Originally posted by Mixo
My only insight into American schools is through factual documentaries like "The Simpsons" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" so I don't know much but surely the schools don't say "abortion is OK" they just refuse to demonise it i.e it is a free choice for the woman. Am I way off the mark?

No, you are exactly right. Though in some fundy towns (like in parts of Texas), they do teach abstinence-only curricula. Not surprisingly, those places are notorious for having extremely high teen pregnancy rates.

Originally posted by whodey
Now we are getting somewhere. You are correct, there is no way to educate our children devoid of a moral code even if one is attempting to do so. Attempting to do so is a moral statement in and of itself. This is why it seems so silly to me for our pulbic schools in the States take the attitude that shoving morality on the back shelf until the magical bel ...[text shortened]... their day is even plausible. The question then becomes, who's moral code do we go by and why?

The morality of the masses I guess - that is, the morality of the society in which that school is a part.
This'll probably be based on some sort of judaeo-christian position - at least in places like the US and Australia.

Originally posted by amannion
The morality of the masses I guess - that is, the morality of the society in which that school is a part.
This'll probably be based on some sort of judaeo-christian position - at least in places like the US and Australia.

But we are not allowed to teach the morality of the Juaeo-Christian eithic in our public schools in the States. We must have seperation of church and state according to our modern day Judicial rulings. So I ask you, who's morality do we go by as a result?

Originally posted by whodey
A handbook that outlines inappropriate behavoir? Is this teaching morals? Do any of the children read such handbooks? Are they tested on the information? What if we created a handbook on reading and passed them out to the students? is this teaching them to read? The teacher in question was not obligated to teach them about morality. The students may ha ...[text shortened]... uld the children be taught a moral code that conflicts with the one their parents teach them?

What should the handbook say? OK, here are a few things: 1) Get to school on time. (This teaches personal responsibility). 2) No stealing. There will be consequences. (This teaches accountability.) 3) Classroom behavior is to be respectful of your teachers. (This teaches consideration of others in authority).

OK, that's a start and what I am talking about.

Originally posted by whodey
But we are not allowed to teach the morality of the Juaeo-Christian eithic in our public schools in the States. We must have seperation of church and state according to our modern day Judicial rulings. So I ask you, who's morality do we go by as a result?

What, you can't teach to respect others, be nice to people, and so on?
Of course you can.
what you can't teach is the precepts of the church. That's different to teaching morality.

Originally posted by kirksey957
What should the handbook say? OK, here are a few things: 1) Get to school on time. (This teaches personal responsibility). 2) No stealing. There will be consequences. (This teaches accountability.) 3) Classroom behavior is to be respectful of your teachers. (This teaches consideration of others in authority).

OK, that's a start and what I am talking about.

I would agree, this is a good start. However, do we limit the teaching of morality to that of personal conduct within the school setting? Should we introduce classes that teach them about morality that will influence them once they get out in the real world?

Also, it seems to me that the morality of the general culture has changed over the years. You never heard of students sexually assaulting other students some 30 years ago. Nor did you hear tell of a student taking a gun to school and killing off an entire class room. Of coarse, this was before the advent of the seperation of church and state. Kids were allowed to pray in school and they had a sence that their moral code had a higher authority than that of dim witted principle. In your opinion, has the seperation of church and state within our schools help change the morality of the general culture or do we blame the general culture for changing the morality of our students? Are we better off than we were before the seperation of church and state became law in our schools? What say you?

Originally posted by amannion
What, you can't teach to respect others, be nice to people, and so on?
Of course you can.
what you can't teach is the precepts of the church. That's different to teaching morality.

I guess what I am trying to convey is that a moral code is wavering unless it is based upon something. For example, what does it mean to be nice? Back in the 1950's in the US, being nice may have meant that you did not threaten to kill a student of race who did not adhere to the seperate but equal judicial law that forbade students of different races from intermingling.

A question I have for you is, are students in Australia actively taught about morality or is it just learned from within the social structure of the school?

Originally posted by whodey
I would agree, this is a good start. However, do we limit the teaching of morality to that of personal conduct within the school setting? Should we introduce classes that teach them about morality that will influence them once they get out in the real world?

Also, it seems to me that the morality of the general culture has changed over the years. You ne ...[text shortened]... than we were before the seperation of church and state became law in our schools? What say you?

In my opinion the separation of church and state has absolutely no effect upon morality, or as you would say the decline in morality. Let me give you a true example of a family that I visit and I will use actual verbatim accounts to convey their view of the world.


This particular man is in his late 40's. He is a widower. He has about 6 kids. None of them work. They are always in trouble with the law. Actually, the youngest is still in school. This man sells his drugs and claims they are stolen. He lives in a delabotated trailor that has no plumbing and the electricity gets turned off all the time.

Talking to his sons about their recent problems with instigating fights he says, "I can tell you one thing. If your mother was still alive she would have slapped you up side of your head cause she was a God fearing lady. She wouldn't put up with your $hit."

OK, let's look at the decline of morals in this family. Now wait a minute. Aren't they God-fearing people who want prayer conducted in school? Yes, they are.

Here is the sad reality. Abuse with the so-called approval of God is still abuse. The dad has created a spiritual wasteland for his children all the while talking about how his kids all need Jesus to get their lives in order.

While I'm at it let me give the sad truth of homeschooling in Appalachia which is nothing more than an early drop-out program for children whose parents do not want them exposed to godless aetheism and evolution. These kids don't have a prayer for success in real life. All the while their parents are harping on why we can't have prayer in school. I see it all the time. These kids sleep until 2 in the afternoon and get their education from Jerry Springer. Praise be to God on high.

Originally posted by whodey
I guess what I am trying to convey is that a moral code is wavering unless it is based upon something. For example, what does it mean to be nice? Back in the 1950's in the US, being nice may have meant that you did not threaten to kill a student of race who did not adhere to the seperate but equal judicial law that forbade students of different races from i ...[text shortened]... ely taught about morality or is it just learned from within the social structure of the school?

It varies from state to state and place to place, but for the most part yes, morality is taught actively in Australian schools.

Originally posted by kirksey957
In my opinion the separation of church and state has absolutely no effect upon morality, or as you would say the decline in morality. Let me give you a true example of a family that I visit and I will use actual verbatim accounts to convey their view of the world.


This particular man is in his late 40's. He is a widower. He has about 6 kids. Non the afternoon and get their education from Jerry Springer. Praise be to God on high.

So what you are saying is that the moral decline of America has nothing to do with seperartion of church and state even though it seems coincide with when the seperation occured. You also seem to be saying that drug use is the major catalyst for the decline of morality in the US. This is no doubt a contributing factor. However, I am puzzled why someone such as yourself seems to be willing to divorce God and morality in such a way. You seem to be saying that the Judaeo-Christian moral influence within our schools and/or culture has no positive effect on our over all moral character. If you disagree and think that the Judaeo-Christian influence has a positive influence, why remove it? Looking at the history of our schools, it seems to have had a positive influence verses the way it is set up currently. If it does not have a positive influence then perhaps a change of religions is in order for yourself.

As far as the example in Appalachia, I can only say that I am not talking about academics here. I am only discussing morality. I think we can both agree that both can be taught appropriately or inappropreately.

Originally posted by whodey
So what you are saying is that the moral decline of America has nothing to do with seperartion of church and state even though it seems coincide with when the seperation occured. You also seem to be saying that drug use is the major catalyst for the decline of morality in the US. This is no doubt a contributing factor. However, I am puzzled why someone suc ...[text shortened]... g morality. I think we can both agree that both can be taught appropriately or inappropreately.

The primary purpose of the school is to impart knowledge and skills. I don't know that I would say that drug use is the major catalyst for the decline of schools. I tend to think it has to do more with what goes on at home as in the case I cited. If you took drugs out of that situation, things might improve a little, but the problem is a poverty in thinking and attitude.

Do you have a certain time frame in mind for when the decline began? I have no idea whn the "separation " occured. FInally, I wasn't divorcing God and morality. There are many atheists on this site who are very moral people. I was simply saying that the primary purpose of schools is to impart knowledge. But let's look at a concrete example of how knowledge and ethics/morality might have an appropiate place in the classroom.

Let's say I am a teacher and I am teaching about the Civil War. I think I could focus on major events like the economy of the South vs the North. Certainly the slavery issue. The assassination of Lincoln.
Pivotal points in the war. Why the North won. The rise of the KKK. Finally, remnants of the War in our current psyche. As a teacher I would want to encourage a lot of discussion about their ideas. There would likely be African American students in the class and I would want to hear their perceptions of racism. I would get the white students to reflect on possibly any remnants in their own thinking about blacks as inferior. I would open a whole dialogue on these issues that stem from the information they are learning. Hopefully there would be some appreciation of issues like suffering, racism, forgiveness (there is a wonderful account of reconciliation in a Civil War re-enactment) that Ken Burns' documentary mentions in the last episode. So what I'm saying is that I don't have the power to divorce God from children. They can make connections on their own. Certainly if a child were to ask a question about the churches' roles and attitude in the Civil War I would want to be prepared to answer as there were differing stances about the morality of slavery. Differing stances?! Imagine that.

Originally posted by whodey
So what you are saying is that the moral decline of America has nothing to do with seperartion of church and state even though it seems coincide with when the seperation occured. You also seem to be saying that drug use is the major catalyst for the decline of morality in the US. This is no doubt a contributing factor. However, I am puzzled why someone suc ...[text shortened]... g morality. I think we can both agree that both can be taught appropriately or inappropreately.

I deny that America is in a moral decline at all. The primacy of narrow, christian based morality may be in decline, but I don't give much credence to the claim that we're all going down the tubes. I think the further we distance ourselves from religion, he better off we'll be. Besides, the principle of the separation of church and state has been around since the country's founding. At what point would that supposed 'moral decline' have begun? And even if you fixed a certain date, and observed that this supposed 'moral decline' followed it, it does not follow that one caused the other.

A Judeo-christian moral influence has had some positive benefits and some negative ones. But you can still have moral instruction without all the judeo-christian baggage.

Originally posted by rwingett
I deny that America is in a moral decline at all. The primacy of narrow, christian based morality may be in decline, but I don't give much credence to the claim that we're all going down the tubes. I think the further we distance ourselves from religion, he better off we'll be. Besides, the principle of the separation of church and state has been around sin ...[text shortened]... ones. But you can still have moral instruction without all the judeo-christian baggage.

You cannot have a decline unless there is a baseline with which we
can measure a rise or fall from. Since you reject all baselines of
faith; in addition, you can not replace them with anything else for
everyone else, you could be in a free fall without ever knowing it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You cannot have a decline unless there is a baseline with which we
can measure a rise or fall from. Since you reject all baselines of
faith; in addition, you can not replace them with anything else for
everyone else, you could be in a free fall without ever knowing it.
Kelly

There are baselines that do not require faith. I could introduce any amount of objective data to support or refute my claim.

It is generally my observation that while the specifics may change, human morality remains pretty much constant.

Originally posted by rwingett
There are baselines that do not require faith. I could introduce any amount of objective data to support or refute my claim.

It is generally my observation that while the specifics may change, human morality remains pretty much constant.

I didn't say a baseline required faith did I? I said that without a
standard you cannot know if morality is falling or not.
Kelly