Yes!
|
Yes!
[QUOTE=speechlesstx;2131563]When it's in a PUBLIC school. Discussing a holiday is FINE--if you're discussing ALL of the religious holidays. If her curriculum included a day for Christmas, a day for Hannukah, a day for Yule, a day for Ramadan, and a day for Kwanzaa, then I'd be okay with the teaching of religious holidays. But if you don't want YOUR kids learning about Wicca on All Hallow's Eve (and if EVER there was a theft of a holiday, that's it) in October, then I don't want MY kids learning about Christmas at school in December. It's hard enough teaching the kids in my family the difference between Yule and Christmas, and why we celebrate it differently in my house without compounding it with the school teaching only Christmas. Would you want your kids taught ONLY about Hannukah, and not Christmas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
ONE religion taught in a public, non-parochial school is an inappropriate topic--unless, of course, it's how said religion influenced other areas of life, taught in a setting appropriate to age--for example, Greek Mythology in a history or philosophy or humanities class. NOT a teacher expounding on ONE religion
Yeah--sure they do. Children in general haven't been exposed to more than their parents' religions and whatever they get at school. Children also don't get told "Jesus was executed as a criminal as a political example, and in a horrible way. They hung him up by his hands and feet on a cross and let him starve to death--if his wounds didn't kill him first" I agree. Most kids aren't traumatized by it, because they don't understand the whole story. They only understand "Baby Jesus was born in a manger, and he was a miracle and his mommy was Mary and he died for my sins". They don't even understand what "died for my sins" MEANS. If you don't believe me, ask any 8 year old--and then see how upset they are when they DO finally start understanding.Quote:
Not a dead man, a man, a historical figure considered by millions to be the Savior of mankind. A man children have been taught about for centuries from birth to death and beyond. I've seen hundreds if not thousands of children come through church and don't know of a single one traumatized by the story because it's a story of love and hope. Children tend to LOVE Jesus.
I don't see it as a story of love and hope. I see it as a story of political influence through the church, and a way of controlling the masses.
If my (hypothetical) kid came to you with a picture someone throwing a man in a fire, would you be concerned? Even if you heard that he'd just gone to view a religious ceremony where the Wicker Man was burned? YOU get a grip. The teacher followed school protocols for reporting a child with a disturbing drawing, and she's over the top because the drawing just HAPPENS to be a guy that supposedly died to save the world?Quote:
What difference does it make? The kid is 8 years old, he had just visited a church with depictions of Jesus on the cross and it's obvious he knows there's a connection between Jesus and Christmas, and you guys think he's a little psycho? Get a grip!
And if my kid were in that school, I'd be the one in the paper because the teacher WAS teaching non-secular views of a federal holiday. Again--I'd like to know how you'd like a teacher to react to a drawing of an effigy of human sacrifice for All Hallow's (or to give it its correct name: Samhain) from a Pagan child. Would you think the teacher was over-reacting to seeing THAT? Or would you like your children taught the secular viewpoint of Samhain including its religious significance from the pagan point of view? I don't think the teacher was an idiot for her reaction to the picture. I think she was an idiot for teaching "Christmas" to begin with.Quote:
Um, you really believe that Christmas was entirely secular when Congress established it as a federal holiday? It was upheld as constitutional "because it has a valid secular purpose," but it did not and cannot remove the basis for the holiday. Teachers may indeed teach Christmas from a secular viewpoint including its religious significance, but they cannot control how the children express themselves unless it poses a threat of a significant disruption. If this idiot teacher didn't want to deal with how 2nd graders might express themselves on her assignment she should have chosen another assignment.
I have NO problem with teaching religion in public schools--as long as you're teaching ALL religions. I would NOT want my child taught about his classmates' Christmas traditions if his classmates were not taught about HER Yule traditions--both the secular AND religious views. And you can bet your a$$ I'd be down at the school complaining--and in the newspaper complaining, and on the internet complaining--if my child were to come home hurt and confused because his or her religion were completely dismissed. GREAT lawsuits are started that way.
Where is that rule found? Perhaps you should be familiar with the 12 rules of Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
And I don't want mine learning a Planned Parenthood agenda. I have no problem with reasonably accommodating parents on their values, but the fact is the teacher had the right to this assignment and she overreacted like an idiot.Quote:
If her curriculum included a day for Christmas, a day for Hannukah, a day for Yule, a day for Ramadan, and a day for Kwanzaa, then I'd be okay with the teaching of religious holidays. But if you don't want YOUR kids learning about Wicca on All Hallow's Eve (and if EVER there was a theft of a holiday, that's it) in October, then I don't want MY kids learning about Christmas at school in December.
It's been taught to children for centuries. I learned it at an early age and it didn't traumatize me or anyone else I knew.Quote:
Yeah--sure they do. Children in general haven't been exposed to more than their parents' religions and whatever they get at school. Children also don't get told "Jesus was executed as a criminal as a political example, and in a horrible way. They hung him up by his hands and feet on a cross and let him starve to death--if his wounds didn't kill him first" I agree. Most kids aren't traumatized by it, because they don't understand the whole story. They only understand "Baby Jesus was born in a manger, and he was a miracle and his mommy was Mary and he died for my sins". They don't even understand what "died for my sins" MEANS. If you don't believe me, ask any 8 year old--and then see how upset they are when they DO finally start understanding.
Yeah, she's over the top. Funny how the left has no problem exposing kids to sex at an early age but not the history of Jesus. Obama's "safe schools czar" thinks child porn and explicit gay sex is fine for school, but a stick figure of Jesus on the cross deserves a psych evaluation? Give me a break.Quote:
If my (hypothetical) kid came to you with a picture someone throwing a man in a fire, would you be concerned? Even if you heard that he'd just gone to view a religious ceremony where the Wicker Man was burned? YOU get a grip. The teacher followed school protocols for reporting a child with a disturbing drawing, and she's over the top because the drawing just HAPPENS to be a guy that supposedly died to save the world?
Speech, that link was a pile of steaming crap. Thanks for letting us know what you base your opinions on.
I can't even argue with you.
Suffice to say this: Religion has no place in schools. The teacher reacted to a kid making a picture of a dead person for a Christmas representation--and I can't blame her for her reaction.
What it comes down to is that kids don't NEED to learn about either in schools. Teach them to read. Teach them to do math. For the sake of all that's good and holy, please teach them how to write without using text speak.
Manners, religion, and personal beliefs should be taught at home.
The ONLY exception to that is that TOLERANCE should be taught at schools. You can believe what you want at home, but children should NOT be bullied or made fun of because their parents are Christian, or Jewish, or black or white or gay or straight or whatever. Acceptance of anything that does not hurt another should be taught. Yes, that means that teachers teach that being gay, black, white, Christian, pagan or whatever is okay. It's OKAY to be anything, in other words. You teach what isn't okay at home--and the teacher teaches that there still must be tolerance of differences in his or her classroom.
So--if a parent hates gays with a passion, and teaches that to the child, the teacher CAN and SHOULD tell the child to stuff himself/herself when he/she makes fun of someone else for acting "gay". If a parent thinks blacks should go back to being slaves, GREAT! The teacher should still teach that blacks are people too.
That's not imposing morals. That's imposing tolerance. That's teaching that you can believe whatever you want, as long as you let everyone else believe whatever THEY want too.
Maybe if that happened, we'd finally get people to stop being idiots about what their neighbors are doing.
Synn, 10 greenies for you! Heck, make it 100, 1000. Where is that damn rep button anyway?
I agree 200%!
Funny how every time the facts are so inconvenient that you have no response you just attack the source. Very revealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I could say the same, but the fact is Christmas can be legally taught in public schools - including the religious significance - as long is isn't promoting Christianity. Your objection is duly noted and understood, I have the same objection to the left's idea of sex education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Whether it does or not the facts I've mentioned before are still the facts. I'm sure the teacher has the right to teach the significance of Yule and Saturnalia the same way. That's fine, but she chose to do a Christmas assignment and punished the child because she didn't like the outcome. He didn't need a psych evaluation, I've could have determined his motives with 2 questions.Quote:
Suffice to say this: Religion has no place in schools. The teacher reacted to a kid making a picture of a dead person for a Christmas representation--and I can't blame her for her reaction.
I've been arguing that for years, Synnen. Example again, sex education.Quote:
What it comes down to is that kids don't NEED to learn about either in schools. Teach them to read. Teach them to do math. For the sake of all that's good and holy, please teach them how to write without using text speak.
And respected by the system.Quote:
Manners, religion, and personal beliefs should be taught at home.
Tolerance from who's point of view?Quote:
The ONLY exception to that is that TOLERANCE should be taught at schools.
Agreed.Quote:
You can believe what you want at home, but children should NOT be bullied or made fun of because their parents are Christian, or Jewish, or black or white or gay or straight or whatever.
How about we stick to reading, writing, arithmetic and no text speak, because "whatever" is not necessarily OK. Man-boy relationships are NOT OK in spite of what Obama's "safe schools czar" thinks. Bestiality is NOT OK, child porn is NOT OK, and teaching my children about "fisting" is NOT OK. I can think of lots of things that are NOT OK.Quote:
Acceptance of anything that does not hurt another should be taught. Yes, that means that teachers teach that being gay, black, white, Christian, pagan or whatever is okay. It's OKAY to be anything, in other words. You teach what isn't okay at home--and the teacher teaches that there still must be tolerance of differences in his or her classroom.
What kind of school do your kids go to that they teach fisting! :eek:Quote:
How about we stick to reading, writing, arithmetic and no text speak, because "whatever" is not necessarily OK. Man-boy relationships are NOT OK in spite of what Obama's "safe schools czar" thinks. Bestiality is NOT OK, child porn is NOT OK, and teaching my children about "fisting" is NOT OK. I can think of lots of things that are NOT OK.
My kids go to a public school. My son is in grade 5, my daughter is in grade 2. They have health class (teaching them how to properly wash their hands, their bodies, etc), they have math, social, gym, music, English, German (for my daughter) science and that's it.
Every morning, even though it's a public school, they say the Lord's prayer and sing Oh Canada. Um, I'm not Christian, that's why I sent my kids to a public school. Why are they saying the Lord's prayer in a public school?
This year their Christmas concert is in the Pentecostal Church in our town. Why? I don't do church. Why are my public school kids going to a church for their Christmas concert?
I don't mind them exploring other beliefs. I'm all for it. In fact, they each have a bible (child's version) and yes, we do talk about the Christian belief of what Christmas represents and the Christian religion in general. I also tell them of my beliefs, and everyone that we know that has a different belief is encouraged to talk to my children of their traditions etc. I want them to decide for themselves, which is why I didn't send them to the Catholic school down the street.
Now we're going to church and my kid's know the Lord's prayer. Why?
So yes, I agree. Why can't they just be taught what they're sent to school to learn and leave religion at home, where it belongs.
[QUOTE=Synnen;2131351]Happy Yule to all!
Either way--sketching Christ DEAD for Christmas is a weird thing. Christmas is the Christian celebration of his BIRTH. EASTER is the Christian celebration of his death.
(Side issue)
Easter season (should be passover) is when Christians epecially celebrate the RESURRECTION of Jesus, not His death.
Teaching your children to make safe choices regarding sex IS okay, though.
Unfortunately, the best way to get information to mass numbers of students is through schools. Teaching them HOW to use condoms and other birth control is teaching them to be SAFE. Is it appropriate before age 12? I don't think so. However--I also think a large percentage of teenage pregnancies are because we took sex ed OUT of the schools, and parents don't talk about it at home either, other than to say "don't have sex!!!!"
HOWEVER--I don't know how it works in YOUR town, but in mine, those classes require a parental signature. I know several people in my grade that did NOT take those classes because their parents preferred they know nothing about sex, or only know the parents' version of it. GREAT! More power to those parents.
There is NOT an opt-out clause for religious topics, nor is parental permission required to talk about it--even if it is NOT promoting Christianity.
But then again, there's this: Talking about sex isn't promoting sex. Talking about how some people have different preferences in sex isn't promoting sex. Saying that being gay is okay isn't promoting being gay. And I don't know where your kids go to school, but in MY neighborhood, we teach that if someone touches you in a "bad" way, you should tell an adult you trust about it--which is kind of promoting the ANTI pedophilia, isn't it? I mean, telling kids that there ARE bad touches and that adults can make those touches bad says to me "pedophilia is bad"--but maybe you have a different take on that.
So... are we in agreement that TALKING about sex isn't promoting it?
Just like TALKING about only Christian customs isn't promoting them?
Synn, I'm all for sex education in school. I do think it should be the parents choice, because it is something that parents should have a say in, just like religion. Sadly I think that most parents that opt out of sex ed are the ones that have no intentions of talking sex with their kids. Those are the kids that end up here, on AMHD, asking if oral sex can cause pregnancy. Ignorance isn't always bliss.
When the request comes to my house (yes, the schools send a form asking if the parent wants their child in the class) I will be signing it. Of course our school also sends an outline on what they'll be teaching and it won't be until grade 7.
I'm the type of mom that answers questions as they come. When my son asked if Santa was real last year, even though it broke my heart that he was old enough to ask, I told him to truth. I don't believe in lying to my kids. When my children ask then they're ready for an answer. I keep it age appropriate but suffice it to say that neither of my children think that the stork brings babies. They know how babies are made.
My son asked what a condom was a few month back. Apparently one of the neighbor kids found one in his parents bathroom and brought it out for everyone to see. So we had the safe sex talk.
I don't want my children going out into the world misinformed, or worse yet, not informed at all. I don't want them learning about sex from the 9 year old down the street that thinks kissing can make babies (yes, that happened).
I'd rather that they know what life is all about. My son is 11. To me he's still a baby. He's my little boy. Sadly, to the rest of the world, he's at the age where he'll start finding things out first hand. I can deny it all I want. I can pretend that my son won't be one of the young kids having sex, or doing drugs. I can live in my dream world or I can face reality. Why wouldn't I arm my children with knowledge? It could save their lives. Talking about sex doesn't mean I'm promoting sex.
Did I just ramble?
Ya, I did. :(
Technicaly it wasn't in a public class, but it was at a youth conference in 2000, "fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money." It was sponsored by Obama's "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings' GLSEN group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
The repulsive material Jennings approves of for students is an outrage, an 8-year-old's stick figure of Jesus is not.
Don't know how public schools work in Canada but I doubt you'll find that here.Quote:
Every morning, even though it's a public school, they say the Lord's prayer and sing Oh Canada. Um, I'm not Christian, that's why I sent my kids to a public school. Why are they saying the Lord's prayer in a public school?
Fair enough.Quote:
So yes, I agree. Why can't they just be taught what they're sent to school to learn and leave religion at home, where it belongs.
Speech,
You simply posted a link to a website that copied the content from your previous dirtbag website. At no point do they show that "fisting" is appropriate content as per the Department of Education. You're making sh!t up again.
Glad to see you again assume the role of arbiter of what is a legitimate source.
AMHD appreciates your services .The major media is frequently behind the curve and their non-reporting of the issues involved with Obama's "safe school czar " ,Kevin Jennings ,is no exception .
Is the Washington Examiner a legitimate source ?
Obama appointee lauded NAMBLA figure | Washington Examiner
You didn't answer the question. I'm not questioning the source, I'm questioning the content. You totally evaded the question which means you have no answer - the site spews out incorrect information and you buy it up.
BTW looks like tom = speech again. <yawn>
The audio from the conference is faked? I see. Is Jennings or anyone else denying it? And I never said the "Department of Education" said it was appropriate content, I said the conference was "fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money." I'm not the one "making sh!t up," I'm posting the reality on one of Obama's most asinine appointments and you have no answer for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Do a little more than question it, refute it. I bet you can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You posted it, you back it up. You're moving dangerously close to Glen Beck style of "opinionating".Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Sorry, that's not how it works. I posted the evidence, it's up to you to refute it. And you can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I'm telling you there is no evidence in the website you read. The guy writes up but he has no evidence to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Both sites are full of links to the evidence in their reports, you know how links work. The evidence is posted, you have no rebuttal, and I'm OK with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You obviously don't follow those links. Lol!
What are you, 12 years old?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Wow... have we degenerated into insults instead of discussion?
That seems to happen when I call them on some inaccuracies that they take as fact.
Sadly it's the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I think everyone needs a time out, separate corners.
Strange how you accuse me of "making sh!t up," that I buy up incorrect information, that I'm "moving dangerously close to Glen Beck style of "opinionating" and that I base my opinions on "a pile of steaming crap," and I'm the one insulting you and have no answers? Only in your alternate reality...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The website you link to is the pile of crap not you. As you may know Beck posits his craziness by saying "his just asking questions here". I already explained that your website offers no backup to the ludicrous things it and you are offering as fact.
Is it time to close down the thread before this gets out of hand or can we all play nice?
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a religious based discussion without name calling and childish behavior?
I'm sure we can do it. After all, we are all adults, nes pas? So let's act like adults.
By his own admission and in his own book(One Teacher in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories) ;the "safe school czar " Kevin Jennings described an encounter he had with a student (originally it was a 15 year old ,but in later versions he changed the story to a 16 year old ) . The boy confided in Jennings, his teacher ,that he had gone home with a man the boy had met in a bus station rest room. Instead of using the story as a teachable moment to tell the boy about the dangers he was subjecting himself to ;so perhaps that behavior could be discouraged; Jennings told the boy "be sure to wear a condum" .
This is who we want as a 'safe school czar '?
All the controversies surrounding this guy could've easily been revealed in some basic vetting . But as in other cases ;it appears that the Obots don't do due dilligence and they end up spending their time initially defending the appointee before ultimately throwing them under the bus.
Edit . I know some teachers .They have told me they are required by law to report potential abuse cases. I'd say the example above qualifies as one . Perhaps that is why he changed the story to a boy of 16 . That is the age of consent in Mass.
NK, that's not what I claimed. I was accurate in my assessment, you should read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
For at least the 3rd time, I don't watch Beck.Quote:
As you may know Beck posits his craziness by saying "his just asking questions here".
Refute the links if you can, but simply repeating your claim doesn't make it any more true.Quote:
I already explained that your website offers no backup to the ludicrous things it and you are offering as fact.
Okay, obviously we can't play nice.
Mods, I think it's time to shut her down.
Twelve pages. Not bad for a religious discussion. Sad that we can't do better. :(
Closed.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM. |