed they would not do during their confirmation hearings. If they had the majority all of us would be a few giant steps back concerning citizens rights to keep and bear arms. This is yet another reason that we need the GOP to take the White House in 2012, if Obie gets another SCOTUS appointment the left will turn this country upside down....

There's some real truth to this (both)... unfortunately. Instead of finding ways to work together and resolve differences, US politics is becoming more polarized every day. I don't think it needs to be this way. The whole dialogue is alienating. The Left screams loudly and the Right digs in. Like Palestinians and Israel some days...

Here's my impression....

I think that most folks on the Right are pretty reasonable and thoughtful. Sure, you have your way-Right folks who sit on their rocking chair on their philosophical porch (a metaphor from a psych class a long time ago, forgive me), but I believe most folks on the Right are capable of independent thought. I don't give the left quite as much credit. So..... I think it's up to those on the Right to step up and lead. There's a huge difference between leading and digging in... Leading means getting out and voting and holding representatives accountable. It also means being mature enough that our reaction to the the Left screaming for "Cap and Trade" or QEIII is CONSTRUCTIVE, informed, realistic and constitutional. It's all too easy to demand "black" when the left is demanding "white". That's not leadership that's political entertainment.

I like Paul Ryan... I think if I was in Congress, he and I would get along well. Why? Because he's literate, not afraid to speak his mind, has well-considered proposals and is ready to talk about ways to improve those proposals. He's not afraid to lead out and take a few punches. He's also a relatively clean slate. Doesn't owe too many allegiances (so it seems). We need more plain honest people representing us. Does anyone think Rick Perry is a good candidate for President? Newt? Romney?... People like Romney because he's "electable"... What an awful reason to vote for a person for President. We're in huge trouble if that's really what it's come down to.... We all have our reservations about Romney, but he doesn't stink totally and he's better than what we have so, he's my guy..?? Sad. I haven't voted FOR a President since Reagan, have you? Look where that's taken us.

Quit babbling and get to the point....

We are ALL guilty of accepting mediocrity. Taking the least painful path. We need to stop this. If a Republican is going to win the WH in 2012, he is NOT going to be an established candidate (My opinion). All the established candidates are worthless. They're either politically compromised, old ideas or unable to win the primary and the general election. We need a candidate that can win the CENTER with a promise to hold true to the Constitution. All of our other needs (speech, religion, secure in our homes, etc.) will be strengthened by this kind of leadership.

If we demand the same old story out of our primary candidates.... Abolish Abortion, Allow Prayer in Schools, Ban Gay Marriage... We have not only no chance, but no right to expect this country to change. Because in making those demands we not only fail to honor the Constitution, or the Golden Rule, we also fail to behave as constructive adults and we allow the Nanny Staters to define the political battlefield, just like a parent getting sucked into a pointless argument with their teenager.

IMO, YMMV

Hopefully some of this makes some sense. Sorry for the ramble.

Salty1 wrote: exactly how does this compare to the liberals pushing their lack of morals through legislation?

While I might argue with the Left agenda stemming from a "lack of morals", I would certainly agree that both extremes are not in the best interests of this country.

jmra wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

If we had not had the religious right you would not be carrying a gun today.

Our agendas overlap, for sure.
Should I accept prayer in public schools as my Thank You?

Before things get too spun up here... I'd like to apologize (sincerely) for an offhand comment that I see can definitely be construed in a way I had not intended... At the risk of jumping out of the pan and into the fire.... Let me try to clarify...

As Loaded has said above, the issue for me is with folks who bring religious and moral tenets to law-making. Yes, religion provides a compass/guide for many (as it does for me), but I do not vote in order to promote candidates who will advance any religious agenda. My vote is for candidates who will advance my Constitutional agenda. While there is overlap between the two, neither is entirely a subset of the other.

For example: I am in favor of Civil Unions for homosexual partners.

From a religious perspective, my religion is against this. But from my own moral perspective, I find it difficult that in America, two people who have decided to live their lives together in love and peace do not enjoy the protections of our laws. For example, if one partner becomes ill, the other does not have any legal rights to make care decisions for the other. Yes, the partners can fill out a legal document giving such authority to the other, but, why should this be necessary and, what critical legal morass cannot be anticipated and planned around for these partners? Why should they be subject to having to guess ahead while my wife and I enjoy well established law.? (yes.. there are MANY objections and concerns that people have about Civil Unions... Adoption is probably the biggest concern for me... Please let's not argue Civil Unions here, this is just an example of one place where I would not vote according to my religion)

As difficult as it is sometimes to separate my religious beliefs from my constitutional actions, I feel as though it is part of my duty to do so. I can practice my religion at home, in church, and of course I remain guided by these beliefs when I cast a vote, but as an American I feel bound to the First Amendment first, when I'm standing in the voting booth.

I don't know that I've done much of a job explaining my concerns for religion in law, but there you have my feeble attempt. Just because our religious beliefs say one thing does not give any of us the right to legislate that morality on others. My religion is strong enough to accept that others prefer to follow a different path, peaceably.

Unfortunately, a GOP candidate cannot win the party nomination without winning at least a substantial portion of folks who vote "religious beliefs first". Then they get held back in the general election by the promises they made to win over the GOP far Right. I suppose that would have been a better way to put it earlier.

Apologies again for any offense from my earlier comment and for this hijack..
[/hijack]

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

Pug wrote: IF you don't help to "get out the vote" in 2012, then you have no one to blame should the destruction of this nation continue...

We have only ourselves to blame. We = Voters (and eligible non-voters)
This guy's "plan" was obviously poo before he got elected. How so many people got duped is still a sad mystery to me.

We have become a nation unable to think critically and independently.