School Prayer

[ebia]

Well, no. One can be both secular and religious, if at different times.

You can with some religions, but I don't think you can and be true to any of the Abrahamic faiths in their historic forms.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You can with some religions, but I don't think you can and be true to any of the Abrahamic faiths in their historic forms.

Absurd. No one only prays for a tank of gas or a job. People fill up their cars at gas stations and apply for jobs because God does not drive around neighborhoods with a fuel truck nor does he do interviews.

 

[ebia]

Absurd. No one only prays for a tank of gas or a job. People fill up their cars at gas stations and apply for jobs because God does not drive around neighborhoods with a fuel truck nor does he do interviews.

You clearly have no understanding of the Abrahamic faiths and are therefore completely unable to see why your position is a problem for us.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Just to be clear, I'm quite happy for evolution to be taught just like any other similar scientific theory. It is in this (Catholic) school.

Except there are no similar scientific theories. Creationism doesn’t qualify as either scientific or even as a theory

 

[ebia]

Except there are no similar scientific theories. Creationism doesn’t qualify as either scientific or even as a theory

I didn't say it was. Why do you assume I want creationism taught?
By "similar theory" I meant nothing more sinister than any other scientific theory taught in high-school. I wasn't referring to competing explanations of the diversity of life (for lack of a better label).

 

[Tenka]

You can with some religions, but I don't think you can and be true to any of the Abrahamic faiths in their historic forms.

What does this even mean? That you can't sit down peaceably for a couple of hours and study algebra without imposing your religious beliefs upon your fellow students?

 

[ebia]

What does this even mean? That you can't sit down peaceably for a couple of hours and study algebra without imposing your religious beliefs upon your fellow students?

Who's asking to impose anything on anyone except secularists wanting to impose secularism? It means not cutting it out of the possible things that might be discussed in any classroom. (Note that the idea that the only things that will be discussed in a maths classrom are maths is absurd.)

 

[Tenka]

Who's asking to impose anything on anyone except secularists wanting to impose secularism?

Secular, is the default neutral state.

It means not cutting it out of the possible things that might be discussed in any classroom.

I've spent a lot of time in classrooms, my mother is a teacher and I am studying education and I can tell you that classrooms are not open debate theaters. There is a curriculum to follow.

Note that the idea that the only things that will be discussed in a maths classroom are maths is absurd.

I'm curious, exactly what religious beliefs need to be discussed in a math lecture?

You can with some religions, but I don't think you can and be true to any of the Abrahamic faiths in their historic forms.

What do you need to be doing to remain a faithful Christian during algebra class?

 

[ebia]

Secular, is the default neutral state.

So the secularists claim, but they would say that, wouldn't they?
Secular is not a default, neutral, state. There is no default, neutral, state.

I've spent a lot of time in classrooms, my mother is a teacher and I am studying education and I can tell you that classrooms are not open debate theaters.

And I am an experienced teacher and I didn't say they were open debate theatres.

There is a curriculum to follow.

But what goes on in the classroom is not limited to the curriculum, and not infrequently the curriculum is not the most important thing going on. We spent almost one hour out of an hour and a half maths lesson this afternoon on learning behaviour, respect, values, working in community, relationships... - because that's what they needed this afternoon. And that stuff - whether it's being talked about explicitly or not, is precisely the stuff of religion.

I'm curious, exactly what religious beliefs need to be discussed in a math lecture?

School classrooms are not lectures.

What do you need to be doing to remain a faithful Christian during algebra class?

Me personally? I wouldn't currently be anywhere near a maths class or any other class except for my faith. And if, by some strange reason I was, I wouldn't be sticking my hand up year after year to teach maths to the most difficult and mathematically inept kids in the school.

 

[Tenka]

So the secularists claim, but they would say that, wouldn't they?

Yes, because they are in a nasty, evil conspiracy against you. But you would claim that wouldn't you, because you're an anti-secular religionist.

And I am an experienced teacher and I didn't say they were open debate theatres.

And you're still no closer to explaining why there needs to be so much religious discussion happening or why a Christian cannot abide in an areligious environment for a couple of hours.

But what goes on in the classroom is not limited to the curriculum, and not infrequently the curriculum is not the most important thing going on. We spent almost one hour out of an hour and a half maths lesson this afternoon on learning behaviour, respect, values, working in community, relationships... - because that's what they needed this afternoon. And that stuff - whether it's being talked about explicitly or not, is precisely the stuff of religion.

Are you saying that you frequently interrupt the curriculum to assume some auxiliary parent role?

School classrooms are not lectures.

And you misspelled "classroom" in post 87, somehow I managed not to let this distract me. Although, perhaps we're getting to the root of why your classes seem to have so much difficulty sticking to the subject.

Me personally?

Why don't you tell us why a secular classroom situation is such a "problem" for Christians? I've only asked twice already.

 

[Maren]

Who's asking to impose anything on anyone except secularists wanting to impose secularism? It means not cutting it out of the possible things that might be discussed in any classroom. (Note that the idea that the only things that will be discussed in a maths classrom are maths is absurd.)

Actually, what evidence do you have that it is secularists who are wanting to impose secularism (by this you appear to mean anti-religion)? As I pointed out, as often as not, the complaints about religion in school come from people who are of the minority religion in an area. For example the Mormon and Catholic families in Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe. Or a Jewish family suing in Utah, Bauchman v West High School. Not to mention, "securalists" (by that meaning those that are anti-religion) are a small minority in the United States. In fact, it appears to be a majority of those in the US (even among people who claim to be Christian) that desire to keep public schools religiously neutral.

As for what is discussed in math class, I would hope that it is math discussed. Math teachers are hired to teach math, they can't even be asked about their religious beliefs as part of the hiring process, and there is no reason for religion to be discussed in math class.

But you still haven't answered my question, why do children need to be taught religion in public school? Is this not the parents right/responsibility? I personally find it amazing the number of Christians that complain about sex education being taught in schools (which was brought in because parents were failing) but then turn around and want the school to teach their religion.

Not to mention, what is so unworkable of a system that I described like the Mormon one? You can have classes that teach your religion, thus freeing parents from having to teach their children religion, yet not burden the public schools with it plus ensure they are taught by someone that is approved by the religion.

Again, the purpose of "secularism" in US schools is not to be anti-religious, as you keep claiming despite all the people pointing this out to you. Per official US government policies, schools are to be "religiously neutral" not "anti-religious". I won't claim that the government is perfect in following the policies, unfortunately people sometimes put their own agendas ahead of the law or simply make mistakes. That is unfortunate and it does end up being addressed. But the claim that securalism meaning anti-religion typically is put forth by Christians seeking to impose an element of their version of Christianity into the schools.

 

[ebia]

Yes, because they are in a nasty, evil conspiracy against you. But you would claim that wouldn't you, because you're an anti-secular religionist.

No-one get's to claim their position as the neutral ground.

And you're still no closer to explaining why there needs to be so much religious discussion happening or why a Christian cannot abide in an areligious environment for a couple of hours

I dare say I could stick sitting in a cold bath for a couple of hours each day, but what would it achieve? The question isn't what can the students survive but what is the appropriate learning environment for a multicultural society with diverse values and frameworks.

Are you saying that you frequently interrupt the curriculum to assume some auxiliary parent role?

When necessary, when it's in the best interests of the students, yes. Your world may be very different, but here we view it as part of the job to teach the students how to live and work in a community and in respectful and appropriate relationship with each other. And Catholic schools take it very seriously - which is one of the reasons parents choose to send their students to us.

And you misspelled "classroom" in post 87, somehow I managed not to let this distract me.

There's a world of difference between what I understand by lecture and an Australian high-school classroom.

Although, perhaps we're getting to the root of why your classes seem to have so much difficulty sticking to the subject.

If I were simply lecturing in maths I wouldn't be doing the job, to be quite frank. If anyone was simply lecturing in maths with the student's I've got they wouldn't be succeeding with anything very much.

Why don't you tell us why a secular classroom situation is such a "problem" for Christians? I've only asked twice already.

Because communties, especially educational ones, should be places where issues around values, relationships, identity,... etc, can be fully addressed in all the appropriate possible terms.

Not so anyone can force a viewpoint on anyone else, but so that we can have the proper discussions.

The state schools here struggle with some issues compared to us because they try to avoid talking about this stuff and are left without any solid bedrock of values. Now that's not easy to work around without having our advantage of one perspective, but it would be better to be diverse in that discussion and look for agreeable common ground than try to exclude religion from the picture.

 

[ebia]

As for what is discussed in math class, I would hope that it is math discussed. Math teachers are hired to teach math, they can't even be asked about their religious beliefs as part of the hiring process, and there is no reason for religion to be discussed in math class.

If the only thing that I were prepared to discuss in my maths class was maths I wouldn't last five minutes in the job.
Values and relationships have to be discussed, are expected to be discussed, and religion provides the framework within which many (most?) people think about those.

But you still haven't answered my question, why do children need to be taught religion in public school?

I'm not asking to teach them a particular religon. I'm saying religion is part of the framework in which people thing and cannot be excluded from the discussion.

 

[b&wpac4]

If the only thing that I were prepared to discuss in my maths class was maths I wouldn't last five minutes in the job.
Values and relationships have to be discussed, are expected to be discussed, and religion provides the framework within which many (most?) people think about those.

You would lose your job rather quickly in American, I'm afraid to say. One must teach to the standardized tests that have become the measuring stick of a successful education, and those tests have nothing to do with values, relationships, or religion.

 

[Psudopod]

If the only thing that I were prepared to discuss in my maths class was maths I wouldn't last five minutes in the job.
Values and relationships have to be discussed, are expected to be discussed, and religion provides the framework within which many (most?) people think about those.

I don't see why these can't be discussed in an secular contect though. If you want to talk to children about respect and community, is there no way to do this without relaying on religeon?

 

[Tenka]

No-one get's to claim their position as the neutral ground.

Secularism, nobody arguing for or against any religious position = neutral ground.

I dare say I could stick sitting in a cold bath for a couple of hours each day, but what would it achieve? The question isn't what can the students survive but what is the appropriate learning environment for a multicultural society with diverse values and frameworks.

You're right the question wasn't 'what can students survive' at all, it was why can't Christians.

And Catholic schools take it very seriously - which is one of the reasons parents choose to send their students to us.

I'm so tired of hearing this Catholic school sycophancy, while my mother was head of student welfare she helped create a program to assist young mothers in getting their HSC, that first year they enrolled 6 girls and, later, 3 more girls under 16 years mid term who'd been expelled from Catholic schools. Private schools are concerned with their reputation first and foremost.

There's a world of difference between what I understand by lecture and an Australian high-school classroom.

Do you teach the students these childish, semantic games in any of your classes?

If I were simply lecturing in maths I wouldn't be doing the job, to be quite frank. If anyone was simply lecturing in maths with the student's I've got they wouldn't be succeeding with anything very much.

And that might be fine in a Catholic private school where the parents know what they are getting their children into. The expectation in enrolling at a public school is that the teachers are free to hold whatever religious belief they wish but are not to proselytize or interfere with a child's religious upbringing.

Because communties, especially educational ones, should be places where issues around values, relationships, identity,... etc, can be fully addressed in all the appropriate possible terms.

The state is not a parent.

Not so anyone can force a viewpoint on anyone else, but so that we can have the proper discussions.

The state schools here struggle with some issues compared to us because they try to avoid talking about this stuff and are left without any solid bedrock of values.

I went to a state school and we discussed ethics, values and religion as part of our sociology class. I don't agree that society's common values are rooted in religion so I find your claim that discussing values etc from a secular position to be 'without a bedrock', is false.

Now that's not easy to work around without having our advantage of one perspective, but it would be better to be diverse in that discussion and look for agreeable common ground than try to exclude religion from the picture.

Religion hasn't been excluded from anywhere relevent, we just aren't arguing in one religion's favor during discussions. Religion often comes up when discussing history, literature and sociological topics. No reason for it to come up in math though.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You clearly have no understanding of the Abrahamic faiths and are therefore completely unable to see why your position is a problem for us.

I don't even remember stating my position. I am trying to figure out why you seem to be using "secular" as a synonym for "atheist."

 

[ebia]

I don't even remember stating my position. I am trying to figure out why you seem to be using "secular" as a synonym for "atheist."

If I have incorrectly assumed your position I apologise.

 

[ebia]

You would lose your job rather quickly in American, I'm afraid to say. One must teach to the standardized tests that have become the measuring stick of a successful education, and those tests have nothing to do with values, relationships, or religion.

I don't teach to a test, but my classes perform well on the national test systems we have here.

If I didn't deal in relationships then we wouldn't have a productive classroom to learn in, but on top of that interpersonal and intrapersonal development is a recognised part of the curriculum here.

 

[ebia]

I don't see why these can't be discussed in an secular contect though. If you want to talk to children about respect and community, is there no way to do this without relaying on religeon?

Less effectively - this is exactly the stuff that religions are good at.