re: r/teachers - "it's over"

quote:

---

theocracy is where the state and the church are essentially the same thing. That isn’t necessary. For example, our own government called the nation to days of prayer without being a theocracy. There can be separate roles for church and state without the state being entirely secular.

---

When you start promoting one religion over another, where do you see that heading down the line?

There’s no need for it. Religion should be handled in the home.

quote:

---

Religion should be handled in the home.

---

It’s impossible to teach from a morally-neutral perspective. Some sort of morality is going to be taught. There’s a lot to commend for morality in the 10 commandments.

quote:

---

Only part I have a problem with is the ten commandments.

---

Separation of church and state. Forcing schools to push Christianity is against the Constitution.

quote:

---

When you start promoting one religion over another, where do you see that heading down the line?

---

My hope is that it would head to the support of Christianity. If not, then this nation will continue to be judged for its rejection of Christ and its general immorality.

Right now, philosophies like secular humanism are already being promoted. Morality is being taught, but absent the objective truth and reality of God's revelation. The vacuum of Christian principles is being filled with all sorts of detrimental teaching, and the effects on this nation are obvious.

Right now, the good is being discriminated against due to the label of "religion", while the bad is being promulgated because it doesn't have such a label, though the impact on society is just as great.

quote:

---

There’s no need for it. Religion should be handled in the home.

---

While I would agree that it isn't the place of the State to have authority over the Church or to home, where God distinguishes these roles and responsibilities, I don't agree that the State should be entirely secular. The role of the State isn't to be some sort of secular machine, but to uphold justice and general equity of the people for their good and the glory and praise of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, who is King of kings and Lord of lords.

All authorities--whether they be in the home, the Church, or the State--will be held accountable for how they upheld their functions before God. The rulers in the civil sphere will not be exempt from this.

Read it.

quote:

---

Climate change has similar doomsday predictions as religions.

---

Sure. Just win (or lose) a court case in which you establish that Climate Change is a religion and get it appealed all the way to the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS agrees, then Climate Change is a religion.

quote:

---

But more to the point: without God, there is no objective basis for morality in existence by which we can compare any behaviors against to say that any behavior is really good or bad. Without an objective moral standard, all we have is subjective moral standards that emanate from our minds.

---

There's no reason that can't be discussed in pubic schools right now in the context of philosophy/logic. But it isn't, and it won't be, because the teachers either do not understand what you just said or they actively deny it themselves, on a personal level.

The trouble with public schools isn't whether the Ten Commandments are hung or not.

The trouble with public schools is that they are a collectivist, socialist mechanism and they will always trend towards socialism and they will always primarily attract socialists at heart.

In other words, the problem is the teachers and the administrations. Including the school boards.

And it always will be.

If Trump mandates the hanging of the Ten Commandments and the teacher complies but comes in every morning and says, "Good morning class, how is everyone this morning? Let's take a look at another useless tenet of an ancient religion written by goat herders with no knowledge of science! Who wants to read the fifth commandment today?" then what has it accomplished?

I would argue that it is probably worse than if it was never posted. You might disagree with that, but it's a fact that mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments does not automatically influence students toward anything. The teacher's handling of it determines what influence it has.

You can display anything you want, but you can't make teachers—who are the ones who have all the influence on the kids—submit to God. As long as they are their own god, they will resist influencing children toward the real God.

Surely you know this.

quote:

---

Can you show me where Congress has made a law respecting the establishment of religion?

---

As you well know, the 1st provides the legal concept and the details—such as religious discrimination by government entities, including public schools—have been worked out through various court cases.

Just sue your kid's school, get it in court, appeal it all the way the SCOTUS, and get a landmark ruling that opposes court rulings on the matter since 1947.

Then you're golden.

quote:

---

What is the source of the certain forms of morality that we allow to be promulgated?

---

As I already posted to the other poster, there is nothing that prevents a lesson on the basis of morality in any public school in the country.

You can show any group of students you want that without a transcendent moral authority, morality is nothing more than personal or collective preference.

You can also teach them that Christian ethics constitute the basis for our Constitution, most specifically the concept of "inalienable rights."

Nothing prohibits that from happening right now.

But you seem to be making the argument that the system of ethics that provides the basis of the Constitution that limits government's power over citizens is a Christian ethic, therefore it should stand outside its own prescribed limits.

I'm not sure that's a logical inevitability. It could be...I'll have to give it some more consideration.

Hmmm. There's something about it to me that seems like a king exempting himself from the decrees he hands down for everyone else. I intuitively resist it for that reason. Especially since one of the big points of the Constitution is that it mandates equal treatment under the law.

On the other hand, it also seems somewhat self-contradictory to enforce an ethical mandate against itself. By accepting it as law, you've already tacitly acknowledged its authority, but now you can't validate it otherwise?

It's a good point.

I think I still (at least right now) come down on the side of saying that the current prevailing legal consensus on the matter doesn't prohibit that system from being presented. It only says that if you do, you also have to allow presentation of any/all other viewpoints as well.

Therefore, it hasn't been invalidated by enforcing that standard, it's actually been validated.

I'm open to being persuded otherwise, however.