| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Fool For Christ" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2006 10:01:51 PM |
| Object: |
The Myth of Public Schools |
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior. To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of the
people, not the government.
For the most part, this is true. The funds come from the local area
for the most part. The district, not the State or Federal Government,
chooses the texts to study.
Then..there is religion.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
Did you miss that? They determined this land, the public school, is
part of the STATE. So, I ask you. Do we have "public" or "state" run
schools?
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 11:48:05 AM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155092511.191912.220740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior. To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of the
people, not the government.
For the most part, this is true. The funds come from the local area
for the most part. The district, not the State or Federal Government,
chooses the texts to study.
Then..there is religion.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
So essentially you are saying it's okay to determine religion for the entire
school by majority rule?
I would bet your tune would be different if your kid was in a school in Salt
Lake City.
As to why this is so, look up the concept of tyranny of the majority and see
what the founders said about it.
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
The religious can send their kids to church, for free, all they want. In
other words you already have access to a place that will give your child a
religious education.
Those that are of different faith, no faith, or believe that the state
teaching their kid religion is not a good idea have no such access for
education accept for public school and trust that religion will remain
neutral and their education secular.
Did you miss that? They determined this land, the public school, is
part of the STATE. So, I ask you. Do we have "public" or "state" run
schools?
What I don't miss is that you are not very good at making your case if you
want to quibble over semantics.
Our schools are public and secular and should remain that way. If you want
to give your kids religion, send them to church. Leave the religious
education of others kids to the parents. It is none of your business.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 11:58:24 AM |
|
|
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms. If they are public, the public can determine
their studies. If they are forced secular state schools, they are not
public. Thus, the issue of this thread.
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 03:05:57 PM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142703.962180.237570@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms. If they are public, the public can determine
their studies. If they are forced secular state schools, they are not
public. Thus, the issue of this thread.
The public does determine policy and curriculum, but there are issues of
legality and constitutionality that must be considered. In being religiously
neutral they are by definition secular. So, as usual, you are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 10:14:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:05:57 -0500, Big Mean Liberal wrote
(in article <12dkg1ej6jarm26@corp.supernews.com>):
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142703.962180.237570@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms. If they are public, the public can determine
their studies. If they are forced secular state schools, they are not
public. Thus, the issue of this thread.
The public does determine policy and curriculum, but there are issues of
legality and constitutionality that must be considered. In being religiously
neutral they are by definition secular. So, as usual, you are wrong.
Young Poopie is still advocating "rule by mob".
It's quite obvious that he supported George Walker Bush for President.
Twice.
Gray Shockley
------------------------
You who build these altars now
to sacrifice these children,
you must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
and you never have been tempted
by a demon or a god.
- Leonard Cohen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 10:45:49 AM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C100B77D00093462F0284530@news.giganews.com...
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:05:57 -0500, Big Mean Liberal wrote
(in article <12dkg1ej6jarm26@corp.supernews.com>):
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142703.962180.237570@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms. If they are public, the public can determine
their studies. If they are forced secular state schools, they are not
public. Thus, the issue of this thread.
The public does determine policy and curriculum, but there are issues of
legality and constitutionality that must be considered. In being
religiously
neutral they are by definition secular. So, as usual, you are wrong.
Young Poopie is still advocating "rule by mob".
Do you think that's because mobs can be swayed and manipulated through
emotion and that they can do horrible things to their fellow man?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 12:18:06 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:05:57 -0500, Big Mean Liberal wrote
(in article <12dkg1ej6jarm26@corp.supernews.com>):
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142703.962180.237570@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms. If they are public, the public can determine
their studies. If they are forced secular state schools, they are not
public. Thus, the issue of this thread.
The public does determine policy and curriculum, but there are issues of
legality and constitutionality that must be considered. In being religiously
neutral they are by definition secular. So, as usual, you are wrong.
Young Poopie is still advocating "rule by mob".
It's quite obvious that he supported George Walker Bush for President.
Twice.
Yes. I agree with the government by the people for the people. It
tends to create a good master to be governed by (most of the time). If
you don't like democracy, move.
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 05:53:45 PM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms.
Words mean what they mean. That does not make them contradictory.
If they are public, the public can determine their studies.
That is true but it is not necessary. A "private" school doesn't have
to be run by army privates either.
In any event, the "public", as a mass, "determines" things through the
medium of government.
In Britain, "public" schools are the ones that are not run by the
government. In our legal system, we distinguish between a public
sector and a private sector, and a "public" school is one operating
within the public sector.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 07:42:58 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms.
Words mean what they mean. That does not make them contradictory.
If they are public, the public can determine their studies.
That is true but it is not necessary. A "private" school doesn't have
to be run by army privates either.
In any event, the "public", as a mass, "determines" things through the
medium of government.
In Britain, "public" schools are the ones that are not run by the
government. In our legal system, we distinguish between a public
sector and a private sector, and a "public" school is one operating
within the public sector.
lojbab
In Britain, they are honest about the term. Here, we lie and call it
public. Thus the topic of this thread.
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 02:51:51 AM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
In Britain, they are honest about the term. Here, we lie and call it
public. Thus the topic of this thread.
Words mean what we say that they mean. The laws call them "public
schools" and define them (and specify the rules for them as I said in
copious detail) so that is the term that is used.
There is nothing "dishonest" about it. The term "public schools"
dates back to the founding. The meaning of the term
"public" in the phrases "public sector" and "private sector"
corresponds to this usage, and it also corresponds to our concept of
"privacy rights".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 08:46:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:58:24 -0500, Fool For Christ wrote
(in article <1155142703.962180.237570@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>):
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms. If they are public, the public can determine
their studies. If they are forced secular state schools, they are not
public. Thus, the issue of this thread.
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
The difference between
prejudice and genocide
is a matter of degree, not kind.
Was not The Inquisition enough of a lesson?
Or the deaths at Salem Village.
If your "religion "can" result in murder,
It will result in genocide.
Is this Christ-like behavior?
Or are you God-damned?
Gray Shockley
===============
From high school Latin,
"condemn" {damno?}
is the root word.
But that was 1962, 63, 64.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 12:19:34 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:58:24 -0500, Fool For Christ wrote
(in article <1155142703.962180.237570@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>):
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
Our schools are public and secular...
A contradiction in terms. If they are public, the public can determine
their studies. If they are forced secular state schools, they are not
public. Thus, the issue of this thread.
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
The difference between
prejudice and genocide
is a matter of degree, not kind.
Was not The Inquisition enough of a lesson?
Or the deaths at Salem Village.
If your "religion "can" result in murder,
It will result in genocide.
Is this Christ-like behavior?
Or are you God-damned?
Indeed. How long till "one way" Christians are put to death for
intolerant behavior?
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 04:34:23 AM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching are
authority figures of the state.
Did you miss that? They determined this land, the public school, is
part of the STATE.
It has nothing to do with the land. In the government were to hold
school in a rented facility, or if the teacher takes the students off
campus on a field trip, it remains a government school.
So, I ask you. Do we have "public" or "state" run schools?
In this country "public" schools ARE "state" schools.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 09:04:13 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an "authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their faith
outside their clinic door?
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 11:52:40 AM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an "authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to discipline and
set an example as a role model.
If that teacher were to hold prayers and proselytize to their class it would
mean that the classroom has become a defacto church to a captive audience of
kids among which there would be children of differing faith, no faith, or
differing sectarian views or their religion. I doubt you would want your
children to be given over to a teacher who would tell them that Christ was
not divine and were foolish to believe so just as I would not want my
children in the hands of someone who would tell them Christ was divine and
they would go to hell if they didn't accept it.
So teach your kids religion and leave others alone, okay sonny boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 11:56:10 AM |
|
|
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an "authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to discipline and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
If that teacher were to hold prayers and proselytize to their class it would
mean that the classroom has become a defacto church to a captive audience of
kids among which there would be children of differing faith, no faith, or
differing sectarian views or their religion. I doubt you would want your
children to be given over to a teacher who would tell them that Christ was
not divine and were foolish to believe so just as I would not want my
children in the hands of someone who would tell them Christ was divine and
they would go to hell if they didn't accept it.
So teach your kids religion and leave others alone, okay sonny boy.
You are telling me what YOU think they should do. You aren't
addressing the issue. What makes them "the state?" BTW, private
religious schools also teach those required to get an education. Does
that mean they shouldn't teach them religion?
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 12:39:23 PM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142570.251117.186650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of
the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and
cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an "authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to discipline
and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
They are agents, or representatives of the state, just as are judges and
police officers, because they are paid by the state to be authorities that
perform state legislated functions. Now, you can play the semantics game all
you want, but it won't get you anywhere in this argument.
If that teacher were to hold prayers and proselytize to their class it
would
mean that the classroom has become a defacto church to a captive audience
of
kids among which there would be children of differing faith, no faith, or
differing sectarian views or their religion. I doubt you would want your
children to be given over to a teacher who would tell them that Christ
was
not divine and were foolish to believe so just as I would not want my
children in the hands of someone who would tell them Christ was divine
and
they would go to hell if they didn't accept it.
So teach your kids religion and leave others alone, okay sonny boy.
You are telling me what YOU think they should do. You aren't
addressing the issue. What makes them "the state?" BTW, private
religious schools also teach those required to get an education. Does
that mean they shouldn't teach them religion?
Private schools are an optional form of education and not funded by the
state, nor do they have to abide by all the laws a public school must.
Now, answer this for me. Why should my child be subjected to your religion
in public school? Why can't you put your child in church and quit
proselytizing mine?
I doubt you'll give me an honest answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 01:07:40 PM |
|
|
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142570.251117.186650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest of
the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school. Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and
cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an "authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to discipline
and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
They are agents, or representatives of the state, just as are judges and
police officers, because they are paid by the state to be authorities that
perform state legislated functions. Now, you can play the semantics game all
you want, but it won't get you anywhere in this argument.
Judges are part of the judicial branch. Police officers (which also
have chaplains) are employed locally working for local governments.
(notice I said working for..not as part of). Not all work for the
state (most don't). Yes, they fulfill the functions the government pay
them for, just like teachers. Likewise, schools (which for some reason
don't have chaplains) are employeed locally working for local
governments. Did you know that while the military (as part of the
federal government) is entitled to federal retirement, BOTH teachers
and civil service officers must set up PRIVATE retirement plans. What
do you think that signifies?
If that teacher were to hold prayers and proselytize to their class it
would
mean that the classroom has become a defacto church to a captive audience
of
kids among which there would be children of differing faith, no faith, or
differing sectarian views or their religion. I doubt you would want your
children to be given over to a teacher who would tell them that Christ
was
not divine and were foolish to believe so just as I would not want my
children in the hands of someone who would tell them Christ was divine
and
they would go to hell if they didn't accept it.
So teach your kids religion and leave others alone, okay sonny boy.
You are telling me what YOU think they should do. You aren't
addressing the issue. What makes them "the state?" BTW, private
religious schools also teach those required to get an education. Does
that mean they shouldn't teach them religion?
Private schools are an optional form of education and not funded by the
state, nor do they have to abide by all the laws a public school must.
A blatent lie. They most certainly must abide by the legal
requirements for school aged children, as laid down by the ... get
this..government. Any requirements beyond this are private, school
district, requirements. So, if the private schools fulfil the legal
requirements for schools, why are they allowed to teach religion?
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 03:14:16 PM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155146860.231054.272410@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142570.251117.186650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum
upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell
where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another
nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest
of
the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly
claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after
all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school.
Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and
cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the
students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching
are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an
"authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where
this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the
doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their
faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to discipline
and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
They are agents, or representatives of the state, just as are judges and
police officers, because they are paid by the state to be authorities
that
perform state legislated functions. Now, you can play the semantics game
all
you want, but it won't get you anywhere in this argument.
Judges are part of the judicial branch. Police officers (which also
have chaplains) are employed locally working for local governments.
(notice I said working for..not as part of). Not all work for the
state (most don't). Yes, they fulfill the functions the government pay
them for, just like teachers. Likewise, schools (which for some reason
don't have chaplains) are employeed locally working for local
governments. Did you know that while the military (as part of the
federal government) is entitled to federal retirement, BOTH teachers
and civil service officers must set up PRIVATE retirement plans. What
do you think that signifies?
If that teacher were to hold prayers and proselytize to their class it
would
mean that the classroom has become a defacto church to a captive
audience
of
kids among which there would be children of differing faith, no faith,
or
differing sectarian views or their religion. I doubt you would want
your
children to be given over to a teacher who would tell them that Christ
was
not divine and were foolish to believe so just as I would not want my
children in the hands of someone who would tell them Christ was divine
and
they would go to hell if they didn't accept it.
So teach your kids religion and leave others alone, okay sonny boy.
You are telling me what YOU think they should do. You aren't
addressing the issue. What makes them "the state?" BTW, private
religious schools also teach those required to get an education. Does
that mean they shouldn't teach them religion?
Private schools are an optional form of education and not funded by the
state, nor do they have to abide by all the laws a public school must.
A blatent lie. They most certainly must abide by the legal
requirements for school aged children, as laid down by the ... get
this..government. Any requirements beyond this are private, school
district, requirements. So, if the private schools fulfil the legal
requirements for schools, why are they allowed to teach religion?
I'd appreciate an answer to the questions you snipped, since I am kind
enough to keep answering yours
Why should my child be subjected to your religion
in public school? Why can't you put your child in church and quit
proselytizing mine?
You see. I expect the schools to remain religiously neutral because you
don't want me telling your child what to believe as much as I don't want you
telling mine what to believe. We can all send our children to the choice of
church that we want, or none at all, and no one's rights are being violated
by not practicing religion in schools. I also really don't understand why
you want religious faith to be taught by the government. You types never
think that the government can be trusted to do anything, until it comes to
them endorsing religion. It makes me think that all you want is the power
associated with the government so that you can promote and enforce your
belief system on unwilling public. So please fill me in and tell me why it
is that you want religion taught to my kid in school.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 02:53:35 PM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155146860.231054.272410@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142570.251117.186650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum
upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell
where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another
nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest
of
the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly
claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after
all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school.
Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and
cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the
students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching
are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an
"authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where
this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the
doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their
faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to discipline
and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
They are agents, or representatives of the state, just as are judges and
police officers, because they are paid by the state to be authorities
that
perform state legislated functions. Now, you can play the semantics game
all
you want, but it won't get you anywhere in this argument.
Judges are part of the judicial branch. Police officers (which also
have chaplains) are employed locally working for local governments.
(notice I said working for..not as part of). Not all work for the
state (most don't). Yes, they fulfill the functions the government pay
them for, just like teachers. Likewise, schools (which for some reason
don't have chaplains) are employeed locally working for local
governments. Did you know that while the military (as part of the
federal government) is entitled to federal retirement, BOTH teachers
and civil service officers must set up PRIVATE retirement plans. What
do you think that signifies?
Mostly it signifies that you have no idea what you are talking about if you
are conflating teachers with police officers and the military wrt chaplains.
You are also confused if you think a teacher attending a private church
service is the same as a teacher leading a prayer in school, or the police
or military attending church. What I would like you to do is get where you
are going and stop this topic drift.
There is no teacher led religion or worship in school because the children
are a captive audience and it would be a violation of the religious rights
of non believers and members of different religions.
There, let's get back to what we were originally discussing.
If that teacher were to hold prayers and proselytize to their class it
would
mean that the classroom has become a defacto church to a captive
audience
of
kids among which there would be children of differing faith, no faith,
or
differing sectarian views or their religion. I doubt you would want
your
children to be given over to a teacher who would tell them that Christ
was
not divine and were foolish to believe so just as I would not want my
children in the hands of someone who would tell them Christ was divine
and
they would go to hell if they didn't accept it.
So teach your kids religion and leave others alone, okay sonny boy.
You are telling me what YOU think they should do. You aren't
addressing the issue. What makes them "the state?" BTW, private
religious schools also teach those required to get an education. Does
that mean they shouldn't teach them religion?
Private schools are an optional form of education and not funded by the
state, nor do they have to abide by all the laws a public school must.
A blatent lie.
Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Private schools are not bound by the
same rules as public schools because they may set their own curriculum, may
pick and choose among what students they accept, may teach religion as
worship, may set their own graduation standards, may discriminate in hiring,
and may choose their own school board without any elections.
They most certainly must abide by the legal
requirements for school aged children, as laid down by the ... get
this..government.
Yeah, what legal requirements are those that I haven't already put aside in
the previous paragraph.
Maybe your confusion is that you think that abiding by laws is the same
thing as being run by the government. If you think this then you are off the
deep end and I can't help you.
Any requirements beyond this are private, school
district, requirements. So, if the private schools fulfil the legal
requirements for schools, why are they allowed to teach religion?
Because they are a private business and they are not run or funded by the
government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 07:40:07 PM |
|
|
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155146860.231054.272410@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142570.251117.186650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum
upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell
where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another
nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the behest
of
the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly
claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system after
all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school.
Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and
cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the
students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching
are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an
"authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries where
this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the
doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their
faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to discipline
and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
They are agents, or representatives of the state, just as are judges and
police officers, because they are paid by the state to be authorities
that
perform state legislated functions. Now, you can play the semantics game
all
you want, but it won't get you anywhere in this argument.
Judges are part of the judicial branch. Police officers (which also
have chaplains) are employed locally working for local governments.
(notice I said working for..not as part of). Not all work for the
state (most don't). Yes, they fulfill the functions the government pay
them for, just like teachers. Likewise, schools (which for some reason
don't have chaplains) are employeed locally working for local
governments. Did you know that while the military (as part of the
federal government) is entitled to federal retirement, BOTH teachers
and civil service officers must set up PRIVATE retirement plans. What
do you think that signifies?
Mostly it signifies that you have no idea what you are talking about if you
are conflating teachers with police officers and the military wrt chaplains.
You are also confused if you think a teacher attending a private church
service is the same as a teacher leading a prayer in school, or the police
or military attending church. What I would like you to do is get where you
are going and stop this topic drift.
There is no teacher led religion or worship in school because the children
are a captive audience and it would be a violation of the religious rights
of non believers and members of different religions.
There, let's get back to what we were originally discussing.
In the private schools the students are, what...a captive audience.
School is required. They are at the private school by requirement.
How is that allowed?
If that teacher were to hold prayers and proselytize to their class it
would
mean that the classroom has become a defacto church to a captive
audience
of
kids among which there would be children of differing faith, no faith,
or
differing sectarian views or their religion. I doubt you would want
your
children to be given over to a teacher who would tell them that Christ
was
not divine and were foolish to believe so just as I would not want my
children in the hands of someone who would tell them Christ was divine
and
they would go to hell if they didn't accept it.
So teach your kids religion and leave others alone, okay sonny boy.
You are telling me what YOU think they should do. You aren't
addressing the issue. What makes them "the state?" BTW, private
religious schools also teach those required to get an education. Does
that mean they shouldn't teach them religion?
Private schools are an optional form of education and not funded by the
state, nor do they have to abide by all the laws a public school must.
A blatent lie.
Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Private schools are not bound by the
same rules as public schools because they may set their own curriculum, may
pick and choose among what students they accept, may teach religion as
worship, may set their own graduation standards, may discriminate in hiring,
and may choose their own school board without any elections.
Talk about ignorance. Public schools (every last one of them) have a
choice about selecting curriculum, pick and choose students (the magnet
schools), may set their own requirements, and such. The fact that you
know nothing about this shows you know nothing about this topic, so I
am wasting my time talking to you. I won't continue the mistake.
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Mean Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
09 Aug 2006 08:02:24 PM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170407.917808.101960@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155146860.231054.272410@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142570.251117.186650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the
education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum
upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell
where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another
nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the
behest
of
the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly
claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system
after
all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church
going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers
at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and
ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school.
Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and
cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the
classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the
students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching
are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily
a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an
"authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries
where
this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the
doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their
faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge
of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to
discipline
and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
They are agents, or representatives of the state, just as are judges
and
police officers, because they are paid by the state to be authorities
that
perform state legislated functions. Now, you can play the semantics
game
all
you want, but it won't get you anywhere in this argument.
Judges are part of the judicial branch. Police officers (which also
have chaplains) are employed locally working for local governments.
(notice I said working for..not as part of). Not all work for the
state (most don't). Yes, they fulfill the functions the government pay
them for, just like teachers. Likewise, schools (which for some reason
don't have chaplains) are employeed locally working for local
governments. Did you know that while the military (as part of the
federal government) is entitled to federal retirement, BOTH teachers
and civil service officers must set up PRIVATE retirement plans. What
do you think that signifies?
Mostly it signifies that you have no idea what you are talking about if
you
are conflating teachers with police officers and the military wrt
chaplains.
You are also confused if you think a teacher attending a private church
service is the same as a teacher leading a prayer in school, or the
police
or military attending church. What I would like you to do is get where
you
are going and stop this topic drift.
There is no teacher led religion or worship in school because the
children
are a captive audience and it would be a violation of the religious
rights
of non believers and members of different religions.
There, let's get back to what we were originally discussing.
In the private schools the students are, what...a captive audience.
No, because they choose to be at that school.
School is required. They are at the private school by requirement.
How is that allowed?
Are you really so dense you don't see the difference?
They have to attend school, it doesn't have to be private.
Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Private schools are not bound by
the
same rules as public schools because they may set their own curriculum,
may
pick and choose among what students they accept, may teach religion as
worship, may set their own graduation standards, may discriminate in
hiring,
and may choose their own school board without any elections.
Talk about ignorance. Public schools (every last one of them) have a
choice about selecting curriculum, pick and choose students (the magnet
schools), may set their own requirements, and such.
No they do not.
They have to take every student and teach according to the state guidelines.
Private schools may select students. That's why sometimes private schools
have higher test scores, because they don't have to take challenged
students. You are simply wrong on this matter.
The fact that you
know nothing about this shows you know nothing about this topic, so I
am wasting my time talking to you. I won't continue the mistake.
Of course not, since you were shown to be wrong to such a degree that even a
child would understand. Your only choice is to call names and run away.
It also keeps you from having to answer a question you don't want to answer
that you snipped.
Why is it with churches and home education available you feel it necessary
to force your religion on my children through public education?
You want answer it because you are a dishonest person who relies on lies and
evasion to argue. You really are beneath contempt just like people say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 12:28:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:02:24 -0500, Big Mean Liberal wrote
(in article <12dl1d15ucgk8e4@corp.supernews.com>):
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170407.917808.101960@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155146860.231054.272410@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155142570.251117.186650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Big Mean Liberal wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132253.841471.206650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our government and many media outlets have condemned the
education
system of other nations for pushing a state-approved curriculum
upon
the children in order to influence their behavior.
"Media outlets" can be found saying almost anything. Pray tell
where
"the government" has condemned the education system of another
nation,
preferably with cite.
To counter this,
they claim the US education system is "public" run at the
behest
of
the
people, not the government.
"they" do? Again, I would like to see a cite for such a silly
claim.
Religion reveals this to be a state-approved school system
after
all.
It doesn't matter that 80 percent of the people are church
going
Christians. It doesn't matter if almost all kids or teachers
at a
school are of a specific faith. Mention God in the school and
ONE
person can override the will of almost the rest of the school.
Why?
Because, the GOVERNMENT has determined what the schools can and
cannot
teach in this arena. There are no Senators teaching the
classes.
There are no laws made on the school grounds. Yet, they have
determined that this tract of land is a part of the "state" and
therefore cannot be religious.
It isn't the nature of the land that matters. It is that the
students
are required by law to be there, and the people who are teaching
are
authority figures of the state.
A> The students are required to be at A school, not necessarily
a
"public" one. B>I'm back to asking what makes a teacher an
"authority
figure of the state." Is it because they get a paycheck from a
district that gets federal funds? There are many industries
where
this
is true. Is your meter reader or small business owner (getting a
federal grant) an authority figure of the state? What about the
doctor
getting medicaid to treat a poor person. Are they to leave their
faith
outside their clinic door?
A teacher is an obvious authority figure because they are in charge
of
impressionable young people not only to educate but also to
discipline
and
set an example as a role model.
What makes them the "state?"
They are agents, or representatives of the state, just as are judges
and
police officers, because they are paid by the state to be authorities
that
perform state legislated functions. Now, you can play the semantics
game
all
you want, but it won't get you anywhere in this argument.
Judges are part of the judicial branch. Police officers (which also
have chaplains) are employed locally working for local governments.
(notice I said working for..not as part of). Not all work for the
state (most don't). Yes, they fulfill the functions the government pay
them for, just like teachers. Likewise, schools (which for some reason
don't have chaplains) are employeed locally working for local
governments. Did you know that while the military (as part of the
federal government) is entitled to federal retirement, BOTH teachers
and civil service officers must set up PRIVATE retirement plans. What
do you think that signifies?
Mostly it signifies that you have no idea what you are talking about if
you
are conflating teachers with police officers and the military wrt
chaplains.
You are also confused if you think a teacher attending a private church
service is the same as a teacher leading a prayer in school, or the
police
or military attending church. What I would like you to do is get where
you
are going and stop this topic drift.
There is no teacher led religion or worship in school because the
children
are a captive audience and it would be a violation of the religious
rights
of non believers and members of different religions.
There, let's get back to what we were originally discussing.
In the private schools the students are, what...a captive audience.
No, because they choose to be at that school.
School is required. They are at the private school by requirement.
How is that allowed?
Are you really so dense you don't see the difference?
They have to attend school, it doesn't have to be private.
Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Private schools are not bound by
the
same rules as public schools because they may set their own curriculum,
may
pick and choose among what students they accept, may teach religion as
worship, may set their own graduation standards, may discriminate in
hiring,
and may choose their own school board without any elections.
Talk about ignorance. Public schools (every last one of them) have a
choice about selecting curriculum, pick and choose students (the magnet
schools), may set their own requirements, and such.
No they do not.
They have to take every student and teach according to the state guidelines.
Private schools may select students. That's why sometimes private schools
have higher test scores,
A friend was fired from a local Baptist school because she refused to change
a grade (to passing) of one of the main benefactor's of the school's son's.
Christian; right?
"Go along to get along." Straight out of Texas politics (crooks). The
Republicans, anyway.
We're not talking about "integrity" although there are those who have been
infected with this . . . . . .. . . .
John F Kennedy's work seems not to be in need of updating.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------
Stop Cheney Before
He Kills in Person
because they don't have to take challenged
students. You are simply wrong on this matter.
The fact that you
know nothing about this shows you know nothing about this topic, so I
am wasting my time talking to you. I won't continue the mistake.
Of course not, since you were shown to be wrong to such a degree that even a
child would understand. Your only choice is to call names and run away.
It also keeps you from having to answer a question you don't want to answer
that you snipped.
Why is it with churches and home education available you feel it necessary
to force your religion on my children through public education?
You want answer it because you are a dishonest person who relies on lies and
evasion to argue. You really are beneath contempt just like people say.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 02:19:00 AM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no teacher led religion or worship in school because the children
are a captive audience and it would be a violation of the religious rights
of non believers and members of different religions.
There, let's get back to what we were originally discussing.
In the private schools the students are, what...a captive audience.
School is required. They are at the private school by requirement.
How is that allowed?
Because "we the people" require them to be at school and
"we the people" have the power to require them to be at school.
What "we the people" cannot do is dictate the policies of a private
school by law.
Or rather we CAN do so in general, but we choose NOT to do so. This
is because in the particular case of a religious private school, the
policies that we dictate are constrained by the wall of separation and
we cannot dictate anything that violates their rights, but only those
policies essential to state functions.
As a result, all states make provision for schools outside of the
public schools to meet the compulsory education requirement, and they
do not limit those schools only to religious schools. But private
schools generally are not regulated either the state or local boards
of education (beyond merely noting their existence), and the laws
governing them are very few.
Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Private schools are not bound by the
same rules as public schools because they may set their own curriculum, may
pick and choose among what students they accept, may teach religion as
worship, may set their own graduation standards, may discriminate in hiring,
and may choose their own school board without any elections.
Talk about ignorance. Public schools (every last one of them) have a
choice about selecting curriculum,
Only of the state allows them that choice.
pick and choose students (the magnet schools),
Only if the state allows them to form magnet schools.
may set their own requirements,
Only if the state allows them ...
(In Virginia, the state sets graduation requirements, and your diploma
is a state diploma).
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fool For Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 07:50:44 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no teacher led religion or worship in school because the children
are a captive audience and it would be a violation of the religious rights
of non believers and members of different religions.
There, let's get back to what we were originally discussing.
In the private schools the students are, what...a captive audience.
School is required. They are at the private school by requirement.
How is that allowed?
Because "we the people" require them to be at school and
"we the people" have the power to require them to be at school.
What "we the people" cannot do is dictate the policies of a private
school by law.
Or rather we CAN do so in general, but we choose NOT to do so. This
is because in the particular case of a religious private school, the
policies that we dictate are constrained by the wall of separation and
we cannot dictate anything that violates their rights, but only those
policies essential to state functions.
As a result, all states make provision for schools outside of the
public schools to meet the compulsory education requirement, and they
do not limit those schools only to religious schools. But private
schools generally are not regulated either the state or local boards
of education (beyond merely noting their existence), and the laws
governing them are very few.
Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Private schools are not bound by the
same rules as public schools because they may set their own curriculum, may
pick and choose among what students they accept, may teach religion as
worship, may set their own graduation standards, may discriminate in hiring,
and may choose their own school board without any elections.
Talk about ignorance. Public schools (every last one of them) have a
choice about selecting curriculum,
Only of the state allows them that choice.
pick and choose students (the magnet schools),
Only if the state allows them to form magnet schools.
may set their own requirements,
Only if the state allows them ...
(In Virginia, the state sets graduation requirements, and your diploma
is a state diploma).
lojbab
Almost everything you claim here is wrong. Cite? As you often ask me.
Give me the cite that says a local community cannot form a magnet
school. Give me the site that says the local school cannot pick their
own curriculum. Give me the site for your claims, for I KNOW them to
be false.
Ken Clifton
The Secret Real
http://thesecretreal.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth of Public Schools |
10 Aug 2006 08:12:04 PM |
|
|
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Almost everything you claim here is wrong. Cite?
See following.
Give me the cite that says a local community cannot form a magnet
school.
What is "a local community"? How can a "community" do anything?
Only by joining together in an organization.
If that organization is private, then it can do anything not forbidden
by government. If the organization is part of government, it can ONLY
to what the laws have authorized it to do. Some states have
authorized local districts to form magnet schools. Others require the
districts to form schools based on geographic zones. Whatever the
state authorizes, the districts can do. If the state has not
authorized it, the district cannot do it.
Give me the site that says the local school cannot pick their
own curriculum.
What local school? Every school is under the laws of its state.
every state, as far as I can tell, provides regulations for
curriculum. Sometimes it is as simple as requiring certain subjects
to be taught, and sometime the detailed content of those subjects is
made explicit.
The state may authorize the offering of elective courses in addition
to certain mandatory teachings, though in this era of ever-stronger
mandates, electives are tending to go away. Some states dictate what
textbooks are to be used by the entire state (Texas and California in
particular drive the entire country because their state textbook
regulations dominate the marketplace.).
Give me the site for your claims, for I KNOW them to be false.
I know you to be an ignorant liar. For many localities in this
country that you name, I can probably find education laws and
regulations online which specify curriculum. For any of the rest I
almost certainly can provide a cite that shows that they have such
specifications, even if the text of those specifications is not
online.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fool For Christ" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no teacher led religion or worship in school because the children
are a captive audience and it would be a violation of the religious rights
of non believers and members of different religions.
There, let's get back to what we were originally discussing.
In the private schools the students are, what...a captive audience.
School is required. They are at the private school by requirement.
How is that allowed?
Because "we the people" require them to be at school and
"we the people" have the power to require them to be at school.
Cite: the compulsory education laws in each state.
What "we the people" cannot do is dictate the policies of a private
school by law.
Or rather we CAN do so in general, but we choose NOT to do so. This
is because in the particular case of a religious private school, the
policies that we dictate are constrained by the wall of separation and
we cannot dictate anything that violates their rights, but only those
policies essential to state functions.
Cite:
Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268
U.S. 510 (1925)
<The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this
< Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize
< its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public
< teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those
< who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with
< the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional
< obligations. (268 U.S. at 535)
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/RegPrivSchl/intro.html
provides a good summary showing that private schools can be regulated,
but that their liberty must continue to be respected (the people have
"liberty"; governments do not have "liberty")
As a result, all states make provision for schools outside of the
public schools to meet the compulsory education requirement, and they
do not limit those schools only to religious schools. But private
schools generally are not regulated either the state or local boards
of education (beyond merely noting their existence), and the laws
governing them are very few.
See prior cite.
Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Private schools are not bound by the
same rules as public schools because they may set their own curriculum, may
pick and choose among what students they accept, may teach religion as
worship, may set their own graduation standards, may discriminate in hiring,
and may choose their own school board without any elections.
Talk about ignorance. Public schools (every last one of them) have a
choice about selecting curriculum,
Only of the state allows them that choice.
Nature of law. Public schools, being government, have no liberty and
may only do what they are authorized to do.
pick and choose students (the magnet schools),
Only if the state allows them to form magnet schools.
nature of American law and government. Cite Wikipedia on "rule of law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
<The rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is
< legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly
< disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established
< procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against
< arbitrary governance.
....
<In American law, the most famous exposition of the same princ | | | | | | | | | | | |
