mwm@ea.UUCP (03/12/84)
#R:mit-eddi:-141100:ea:11300005:000:1180 ea!mwm Mar 12 15:52:00 1984 /***** ea:net.religion / mit-eddi!gds / 5:47 pm Mar 9, 1984 */ > Probably the easiest way to solve the problem would be to >eliminate public schools altogether, something I heartily >support. You cannot be serious about this. Most U.S. families cannot afford to send their youngsters to private elementary and/or high school. Greg-bo, Prince of Eternia {decvax!genrad, eagle!mit-vax, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds /* ---------- */ Yes, s/he can. I agree completely. The government has no business running public school (among many, MANY other things it's doing). Most families in the US could afford private schools if: A) They didn't have to pay taxes to help support public schools; and B) Private schools didn't have to compete with public schools for $'s. Still, lots of families would be unable to afford private schools. I'm sure that some of the fine, upstanding churchs we have would allow charity cases free access to the church schools. Of course, the fact that you may not particularly like the religion being taught in the church school should make the school even happier to accept - they can brainwash children they couldn't get to normally that way. <mike
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:ihuxr:-97200:uokvax:8300047:000:1269
uokvax!emjej Mar 13 10:14:00 1984
/***** uokvax:net.religion / ihuxr!stanwyck / 1:30 pm Mar 11, 1984 */
(* This is admittedly more argumentative than the way I feel, I just
feel a need to present this issue......... *)
Is it possible that your religious belief, a belief in "non-God", and your
expectation that the state promote your religion, might be insensitive to
my religion, and in fact discriminatory against it? I haven't really
thought about this, but the idea struck me and I couldn't argue myself out
of asking.........
/* ---------- */
Good people, there is a distinction to be made between not promoting any
religion and promoting atheism/agnosticism. Current American public schools
do neither, what with the various activities they conduct for some religious
holidays, and various things not taught because of pressure from the ignorant
(e.g. evolution). I still recall the time my first year Spanish class was
dragged over to see a movie containing transparent Christian allegory.
If I had my druthers, there wouldn't be government-sponsored public schools,
but a less ambitious hope would be that the schools that currently exist
at most enumerate the stands of various religions where appropriate (as opposed
to in science classes, for example).
James Jonessteve@ea.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:bbncca:-61400:ea:11300006:000:781 ea!steve Mar 15 20:16:00 1984 [my own non-blank line] I suggest that you read the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The main purpose was not separation of church and state (originally) but to provide for the basic freedoms for public support for Christian doctrine to be practiced without the hinderence of governmental intervention into private practice of Christianity. To translate this I mean the government should not dictate the method in which the people should live in their private worship of God. The Pharisees in ancient Israel tried this with a movement called the Way (none as Christians today). The result was a separation within what the Word said that Christ was coming and they missed it. The Shamrock !!!!!!! THIS IS NOT FROM ea!steve DONT SEND ME THE FLAMES!!!
steve@ea.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:ut-sally:-134200:ea:11300007:000:184 ea!steve Mar 15 20:20:00 1984 [This is a non-blank line] Jesus Loves you for just who you are. From a Christian. (whose been there) Mark !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS NOT FROM ea!steve, DONT SEND ME FLAMES!!!!!!
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/20/84)
>> Probably the easiest way to solve the problem would be to >>eliminate public schools altogether, something I heartily >>support. > You cannot be serious about this. Most U.S. families cannot afford to > send their youngsters to private elementary and/or high school. > Yes, s/he can. I agree completely. The government has no business running > public school (among many, MANY other things it's doing). Most families > in the US could afford private schools if: A) They didn't have to pay taxes > to help support public schools; and B) Private schools didn't have to > compete with public schools for $'s. > Still, lots of families would be unable to afford private schools. I'm sure > that some of the fine, upstanding churchs we have would allow charity cases > free access to the church schools. Of course, the fact that you may not > particularly like the religion being taught in the church school should make > the school even happier to accept - they can brainwash children they couldn't > get to normally that way. Please remember that the issue of how to pay for education is philosophically separate from the issue of how to provide it. In other words, even if you believe that everyone should have some level of education paid for by tax money, it does not follow from that that the government should be in the business of running schools.
steiny@scc.UUCP (05/24/84)
*** There was a cartoon in the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle a few years ago that showed a stern looking school teacher standing in front of a chalkboard with the words "Optional prayer, 8:00 - Or Else!" In the class room three children had started a bonfire and were dancing around it. The caption read: "Prayer will be confined to the normal white middle class variety please!" If I have children, I think that I will teach them that a "prayer" requires a bonfire and a live chicken. Don Steiny Pesonetics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382