Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Because we have created a society of "The God[ess] Within", where right
and wrong is self-defined and self-serving.

A society of Laws rather than Love.

"Right and Wrong" is morality, and we have lost the ability to teach or
legislate morality.

/john

    RE: .1 That pretty much sums it up doesn't it.
    
    			Alfred

   Sure does

    This has to be quick.

    "Johnny" implies youth.  As a person grows s/he needs guidence,
    needs to be taught right and wrong.  But as a person matures
    s/he needs to internalize what is indeed real, right and wrong.
    The answers s/he comes up with are not always the ones that
    everyone likes.

    Listening to the "God within" is a *very* subtle and difficult
    thing to do.  To think that whatever the mind tells you is the
    "God within" is folly.  There's more to it than that.

    Tom

    Do you think the feminist and womans rights movements have anything to
    do with it?  
    
    -Jack

    
    >Do you think the feminist and womans rights movements have anything to
    >do with it?  

    No. The pro-choice movement on the other hand has something to do
    with it. It encourages a lack of respect for life and the idea that
    "if it's inconvenient it's bad." These things contribute to a
    confusion over right and wrong.

    		Alfred

re Note 735.1 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Because we have created a society of "The God[ess] Within", where right
> and wrong is self-defined and self-serving.

        I'm not so sure about that.  It is just as possible, and I
        believe it is more true, that we have taught our children the
        wrong things than that we've taught them to do whatever feels
        right, i.e., they are following their consciences, as a moral
        person should, but that their consciences have not been well
        formed.

        A gang member, for example, is following a group morality,
        but a terrible one.

> A society of Laws rather than Love.

        I certainly agree with this.  In I Timothy 1:9, Paul writes
        that "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
        lawless and disobedient."  Laws don't bring about moral
        societies, instead they are more like a backup system in the
        event of moral failure.  We see our legislatures thrashing
        about criminalizing more things, or adding to the penalties,
        as if this would make a major change in the behavior of
        people in society.  It doesn't.

        Bob

>    "if it's inconvenient it's bad." These things contribute to a
>    confusion over right and wrong.

    That's not unlike complaining that the democrats make it difficult
    to be a republican.

    You are responible for your own behavior.  You can take your
    standard from a book, a cult, a social group or you can look
    into your own heart and get it there.

    The problem is that many people who claim to look in to their
    own heart, don't.  They take what is convenient.  The problem
    is not what is in the heart.  It's like blaming someone's actions
    on the Bible when he never even looked at it, even if he claimed
    to be a christian.

    Tom

>Because we have created a society of "The God[ess] Within", where right
>and wrong is self-defined and self-serving.

I would say just the opposite is true.  Central to the beliefs of Quakers
is the concept of "that of God[dess] within."  Yet you won't find many, if
*any*, Quakers accused of drive-by shootings.  This is not to say that Quakers
don't go to jail.  Many Quakers have been sentenced to jail for refusing
conscription, protesting runaway militarization, and for other reasons of
conscience.

You see, if you believe that there is something of the Divine within, then
you must believe that it is not exclusive to you -- that everyone, even your
enemies, even criminals, even the last, the least, and the lost, has an
unspeakably Sacred Something about them.

>A society of Laws rather than Love.

I agree here.  I seem to recall hearing that the U.S. produces more lawyers
per capita than any other country in the world.

>"Right and Wrong" is morality, and we have lost the ability to teach or
>legislate morality.

"Teach" at home, in church, or in the schools?  In what ways?  Verbally?
By example?

Peace,
Richard

    
>>"Right and Wrong" is morality, and we have lost the ability to teach or
>>legislate morality.
>
>"Teach" at home, in church, or in the schools?  In what ways?  Verbally?
>By example?

    Certainly the church still has some ability but except for private
    schools teaching right and wrong seems to be all but impossible. This is
    one reason I have grown increasingly concerned with government run
    schools. 

    One other thing that is important to remember is that we don't live in
    a vacuum. There was a time when influences were all close to home and
    largely under family control. My father, who was born in the US, didn't
    learn English until he was about 6 years old. Even then he only spoke
    English at school. His neighbors and family who were all part of the
    same value system and attended the same churches all spoke the same 
    language. So there was little contrasting values until later in life.
    Of course back then even the government run schools tended to support
    the "Christian" values of most of those who went there.

    What with TV and an increasingly mobile society this is less common. We
    have TV, radio (which has changed since my fathers day), and a school
    environment that conflicts with rather than supports morality. Children
    are presented with more contrasts of morality than they once were. This
    is confusing. And it comes at a time when the economic situation
    permits parents less time to guide their children than they once had.

    What is missing is not so much parental "ability" but the support
    system that used to exist.

    		Alfred

Well, I've been read-mostly here for the last few months, but this touches on a
bit of a hot button for me, so...

The tone of several of the notes in this topic imply that without religion you
*can't* have morality. BULLS***! (and the asterisks don't translate to 'eye':^)
There are no absolute moral values, they are taught. All you have to do is look
at the mores of different societies to realize this. As a few quick examples,
in some societies nudity is immoral, in others it is the norm. Did tribes of
headhunters in Africa consider themselves immoral? I doubt it. Morality is 
defined and taught by society. Religion can help propogate a particular view of
morality to a large number of society, but it is not the only or final view.

The assertation that you can only be moral if you are a Christian, or that 
believing in yourself rather than some outside moral authority always leads
to self serving actions show a complete lack of understanding for non 
religious people.

I can go into examples, and give my reasons for today's problems (they 
probably aren't too far from the mainstream here), but for now I just wanted
to make the point that Christians DO NOT have a monopoly on morality.

Steve

    re: .11
    
    Religion is not just morals and morals are not the end-all of religion.
    
    Religions attempt to put into human words and actions an expression of
    Who God IS, who we are, and what our relationship to/with Him should
    be, and how we obtain that relationship. We seek to relate to that
    which is outside our material world and even our cultures, yet which
    affects both.
    
    The Christian/Jewish Commandments do not deal with the issue of dress
    codes. It does have to do with what is sinful or abominations in God's
    Righteousness. Those actions, dress, or circumstances that have been
    shown, through experience, to lead to sin or seem to promote sin become
    considered to be immoral in a society. This is based on experience
    rather than Christian doctrine and it does vary from society to society
    and over time within a society.
     
    The dress choice of a prostitute, for example, is a 'packaging
    tool' to elicit a certain response; the Christian church considers the
    response it ilicits sinful so it considers the wearing of that type of 
    garb to be 'invitations to sin' and therefore immoral.
    
    Societies may be slow to change their view of what is immoral, such as
    in the change of dress, but it does change. This is certainly seen 
    throughout time and in different societies today. 
    
    At the same time, there are some things that both the Jewish religion
    and Christian religion has considered sinful throughout its history
    because it has been revealed through scripture to be abominations to
    God. Such sins will forever remain sins because God has spoken on these
    things and He is the same Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow in His
    complete Perfect Righteousness. 
    
    Sin, particularly grave sin, threatens our relationship with God. He
    does not turn away from us, but we from Him. We choose that which is
    not His Way, His Truth, or His Life. God gives us complete free will,
    even to choose to be without Him for all eternity. Therefore, God 
    ultimatly does not choose our destiny, but we do by choosing to be
    obedient to His Way, or by choosing the other road that leads away from
    Him. 
    
    Violations of moral constraints within a society may or may not lead to
    sinful acts. However, for the sake of our eternal souls, we are told to
    avoid not only sins, but the near occasions of sins. We are also
    reminded that we must avoid putting stumbling blocks (temptations)
    before others. 
    
    Mary
    
     

Hi Mary,

I did not intend to imply that religion was only about morals. What I was 
condemning was the notion that without religion a person cannot have morals,
or that the morals of a religious person (your choice of religions and 
accompanying moral code) are automatically more 'righteous' than the morals
of a non-religious person.

For the most part, I don't disagree with the rest of your rather well written
note about where morals derive from and how they change, except that I of 
course attribute the moving forces to be the pressure of society (the same
pressure that I believe creates religions) rather than divine.

Steve

    re: .13
    
    If religions were created only by societial pressures (rather than by
    the Divine) then they would be reflections of all that the masses
    within the society desired. There would not be this great conflict
    between society and religion that seems to be in just about every
    society. Most religions go against the grain of the demands of 
    society; they are counter-cultural.
    
    The Christian religion formed and developed among tremendous
    persecution to the point that it is considered the Age of the Martyrs;
    this persecution lasted for 300 years! Its adherents chose poverty
    and possible death to keep their faith. There were no 'worldly
    advantages' that explains this phenomenon of faith or that would support
    the thesis that Christianity was mearly a man-made religion based on
    societial pressures. 
    
    The witness of Christian martyrs throughout history bears testimony to
    this in each age. A good study of this is the way faith was kept alive
    under penalty of death or imprisionment in the former Soviet Union and
    the Iron Curtain countries. 
    
    Everyone, even athiests, have a belief system which can, in the broad
    sense, be considered a religion. Many religions ARE man-made based on
    societial pressures. These, however, do not worship the True God, but
    rather idols of man's own creation. Anything can become an idol, it is
    what we value the most and give most of our time and resources towards
    and it is where we expect to find our security. In this day and age
    this is often ourselves (man is god) or money, science, education,
    our 'castle', etc.. Such idols generally have mass appeal and they do 
    not demand a counter-cultural belief or faith walk.
    
    Many people live the God-given Christian religion on such a low level
    of 'engagement' that it gives the appearance of being nothing more than
    a man-made morality constraint. In both Jewish and Christian scripture,
    [OT and NT] there is the concept of the 'remnant'; this is the group of
    people who really live a relationship with God as He wills. THESE are
    the people who truly give witness to God. 
    
    Those who want to support the thesis that religions are all man made
    and result from societial forces and pressures can certainly look 
    exclusivly at those who just go through the motions and live their 
    faith on the most mundane level. The true challenge is to study the
    stellar examples of religious faith [lives, writings, teachings of
    the martyrs and Saints; the historical development of Christianity
    during universal persecution, the unity of scripture over 4000 years,
    the longevity of religious faith and tenets over 4000 years, etc.] 
    and fit these testimonies of God into the thesis.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    
    
    
     
    

    So, tell me Mary: Wasn't Ghandi's religion "real" - at least for him?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    re: .15
    
    Ron, in contrast to Christianity?  
    
    Since God created everything and maintains everything in Him, there is
    a certain amount of God revealed in non-Christian religions and in
    things like nature and science. However that which is created is not
    the Creator and therefore should not be worshiped. 
    
    I do not know anything about Ghandi's worship or what he considered
    God so I can't comment. Considering his life, it seems that he made
    himself open to the work of the Holy Spirit. 
    
    Even those who worship household idols think they have a true 
    religion, but as the Psalmist says, they are without any real power 
    and are mute. 
    
    A short response.
    
    Mary

    Mary,
    
    Here's a crack at a brief statement or where I'm coming from (or where
    I'm at).
    
    God reveals Godself to many people in many ways.  For me, God and the
    attributes of God, God's teachings are made know (to me) thru the life,
    death, resurrection of Jesus the Christ.  And so, my beliefs are
    predicated on my continuing understanding and revelation of God made
    known thru Christ Jesus.
    
    Now, for others in the world, God may very well make known Godself thru
    other means - and, I believe, those ways are just as revealing to them
    as the ways made known to me are to me.
    
    My feelings are that to believe anything else which "requires" God to
    reveal Godself within certain human-specified parameters is to restrict
    God's powers, reign, God's design.  I am immediately led to the
    supporting scripture of Mat 25:31-45 (or so) which deals with the
    "anonymous Christ" - the One to whom you are doing things for even thou
    you did not recognize you were doing so to him.
    
    So, for me, God has presented God's character thru Jesus, scripture,
    reason and revelation - to others God may have chosen to do otherwise -
    that's ok with me - after it, it's ok with God.	
    
    	:-)
    

Re:  .11

I agree with you, Steve, that Christians have no exclusive claim
to morality.  Anyone can choose to follow a moral code (with
some success and some failure if it is closely aligned with
God's morals).  Christians have the advantage of having the
Spirit working within them to help them do what is right.

Collis

    re: .17
    
    Actually, I agree with you and I'd say so does my Church teachings
    as far as the ability of non-Christian people to know God and to
    act according to God's Will.
    
    That does not mean that Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation;
    it means that while not knowing Him personally, they accepted the 
    Truth of Him, that is, the Way of life that mirrors Him. Ghandi's 
    non-violence would be one example of this. 
    
    The person who calls himself Christian yet does not accept the life
    that Jesus taught and led [forgiveness, non-violence, service, the
    cross, humility, obedience, etc.] has not really accepted God. Rather
    that person testifies by the way they live their life that there is
    a "better way" [resentment, violence, greed, self-indulgence,
    arrogance, pride, rebellion, etc.]. 
    
    When we ARE introduced to the person of Jesus Christ and His Gospel
    and church, we should recognize the Way, Truth and Life. To reject
    Christ at this point in favor of 'something else' can be quite a 
    grave choice although only God can judge each person.
    
    For those who have been given much, much is expected of them; those
    who have been given little, little is expected. I have far less 
    concern for the state of the Hindu soul in the middle of India who
    has never heard the Good News as I do over Christians who live a
    perfunctory faith, marginalizing Christ to one hour a week or seeking
    their happiness in worldly things as if God has nothing to offer!
    
    Peace,
    Mary
    away in   

    Mary,
    
    I'm just going to have to pick up a book that I was given as a
    graduation gift from Dot some three years ago and try once again to get
    thru it.  It's a VERY difficult book to read as all his books are:
    Hans Kung's "Ecumenism in the Third Millenia".
    
    Are you still banned from reading his books?  If so, you may be the
    lucky one as they sure are tough (for me) reading.  But, perhaps he
    will touch on some of this stuff we are discussing.  Actually, he NEVER
    just touches!  His "On Being a Christian" must be at least four inches
    thick!
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

re: .14

This probably isn't the topic for this particular debate, feel free to move it.

    If religions were created only by societial pressures (rather than by
    the Divine) then they would be reflections of all that the masses
    within the society desired. There would not be this great conflict
    between society and religion that seems to be in just about every
    society. Most religions go against the grain of the demands of
    society; they are counter-cultural.

I disagree completely with this. Religions are reflections of what a SUBSET of 
the masses within the society desire. The conflict is between different subsets 
of society. A subset of like minded people band together and call it a 
religion, attempting to convert others to their point of view. Depending on the
fervor of the conversion attempts other portions of society resist with varying
degrees of passion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).
This is where your conflict comes from.

    The Christian religion formed and developed among tremendous
    persecution to the point that it is considered the Age of the Martyrs;
    this persecution lasted for 300 years! Its adherents chose poverty
    and possible death to keep their faith. There were no 'worldly
    advantages' that explains this phenomenon of faith or that would support
    the thesis that Christianity was mearly a man-made religion based on
    societial pressures.

So? Persecuted groups form and stay together all the time. I can think of a lot
of 'martyrs' in Waco that withstood 'persecution'. Over the eons many religions
have been persecuted, they have also caused much persecution of those that 
chose not to agree with them. Since no one religion has managed to convert the
entire planet does that mean that this 'phenomenon of non-faith' was inspired
by God? Persecution is not the sole province of Christians, at one time or
another most faiths can point to their persecution. Most can also, sadly, 
see examples of where they were the persecutor. Than religion survived in Russia
is no more amazing than free thought surviving the inquisition.


    Everyone, even athiests, have a belief system which can, in the broad
    sense, be considered a religion. Many religions ARE man-made based on
    societial pressures. These, however, do not worship the True God, but
    rather idols of man's own creation. Anything can become an idol, it is
    what we value the most and give most of our time and resources towards
    and it is where we expect to find our security. In this day and age
    this is often ourselves (man is god) or money, science, education,
    our 'castle', etc.. Such idols generally have mass appeal and they do
    not demand a counter-cultural belief or faith walk.

What you are saying here is that ALL religions are man-made except yours. The
conflict here should be obvious. I consider your True God an idol of mans 
creation, just as you probably consider the gods of other religions as creations
of man. (What is a faith walk?)

I agree with your assertion that many people are 'Christians of Convenience'.
When I said that religions are man made, I was not using these to prove it. 
Studying martyrs proves nothing for you, Jim Jones followers were martyrs, the
folks in Waco were martyrs, there are atheist martyrs. Dying for a cause you
believe in is also not the sole province of religion. There are millions of
people that have died for political reasons. There are also martyrs from all
religions, which is the 'one true religion'. For some reason Christians (and
to be fair, any group) feel that they have the monopoly on pain and suffering,
and that the sacrifices of competing religions really don't count. You also 
speak of the unity of the scriptures. In other notes presented here Richard 
has provided just a few examples that show the writings to be anything but 
unified. They are also not consistent, or in many cases logical. As to the
4000 years thesis, there are several major religions that have been around that
long (or longer), which is correct? If any one have been around that long but
is wrong, then logically you must admit they could ALL be wrong.

You have shown me nothing that I don't regard as the behaviour of normal human
beings. I see no evidence of divine anything in any of your points.

Steve

P.S. I normally don't get into this type of discussion here, I truly have no
desire to attempt to sway anyone from their faith. Someone touched a bit of a
raw nerve and I responded. Although I would be happy to debate this point for 
as long as anyone cares to answer, I will also drop the discussion or take it
private if it is making anyone uncomfortable. I am, after all, a guest in this
forum... :^)

    
    America has a sin problem.  God has been banned by our government
    from our schools.  People refuse to recognize God.  Sadly enough,
    someday God will refuse to recognize them and He will ban them 
    from heaven.   
    
    		God is dead.  - Nietzsche
    		Nietzsche is dead.  - God
    
    Jill
    

Re: .22 Jill

>    		God is dead.  - Nietzsche
>    		Nietzsche is dead.  - God
    
Nietzsche never claimed that he would live forever, so why should his death
invalidate his theory that God is dead?

				-- Bob
    

    
    
    Because God is not dead.  Someone cannot be alive and dead at
    the same time and I have a relationship with Him.  It's not
    possible to have a relationship with a dead person.  It tends
    to be very one sided.  Anyway the point being that Nietzsche was
    finite in life as well as wisdom, God is infinite in both.
    
    Jill

    Talk about twisting words!  The "God is dead" statement means something
    entirely different when it's not taken out of context!

    See note 6.72.
    
    Richard

    Way back in .16 Mary said:

>    Even those who worship household idols think they have a true 
>    religion, but as the Psalmist says, they are without any real power 
>    and are mute. 

    People, certainly not Hindus, do *NOT* worship idols.  They no
    more worship idols than do Christians worship a few boards of
    wood made into a cross.  It is what the object represents.  It
    helps to have a symbol upon which to focus.  No more than that.

    Tom

In "The Splendor of Truth", John Paul II makes some observations relevant
to this topic:

32. Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to "exalt 
freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be 
the source of values". This is the direction taken by doctrines which have 
lost the sense of the transcendent which are explicitly atheist. The 
individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral 
judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good 
and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience 
is unduly added the affirmation that one's moral judgment is true merely by 
the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the 
inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion 
of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself", so much so 
that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral 
judgment.

As is immediately evident, "the crisis of truth" is not unconnected with 
this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, 
knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also 
changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an 
act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the 
universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express 
a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, 
there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative 
of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting 
accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, 
wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the 
truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism 
leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.

Well, he would say that, being the Pope...

				-- Bob

re Note 735.27 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an 
> act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the 
> universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express 
> a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. 

        I'm always HIGHLY suspicious of claims to "universal
        knowledge" as a point to settle an argument, since in almost
        every case the argument wouldn't exist if such "universal
        knowledge" really existed.

        In very much the same way, appeals to "common sense" and
        "natural law" are made to try to settle an argument in a way
        that seems logical, even scientific, but which is in fact an
        appeal to "gut" or emotion.

        Bob

	Something's missing here.  I've heard that an overwhelming majority
of people who are sentenced to prison for violent crimes were physically and/
or sexually abused as children.  And I know from confidences shared with me
that there are many, many more people who were abused as children than simply
those who are convicted of violent crimes.

	I remember when I was in high school, a popular teacher, trusted
and confided in by many of the students on campus, made a comment to a class
I was in that we would not believe how common incest was.  He was right.
Mind you, this was in 1962, when we supposedly still had traditional family
values.  Those "family values" managed to keep issues of abuse well suppressed.

	Jesus said, "You shall know the truth.  And the truth will set you
free."  Certainly, the truth isn't always pleasant, and freedom isn't always
an easy thing to bear.

Shalom,
Richard

    735.25
    
    So Richard am I supposed to believe from the "entire" quote (6.72) that
    Nietzsche was a good Christian guy?  From this quote he still appears
    to have a problem in that he thought man had the power to possess and
    destroy God and that He didn't know that atonement for our sins was
    complete with the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
    
    >"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall 
    > we, the murderers of all murderers console ourselves ? That which 
    > was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed 
    > has bled to death under our knives - who will wipe this blood 
    > off us ?" 
    >                                -Friedrich Neitzsche
    
    You may also want to remember that Hitler promoted and waged his war of
    destruction for a perfect Arian race based on a book by Neitzsche, I
    think the name was "The Super Man."  Every German pilot had a copy of
    this book, it was their "bible."  Neitzche was to Hitler what Marx was
    to Stalin.  Anyone care to recall how many people died in the WWII
    period based on the pursuit of the philosophies of these 2 men? 
    Neitzsche hardly appeared to be a man of faith in God and his
    commandments and that quote does nothing to support that he does. 
    Maybe you see it differently, if so, please explain because I just
    don't see what your point was about my twisting his words.
    
    Thanks, Jill

    Anybody else wanna field .31?
    
    Richard

    
    Richard, I'd like for you to answer.  You said I twisted his words
    by using them out of context.  I don't think I did.  I think the
    full quote supports what I said.  I'm asking you to tell me what 
    you see in his words because obviously it's not what I see.  I 
    think we interpretted his words differently, but since I don't know 
    how you interpretted his words, it's hard to have a discussion on this.
    
    Jill

    Jill .33,
    
    	It's just that my understanding of what the author was trying to
    say is so foreign to what you apparently believe his words say, I
    have no idea where to even start.
    
    	I was hoping someone wiser than me would elucidate upon the much
    maligned quote, sharing with us what the author was authentically
    trying to say.
    
    Richard

    New topic, "God is dead." Note 741
    
    Richard

         Here I was hoping to find a discussion of the book "WHY JOHNNY
    CAN'T TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG" by (I don't remember his first name)
    Kilpatrick. His contention is that schools should be teaching morality,
    mainly through reading stories with moral messages in them. He would
    include stories from the Bible in the list of reading materials. He
    would also expect schools to demand correct behavior from its students
    and be intolerant of deviant behavior.
    
         Even an atheist like myself would have no problem with including
    Bible stories in reading lists in public schools. To exclude them, I
    think, would be making a law respecting the establisment of religion.
    
         Mr. Kilpatrick goes into great detail in pointing out where our
    society has accepted a philosophy of moral relativism throughout our
    culture and the grave consequences of it doing so. I have neither the
    time nor the space here to go into detail about the book. It is a great
    read whatever your religious beliefs may be. Another great read dealing
    with the same subject is Thomas Lickona's "EDUCATING FOR CHARACTER."
    
         Mike
    

Re: .36

>         Even an atheist like myself would have no problem with including
>    Bible stories in reading lists in public schools. To exclude them, I
>    think, would be making a law respecting the establisment of religion.
    
I disagree, Mike.  To require them would be making a law respecting the
establishment of religion.

				-- Bob

    RE: .37 I got the impression that Mike was talking about *allowing*
    not *requiring* Bible stories. I see a difference. The Courts seem
    not to.

    		Alfred

         Thank you, Alfred, for the support. There is a difference between
    "allowing" and "requiring" specific material in an ethics, or character
    course. It would seem to me intolerant to specifically exempt some
    stories from the class because they are of or from a religious point of
    view. Bible stories are the basis of the moral teachings of the vast
    majority of American citizens, and as far as I know, we still allow
    citizens to be religious.
    
          I think it wrong to exempt stories from the course if they are
    from the Bible, from some other religious text, or even from an author
    with an obvious religious affiliation, such as C. S. Lewis of I. B.
    Singer. Our society is suffering from a rapid decline in the level of
    civility and we are in need of any stories, from whatever source, which
    may help to stem the tide.
    
         That said, I do have a problem with posting the Ten Commandments
    on the wall of a publis school room. The Ten Commandments do have a
    place in character education, but not as the exclusive basis of
    morality. The first Commandment implies that if you do not believe in
    or worship a supernatural supreme being then you are by definition
    immoral. I contend that you don't have to believe it the supernatural
    to be moral. Western Civilization has a long history of non-theistic
    ethical teachings going all the way back to Aristotle.
    
         Mike
    

Re: .39 Mike

>         Thank you, Alfred, for the support. There is a difference between
>    "allowing" and "requiring" specific material in an ethics, or character
>    course. It would seem to me intolerant to specifically exempt some
>    stories from the class because they are of or from a religious point of
>    view.

If public schools are "allowed" to use the Bible to teach ethics, doesn't
this suggest that students would be "required" to study the Bible?
Wouldn't the schools be placed in the position of endorsing the teachings
of the Bible and hence be promoting religion?

				-- Bob

         BOB,
    
         I must respectfully disagree that reading "morality tales" from
    the Bible is "teaching" or promoting religion. The Bible is one of many
    sources of moral lessons; religion has no monopoly on morality.
    As an atheist I consider myself a very moral person and I even agree
    with some of the moral teachings of the Bible, but by no means all of
    them. As I stated, the first Commandment I do not consider a proper
    basis for morality.
    
         What I think has happened is that we have taken Jefferson's
    prescription that the first amendment to the constitution requires a
    separation of church and state to rather rediculous extremes. I doubt
    that Jefferson (along with Lincoln and Aristotle one of my heroes)
    would agree that the separation of church and state means that people
    with religious views or those who derive their views from religious
    texts should be excluded from public discourse.
    
         I think it proper that public schools "educate for character."
    What the curriculum should contain for reading materials is of course
    subject to debate and I doubt that you would find any two people to
    agree on all the texts to be used. The Bible is only one source for
    moral teaching. I think that to completely exclude the moral teachings
    of the Bible would give the student an incomplete picture of what it
    means to be moral in our society. And as a further caveat, I think the
    selection of what texts to use for teaching morality should obviously
    take age into consideration.
    
            Mike
    

Mike,

If the goal is to "educate for character" and in order to achieve that goal
"morality tales" are read from the Bible, I think it's unavoidable that
the school will be in a position of teaching and promoting religion.  It
sounds like we're not going to agree about that.

Now if the Bible readings were just a small part of an ethics course that
also included a wide variety of other secular and religious material that
would be OK, but the impression I get from 735.36 is that the author of
"Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong" really does want the schools to
prompte Christian values.  The blasting of "moral relativism" was a dead
giveaway.

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    
         I realize that your not having read the book I am refering to and
    my inability to do it justice is part of our communication problem.
    Kilpatrick, in his book, devotes a very long appendix listing
    recommended reading for students of different grade levels. The only
    religious text he has put in his list is a book of Bible stories, not
    the Bible itself. The rest of the books are secular in nature, if you
    accept the writings of C. S. Lewis and I. B. Singer as secular.
    
         I am not promoting the use of the Bible as the main ethics text
    but as one of the sources of moral teachings. Again, despite my devote
    atheism, I can't see how you can exclude a work that the vast majority
    of Americans use as the basis of their moral beliefs from an ethics
    curriculum. I would suggest using "Bible stories" in the early grades
    and the Bible itself as a reference at the high school level and
    beyond.
    
           - Mike
    

Re: .43 Mike

>         I realize that your not having read the book I am refering to and
>    my inability to do it justice is part of our communication problem.

Yes, possibly.  If I had the time I'd read Kilpatrick's book, just to know
what the other side was up to.

>    The rest of the books are secular in nature, if you
>    accept the writings of C. S. Lewis and I. B. Singer as secular.
    
C. S. Lewis is definitely a Christian apologist, although I wouldn't object
to using the Narnia stories in elementary schools (they have a subtle
Christian slant, but I enjoyed them a lot when I was younger).  I'm not
familiar with I. B. Singer.

>    Again, despite my devote
>    atheism, I can't see how you can exclude a work that the vast majority
>    of Americans use as the basis of their moral beliefs from an ethics
>    curriculum.

Because the Constitution protects religious minorities from being subjected
to a religion established by the majority.

				-- Bob

    In my Speech (Public Speaking) class in high school, we were instructed
    that we could use narratives from the Bible during the we time we were
    working on using written materials in public speaking, as long as we
    didn't turn it into a sermon.  It was okay, for example, to use the
    story of David and Goliath, just as it would be to use a story from
    an American Indian heritage.
    
    Ironically, the students who we thought were most likely to take
    advantage of the allowance never did.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
>If public schools are "allowed" to use the Bible to teach ethics, doesn't
>this suggest that students would be "required" to study the Bible?
>Wouldn't the schools be placed in the position of endorsing the teachings
>of the Bible and hence be promoting religion?
    
    How is this different from requiring students to read Edith Hamalton's
    "Mythology"? Are you saying that such schools are endorsing the
    teaching of those myths and hence promoting religion?
    
    			Alfred

    Mythology when read in school is read as mythology.  I would have no
    problem with the Bible being taught in school as mythology.
    
    Would you?
    
    In fact, how about a course in Parallel stories in mythology?
    
    Using the Bible is tricky because it means something different to every
    person and it would take a truly outstanding teacher to use the Bible
    and at the same time respect all the differences.
    
    I think it is even hard at theological school where there are people
    believing in the Bible as the word of God all the way to the bible as
    inspired mythology and everthing in the middle.  Every instructor also
    has her/his view and must also respect everyone else's faith while
    challenging everyone.  I can understand the alternative of not using
    the Bible in public school if the teachers are not proficient at using
    it well.
    
    Patricia

    
    >Mythology when read in school is read as mythology.  I would have no
    >problem with the Bible being taught in school as mythology.
   > 
    >Would you?

    No, I wouldn't have trouble with the Bible being taught as mythology.
    As long as the teachers make it clear that they are not denigrating
    people who believe in it as religion. I don't remember hearing people
    who held on to the old Norse myths denigrated and would assume the 
    same would hold true for Jews and Christians.

    Of course this is only an issue in government run school and it's a
    shame we have to have them. We wouldn't if more people cared about
    education.

    		Alfred

re Note 735.48 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I don't remember hearing people
>     who held on to the old Norse myths denigrated ...

        You mean you actually had some old Norse believers in your
        classes?

        Bob

    
    >    You mean you actually had some old Norse believers in your
    >    classes?

    Not that I know of but I suspect there were some in the neighborhood.
    It's not a completely dead religion you know.

    			Alfred

    
    
    -1-10
    
     .....I thank you all for re-affirming my decision to send my son to 
    a private school :-) Why can't Johnie tell right from wrong? I suspect
    in part it is because Johnie's parents can decide for themselves. The
    new age movement has made everything to relative. Truth is subjective.
     
     Some idiot declared God was dead back in the sixites and ever sense
    we have been trying to fillthe void with the secular humanist mush.
    S.A.T. scores are down, drugs and crime are up.. I hope whomever is
    keeping score notices the success to fail ratio of the liberal social
    engineers!!!!!!!!!
    
    David

re: .51

>in part it is because Johnie's parents can decide for themselves. The
>new age movement has made everything to relative. Truth is subjective.

I assume you meant Johnny's parents _can't_ decide for themselves...

Actually I was rolling this around my head this morning.  Not only can't
Johnny's parents decide, but even if they have an idea of what's right,
they wouldn't want to "push their views" on poor Johnny, who they think
should develop his own idea of right/wrong.  Johnny's been abandoned to
the secular humanist mush.

>I hope whomever is
>keeping score notices the success to fail ratio of the liberal social
>engineers!!!!!!!!!

I think they are.  However, they refuse to re-examine the basic premise
of their world view.  They'll keep trying to bend it and kick it instead
of realizing it's flawed at it's base.

-Steve

    
    
    -1
    
     ...yes I meant can't! Furgive my speling errs, I is a produkt of
    the liberal sko90,skool, sckooly system.
    
    David :-)

Note 735.51

>     Some idiot declared God was dead back in the sixites....

The idiot lived quite a bit before the '60s.  See topic 741.

Peace,
Richard

There's an old African proverb: "It takes a whole village to raise a child."

Yes, it doesn't come from the Bible.  Truth is not confined to the Bible
alone.

I know the truth of this particular proverb.  I have not neglected to teach
my children morality.  My children have a strong sense of right and wrong, of
good and evil.  Yet, my children are not immune from immoral behavior.

There are influences in the lives of our children which are at times stronger
than parental guidance.  Yes, what happens in the schools, but not necessarily
in the classroom, can negatively influence our children.  Contrary to
conventional thinking, I can just about gaurantee that an overwhelming
majority of our public school teachers do not promote, encourage or endorse
gang rivalries, rioting, looting, drive-by shootings, substance abuse,
sexual activity outside a committed, dyadic relationship, and a live-for-
today attitude.

It takes a whole village (community) to raise a child.

Many of us are busy pointing fingers and blaiming the schools, TV, rock
music, those d**n liberals, the human potential movement and everything
else, while at the same time abdicating our own responsibility in guiding
children.  It's like we have no sense of future, either.  It's like we've
chosen to believe that other people's children are none of our business.

Richard

    
    
    
    -1
    
     Although I disagree with your roll up I must say that you made your
    point quite well.
    
    
    > do not advocate, gang riots, violence and drug abuse, etc
    
     By not endorsing and applying the word of God they are at the root
    of the problem ( at!, not thee).
    
    
                   Problems most encountered by Teachers 
    
    1950's                                             1980's +
    
    1.) Running in the hall                 1.) Drugs
    
    2.) Talking out of turn                 2.) Gang violence
    
    
    etc, etc, etc,
    
    David                      

    
    
    .......ps
    
      CNN reported earlier this year that college S.A.T. scores were down
    again. Oddly enough they also reported that " self worth" was at an 
    all time time. Why? A list of words which a board of educators 
    recommended be removed from use was provided to the public. Some
    of the words were " Excellence, winner," etc etc It was explained
    that such words would intimidate or exasperate(sp) the little tikes.
    This is just another example of this years psycho babble explanation
    for why Johny is failing.
    
    
 David

   I recently  received a tape from Focus on the Family.  On it was a brief
   speech made by Gary Bower (sp?) who talked about a woman who had taught 
   school several years ago and remembered class starting by her saying "Good
   morning class" and the class responding "Good morning Miss Smith".  she
   left the classroom for several years and raised her own family and returned
   to the class and started with "Good morning class", and was met with the
   response "Shut up b*tch", followed up laughter from the rest of the class.
   And the question Mr Bower poses is "What happened in America between 'good
   morning miss Smith' and 'shutup b*tch'?


   Perhaps I'll post Mr Bowers comments as I have the time.



  Jim

	Tomorrow, Sunday, November 14th, in recognition of National Education
Week, my church, Calvary United Methodist Church, is honoring all educators
and support staff with special worship service and a gift for each of our
honored guests to take home.

	Teachers in the United States do not share the place of respect they
do in other industrialized, not necessarily Christian, countries.  A good
portion of teachers are underpaid.  Over half the teachers teaching right
now will be retired or have left the profession for some other field by
the year 2000.  Who will replace them?  I don't have the stats at my
fingertips, but very few kids feel any desire to become teachers.  Of
those who do, very few are high academic achievers.

	My pastor was talking with a group of teachers recently about
what values they'd like to instill in their students.  Take a guess what
those values they came up with were.  Would they include integrity? dedication?
hard work? respecting others?  My guess is that your list would come very
close to theirs.  These values are being instilled in the children of other
countries; non-Christian, non-prayer in public school countries, I might add.

	I've heard the spiel Pat Robertson puts forth making the connection
between the lack of prayer in schools and most other modern societal ills.
It's convincing if you don't look any further.

Richard

    
    
    -1
    
     I honor results not effort! National Education Week should be a time
    where we all fly our flags upside down and at half mast! Granted some
    teachers are not the problem,maybe it's the admin.
    
    David

    .60
    
    And then again, maybe it's us.
    
    Maybe if our teachers were supported instead of maligned, maybe if we
    paid them a wage commiserate with the task we require them to do, maybe
    if we curb our selfish, disrespectful kids who are their students,
    maybe if we held educators in as high esteem as they do in Japan, maybe
    if we spent the kind of money on schools that the Pentagon does in
    preparation to kill and destroy, maybe if we gave kids a reason to want
    to excel in school, maybe...just maybe...things would improve.
    
    Our friend Alfred seems to take matters of education very seriously. 
    As I recall, he serves or served on a school board.  What are your
    observations, Alfred??
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
     We spend more on education than ever before and the result is less.
    Yes parents are o blame to. I will hold teachers in high esteem when
    they earn it. As far as increases in salary go, I wold be glad to
    offer teachers and parents a commision plan. By the way Richard what
    do you think of the school voucher proposal that was killed last year?
    
    David

    .62  We also have the largest ever pupil to teacher ratio.  If
    you were required to have 6 years or more of expensive college
    education and you had a choice of becoming an elementary school
    teacher starting out at $15,000 per year or go into business
    at $28,000 per year, which would you choose?
    
    If your reward for stirring imaginations, stimulating curiousity,
    and trying to make the mundane come alive in the minds of our children,
    was chronic criticism, verbal and sometimes physical abuse, constant
    pressure to accomplish more and more with less and less, would you
    want to become a teacher??
    
    Richard
    
    PS  I don't know what killed the school voucher proposal.  I don't
    know why Amendment 2 passed, either.  I don't even know how Reagan
    got away with 2 terms!
    

    
    
    > I don't even know why Reagun
    
     :-)
    
    
    David

    I believe that it is quite true that respect for teachers is something
    that parents must teach their children. Children behave and learn much
    better when their parents respect the teachers. Children are very
    sensitive to such things. I remember when my wife was working as a
    teachers aide in a local public school. One student hit (that word
    doesn't quite do justice to the act) an other student. My wife wanted
    to hold the child after school as punishment but the parent refused
    to allow it. It was "inconvenient". The school lacked the ability
    or will, I'm not 100% sure which, to fight the parent. My wife did
    keep the child in from a recess so he didn't get off completely free
    but think about the lesson he learned.

    We often tie respect in with income. I heard a parent say once that
    they didn't respect the Principal because how could you respect
    someone who only made $35k/year? Imagine that! But in general I
    don't believe that income is the only, or even the best way, to show
    respect. I don't believe that teachers anywhere in the world are
    really highly paid by local standards. And I note that it would not
    be a huge cut in pay for me with 18 years and a Masters degree to
    go from SR S/W engineer to step 16 in the Masters track in my local
    school system. No the real difference is in attitude.

    In Japan teachers and parents meet at least once a year. Sounds like
    the US no? Actually it's quite different. The teacher visits the
    parents in their home. Before the teacher comes the whole house is
    cleaned. The father, and this is very key in Japan, comes home from
    work to meet with the teacher. This shows by solid example that the
    teacher is a respected and important teacher. This is respect. Just
    as we teach our children that love is not shown only though money
    neither is respect ad honor.

    If you study who does well in American schools you will find some
    common threads. The strongest of these is that students who do well
    come from homes and local cultures that value education and teachers
    in more then a monetary sense. Asian cultures and the Jewish culture
    stand out in this regard. Remember the song from Fiddler In The Roof
    about a husband? "For father make him a scholar" Rich or poor the
    scholar, the teacher, the student are all valued in the Jewish
    tradition. Children from cultures and families that value education
    can go to the same crowded schools with the same under paid teachers
    and learn and learn and learn.

    I think that lack of respect is a key part of the failures in
    education today. Not just respect for teachers but for other students.
    A year ago a student came to try out the school I served on the board
    of. She has a weight problem and was having a rough time of it in her
    school. During the day one of the students, I'm sad to say, made fun
    of her. The other girls immediately went to the principal who suspended
    the student on the spot. His parents had to come and get him. When
    the girls mother came to get her see told her mother that "they have
    jerks here too. But here they know how to handle them."

    Several points I want to make with this story. First, the other girls
    knew that this was inappropriate and disrespectful behavior. Second,
    they knew that action would be taken. Not hoped it would be taken.
    Knew. This is important. Lastly, action was taken and taken in a
    timely fashion. There were consequences. A failure to respect an
    other student was not to be tolerated. When students respect each
    other the atmosphere is much more conducive to education. Students
    who feel free to make mistakes or ask questions learn more. Respect
    allows this to happen.

    I strongly believe that a Christian school makes it easier to teach
    respect if only because of the Christian belief that we are all
    brothers and sisters in Christ. Also that we are part of the body
    of Christ. A community with a common bond. I believe this is true
    of other religious related schools to varying degrees but I lack
    first hand knowledge. In public schools it's all too easy to focus
    on differences. A failing I see no way around in a multi cultural
    society. It's easier in mono cultural societies where everyone
    looks alike and has a strong common set of core values and beliefs.

    When I went to grade school in a public school we heard Bible reading
    and sang hymns. It was a common culture and a common base. Was it
    fair to non Christians? Probably not and for that reason that doesn't
    happen any more. The problem is that no other common culture or
    common base replaced it. The high school I went to, also public,
    had a common culture - engineering. It had a common base academic
    excellence. When you are told at freshmen orientation that you, all
    of you, are in the top 10% of all high school students in a city 
    or perhaps 100,000 high school freshmen it gives you something to
    live up to. Most schools, alas, don't have something like that.

    So is the lack of Bible values the cause of the decline of public
    schools? In at least some sense it is. Only though because it wasn't
    replaced with something solid enough to base a supportive culture on.
    There has been talk of secular humanism in education, and ethical
    Relativism, and a lack of consistent values. All, to some extent
    true. Though perhaps not as much the real problem as some would like
    to label them. It's like hydrogen. Hydrogen is not a poisonous gas.
    We breath it all the time. However if the concentration of hydrogen
    pushes out the oxygen we'll die just as surely as if poison were
    introduced. And even poison, carbon monoxide for example, will not
    kill in mild doses. But it will if it gets too high.

    What's happened to education is that the concentration of good stuff
    has dropped too low. It makes the effects of the other stuff, which
    was always there, too high. My son can handle the ideas he and I
    disagree with in his schools because there are enough ideas we do
    agree with to keep him from getting down. I'm not sure that's the
    case in some public schools. When he's done with school he'll be
    strong. His ideas and beliefs will have been tested and backed with
    thought and information. He'll be ready for the real world. But
    kids need to be sheltered enough to let them grow.

    			Alfred
    

    
    >    .62  We also have the largest ever pupil to teacher ratio.  If
    
    Pupil to teacher ratios are misleading and over rated, IMHO, as a
    measure of support for education and achievement. I note that the
    average teacher in Japan has twice as many students as her American
    counter part. What she does have is more preperation time and more
    parental support. Also the school my son attended had an average
    class size 20% larger than his public school cohorts. The local
    public middle school turned out only 5 more Presidential Academic
    Fitness award winners then his school. Something like 25-29 even
    though the public school had 6 times as many students. I credit
    parental support for the difference. Not class size and not social
    class either. The public and private schools have very very similar 
    demographics. You'd be surprised how similar.
    
    >If your reward for stirring imaginations, stimulating curiousity,
    >and trying to make the mundane come alive in the minds of our children,
    >was chronic criticism, verbal and sometimes physical abuse, constant
    >pressure to accomplish more and more with less and less, would you
    >want to become a teacher??
    
    The down side here sounds a whole lot like my lot in my present
    group. Seriously. And yes, actually, the more I think about it the
    more I want to be a teacher. I never would have thought that 20
    years ago.
    
    				Alfred

    BTW, I host a conference on education at LSTARK::EDUCATION_ISSUES
    for any interested.
    
    			Alfred

    .65-67  Why, thank you, Alfred!  I even *appreciated* your insights
    on the points on which we're at variance!
    
    :-)
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

I would like to give Alfred a word of encouragement.

If you do decide to change careers, Alfred, I would like to see you
become a teacher.  I believe you would make a good one.  I would entrust
my own child's mind to your classroom.

I have learned much from having teachers who didn't all think like each
other.

Peace,
Richard