toldailytopic: In your opinion, what is the ONE worst thing about public schools?

[chatmaggot]

No, I have no issue with him joining the school board and attempting to do what he thinks is correct. My issue is that what he wants to happen is unconstitutional. I never suggested that should he get on the school board he had carte blanche.

This is my second attempt to get a straight answer from you regarding this matter.

Where in the constitution does it ever mention a government funded public educational system and where in the constitution does it say what can and cannot be taught in said system.

Again, here is the link I provided earlier:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I asked:

If I ran for the board of education and was elected...would you allow me to indoctrinate your kids with Biblical morals and values...

You said:

Sorry, that would be unconstitutional. Suck it up and deal with it.

I asked:

Really? Where in the Constitution does it forbid me teaching Bibical morals and values?

You replied:

Ask Christine O'Donnell,...

Seeing that I was having a conversation with you I didn't feel the need to ask Christine O'Donnell so I asked again:

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part in this post where you showed where in the Constitution it even mentions a government funded public education system. And where in the constitution it prohibits the teaching of Biblical morals and values in such a system.

Could you be more specific and show me where the Constitution describes a government funded public education system?

Thanks.

And again:

Now where is public education in the Constitution again? I must have misplaced it.

And instead of showing me, you just repeated to Lighthouse what you said earlier:

No, I have no issue with him joining the school board and attempting to do what he thinks is correct. My issue is that what he wants to happen is unconstitutional.

So again, could you show me where in the Constitution it mentions a government educational system and what can or cannot be taught in the system?

 

[Jukia]

This is my second attempt to get a straight answer from you regarding this matter.

Where in the constitution does it ever mention a government funded public educational system and where in the constitution does it say what can and cannot be taught in said system.

Again, here is the link I provided earlier:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I asked:



You said:



I asked:



You replied:



Seeing that I was having a conversation with you I didn't feel the need to ask Christine O'Donnell so I asked again:



And again:



And instead of showing me, you just repeated to Lighthouse what you said earlier:



So again, could you show me where in the Constitution it mentions a government educational system and what can or cannot be taught in the system?

The Constitution does not mention a governmental school system. Nor does it mention a space program.
Happy now?

 

[chatmaggot]

The Constitution does not mention a governmental school system. Nor does it mention a space program.
Happy now?

Sorry, that would be unconstitutional. Suck it up and deal with it.

No, I have no issue with him joining the school board and attempting to do what he thinks is correct. My issue is that what he wants to happen is unconstitutional. I never suggested that should he get on the school board he had carte blanche.

Thank you.

 

[Jukia]

Thank you.

You are welcome.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, it is my response when I believe people are uneducated and I am too busy to educate them. Once you are a grown up your education should be your responsibility. Yours is lacking on a number of topics.

You're brilliant at one thing: missing the point. The bottom line is that it is not unconstitutional. If anyone needs to learn constitutional law here it's you.

 

[Jukia]

You're brilliant at one thing: missing the point. The bottom line is that it is not unconstitutional. If anyone needs to learn constitutional law here it's you.

Teaching religion in public schools is unconstitutional. Read the case law. Sorry if I am suggesting you some homework.

 

[Aimiel]

Yeah, that's true, and murder of the unborn is also legal, according to our 'wonderful' legal system; that doesn't make it right or even ethical.

 

[Granite]

Yeah, that's true, and murder of the unborn is also legal, according to our 'wonderful' legal system; that doesn't make it right or even ethical.

Here's what I don't understand: for all the griping about how lousy the school system is and how you'd never send your kids there, why is it that you guys demand that religion be taught and prayer be tolerated in public schools? Isn't that a little like insisting hookers stop dressing like skanks?

 

[The Horn]

I think the emphasis on grades and grades as the criterion to be accepted into college is possibly the worst.
The concentration on grades means that kids are generally more worried about getting high grades than actually learning,that is,those who actually try get good grades.
But too often,grades show nothing more than how many correct answers a kid was able to memorize on a test. But this doesn't really indicate how intelligent and talented one is. Grades don't really show
imagination,creativity,original thinking etc.
And in subjects where there are no cut and dried right or wrong answers,grading is often highly subjective and arbitrary.
This means that in subjects like this,teachers don't necessarily grade students based on either effort or ability,but base a grade purely on whether they just happen to like a student's work by chance or not.
Add to this grade inflation,and you see how grading is often nothing but a game of educational Russian roulette.
And the OPPOSITE of grade inflation exists,too. A student can be very bright,talented,hard-working,motivated and knowledgable and still not get high grades because of the chancy nature of grading.
So when it comes to college admissions, a student who is mediocre or worse can have a much higher grade point average than one who is really outstanding in terms of sheer academic ability.
Is this fair?

 

[Aimiel]

Here's what I don't understand: for all the griping about how lousy the school system is and how you'd never send your kids there, why is it that you guys demand that religion be taught and prayer be tolerated in public schools? Isn't that a little like insisting hookers stop dressing like skanks?

I don't demand anything of the sort... I'm glad that public schools don't allow religious beliefs to be expressed by teachers, for I'd hate for my kids to have to listen to a Satanist, Muslim or Jehovah's Witness share their beliefs in a classroom setting. The students doing anything related to the free expression of their religious beliefs is different, and should be protected by our laws, rather than persecuted as if it's a disease. They're not restricted by any (constitutional) laws from doing so, but there are too many liberals who run 'the system' that believe Christians ought to be persecuted for their beliefs, wherever possible, and our public school system has suffered for it. If a kid prays, expresses his religious beliefs or attempts to organize any meetings or clubs based in Christianity, the schools want it nipped in the bud. That just isn't right, and neither is it constitutional. NO laws are to be written inhibiting the free practice or expression of one's religious beliefs. I've no doubt that a large percentage of students in our public school systems who have faith in Christ refrain from any expression of that faith whatsoever, because of the dark work of bureaucratic bigots who have caused them to believe that doing so would violate some kind of law which doesn't even exist. It's changing, but far too slowly.

P.S. - I should point out, if I haven't expressed same above well enough: your thought about prayer being 'allowed' is actually protected free expression of religious beliefs and free speech, both of which are EXPRESSLY protected by our United States Constitution, established July 4th, 1776. :thumb:

P.P.S. - It's also my prayer and hope that teachers might be allowed the same freedoms; that of being allowed to pray and allowed to express their religious beliefs, without fear of reprisal, repercussion or dismissal; just as the students now enjoy (in schools where the freedoms the constitution protects are actually practiced. Not only in schools, but actually any place, since it is actually the intentions and hopes of our founding fathers and our sacred civic duty to see to the effective practice of these rights being protected.

 

[Lon]

Teaching religion in public schools is unconstitutional. Read the case law. Sorry if I am suggesting you some homework.

No. Proselytizing is illegal. There is no ban on religious teaching, just that it not be led by private agenda toward any particular one.

 

[Granite]

I don't demand anything of the sort... I'm glad that public schools don't allow religious beliefs to be expressed by teachers, for I'd hate for my kids to have to listen to a Satanist, Muslim or Jehovah's Witness share their beliefs in a classroom setting. The students doing anything related to the free expression of their religious beliefs is different, and should be protected by our laws, rather than persecuted as if it's a disease.

Why do you make this distinction? Put another way, why do you want to prevent your kids hearing contrary beliefs (oh, perish the thought) in a classroom but by implication not outside of it?

NO laws are to be written inhibiting the free practice or expression of one's religious beliefs.

Wrong: if a religion can be deemed a public threat or hazard, the courts can (rightfully) step in. You can't for example cannibalize somebody and then hide behind a "But it's my religion" defense.

I've no doubt that a large percentage of students in our public school systems who have faith in Christ refrain from any expression of that faith whatsoever, because of the dark work of bureaucratic bigots who have caused them to believe that doing so would violate some kind of law which doesn't even exist. It's changing, but far too slowly.

I'm sure that's true. I'm equally sure that applies to kids who share different religious beliefs.

 

[Jukia]

No. Proselytizing is illegal. There is no ban on religious teaching, just that it not be led by private agenda toward any particular one.

I'll buy that to the extent that all you are doing is teaching "about" religion. My wife does that in an AP European History class. Hard to avoid the Reformation/Catholic Church issue in that class. but that is usually not what people want here. they want "Biblical morality" taught. They want Biblical issue taught as fact.
That is unconstitutional

 

[Granite]

I'll buy that to the extent that all you are doing is teaching "about" religion. My wife does that in an AP European History class. Hard to avoid the Reformation/Catholic Church issue in that class. but that is usually not what people want here. they want "Biblical morality" taught. They want Biblical issue taught as fact.
That is unconstitutional

Yeah, there's no way that intelligent design can be construed as anything but biblical doctrine pretending to be science.

 

[Jukia]

Yeah, there's no way that intelligent design can be construed as anything but biblical doctrine pretending to be science.

Certainly not after Dover.

 

[chatmaggot]

I'll buy that to the extent that all you are doing is teaching "about" religion. My wife does that in an AP European History class. Hard to avoid the Reformation/Catholic Church issue in that class. but that is usually not what people want here. they want "Biblical morality" taught. They want Biblical issue taught as fact.
That is unconstitutional

You continue to say it yet provide no evidence for it.

 

[Jukia]

You continue to say it yet provide no evidence for it.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Start there.

 

[Lighthouse]

Teaching religion in public schools is unconstitutional. Read the case law. Sorry if I am suggesting you some homework.

If you can't quote the section of the Constitution that forbids it, shut up.

 

[Jukia]

If you can't quote the section of the Constitution that forbids it, shut up.

"Shut up! Shut up! Mom never told me to Shut Up!"

Ah, a Justice Scalia fan.

The Constitution is interpreted by the Supremes, see Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137. The Constitution is the basic framework of our government. It was drafted by some pretty astute people Is it your suggestion that it is meant to cover every possible future law or situation without interpretation?

In the meantime, try the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause. I recognize it does not say what you wish it to say, for that I refer you again to Marbury,

Go back to school Lighthouse, and first learn something about polite discourse

 

[Granite]

If you can't quote the section of the Constitution that forbids it, shut up.

:rotfl:

What you don't know, pizza boy, is a lot.