Ladies:

Since I work for a Christian organization, I am very interested in this topic. I'll get into the bulk of this down below.

But I did want to weigh in on this much: We need to fix the public school system . NOW.

I am a survivor product of the California public school system, when it was considered of the better ones--if not the best--in the country.

They spent time trying to not warp my cute little personality. 8)

They spent time trying to make me feel good about myself. ;D

They spent time trying to make me a good citizen.

Get this, please:

WHAT THEY DIDN'T SPEND TIME ON WAS TEACHING ME BASIC STUFF, LIKE ENGLISH, MATH, SCIENCES, AND HISTORY. I was basically self-taught from high school on, because my teachers, by and large, were interested mostly in living one more day, and possibly seeing retirement.

I am not sure that private schools are the answer...but if they teach our kids what they need to live and succeed in today's world, then it's worth the money spent. Oh, and by the way, not all private schools are religious in nature...nor should they be.

Now, for the rest of the story: Stevie has mentioned that the Government shall not have a "state" religion. Nor should we. It is indeed the cornerstone of democracy. It is designed to be freedom OF religion…not FROM religion. You may not agree with my religion…but then I may not agree with yours, either. If one wants to howl at the moon when it’s full and call that their religion, okay. I don’t have to like it, but if that’s your bag, as an American, I will defend your right to do so. (Some would say that, as Trannies, we have our own religion. I’m not going there…for now.)

It is also quite correct that our elected officials --like any other citizen--will bring in their morals and beliefs into public office with them. The real issue is not that some of these people have "Christian" values, it is that, at its very core, Christianity is a very exclusive religion, and that rubs our inclusive fur the wrong way. Jesus said "I AM the way, the truth, and the life. NO MAN comes to the Father except through Me". Americans HATE this...it's too narrow a focus. It smacks of elitism. It doesn’t include everyone. (By the way, neither Islam or Judaism include everyone. But those are much more “PC”.)

Let me put it this way: Let us presume--for the moment--that we were colonized, not by Europeans, but by Asians. That would give us all a background in Buddhism and possibly Shintoism. As we went along our way, we got further and further from what was practiced 200 years prior. Now, we have just elected officials who hold to some of those values. Don't you think that we would be up in arms? "How narrow! Why, there is Judaism, and Christianity to consider! Much less Islam and Hinduism! Why just this focus on this one narrow way to enlightenment? It’s not fair!" Can you see where the argument is?

So...the real issue to me is not the "intrusion" of religion into politics...it's the exclusion of what was, at the time, the moral basis of the Founding Fathers. All one has to do to see that removing that moral basis--regardless of where or what religion it was--was a bad idea...is to pick up a newspaper. You can't convince me that the world is getting "better all the time."


Luv' n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

You have a good point, Kelly Leigh.  In many ways, they are the same.  But religions are even better than governments at enforcing conformity - our nominally democratic governments are too bureaucratic to enforce conformity efficiently.  Allowing certain religions to control the government would be very bad for those of us who are "different".

Heather H.

I kinda thought they were the same thing they both thrive off our money and try to conform us to thier idea of what they think is "normal".

                                 kelly

My enquiring mind is now going to try and find out exactly what is meant by the term politics.
Sue.

**sighs...** BLONDES!

Okay Suekie, just for you, courtesy of Mr. Webster:

"Politics"
Definition of the word:  pol•i•tics
Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political
Date: circa 1529
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2 : political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4 : the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics>.

...Now, aren't you sorry you asked?

Luv' n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

This is a brief response to Stevie's statement about private schools.

While I generally believe that the government has gotten too big, education is too important to be turned over entirely to the private sector.

I worry that it would become similar to the health care situation - only those who have the financial means would be able to get a good education.

Privatizing the schoold might not necessarily be bad, but the government would have to guarantee that everyone would have a place in the schools, and that viable non-religious options are available to everyone.  I can see a situation develop where the only schools in a particular region are religious schools, requiring all children to be educated in a particular religion.  That would not be appropriate.

Heather H.

Jayne... I'm not used to agreeing with everything you say in a post, so I'm too stunned to respond, other than to say Amen!


Stevie:

See? I told you we agreed on more than you thought! ;D

Luv' n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Elected officials, of course, have their personal values and they will use them in their decision making.  That is fine, provided that they do not seriously infringe on the rights of others.

The problem that occurs when the government sponsors prayer is that a decision must be made as to which sort of prayer will be said.  This cannot possibly include everybody.  Since the government sponsors the prayer, it amounts to an official sponsorship of whatever religion that prayer represents.  In Utah, where the Mormon church is dominant, prayer in these situations is inevitably Mormon-influenced.  The culture here is seriously divided along religious lines.  This is precisely the situation that leads to violence in other countries.  The hatred on both sides of this divide is so great that I am surprised that violence has not already erupted.  If the government in Utah makes the appearance of taking sides in this divide, the damage to the relationship between Mormons and non-Mormons can be severe and can take years to heal.

Before school prayer was ruled unconstitutional, Mormon prayer were routine in Utah's public schools, and those who objected or refused to participate were ridiculed.  This sort of religious activity in the schools does not help instill morals in children - it simply gives people an excuse to persecute minorities.

Here is a recent example.  On either side of Main Street, between North Temple Street and South Temple Street, right at the center of town, the LDS Church owns the blocks.  On the west side is Temple Square, and on the east side is their office complex.  A few years ago, the city decided to sell that block of Main Street to the church, so that they could build a plaza at that location.  The city retained an easement guaranteeing 24-hour pedestrian access across the property, but the church was allowed to restrict the speech, appearance, and behavior of people crossing on the easement.

This deal was made largely behind closed doors, with very little public comment.  By the time anyone could react, the deal was done.  Naturally, it ended up in the courts.  The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the easement restrictions unconstitutional, so at present, the First Amendment applies to the easement.  Naturally, numerous demonstrators have flocked to the property to loudly exercise their rights.  Now, the city is considering giving up the easement.  If they do this, there will be more court battles.

This whole episode stirred up a great deal of hatred, setting back relations between Mormons and non-Mormons, which had been gradually improving.  To the non-Mormons, Salt Lake City was giving the LDS Church preferential treatment.  To the Mormons, this formerly public street had become private property, so their church should be able to restrict behavior.  Appearances were not helped by the fact that the vote on the City Council to approve the sale was 5-2:  5 Mormons vs. 2 non-Mormons.

Remember that this was not just a minor street.  It was Main Street, a major public access way.  I personally believe that government entities should be severely restricted in their ability to sell off major public thoroughfares.  The Supreme Court has agreed with this concept in the past.

This is what happens when the government gives preferential treatment to a church.  The hatred that was stirred up by this ill-thought-out action was not worth the few million dollars the city received in the sale.

This sale affected trannies in the area.  The LDS Church does not approve of us at all.  Trannies have been ejected from their properties around the temple, and at least until the courts ruled the easement restrictions unconstitutional, trannies (and others whom the LDS Church deems undesirable) were prohibited from using the public easement to cross from one side of the plaza to the other.  The government must not be allowed to give preferential treatment to this or any other church.

In conclusion, the only legitimate way for the government to operate is to be religion-neutral.  The alternative would result in the persecution of religious minorities and ultimately violence.

Heather H.

When I grew up in England, the state run schools were all church of England with morning prayer and religious instruction as part of the curriculum, I don`t know if it made us better citizens or not, the soviet union banned religion completely when Stalin came to power after world war 2 because he was afraid of the influence of the church on the people.
I really don`t believe it matters what religion you choose to follow or not, it is the kind of person  you are that counts and what you do for others, I have met too many people that say they are christians just because they go to church on sunday, and it doesn`t matter that they lie,cheat and steal the other 6 days of the week.
At least we live in a society wher we have freedom of choice such as it is, I read recently about a group of young men in Saudi Arabia that got caught wearing women`s clothing (I think they were indoors, I can`t see anyone wanting to wear those things the women wear on the streets over there) these kids were sentenced to 8years in jail and 2000 lashes each, the floggings to be given in 50 sessions of 50 lashes at a time with a month in between each sessions.

Thanks, Katie, for setting up this board.  Now I can rant and rave about some of my favorite subjects.

Here is one of my favorites:  the mixing of religion and politics.

In the United States, there is a strong legal separation between religion and government.  Here is the full text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Later amendments (specifically the 14th) and interpretations have caused the First Amendment to be applied to all levels of government, not just Congress.

In the U.S., the First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts, basically prohibits the government from shoving religion down people's throats.  Therefore, the government cannot specifically endorse or fund any religion.  Organized prayer and religious instruction and prohibited from the public schools.  Recently, government displays of monuments to the Ten Commandments have been challenged in court, and the courts have ordered them removed.  But a few minor religious endorsements still sneak through.  A motto on our money reads, "In God We Trust."  And the statement, "under God," (which I refuse to recite) was added to our Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's.  Public prayer still persists in some government meetings.

As you can probably tell, I believe strongly in the separation of government and religion.  The government must be religion-neutral.  It should not specifically endorse any religion, and it should not prohibit any religious activity, unless that activity causes serious harm to others.

In the U.S., there are a number of religious fanatics, supported by simpletons such as George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, who desparately wish to remake the U.S. as a nation that specifically endorses Christianity (their particular brand of Christianity, of course).  These people are nuts, and they must be stopped.  It would certainly be bad for trannies, homosexuals, religious minorities, and others in the U.S. if they succeed.

--------------

I am curious about the state of affairs in other countries.  My research shows that the U.S. has a greater degree of legal separation of government and religion than most, if not all, of the world's other nations.  What is the state of affairs in the UK, and in other countries where TrannyWeb members reside?

Heather H.

Umm... did I mention that I'm a capitalist?  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

If all schools were private, we'd have plenty of non-religious schools. There are too many parents who would want them, and the market would meet that demand. Some areas would have more religious schools than others, but this is a free country, after all, and all places aren't the same. The local communities vary.

Obviously, I'm a purist when it comes to capitalism, but government schools is one issue which I do think straddles the fence that divides social programs from necessary functions of government. Therefore, if someone can show me a way to make them work, I'll consider supporting them. Perhaps a feasible compromise (in the absence of government schools) would be to offer partial (or, in some cases, full) vouchers for those families who can't afford private schools, but there would be a lot of details to work out. However, I'm still inclined to believe that we'd be better off without government schools.

As I mentioned earlier, one reason I'm against government schools (often called public schools in the USA, but the fact is that they are government-run, government-funded schools, so I call them what they are) is that there will always be disagreements over school policies, and we can't please everyone, even though our government schools are under local (state, county, & city) control. Just imagine how bad things would be if they were all under direct federal control. Ugh! Another reason I'm against them is that I see government schools as another social program creating more dependency on the government. Also, I have to pay taxes to support those schools and I don't have any children. I don't like having to support someone else's family when I have bills of my own to pay. If you're going to have kids, you send them to school yourself. Why should you expect others to pay for your children's tuition?

Now, here's the "straddle the fence" part. A common response I get to that is: "But Stevie, ensuring that our children are educated is in our nation's best interest, and all citizens benefit from an educated population, just as we all benefit from road systems, police forces, the military, court houses, government offices, etc. Ensuring the education of children is a necessary role of government, not a social program." I have to admit that I don't completely disagree with that logic. Yes, I do agree that government has a role to play in ensuring that children are educated, but does that mean government is supposed to run schools?

Heather suggested that education and heath care are similar, in that education is "...too important to be turned over entirely to the private sector," and that "only those who have the financial means would be able to get a good education." Ricka went even further, saying "Universal, free, public education is at the very cornerstone of democracy.  Losing it, or weakening it in any way would be a tragedy beyond measure." Well, I think education and health care are important, but aren't there more important things in life? Aren't food and water more important? After all, if you starve to death, your quality of education doesn't really matter. If we're paying to educate children, why aren't we paying to feed them year-round? If we want guaranteed health care for everyone, why not guaranteed food for everyone?

My point is that I believe parents, not society at large, have to be responsible for their own children. Food, clothing, shelter, security, and education are things that all parents owe their children. They assume that responsibility to provide when they decide to reproduce, because children simply can't provide for themselves. Parents should think carefully about the obligations they're accepting before starting families. If you can't afford to provide those things, don't have kids, and don't expect me to pay for your decisions with my tax dollars. I need my money, too.

I think parents could afford to pay for their children's education if they weren't taxed into the ground. The same amount of money used by the average school system to educate their children could be better spent when the parents have to write the checks themselves. They'd shop for the best value, getting the best education at the best price, and they'd have extra incentive to get involved with their children and their teachers. Yes, the wealthier parents will be able to afford the best schools at any price, but that's the case now. Just because some schools are more expensive doesn't mean they are necessarily better, and just because some schools are better doesn't mean the others are bad. Bad private schools will go out of business. Harvard and Yale are two of the best universities in the USA, but does that fact make other universities worthless? I think not.

As for government's role, parents should be required to care for their own children, including educating them. When parents abuse or neglect their children, then, yes, we should step in and do something, and we can only do so with governmental authority. That's nothing new, though. You might think I'm being harsh in saying that parents who can't afford to send their kids to school are abusive/neglectful and should have their children taken away, but don't we already do that if parents can't afford to feed their children? I think it's a matter of personal responsibility, and how much we want to hold citizens accountable for their own actions.

I don't consider the current situation acceptable, but maybe you think things are just fine the way they are. If you can show me a better way, though, I'm listening. By "better," I mean better than what we have now and an alternative to what I've suggested.

"Curiouser and curiouser",said Alice.

I don't see the word religion anywhere.Which leads me to the conclusion that the two are in fact seperate entities.
So would the government and it's representatives please keep out of religion,and the religious please keep out of politics and practice the tolerance they preach towards their fellow man.
I for my part will take on their role,and do as I bl**dy well like.

Sue.

In the USA, our Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. As you can read in Heather's post above, congress shall not establish an official national religion, but that doesn't mean church and state much be kept separate. It just depends on the cultural attitude of the population at any given point in time as to how much religion will play a part in the way we run the country. Personally, I'm all for the First Amendment, but I'm just saying that separation, per se, is not required by the Constitution.

Have our government schools suffered as a result of the removal of religious influences from the classroom? Yes, I think so. I think political correctness has also had a major negative influence on the way we deal with children. We can't tell them they're wrong, we can't punish them, we no longer say the Pledge of allegiance, football teams don't say pre-game prayers anymore, etc. Our children aren't taught respect anymore, and they don't fear getting in trouble.

I'm not a religious person, and I'm not a member of any organized religion. I was brought up in a Methodist Christian environment, but as an adult, I don't care for religious group think. I'm not saying it's wrong for others, but it's just not for me. I do believe that there is some force behind the symmetry and order I observe in the known universe, but whether that's God in the Christian sense is another discussion.

Even though I don't share the exact same beliefs as many others who consider themselves Christians (or at least I don't believe those things in the same way), I do think that religion has had a positive influence on Western culture. Yes, there's been plenty of violence in the name of religion, but religion also keeps people in line when laws don't, and as far as I'm concerned, human civilization is still in its infancy and very much in need of the spiritual discipline that only religion can offer.

Regarding the USA, our country, Constitution, government, and our whole culture come from Christianity, and our legal system is based primarily on the Ten Commandments. There's absolutely no way to completely separate our government from religion, nor should that be considered a necessary goal. I'm with you all the way in preventing government from establishing a state religion or prohibiting us from practicing any religion that doesn't violate the rights and/or safety of others, but in 2003, I don't think humans are capable of handling a religion-free society. Most of our elected officials do have religious beliefs, and they bring those beliefs with them when they take office. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, though, and we shouldn't consider that a threat to the First Amendment.

Getting back to the government schools, what bothers me is that whatever political fads our government gets caught up in from time to time are reflected in our schools. That's one of the reasons I think all schools should be private. Parents who prefer religious upbringing for their kids can  send them to schools that incorporate religion in the daily routine, and parents who prefer a more secular environment can send their kids elsewhere. Sure, we can do that now, but without government schools, we avoid the whole problem of mixing government with religion in the area of education. I'm not a parent, but my tax dollars are currently being used in ways that don't impress me.

The reason I used schools as an example is to demonstrate that the more government gets involved in our lives, the more we'll see individual citizens get upset about government policies. Those who run government at any given time will have their own beliefs, and those beliefs will be apparent in their policies. The more we rely on government programs, the more we'll see those beliefs filtered down to us. I think the solution is not to try to rid politicians of their personal beliefs, but to rid our society of government involvement in every little facet of our lives. I don't think there's any more religion involved in our government now as opposed to any time before, I just think religious influences show up more because the size and scope of our government has gotten out-of-hand over the course of the twentieth century. Of course, that helped usher in political correctness, in a misguided attempt to ensure that no one was ever offended by anything at any time. As we know, that's impossible.

Jayne... I'm not used to agreeing with everything you say in a post, so I'm too stunned to respond, other than to say Amen!


Suekie, I agree with you and Henry Higgins (from My Fair Lady):


Henry Higgins: (to Pickering) Look at her, a prisoner of the gutter,
Condemned by every syllable she ever uttered.
By law she should be taken out and hung,
For the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.

Eliza Doolittle: Aaoooww!

Henry: imitating her Aaoooww!

Heaven's! What a noise!
This is what the British population,
Calls an elementary education.

Colonel Pickering: Oh, Counsel, I think you picked a poor example.

Henry: Did I?

Hear them down in Soho square,
Dropping "h's" everywhere.
Speaking English anyway they like.
You sir, did you go to school?

Man: Wadaya tike me for, a fool?

Henry: No one taught him 'take' instead of 'tike!

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
This verbal class distinction, by now, should be antique.
(to Pickering) If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do,
Why, you might be selling flowers, too!

Hear a Yorkshireman, or worse,
Hear a Cornishman converse,
I'd rather hear a choir singing flat.
Chickens cackling in a barn just like this one!

Eliza: Garn!

Henry: (to Pickering) I ask you, sir, what sort of word is that?
It's "Aoooow" and "Garn" that keep her in her place;
Not her wretched clothes and dirty face.

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
This verbal class distinction by now should be antique.
If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do,
Why, you might be selling flowers, too.

An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him,
The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him.
One common language I'm afraid we'll never get.
Oh, why can't the English learn to set...

A good example to people whose English is painful to your ears?
The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.
There even are places where English completely disappears.
In America, they haven't used it for years!

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks have taught their Greek.
In France every Frenchman knows his language fro "A" to "Zed"
(The French never care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce it properly.)

Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning.
And Hebrews learn it backwards, which is absolutely frightening.
But use proper English you're regarded as a freak.
Oh, why can't the English...
Why can't the English learn to speak?

Reading this made me extremely aware of how little I know about this subject.However,I can start a UK reply by saying that we have a more complex system here.
The queen is nominally(generally approves the governments latest policies,with,technically,a veto) the head of state.
The queen is the head of the Church.
The monarchy is hereditary.
The government is elected.

Get out of that

I've dug myself a hole.Help me out someone.

Sue.X

I have to agree that somewhere along the PC line that for some time educaton seems to have lost the plot.
Excluding those whose first language is not English,you only have to look at many posts on t-web to realise that the 3 'R's have been seriuosly neglected.I don't claim to be perfect,but I have had difficulty understanding some peoples writings.Actually,the 'foreigners'(no offense) English is often better!
However,and I can only speak for my local area,schools seem to treating religion as a 'subject'.As far as I can gather, not only are they taught Christianity,but also the basic beliefs of others.This in a region where non-whites are still quite rare.Surely only good can come of that? I was baptised Christian,,because my parents were,and theirs,and so on.I would have preferred an option.Maybe I would have taken up somethhing else,if I had known anything about it.
Now,if someone would kindly exlain why there is any connection between religion and government,I would be glad to hear it.
My enquiring mind is now going to try and find out exactly what is meant by the term politics.
Sue.