"But - as for introducing young people to Christianity, that is yours and my job - do you really want some gormless public school teacher telling children what they understand the Bible to say about marriage or adultery or whatever? "
If I cant trust a teacher to talk to my children about marriage, WHY would I trust a teacher to teach them about other things? Why would any parent want their children subjected to a 'gormless public school teacher' at all???!?
"I'm pretty sure that Jesus charged us personally with that responsibility. I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats,..."
If we shouldn't hire bureaucrats to teach character, why bother hiring bureaucrats to teach anything at all?
We might as well abolish public education if that is your view.
"I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats, however well-intentioned, to slide a pithy homily in between algebra and English and an epistle or two in after lunch."
Oh, so Jesus is *against* Christian schooling now?!?
You object to nuns teaching, and to commited Christian teachers in private schools introducing Christian themes into the classroom? Jesus was againt non-parental evangelism, despite the Pentacost?!? Or are you saying Jesus only wanted home schooling? Fascinating what you learn on the web.
Let's get real: It's absurd to assert that Jesus wouldnt want to have taught the prayer that the gave to us, the Our Father. The objection that Christianity and Christian ethics cant or shouldnt be taught is contradicted by the direct experience of millions of chidlren well-educated in private Christian schools today, and millions more who did just fine in public schools at it prior to 1963.
Your objection certainly cannot be that Christianity can only be taught by parents - that is absurd and disproven by the existence of Christian schools and sunday sermons. It disproven also by my own experience, our children did quite fine in several years of Christian schooling and learnt many good moral lessons that we parent could NOT teach since we werent in the classroom; now the kids are at public school and we see the unfortunate difference already - lower standards, slackening of discipline, and lack of moral and religious instruction in school except for 'multicultural' mumbo-jumbo.
I find it hilarious and obtuse for those against 'religion' in the classroom to insist that it is impossible to instruct kids in such a way. Religion is in the classrooms of America today: In the public schools it's just the religion of environmentalism, the religion of multiculturalism and the religion of 'tolerance and the primary virtue'. That's the moral instruction our kids our getting at our 'exemplary' elementary school.
THUS ... The only reasonable objection to introducing religion into the classroom again, as it was in America from the 1800s to 1963 is that somehow it might introduce dogma to an unwilling audience. This is the only reasoned objection, sometimes wrongly fortified by misinterpreting the Constitution to demand classroom secularism (aka ACLU view). I agree with this objection. It would be wrong to force a Jewish kid to sit through Christian instruction,
just as it is wrong to force kids to sit through harangues on environmentalism when parents object (oops, that happens now).
Hence my comment about the absolute necessity for SCHOOL CHOICE. That is the ONLY way to both satisfy the demands and needs of *both* the Christian community and the secularists without forcing one viewpoint or the other to the 'back of the bus'.
Well - because some people can be trusted to do some things, but not others. I do not want my mechanic doing heart surgery on me or a heart surgeon fixing my car. Music teachers usually don't teach math. Likewise, I would not trust nor expect the gym teacher or history teacher, etc., to teach my children our religion. I would expect merely that they model an ethical life while teaching my children and be good teachers of their subject material. They may not be even the same religion as I am, and I have no reasonable expectation that they be.
"I'm pretty sure that Jesus charged us personally with that responsibility. I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats,..."
If we shouldn't hire bureaucrats to teach character, why bother hiring bureaucrats to teach anything at all?
We might as well abolish public education if that is your view.
Not real clear why you say this. Once again, refer to my previous statement. BUT - I do think it's a major ducking of responsibilities to try to foist those responsibilities off on public school teachers.
"I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats, however well-intentioned, to slide a pithy homily in between algebra and English and an epistle or two in after lunch."
Oh, so Jesus is *against* Christian schooling now?!? What? How did you come up with this?
You object to nuns teaching, and to commited Christian teachers in private schools introducing Christian themes into the classroom? Jesus was againt non-parental evangelism, despite the Pentacost?!? Or are you saying Jesus only wanted home schooling? Fascinating what you learn on the web.
Let's get real: It's absurd to assert that Jesus wouldnt want to have taught the prayer that the gave to us, the Our Father. The objection that Christianity and Christian ethics cant or shouldnt be taught is contradicted by the direct experience of millions of chidlren well-educated in private Christian schools today, and millions more who did just fine in public schools at it prior to 1963. I like the idea of children being taught in private schools. However, if the parents aren't Christian, they probably don't want to send their children to Christian schools. Are you against, Hebrew schools, for instance? (You haven't said that you are - I'm just asking).
And - here's a radical idea: we (parents and the extended faith community) teach our children our religion ourselves and don't try to force someone else to do it. Someone who is most likely not able, willing, or qualified to do it.
Your objection certainly cannot be that Christianity can only be taught by parents - that is absurd and disproven by the existence of Christian schools and sunday sermons. It disproven also by my own experience, our children did quite fine in several years of Christian schooling and learnt many good moral lessons that we parent could NOT teach since we werent in the classroom; now the kids are at public school and we see the unfortunate difference already - lower standards, slackening of discipline, and lack of moral and religious instruction in school except for 'multicultural' mumbo-jumbo.
I find it hilarious and obtuse for those against 'religion' in the classroom to insist that it is impossible to instruct kids in such a way. Religion is in the classrooms of America today: In the public schools it's just the religion of environmentalism, the religion of multiculturalism and the religion of 'tolerance and the primary virtue'. That's the moral instruction our kids our getting at our 'exemplary' elementary school.
THUS ... The only reasonable objection to introducing religion into the classroom again, as it was in America from the 1800s to 1963 is that somehow it might introduce dogma to an unwilling audience. This is the only reasoned objection, sometimes wrongly fortified by misinterpreting the Constitution to demand classroom secularism (aka ACLU view). I agree with this objection. It would be wrong to force a Jewish kid to sit through Christian instruction,
just as it is wrong to force kids to sit through harangues on environmentalism when parents object (oops, that happens now).
Hence my comment about the absolute necessity for SCHOOL CHOICE. That is the ONLY way to both satisfy the demands and needs of *both* the Christian community and the secularists without forcing one viewpoint or the other to the 'back of the bus'.
I do appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. These are important questions and they need to be addressed.