Bible Classes in Public Schools?

Iceblink... a bit of clarification, as you post seemed to suggest a slam against the religious using the latest criminal who may or may not have had Church ties...

I don't believe religious people havea monopoly on morals or ethics; that said, however, they are among the few endeavored to enhancing moral development and ethical understanding...

My question previous, to AFCA, who mocked the fact that morality might be enhanced by religion was to simply ask if not, then for him, and others, to list all secular enhanced morality programs? Such a list shouldn't be difficult to ensemble or create; as the anti-religious secularists are constantly reminding us of Christian failings...

Again, if we accept that morality and ethics are good things, then why not religious instruction to help bolster said morals and ethics? Iceblink: List all the non-religious activities contributing to the establishment of morality in society... list all the secular events that enhance morals in American life.

IntheNet

 

Good point. You don't even have to go back a few centuries to find points that ITN can't refute.

But as to IntheStraitjacket's alleged point that people are allegedly dodging... it's obviously pointless in the first place, because, just as religious training can be perverted to allow for all sorts of atrocities, so too can secular doctrines and practices, ranging from the teachings of Confucius to amateur sports. It has nothing to do with the innate goodness or "evil" of doctrines, but with the tendencies of people to use them selfishly instead of selflessly.

 

The Good Doctor consulted his secular cohorts and anti-religious chums and found not one element in the 'Secular Guide for Schools' that contributes to moral enhancement and ethical growth of students... thinking fast... he decided to resort to the moonbat leftist tried and true: hatch a stupid comment about another poster's name... bravo Dr. Wankler... add a chevron to your liberal jersey.

 

What's the basis for your distinction between "morality" and "ethics"?

Can you define each of them?

What is this "society" of which you speak? Is it similar to the "public sphere" of Jurgen Habermas, or do you have another definition in mind?

What would make an event "secular"? Is it anything that takes place outside of a church?

Looking forward to your clarifications.

Oh, and unlike you, I actually go to mass. I also read the scripture daily, in the form of the lectionary and the Liturgy of the Hours. Hence my vigorous obections to your idiotic (in the root meaning of the word, from the Greek idios) and self-serving uses of religion to further anti-christian political agendas, not to mention your George Bush-centered idolatry.

 

Absolutely, but I doubt your secular cohorts could. Morality is the instruction of principles with respect to right and wrong conduct, whereas ethics is the development of moral standards; a clear division.

The American experience of course; in our public backyard, in this case, public schools.

Divorced from religious input.

Don't even go here Dr. Wankler... you know nothing of my faith, and it is pointless to hold yourself up as a token Christian if you fail to even lift the standard.

My point again, to make it crystal clear, is that morality and ethical understanding for youth is enhanced in schools through religious instruction. Until the proponents of secular instruction show clear advantage of moral and ethical understanding in their pedagogy, they should refrain from criticism.

Clear?

IntheNet

 

Just to make it explicit, I will go there. I am calling you out as a hypocrit, pure and simple. Clear?

Actually, you have 2 points.

1) as has been pointed out, in purely non-secular societies, wherein the church was also the dominant temporal/spatial/political power, people STILL did evil acts. The idea thus arose during the enlightenment (in Europe: Confucius got around to it centuries earlier) that a public sphere free from religion, where we dealt solely with the problems of THIS WORLD, would be ideal. The founders of the US thought it was a good idea, not just because they knew first hand what kind of atrocities people would commit in the name of religion, but also because, as Garry Wills points out, a public sphere would PROTECT religion from the damages that are done to it when it is corrupted by earthly power.

An example of this latter case, from recent history, would be the Catholic Church in Ireland. While attendance at mass is down a bit, now that the Church is in effect separate from the state most religious and lay people within the Church are far, far happier with the church than they have been recently. And other people are far far happier not having the church involved with their daily life. In any case,

2) All this is why your objection is bogus. Your assumptions are blindly ahistorical, for they assume that "secularism" arose from a plot hatched by a meeting between the ACLU and Hillary Clinton in 1989. Like "gee, Communism just fell, we better get cracking with this secular humanism stuff, otherwise we will also go into the ash can of history..."

In reality, what you call secularism is centuries old. And while it's not perfect by a stretch, it beats the hell out of what it replaced, and it has countless advantages for religious people that they won't have where the Church is the state.

Clear?

 

This is actually pretty funny, especially from you! I believe the scripture reading on "cast the first stone" is appropriate, particularly in your instance... throw away, in any case... funny nonetheless!

Reading is fundamental Dr. Wankler... the Founding Fathers said and thought no such thing! Their prose is rich with allegory to their faith, and the Founding Documents of this Republic are rich with religion, which they wore on their sleeve! The mission of the secular in thsi nation is first to discredit faith in our history... you failed here miserably!

Check back with the common folk of Ireland... you failed here too... the people involve their faith in their daily life, always have and always will.

No... the threat from secularism is larger than that, and more pervasive. You being a Christian should know that, but then again, that seems to be a sticking point... do you actually listen to the leaders of your faith? You have, however, identified one of the main protagonists of the secular scourge as being the ACLU...their message of seculism falls on the ears of those with loose moral understanding, such as yourself, and germinates fruit...

But call me a hypocrite again good doctor... that's always good for a laugh...

 

Well, actually, the Pauline epistles about rebuking error are more a propos, but having never read the Bible, you wouldn't know. Oh, and by the way, that was a response to this passage from you in an earlier post, specifically:

The Good Doctor consulted his secular cohorts and anti-religious chums and found not one element in the 'Secular Guide for Schools' that contributes to moral enhancement and ethical growth of students... thinking fast... he decided to resort to the moonbat leftist tried and true: hatch a stupid comment about another poster's name... bravo Dr. Wankler... add a chevron to your liberal jersey.

So if you're going to talk about Biblical stone throwing, don't take out a mortgage on glass houses.

I love it when rant-radio-listening illiterates talk about deists like they're ur-Billy Grahams.

"The people" are never monolithic. I know that for a fact, hence my post specifically refers to a range of responses. You on the other hand, do not have a clue on this topic.

Why do you assume that being religious requires devolving into what T. W. Adorno and his cowriters called an "Authoritarian Personality"? Never mind, it's obvious.

Anyway, it's as a religious person that I most appreciate secularization. It keeps me free to practice my religion however I see fit, without state interference, so long as I don't try to inflict my religion on other people in the public sphere without their consent. Thank God for secularism. That means I don't have to join the local snake-handling cult or participate in the "ceremonial deism" that is the REAL state-sanctioned religion in the US. It also means that my Church will not be tempted to act publicly on it's inquisitorial impulses. Those are just two advantages I have no doubt you're incapable of comprehending.

There's no need to call you a hypocrit. You'll make that point yourself just fine. Over and over again.

 

You make it so easy! I'm sure that phrase you used (above) is a tatoo on your forehead!

IntheNet

 

Actually, everyone else who comes to this forum doesn't need to have the irony explained to them. They're also able to appreciate my hypothesis that secularism (not the best word, really, but it's what we've been using so far) just might make it easier for society to function on a day-to-day basis when you're dealing with a religiously diverse culture.

Beats the hell out of what you and the Taliban want, anyway.

 

They are only able to know what their public schools tell them, why so many students are disappointed in their course offerings, and the poor yield of public schools, based on performance. Parents are also mighty curious why Christian schools have a long waiting list, in this day and age of abandonment of moral imperatives within the public school system! A religiously-diverse culture is what we strive for, by the way, uninhibited by the secularism which you advance.

Me too... without federal interference as well, in the best interest of the child, to include any and all religious instruction, as we see fit.

IntheNet

 

This has devolved to the point that it no longer resembles the purpose of the thread. It's now going to be locked. ITN, I'm not going to lie to you. I think you are the sockpuppet of somebody and I think you are a complete waste of time. That said, you are more than welcome to post in this forum. Just be aware that this is NOT the politics forum. The kind of invective language that is permitted there does NOT fly here. For other folks (the regulars in this forum), also be aware that this is not the politics forum. Name calling and personal attacks accomplish nothing. The best way to deal with a poster like ITN is to ignore him. If people are truly interested in the theory and benefits of teaching the Bible in public schools, feel free to open another thread, but let's try and keep it at a level representative of the collective level of intelligence that I know exists on this forum.