It’s been my experience that Christians in the U.S. feel their religion and its practitioners are constantly under attack. From exactly whom I'm not sure. I’m trying to understand why. Christianity absolutely dominates here. Throughout life, people are raised by Christian parents, taught by Christian teachers, and work for Christian bosses. I don’t understand how such a huge group of people could feel like their religion is being attacked. In the Middle East, maybe – in the United States – no way.

Yes, courts have taken school-led prayer out of the classroom and recently took the 10 commandments out of an Alabama courthouse. These are very small occurrences in this country of religious dominance. Christians continue to have the right to pray how, when, and where they want. I can’t think of a case where prayer has been banned (with the exception of over public loud-speakers).

I think this feeling may be a battle cry of sorts (I often see the Jesus’ quote that believers would be subject to persecution) – a way of getting other believers to stand up and fight – a rallying of the troops. In the same vein, a shared feeling of persecution among people is a useful way of becoming closer as a Christian community. These last two thoughts are just thinking out loud.

Along the same lines, I think it's funny how the same group that you're talking about completely ignores the precedent that Christ set in NOT making His kingdom a political entity...

quote:

---

Yes, courts have taken school-led prayer out of the classroom and recently took the 10 commandments out of an Alabama courthouse. These are very small occurrences in this country of religious dominance. Christians continue to have the right to pray how, when, and where they want. I can’t think of a case where prayer has been banned (with the exception of over public loud-speakers).

---

Lee v. Weisman
Held: Including clergy who offer prayers as part of an official public school graduation ceremony is forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1014.ZS.html

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE
Held: The District’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html

It's reached the point at which the Establishment clause is being read to make the free exercise clause a nullity. They're not just going after government expression; they're going after private expression of religious beliefs in public places. When people can express their well-wishes for people, but not if they're not religious, we've got a problem. And it's also reaching the point where moral objections to homosexuality are becoming less and less acceptable, as if they represent some kind of invidious discrimination.

Obviously, I don't think that Moore's case is remotely similar, but rest assured, the government and courts have no qualms about using any exigency to take away rights. Vigilance against power is a must for the majority as well as minorities.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 8/25/2003 3:17p).]

The Santa Fe case was much more than prayers at high school football games. It was actually started a few years prior, when a 7th grade Mormon girl was humiliated in a class by a Baptist teacher who was pushing attendance at a revival. When the girl asked if non-Baptists could attend, he inquired as to her religion. He then went off on Mormonism (and the "cult-like" nature of it), and invited class members to throw in their two cents about how it resembled the KKK, etc. This same little girl's family joined with a Catholic family (and initially a Jewish family, although they later dropped out) 5 or so years later to bring suit, I believe not with the intention of outlawing prayers at football games, but to protect the minority religion from any further such acts. I don't think any of us seriously believe that mormons and catholics alike frown on school prayer, but when it gets to be sectarian (and supported by the school district), something must be done to protect the minority. I can imagine a lot of those Baptists would see my point if they went to SLC and were forced to listen to a diatribe about "the evils of being a Baptist" in the classrooms.
The result is that in Santa Fe they observe a moment of silence instead of a prayer given over government-owned PA systems. During this silence, Baptist and Catholic (pick your religion here) prayers are uttered very audibly. The victory for the plaintiffs is that now the speech falls into "private speech", indeed protected by the First Amendment.

My sister is a teacher in Pasadena, TX. She said that the state legislature just passed a law requiring the pledge of allegiance, the Texas pledge, and a moment of silence to be held at the beginning of school each day. Is this true? Does anybody know more about this?

Physics,

I have no problem with the court’s decision in either of the cases you cited. However, as you note, they are very different than the Moore case.

quote:

---

They're not just going after government expression; they're going after private expression of religious beliefs in public places.

---

It seems that both the Lee and Santa Fe cases are going after extremely public expression of religious beliefs in public places during government-sponsored events (the Lee to a lesser extent). From my understanding of the cases, no one has been limited in their ability to worship publicly or privately, just as long as it isn’t being sanctioned by the government.

quote:

---

And it's also reaching the point where moral objections to homosexuality are becoming less and less acceptable, as if they represent some kind of invidious discrimination.

---

I definitely agree with you. This trend is real, and I had overlooked it. There are other trends that, while not being overtly anti-Christian, are contrary to the teachings of Christ. The super/over-sexness of society is another one. In a way, it’s easy to see why these trends might be viewed as attacks on Christianity. It interesting to note that the people comprising the gay and over-sex trends are largely Christian, at least in self-identification if not in actions.

I agree that it is important to be vigilante, no matter one’s current position. To me, it just sounds paranoid when a group so dominant in so many facets of U.S. society complains of persecution.

Matt 16:24 -- "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."

Typically you hear this when talkeing about suffering for Christ.

We are so lucky. We live in a big tub of butter. Our lives are so easy. We can do absolutely anything we want.

Yet sometimes I neglect my spreading the gospel, or talking to someone for what? Some mild so called "persecution". What is someone going to make fun of me? Embarrass me? That is the very most we will suffer as a Christian in America. I will say it again we live in a big tub of butter.

If you put the above verse in its context you would realize all the persecution that 1st century Christians went through. Nero hung Christians on crosses upside down, and set them ablaze for lighting of his night festivals.

My friends there was only one place that a person in the first century was going to carry their cross, and that was the place of their death. That is what Jesus was talking about.
texags77@yahoo.com

[This message has been edited by 77 (edited 8/25/2003 5:20p).]

quote:

---

She said that the state legislature just passed a law requiring the pledge of allegiance, the Texas pledge, and a moment of silence to be held at the beginning of school each day. Is this true? Does anybody know more about this?

---

Yes it is true because we all know you can force kids to be patriotic.

quote:

---

The result is that in Santa Fe they observe a moment of silence instead of a prayer given over government-owned PA systems. During this silence, Baptist and Catholic (pick your religion here) prayers are uttered very audibly. The victory for the plaintiffs is that now the speech falls into "private speech", indeed protected by the First Amendment.

---

See, this is simply cramming an issue that is best covered by anti-discrimination laws into the Establishment clause, which is where it belongs. In essence, the Establishment clause has become a lightweight religious discrimination suit with less guidelines and far too much latitude by the justices. That's why the case ended up being about school prayer: because it was an identifiable policy, and with the negligible burden of proof that is now required in Establishment cases (or rather, the insurmountable burden of proof imposed on the government), it was a sure winner. But because they took the lazy way out, atheists now have a case over these trivial practices, where under religious discrimination laws, they wouldn't even have standing.

Tanya- perhaps I am being naive, but I don't necessarily think that the impetus behind passing that legislation was not to force patriotism.

I believe that it is right that people (not just schoolchildren) should be reminded of the priviledges inherent to living in the USA. Far too often everthing associated with America is vilified as quaint, provincial, and outdated.

I agree wholeheartedly with the people's right to protest America's War on Terror, but they should also be mindful and respectful of the fact that they would not be afforded the priviledge of doing so in many other countries.


God Bless John Wayne

Few things are more depressing than a stripper with no self-confidence.

"you have to play this game with fear and arrogance"

Christians feel perecuted because it is in style to make fun of them..... ever hear the media refer to the radical right or the hysterical "moral" majority in a mocking manner.... they are made fun of all the time... on the major networks, like they are the nutcases on the left burnin' SUV's or throwing paint on furs....

I'm not even religious and it pisses me off. I'd like to catch those people trying to burn my SUV.

Religious people are generally respectful of others and don't act as the terrorists on the left, yet, they are held in more contempt than the nutcases on the left by the national media....

That is the general reason the religious right is beginning to get pissed...so back off.

PB

quote:

---

Yes it is true because we all know you can force kids to be patriotic.

---

I don't think the Pledge of Allegience is an attempt to "force" patriotism anymore than Aggie traditions are an attempt to "force" school spirit. The idea is to *encourage* not to force.

Take any Aggie tradition, and by itself it may seem silly and meaningless. But, as any Aggie knows, those traditions instill in each of us a sense of pride in our school. The Pledge does the same thing with regard to our country.

Instead of a school tradition, it is a national tradition.


Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 8/29/2003 4:19a).]

quote:

---

I don't think the Pledge of Allegience is an attempt to "force" patriotism anymore than Aggie traditions are an attempt to "force" school spirit. The idea is to *encourage* not to force.

---

The pledge isn't encouraged. Children are forced to stand up and recite it unless their parents write them a note. It's not an option for children.

quote:

---

Take any Aggie tradition, and by itself it may seem silly and meaningless. But, as any Aggie knows, those traditions instill in each of us a sense of pride in our school. The Pledge does the same thing with regard to our country.

Instead of a school tradition, it is a national tradition.

---

Traditions should never be state law requiring participation. If my school wanted to have it and kids stood up because they wanted to, I would have no problem. But the state forces students to stand up and say the pledge unless their parents opt them out.

Is "under God", which I think was added during the McCarthy era, still a part of the pledge?

quote:

---

It's not an option for children.

---

Neither is going to school. It's not even the option of the parent. Why should kids even have a choice regarding the pledge?

quote:

---

Why should kids even have a choice regarding the pledge?

---

I think kids are expected to do some things they may or may not want to do when they walk into school: take quizzes, learn the abc’s, and eat lunch within an hour or so. They don’t get to talk whenever they want either.

I don’t think kids should be forced to express certain beliefs that they may or may not believe (I know some might cite evolution here, but nobody has to say, “I believe in evolution, from which man came to be.”). Expressing beliefs is personal. Pledging allegiance to anything is very personal. Kids should be allowed to have their own opinions without us forcing them to think a certain way.

Doubtful,

quote:

---

It’s been my experience that Christians in the U.S. feel their religion and its practitioners are constantly under attack. From exactly whom I'm not sure. I’m trying to understand why.

---

Oh, no question. But its by Hollywood and the more elitist snobs of the academics. You are correct that on the `everyman' street level, Christian themes are common.

But over and over again you hear from various talking heads and supposed profs revisionist nonsense and oversimplification of church history and the role of reason-vs-faith, with no understanding that today's separation is arbitrary and of very recent date and by less than wholesome minds.

Second, and you must bear with me here, because like yourself, haven't been in it --- but you HEAR that schools are being very indoctrinating and anti-Christian symbols. It didn't happen when I was in high school, but y'know -- things like a girl not allowed to draw a cross in association with Easter. I would have put a stone in the rule's eyes by instead drawing an ELABORATE reconstruction of Solomon's temple and the Pilate trial. Its most fortunate I am not in school today.

But to answer your question, what I mean is from the Alabama court deal to school indoctrinations and just snide remarks from historical ignoramuses on primary media --- it LOOKs like Christians are persecuted.

To cut a finer point ---its definite that the *Catholic Church* is persecuted here in the press, and that charge is even truer than Christianity in general.

Tanya,
You can't force kids to be patriotic, but you CAN give them a sense of being unpatriotic is not particularly chic and even shameful. Again, I have no idea what the `feelings' idiots are doing, conservative or liberal, in the schools now, so won't comment on this patriotism forced thing.

Christianity is not under attack in this country. What is under attack is the opressive christian values that unfairly dominate our society.

If a kid goes to a private catholic school and then balks at going to mass...well, you know what you're getting into when you go. If a kid goes to a public school and talks during the moment of silence, does that make him a bad kid? This is a contrived moment by a bunch of right-wing, church whackos who need to spend more time issuing pardons to the illeagally imprisoned citizens of Tulia, Texas - you know, the town where 80% of the black population was just arrested on drug laws so that the city could receive continued funding - and less time worrying about what a child says or doesn't say during class.

This is why I will vote non-incumbent in every election in 2004 and why I voted against Perry and Cornyn in 2002. They are nothing more than card cheats in fancy suits trying to be important and actually forgetting to do their job.

Walter,

You didn't address the main issue of where the bias is at all.

quote:

---

Christianity is not under attack in this country. What is under attack is the opressive christian values that unfairly dominate our society.

---

I would be interested in you listing where they still exist?????

If you mean the drug war, that's another issue. I am utterly against it as well.

quote:

---

If a kid goes to a public school and talks during the moment of silence, does that make him a bad kid?

---

Aside from any religious angle, it DOES make him a disobedient and insolent one if he doesn't follow adult instruction in class willfully rather than just happened to be talking. We have too much lack of that and right now need to move the pendulum the other way.

"Voting against incumbents" --- Hmmmm....an interesting theory and approach. So Daschle would be out as well as Perry by this formula. Hmmm....you mean a total new start. That could get intriguing.

Christianity is under attack. It will always be becase it stresses ultimate ideas of right and wrong. These make people uncomfortable, then angry, then hostile.

Jesus told people what was right with more love than anyone on earth has ever known.

They put him on a cross.

If you speak the truth, even in peace, you will make enemies. He told us the world would hate his disciples because it first hated Him.

Similarly, anyone who stands firmly to a belief will encounter anything from mild resistance to outright hostility.

The keepers of any faith are human, therefore fallible, and therefore will provide someone else hostile to their belief "ammunition" because we keep the faith imperfectly. It's funny to me that if a person professes Christianity and then sins, the world sees that person as a hypocrit. What they don't get is that everybody sins, it's just that Christians know where forgiveness for sin resides.

titan, let me list a few of them for you

1) Blue laws about alcohol sales. If I want to buy a 6-pack of beer at 3 am or 9 am, who cares? It's my life, and I want you to mind your own business. If I want to buy a beer on Sunday, that's my choice, stay out of my life.

2) No nudity on TV. Little johnny can see a million murders a year on the 1 of 30 "gritty crime dramas" that dominate our TV (all that is on TV is crime drama and reality TV) but heaven forbid johnny should see jennifer aniston topless. Now, if she were to walk out of the bathroom and mow down the entire room with an AK-47, that's cool. But if she comes out sans shirt and bra, it's a national crisis.

Folks, embrace sex...it's how you got here. Violence, though, is not something we should strive for. Leave the crime dramas to HBO and give me tits on CBS.

3) Moments of silence, pledge of alliegences, etc. These are completely worthless and created in white, southern protestant states who feel that this will get them to heaven and that every kid needs christ. Hey, I don't need to be prayed for or forgiven. I don't want my kids at a public school have to stand for a pledge (or risk public ridicule), I don't want them being taught creation in science class (or ID or whatever ridiculousness christianity is trying to push to justify giving 10% of their income to an invisible man in the sky).

^
|
|
|
|
[regarding my above post]: Oh yeah! The pledge. I'm all for it because I believe in a lot of the things Walter does not seem to--God, country, patriotism, all the things the left feels are narrow-minded and outdated.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Mephisto (edited 8/29/2003 11:06a).]

Dr. Mephisto, I dare say that my love for this country meets or exceeds that of anybody you know. But you're taking the classical right-wing, christian right tact of implying that the only people capable of being patriotic are those who say a pledge or believe in God or any of that bull****. That's why they insereted "under god" into the pledge, they believed all commies to be atheists and thus, incapable of saying it. They were hoping to root out communism with a pledge.

Any wonder this group of political geniuses got us into Korea and Vietnam?

Check my post again. It does say "seems to believe." That is not catagorical, therefore, I have left room for what I don't know about you, but base it instead on what I have read posted by you.

I'm just wondering: You "seem" to be quite agitated about the idea of a God, but say you love your country more than anyone. Could you tell me why you love your country?

quote:

---

Christianity is under attack. It will always be becase it stresses ultimate ideas of right and wrong. These make people uncomfortable, then angry, then hostile.

Jesus told people what was right with more love than anyone on earth has ever known.

They put him on a cross.

If you speak the truth, even in peace, you will make enemies. He told us the world would hate his disciples because it first hated Him.

Similarly, anyone who stands firmly to a belief will encounter anything from mild resistance to outright hostility.

The keepers of any faith are human, therefore fallible, and therefore will provide someone else hostile to their belief "ammunition" because we keep the faith imperfectly. It's funny to me that if a person professes Christianity and then sins, the world sees that person as a hypocrit. What they don't get is that everybody sins, it's just that Christians know where forgiveness for sin resides.

---

I disagree that Christianity the religion is under attack, I think some “Christian values” are, but not Christianity directly. These Christian values (which are championed by other religions as well) include heterosexuality, obstaining from excessive sexuality, and other things. As noted by others, the media is partially responsible for these trends. However, I don’t think media execs are saying, “well, Christians think they know everything, what right and wrong are, let’s get ‘em.” The social trends are happening with no regard to their effects on Christianity the religion. Heck, most of the people who are behind these trends would claim to be Christians.

With respect to the last paragraph quoted, I think Christians are seen as hypocrites because they put themselves up much higher morally. (Most American Christians don’t think it’s possible to be moral without believing in God.) Non-Christians that don’t claim the moral high road aren’t viewed as hypocrites. As noted, they crimes are the same, but the level of hypocrisy is different.


Titan, we missed you the past couple of days.

[This message has been edited by Doubtful (edited 8/29/2003 11:26a).]

Okay, first, how do you do the whole quote thing cut-and-paste? I know I'm retarded and everyone else knew this long ago, but the ol' Doc is behind the tech revolution. L'il Help?

Doubtful raises a good point. How can you be "moral" if you don't beieve in God? What constitutes "morality" if not by divine standards? Man's standards? Then morality is relative. Opinions?

Dr.Mephisto,

quote:

---

Christianity is under attack. It will always be becase it stresses ultimate ideas of right and wrong. These make people uncomfortable, then angry, then hostile.

---

Quite true. That's alot of it right there.

Walter,

quote:

---

titan, let me list a few of them for you

1) Blue laws about alcohol sales. If I want to buy a 6-pack of beer at 3 am or 9 am, who cares? It's my life, and I want you to mind your own business. If I want to buy a beer on Sunday, that's my choice, stay out of my life.

---

I am not entirely positive, but in one sense I agree, but from another, I thought one of the effects of the blue laws, now pretty much lost, was that originally they restrained commerce's tendency to make every day a work day, and were trying to guarantee a day of rest. Even in my own lifetime, it worked, by making it unprofitable to be open that day, and only certain emergency items were. This gave a needed `siesta' overall with clear secular value as well. However, like you said, they have degenerated to just an alchohol ban and all stores are wide open except for certain Catholic pizzarias on Sunday, so I agree with you now that they are pointless.

quote:

---

2) No nudity on TV. Little johnny can see a million murders a year on the 1 of 30 "gritty crime dramas" that dominate our TV (all that is on TV is crime drama and reality TV) but heaven forbid johnny should see jennifer aniston topless. Now, if she were to walk out of the bathroom and mow down the entire room with an AK-47, that's cool. But if she comes out sans shirt and bra, it's a national crisis.

---

As I have said before on a B&P thread, I think you are wrong to separate the two so much. I think there is a correlation between our `display and tease' society, with no outlet, and some of the violence. Its a shadow of certain angsts in many cases. Comparing to Europe is very helpful here.

But what you are saying would really mean just get the violence OFF the sitcoms and TV *as well* like it used to be in the 70's. It was at a later hour that adults could control.

quote:

---

Folks, embrace sex...it's how you got here. Violence, though, is not something we should strive for. Leave the crime dramas to HBO and give me tits on CBS.

---

They feed on each other if you think about it---total testosterone in emphasis, yet sort of a `bait and tease'. I think BOTH are wrong on prime time in over-graphic detail. Just stick with the `read between lines' or suggestive stuff. On a western when a cowboy fell after a gunshot, you didn't need a lingering stop-action of the bullet hitting chest and splattering to make the point. It seems that 70's kids were clear on what violence was, but not warped by its lurid acting out. And that latter, I say, is related to social angst. Relating is in a shambles and I think many miss that like a rich-poor disparity, this turmoil probably fuels alot of the violence.

quote:

---

3) Moments of silence, pledge of alliegences, etc. These are completely worthless and created in white, southern protestant states who feel that this will get them to heaven and that every kid needs christ.

---

No, pledges of allegiance I would put in more the category (I don't entirely agree with them) of trying to encourage a sense of not being a closet enemy and reminding of national heritage.

Moment of silence, I think is a good idea for secular reasons. "Come to order" -- "be still, class is about to begin". Its pyschological break is very valuable. I do *agree* that the stated reason to push it is overanxious --- a good idea is being proposed for the wrong reason.

quote:

---

Hey, I don't need to be prayed for or forgiven. I don't want my kids at a public school have to stand for a pledge (or risk public ridicule), I don't want them being taught creation in science class (or ID or whatever ridiculousness christianity is trying to push to justify giving 10% of their income to an invisible man in the sky).

---

Well I don't want them being taught that the answer is *known* either, because it sure as hell isn't. Naturalism does not account for a great deal of human experience. I agree creationism is unnecessary if there is not a strong darwinist tilt toward a psuedo-abiogenesis take. Again, there wasn't in the 70's. I am beginning to think just photocopy and update the historical apsects of those texts and curriculums, and go back literally is necessary.

quote:

---

Dr. Mephisto, I dare say that my love for this country meets or exceeds that of anybody you know

---

It is possible it is strong, but your remark to Dr.Mephisto with your "multiculturalist" slam here: "white, southern protestant states" is perhaps sign you have bought the load of bilge that something other than western values brought most of this into being. `White' today is a code word for those fools who would deny that the west did some things far more expansively and innovatively than many others. Why do you use that term???

This part is true:

quote:

---

That's why they insereted "under god" into the pledge, they believed all commies to be atheists and thus, incapable of saying it. They were hoping to root out communism with a pledge.

---

What is ALSO true is there WERE a bunch of communists or strong marxist sympathizers littered all throughout the various levels of administration at the dawn of the 50's. Its scary the level of infiltration Moscow had pulled off. I would rather err on an overdo, than an underdo, example -- -run Wahhabists out, risk a Manzinar repetition, than become like Israel or France.

Doubtful,

quote:

---

disagree that Christianity the religion is under attack, I think some “Christian values” are, but not Christianity directly. These Christian values (which are championed by other religions as well) include heterosexuality, obstaining from excessive sexuality, and other things. As noted by others, the media is partially responsible for these trends.

---

Okay, I will agree with that. I particular see that part of the problem is that a nation with such a `non exclusive' bent, DOES have a difficult time justifying exclusions or even built in censures of gays. Its hard to square with the ideals and echoes other miscarries of prejudice in the minds of many thoughtful people as well as shrill activists. Excessive sexuality can be historically demonstrated to undermine societies, but some of today, yes is probably backlash against the `over-anxiety' about it of the early 20th C in turn. The `unnaturalness' created about it.

quote:

---

However, I don’t think media execs are saying, “well, Christians think they know everything, what right and wrong are, let’s get ‘em.” The social trends are happening with no regard to their effects on Christianity the religion. Heck, most of the people who are behind these trends would claim to be Christians.

---

That may be right. Its more a case of execs by definition are probably rich, and the rich tend strongly to get loose and wordly. What's worse is in a "like runs with like" environment like the media moguls, they are never exposed to decent history, sensible descriptions of doctrine, or even the more solid psychology theories. Its all pop.

quote:

---

With respect to the last paragraph quoted, I think Christians are seen as hypocrites because they put themselves up much higher morally. (Most American Christians don’t think it’s possible to be moral without believing in God.)

---

That might be right --- but it would help to remember that ancient societies did have a sense of moral compass. What is less possible to do is to demonstrate that an absolute can exist without an origin.

I think you are talking about particulary the kind of Christians that pay grace only lip-service, and really sound more like Western versions of sharia types.

quote:

---

Titan, we missed you the past couple of days.

---

Thanks if you say so.

Further, people claiming Christianity doesn't make them Christians. Sometimes poeple assume such labels because of covenience, or mild agreement with basic tenants, or a million other reasons.

Because someone says I believe in Christ, but then proceeds to do whatever they want, means they aren't really Christians, right?

Doubtful says many of the people behind the attack on values would claim to be Christians. "CLAIM to be Christians." The difference between a "hearer" and a "doer" of the word.

The hollywood left doesn't have to go out of its way to attack Christianity. By merely promoting humanist philosophy and doctrine, turning people more toward the "I/Me" than Him, mission accomplished. Thoughts?

Tanya:

quote:

---

The pledge isn't encouraged. Children are forced to stand up and recite it unless their parents write them a note. It's not an option for children.

---

I didn't say that the Pledge was encouraged, I said the Pledge encourages patriotism.

I'm surprised at you. You are a teacher, and yet you don't recognize such a common teaching method?

When a parent teaches their children to say "Please" and "Thank you," are they "forcing" courtesy on their children? If they teach their children to open a door for a lady, are they "forcing" respect for women?

The answer, in both case, is "no." It it a teaching method, and is meant to teach children how to be courteous and teach them respect for women. The Pledge, likewise, is meant to teach patriotism, and to instill a sense of pride in our country, just as Aggie traditions are meant to instill a sense of pride in our school.

The whole point of reciting the Pledge of Allegience is to teach patriotism. As a teacher, you of all people should be able to recognize that.

quote:

---

Traditions should never be state law requiring participation.

---

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. We send our children to school in order for them to be taught. Patriotism, and a respect for the country that gave them a free education and many other opportunties, is one of the things they are expected to be taught.


Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 8/29/2003 1:21p).]

Dr. Mephisto,

I just learned how to do the quotes, so don’t feel bad.
Here’s how:

[ quote ] insert quote here [ /quote ]

Just don’t include the spaces.

quote:

---

Doubtful raises a good point. How can you be "moral" if you don't beieve in God? What constitutes "morality" if not by divine standards? Man's standards? Then morality is relative. Opinions?

---

That’s probably best suited for another thread. That discussion would take awhile.

Titan,

quote:

---

That may be right. Its more a case of execs by definition are probably rich, and the rich tend strongly to get loose and wordly. What's worse is in a "like runs with like" environment like the media moguls, they are never exposed to decent history, sensible descriptions of doctrine, or even the more solid psychology theories. Its all pop.

---

That sounds reasonable. Though tv execs may be loose personally, the programs they produce COULD be less loose if there was as much money to be had in it. It’s far too easy to create another crap reality tv show with a group of shallow, oversexed people and be successful (throw in a gay guy just for good measure). It’s a simple formula and it works. Society has shown an appetite for it.

quote:

---

That might be right --- but it would help to remember that ancient societies did have a sense of moral compass. What is less possible to do is to demonstrate that an absolute can exist without an origin.

I think you are talking about particulary the kind of Christians that pay grace only lip-service, and really sound more like Western versions of sharia types.

---

I don’t think the charge of hypocrisy is due to origins of morality (God vs. all other gods vs. god-free moral system). I think it’s entirely due to Christians (I’m speaking of “average” Christians, whatever that is) thinking how much moral they are than everyone else (whether or not they are isn’t particularly relevant here). When Christians outright dismiss other moralities because they are baseless (or based on the wrong thing) and exalt their own, it sets them for hypocrisy charges when they mis-step. Again, they may in fact have a true morality, but hypocrisy charges would still come about because of how highly they think of it.

Hypocrisy charges are by definition dependent on personal claims. I might claim a less “strict” morality than joe-Christian; we commit the same “sin”; I’m not labeled because I haven’t violated a belief system I have claimed. For example, if I drink too much tonight, no one I know will call me a hypocrite.

Dr. Mephisto,

quote:

---

Further, people claiming Christianity doesn't make them Christians. Sometimes poeple assume such labels because of covenience, or mild agreement with basic tenants, or a million other reasons.

Because someone says I believe in Christ, but then proceeds to do whatever they want, means they aren't really Christians, right?

Doubtful says many of the people behind the attack on values would claim to be Christians. "CLAIM to be Christians." The difference between a "hearer" and a "doer" of the word.

The hollywood left doesn't have to go out of its way to attack Christianity. By merely promoting humanist philosophy and doctrine, turning people more toward the "I/Me" than Him, mission accomplished. Thoughts?

---

I’m glad you noticed that I used the word “claim.” I agree with you that a claimer is not necessarily a “doer.”

Yes, a humanist philosophy would turn people away from Christianity. Society trends are an attack on some values that Christianity has. If the attack on values is an attack on Christianity itself, a de-facto attack, then all religions with a moral base contrary to society trends are also being persecuted.


[This message has been edited by Doubtful (edited 8/29/2003 1:42p).]

Bracy:

The pledge doesn't encourage Patriotism. It is a meaningless recitation to these kids. We all had to learn the Texas one because nobody knew it.

Bringing in the Vets into my classroom during the Holocaust unit or watching Band of Brothers or reading The Things they Carried. That actually encourages patriotism. Telling them about my brothers and what they are doing, that encouages it. Writing letters to our former students and sending them packages. That does it.

Reciting a pledge that means nothing to them doesn't. The people who pushed this bill have never been inside a classroom for more than a parent/teacher conference.

You want to encourage patriotism? They should get off their butts and establish a curriculum. Really do something instead of this gloss that he can use in his campaigns next year.

This pledge does nothing to foster what you guys claim it will.

Tanya:

quote:

---

The pledge doesn't encourage Patriotism. It is a meaningless recitation to these kids.

---

Under your logic, I must assume that you also believe that teaching kids to open a door for a lady is also a meaningless act -- and to a kid, it *is* meaningless, at first.

Requiring your kids to make their beds each day, and to clean their rooms also seems meaningless to them. I can remember asking my parents: "What's the point in making my bed? It's only going to get messed up again when I go to bed tonight." But such things teach children how to be neat and organized.

The Pledge is the same way. Its continued practice helps to teach Patriotism.

quote:

---

You want to encourage patriotism? They should get off their butts and establish a curriculum. Really do something instead of this gloss that he can use in his campaigns next year.

---

I fully agree. A curriculum *should* be established, and should be given along with reciting the Pledge, not instead of.

The Pledge, by itself, cannot teach patriotism. The Pledge, in addition to other teaching methods helps to teach patriotism. Likewise, one cannot teach their children how to be neat and organized by *only* requiring them to make their beds each day. It is only *one* of the good habits that help to train them.


Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 8/29/2003 1:44p).]

Why should it be the jobs of the schools to teach patriotism?

Tanya93 is right. As it stands now, it's the jobs of the schools to teach kids about sex, math, patriotism, english, discipline, science, responsibility, etc. What exactly is the responsibility of the parents of this society and have they become completely superfolous in this new age of public education dominating every facet of the human development?

Tanya:

quote:

---

Why should it be the jobs of the schools to teach patriotism?

---

Why should it be the jobs of the schools to educate our children at all? That is a responsibility given to the parents, not the State.


Bracy