We're under the illusion

[Manedwolf]

There's something to be said for allowing children to have a childhood.

[Pew pew pew]

I'm not sure that telling Billy "Hey, some people live life differently than you do" is exactly ruining his childhood.

[roo_ster]

Pew Pew Pew:

Thanks for making jnojr's point for him and substituting your sensibility for the sensibilities of the taxpayers in various & sundry school districts who want no part of such indoctrination.

[Manedwolf]

I'm not sure that telling Billy "Hey, some people live life differently than you do" is exactly ruining his childhood.

I think that's the job of parents, not the state.

I also don't think it's the wisest thing to be teaching kids in their formative years, since the jury's still out on whether it can, indeed, be a learned behavior, not just "genetic".

[Werewolf]

I suppose my point shouldn't have been limited to homosexuality. It was more geared towards people who think we should completely avoid teaching any social issues in schools. Schools are about educating out children with useful skills in order to better their lives society as a whole. How can we avoid teaching about some social issues in such an institution?

Schools weren't always that way. Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home. Somehow the schools have co-opted the duty of parents to teach their children ethics, morality etc and unfortunately parents today seem to not only permit it but willingly go along with and prefer it that way.

When I was in 2nd grade in 1959 if I'd been sent home with a book about homosexuality whose main hypothesis was that it was OK there'd have been a mob of parents with the proverbial pitchforks and torches marching on the school and some teachers gettin run out of town.

It's no longer that way. And that's the point of this thread. The schools teach things that in my 55 years of experience I don't believe most Americans think is right but they go along with it rather than speak up and suffer the pangs and arrows of PC excoriation.

SO YES! Mainstream America has lost control of our schools, of our communties and of our state and national representatives who only pay lip service to what we think. (remember the immigration bill that got shot down and how the media crowed about how it was a grass roots effort that did it - guess what - it's baaaaaack!)

[Manedwolf]

Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home.

That's right. And I think that's how it should be. Just the facts.

No "alternative lifestyles are okay"...or NOT okay....in health class. That's proselytizing.
No religious beliefs in the science classroom. Only things provable or disprovable by the scientific method, that's IT.

Schools need to be in the business of knowledge, not social engineering to any given agenda.

[Balog]

Makes me glad I was home schooled, and will be home schooling our kids.

[Paddy]

Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home.

Schools need to be in the business of knowledge, not social engineering to any given agenda.

That is, and has been, the view of the vast majority of parents for many years.  Yet the legislatures continue to impose the will of minority lobbying groups on the educational system.  They do this for money and votes.  As a result, we've got a corrupt, screwed up ed system where graduating students can't even read their own diplomas.  No child left behind and all.

Yeah, I'd say we've lost control.

[Pew pew pew]

I also don't think it's the wisest thing to be teaching kids in their formative years, since the jury's still out on whether it can, indeed, be a learned behavior, not just "genetic".

Religion is a learned behavior. I think it's prudent to have some material which promotes religious tolerance.

Thanks for making jnojr's point for him and substituting your sensibility for the sensibilities of the taxpayers in various & sundry school districts who want no part of such indoctrination.

So, if the majority of taxpayers in a certain local want your children to be "indoctrinated" in such a way, you're OK with it? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I'm just having a hard time understanding how people can completely seperate the idea of education and teaching some level of tolerance for other beliefs. Most of America is not homogenous and coming into cantact with people of differing beliefs is unavoidable. Understanding this and being able to deal with it are valuable skills.

Schools weren't always that way. Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home. Somehow the schools have co-opted the duty of parents to teach their children ethics, morality etc and unfortunately parents today seem to not only permit it but willingly go along with and prefer it that way.

Because almost everyone was Christian and followed Christian morals to some extent, correct? Not that it's a wrong thing, but there's really no need to tech any type of tolerance when all you're dealing with are people who have the same beliefs as you. With the advent of the internet, television and other media, ease of travel and cultural shiftings that we are experiencing as part of modern life, no preparing children for it in some way is, in my opinion, a disservice.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not sure that telling Billy "Hey, some people live life differently than you do" is exactly ruining his childhood. 

No one said it was.  Public schools can, and should, teach kids about the different lives people lead, without telling them to accept a behavior that most parents disapprove of.  And that's what's being discussed here.  Not just telling children what "gay" means (which really doesn't need to happen in second grade anyway) but telling them that gay is good. 

It is a normal state of human affairs. That's the reality of the United States. There is no reason people should have to hide who they prefer to have a relationship with.

File under question-begging. 

It was more geared towards people who think we should completely avoid teaching any social issues in schools. Schools are about educating out children with useful skills in order to better their lives society as a whole. How can we avoid teaching about some social issues in such an institution?

Who said schools shouldn't teach social issues?  They can teach some without getting into all of them.  They can also teach about homosexuality without indoctrinating seven-year-olds.  But why should they?  Homosexuality is not as common as you think it is. 

[wooderson]

Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home.

This is patently absurd. Morality, ethics and patriotism have been a function of education (public and private) since it became commonplace.

To those who don't want schools teaching "Heather Has Two Mommies" - should schools encourage - if not force - kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God"?

[Balog]

I've never said the pledge, and I'll be damned if I ever will.

[Paddy]

This is patently absurd. Morality, ethics and patriotism have been a function of education (public and private) since it became commonplace.

Uh, that would fall under 'civics' dontcha know.

To those who don't want schools teaching "Heather Has Two Mommies" - should schools encourage - if not force - kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God"?

Our money has the words 'under God', and yes, we should encourage patriotism for this great nation.  It is home.  Our home.  Plenty of men better than you and me have shed their blood for it.  Don't you ever forget that.

[Paddy]

I've never said the pledge, and I'll be damned if I ever will.

And you can be grateful you live in a country that affords you that freedom.

[wooderson]

Uh, that would fall under 'civics' dontcha know.

The post I responded to specifically denied their role in education's past.

Our money has the words 'under God', and yes, we should encourage patriotism for this great nation.

So there you go - this isn't an uncommon belief. When we complain about 'indoctrinating' children - whether from the right (HOMOS) or left (CORPORATIONS) - what we really mean is 'not indoctrinating them as I desire them to be.'

[Pew pew pew]

No one said it was.  Public schools can, and should, teach kids about the different lives people lead, without telling them to accept a behavior that most parents disapprove of.  And that's what's being discussed here.  Not just telling children what "gay" means (which really doesn't need to happen in second grade anyway) but telling them that gay is good.

On this point I'm going to say we may be more in agreement than it appears. Would you not agree it is prudent, however, to tell children to accept at least the fact that people are going to be Muslim, Christian, gay, whatever, without deriding them? What's so wrong with saying yes, people can be happy living a life different than yours?

How are you defining "accept a behavior"?

But why should they? Homosexuality is not as common as you think it is.

Um, not sure where that really falls into your argument.

[Balog]

I've never said the pledge, and I'll be damned if I ever will.

And you can be grateful you live in a country that affords you that freedom.

And you can be grateful I gave up years of my life and went to war so you can have the freedom to insult me. You're welcome.

[jnojr]

I'm not sure that telling Billy "Hey, some people live life differently than you do" is exactly ruining his childhood. 

No one said it was.  Public schools can, and should, teach kids about the different lives people lead, without telling them to accept a behavior that most parents disapprove of.

You're missing the bigger point.

There should be no public schools.  What your kids learn should be decided by you, not some committee of bureaucrats that's trying to be "inclusive" of every possible point of view.  If you're very religious, you should be sending your kids to a religious school.  If you're in a farming area, you should be able to send your kids to a school where they'll learn about livestock husbandry, farming, mechanical work, etc.  If it's your dream that your kid should go to college, you should be able to send your kid to a school that emphasizes a lot more "liberal arts" types of subjects.

I understand the point that "we, as a society, want an equal education for our kids".  But society should not get to determine that!  "Society" has no place telling parents what their kids will learn.  Sure, it isn't "fair" that your parents might send you to a school that emphasizes agricultural arts and that "limits your capacity for achievement".  So what?  Who ever claimed life was "fair"

The more we try to make everybody "equal", the worse society's problems will be.  We've progressed from making sure that all kids learn the three Rs, to making sure that they're all in school at the proscribed times, to making sure that they're all learning the Politically Correct topic of the week, to making sure that they're "equal" with the stupid, the drug addicted, the violent, etc.  In our attempts to treat all kids as "equal", we've dragged them all down to the lowest common denominator in hellish classrooms where the "teachers" care more about staying alive and getting their retirements than trying to teach the unteachable.

Some kids will be, and should be, "left behind", so that all of them don't wind up left behind.

[jnojr]

Would you not agree it is prudent, however, to tell children to accept at least the fact that people are going to be Muslim, Christian, gay, whatever, without deriding them? What's so wrong with saying yes, people can be happy living a life different than yours?

There are a million things that somebody, somewhere, might decide it's "prudent" that children learn.  There are so many of them, that things like the three Rs are falling by the wayside because they take too much time away from all the other stuff.

[Pew pew pew]

There should be no public schools.

See, that's a completely different argument. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I don't think that argument has anything to do with what can reasonably be expected to happen any time in the near future. Public schools aren't going away any time soon.

[Paddy]

And you can be grateful I gave up years of my life and went to war so you can have the freedom to insult me. You're welcome.

I don't understand how you've been insulted.  Nonetheless, would you care to explain why you swore the following oath:

"I, Balog, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."



And yet you 'will be damned' should you ever pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

?

[Balog]

The Reader's Digest version is that I vehemently object to the "indivisible" part. I feel it directly contradicts the intentions of the writers of the document I swore to defend.

[Tallpine]

The Reader's Digest version is that I vehemently object to the "indivisible" part. I feel it directly contradicts the intentions of the writers of the document I swore to defend.

Agreed.  The "pledge" is something that was cooked up after the War Between the States. 

Sort of a fealty pledge to a national rather than a federal govt

[Paddy]

Got it. Being a damnyankee, that never ocurred to me. 

[Perd Hapley]

Would you not agree it is prudent, however, to tell children to accept at least the fact that people are going to be Muslim, Christian, gay, whatever, without deriding them?

I don't know if you're missing the point, or just trying to put a good face on things.  At the right age level, schools can address the notion of peaceful disagreement and cooperation with different religions and different cultures.  At the right age level, they can discuss the fact that some people are homosexuals and what that means.  But jnojr and Werewolf were not talking about that.  They were specifically talking about public schools telling students that homosexuality is morally acceptable. 

What's so wrong with saying yes, people can be happy living a life different than yours?

Why would that be significant?  I think there, you would cross the line from talking about the issues to preaching. 

How are you defining "accept a behavior"?

To accept it as moral and valid.  To remove the stigma normally associated with it.  I think that's what Werewolf and jnojr were concerned about.   

But why should they? Homosexuality is not as common as you think it is.

I'm asking if it is really worth treading into the waters of the discussion on homosexuality, for the public schools.  Despite what some may imagine, I don't think most students have homosexual neighbors, or family members, or teachers, etc.  They may have homosexual classmates, I guess.  So, yes, there may be a need for talking about tolerance.  But tolerance doesn't mean that Gary's gay behavior is OK.  It just means you don't beat him up for it.  You treat with the same respect you treat anyone else.  Which, for high school students, wouldn't be very much.