No more silence
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. I bring up the Day of Silence that happened across America last week and pretty much hammer it. The column is called, ”No more silence.” Here’s a little snippet.
Finally, the fact that the administration and the faculty either implicitly or explicitly support the Day of Silence is unacceptable. Our schools are incredibly valuable to our society, but they do have a finite responsibility. They exist to educate our children to prepare them to be responsible members of our Republic and useful in our economy so that they can be gainfully employed. They do not exist to advocate or protest particular lifestyles, sexual orientations, or moral codes.
As a society, we accept this principle on some issues. For example, we would not accept our public schools holding a day to support the message of Jesus Christ and educate the children on His teachings. Nor would we tolerate our public schools spending a day teaching our children the virtues of euthanasia. These are not issues about which we either empower or entrust our public school teachers to instruct our children.
Oh boy, this should be fun.
Finally, the fact that the administration and the faculty either implicitly or explicitly support the Day of Silence is unacceptable.
Well, implicit support is basically neutrality. If they agree with the day of silence and do not explicitly support it, what more would you more would you ask of them? But let’s move on to the substance.
Our schools are incredibly valuable to our society, but they do have a finite responsibility. They exist to educate our children to prepare them to be responsible members of our Republic and useful in our economy so that they can be gainfully employed. They do not exist to advocate or protest particular lifestyles, sexual orientations, or moral codes.
As I’m sure you know, the day of silence is “run” by students to the extent that it is run by anyone. The school isn’t actively doing anything here. Well, except tolerating student political activism. You are taking on the proverbial straw man here. The schools tolerate this, as they should. They are not active participants.
As a society, we accept this principle on some issues. For example, we would not accept our public schools holding a day to support the message of Jesus Christ and educate the children on His teachings.
Because that would be unconstituional, but more importantly, it’s a shitty analogy. It would be more proper to compare the day of silence to a day of Christian students openly and loudly discusiing Jesus in the hallways and at break times, or even having a day of silence to draw attention to the pressures that they face. Both of these would eb perfectly fine.
Nor would we tolerate our public schools spending a day teaching our children the virtues of euthanasia.
Again the school is not teaching any message on the day of silence. This is student led. The school is not teaching acceptance of homosexuality.
These are not issues about which we either empower or entrust our public school teachers to instruct our children.
See, you have nothing to complain about if the school is not actively participating. You seem to equate allowing this with participating. (This is in Owen’s full article, not just the excerpted portion). In this argument you basically call both teachers and Christian students a bunch of pussies.
Most Day of Silence participants would probably sacrifice a day’s worth of grades, as a day’s worth of high school grades don’t mean anything. Ergo, if teachers wish to downgrade these students, it is in there power. If they accomodate them, I see no problem there. After all, presumably they are still listening.
However, your treatment of the teachers is nothing compared to your treatment of Christian students. “Oooh, they may feel PEER PRESSURE. Waahhh!!” Grow up. For one thing, most Christian students I know are perfectly adept at standing up for their faith, but second, everything everyone does in school causes peer pressure. And I say this as a huge nerd.
Lastly, it is difficult to see how quiet kids could be a distraction. I mean, I don’t know how to criticize this other than to call it stupid. Also, just because you are not talking does not mean that they are not listening.
Maybe you should withdraw your article before someone reads it.
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1614 hrsAlso from the article:
“The most obvious problem with the Day of Silence is that it wastes an entire day of classroom instruction. The students do not speak. They can’t participate in classroom discussions or ask questions about their assignments.
Teachers have limited choices. They can accommodate the students who are protesting and accept the wasted day. This has to be a hard pill to swallow for teachers who care about providing a quality education. …
The fact that the students who participate in the Day of Silence waste classroom time is no small matter, because they are not just wasting their own time. They are also wasting the time of the other students who are there to learn.”
Owen, I disagree with your premise here. You seem to assume that teachers just wouldn’t bother teaching that day, and that students, whether they are participating in the Day of Silence or not, wouldn’t process any instruction given to them. That’s totally unrealistic. The silent and non-silent students are hopefully engaged and listening, and nothing prevents a silent student from writing down a question and handing it to the teacher.Furthermore, students in athletics, performing arts, debate, forensics, etc. are frequently excused from their classes and given chances to make up work by making arrangements with their teachers. One can argue that a day of not speaking is not a sanctioned school activity and that’s a valid point. However, family vacations, non-Christian religious holidays, and Take Our Children to Work Day are not school activities either, and students get excused for those and are allowed to make up work.
As for students who are anti-homosexuality possibly being harrassed for those views, any harrassment of any student for any reason is unacceptable. We can hope schools would be consistent with their anti-bullying policies. We can also hope students can learn to respectfully disagree with one another in the social crucible that is school.
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1623 hrs"The students do not speak. They can’t participate in classroom discussions or ask questions about their assignments.”
Not really:
Daily News 4/26/2008
..... Bunzel said participants would talk if they had to - if they had to give a speech for example.
GSA member John McIntrye said he broke silence when he was called on in class.
Maybe PaulNoonan is right, except I think it is too late - my issue of the Daily News just came in the mail. Well, it’s supposed to be “opinion” right? Facts don’t count here.
This is just typical “West Bend crazy” (and I have been here all my life). Where else could a guy like Glen Grothman get elected?
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1644 hrsAlso, I actually seem to remember that a Christian group at my highschool would have a meeting every Thursday during class time at the local Bowling Alley (within walking distance of Wauwatosa West). I believe it was called “Timeout” but I could be wrong. I had no problem with that. Would you, Owen?
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1654 hrs"GSA member John McIntrye said he broke silence when he was called on in class.”
So, they didn’t really have a day of silence, they were just silent when they wanted to be and vocal when it suited them? Good grief. Way to take a stand. I had a day of silence today, then, too, between 11:30 last night and 6:30 this morning. Boy, did I make a difference.
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1740 hrsWendy, the day of silence is focused primarily on the students’ peers. There is no inherent conflict in speaking in class. The idea is to bring attention to those who stand by while gay people are harrassed, or when no one speaks up to those who throw the word Fag around willy-nilly.
Don’t bother commenting if you are not going to at least make an effort to understand.
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1750 hrsThanks for policing the blog. I’m sure Jed and Owen are thrilled to have a new officer.
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1753 hrs
If you choose to wear the uniform, I suggest avoiding the pants...they make people look “hippy.” Ummm… if the kids were speaking in class, then they weren’t really participating in the Day of Silence. I see no exceptions to being silent from the people who organize it:
http://www.dayofsilence.org/content/getinformation.html
Posted by Owen on April 29, 2008 at 1800 hrsThe Day of Silence (http://www.dayofsilence.org), a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), is a student-led day of action when concerned students, from middle school to college, take some form of a vow of silence to bring attention to the name-calling, bullying and harassment—in effect, the silencing—experienced by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and their allies. This year’s Day of Silence will be held in memory of Lawrence King.
Although here is says that some people only do it for part of the day:
GLSEN encourages students to participate in the Day of Silence in cooperation with their schools. We encourage students to get support from their principals and other school staff. While some students choose to be silent for the day, some participants are simply silent for part of the day, during lunch, or at community events. Students may also participate in “Breaking the Silence” rallies, events at which students come together at the day’s end to express themselves and share their experiences with members of their local communities.
Shouldn’t be the “I;ll be silent for a while when I feel like it” day?
In any case, my comments in that regard were targeted at how the day is meant to work.
Posted by Owen on April 29, 2008 at 1802 hrsI don’t understand what you think the schools policy should be. Would you prefer that these students be suspended?
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1811 hrsYeah, what is it you want from the school?
Posted by scott on April 29, 2008 at 1850 hrsWhat is wrong with being suspended for what you believe in? We have created this fake protest culture where we teach our kids to ‘stand up’ for their convictions but we intentionally shield them from any consequences. It is all BS. If the individual students want to participate in this then fine, let them face the consequences of not participating in class. Otherwise this is the lamest protest ever! What kind of a wimp takes a stand up and until it may have a consequence on him/her and then caves in. Its like participating in a hunger strike up to the point where you tummy growls. But I guess it accomplishes its goal, all of the kids got to feel like they did something really, really important. Bunch of posers.
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 2007 hrsThe students aren’t protesting the school, Joe. There’s no reason for them to be violating school rules, policies or objectives, and no reason for the school to suspend them. They’re drawing the attention of their peers to an issue they feel strongly about, and doing so in a non-violent, non-confrontational way. It’s not civil disobedience. It’s raising awareness. And I think it’s brilliant.
All the talk about it being bad for the classroom because it goes to far, or talk about how it’s a phony protest because it doesn’t go far enough, is just a diversion from the real truth: you simply don’t agree with them. And if that’s the issue, why not just say so?
Posted by scott on April 29, 2008 at 2120 hrsIn any case, my comments in that regard were targeted at how the day is meant to work.
Yet you make no mention of GLSEN’s description of how the day is “meant” to work in the actual article.
The obvious read is that you assumed the school officially condoned it when you heard about it and wrote the article based on that belief. Now that you find your initial impression was wrong, you’re suggesting the article is about something it didn’t even mention.
Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 2143 hrsNo, ATV, actually I based my opinion on both comments on the Day of Silence from last year and this year where teachers were said to have been adjusting their schedule to provide something where students wouldn’t have to speak, supportive comments by administration officials, personal knowledge from people who work there, etc.
No, there isn’t a written policy of the school condoning it, but school officials’ actions and the actions of many of the employees clearly show that they condone it.
Scott,
I want the school to have a policy that they treat those kids like any other day. If a principal stops a kid in the hall to ask her some questions and the kid refuses to answer, I want the kid to be punished. If a teacher calls on a kid in class and the kid refuses to speak, I want it to be reflected in their grade (if that’s usually part of their grade). Etc.
Like Joe said above, if these kids want to protest, then fine, but they are there to participate and get an education. If they refuse to do so, they should suffer the consequences just as if they did it because they were just being insubordinate.
Posted by Owen on April 29, 2008 at 2156 hrsBut Owen, the Day of Silence kids aren’t being silent to be insubordinate or disrespectful, nor are they refusing to do ALL their classwork. If a principal wouldn’t accept a written reply to a question and punished a student, or a teacher made a lack of participation on ONE day affect that quarter’s grade, it’s overkill. If teachers and administrators want to choose that battle, that’s up to them, but most would say they have more important things to focus on.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 0920 hrsYou’re barking up the wrong tree when you say the school is sponsoring it. After all, what do you have besides the fact that teachers aren’t punishing kids for refusing to speak at necessary times in class? Not that it’s even clear that this occurs in the first place.
And if you want to belittle these socially-minded young people because their activities don’t carry risk, then I think you’re just being petty. You don’t have to march on Selma during the civil rights movement to do something positive for social change. Not everything needs to be heroic to be worthwhile. These kids are publicly expressing their solidarity with their gay peers who may feel that they need to hide their sexual identity, and they are doing so without causing disruption. I say good on them.
The real issue here--the only issue--is that some folks here disagree with these students’ politics. But for some reason it’s preferred to make the discussion about whether the school is “sponsoring” their activities, or whether their activities reflect a lack of backbone in that they aren’t risking punishment. I wish we could just have a more genuine discussion about the bug that’s up your behinds and leave high school kids out of it.
Posted by scott on April 30, 2008 at 0939 hrsI didn’t say that the school was sponsoring it. That would be even worse. They are “supporting” it.
And the real issue is that I don’t want our public schools being a forum for political protests. They are there to be educated and as expensive as schools are, every day wasted is important.
Time and a place, folks. Not that hard.
Posted by Owen on April 30, 2008 at 1013 hrsI agree, the homosexual agenda is taking over the schools. With the onslaught of the creeping gay agenda, we, as Amerians, can expect the following to occur, especially if a Demoncrat is elected as President:
Transvestite teachers! Boys kissing boys in restrooms! Teens taught about anal sex! “Gay” fairy tales for children!
Could these things actually become a reality in our public schools? The speed of change in our society thus far, driven by resolute homosexual activists, indicates that the answer is most assuredly yes!
In case some people think such projections about the future are a hunk of homophobic hooey, they might want to consider the fact that, in some parts of the country, these things are already happening!
So what changes can be expected, and what would life in our public schools be like if homosexual activists win the culture war? The following are predictions based on current trends.
For more than three decades, activists have been demanding that the public school system be enlisted as a primary engine in the effort to normalize homosexuality.
In their 1972 Gay Rights Platform, activists meeting in Chicago, Illinois, demanded “[f]ederal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.”
Similarly, in their 1993 March on Washington, D.C., activists demanded that such radical instruction be taught on “all levels of education” — federal, state and local, grades K-12.
Support for the homosexual agenda is already solid throughout the professional education organizations, such as the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, American Association of School Administrators, and the National Association of School Psychologists.
The National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) has also made it clear that it supports the normalization of homosexuality within the public school system. In 1999, for example, National PTA President Ginny Markell said her organization would be making available the video That’s a Family!, which embraces same-sex families, as part of a nationwide effort to fight discrimination against homosexuals.
At its 2004 conference in Anaheim, California, the National PTA partnered with Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), a pro-homosexual group, to cooperatively present a workshop that instructed educators about how to promote homosexuality in public schools.
Across the nation, outside homosexual pressure groups are constantly pushing schools to create an environment in which the “gay” lifestyle is celebrated.
Perhaps the most effective of these groups, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), says it has almost 70 chapters throughout the nation. The group claims on its Web site that, by the end of the 2002-2003 school year, 1,864 student clubs — called “Gay-Straight Alliances” — had registered with GLSEN.
Other projects, such as the controversial videos It’s Elementary and That’s a Family!, have been instrumental in instructing public school administrators and faculty how to teach children of all ages about homosexuality. It’s Elementary, for example, has been acquired by nearly two thousand educational institutions across the country.
As sympathy for the homosexual agenda becomes embedded in the nation’s public school systems, the changes promise to be dramatic. Linda Harvey of Mission America, a pro-family group, predicts that: “School literature will be adapted to reflect a positive view of the homosexual family as a future option for every child. Josh will learn that he can grow up and marry a girl or a boy. And since at age six he probably hasn’t yet discovered his sexual ‘identity,’ the fair thing will be to present all angles to him in language, health, music and social studies.”
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! (to be continued)
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1023 hrsIf the celebration of homosexuality is one side of the public school coin, the other side will be the denigration of opposing views. And when those contrary views are rooted in Christian beliefs, the antagonism that arises from “gay” sympathizers will be even more vigorous.
For example, at Arcata High School in Arcata, California, Christian students in that public school were ridiculed for their beliefs about homosexuality in a sex education lesson. Led by a representative of Planned Parenthood, students were told to stand in a circle and were asked, “Do you have a religious belief about homosexuality that considers it a sin and wrong?” Those who did were told they had to remain alone in the circle.
The representative admitted that “the children who answered ‘yes’ had to stay in the circle. This caused them to feel very demeaned, put down.”
In St. Paul, Minnesota, 16-year-old Elliott Chambers was ordered by his principal to stop wearing a sweatshirt that simply said “Straight Pride” on the front, and contained the image of a man and woman holding hands on the back.
And during a planned, day-long protest by homosexual students in Boone, North Carolina, three Christian high school students were suspended by the principal because they refused to change their “offensive” T-shirts. The objectionable message? The trio’s shirts bore Biblical messages about homosexuality and salvation.
In some schools, where students have been steadily fed homosexual propaganda for years, it is sometimes classmates, and not school officials, who assume the role of persecutors. One woman, whose family had moved from the South to New Hampshire, said her boys were shocked at how they were received.
“My 16-year-old son had to deal with unwanted advances from other male students,” she said. When she approached school officials to try to put a stop to the harassment by homosexuals, they refused. “[W]hat happened was the students found out that my 16- and 17-year-old boys were against homosexuality so they were taunted constantly and treated as if they were gay.”
Homosexual techniques will be taught to students
When homosexuality is accepted in principle, the sexual activities associated with it will be included in public school sex education classes. Frightening stories are already arising that give a chilling glimpse into what would be in store for public school children.In 2000, the Boston affiliate of GLSEN co-sponsored a conference which gave explicit “gay” sex lessons to kids as young as 14, and then tried to keep that information from reaching parents. The event, held at Tufts University, was funded by the Massachusetts Department of Education. Lecturers explained to participants about different homosexual practices, including “fisting,” the homosexual practice of inserting one’s fist and forearm into the anus of another man.
In Vermont another “gay” group, called Outright Vermont, has been pushing the homosexual agenda in schools — also at taxpayer expense. According to its own documents, Outright Vermont has used taxpayer money to provide “safer sex activities” and “parties” for teens, including “demonstrations, guided practice and skill evaluation” for the use of prophylactics, and the distribution of free condoms, lubricants for sexual intercourse between males, “dental dams” for oral sex between lesbians, and latex gloves for mutual masturbation between homosexual teenagers. In 2000 alone, the number of such items requested by Outright Vermont for distribution to teens was scandalous: 5,000 condoms, 750 dental dams, 750 latex gloves, and 2,000 packets of lubricant.
To Be Continued!
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1024 hrsSometimes the legitimization of homosexual activity is done in a roundabout way. Harvey says that “both GLSEN and PFLAG advocate book selections for youth that include positive portrayals of homosexual sex between boys, pornography use, cheating on a spouse with a homosexual lover, homosexual sex between underage youth and adults, and straight and ‘gay’ experimentation by ‘uncertain’ youth.”
Activists argue that human sexuality is so fluid as to encompass all conceivable orientations: heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and even people who attempt the alteration of gender appearance.
This latter group consists of “trans-gendered” individuals — men and women who believe that their biological sex does not accurately reflect what they perceive their gender to be. Some, called transsexuals, have sex-change operations, while others maintain their biological sex and merely “cross-dress.”
Such gender-bending concepts are already causing chaos in some public schools. In Missouri last year, the Francis Howell Board of Education rejected complaints from parents when the cross-dressing parent of a fourth-grade student chaperoned school field trips. In Brockton, Massachusetts, a 15-year-old male student demanded the right to come to school dressed like a girl, and school officials capitulated.
Meanwhile, in 1998 students at Southwest High School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were forced to accept librarian David Nielsen’s transition into “Debra Davis,” after he began wearing woman’s clothes to school and identified himself as a woman.
Alarmingly, in that case the school sent a letter home with students that defended its decision to embrace Nielsen’s cross-dressing. “We believe [students] will be more enriched and have a better understanding of diversity by knowing and working with this employee,” the letter said.
According to the Evangelical News Service, Southwest High School even presented to students “educational sessions” on transgenderism.
Nielsen also upset some teachers when he began using the women’s faculty restroom. Both the school administration and, eventually, a federal court, rebuffed the complaints of female teachers.
Groups like GLSEN, PFLAG and the largest homosexual lobby group, the Human Rights Campaign, all support changes in law which would include the full acceptance of transgendered students right along with those who define themselves as “gay,” lesbian or bisexual.
If these demands are fully embraced, the prospect of gender chaos in schools will be assured.
For more than 30 years, homosexual activists have been demanding that our Judeo-Christian culture capitulate and embrace their view of human sexuality, marriage and family. If Americans ever accept these demands, they can expect to live in a culture that will be turned upside down — literally unhinged from the sane moorings instituted by the God of heaven.
Harvey’s prediction is of a grotesque culture that includes: “Lesbian bride dolls. Fourth grade ‘gay’ clubs. A king and king at the high school prom. Dating tips for same-sex teens. Bathroom ogling — and sometimes quick encounters — in the middle school boys’ restroom.”
Fortunately, while the groundwork for these changes has been laid, it is not yet a done deal. But Americans who believe there is something inherently abnormal, unnatural and immoral about homosexuality had better stand up right now.
If the public schools are lost to homosexual activists, our children and grandchildren will be thrown into a queer new world. And there’s nothing gay about that.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1025 hrsWell that definitely exceeded my daily dose of paranoia, distortion and alarmism--not to mention demonizing, fear-mongering and exaggeration.
Posted by scott on April 30, 2008 at 1033 hrsGee Parker,
I am guessing you feel pretty disenfranchised in the current presidential race?
What’s the weather like in Eldorado today?
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1053 hrsAt least we’ve al learned a valuable lesson. Which is to avoid Parker Dunlop. I mean, wow.
Anyway, Owen, how do you feel about the “Timeout” program that I mentioned above?
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1107 hrsOwen,
How can you see this as anything but a free speech, or free non-speech issue?
Are you suggesting that schools should not equip students to make political and social choices from a position of being as fully informed as possible?
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1110 hrsThey are there to be educated and as expensive as schools are, every day wasted is important.
Again, I challenge your allegation that the entire day is a waste. Teachers and students still go about their business, with some being quieter than usual. Big deal.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1125 hrsThe Day of Silence or waste, is exactly that a day of waste! It needs to be done away with! I wrote the superintednant of school Pat Herdrich twice, she only talked around the issue and did not try and do anything, the second time I was ignored! I was told by my daughter that kids were fighting in the halls about the moral issues of being gay! Even the majority of our kids do not even want this! Boys dressed in dresses and make up! Sounds to me like a day of bragging about being gay, a day to show everyone a sinful and disgusting life! Wearing t-shirts that said horrible things! Yeah it ony distracts our KIDS from learning for a day! A day your son or daughter could have a big test to take! Maybe he/she has to pass this test to make the grade! She’he has to look at a child with tape on her’his mouth, great way to concentrate!!! It is our chidren’s future that matters, but obviously people like Pat Herdrich do not care about that.....funny thing is this is what Pat has on her e-mail response…
“Public schools...the garden where we meet as one to create the future of our communities and our nation.”
Dr. Rudy CrewIs that not hilarious? I was also trying to get a filthy book pulled out of the school also, called Clan of the Cave Bear, it is filled with sex. The school wanted me to give out my name and address and a very lengthy process to get it pulled! Then they have the gall to say how horrible it is that there are teen pregnancies! Again I was told by Mrs. Pat that I had to give out my personal info to get it pulled! So the next time you go to those polls for voting, remember who you are voting for, watch the Superintendants morals!!!! If you care for our city of West Bend you will not vote for Pat Herdirch, I KNOW I will never vote for her myself!!!!!!!! Our city is totally turning into a pool of garbage! It is up to us as parents to make a difference!!! I will get it where it counts, in the voting booth!
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1421 hrsFrankly, Laura, you sound like a moralizing busybody with a marked lack of tolerance and entirely too vivid an imagination.
Trying to make the day of silence that my own daughter has participated in for years in the Waukesha school system somehow about boys coming to school in drag is, well, missing the point while simultaneously going straight for the fear-mongering.
I’m going to go home and ask my teens if any of them ever read Clan of the Cave Bear. if they haven’t, I’m going to recommend it based on the fact that most books that people like yourself try to ban usually turn out to be pretty darned good. That’s how we first got turned on to Harry Potter, after all.
Furthermore, any school superintendent who rebuffed you gets a gold star in my book.
Posted by scott on April 30, 2008 at 1433 hrsSo how do all you silence supporters feel about the kids who have been for suspended for praying silently in schools? Paul said:
Because that would be unconstituional, but more importantly, it’s a shitty analogy. It would be more proper to compare the day of silence to a day of Christian students openly and loudly discusiing Jesus in the hallways and at break times, or even having a day of silence to draw attention to the pressures that they face. Both of these would eb perfectly fine.
If these activities were perfectly fine, why is religious prayer/discussion zero tolerance banned in so many areas around the US? A day of protest will suffer no consequences? How about a week? One small week of religious protest is okay? Great, then we will also organize a one week silence to protest no national healthcare… No. Students are there to learn, you want to really help the ‘gay bashing’ stop a bully when you see them instead of joining or walking by. That would make the gay kid smile, not one day of getting out of class participation.
As a high school ‘student Government nerd’ we tried many things to stop or start different happenings around our school. There was also a national day in I believe 1980 that our Principal denied us the ability to join in and threatened suspension to everyone caught… I can’t remember the cause.
The point is that schools routinely deny these types of activities and only sanction the ones they agree with. Since morals (especially mores rooted in religion) are so wholly banned from public schools these days, it should not surprise Christians and Muslims that praise for their antitheses is the next step.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1435 hrsThe point is that schools routinely deny these types of activities and only sanction the ones they agree with.
Yeah? Show me.
Posted by scott on April 30, 2008 at 1453 hrsClan of the Cave Bear is a classic. Laura, you are hurting your kids by having it taken out of the library. Also, you exclaim to much.
Tuerqas, there are no kids who have been suspended for praying silently in school. If any teacher or administration were to do so, they could be sued for violating the 1st amendment. The ACLU takes up such causes all of the time.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1512 hrsClassic= sexually expilicit writings.. classic? Whatever!!!!!! If that is classic, than you have problems!!!! I explain too much LOL! Your a funny funny man!!! I am hurting my kids by not letting them read ABOUT SEX? Yeah OK! Have you read the book? Have you seen that there is viloent sex in it, that is classic???????????? How about the bible? That is classic! How dare you talk to me about prayer when you are pushing sexually expicit books on our kids!!! SICK MAN! I will not waste my time talking to sick people about pushing bad books on our kids…
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1523 hrsTuerqas,
I know for a fact that there is at least one group of students at West Bend high school that has a bible study group and it meets in the school. It is student sponsored in the same manner as the Gay Student Alliance-GSA. if you are going to allow one you have to allow all the student sponsored groups. It would be possible to ban the groups but then they all have to go. You cannot pick and choose.
Laura,
The superintendent is not an elected position.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1526 hrsClan of the Cave Bear by Jean Auel. Challenged at the Berrien Springs High School for use in classrooms and libraries (1988) because the novel is “vulgar, profane, and sexually explicit”
Need I say more?
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1526 hrsThe Bible is more sexually explicit than Clan of The Cave Bear. But it’s less realistic.
Also, he said you “exclaim” too much, not that you “explain” too much. He meant you use too many exclamation points. Some people might argue that that makes you sound foolish, but the content of your posts takes care of that.
Posted by JIJAWM on April 30, 2008 at 1534 hrsThe Superintendent of Public Instruction is appointed by and responsible to the State Board of Education, which is elected at-large on a partisan basis. As the principal executive officer of the Department of Education, the Superintendent sits on Governor’s Cabinet, the State Administrative Board, and acts as chair and a non-voting member of the State Board of Education. The Superintendent advises the Legislature on education policy and funding needs, as defined by the State Board of Education. The Superintendent is responsible for the implementation of bills passed by the Legislature and policies established by the State Board of Education. The Superintendent is a major spokesperson for education in the state. The Superintendent also is the primary liaison to the United States Department of Education and other federal agencies, and also provides efficient and effective management of the Department’s considerable state and federal resources.
I stand corrected. I will make my voice head some kind of way…
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1534 hrs
Thank you anon. Laura,
Dr, Herdrich is not the State Superintendent of Schools. she is the Supt. of the West Bend Schools and she is not elected.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1537 hrsExplain, exclaim, oh well. Foolish, OK, well, so I spelled it wrong, that makes me wrong that Clan of the Cave bear is full of viloent sex? Backed into a corner huh? All you can do is correct my exclamations? OK!!! LOL!!!!!!
Bible sexually explicit. OK, well, whatever....
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1539 hrsYes, you need say more (because the stuff you’re sayin is pretty funny). Some moron’s opinion of what is vulgar, profane and sexually explicit doesn’t do us much good. Try reading the book. Clan of the Cave Bear is actually pretty awesome. It’s about the interaction of an orphaned cro-magnon girl and a clan of neaderthals that take her in. Heavy stuff.
Posted by JIJAWME on April 30, 2008 at 1540 hrsOK thank you anon. Your right. I am so angry right now I guess I am not thinking very well. LOL!
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1541 hrsLaura,
There’s really no need to be angry. People are just disagreeing with you. I’ve seen much less civil disagreements around here, by the way.
It’s been quite a while since I read Clan of the Cave Bear, but while I recall that there is in fact sex in it, that sex is not violent, as you claim. In fact, as I recall, it’s quite loving and mutually respectful. Isn’t that what we as a society say we want in our sexual relations? The protagonist in the story is really a pretty amazing young woman. I think if you read the book, you might be tempted to hold her up as a valid role model to your children. I’m just saying you might think about checking things out before automatically condemning them.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1628 hrsThis strand seems to have been hijacked by folks who are a little misinformed on the topic at hand. That’s ok, as some admit their mistakes and some rant nastily and then, it appears, leave.
Owen, I am really sorry to hear you taking the position you’ve taken. It seems wrong on a number of fronts.
I’ve watched kids express their solidarity with their gay peers for five or six years in an educational setting. These kids are usually very considerate about the fact that their demonstration (silence) might be possibly seen as counter productive or against the mission of the school. They usually take pains to check in with their teachers via a pre-written note handed at the beginning of class indicating their participation in the day of silence and their willingness to accept whatever academic consequence that comes with being silent for this class period. They participate in all non-verbal activities and usually are amongst the most focused and productive students in the room.
I see relatively little wasted. The gain I see in awareness and respect for others seems abundant recompense (sorry, its my phrase for thew week, I have to use it--lol) for any small “waste” that may occur. I assume by “waste” you mean the opportunity to respond to a question or to participate in a class discussion. Keep in mind, there are some very very good students pulling a great deal from their high school educations who regularly go through their days without volunteering in class. Granted, these kids will often respond when called upon, its not a given that they’ll be called upon every day.
The Day of Silence is an interesting lesson in empathy and awareness. These are crucial goals of a high school education, even though they don’t get tested.
When I read your article, I thought it was just wrong about the problems associated with the DOS. Now, your position just seems to be mean-spirited. That’s why I’m disappionted, you don’t seem to be a mean-spirited person.
Posted by Mike on April 30, 2008 at 1637 hrsWikipedia says that the character is raped, so perhaps you’re remembering it wrong, apc. I don’t know, I never read it. But even if it’s violent, so what? It doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s gratuitous. It doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s aimed at people too young to read it. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such behavior is described in an approving way. In fact, I would bet it’s safe to assume that none of those things are true.
As far as Laura liking it if she read it, I wouldn’t count on it. It probably doesn’t mention Jesus, so it just won’t fly no matter what.
Posted by scott on April 30, 2008 at 1637 hrsI could be remembering it wrong, or more accurately, I’m probably forgetting a scene somewhere. The part I’m remembering might be from one of the sequels, as well. All of them are fine books.
Mike, excellent points. I was going to comment earlier about someone else’s comment about the “gay agenda” and got sidetracked. Your comment about empathy and awareness is spot on. . There is no “gay agenda.” They just want to be treated like anybody else, with respect.
Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 1649 hrsYeah, there’s definately a rape in the book, but context is key here.
Posted by JIJAWM on April 30, 2008 at 1700 hrsSince the book is set pre Jesus times, it would be rather stupid to mention him, or even cry out ‘Oh God’. That is a great read for those who haven’t. It is a heck of a lot less violent than 95% of the video games or cartoons out there today.
I specifically mentioned ‘in so many areas’ because I know it has not happened everywhere, but there have been suspensions due to prayer in school, I can think of two that happened just this year(I am sure there were more). This was an Oregon bloggers take on the highest profile incident where 12 kids were suspended for praying in a common area before school in a Washington state HS. I think it is valid.
Posted by on May 01, 2008 at 0808 hrsYou probably saw it in the Oregonian - the story about the students who were suspended from Heritage High School in Vancouver because they defied the administration by refusing to form a club for the purpose of meeting in prayer before school.
There were several details that the story did not answer that would be very relevant to judging whether the administration acted reasonably or not. Victoria Taft interviewed one of the students a couple nights ago, and Victoria had the sense to ask the relevant question: were the students causing any kind of disturbance or disrupting in any way the education of the other kids?
From what the student said (which has really not been contradicted by the school officials at all) there was no disturbance being caused by these kids. They were gathering in the student commons before school, and praying.
Apparently what the principal was worried about was other kids who were offended by seeing the Christian kids praying, and so they started taunting them and threatening to conduct Satan-worship sessions next to them.
Afraid of some kind of altercation, the principal told the kids they had to form a club for their “meetings,” and hold their sessions in a room set aside for the club. The kids refused, took a stand, prayed in the commons, and were suspended.
Here’s where the principal was dead wrong: imagine if a bunch of gay students met before school in an informal group to support each other and prepare for the day. Suppose they held hands and talked with each other about the challenges they would face that day and hoped for the strength to meet them.
And suppose some other students taunted them, and threatened to hold anti-gay sessions next to them each morning.
Do you think the school administration would respond by telling the gay students they had to form a club and take their meetings into a private room?
No way - they would deal with the taunters, and protect the rights of the gay students to associate in public, as they well should. But there should not be a double standard for the Christian students.
The district here is in very shaky constitutional ground, and I assume they know it.
Expect a total capitulation, and soon.If the story is being reported accurately--a point I by no means concede, as all you’re giving us is a nameless bloggers interpretation of a newspaper’s interview of a high school kid--then I would expect the school officials to be quickly slapped on the wrist and sent forth to be stupid no longer.
Listen, the real issue here is that you folks seem to be suggesting that there is a large and pervasive campaign to stifle religious expression. Quite frankly, I think that’s nonsense. What we have seen is a lot of people standing up in recent years and saying hey, I don’t think it’s a good idea for the government to be expressing religious sentiments or condoning a particular religious view. Occasionally you’ll see an overstep, but for the most part that’s what’s going on. I say keep it coming.
Kids want to pray in school before eating their lunch? Fine by me. Kids want to form a religious extracurricular club? Cool. But if you want to include prayers at official school functions such as the daily announcements or the football game? No way in hell is that right.
Posted by scott on May 01, 2008 at 0836 hrsScott, I agree with your statements here. What has been happening, however, is that many areas are equating public education with Government education as public schools Government funded. Now I do not know if instances like this are increasing or decreasing. There are always going to be crackpots of all persuasions, and if that sort of thing is isolated and not increasing, fine. If you have a little time, though, google suspension and prayer in schools. There are a lot more different occasions than you would think. I fully agree there should be no official prayer at a public school, but I think the pledge of allegiance should not be banned, just because it has ‘under God’ in it either. I think all the aggressive atheists should give me all their cash because every piece has the word God on it… yucky.
Posted by on May 01, 2008 at 0938 hrsWhat has been happening, however, is that many areas are equating public education with Government education as public schools Government funded.
This is quite a hair-splitting distinction here, especially for someone who (as I recall) eschews publicly funded elections and publicly funded health insurance on the premise that they equate to a government takeover of those enterprises. The difference for me, of course, is that it’s unconstitutional for a federally funded school to condone a religious view or express any religious ideas at all.
As far as Googling for evidence, that’s the responsibility of the person trying to say it’s out there, not mine. But even if I did find things, that doesn’t necessarily a pervasive problem make. And I bet what you’d mostly find are hysterical rantings of the religious right, as we saw further up in the thread: a shrill and flawed interpretation of the facts.
My feelings on the pledge are complex. I’m not too keen on making kids pledge their allegiance in the first place--it’s creepy. But what mostly concerns me is the inclusion of the words “under God,” in the 1950s. This, after all, is not the pledge my father learned as a boy. Why did it change? Because our legislature specifically wanted to contrast the US with the “Godless” communists. All of which is fine, I guess--until a government agency forces people to say it. And that’s exactly what teacher-led pledge is: coercion by the a government-funded enterprise.
You want the plege in public schools? Remove “under God.” I’m not crazy about making kids say it even if it were removed, but I won’t make a big constitutional issue out of it at least.
And, no, I don’t want “In God we trust” on our currency, either. It’s a pretty blatant government endorsement of religion, and I think it’s insulting, wrong and unconstitutional.
Posted by scott on May 01, 2008 at 1037 hrsI forgot about the ‘under God’ being added in the fifties. Now I remember why I don’t give a damn about your opinion. Even to agree with you is wrong if I am not a socialist liberal in the first place and anything I say is open… no required, to be misinterpreted.
For the record for other readers:
Don’t care about the pledge of allegiance, but wouldn’t spend the time or money required to get it banned because the language included ‘under God’.
Same with cash, it would cost millions at least to change all the molds and templates, not worth the time. If one good little atheist asks about God because it is printed on his shiny nickel, I don’t care.
I said suspensions were happening because of silent praying in some schools. It is true. If you are disputing it, I will give you links. I specifically said I do not know if they are getting more frequent and if they are not then it is no big deal. (Gee, exactly what you said except you are trying to take credit for saying it and diminish my words at the same time...sure your first name isn’t Dick?)
Your recollection not so good here. I am not against publicly funded elections if it does not unduly favor the incumbent. If reasonable limits were placed on it, I would be strongly for it.I am against universal healthcare because it is a foothold to controlling our entire non-work related lives, you know the part most of us enjoy. Right now you may pay more for insurance if you smoke or eat unhealthy or don’t get a tax credit for having a spa membership, but it is your choice. The Government can mandate no smoking, no transfatty acids, etc. or no healthcare. Include to this that all proposals submitted by liberals so far would increase my bill, not decrease it, and I am not interested.
Posted by on May 01, 2008 at 1248 hrsDon’t care about the pledge of allegiance, but wouldn’t spend the time or money required to get it banned because the language included ‘under God’.
Same with cash, it would cost millions at least to change all the molds and templates, not worth the time.Boloney. We could simply legislate that all future redesigns of United States currency be completely secular. Cost: $0.00. And the only cost to banning the “under God” version of the pledge in public schools would be the legal battle that people like you would engage us in. Cost my butt.
I said suspensions were happening because of silent praying in some schools. It is true. If you are disputing it, I will give you links.
Yes, I think you should do that. Although, as I said, even if you came up with one or two indisputable cases, that by no means indicates that it is a widespread or growing problem. if you agree with me that it’s not widespread or growing, then why bring up the subject at all?
I am not against publicly funded elections if it does not unduly favor the incumbent. If reasonable limits were placed on it, I would be strongly for it.
Hey, cool. We agree on something.
I find your concern about government intrusion into our health and lifestyle choices to be pretty uninspiring. I mean, is it the case that all the other universal coverage nations have these problems? Clearly not. Meanwhile, we have some very real and non-imaginary problems right now, right here. Finally, i draw your attention to the cost of American health care versus the cost of health care anywhere else on the planet.
Posted by scott on May 01, 2008 at 1318 hrsRight because legislation costs us nothing, implementation costs nothing and legal battles that would inevitably ensue would cost nothing. No wonder you think big Government is greater than sliced bread, you think it’s all free..."My butt”.
I brought it up because I thought Rob Kremer had an excellent point. If it had been a circle of gays the suspensions would have been on the taunters. It was as clear an example of a double standard as there is and it was appropos to the post and it directly contradicted paulnoonan’s glib statement that it would be perfectly ok to have a ‘Christian day’ where kids could loudly state their beliefs for a day, it would never fly because people like you (and ironically he, I believe) would protest.
Universal healthcare in America is similarly uninspiring. If we are so overpriced, why will it cost so much more for universal healthcare? This is rhetorical, I know your answers to that question and you probably know mine and we disagree. We agree something needs to be done and you are one up on me there because you believe in an answer and I just think your answer as proposed is a bad answer. In this year where the cost of everything is going up proposals to save money should be good enough to… you know, save money.
Posted by on May 01, 2008 at 1500 hrsit would be perfectly ok to have a ‘Christian day’ where kids could loudly state their beliefs
How about if they all just close their mouths for a day? That really would be a holiday--for the rest of us! Seriously, though; fine by me. If religious kids want to all coordinate a day to wear special cross pins or some damned thing, fine.
As far as health care, i’d like to introduce you to the fact that all the countries who have single-payer, tax-funded health insurance pay less for health care than we do. A lot less. And less is not more. So I’m not really any too concerned about it costing more than our current system. Done right, we could expect costs to actually fall. And then we could look forward to a future free of the kind of crazy cost increases we’ve seen over the past couple of decades. Who knows? twenty years hence we could be paying a similar amount of our GDP on health care as everyone else.
Posted by scott on May 01, 2008 at 1508 hrsHow about if they all just close their mouths for a day?
Never be allowed, it would be seen as prayer, and in front of others? Liberals would never allow it because it would offend some people. Of course, the real laugh is that your ‘joke’ inferred that it is rampant belief in God that is the problem in our public schools. Oh yeah, you hear about those Christian gangs, bullies, drug dealers, and evangelist teacher stories all the time.
Once again proving one of my points with yours on health care. It should cost a lot less, but in America less is more according to every specific healthcare plan that has been offered in the last year. Something better should be offered by either or both sides. We know it is possible.
You want something like this to become law? Appeal to self-interest. Devise a plan that actually helps the majority. In this case, that would mean lowering a household’s bills. It is funny how self-interest is a dirty phrase to liberals because we should be helping everyone become… the same???… but they are perfectly willing to look the other way when it comes to a liberal politician’s self interest. Many conservatives are willing to look away from the Republican graft too, that is why I couldn’t be either one, but at least it is part of the Republicans unspoken creed. You are just pure hypocrite in that respect.
Posted by on May 01, 2008 at 1605 hrsOh yeah, you hear about those Christian gangs, bullies, drug dealers, and evangelist teacher stories all the time.
A story was relayed to me about how a teacher put up a “national prayer day” banner in a teacher’s lounge this morning. Of course some of the other teacher’s felt it was inappropriate in a public school and the teacher was asked to take it down.
I hear all sorts of claims of the systematic secularization of our society, but I don’t see it. We probably are becoming more secular, but there aren’t any mainstream coordinated efforts by anti-religous groups pushing that agenda. There are definite coordinated efforts trying to push religiosity as evidenced by this “national prayer day” hooey and the explicit emphasis on the religous aspect of Christmas.
Pushing your faith on someone is rude and should have no place in contemporary society.
Posted by on May 01, 2008 at 1628 hrsWe are becoming more secular. The world as a whole is, too. But Americans are still quite backward in this regard. We’re certainly one of the most religious of western nations.
I think it’s okay to proselytize. it’s annoying and offensive, sure. But some religious faiths call for it. The thing that really gets under my skin is when religious folks demand that the government we all pay for reflect their own religious beliefs. That I’ll fight tooth and nail.
Posted by scott on May 01, 2008 at 1632 hrsI figure this is as good a time as any to jump in with both feet. I am not ‘religious’ in that I attend church regularly, but I was raised with a christian background.
Scott, I am just wondering. which part of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or which of the ten commandments would would you fight tooth and nail against having our government reflect?
I do not think that out government should espouse any particular religous dogma, but to argue that the United States was not a country founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, or that the vast majority of Americans do not support those beliefs (again, not confusing beliefs with dogma) is just........silly.
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0456 hrs3rd way,
I think of Jehovah’s witnesses that come door to door as annoying, just like telemarketing and commercials. Fact is, however, advertising works. I would love to not hear about any of the stupid slime in political ads. To ban them is against American law. Thus, there is a place for pushing religion in contemporary society. To deny that fundamental right to Christians while championing it for homsexuals is hypocritical to put it nicely. If there is a big enough movement for a national prayer day, let there be a national prayer day, as long as Congress doesn’t spend any time making it a national holiday. I think of gay pride day and black history month as annoying, but it is not under my skin, it is just that double standards and hypocrisy have always bothered me.There is a coordinated effort for secularization and it is called political correctness. Look again at your own words from 55 and think about it. Why is religion so bad? They push their aims in Congress, so do gays and liberals and conservatives and farmers and… Religion is not its only target, but it was definitely an aim to shut certain kinds of people up and Christians were definitely on the target list. Of course religion can rarely be attacked directly, because martyrdom and causes are precisely the type of thing that strengthens religion as a concept. It has to be continually trivialized and replaced. You have been well trained. Here it should be stated again that I do believe in God, but I rarely go to church because so many churches have agendas other than Godly ones or they are too hidebound, or the larger ones are too corrupt, etc.
Scott, as long as the majority of European countries continue to have a state sanctioned religion, I would hold off on celebrating the secularization of the West. That was the biggest key to separation of church and state the founders counted on in the US and it has served well. You will also find that there are more church-goers in those countries than in the US not including the Scandinavian countries. It is that small group (and Switzerland)that is your continually evolving model of successful socialism and secularization, not Europe as a whole.
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0750 hrsI meant a higher percentage of church-goers per capita.
And if you don’t believe that the trivialization of Christians was a serious target of PC, ask yourself this. Why do you have such a healthy respect for Islam, or at least not the same negative feelings? They kill their enemies, not talk at them, they don’t allow women to uncover their faces, they don’t concern themselves that women don’t earn quite as much as men. They are light years more backward than the US. The super rich are so much more super rich than the poor in their countries compared to the US that talking about the gap widening in the US seems trivial. They provide no healthcare to anyone that cannot afford it, etc. Yet there is never any Muslim bashing from the Christian religion bashers. Why?
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0807 hrsas long as the majority of European countries continue to have a state sanctioned religion, I would hold off on celebrating the secularization of the West.
I don’t know what data you’re looking at, but my understanding is that europe has a much higher percentage than us of people who don’t go to church and who don’t believe in God. I’m prepared to be shown otherwise, if these things are not true.
Why is religion so bad? They push their aims in Congress, so do gays and liberals and conservatives and farmers and…
I think I see a source of misunderstanding here on your part. You see, there is a constitutional imperative that religion and government not mix. There are no such admonitions against, say, farmers and government. If they want to “push their aims,” fine. All I ask is that our government a) not endorse or give the appearance of endorsement to any religious view whatsoever, and b) that all our laws have a clear secular purpose. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. If they want to “push” for this or that, fine. But they’ll have to sell it based on its secular, earthly merits, not based on what God thinks.
Posted by scott on May 02, 2008 at 0829 hrsThey are light years more backward than the US.
On that we can absolutely agree. Of all the horrible places to live in the world, too many of them are Muslim countries. They are, as you say, backward--socially, economically and, frankly, morally. I don’t speak for others, but i can tell you that I have never, ever said anything different.
The reason that you find me such a frequent and vocal critic of Christianity is because I live in the United States, where almost all my fellow citizens are Christians. And because we are a very religious nation, where the aforementioned Christians regularly make it their business to take a big holy dump all over the constitution and the rights of others. It’s just usually a lot more germane to the political discourse in this country to discuss the Christian right than it is to discuss the backwardness of folks in Iran.
It ain’t Tehran, let’s be clear about that. But This is America. I expect a little bit more than being better than Saudi Arabia. Don’t you?
Posted by scott on May 02, 2008 at 0836 hrswhere the aforementioned Christians regularly make it their business to take a big holy dump all over the constitution and the rights of others.
What dump have the Christians who are “almost all of (your) fellow citizens” taken on the Constitution?
All I ask is that our government a) not endorse or give the appearance of endorsement to any religious view whatsoever
I am not sure whether you are a separationist or a non-preferentalist, although from your follow-on comment I would guess that latter. With that assumption in mind, I ask the following question: Do you feel that the government should reflect the irreligious beliefs that seem to be so common among the secularists? (a loaded question, ref: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (SCOTUS, 1994) excerpt fromthe majority opinion by Justice Souter “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.")
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0853 hrselovrich, the values espoused in “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and in the Ten Commandments are not exclusive to Judaism and Christianity. They are shared by all the great religions of the world. So to say that this country was founded in Judeo-Christian values is not quite accurate. It was founded on Enlightenment values by men who were determined to keep religion out of the public square.
And T, with all due respect, I think you exaggerate the “respect” that people have for Islam, certainly for the radical sects, anyway.
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0854 hrsWhat dump have the Christians who are “almost all of (your) fellow citizens” taken on the Constitution?
How about prayer in public schools?
Do you feel that the government should reflect the irreligious beliefs that seem to be so common among the secularists?
I’m not sure what beliefs you’re talking about. What beliefs would those be?
Posted by scott on May 02, 2008 at 0906 hrsAre you saying that nearly oll of your fellow citizens favor prayer in public schools?
Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service” (George Jacob Holyoake: Principles of Secularism, 17).
The concept of secularism was originally developed as a non-religious philosophy focused upon the needs and concerns of humanity. So, it would be those beliefs that I am talking about.
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0917 hrsAnd I am not aware of any of the Founding Fathers who were of a non Judeo-Christian background. Yes, the values are parts of most of the major religions in the world, but did the other major religions have anything to do with the thoughts/beliefs of the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who framed the basis of our country?
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0921 hrsAre you saying that nearly oll of your fellow citizens favor prayer in public schools?
Nope. All I’m trying to establish here is that the fact that I more frequently bemoan the political aims of the American Christian right than I do radical Muslims is because the former is simply more relevant to political life in America. It does not reflect their respective degrees of radicalism, nor is it an accurate reflection of how the amount of disdain I hold for each group. Capiche?
I will leave the precise parsing of your quote to smarter folks, but the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point [...] by material means sounds like a pretty good role for government, sure. One might contrast it to “the development of the spiritual nature of man to the highest point by spiritual means.” That, it seems to me, would be the appropriate role for a church.
Posted by scott on May 02, 2008 at 0933 hrsTouche’, and our agreement on the basis leads to the follow-on question. Should the role of the government to to this be in concert with , or at least in non-competition with, the Church? To allow those who are governed to decide whether, for instance, a local unit of government should allow a particular religious display in the public square? Or, should the government try to stymie the church at every turn? To go out of its way to quash any reference to a god? (Capital G optional).
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 0944 hrsIn principle I think it’s okay for the government to allow private citizens to display religious messages on public property--provided that all citizens are given the same opportunity.
As a practical matter, though, I have to admit that it’s much easier and probably better to forbid it entirely. Let private citizens display religious messages on their own property. They have no reason to think that their government should facilitate their message in the first place.
Posted by scott on May 02, 2008 at 0953 hrsLet us take a couple of concrete examples from recent history.
The ‘holiday tree’. and late December displays in Green Bay.
Without getting into the pagan roots of the Christmas tree, and how Catholicism hijacked certain symbols and traditions; I think we can both agree that the decorated evergreen is a common symbol of the Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Christ. To rename it a ‘holiday tree’, does several things, including assign it as a symbol for Hanukkah, K’wanzaa, and any other religious celebrations that take place during that time period when it is the sole display in a public area. This did nothing to advance any of the religion affected, and arguably demeaned them all. It will be interesting to see what happens this year.
As for Green Bay and the displays there, I agree with you that it is probably easier to forbid any display whatsoever, whether privately funded and assembled or not, but is the easiest and most politically advantageous way the ‘right’ way?
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 1004 hrsThis may be a bit of a tangent, but please indulge me the detour.
Part of the outcry against secularism, in my opinion, is its close ties to ‘political correctness’. Let me tell you a brief story…
My mother was the VP of Human Resources at the College of St Scholastica in Duluth, a private, Catholic Benedictine institution. In her office, on the wall was a framed copy of the Ten Commandments. These were visible from the hallway outside of her office. She was told by the administration to remove them because some of the faculty found them offensive because they were Jewish and had threatened going to court over the issue.
My question: If my mother had not capitulated and teh courts had gotten involved, how would you have preferred the outcome?
Posted by on May 02, 2008 at 1011 hrsI don’t think you’ll find a single self-described atheist such as myself who’s in favor of renaming Christmas trees “holiday trees.” It makes me sad just to hear about stuff like that. it’s a transparent and exceptionally lame attempt to skirt the real issue: the damned Christmas tree shouldn’t be there in the first place. I think you’ll find that the folks who come up with this pathetic stuff are almost invariably businesspeople hoping not to alienate any customers, or milquetoast politicians hoping for a way not to have to deal with the issue at all. It is most definitely not some coordinated group of secular activists, the way Bill O’Reilly describes it.
I repeat: atheists such as myself have zero to do with your much-decried ‘political correctness.’
I agree with you that it is probably easier to forbid any display whatsoever, whether privately funded and assembled or not, but is the easiest and most politically advantageous way the ‘right’ way?
In this case yes.
If my mother had not capitulated and teh courts had gotten involved, how would you have preferred the outcome?
I would have preferred your mother win hands-down including legal fees. I work at a Catholic university. There’s religion all over this joint. Doesn’t bother me a bit. In fact, I used to serve on the event committee for my department. Once when we were coordinating the annual Christmas party, someone suggested that we call it something different--an idea I immediately rejected. Furthermore, I happen to know for a fact that the person who suggested it is a devout Christian himself, not some atheist radical.
Posted by scott on May 02, 2008 at 1030 hrsFor the record I do believe in a god, and I recently had my daughter blessed at the Unitarian Church we attend (infrequently).
Political correctness is not some coordinated effort. I personally find it offensive for someone to push a believe system on me that indoctrinates discrimination against people that believe otherwise (prohibition of entrance to an afterlife fantasy is discrimination in my view). If you want to advertise this in front of me I find that rude. If you want to try and sell me something I don’t need or want I find that rude also.
The religous among us seem to feel that my political correctness (I call it an aversion to rudeness) is an affront to their beliefs. They respond to this affront by further promoting their beliefs through coordinated efforts like a national day of prayer or declaring war on secular christmas and placing a religous display in a public square.
Posted by