29 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeyFrom wikipedia:
How would I teach morality? We could look back in time to see how it used to be taught or we can start from scratch. In 1782 the United States Congress passed the following resolution; "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for the use in all schools." Crazy huh? William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Rea ...[text shortened]... er to embrace its precepts via political correctness? This is the question I pose to you.
Criticism of McGuffey's Readers
McGuffey's Readers are currently used most often by Christian Fundamentalists who either homeschool or send their children to religious schools to avoid what they regard as the corrosive influence of liberal, secular public education. McGuffey's Readers contain many derrogatory references to ethnic and religious minorities. For example, Native Americans are referred to as "savages". Moreover, the books are filled with negative imagery related to Jews and Judaism. Judaism's respect for the Torah is denigrated. According to McGuffey's Eclectic Third Reader, "the Old Testament has been preserved by the Jews in every age, with a scrupulous jealousy, and with a veneration for its words and letters, bordering on superstition..." (McGuffey, reprinted by Mott Media, 1982; p.69) McGuffey suggests that the rise of Christianity was not only predicted in the Old Testament, but was a result of Jewish infidelity toward God — a common anti-Semitic theme. The Reader states that the Jewish Scriptures were "their own sacred volume, which contained the most extraordinary predictions concerning the infidelity of their nation, and the rise, progress, and extensive prevalence of Christianity." In Lesson XVIII, dealing with Divine inspiration of the Gospel, the Eclectic Fourth Reader asks, "Why is it inconceivable that the book is fiction?" The answer, "The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality, contained in the gospel..." A short story called "The Blind Preacher," recounts a blind minister's sermon about the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. The story reinforces the notion that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. "We saw the very faces of the Jews, the staring, frightful distortions of malice and rage."
In fact, every single reference to Jews in McGuffey's Readers is negative. No effort is made to explain Judaism, or to teach what Jews believe. The McGuffey Readers series is frequently advertised by the Conservative Book Club on the back of the Rev. Donald Wildmon's magazine, the AFA Journal, and in Pat Robertson's Christian American. The ads proclaim: "The ORIGINAL McGuffey's Readers were different. They were Christian." Copy in the ad says, "...give them some of the memorable poetry and prose of our Anglo-American inheritance..." (see Anti-Semitism: Its prevalence within the Christian right)
In the first chapter of Neil Baldwin's Henry Ford and the Jews, which is entitled McGuffeyland, the author makes the case that Henry Ford's self-avowed anti-semitism originated with his study of McGuffey's as a schoolboy. Baldwin cites numerous anti-semitic references to Shylock, and to Jews attacking Jesus and Paul. Ford claimed as an adult to be able to quote from McGuffey's by memory at great length. (see Henry Ford and the Jews, Chapter 1: McGuffeyland)
The good ole days, right whodey?
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1's using wikipedia! Hell must be freezing over due to the breeze from the wings of all the winged piggies.
From wikipedia:
Criticism of McGuffey's Readers
McGuffey's Readers are currently used most often by Christian Fundamentalists who either homeschool or send their children to religious schools to avoid what they regard as the corrosive influence of liberal, secular public education. McGuffey's Readers contain many derrogatory references to ethni ...[text shortened]... ter 1: McGuffeyland)
The good ole days, right whodey?
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by KellyJayGroup of standards (A) and group of standards (B), while being different from each other need not be mutually exclusive. They could have much overlap between them. Because I reject (B) as a whole does not mean I reject every standard within the overall grouping.
I doubt what you just said, like I do a lot of things you say while
seaking about things of this nature. My standards are tell the truth
and do well to those around me, treat them as I would be want to be
treated, and you say you don't agree with me. So am I to understand
that with you, you do not value truth, you don't like the idea of
treating others ...[text shortened]... is something
different so when my values and morals are in decline it is a good thing.
Kelly
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by KellyJayNot quite sure what you mean. However, I do not favor teaching about God in the public school system simply because that is not the purpose of school. Teaching about God is the domain of the parents and churches. Teachers are not theologians.
In your opinion this is about God not morality?
Kelly
As I have shown, I don't even need to mention God to make children inquisitative about issues related to ethics, morality, and even the church. Let me give an eample that happened to me in the past month. When my daughter and I were in Europe this past month we went to a lotof museums (much to her chagrine at times). There was one painting that caught her eye and she found it rather odd. It was a painting of very affluent people either with pig's masks or having the heads of pigs. I can't remember. Anyway, our guest asked her what it was about. She had no idea, but he offered the interpretation that it was about hipocracy. Now Jesus said a lot about hipocracy as well, but here was an example of it coming out it art of all things.
Children need good and creative teachers. A dirty little secret. Morality can be taught in many ways without, but also including the church.
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeyI disagree with much of what you say, but that is OK. People most certainly did turn to the Bible to justify slavery. You mentioned the issue of class disparity and poor children not getting the same education that children in rich school districts get. To this issue I would like to quote Jesus as a guiding example if you don't mind. "The poor you have with you always."
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 ...[text shortened]... the sytem just stinks.
I don't know where that came from but I feel much better know.😵
OK< I have just used Holy Scripture to come to a conclusion that you don't like.
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe reason I brought up McGuffey's reader and the fact that even the Bible was used in the class rooms of our public schools at one time was simply to point out how much our culture and morality have really changed over the years. It was not an attempt to canonize the McGuffey reader as one of the four gospels. As I have pointed out, the US has entrenched racist roots that come out in such texts as the McGuffey's reader. However, this has nothing to do with the points I was trying to make. Since the inception of the seperation of the church and state in the early 1960's, there has been a gradual decline in morality amongst our children. Altough our world was far from perfect prior to 1960, it seems to have faired better than what it is today. That is, of coarse, according to the article I posted previously.
From wikipedia:
Criticism of McGuffey's Readers
McGuffey's Readers are currently used most often by Christian Fundamentalists who either homeschool or send their children to religious schools to avoid what they regard as the corrosive influence of liberal, secular public education. McGuffey's Readers contain many derrogatory references to ethni ...[text shortened]... ter 1: McGuffeyland)
The good ole days, right whodey?
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeySaying that our world and our children are less moral than they were is to ignore the vast gains we have made as a culture and a nation over the last 100 years. The way we treat different races, different cultures and women, to name just three areas, are vastly more moral than they once were. What so many Christians fail to realize is that morality covers a wide variety of topics that do not necessarily have anything to do with sex etc.
The reason I brought up McGuffey's reader and the fact that even the Bible was used in the class rooms of our public schools at one time was simply to point out how much our culture and morality have really changed over the years. It was not an attempt to canonize the McGuffey reader as one of the four gospels. As I have pointed out, the US has entrenched r ...[text shortened]... ter than what it is today. That is, of coarse, according to the article I posted previously.
Also, you seem to think that our morals changed when the separation started getting enforced but there are many reasons why they could have changed that have nothing to do with the separation. For instance, over the last several decades the cost of living has far outpaced income in this country forcing many families to need two incomes. This produces scores of "latch key kids" who come home from school to zero parental guidance thus opening the door for getting into more trouble. I think before you start assuming that the separation has caused all these problems you should find some research that supports it.
TheSkipper
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by kirksey957"The poor you have with you always?" Does this mean that we do not reach out to the poor? Here are some other interesting scriptures about the poor. Job 31:16 says, "If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless has not eaton thereof....Then let mine arm fail from from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone." How about Psalms 10:1 which says, "Why do you stand afar off, O Lord? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? The wicked in his pride persecutes the poor; let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined." Although Psalms 41:1 is pretty good as well. It says, "Blessed is he that considers the poor; the Lord will deliver him in times of trouble. The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth; and you will not deliver him unto the will of his enemies."
I disagree with much of what you say, but that is OK. People most certainly did turn to the Bible to justify slavery. You mentioned the issue of class disparity and poor children not getting the same education that children in rich school districts get. To this issue I would like to quote Jesus as a guiding example if you don't mind. "The poor you ...[text shortened]... always."
OK< I have just used Holy Scripture to come to a conclusion that you don't like.
You see, I try to consider the poor and not simply turn a blind eye as some prefer.
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeyGood for you. I'm glad you do. Do not take my post to mean I don't care for the poor. I think our back and forth in this thread has pretty well illustrated that there are differences of opinion that are reflected in the debate at large. We both care about morality, but have different ways and opinions about how to instill it in school.
"The poor you have with you always?" Does this mean that we do not reach out to the poor? Here are some other interesting scriptures about the poor. Job 31:16 says, "If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless has not eaton thereof....Then let mine arm ...[text shortened]... "
You see, I try to consider the poor and not simply turn a blind eye as some prefer.
I, for one, will try to stay out of trouble.
30 Aug 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperWhen you say that we have become more "moral" in regards to how we treat minorities etc, this is according to whose morals? It is certainly not according to the morals of people who lived hundreds of years ago. How do we then differentiate as to whose morality is superior?
Saying that our world and our children are less moral than they were is to ignore the vast gains we have made as a culture and a nation over the last 100 years. The way we treat different races, different cultures and women, to name just three areas, are vastly more moral than they once were. What so many Christians fail to realize is that morality cove ...[text shortened]... on has caused all these problems you should find some research that supports it.
TheSkipper
30 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeyThats it? This is your entire response to my post?
When you say that we have become more "moral" in regards to how we treat minorities etc, this is according to whose morals? It is certainly not according to the morals of people who lived hundreds of years ago. How do we then differentiate as to whose morality is superior?
People who lived hundereds of years ago kept slaves and treated women like a commodity. I suggest you figure out for yourself whose morality is superior or are you suggesting that you do not agree that keeping slaves is a morally sound practice?
Not that your post deserved a response when you ignored most of mine.
A-
30 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeyIf you lack the capacity to differentiate between a society that (ostensibly) abhors slavery
When you say that we have become more "moral" in regards to how we treat minorities etc, this is according to whose morals? It is certainly not according to the morals of people who lived hundreds of years ago. How do we then differentiate as to whose morality is superior?
and one that embraced it, then why should we take your position seriously at all? That is,
if you are advocating a position of total moral relativity or the application of morals on
arbitrary criteria, then you have no compelling argument for your own moral stance. It
should seem patently logical that a society that (strives?) to treat its various members
equally is preferable to one that discriminates against some of the same. Are you really
so obtuse that you need someone to hold your hand through something like that?
If this is just a backdoor means of claiming that a moral stance has to be founded on God,
you've certainly failed to demonstrate such a claim.
Nemesio
30 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodeyNot so fast there Sport; you have constantly claimed that this country has less "morality" because it doesn't teach the Bible and Christian BS in the public schools. YOU cited to the McGuffey Reader as a source of "morality" and, in fact, other Fundamentalist Christians are still praising it. Yet, it is rife with racism, anti-Semitism and other types of intolerance. Do you really believe that it has adversely affected our "morality" that such crap isn't part and parcel of what kids are taught in school?
The reason I brought up McGuffey's reader and the fact that even the Bible was used in the class rooms of our public schools at one time was simply to point out how much our culture and morality have really changed over the years. It was not an attempt to canonize the McGuffey reader as one of the four gospels. As I have pointed out, the US has entrenched r ...[text shortened]... ter than what it is today. That is, of coarse, according to the article I posted previously.
30 Aug 06
4 edits
I think that schools should teach about morality. This should occur in high school perhaps.
There would be a class devoted to the topic. The curriculum of the class would begin with an in depth analysis of the various definitions of the word "morality" and related words and discussion of what the kids think and have been taught about it. Then there should be sections about the various approaches to the topic; those of various religions, with an exploration of the idea that maybe Protestant Christianity has been more influential than other religions on the average cultural view of morality in the US; those of various philosophers, with emphasis on Lockean Natural Rights theory and it's role in shaping the US; exploration of psychological, sociological and evolutionary models of morality; etc. There would be no endorsement of any particular moral system. There would also be a section on laws that seem to be related to moral topics such as laws against theft, murder, and animal abuse; laws about religion; "Good Samaritan" laws, etc.
Before the students take this class, they should simply be made aware of the rules in the school and the consequences of breaking those rules. Teachers should keep in contact with parents, notifying them if the child seems to be having problems with things like hitting, stealing or animal abuse.
What public schools should never do is teach that "XXX is morally right; YYY is morally wrong".
31 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperThe reason I questioned you as to whose morality is superior is that morality must be based on something. Should morality be based on the morality of the majority or something else? Hundreds of years ago the majority concensus was that racism was moraly acceptable. Althought they may have been "Christians" they in no way could justifiably backed their racisit morality with the Bible, rather, their morality regarding racism was based upon a cultural norm.
Thats it? This is your entire response to my post?
People who lived hundereds of years ago kept slaves and treated women like a commodity. I suggest you figure out for yourself whose morality is superior or are you suggesting that you do not agree that keeping slaves is a morally sound practice?
Not that your post deserved a response when you ignored most of mine.
A-