Originally posted by kirksey957
You gave me more of a historical lesson than a morality lesson. OK, let's start with a basic: "Moralitiy has a source in God." OK, whose God? Are you comfortable with a student leading prayer in school that prays for "the death of the infidels"? How about a Buddhist chant?
Here is what I might find of interest in the classroom setting. You ment ...[text shortened]... ite a paper on this resolution and the seeming conflict of ethics with segregated schools.
Of coarse I believe in the Christian God as do you, no? If the Chrisitian God is God, then that morality should be based on him since he is the source of morality. We then have two options from the Christian perspective. Do we then, to be politically correct, not base our morality as God as the source even though he is, or do we recognized the authority by which it comes? Both scenerios are problematic from my perspective. If you teach the Christian morality, then those who disagree with that particular religion will be up in arms over your religious stance. If you deny the power thereof by which your morality comes, your morality is baseless and shifting according to popular opinion. For example, the example you gave about the morality of segregation comes to mind. During the time in which they were implemented, the majority within the society accepted these morals as acceptable. This morality was based upon popular opinion and cultural norms and not according to the Bible and God's law. This was despite the fact that the Bible was used in our schools as a general text to teach our children morality.
It is my belief that as a Christian we should honor the human will as God does. Parents who want their children to be influenced by Christian morality should be given a Christian education. Parents who are secular humanists should be given the right to raise their children according to those principles etc. Within the public school system, however, secular humanism is the only politically acceptable moral stance due to the fact that they do not use the "G" word when discussing morality. Morality is then acceptable so long as it is devoid of religion. This is problematic, however, in that not every parent can afford the choice of a Christian/religious education. As we all know the public school education is the only "free" education in town. In this respect the Christian/religious parent is discriminated against.
What then is the solution? It is my contention that the government should be paying schools an X amount of money per student to each school a parent CHOOSES to send their child to. The pulbic school system would disappear as we know it. Gone will be the days of the government pouring millions of dollars into failed school systems. This way schools can complete for your children and parents can send their children to the type of schools they desire them to attend. No longer will politicians dangle educational issues in front of your face in order to get elected. No longer will the governement dictate which kind of morality underpriviliged children will be influenced by.
This would also solve another pet peeve of mine which is economic segregation that currently grips our public school system. Parents who are rich live in rich school systems. The voters in such areas consistently vote for money to be pumped into their school distrint and are then rewarded for doing so. They have nicer facilities and attract better teachers etc. Conversely, if you live in a poor school district you are not as priviliged. Money that comes into such schools is usually the bare minimum. These poorer school districts attract a greater socio-economic problems such as single parent families, disfunctional families via drug use etc. I think we all know what condition our inner city school systems are in. They are more like jails than schools. I know becuase I have personally witnessed such schools. I visited an inner city school once. All the doors where locked from the outside except one which was the main enterance. At this enterance there stood a gaurd in uniform and a metal detector. Every day a bloody fight would break out amongst the students. They told me where not to park so as not to get my car vandalized or stolen. Teenage girls were consistently referred to plan parenthood for the option of abortion. I could not help thinking that these children might be better left at home without an education than to be thrown into such an atmosphere. Talk about a moral vacuum!!!
As we all know, those who are poor can only afford to live in a poor school district. What choices do you have? I know of a couple who decided to sell their home and move into an apartment just so their children would live in a richer school district. Of coarse they could not afford the houses in the richer school district. These children are the lucky ones, however. Most poor parents have no such options. This economic segregation, in a round about way, is nothing more than masked racial segregation. After all, we all know minorities are disproportionately poorer than those who are not minorities. You then attempt to overcome these disadvantages via programs like affirmative action. You tell these children that if they graduate high school, assuming they can even read and are not strung out on drugs, pregnant, in jail or dead, then they will then get preferential treatment to get into programs of higher education. Then what you have are children who are ill equiped to compete with their student counterparts in higher education who have been priviliged their entire lives. Granted some make it, but the sytem just stinks.
I don't know where that came from but I feel much better know.😵
Separation of church and state
28 Aug '06 01:58
Back to Top