Hi Tamar,

>>Would you object to separate posters/signs around a school that said:
>>
>>Don't steal
>>Don't Lie
>>Don't murder your classmate
>>Don't take something that's not yours
>>
>>and so forth.
>>
>>Or do you support signs that say:
>>
>>Steal if it meets your needs
>>Lie to get what you want
>>Murder your classmate if you have to
>>Take what you need but only that
>>
>
>Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not neither?

?????

How could you do that? <g> A part of teaching contains instruction on interaction. For example, Karol occassionally has a child (2nd grade) that will steal from her or another child. What should dhe do? (I'd actually be very interested in your answer)

Now, my answer is that she should punish the child if she catches the child. By punishment I mean call the parents, send the child to the principal, have the child give up a priviledge like recess and so forth.

Tha minute she steps in to stop the action of stealing she is advocating a moral position - ie. Do Not Steal, which coincidentally is in the 10 Commandments - a true source of our cultural identity. Now, by the twisted logic and goofy extremes I'm seeing people go to she should not be allowed to discipline that child as that would constitute "non-content neutral" instruction. I say that since, as a society, we want to teach kids to not steal and that there is a direct link culturally to the 10 Commandments (thanks to our great friends the Jews) that posting the 10 Commandments can be said, not only to advocate positions held by a vast majority of humanity even non-Jews & non-Christians, but to reinforce a moral position that contributes to the strength of any national culture. But to toss it out solely on the basis of an ostensibly "neutral" position is shortsighted at best.

IOW, what's wrong with promoting honesty??? And, by example, dealing honestly about the true cultural source of that teaching. What in the world is everyone so afraid of here???


>
>>IOW, in your objections do you categorically object to the principles of not lying, stealing, murdering, etc? or do you hold a moral equivilance point of view that allowes you to do these things if the situation arises? ie. Situational ethics
>
>This is where you keep skipping a step. Not wanting religious observance in school does not mean that someone is hostile to religion or even believes terribly differently than you do. In fact, there are a fair number of organized religious groups (including all the major denominations of Judaism) that are opposed to prayer in the schools.

Well, from where I sit 'neutrality' could care less whether or not anyone observes or doesn't observe. Taking one side is simply not neutral IMO. And labelling a one-sided position as 'neutral' is dishonest at best. The position is not neutral and calling it or thinking it is is IMO a sure form of self-deception if not outright deception.

Tru neutrality would allow both the pro-God and anti-God folks to both say their peace. By muzzling the pro-God side and allowing the anti-God side's view only is not neutral. It's taking the anti-God side.


>
>In fact, it's probably safe to say that, almost across the board, the people who want prayer in school are in the majority where they live and assume that it will be their prayers. I doubt most of them would be interested in a system where the Lord's Prayer was recited on Monday, the Sh'ma on Tuesday, a key Muslim prayer on Wednesday, a Hindu prayer on Thursday and a Buddhist prayer on Friday. (Yeah, I know I left some out, but there are only five days a week. <g>)

<g>

I agree with you that most all only see the world from their point of view. Even those who don't want prayers. Again, you make my point. <g>

>
>>Now, as to the first four (4) commandments they aren't all that onerous either if you think about them a little. Actually, Jesus said that 1) Loving God with all your heart, soul mind & body and 2) Loving your neighbor as yourself contained therein all of the Law and Prophets, the 10 Commandments being a sort of Cliff's Notes (If God's name is Cliff anyway <g>) version.
>>
>
>FWIW, Rabbi Akiba (one of the great Jewish sages) was asked to explain the Torah while standing on one foot. He said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."

I'd tend to agree but don't quite get the "one foot" part unless he had my disease and like to talk too much. <g>

Actually Buddah also asserted the 'Golden Rule', only in a reverse fashion than that said by Jesus and quite similar to what Rabbi Akiba said according to your comment above. I find that interesting in that the version given by Jesus is more pro-active. IOW, we need to actively seek to do goof to those around us, not just avoid doing ill.

>
>>IOW, just exactly what is it that you object to here that is so horrible? That someone has codified a set of moral laws? IOW, do you object to the laws (and why I'd be curious to know) or do you have some other reason? That others might want to express themselves?
>
>What Chris and I object to is that they are a religious statement, and should not be presented to our children as the absolute, _only_ truth. If I want my children to see the 10 Commandments as a key life lesson, I'll take care of it. But we don't have a state religion that says that everyone has to believe the 10 Commandments.

(I see that Chris has given you leave to speak for him? <g> & *gd&rvvffCM*)

Well, a lot of daily life has its origins in some "religious statement" though most folks aren't aware of this. The word "good" for instance has it's roots in the word "god" as God was/is seen as good. Should we stop using the word good then? This seems to me Tamar to be irrational hair splitting.

>
>>You see, from the POV of folks like myself, if you wanted to post an athiet's Code of Ethics alongside the 10 Commandments I'd be ok with that as it might spark discussion, which I see as the heart of education.
>
>Well, if the bulletin board were labelled "Key Religious Statements" or something like that, and also included the key principles of a bunch of other religions, it might be appropriate for a class studying comparative religion. But, an unlabelled bulletin board in a school says "This is something we all believe" and that's unacceptable when it's the principles of a religion.

Well, again, is stealing bad and at what point does a culture assert its set of core beliefs? The simple fact is that Judaism (and by inference Christianity) has provided the core foundation(s) for all western society and most all of that finds its roots and genesis in the 10 Commandments, the only thing antedating that positionally would be the two commandments to a) Love God with your whole being and b) Love your fellow man likewise. (The references may be found in Deuteronomy.)

You almost sound like you're ashamed of your Jewish heritage. I can't believe that's the case but I can guarantee you that I am not ashamed of what Jesus has done for me nor the incredibly rich Jewish cultural tapestry that the Historic Christian position is solidly founded upon. Jesus was Jewish after all... <g> Just like I'm not ashamed about the rich American cultural heritage that is indeed solidly founded upon thought process that eminate from the Historic Christian and Jewish thought process.

I won't toss out 5000+ years of wisdom because it offends someone.

I must stand for something, not nothing.

>
><>
>
>I'm afraid that you'll make my kids and other kids like them feel like second-class citizens in school.

I notice you removed a word... Why? Cluck cluck cluck... <g>

If you are afraid that by teaching your child not to steal and also to demonstrate the cultural origin of that teaching I guess you're pretty much a basket case to begin with. <g> Get over it and get on with life is how I'd respond. To go through life operating from a position of fear is not natural nor right IMO. But to consciously ignore the plain facts in order to avoid offending the hyper-sensitive gets you nothing except the elevation of moral nothingness.

Best,


DD

A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.