One standard to judge them all - or a humble foreign policy?

Remove all ads!

Then I ask you, why isn't there anyone standing up to be an example of this in the public eye? Until they do that, this issue will not go away. Until then, schools should have the right to refer to religious texts in hopes of setting the moral tone they feel is necessary to do their job.

 

In a private school, you're absolutely right. In fact, many private schools are religiously affiliated. But in a public school setting, in a nation that has separation of church and state written explicitly into the constitution, religious texts have no place. Things may be different in Canada, as I have never read your government's constitution nor do I plan to. So you can continue to argue for something that is barred by our constitution if you must, regardless of the futility therein.

I'll lay out a simple moral code for students to follow, no Bible necessary:

Don't steal from other students; it's disruptive, harmful and you wouldn't want it done to you.

Speak respectfully and be courteous to your fellow students; to do otherwise is disruptive, harmful and you wouldn't want it done to you.

Show respect to your instructors at all times; to do otherwise is disruptive, harmful and you wouldn't want it done to you. If you feel you're being treated unfairly by an instructor, contact the principal immediately.

--

I could go on, but I think you see a common thread here: the golden rule. No more, no less. It's what I was taught in my very mormon public school growing up in Utah, and it worked just fine for me. For those whom it didn't work, appropriate measures were taken and that was that. There were no shootings or gangland murders and we all got along just fine. Given, I grew up in a very small and safe community in middle America - but so did the boys from Littleton, Colorado.

You're taking isolated, if tragic, incidents (school shootings) and using them to justify a solution (implementation of religious indoctrination) that is totally unrelated to WHY these kids turned violent in the first place, and haven't provided any logical reason for why this would solve - let alone help - the problem. You're twisting the facts to suit your argument. Again.

Another huge point you seem to be missing, Gnarff (and why I agree with Drew that you haven't really thought this through): the common thread that can be found among nearly every high school shooting - even the Virginia Tech massacre - is that the shooter involved was an emotionally troubled social outcast. We all know that kids can be particularly cruel to those who are different, which only serves to exacerbate the problems with said student.

So lets put your plan into practice. Say you begin implementing a school-sponsored reading of the Lord's prayer at the start of each school day, as you suggest. And as you say, the student body is predominantly Christian (assuming we're in North America). In a class of 20 students, 15 are christian, 2 jewish, 1 muslim, and the remaining 2 raised in a secular and/or atheist family. You stated earlier that in this case, 25% of this class should, and I quote, "sit down and shut up" during this time. Who exactly do you think the majority of the class are going to single out as different? As the weirdos? What if it were 19-1? How isolated and outcast do you think that one kid would feel?

This is the best reason why church and state are kept separate. School is divisive and clique-ridden enough without bringing religious, existential prejudice into the mix. I would think that a Mormon with tourettes would be more sensitive to this than most, but then I'm often surprised by the positions you take.

 

Here's an example of a completely non-religious code of conduct for you, Gnarff: Pennsbury School District Student Code of Conduct. I will grant you that it mostly deals with what not to do, but it's pretty easy to turn it around and come up with a one-sentence summary: Treat others with respect. As DR said, it boils down to the Golden Rule - which is deciedly NOT a uniquely Christian principle, and doesn't need to be presented within the framework of Christianity.

 

That and common sense. A good start, but it doesn't go far enough. Mind you even that seems to be neglected in many cases...

Since you brought that up, I would bet that the circumstances that led to that horrific incident simmer in almost any school in America or Canada. It only rarely boils over, but that risk is everywhere.

And that's what I'm addressing: Control of the majority. If the majority gives the troubled outcast some slack, or better yet--mind their own damned business, then that's one less factor in these incidents. Further, I would bet that in any of these incidents, the first few that were shot would likely be specifically targeted for some reason...

Matthew 25:40 states "In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me". Picking on the few that aren't Christian is the same as persecuting Christ himself. Again, it's not about singling out the minority, but elevating the morality of the majority above such petty action. It's not the theology, but the morality that the focus should be on. A daily re-enforcement of this morality should take priority. Some schools may choose some of this Christian moral teachings rather than a simple repetitive prayer, which would not only be fine, but more in line with what I'm suggesting...

Actually, it helps me formulate my idea. I was not baptized until I was 15, and I wasn't diagnosed until I was 16. The singling out for harrassment started much earlier than that. I can remember trying to smuggle a knife to school with me to deal with members of the majority that seemed relentless in that harrassment. If the majority can be taught to behave, then the ones with exceptional challenges can learn to deal with their own problems more effectively.

Then why is it not continually re-enforced? You mention it in passing a few times, it's just another thing coming out of the teacher's mouth that's likely forgotten before exam time, and you don't review that. A daily reminder of how we ought to govern our actions would be much more effective. Christianity is just a convenient source to take such pep talks from. If a non religious version is required, then go out make the effort to teach this. If you aren't going to do this, then don't complain about the violence in schools or society, and don't try to hancuff people who actually care enough to try to make the world better to a secular ideal.

This is not about pushing one religion on the masses, but the fostering of a desired moral environment. Again, it's the difference between theology and philosophy. I am advocating the moral doctrine, not the theological teachings...

 

This statement honestly makes me wonder if you bumped your head and your entire memory of your school years has been wiped from your memory.

It's never the majority that are the problem. The majority in ALL schools behave themselves. When a kid is picked on in school, it's always a small group of jerks and the majority leave him alone. Kids know it's wrong to pick on other kids, they do it anyway because that's what kids do. Kids are jerks. This is the same at religiously affiliated schools as it is in secular schools. The presence of the daily reading of Christian philosphy DOES NOT change this. If you introduce Christian prayer - and therefore, a Christian preference - into a school setting, you're effectively telling the Christian students that they're superior and the non-christian students that they're inferior. This is a message that will NOT be lost on the minority, whether it was intended that way by the faculty or not.

What you're advocating will exacerbate the problem we're discussing, not make it better. I really don't think you've thought this through. Please stop trying to inject Christianity into every facet of modern life and examine the downside. Everything has a downside, even something as good-natured as Christian teachings.

Don't be silly. Of course you're trying to push theology. You're not advocating just any moral doctrine, you're specifically advocating a Christian moral doctrine. It's been suggested repeatedly that something other than biblical philosophy be provided, but you keep rejecting it. You wouldn't accept a reading from the Torrah every morning, or the Q'uran, and they all have similar (though not identical) basic moral values present: love thy neighbor, respect God and your parents, be honest, etc. So when you say "Christianity is just a convenient source to take such pep talks from," that's true. But there are also plenty of other convenient sources to take basic ethics and morality from that we both know you won't accept. Such as the golden rule (which, in a school setting, goes plenty far enough, believe me), hell, Jimminy Cricket would do the trick.

Clearly you don't know the difference between philosophy and theology, since you can't seem to envision a world where morals exist without Christian teachings.

And what I think you're missing - again - is that the root causes of violence in schools have very little, if anything, to do with the presence or absence of organized religion or a moral code. They have to do with poor quality of home life, economic situation, emotional disorders, and yes, the student feeling like an outcast and having no place to turn. Christian teachings don't fix any of those. There are plenty of broken Christian homes, I assure you. The most conservative parts of America have by far the highest rates of incest, child abuse, teen pregnancy and divorce. Clearly, the Bible is not a magic bullet.

You still need to provide a good reason why injecting the bible into any of this will suddenly make the roses bloom.

 

Then you would lose that bet. The first few shot are the easiest targets. Period. This was true in nearly every school shooting. The shooters targeted randomly. Virginia Tech was unusual -- the killer struck twice.

Gnarff, how do you explain the majority of violent criminals in American prisons have Christian backgrounds (i.e., went to church as kids, had religious parents, declare themselves Christians, etc.)? Having been exposed to religion is no guarantee of following the principles -- even for those individuals who profess belief. How is it going to affect those individuals who have no belief in that religion?

 

Then either have the school teach that or take action against this group of violators. If that's not done, then what good is the system?

Then that needs to be corrected--by whatever means necessary. If you don't want them taught a moral code, then break out the pool cue or throw them out of class so that they fall behind. Something has to be done. I'm suggesting that by re-enforcing morality, you would decrease the percentage that engage in such behaviours.

Pick and choose what you use. Also, you don't have to acknowledge any scriptural reference over the PA. The important thing is the morality, not the source (despite what you tell me I'm saying).

When people stop trying to push their secular ideals on other people. Like it or not, it's just as bad, if not worse than what you accuse me of doing. Once upon a time, there was one basic standard--until someone started witht eh secularism and tore down those standards because they didn't like the source material, or didn't feel like obeying all the rules they were taught...

I recommend what I know. I can't speak for what any other religion believes because I don't know it well enough.

Have you actually read what I've been saying? I would welcome this, if the person preparing these lessons did the research (for the record, if someone wanted to teach from the bible, I would also want them to do their research, to find the right lesson).

Again, directly contradictory to what I said. Mind you, what is wrong with one overriding standard that people are required to adhere to? I believe that chaos ensues when such standards are non-existent or simply too relaxed...

The school should have people to find out three of the four you list, and have ways to deal with that. My theory is that if you can increase the general level of morality in the school, then they can find those that are in such need...

Presented wrongly, it can create resentent, and a tuning out of the teachings. How long does it take most people here to tune me out? The ones in prison most likely developed a resentment after being taught poorly by parents and their church, thus imparing a true spiritual connection. Also, is it possible that a prisoner could repent and serve their time quietly? Then they would be more in line with Christians.

At least I am proposing something other than simply burying our heads in the sand and hoping that everything works out okay...

 

Uh...they do. Have you ever noticed that, even after getting several speeding tickets, people still speed? Same thing here.

 

I'd still like to know when this time was. You've used that access statement several times - "Once upon a time" - leaving that "time" to the reader's imagination. But I can't "imagine" anytime in history when there was "one basic standard."

I still believe that the basic problem is one of poor parenting. I'm not saying that all bad kids have bad parents, but I think that a lot of problems that manifest themselves in the schools begin at home. I also think that "religion" in the home is a great place for kids to begin to embrace morality. But more than that, the parents have to set an example of morality - they have to be engaged enough to see themselves as their kids see them.

And secular morality can be just as viable as religious morality: context is everything, because kids learn from observation. They try to make sense out of what they observe, unlike what happens to a lot of people when they become adults. And kids ask a lot of great questions, which a lot of adults stop doing at some point. Some adults tend to develop strong patterns of behavior and thinking that prevents them from seeing how things really are, especially when situations change.

I'm not saying that that is true of all adults, because many continue to observe and learn throughout their lifetimes; they stay engaged, while others need a Doctor Phil or some personality on the radio, or TV to tell them how to think or even what they should be feeling. When childern begin to be informed by media sources, it makes for an even more dangerous situation. Disengaged parents, leaving their kids to random, outside forces, is a large part of the problem. I still believe that the problems you cite begin at home and can be solved at home - for the most part. Good parenting is a whole lot more effective than a "morning pep talk" from a principal, at least in my opinion.

 

Then the punishment is not severe enough. If the penalty is too light, then it doesn't deter anything...

Point made, but that's something that little can be done about. Working out morality in school is something that can be done in an attempt to curb such problems...

But if secular morality is going to present itself as superior to religious morality, then why does it fall to the same things that even many religious people consider bull stuff from religion's checkered past? A "crusade" to take prayer out of school or the name of God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. An "inquisition" to hunt and harass people who make public showings of religious commitment. The general "Holier than thou" attitude they rail against religion for taking...

Which is why they need a constant re-enforcement of a desired moral teaching from a trusted source. Parents can't always be there, so they do need help. Parents would have some say in which school the children attend if such moral teachings were instituted.

Agreed, but this morning pep talk is there to boost these teachings. Where the parenting is not as good, these teachings can help them out...

Chandos, you are looking more to the ideal. But in how many homes does that ideal actually happen?

 

If that [harsher punishments deter more crime] were true, then instituting the death penalty for murders would actually decrease their frequency. It doesn't. Even in rigid theocracies where the most extreme punishments are meted out for even minor crimes or moral infractions, people still break the law and act immorally.

People are going to commit crimes. Some crime is normal and natural in society. Nothing, not religious indoctrination, not harsher laws, not even a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will change this.

Psst...Gnarff...the "under God" reference wasn't added to the Pledge, which was written by a Baptist Minister, until 1954. Secularists aren't the ones bucking tradition, here. God wasn't in the Pledge to begin with.

 

But how many executed killers kill again? How does someone commit a crime against law abiding citizens when they are in prison already?

But it doesn't have to be tolerated. People rail against Christian standards being taught, but at least we advocate standards in the first place. You make it sound like crime is okay. News flash: It's not.

I disagree on that. While it's not perfect, I believe it will be better than the system that secularists have thrust upon us.

The secularists are failing society in proposing something better than religion. They are unable or unwilling to put standards in place. Religion had no such objections...

 

Gnarff, we already tried that. We had a non-secular Christian society for over 1000 years. We abandoned it for a reason.

If secularization actually caused crime to increase, it would logically follow that we had less crime when the entire world was under the thumb of Rome. History, however, does not bear this out. Your point doesn't merely lack evidence to support it. It's demonstrably false.