Written by a 15 year old boy.

[Mangee]

Since the Pledge of Alegiance  and the Lord's Prayer are not allowed in schools anymore because the word 'God' is mentioned, a kid in Arizona wrote the attached.

                    NEW SCHOOL PRAYER

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of him very odd

If scripture now the school recites
It violates The Bill Of Rights
And any time my hide I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now

Our hair can be orange, purple or green
Thats no offense; it's a freedom scene
The law i specific the law is precise
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice

For praying in a public hall
May offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate
God's name is prohibited by the state

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks
They've outlawed guns but First the Bible
To quote the Good Book makes me liable

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen
And the 'unwed daddy' our Senior King
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong
We're taught that such 'judgements' do not belong

We can get our condoms and birth controls
Study withchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed
No word of God must reach this crowd

It's scary here I must confess
When chaos reigns the schools a mess
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot;my soul please to take!
Amen
-----------------------------------------------------------

[mrwjd]

VOR says, "No Child Left Behind" is great on paper.  But it does not look at education in a realistic manner."
_________

As with everything, Bush's approach is, I'm the king.  Let my word be done.  Districts and states are then supposed to scramble around and figure out how to do.  [“And if they succeed, I'll put my wife's name on it.”]

The first and most severe flaw was that, like almost all Bush's programs except the war in Iraq, the thing was just words, it was never funded, never intended to be. It was merely thrust on states and school districts with the message, “Don’t tell me you can’t do it. Deal!).  The program was devised to give the spacey Laura something to put her name on (something like medical reform under Hillary Clinton would have been, except that was potentially beneficial).  Democrats lacked the will and the technique to kill this useless program in the borning as Gingrich mobilized the GOP to do to medical care.  Not only did the program fail to bring new funds to education, it threatens taking away federal funding from noncomplying schools.  (Never mind that noncomplying schools are usually noncomplying BECAUSE they are in poor or underserved districts or regions, and can't do any better without more, not less funding.)

No surprise, few districts have made it work.  How could they, when in effect it is a huge financial burden on districts with inadequate funding already--not even to administer tests already written but to develop tests and testing programs?  So far as I can tell from the couple of schools where I have had business during this time, NCLB has primarily had teachers and administrators chasing their tails.  In this large district, all the programs known to have a positive effect, if not mandated by federal law, have been curtailed or eliminated because the funds to support them have had to go to NCLB testing programs.  And now, entering the phase when passing the tests is mandatory, we find that—despite the lack of reliability of the tests--a substantial portion of our kids with 12 years of education will not be able to graduate.

I have no idea what states and school districts would have done if the federal report on NSLB this year had claimed success, because they are running around frantically in an unfunded box, banging their heads against the sides, and really don't have the resources to do anything else.  Fortunately, the government's recent analysis shows definitively that NSLB has been an unequivocal bust.  There is finally hope this burden will disappear with this administration, leaving the schools to lick their wounds and try to figure out how to put their education system back together.

[Savas]

How about this;

A mandatory class in critical thinking and social/government evaluation...that one must take every year until they die. We could have classes 2 hours once every week or two. Each week you'd critique a different topic, applying the skills you've learned.

[Savas]

Education is yet another victim of spin. You're right, the "no child left behind" program is a terrible program, that just forces teachers to fast track and pass children not deserving... or worse yet, "dumb down" the curriculum so hat even my pet rock could get a passing grade.

The problem is speak out against "No child left behind" and the opposition will spin it from "Candidate doesn't support education" to "Candidate seeks to prevent education of children to aid child molesters!" or some such silliness.

Then you've got a room full of parents screaming "OH, The Children!!! Won't Someone Think Of The Children!!!" and that's it. Yet another bad program, stays in place.

A great deal of the problem is there isn't a responsible newspaper or news service that will report on all the intricacies of an issue. Frankly, they are out there, but people find them "boring" and "too complicated."

*sigh*.

Did you know that The American Education System ranked LAST in comparison with 12 other major industrial nations?

Think about that. They picked 12 nations...and we ranked last. That means we're even lower on the scale if compared to OTHER nations that weren't included in the ranking. 20th? 30th? Who knows? It's embarrassing.

No, I wasn't aware of a thread where parents were complaining about education. Where is it on and about here, mrwjd?

(BTW, we rank around 32 when it comes to health care. I think we're on par with Thailand, was it???)

[mrwjd]

What do you think about a thread addressing parents' frustration with their kids' education?  There seems to be plenty of frustration, and plenty of thoughts and ideas, to make it worthwhile.

[VOR]

IMHO:  The problem that we are facing with schools (yes, I think the door was reopened here) is that they are being regulated too heavily by the government . . . ooops, I did it again!  "No Child Left Behind" is great on paper.  But it does not look at education in a realistic manner.  Most of the work I do is in schools and I've had the fortune to work with a lot of different schools and teachers across the socioeconomic spectrum.  

When you teach critical thinking, you are teaching someone to look at an issue from all sides, analyze the information, and come to a logical conclusion/decision.  Teachers are not being given the latitude to do this.  They are mandated to teach kids how to take standardized tests.  Why?  Because their jobs depend on how successful the passing percentage is for the school.  The idea is that the teacher is responsible for teaching the kids what they need to succeed.  This is partially correct.  But the teachers only have the kids for about 7 hours a day.  What's happening when the kids leave school?  Many go home, sit in front of the idiot box, computer, or game station for a few hours.  Many parents are not working with the kids to help them.  So when a child is taught a subject, it's not reinforced, they take and fail a test, the school and teacher are blamed.

What bothers me is that no one wants to step up to the plate and hold parents/care givers accountable for reinforcing what's being taught at school.  No one wants to hold parents/care givers accountable for the children's behavior.  We are too busy trying to be PC and put the blame/responsibility on others.  I've seen countless cases where the schools are afraid to stand up to parents whose children have discipline problems.  The school usually backs down b/c they don't want the hassle of law suits.  

Okay, let me get down from my soapbox.    

[mrwjd]

"Teach people how to THINK and PROCESS information... how to recognize spin when they see it... and you may have a fighting chance"
____

There's a name for that, more than one:  critical thinking/analytical thinking, critical reading.  Remember when you studied that in school?

Me, either.  

When my big kids were in school, the district (subsuming most of the city) introduced a curriculum in critical reading, although they called it something different.  It came with boxes full of resources--looked like it was going to be good.  It lasted a few weeks, during which my primary observation was, in a little while the teachers will get it and then the kids will learn it.  Then it went away and never came back.  

The story was that the state legislature had ordained another patriotism exercise (I believe that made four) and the only place they could possibly steal the time from the school day (everything else was important) was the slot formerly occupied by critical reading.  

Since then, every year I have a kid in public school, I go to the first meeting of the year.  If the teacher opens the floor by asking what the parents would like to see, it's my opportunity to say, "critical thinking."  From the response, at least 3/4 don't even know what it is, or what its synonyms are.  

[Savas]

That is a time honored tradition that's been used...well...forever. Say it until everyone thinks it's true!!!

I think a lot of it is people want to believe what the WANT to be true. Spin is taking this statement to a scientific level.

I was just commenting on this on another thread. The best way to fight this is preparation through early education. Teach people how to THINK and PROCESS information... how to recognize spin when they see it... and you may have a fighting chance.

[mrwjd]

Oral Roberts saying that if he did not get 7million dollars by June the Lord was going to take him home.
_______________

At the time, I was ready to concede that the Lord needed Oral Roberts much more than we did here on earth.

Turns out I was right.  Have you read anything about the no-law school he founded later?  Putting out plenty of new lawyers to oppose the First Amendment; they are already turning up in the Bush White House, without experience or ability but thoroughly trained to attack, like trained dogs, any remaining tatter of the First Amendment they come across.


Your post addresses one of the great phenomena of the new 21st Century, one that makes me nuts and almost wipes out any faith I might have retained in humans.  Another Rovian concept, at least as practiced now:  Look them in the eye and lie, lie, lie.  Say it until it's true.  Don't answer questions, don't argue points, just say it again and again.  Knowing that some of the faces into which you are lying know the topic much better than you, and know you are lying, and many of the others will know it later, just don't flinch.  Lie, lie, lie.  And then, one day, it'll sound like truth.  [The most incredible practitioner of this policy to my mind, besides Rove himself, is Condoleeza Rice.  She'll say anything, over and over, even when the whole country knows it's false.]

It works because, for whatever reason, we are just plain gullible, and we don't seem to be able to outgrow it.

I have to warn that I'm not done, but I am done for, for tonight.  If I don't see you, have a dramatic 4th.

[Mangee]

The mind is a wonderful mechanism when, if used right can do wonders. However I back away when I see thingsnsuch as Oral Roberts saying that if he did not get 7million dollars by June the Lord was going to take him home. This was a few years back and he got the money because all the believers cashed in their bonds etc, to keep him alive. His son is all of a sudden a faith healer. All healers act exactly the same. The healer places his hand on the ill (supposedly) person, shouts, "Heal," and the healed falls backward, eyes rolling and then suddenly stands erect and begins running, jumping and dancing around the hall, shouting, "I am healed." It never occurs to anyone that a person who has supposedly been in a wheelchair fot many many years would have the strength in those stick like legs to dance and jump and run. Any doctor will tell you,"Impossible," You will notice that at no time do they do this to children with neurological problems. Who would have more faith than an innocent child? If the miracle was authentic, mothers would be lining up their children to be healed. The cured is always an adult. As a parent, if this were true and I had a child that was wheelchair bound, had cerebreal palsy or any type of drastic disease, I would be knocking down doors and offering every thing I own to have my child healed. This never happens because the healer knows that no one has more faith and more willingness to be healed than an innocent child. The failure would expose the healer as a fake and he would no doubt say it failed because the child did not believe. The electronic evengelist and the like were once known as,"Snake oil salesmen." they have since broadened their scope knowing from experience, trial and error that,as Barnum used to say,"There is a sucker born every minute." It is not only the Electronic Evangelists that believe that saying. The oill companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the super grocery stores, the government etc.etc.etc.have all shown that what Barnum said is a monumental truth. What is the average man's answer to this,"Well, what can I do about it?"

[VOR]

You beat me to the punch on this one.  I was laboring over the right words, but didn't get them out in time.  I too, agree that there are cases of miraculous healing, however, far too often the "healing preachers" have contracted agents in the audience, ready-willing-and-able to act out the part of a needy invalid.  This is scary b/c many live through ignorant belief/hope.  

Endorphins (a.k.a. endogenous morphine), adrenaline, seratonin, norepinephrine, and so on play a huge role in how people feel, both physically and mentally.  That being said, I do believe that there are cases where there just is no logical explanation of a miraculous healing.  With all the research and knowledge we have, we still can’t explain even a fraction of why the body can do what it can do.  I believe it is possible that someone can “will” themselves back to health.  The mind is a powerful tool!

[Savas]

Hey, my favorite Indian restaurant does that! They've got dusty old Christmas lights in the shape of jalapeno peppers hanging from the ceiling inside. It's been that way for over 15 years.
Despite the horrible decor *the lights, the exposed pipes, the cheap tables) they make the best food. Cheap, too. :)  )

-----
I've read quite a bit on faith healing in the past. Once you get past the obvious con's of plants in the audience and the like, there are documented results for it's success.  However, the scientific supporting evidence is that the healing is either of two types; either physiological conditions that have left psychological impressions, or a temporary endorphin rush that overpowers the system causing the illusion of healing.

In the former case, the person's condition has lessened over time but they're "used to" the infirmity and have convinced themselves it still exists.

The latter is the one that upsets doctors the most. There've been reports of people with conditions who were "healed"... got up and ran about...only to cause injury to themselves that after the adrenaline rush receded showed up after a good night's sleep.

I'm not disputing the possibility of miracles here, I'm just saying this is commonly what happens when you see "real faith healing" on t.v.

[mrwjd]

I agree with you--it would be very interesting to know what is going on before and after the faith healing episode.  After all, just a tiny fraction of a percent of wheelchair-bound people are healed; what traits have they in common?

Specifically, first I'd ask what is the situation before the incident?  Are these people able to move from wheelchair to bed or to toilet on their own?  If so, they may have the capacity to stand for a few seconds (which is really all we see before the pastor sweeps them up in a celebratory embrace).  I'm sure these people are screened carefully for the physical capability of standing briefly.  

Hysterical paralysis would be perfect, if the preacher could be certain of its lifting at the right moment.  Trouble is, hysterical illnesses aren't usually very cooperative.

I've seen only vignettes of these programs, I have seen the actual healing a couple of times, but I don't think (you may know for sure) that they show the healed person walking out at the end with his or her friends and relatives, do they?  (Of course, blindness and deafness is easier, but also less dramatic; it relies on the acting ability of the person showing surprise and excitement.)

Second, if I were this pastor, my most coveted guest spots would be annual appearances by the healed people, walking in under their own power.  Does that ever happen?  Is there ever any mention of what happened to these people?

Answers to those questions would go far in answering your final question.  Otherwise, like science fiction fans, the audience will just have to suspend disbelief for the duration.

[Mangee]

I live across from a very large apartment complex that has many seniors. On any night of any week you can see the Christmas lights blazing. There is nothing wrong with having the lights and to light them as you wish. It is the perogative of the person. Yet, it seems to annoy some people who point and shake their heads. If you enjoy  it, why not? Many businesses have graffiti deliberately painted on their buildings and no one takes offense unless it is a painting of a religious nature. When that happens all hell breaks loose. It seems that no matter what we do, someone will take offense. We have a church here with a large painted face depicting Jesus Christ and it sparked a controversy that is still simmering. As a person of the Jewish faith I do not find it offensive,. As a matter of fact it is a very fine painting an I would applaud it regardless of what the painting depicted. The artist did a commendable job of illustration and it should be looked at as a work of art nothing more but, seeing as it is a religious painting, the pros and cons are hard at work commending or condemning it. In many cases ,when someone starts a movement against something or other, the underlying reason is to make money off of the ignorant. A perfect example is the electronic preachers, all of whom received word from the powers above telling them that they were chosen to lead. Women in wheel chairs who's legs were mere sticks from years of non use suddenly get up run and dance and shout high praises to the evangelist. People with tumors (supposedly) are instantly cured etc. etc. etc. All this for the money that the ignorant willingly give in the hope that they too will be cured. So, what do you think? Is it really real or fake, hmnnn?

[MJIthewriter]

They do it here in the Midwest...although I haven't observed anyone recently keep their lights on in the summer.  I used to eat at a restaurant that always had x-mas lights on...they did that for quite a few years and the lights got dusty. With the outdoor lights and decorations I think part of it is the weather...  Who wants to freeze their *** off in potentially 0to -20 degrees putting up the lights around December and then taking them down in January?  I know I wouldn't...  I'd probably put them up some time in September when the weather is nice and out of laziness leave them up...

Savas, let us know how that works out and how many children you frighten in the process.

[cattalina]

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading the debate that went on here.  I have no intention of stating my opinion, as I did read every word of the previous posts and would be afraid to debate with the intelligence I've seen!!    And other than the enjoyment factor, I wanted to give kudos on quickly diffusing a possibly messy situation... Who said drug addicts shouldn't be in politics?!?!? :)

[Savas]

Heh heh... I suppose it isn't Christmas's fault. It's the bad economy. businesses are so desperate to generate revenue that they'd have Christmas sales all year round if they thought they could get away with it.

Hey, I never said the puritans where the nicest people in the world, just that they were some of the first to come here and start America. I've got some Celtic ancestors I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley after midnight, but I'm still proud of a great deal of what they did. :)

How about I go as "Santa Claws" on holloween? I'll dress up as Freddy Kruger in a Santa costume. :)

[mrwjd]

Here in the Southwest, many people do leave their lights up all year, and light them whenever they feel like it.  [e.g., you're having a party in July, "You can't miss it.  My house will be the one with the Xmas lights."]  Mexican restaurants particularly are prone to do that--Christmas every time you go there.  It seemed odd at first, but now I kind of like it.

Your Halloween idea is cute.  Maybe this year we'll dress one of the dogs in the Santa Claus doggie outfit.  My grandson is due on Halloween, and if he is born then (not that anyone is actually born on the due date), he is in for a difficult life!  (Before we knew the sex, I suggested if it were a girl, Tabitha was a good Halloween name.  My son and dil just looked at me, and not with filial respect.)

[MJIthewriter]

I've seen decorations up as late as July or longer. What would you say about that?  Some people leave their lights on their house (not lit up) all year long.

Yeah I'm straying from the topic I'm sure. I agree about the Christmas being over commercialized... Some point I thought it'd be an awesome idea for someone to dress up for Halloween as Santaclaus and give out Christmas candy.

[mrwjd]

"founded by protestants seeking refuge from persecution"

Talking with my son just today about Lord Baltimore, who brought persecuted Catholics to Maryland, one of two Catholic colonies.  Puritans, of course, in Mass. where, in a religious fervor, they murdered the old, ugly, unmarried, impoverished women without sons--after which Massachusetts' teenaged girls were never again hormonal or histrionic.

In Rhode Island, Roger Williams (a clergyman of the Church of England) was possibly the only founder who "got" the concept of religious tolerance.  In his later years, his colonists became annoyed with him because, when they were out and about in the town, they saw Quakers and other strange people just walking down the street, like anybody.  

That wasn't why they drove him out of Providence, though; he brought that on himself by continually suggesting to the younger town and church leadership that they honor the treaties he had--at great personal risk and effort--obtained with the Indians.  So 16th century of him!  The old guy had to go, together with his old wife and eight adult children--I'm sure it was just coincidence that his Providence home with most of his papers burned to the ground after they were gone, leaving the thin book of real religious tolerance in the colonies scarcely more than empty covers.

(In fairness, my son the historian thinks it wasn't quite that bleak--he thinks the Catholic colonies tolerated other religions, as well.  A second opinion.)  

[Savas]

Heh heh...I have to ask. Just what exactly is a sablezen? It sounds like a very sleek, pet-able enlightened cat. :)

Hey, I can jump across the fence like the best of 'em. I could argue that this country was founded by protestants seeking refuge from persecution and that a large part of the populace was christian then. So Allowing the putting up of Christmas trees on public/ city grounds is really just a recognition of our founding father's belief system. :)

Personally, I don't have a problem with that one. As long as it's done tastefully, of course. My biggest problem is that half the time the decorations are a garish eye sore. Walking through Battery Park Center downtown is literally a visual and aural assault.

And for the love of God, take those decorations down within a reasonable time! If your tree is still up in march, you're missing the point!!! :)

My biggest problem with Christmas is they've commercialized it to death. Stores start advertising Christmas sales before thanksgiving and turn the whole holiday into a meaningless bonanza of shopping desperation.

[mrwjd]

"For example, near where I live - until December 17, 2004 in Pasco County, Florida there was a law banning the display of Christmas trees in county facilities..."
_____

Well, this isn't what you said earlier.  This is a whole different thing.  You have the right to put just about anything on your lawn, but not so much on mine--which is far from not being allowed to have Christmas decorations.

Since county property is not yours, or not entirely--a little bit yours, a little bit mine--your rights to do things to that are different.  You see, if a religious group usurps the county's land for its religious observance, you are also putting that on MY (undivided) piece of the land, which prevents me from using my undivided portion of the common land for the historic use for which village commons were set aside in the first place, stabling my horse.  Then you and I, each owning about a divided hundredth of one percent of the commons, have a dispute going about the use of our common land, and pretty soon the owners of the other 99.98% undivided interests are in the fight, and then it’s a great big mess.

Let’s suppose that to advance my argument, I assert that the use for which I call the land is a higher use, and has priority—in this case, because it is the original purpose to which the land was dedicated by the village.  Then I’m saying, in effect, that your wish to use it is subservient to mine, so you have to go away, and I’ll be right down with my horse on a rope so she can eat the grass and fertilize it and put the land to the original use.  

Meanwhile, a  bunch of other part-owners get together and decide they like it the way it is, when they are in town they like to see an expanse of green in the summer and undisturbed snow in the winter.  They don’t want it interrupted by either your display or my horse.  Now, their wishes are contrary to both yours and mine, and they have, say, 50 owners in their group.  You see where this is going, right?

That’s the only reason I thought you were setting up a straw man, because it sounded like you were saying you couldn’t put your religious displays on YOUR OWN land, and I thought some of the readers were erroneously taking it that way.  Naturally, that argument would get you support from me and just about anyone.  It’s an argument you win, hands down, but it’s not your original argument.  

I answered as I did because I was afraid some of the readers read it that way, and would go away with the idea that they couldn’t put religious displays on their own land, which would of course support a thesis of religious persecution, and might discourage them from the private use and enjoyment of their own property.  Only it ISN’T the real argument, is it, it’s a straw man, which is fine so long as everyone understands the outcome can’t be applied to public land, which has nothing to do with private land.  

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

[MJIthewriter]

Wow that is well written. Good observation from that 15 year old. Too true and sad...

[SableZen]

I agree the government is interfering with individual practices by the passing of those laws. Heck, a lot of what you posted were further examples of the government passing laws prohibiting religious expression that I could have included earlier as examples.

In the case of abortion/gay marriage - I agree completely with what you wrote. (See, I can be reasonable. lol)

[SableZen]

There is a lot of commonality. Just an impasse when one side wants to completely dismiss the other as being completely inconsequential and not seek compromise. That's the root of the problem - neither side wants to compromise and instead resorts to passing/supporting laws to 'win' the argument.

This is the same principle/argument that revolves around the Patriot Act (and something that was hinted at earlier). The 'right' claims the laws are to protect the US, the 'left' says the laws simply take away liberties and are more harmful to the US. Although in the case of religion, the 'left' and 'right' sides are ironically switched with the 'left' claiming the laws protect the US and the 'right' claim the laws simply take away liberties.

It's a non-ending process with no moral high ground that just results in more and more laws and challenges to the constitution. At some point we just have to decide that passing all these federal/constitutional laws is almost always going to end with the result of taking liberty away from people across the board - not uphold liberty... and likewise, limiting government involvement (specifically federal involvement) with the passing of laws as much as possible ensures the greatest chance of continuing liberty.

The closer compromise is worked out to the personal level the better - the US is a republic for a reason and was designed to handle things in a better way than this.

I hope that maybe this response better explains my position and I'll be forgiven for posting again. lol