>>Not important for the story? Did not take part in Christ's bloodline?
>
>Well, those children weren't in the geneolgy I guess. As far as any other people being created not being mentioned maybe that's because there weren't any? <g>

In that case, you may well imagine what would the next question be.

>>To be afraid? C'mon, outside religion there's no big force which threats you with eternal punishment, and there's nobody to tell you that 99% of what you do is a sin. It's called courtesy, i.e. as much as a teacher in a class with some Jewish and/or Muslim kids will not tell them to eat pork, and will also not try to tell everybody to eat fish on Friday, the same teacher should simply tell the children that "this is a Christian song, so whoever wants to sing along... next time we'll do an interesting Zen story" etc. Not pretending it's "this is how we all do things around here", but just saying what it really is.
>
>Well, it seems that people are confusing "teaching about" or "exposing to" to "forcing".

OK, I'm not people then. I've made the distinction several times here.

> As far as the teacher explanation thingy goes why not just give a general announcement that the kids aren't required to sing along if they object. Again, sacrificing a majority viewpoint for a minority one can be as equally 'bad' as the opposite...

Want a caricature of this, just like one you made with the opposite of the six of ten commandments? "Kids, we're going to sing 'Silent night' now, and if anyone feels offended by it, they can keep their mouths shut". I'd still rather say with explanation, and an offer from other cultures. Diversity, not division. Calling out for those who don't want to sing would single them out, and you started telling kids that some kids are different. They'll find these differences when they get exposed at some point in their lives, without any need for the teacher to provoke them in the classroom.

>>"Dirty"? No, church is a business, faith is a person's private matter, the only dirty thing is recruitment of members, which, IMO, includes subtle techniques such as inclusion of folklore etc.
>
>Well, sadly you're all too correct that (most) churches are businesses. I'm sorry that is your impression and can only assert that they aren't really all that way. I think it's very normal that churches reflect their environment..

I thought they were supposed to be better than their environment.

Should I assume that you agree with the recruitment part?

>As do you. However, IMO neither of us has the right to use that as a reason for demanding our way.

My way is abstainment from pushing my content to others. Don't do to others... familiar, right? I only demand that my kids be spared from the same thing until they get to be capable of deciding for themselves (which leaves me with only one such daughter, the other two are grownups now).


>>Rewind, re-read, requery() and try to understand. On one hand, we had a kid which asked "teacher told us to sing this, parents said I shouldn't, what do I do". Now if teacher didn't ask them anything of the kind, or applied a diversity approach ("and now kids, we'll learn a few winter songs from several cultures"), what's the supposed question your kid should ask? The one quoted above is the best I could come up with.
>
>*sigh* Why not stop singing any song as someone will be bound to be offended. THat is the logical end here.

Your logic. I proposed diversity instead, which you somehow concluded sums to zero.

>>Because it's one religion only, and the non-religious approaches are also omitted. And it's all coming from a state employee we both pay.
>
>So the choice is to open the singing to all groups or no group then. I say all and you are saying none, correct?

Same semi-logic of yours. I said "more than one, with explanation". Does not equal zero.

>ROF'L! In this we are joined at the hip and in total agreement. More evidence that politically correct positions are intellectual garbage. You're taking my side then??? <g>

The more I read the less I know what's your side. Political correctness has gone to some extremes, and is generally amusing in the language domain, but then I'm not much of a connoiseur of American political folklore to understand what you mean here.

>I seem to remember that I'm arguing for more inclusion, not total removal...

No, you're arguing assuming that I'm for it, equally knocking on an open door.

>Well, rather than start another 10,000 message thread on the merits or lack thereof of Darminism <g> let me offer some links to you when you ask for them, ok? Evolution is fatally flawed and today most evolutionists are turning from it to (what's it called?) "The Gap Theory"? It's where there are sudden moves forward in an evolutionary sense. It's the only way to make the alleged timeline 'fit'.

While changing the basic text would be disastrous for a church, who always claims to have been always right ("Party is always right, Winston"), science doesn't give a damn if a theory doesn't fit the evidence - the theory gets sacked, reconsidered, and replaced with a (hopefully) better one. Few egos in the academic circles may be bruised, but it's no big deal. Eppur si muove.

>>At college age, students are rather mature,
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha .. You're kidding right? <g>

OK, method of wrong sample (me and my friends at home), does not necessarily apply here. I know I formed my weltanschauung between age of 16 and 22 or so, and in many aspects I tend to think the same as I did then.

>Perhaps college-aged students in the Eastern countries were more mature but here?? *chuckle* I hardly think so. But, yes, they have every right to their opinion as anyone else IMO.

Look at the other branch of this thread, Jerry Kreps had something there.

>>maybe these students are a good germ of some future socialism-the-american-way. Even if it happens, I don't expect it in the next fifty years or so.
>
>Well, socialism was the replacement of God by the State, pure and simple. Doesn't work. Never will.
>
>Why?
>
>People are selfish, not noble. Socialism requires a nobility that cannot be imposed upon others. The goals of Socialism are IMO quite laudable for the most part. The practice is a failure for the reason already given.

I got it. The socialism will never work because god created people incapable of practicing it.

>For goodness sake Dragan. You make it sound like they're going to strap the kids in their seats. <g> I'm not suggesting that a math clas sbe about counting the blessings of God, though that's not a bad things to do.. <g>

Counting the blessings and un-blessings should come under spotlight when the curriculum includes different sorts of infinite numbers :)

>No.. I think a teacher should teach the curriculum but if that could include spiritual analogies I think they have the right.

If these are always the spiritual analogies from the same religion, and without denoting them for what they are - one religion's stories - I'm getting an impression that such a teacher is exercising his right to be wrong.

>>Scientific curiosity. I'm trying to learn how a believer's mind works, how do they keep up with the discrepancies etc.

>Well, point one out. Discrepancy that is. There are a few possible typos where some numbers appear to be different but I've seen nothing to damage the core messages.

Well, in two thousand years you had the time to come up with the answers for all possible questions, right?


>Why is the teacher not as much a part of the community as the kids? I guess, as a teacher's child, I grew up with a distorted viewpoint that the parents were involved in the kid's lives and so were the teachers...

They are, for sure, but then aren't the teachers, again, state employees, and burdened with duty of representing the general community, nation level, and not just the local community which may have any particular religion for a majority?

>>How do you expect any interest for something they didn't have a chance to know about? Broaden the offer - diversity, again.
>
>Well, on one hand you want to kids to make the song suggestions and on the other (here) you seem to be suggesting that the 'authority' so do.

The kids would come up with what they know, and teacher should supply what they don't. That's why the kids go to school, to learn what they don't know, right?

>But you're misusing your logic by definition. You're suggesting that an empty glass (freedom from) may contain something. It cannot.

A glass with absolutely no wine in it may still contain water, right? Now is it empty or not? Or is your POV so narrow that you can't imagine the spiritual needs of a person being filled up with anything else but religion?

Sorry to disappoint you, but the place is not vacant, even though it's not inhabited with any greater-than-human ideas. There's something else, and while I never thought its contents needed to be written into a book, I'm still sticking to it. Some of the principles there may coincide with some of things found in some religions, but that doesn't make them such. Even "don't steal" and "don't kill" is actually older than Christianity - so if they could exist before it, they can exist outside of it as well. No religion has the monopoly on principles of civilised behavior.

> Freedom "of" may contain some empty portions (freedom from) but it's the presence that is greater than the lack of presence.

That's something that atheists have a problem with. "There is", however imaginary, is always bigger than "there is none", however real or not. I don't have that problem.

> I quite agree that should you choose you have the right to reject the notin of God. I think it's a very foolish position to take but I respect your right to make the choice. Now, it's when you want to force your position (empty glass - from) on me (full/partially full glass - of) that I think is when you've gone too far. An empty room may not contain people but a room with people may have varying degrees of emptiness.

How should I understand this? I may not accept the notion of god, but I must accept at least something, because you say there must be something? And I'm not trying to force my position, I'm only asking to have my option available, even in the case I be the only one to take it, and that's the option of none.

>>I'm not an one-liner, i.e. I can't name any single issue which could be described as my "god". Sorry for failing your definition :)
>
>You might be surprised Dragan. Everyone has a master passion. It sould be anything. Manybe even dark beer... <g>

Haven't had one in two months. Heathen, even here.

>Well, you're on dangerous ground when you compliment me on my speeling... <g>

What spilling?