My daughter goes to a public charter school here in Minnesota. It is an art charter school. Yes it is public which they can't charge but they do have a sponsor where they get a lot of their money and also through fundraising. I'm almost positive they don't receive any tax money.
There is no busing here but they can get a ticket from the city buses and can get there through the city.
The school has been a lifesaver for my daughter. She was failing and would never be graduating. Now she is receiving A's and B's in her senior year. Because she was failing in a regular public school system she does have to be a senior a second year.
Now there is hope. She is planning on going to college and become an art teacher.
She is an artist type of person that plays her own tune. I supported her in the way of letting her know it was ok to be different. The kids in the regular public school tormented her to the point she was unable to function because of it. At the charter school they accept her as she is as they are all the artist type.
I'm all for this muslim school if it helps the children learn and be themselves. It might be something I do not believe in but this is a free country and if its not me who is paying for it, then I think its great!!!
Vickles, I agree 100% with you -- if the school receives absolutely no public funding -- then all well and good. But the original article I cited said that the school was originally going to be a private school, but that the prospective students couldn't afford it. So this private school sponsored it, but they made it a charter school "which is publicly funded and can charge no tuition." Now, Vickles, I have no problem with that still (believe it or not), just as long as if that kind of option was available to other religious groups, as well. Including Jews. Including Catholics. Including Sikhs. Including Baptists. As long as the government doesn't sponsor one religion's efforts above another religion's efforts, I really don't have an issue with it in any way. But, I still would love to know if another religious group (other than Muslims) was able to sponsor a charter school up there in Minnesnota.
Perhaps you missed this in reading the article you posted . . . .
"Unlike mainstream Minnesota public schools, where students study comparative religious history in social studies classes, Tarek students study Middle Eastern history more extensively.
It doesn't say the students don't study comparative religion or the history of other parts of the world - it simply says they study Middle Eastern history more extensively.
and
"while much of Tarek resembles the private Al-Amal Islam School in Fridley, the Inver Grove school doesn't teach the Koran or other Islamic religious texts even though almost all its students are Muslim. "
This is exactly what the African American charter schools do - they teach all of the same areas as traditional schools, but focus more extensively " on African American history and culture.
Most traditional schools in this country already focus more extensively on Christian culture, by virtue of the very culture we live in.
Ever go to a children's holiday program (the new P.C. name for the Christmas program) in a public school?
I have, several now. This year, this school - they called it a multicultural event. Their definition of multicultural was to include a three minute overview of Chanukah (presented by me) and a three minute overview of Kwanza (presented by another parent) mixed in among approximately ten Christmas Carols and Christmas Hymns. [For the record, I am not complaining - we celbrate both holidays in our home and I love Christmas music, but I am trying to make a point.]
When do the schools offer their winter and Spring breaks? Over Chanukah and Passover? No, over Christmas and Easter.
And so yes, a Christian group is allowed to open a charter school using public money, which focuses on the teaching of Christian culture and history. They simply cannot teach the Bible, just like this Muslim school cannot teach the Koran, or a Hebrew one couldn't teach the Torah.
Abi, no I didn't miss the point of the article. The point I was making was that if a Christian or Jewish group tried doing the same, exact thing...but substituting Christian or Jewish culture, practices, making time for prayer, etc.,...and simply not teaching formal religious education...they would be blown out of the water.
Didn't you hear about that teacher in Cupertino, California, who was prohibited from passing out the Declaration of Independence in his classroom because it cited a reference to God? Haven't you heard how much the Thanksgiving story has been perverted in recent years?
And, as far as Christmas is concerned, my wife is an elementary teacher (5th grade) and works in the public schools here. And ya know what? No Christmas decorations allowed. Seriously. And I'm not talking manger scenes and angels, I'm talking frosty and santa! (Mind you at the same time, she was required to take a special training class featuring the use of a cucumber as a teaching aid)
And, btw, the schools don't take August 14th as a holiday nor do they take December 8th. And it has happened when spring break hasn't lined up with Easter. Not every year, but it has happened. And, although December 8th is an important holiday in some religions, students within those religions are not given any consideration for that fact. However, teachers are "discouraged" from scheduling tests during Eid and parents wanting to take their kids on Hajj are given an automatic excused absence. And no I am not kidding nor am I over-exaggerating.
Holiday programs? They have holiday programs? They have a winter band concert around here (no holiday music allowed, thank you) for the high schoolers but, a holiday program? For elementary school kids? I've lived in this county for 5 years and have never heard of such a thing. Sorry. (Having said that, my kid was in a play called "Three Wise Men and a Baby" -- but that was through the Church, not through any kind of public school)
I am glad that your school system in Mich. is more liberal than the one in Md. and tolerates such things.
And, again, I fully believe what you are saying that a Christian group is allowed to open a charter school using public money, under the conditions you state. But, I would just like to see one example, somewhere. Just one. That's not too much to ask, is it? Just one.
"Abi, no I didn't miss the point of the article. The point I was making was that if a Christian or Jewish group tried doing the same, exact thing...but substituting Christian or Jewish culture, practices, making time for prayer, etc.,...and simply not teaching formal religious education...they would be blown out of the water."
Maybe. There are certainly those who are extremist in their anti-Christian views who may try to do so. But, the courts would have to allow the school to open or else shut down the other schools which do similar things. I tend to think, despite the craziness of the extremists in this country, the courts by and large do a decent job of handling things equitably.
"Didn't you hear about that teacher in Cupertino, California, who was prohibited from passing out the Declaration of Independence in his classroom because it cited a reference to God?"
No, I missed that story. But I do know they have recently reinstituted the pledge of allegiance here in Michigan. Additionally, there is all sorts of hell breaking loose in Texas over text books which refer to married couples as "individuals who marry" instead of husbands and wives who marry. (They are claiming referring to them as individuals promotes homosexuality.)
The craziness is on both sides of the fence, but again, in general, the courts do a decent job of sorting this stuff out fairly.
And I guess these are examples of some of the advantages of charter schools in general. . .
"Haven't you heard how much the Thanksgiving story has been perverted in recent years? "
Nope. In the school my boys attend, they still pretty much teach it the way I remember being taught. There are some new stories too, but none I find objectionable or offensive.
Though I will add, my oldest son has said on a couple of occassasions that he, being white, must be bad because of the history of the African American people in our society. The charter schools in my city generally have a larger minority population, so there is a great deal of emphasis on the history and plight of African Americans and Latinos.
Again, not a big deal to me, we just handle those issues at home as they come up. I suspect though, if the kids ever did attend a Jewish charter school, the there would likewise be a greater emphasis on the plight of the Jewish people and again I would have to handle this at home to make sure my children understand not all Christians or Muslims are bad.
"And ya know what? No Christmas decorations allowed"
I have heard of this happening in schools. But again, in the charter school my kids attend, they had Christmas decorations and Christmas parties.
"I am glad that your school system in Mich. is more liberal than the one in Md. and tolerates such things. "
I don't know if the public school systems is "more liberal" or not, because my oldest son only attended the public school system for about three weeks before I pulled him out and placed him in a charter school. But it is apparent the charter schools can and do teach Christian culture and history to some extent, even if they aren't necessarily consciously doing so or intending to.
Again, I have no issue with this, but I likewise have no issue with the Muslim based or African American based schools as long as they kids are learning and taking pride in who they are without being taught racism or prejudices by the school.
p.s. I find it very challenging to teach my children about their Jewish heritage, in part because I too was raised in a Christian culture and was not taught much about it. So, I guess I can understand why people may like the idea of a school which places some emphasis on their specific culture and heritage.
Religion aside, I find the various cultures of our world fascinating and would love to see all schools teach more about them. In the long run, I think we'd find, despite all of the cultural differences, we would find there is a tremendous amount of common ground.
I totalyly agree and understand Mark's being ALARMED..
Our country is going to hell because we do not allow the ten commanments anymore, prayer in school, (unless it is to a war-god)!!! etc.
And he is right, if a Christian or Hebrew accdamey wanted the same right, they WOULD get "blown out of the water"
America screwed up.
We did NOT learn our lesson from Israel's recent history. :(-->
They have let "palestinians" INFEST the land of Israel, and now we are letting Muslims in our country and they will eventually overtake us.
Bit by Bit.
This school situation that Mark has brought to our attention is only the begining.
HAve any of you heard of the town in Michigan that actually ALLOWS the OBNOXIOUS prayers to the murderous war-god Allah on LOUD SPEAKERS????
Michael Savage taked about it on his radio show several months ago. The Muslims said, (in their attempt to infest that town), it was no different than church bells!!
Church bells!!
Hello!! churchbells compaired to obnoxious loud speakers shrilling out prayers to the god of hatred and war, what planet are we on ????
I had to listen to that whining develish tirade while I was in Arabia during Desert Storm,
Then in Oct while I was in Israel, I had to liten to it in the old city of Jerusalem!!
They are infesting the land.
And I DO mean INFESTING.
They are filthy people, they throw their trash on the ground!!
The Origional Damascus gate, which is one of the many areas infested, is covered in Muslim trash and filth. :(-->
I took many pictures of Israel and if I could figure out how to get them from my computor to GS I would do so... I took allot of pictures of the Muslim occupied areas too.... they were all filthy and disgusting.
Do I sound harsh? -->
Do I sound crazy? ;)-->
Tell that to the Mom and Dad of a young soldier that got blown up by a MUSLIM terrorist,
( so bad that they could not see the body), that was FUNDED by many many Amercan Muslims all over, that smile in your face :D--> and talk peace , but you sit them down and pick their brain and you bring up Israel that GOD gave to Children of Israel, and they will change their tune.
The whole goal of the Muslims is to push Israel into the sea.
Actually, Valerie, I am concerned about the politically-correct preference provided to non Christian religions. The fact that any one religion is being government-subsidized over others. Frankly, I would be just as concerned if it was a Baptist charter academy, a Wiccan charter academy, or a Buddist charter academy.
However, I do not concur with your broad-brush accusations about Muslims. I personally know too many of them that are as abhorant about the situtation going on in the M.E. these past few years as many Christians are. I do acknowledge that there are a huge number of them that are being taught terrorism.
But to swipe all of them with that brush is about as ignorant as saying that all Jews control the banking system and have a plot to control the world through the Rothschilds or saying that all Catholics are pedophiles or saying that all Southern Baptists are klansmen.
Mind you, you are fully entitled to your view and I am not trying to dissuade you from it. I just would prefer not to be associated with it.
While in Desert Storm a very lovely family hosted a handful of us.
They wanted to meet female soliders.
They took us all over the place, (We had to wear robes and masks because US soldiers were not allowed out in the city), and they took us to several different stores etc.
I was the NCO in charge, it was my call to disobey the Amy rules about going in the city. ;)-->
Glad I did it. :D-->
NO regrets.
They were a delightful family.
They were gracious and kind.
I know there are nice ones.
But I still think we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here,
and yes I know that America was founded for ALL religions to be free without persecution,
but in comparison to the commandments from God to not let the pagans into your land.....
I would rather obey God than the government.
My ancestors fought and died for this freedom.
I think they would all roll over in their graves if they could see America today, with 6 million Muslims, and Muslim schools exploding and having waiting lines.....
Knowing their decendants were being killed by Terrrorsist in Muslim countries that they are helping rebuild. isn't that nice.
Not defending their own country, but a Muslim nation that beheads Americans!! :(-->
Why is NO ONE asking where the MILLIONS of Sadams money is? it would be paying for this since he screwed up Iraq in the first place!!!
God is the one I have to answer to in the end, not the politically correct government.
But I still think we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here,
and yes I know that America was founded for ALL religions to be free without persecution,
but in comparison to the commandments from God to not let the pagans into your land.....
I am glad that you had no say in framing the Constitution.
You also wrote...
My ancestors fought and died for this freedom.
They fought for the freedom to choose which religion (if any) they would practice as well as the freedom of speech, press and assembly. What I can't get over is you flag waving, smug evangelicals is that you get so misty eyed over the symbols of our freedoms but tread cavalierly over the very freedoms that they symbolize.
Perhaps you would be much happier in a Christian theocracy styled after the Islamic one in Iran. It ain't happening here, thank God.
quote: But I still think we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here,
and yes I know that America was founded for ALL religions to be free without persecution,
but in comparison to the commandments from God to not let the pagans into your land.....
I would rather obey God than the government. ...
My ancestors fought and died for this freedom.
I think they would all roll over in their graves if they could see America today, with 6 million Muslims, and Muslim schools exploding and having waiting lines.....
Stop and think about this, will you please, just stop and think.
So you make the distinction between the American government (Constitution) which gaurantees religious freedom, even for 'pagan worshippers', and God, who says "Let not the pagans into your land". Hhmmmm. OK. Well, isn't it true that this very same God of yours required that pagans like this were to be *killed* in the land of Isreal for the worship of other gods? Is this the same one that you contrast the Constitution with? (And who is the 'war god' in these situations, hmmm?)
Have you ever even read what some of our founding fathers thought about this kind of diety? Hhmmm? Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Paine. John Adams. Even Benjamin Franklin, with his gentle demeanor, and many others had some not-so-flattering things to say about belief systems like this. ... And these were the same people who founded the same country that you fought for, so you might want to keep that in mind. (And I can show you *plenty* of quotes and statements, that are NOT 'taken out of context', that show this plainly)
"My ancestors fought and died for this freedom." What freedom? *The freedom for ALL religions to be free without persecution, NOT this 'freedom' for not having 'pagans' in this land.*
"... we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here." Christ on a crutch, listen to you! I'm sorry, but I had no idea that having religious freedom was to be so flippently dismissed as nothing more than 'political correctness'.
Frankly, I think I prefer answering to the principles of what the Constitution communicates, rather than this OT 'war god' that demands the driving out/killing of those who don't worship accordingly. Or, as Thomas Jefferson so distinctly put it in one of his quotes that I referred to:
quote: Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Or how about this one:
quote: But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
So perhaps there isn't the so-called danger that you seem to think there is.
The U.S of A., contrary to what folks like you would like to think, is NOT the western hemisphere version of Isreal awaiting its Messianic King, thank you very much, but the first country that was founded on a secular government that is answerable to/elected by its people, and ONLY its people.
P.S., Oh by the way, for you who believe that our country was founded on *biblical* concepts and principles, here is a brain teaser for you to think about.
Where in the bible is the representative form of government found as a biblically/godly form of government, hmmm? Just think about that one for a moment.
I don't believe I've ever spoken to you. Nice to meet you. A tad about me, I hang out in politics. I'm rather vociferous regarding my few of "radical" Islam's. But "radical" is the critical part of that description. I've no problem with that faith being practiced in this country. I've more than a problem with the "radicals" believing in and orchestrating my death because I'm not one of them. It's within that elitist thinking they err to barbarism. If I tell them they cannot believe in their god in my country how am I not at least partaking of some of their thought processes?
And for those who read I had a problem with primary Middle East history being taught in the Muslim schools here, it's because they need to know what allowed them the opportunity to be sitting at that desk and chair in their somewhat safe environment. They can be taught their history as well, of course, but if allowed with no check and balances history could continue to be written for their young to learn, even about this country. Osama bin Laden did an excellent job of re-writing history from 9/11 forward for his benefit in his display at election time. I don't believe a stateside Muslim school would desire to ignore our freedoms and how we obtained them, but primary teaching of anything, yes even Christianity must be considered in light of blinders.
Checks and balances can have the appearance of lost liberty as well. Seems there is a "balance" to balance.
But back to the point, our country stands for the right of individual freedom to worship. God help us the day we not allow it to remain.
Your position is un-American and unfortunately, your views are becoming more widespread. And that's because people are afraid. Afraid of the extremists they see on the news.
I can understand that fear but there are greater things to fear. Greater dangers. Greater evils. Intolerance and bigotry has killed more people than greed ever has but has enslaved even more. Once you've made the decision that God's laws allow you to persecute peoples on the basis of their faith, intolerance is now your god.
And that god is a vengeful terrible god indeed. His appetite for the destruction of the unworthy is insatiable. He'll demand to be fed daily and when the easy victims are gone, history has shown us he starts on his own. Those who wavered are next.
Then, like the final scenarios of the French Revolution where even the 'Jacques' were getting gullitoined right and left, to the final days of the Third Reich where any army officer who said things weren't looking too good were summarily executed as defeatists... the gods of intolerance's demands for human sacrifice know no bounds.
Can't happen in America?? Ask the American Indian with ancestors on The Trail Of Tears. Ask the WWll Japanese internees. Ask the civil rights marchers. When people are afraid, they can do despicable things. Call it mob mentality. The first thing to do prevent it is calling it what it is and Valerie.. you are espousing repugnant dangerous and evil views.
Mark, I agree, the laws of the land should apply evenly across the board regardless of religious beliefs.
quote: Where in the bible is the representative form of government found as a biblically/godly form of government, hmmm? Just think about that one for a moment.
Garth, I've pondered that. I think what we know of the early Christian church and it's first couple generations could qualify, in principle. God and Jesus Christ were at the center of the people's faith.
If - the faith was led primarily by the rules to love God first and your community/fellow man/neighbor second, you'd have the basis for a system where the good of each person would be mutually sought by each one.
I think that would naturally lead to discussion, consideration, debate and ultimately the "vote". In other words if you and I were truly concerned about not only what was good for us/me but what was also good for us/you we'd have to allow for if not compromise, equity in how we lived.
We'd have to 'enforce' tolerance and balance at least to some degree. (although the 'enforcement' would have a premise - to love God first and others as we would ourselves).
In that kind of religious community led by the teachings of Jesus there'd be an attempt to maintain our own ideals while recognizing the benefit of allowing other to maintain theirs. Maybe? -->
What I was referring to wasn't church polity, but to a civil government of a country. And there is enough difference between the two that they are clearly distinct from each other. For one thing, church government is still about worshipping that church's god. In a country's civil government where it's representitive of the people across the board, the 'god' factor disappears.
And in the Bible, it is taught that "blessed is the nation whose god is the Lord", and they were all (the ones chosen and supported by God that is) kingdoms. And not even constitutional monarchies at that. All of them were of the 'divine right' variety.
Democracies and republics, on the other hand, come straight from the Greco-Roman societies, and they were pagan (to play off of the term Valerie used).
Just some historical facts to consider in the discussion re: god and government.
What I was referring to wasn't church polity, but to a civil government of a country. And there is enough difference between the two that they are clearly distinct from each other. For one thing, church government is still about worshipping that church's god. In a country's civil government where it's representitive of the people across the board, the 'god' factor disappears.
And in the Bible, it is taught that "blessed is the nation whose god is the Lord", and they were all (the ones chosen and supported by God that is) kingdoms. And not even constitutional monarchies at that. All of them were of the 'divine right' variety.
Democracies and republics, on the other hand, come straight from the Greco-Roman societies, and they were _pagan_ (to play off of the term Valerie used).
Just some historical facts to consider in the discussion re: god and government.
Although you bring up some good points, sir, I believe that a little bit of clarification may be necessary in order to keep this in the proper context.
First of all, the government of Rome:
Rome was initially a kingdom. It was a republic for approximately 500 years. It then, under Caesar Augustus, became an Empire, with successors being determined by heredity. During the republican era of Rome, there was an aristocracy. Only the patricians were senators. So, it was hardly a universally elected representative government, as we would recognize one today.
Second of all, the religion of Rome: While you are absolutely correct on the religion being Pagan, it should be noted that there was no such thing as separation of Church and State. The head of State was the head of the (Pagan) Church. Rather similar to modern Iran. Minority religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, were tolerated to different degrees, depending upon the political climate of the time. When the level of tolerance was down, they were wholesale killed.
As for Greece, the political norms depended upon which city-state you are referring to, as each city-state had its own government. Of course, Athens adopted a democratically-elected representative government (of course, only aristocrats could hold office). Sparta was, of course, a kingdom (with a more oligarchial administration, granted). Corinth was a kingdom, until it was destroyed by Rome. When the Romans rebuilt it, they formed its government to resemble that of Rome. As with Rome, though, there was none of this silly "separation of church and state" stuff.
The point being that if you are trying to draw a comparison between this country and ancient Rome and Hellas, it is important to remember that there were different forms of government based upon convenience. It is equally important to remember that one cannot talk about "civil government" versus "religious." They were one in the same. I believe that in this regard, we would be wise not to emulate the ancients, wouldn't you agree?
Perhaps I should have clarified better. Instead of saying "Democracies and republics, on the other hand, come straight from the Greco-Roman societies", I should have stated "have their roots and beginning concepts" in those societies. Good point.
However (and you knew it was coming, didncha? ;)-->), first off, although the Roman version of representative government is crude and very limited to ours by comparison, so it could be also said that the representative government under our own Constitution *at its beginning* was also crude by comparison to today, what with non-property owners, blacks, women, and 18 year olds getting the right to vote, and the direct election of senators in the years since then.
Two, I never brought in 'separation of church and state' into the Greco-Roman models. You did that. The concept of separation of church and state is relatively new, being about 200-250 years old. Still a very valid concept nonetheless (as opposed to being 'silly'), being determined from the experiences learned from the church-state mixture in Europe, and the dismal failure therewith. So also was the downside of the Greco-Roman age without the church-state separation.
Why is there this downside of non-separation?
The answer to that should be apparent to all. Government involvement in the private (
Always has. Always will.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson once observed:
quote: In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.
Why this is so difficult for some folks to understand and grasp continues to escape me. -->
"Two, I never brought in 'separation of church and state' into the Greco-Roman models. You did that."
True, but I believed it was implicit in your post, with the opening statement that said, "What I was referring to wasn't church polity, but to a civil government of a country," followed by the correlation you drew between the governments of two ancient civilizations and their religious systems. If I misinterpreted you, then I apologize.
The point I was trying to drive at was that there is the form of the government, at least in those days, was not a function of belief systems; it was, rather, a function of necessity in governing their respective land masses.
As to the value of avoidance of an official state religion, unless it is "my" religion ;)-->(the reader should feel free to substitute his name for "my," as he feels fit), it is, of course, a bad idea. In this light, we are in agreement. As I said above, "I believe that in this regard, we would be wise not to emulate the ancients, wouldn't you agree?"
The above paragraph should be read in light of the following definition of religion,
quote:One definition, sometimes called the "Function-based Approach," defines religion as any set of beliefs and practices that have the function of addressing the fundamental questions of human identity, ethics, death and the existence of the Divine (if any). This broad definition encompasses all systems of belief, including those that deny the existence of any god, those that affirm the existence of one God, those that affirm the existence of many gods, and those that pass on the question for lack of proof.
Then we are talking ethics, Mark. And even the questions of existence and the purpose of life are best dealt with in a private and personal (;)-->) matter.
Besides, this 'widening' of the definition of religion that encompasses all still doesn't allow government in to participate. I've noticed that there are some pro-break-down-the-wall afficianadoes (present company excluded of course ;)-->) who use that 'wide load' and obscure 'definition' of religion as a means of an end run around the church-state separation argument, and I can spot that one a mile off. (Maybe because of its 'wide load' characteristics :D-->)
Basically 'religion', as distinct from 'ethics', has to do with God/spirituality/the ethereal world/etc. Ethics has to do with our behavior towards other human beings.
Also, the reason I brought up that it was pagans who initiated the representative form of government was to show that it did come from those specific Greco-Roman 'pagans', in contrast to the biblical characters, who seemed to always concentrate on 'Let us have a king". Ie., an answer to those who seem to boast that democracy and the principles thereof was a distinctly Judeao-Christian invention come straight from the Bible.
And, as long as one system of beliefs is not given primacy over another, I have no issue with your statement. When I have to walk around in hiding so my religion does not offend somebody who disagrees (be that disagreement be from somebody of another religion or somebody whose dogma is "areligious"), I have a problem with this. I have no problem being on equal footing with somebody of a different creed than mine, but when I am forced to subordinate my faith to another person's faith, whether that faith is Theistic or Atheistic, then I simply become resentful.
Having said that, as I recall we have had this dicussion before, ad nauseum. It is as likely to be resolved this time as on any prior effort. Frankly, you know where I stand. I know where you stand. Neither of us are likely to budge on this topic. So following your next post, as I am certain that you will want to respond in order to refute anything I've said in this post, I'm perfectly willing to drop this particular derail and press onto solving some other of the world's problems. :D--> ;)-->
Recommended Posts
markomalley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark,
Perhaps you missed this in reading the article you posted . . . .
"Unlike mainstream Minnesota public schools, where students study comparative religious history in social studies classes, Tarek students study Middle Eastern history more extensively.
It doesn't say the students don't study comparative religion or the history of other parts of the world - it simply says they study Middle Eastern history more extensively.
and
"while much of Tarek resembles the private Al-Amal Islam School in Fridley, the Inver Grove school doesn't teach the Koran or other Islamic religious texts even though almost all its students are Muslim. "
This is exactly what the African American charter schools do - they teach all of the same areas as traditional schools, but focus more extensively " on African American history and culture.
Most traditional schools in this country already focus more extensively on Christian culture, by virtue of the very culture we live in.
Ever go to a children's holiday program (the new P.C. name for the Christmas program) in a public school?
I have, several now. This year, this school - they called it a multicultural event. Their definition of multicultural was to include a three minute overview of Chanukah (presented by me) and a three minute overview of Kwanza (presented by another parent) mixed in among approximately ten Christmas Carols and Christmas Hymns. [For the record, I am not complaining - we celbrate both holidays in our home and I love Christmas music, but I am trying to make a point.]
When do the schools offer their winter and Spring breaks? Over Chanukah and Passover? No, over Christmas and Easter.
And so yes, a Christian group is allowed to open a charter school using public money, which focuses on the teaching of Christian culture and history. They simply cannot teach the Bible, just like this Muslim school cannot teach the Koran, or a Hebrew one couldn't teach the Torah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Abi, no I didn't miss the point of the article. The point I was making was that if a Christian or Jewish group tried doing the same, exact thing...but substituting Christian or Jewish culture, practices, making time for prayer, etc.,...and simply not teaching formal religious education...they would be blown out of the water.
Didn't you hear about that teacher in Cupertino, California, who was prohibited from passing out the Declaration of Independence in his classroom because it cited a reference to God? Haven't you heard how much the Thanksgiving story has been perverted in recent years?
And, as far as Christmas is concerned, my wife is an elementary teacher (5th grade) and works in the public schools here. And ya know what? No Christmas decorations allowed. Seriously. And I'm not talking manger scenes and angels, I'm talking frosty and santa! (Mind you at the same time, she was required to take a special training class featuring the use of a cucumber as a teaching aid)
And, btw, the schools don't take August 14th as a holiday nor do they take December 8th. And it has happened when spring break hasn't lined up with Easter. Not every year, but it has happened. And, although December 8th is an important holiday in some religions, students within those religions are not given any consideration for that fact. However, teachers are "discouraged" from scheduling tests during Eid and parents wanting to take their kids on Hajj are given an automatic excused absence. And no I am not kidding nor am I over-exaggerating.
Holiday programs? They have holiday programs? They have a winter band concert around here (no holiday music allowed, thank you) for the high schoolers but, a holiday program? For elementary school kids? I've lived in this county for 5 years and have never heard of such a thing. Sorry. (Having said that, my kid was in a play called "Three Wise Men and a Baby" -- but that was through the Church, not through any kind of public school)
I am glad that your school system in Mich. is more liberal than the one in Md. and tolerates such things.
And, again, I fully believe what you are saying that a Christian group is allowed to open a charter school using public money, under the conditions you state. But, I would just like to see one example, somewhere. Just one. That's not too much to ask, is it? Just one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Abi, no I didn't miss the point of the article. The point I was making was that if a Christian or Jewish group tried doing the same, exact thing...but substituting Christian or Jewish culture, practices, making time for prayer, etc.,...and simply not teaching formal religious education...they would be blown out of the water."
Maybe. There are certainly those who are extremist in their anti-Christian views who may try to do so. But, the courts would have to allow the school to open or else shut down the other schools which do similar things. I tend to think, despite the craziness of the extremists in this country, the courts by and large do a decent job of handling things equitably.
"Didn't you hear about that teacher in Cupertino, California, who was prohibited from passing out the Declaration of Independence in his classroom because it cited a reference to God?"
No, I missed that story. But I do know they have recently reinstituted the pledge of allegiance here in Michigan. Additionally, there is all sorts of hell breaking loose in Texas over text books which refer to married couples as "individuals who marry" instead of husbands and wives who marry. (They are claiming referring to them as individuals promotes homosexuality.)
The craziness is on both sides of the fence, but again, in general, the courts do a decent job of sorting this stuff out fairly.
And I guess these are examples of some of the advantages of charter schools in general. . .
"Haven't you heard how much the Thanksgiving story has been perverted in recent years? "
Nope. In the school my boys attend, they still pretty much teach it the way I remember being taught. There are some new stories too, but none I find objectionable or offensive.
Though I will add, my oldest son has said on a couple of occassasions that he, being white, must be bad because of the history of the African American people in our society. The charter schools in my city generally have a larger minority population, so there is a great deal of emphasis on the history and plight of African Americans and Latinos.
Again, not a big deal to me, we just handle those issues at home as they come up. I suspect though, if the kids ever did attend a Jewish charter school, the there would likewise be a greater emphasis on the plight of the Jewish people and again I would have to handle this at home to make sure my children understand not all Christians or Muslims are bad.
"And ya know what? No Christmas decorations allowed"
I have heard of this happening in schools. But again, in the charter school my kids attend, they had Christmas decorations and Christmas parties.
"I am glad that your school system in Mich. is more liberal than the one in Md. and tolerates such things. "
I don't know if the public school systems is "more liberal" or not, because my oldest son only attended the public school system for about three weeks before I pulled him out and placed him in a charter school. But it is apparent the charter schools can and do teach Christian culture and history to some extent, even if they aren't necessarily consciously doing so or intending to.
Again, I have no issue with this, but I likewise have no issue with the Muslim based or African American based schools as long as they kids are learning and taking pride in who they are without being taught racism or prejudices by the school.
p.s. I find it very challenging to teach my children about their Jewish heritage, in part because I too was raised in a Christian culture and was not taught much about it. So, I guess I can understand why people may like the idea of a school which places some emphasis on their specific culture and heritage.
Religion aside, I find the various cultures of our world fascinating and would love to see all schools teach more about them. In the long run, I think we'd find, despite all of the cultural differences, we would find there is a tremendous amount of common ground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
valerie52
I totalyly agree and understand Mark's being ALARMED..
Our country is going to hell because we do not allow the ten commanments anymore, prayer in school, (unless it is to a war-god)!!! etc.
And he is right, if a Christian or Hebrew accdamey wanted the same right, they WOULD get "blown out of the water"
America screwed up.
We did NOT learn our lesson from Israel's recent history.
:(-->
They have let "palestinians" INFEST the land of Israel, and now we are letting Muslims in our country and they will eventually overtake us.
Bit by Bit.
This school situation that Mark has brought to our attention is only the begining.
HAve any of you heard of the town in Michigan that actually ALLOWS the OBNOXIOUS prayers to the murderous war-god Allah on LOUD SPEAKERS????
Michael Savage taked about it on his radio show several months ago. The Muslims said, (in their attempt to infest that town), it was no different than church bells!!
Church bells!!
Hello!! churchbells compaired to obnoxious loud speakers shrilling out prayers to the god of hatred and war, what planet are we on ????
I had to listen to that whining develish tirade while I was in Arabia during Desert Storm,
Then in Oct while I was in Israel, I had to liten to it in the old city of Jerusalem!!
They are infesting the land.
And I DO mean INFESTING.
They are filthy people, they throw their trash on the ground!!
The Origional Damascus gate, which is one of the many areas infested, is covered in Muslim trash and filth.
:(-->
I took many pictures of Israel and if I could figure out how to get them from my computor to GS I would do so... I took allot of pictures of the Muslim occupied areas too.... they were all filthy and disgusting.
Do I sound harsh?
-->
Do I sound crazy?
;)-->
Tell that to the Mom and Dad of a young soldier that got blown up by a MUSLIM terrorist,
( so bad that they could not see the body), that was FUNDED by many many Amercan Muslims all over, that smile in your face
:D--> and talk peace , but you sit them down and pick their brain and you bring up Israel that GOD gave to Children of Israel, and they will change their tune. 
The whole goal of the Muslims is to push Israel into the sea.
Have any of you seen the "palestinian" patch????
It covers Israel as if it NEVER EXISTED.
OK Enough...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Actually, Valerie, I am concerned about the politically-correct preference provided to non Christian religions. The fact that any one religion is being government-subsidized over others. Frankly, I would be just as concerned if it was a Baptist charter academy, a Wiccan charter academy, or a Buddist charter academy.
However, I do not concur with your broad-brush accusations about Muslims. I personally know too many of them that are as abhorant about the situtation going on in the M.E. these past few years as many Christians are. I do acknowledge that there are a huge number of them that are being taught terrorism.
But to swipe all of them with that brush is about as ignorant as saying that all Jews control the banking system and have a plot to control the world through the Rothschilds or saying that all Catholics are pedophiles or saying that all Southern Baptists are klansmen.
Mind you, you are fully entitled to your view and I am not trying to dissuade you from it. I just would prefer not to be associated with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
valerie52
I know there are nice Muslims,
My post was not about the nice muslims.
While in Desert Storm a very lovely family hosted a handful of us.
They wanted to meet female soliders.
They took us all over the place, (We had to wear robes and masks because US soldiers were not allowed out in the city), and they took us to several different stores etc.
I was the NCO in charge, it was my call to disobey the Amy rules about going in the city.
;)-->
Glad I did it.
:D-->
NO regrets.
They were a delightful family.
They were gracious and kind.
I know there are nice ones.
But I still think we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here,
and yes I know that America was founded for ALL religions to be free without persecution,
but in comparison to the commandments from God to not let the pagans into your land.....
I would rather obey God than the government.
My ancestors fought and died for this freedom.
I think they would all roll over in their graves if they could see America today, with 6 million Muslims, and Muslim schools exploding and having waiting lines.....
Knowing their decendants were being killed by Terrrorsist in Muslim countries that they are helping rebuild. isn't that nice.
Not defending their own country, but a Muslim nation that beheads Americans!!
:(-->
Why is NO ONE asking where the MILLIONS of Sadams money is? it would be paying for this since he screwed up Iraq in the first place!!!
God is the one I have to answer to in the end, not the politically correct government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Valerie52,
You wrote...
But I still think we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here,
and yes I know that America was founded for ALL religions to be free without persecution,
but in comparison to the commandments from God to not let the pagans into your land.....
I am glad that you had no say in framing the Constitution.
You also wrote...
My ancestors fought and died for this freedom.
They fought for the freedom to choose which religion (if any) they would practice as well as the freedom of speech, press and assembly. What I can't get over is you flag waving, smug evangelicals is that you get so misty eyed over the symbols of our freedoms but tread cavalierly over the very freedoms that they symbolize.
Perhaps you would be much happier in a Christian theocracy styled after the Islamic one in Iran. It ain't happening here, thank God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Stop and think about this, will you please, just stop and think.
So you make the distinction between the American government (Constitution) which gaurantees religious freedom, even for 'pagan worshippers', and God, who says "Let not the pagans into your land". Hhmmmm. OK. Well, isn't it true that this very same God of yours required that pagans like this were to be *killed* in the land of Isreal for the worship of other gods? Is this the same one that you contrast the Constitution with? (And who is the 'war god' in these situations, hmmm?)
Have you ever even read what some of our founding fathers thought about this kind of diety? Hhmmm? Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Paine. John Adams. Even Benjamin Franklin, with his gentle demeanor, and many others had some not-so-flattering things to say about belief systems like this. ... And these were the same people who founded the same country that you fought for, so you might want to keep that in mind. (And I can show you *plenty* of quotes and statements, that are NOT 'taken out of context', that show this plainly)
"My ancestors fought and died for this freedom." What freedom? *The freedom for ALL religions to be free without persecution, NOT this 'freedom' for not having 'pagans' in this land.*
"... we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here." Christ on a crutch, listen to you! I'm sorry, but I had no idea that having religious freedom was to be so flippently dismissed as nothing more than 'political correctness'.
Frankly, I think I prefer answering to the principles of what the Constitution communicates, rather than this OT 'war god' that demands the driving out/killing of those who don't worship accordingly. Or, as Thomas Jefferson so distinctly put it in one of his quotes that I referred to:
Or how about this one:
So perhaps there isn't the so-called danger that you seem to think there is.
The U.S of A., contrary to what folks like you would like to think, is NOT the western hemisphere version of Isreal awaiting its Messianic King, thank you very much, but the first country that was founded on a secular government that is answerable to/elected by its people, and ONLY its people.
P.S., Oh by the way, for you who believe that our country was founded on *biblical* concepts and principles, here is a brain teaser for you to think about.
Where in the bible is the representative form of government found as a biblically/godly form of government, hmmm? Just think about that one for a moment.
The answer just might surprise you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Valerie,
I don't believe I've ever spoken to you. Nice to meet you. A tad about me, I hang out in politics. I'm rather vociferous regarding my few of "radical" Islam's. But "radical" is the critical part of that description. I've no problem with that faith being practiced in this country. I've more than a problem with the "radicals" believing in and orchestrating my death because I'm not one of them. It's within that elitist thinking they err to barbarism. If I tell them they cannot believe in their god in my country how am I not at least partaking of some of their thought processes?
And for those who read I had a problem with primary Middle East history being taught in the Muslim schools here, it's because they need to know what allowed them the opportunity to be sitting at that desk and chair in their somewhat safe environment. They can be taught their history as well, of course, but if allowed with no check and balances history could continue to be written for their young to learn, even about this country. Osama bin Laden did an excellent job of re-writing history from 9/11 forward for his benefit in his display at election time. I don't believe a stateside Muslim school would desire to ignore our freedoms and how we obtained them, but primary teaching of anything, yes even Christianity must be considered in light of blinders.
Checks and balances can have the appearance of lost liberty as well. Seems there is a "balance" to balance.
But back to the point, our country stands for the right of individual freedom to worship. God help us the day we not allow it to remain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Valerie,
Your position is un-American and unfortunately, your views are becoming more widespread. And that's because people are afraid. Afraid of the extremists they see on the news.
I can understand that fear but there are greater things to fear. Greater dangers. Greater evils. Intolerance and bigotry has killed more people than greed ever has but has enslaved even more. Once you've made the decision that God's laws allow you to persecute peoples on the basis of their faith, intolerance is now your god.
And that god is a vengeful terrible god indeed. His appetite for the destruction of the unworthy is insatiable. He'll demand to be fed daily and when the easy victims are gone, history has shown us he starts on his own. Those who wavered are next.
Then, like the final scenarios of the French Revolution where even the 'Jacques' were getting gullitoined right and left, to the final days of the Third Reich where any army officer who said things weren't looking too good were summarily executed as defeatists... the gods of intolerance's demands for human sacrifice know no bounds.
Can't happen in America?? Ask the American Indian with ancestors on The Trail Of Tears. Ask the WWll Japanese internees. Ask the civil rights marchers. When people are afraid, they can do despicable things. Call it mob mentality. The first thing to do prevent it is calling it what it is and Valerie.. you are espousing repugnant dangerous and evil views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
echo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Mark, I agree, the laws of the land should apply evenly across the board regardless of religious beliefs.
Garth, I've pondered that. I think what we know of the early Christian church and it's first couple generations could qualify, in principle. God and Jesus Christ were at the center of the people's faith.
If - the faith was led primarily by the rules to love God first and your community/fellow man/neighbor second, you'd have the basis for a system where the good of each person would be mutually sought by each one.
I think that would naturally lead to discussion, consideration, debate and ultimately the "vote". In other words if you and I were truly concerned about not only what was good for us/me but what was also good for us/you we'd have to allow for if not compromise, equity in how we lived.
We'd have to 'enforce' tolerance and balance at least to some degree. (although the 'enforcement' would have a premise - to love God first and others as we would ourselves).
In that kind of religious community led by the teachings of Jesus there'd be an attempt to maintain our own ideals while recognizing the benefit of allowing other to maintain theirs. Maybe?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Sudo,
A hearty "me too" to your post...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Socks,
What I was referring to wasn't church polity, but to a civil government of a country. And there is enough difference between the two that they are clearly distinct from each other. For one thing, church government is still about worshipping that church's god. In a country's civil government where it's representitive of the people across the board, the 'god' factor disappears.
And in the Bible, it is taught that "blessed is the nation whose god is the Lord", and they were all (the ones chosen and supported by God that is) kingdoms. And not even constitutional monarchies at that. All of them were of the 'divine right' variety.
Democracies and republics, on the other hand, come straight from the Greco-Roman societies, and they were pagan (to play off of the term Valerie used).
Just some historical facts to consider in the discussion re: god and government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
As long as they aren't teaching hate and teaching the kids what they need to know for education, who the heck cares?
That is my opinion of this whole thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Although you bring up some good points, sir, I believe that a little bit of clarification may be necessary in order to keep this in the proper context.
First of all, the government of Rome:
Rome was initially a kingdom. It was a republic for approximately 500 years. It then, under Caesar Augustus, became an Empire, with successors being determined by heredity. During the republican era of Rome, there was an aristocracy. Only the patricians were senators. So, it was hardly a universally elected representative government, as we would recognize one today.
Second of all, the religion of Rome: While you are absolutely correct on the religion being Pagan, it should be noted that there was no such thing as separation of Church and State. The head of State was the head of the (Pagan) Church. Rather similar to modern Iran. Minority religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, were tolerated to different degrees, depending upon the political climate of the time. When the level of tolerance was down, they were wholesale killed.
As for Greece, the political norms depended upon which city-state you are referring to, as each city-state had its own government. Of course, Athens adopted a democratically-elected representative government (of course, only aristocrats could hold office). Sparta was, of course, a kingdom (with a more oligarchial administration, granted). Corinth was a kingdom, until it was destroyed by Rome. When the Romans rebuilt it, they formed its government to resemble that of Rome. As with Rome, though, there was none of this silly "separation of church and state" stuff.
The point being that if you are trying to draw a comparison between this country and ancient Rome and Hellas, it is important to remember that there were different forms of government based upon convenience. It is equally important to remember that one cannot talk about "civil government" versus "religious." They were one in the same. I believe that in this regard, we would be wise not to emulate the ancients, wouldn't you agree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
Perhaps I should have clarified better. Instead of saying "Democracies and republics, on the other hand, come straight from the Greco-Roman societies", I should have stated "have their roots and beginning concepts" in those societies. Good point.
However (and you knew it was coming, didncha?
;)-->), first off, although the Roman version of representative government is crude and very limited to ours by comparison, so it could be also said that the representative government under our own Constitution *at its beginning* was also crude by comparison to today, what with non-property owners, blacks, women, and 18 year olds getting the right to vote, and the direct election of senators in the years since then.
Two, I never brought in 'separation of church and state' into the Greco-Roman models. You did that. The concept of separation of church and state is relatively new, being about 200-250 years old. Still a very valid concept nonetheless (as opposed to being 'silly'), being determined from the experiences learned from the church-state mixture in Europe, and the dismal failure therewith. So also was the downside of the Greco-Roman age without the church-state separation.
Why is there this downside of non-separation?
The answer to that should be apparent to all. Government involvement in the private (
Always has. Always will.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson once observed:
Why this is so difficult for some folks to understand and grasp continues to escape me.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
"Two, I never brought in 'separation of church and state' into the Greco-Roman models. You did that."
True, but I believed it was implicit in your post, with the opening statement that said, "What I was referring to wasn't church polity, but to a civil government of a country," followed by the correlation you drew between the governments of two ancient civilizations and their religious systems. If I misinterpreted you, then I apologize.
The point I was trying to drive at was that there is the form of the government, at least in those days, was not a function of belief systems; it was, rather, a function of necessity in governing their respective land masses.
As to the value of avoidance of an official state religion, unless it is "my" religion
;)-->(the reader should feel free to substitute his name for "my," as he feels fit), it is, of course, a bad idea. In this light, we are in agreement. As I said above, "I believe that in this regard, we would be wise not to emulate the ancients, wouldn't you agree?"
The above paragraph should be read in light of the following definition of religion,
From the Wikipedia article on "Religion."Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Then we are talking ethics, Mark. And even the questions of existence and the purpose of life are best dealt with in a private and personal (;)-->) matter.
Besides, this 'widening' of the definition of religion that encompasses all still doesn't allow government in to participate. I've noticed that there are some pro-break-down-the-wall afficianadoes (present company excluded of course
;)-->) who use that 'wide load' and obscure 'definition' of religion as a means of an end run around the church-state separation argument, and I can spot that one a mile off. (Maybe because of its 'wide load' characteristics 
:D-->)
Basically 'religion', as distinct from 'ethics', has to do with God/spirituality/the ethereal world/etc. Ethics has to do with our behavior towards other human beings.
Also, the reason I brought up that it was pagans who initiated the representative form of government was to show that it did come from those specific Greco-Roman 'pagans', in contrast to the biblical characters, who seemed to always concentrate on 'Let us have a king". Ie., an answer to those who seem to boast that democracy and the principles thereof was a distinctly Judeao-Christian invention come straight from the Bible.
'Tain't so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And, as long as one system of beliefs is not given primacy over another, I have no issue with your statement. When I have to walk around in hiding so my religion does not offend somebody who disagrees (be that disagreement be from somebody of another religion or somebody whose dogma is "areligious"), I have a problem with this. I have no problem being on equal footing with somebody of a different creed than mine, but when I am forced to subordinate my faith to another person's faith, whether that faith is Theistic or Atheistic, then I simply become resentful.
Having said that, as I recall we have had this dicussion before, ad nauseum. It is as likely to be resolved this time as on any prior effort. Frankly, you know where I stand. I know where you stand. Neither of us are likely to budge on this topic. So following your next post, as I am certain that you will want to respond in order to refute anything I've said in this post, I'm perfectly willing to drop this particular derail and press onto solving some other of the world's problems.
:D--> 
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Agreed.
Like what is the best beer to give Cindy! to get her off this 1 ... 2 ... 3 .... thread kick!
On the other hand, the separation of Cindy! and that thread might be as difficult as this topic is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
valerie52
Well,
I guess SOMEONE got what I was saying...
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.