PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Education Debates
     Public Education Failure

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fallingup, again, I know of many successful people who were home educated, some of them are still around today.  But home educated within the past 25 years?  (when much of that time home education was illegal!)

Also, Fallingup, let me know how often you're allowed to teach about God's intervention throughout history!  It won't be often, in fact, it won't happen at all if you teach in a public school!

Guest, you have just repeated the propaganda that the primary supporters of forced schooling have been feeding out through the media.  How about a little fact with your fiction?  If what you said was true, than explain to me how home educators have dominated the winner's stand at national academic competitions!  (Especially considering the fact that we only make up about 2% of the American population!)
Oh, yeah!  And what about the standardized test scores?

Other Guest, I didn't say that John Gatto didn't have a bias, I said you don't have to worry about it.  Like it or not, every person on the face of this earth has a bias!  John Gatto has spent thirty years as a schoolteacher- a good one- so he knows the system!

Again, check out the facts!

Oh, yeah!  You can actually read Gatto's book online!  Here's the link: www.johntaylorgatto.com


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:42 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david, if i wanted to teach about God then i would become a preacher. i'm sorry, but i would rather teach about more hard history facts than a religious course


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:19 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of all of Davids's groundless attacks on public education, none is more false that his charge that public schools are godless institutions.  Most high schools are rife with religion, the kind permitted under the Constitution.  There are Bible Clubs, religious organizations for athletes, "prayer at the pole", and a largely christian faculty.

Who is for spiritual values for kids and who is just kidding?  Can you name any institution that comes nearer to biblical injunctions than public schools  Certainly not any homeschoolers.

Feeding the hungry?  Last year nearly 30 percent of public school children received a free hot meal and it was the only one they got all day.

Clothing the naked?  There is hardly an elementary school in a poor neighborhood in America that does not have a clothing closet stuffed with underwear, socks and other necessities for have not children.

The widow's mite?  The average teacher spent more than $400 of personal funds for such things as workbooks and pencils for poor children.

Visiting the prisoners?  Those are public educators manning the GED, vo-tech, literacy and skill centers behind prison walls, helping tens of thousand of otherwise lost lives.

Role models?  No other profession provides a higher percentage of Sunday school teachers.

Suffer the little ones?  Who takes millions of little ones who are retarded, developmentally disabed, or mentally handicapped and helps them?  

Because teachers don't pin on a church label and baptize the students doesn't make public education any less spiritual.  It isn't the babbling critics who wrap themselves in religious intolerance who are making a difference for all of God's children.  They preach to the saved in the rear echelon while public school teachers staff the front lines.

Public school teachers are scorned and maligned by ignorant people, but they keep on teaching - God only knows why.  They earn the poorest salaries among all the industrial nations, yet studies show they are among the brightest college students and nearly half hold master's degrees.

Public education does more of God's work for children every day than any other instituution in America, and that includes the churches.  Homeschoolers can not even compare their works to the works of public school teachers.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:41 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thank you very much guest. that post was much much needed


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:27 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

David wants christianity taught in public schools it seems.  If that were constitutional, which it is not, it would still be a bad idea.  Whose version of christianity would you teach?  By David's posts I am sure he would prefer conservative/ fundamentalist brands of christianity to be taught.

Lets look at a country where conservative/ fundamentalist religious leaders do decide what is taught in schools and see what they decided to teach.

In Saudia Arabia Education Minister Dr. Muhammad Al-Rasheed said the Saudi school sylabus has "several defects" and his ministry is making every effort to address and eliminate them.  Hopefully the "defects" he's planning to address include the following:

Following a lesson on the monotheistic faiths, Saudi Arabian schoolchildren are asked to discuss "With what types of weapons should Muslims arm themselves against the Jews?"  The question is part of an official textbook for 8th grade students which also emphasized that "Jews and christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs," and that "The hour (the day of judgment) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."

I think we could expect a very similar type of curriculum in the public schools if conservative/fundamentalist christians like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson were put in charge of deciding what to teach in the schools.  Of course their hatred would be directed at non-christians, as they have done many times in the past.

You know, maybe not teaching religion in public schools is a pretty good idea,huh?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:30 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest, where have you been?  Sure, good things sometimes happen in the public schools, but it's because of individual teachers like John Gatto, who work against the system,  not because of the system itself!  Have you heard that the Bible has been banned from public schools?

No, public schools are not concerned at all with the religious education of their students!

And yes, most home educating parents are!  That's one of the major reasons that led most home educating parents to their decision!

Fallingup, you said "david, if i wanted to teach about God then i would become a preacher. i'm sorry, but i would rather teach about more hard history facts than a religious course".

So Jesus Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection aren't historical facts?

Oh yeah, how about what American schools are supposed to teach?  (And they're not supposed to operate the way they do now, schooling is not supposed to be forced on people)

Well, let's see what George Washington had to say about that:

While encamped on the banks of a river, Washington was approached by Delaware Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in American schools. In Washington's response, he first told them that "Congress... will look on them as on their own children." That is, we would train their children as if they were our own. He then commended the chiefs for their decision:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

According to George Washington, what students would learn in American schools "above all" was "the religion of Jesus Christ."

Other Guest, you're looking at false religions like Islam and saying that Christianity is just like they are.  Wrong!  Look at the teachings of Christianity!  Islam teaches its adherents to murder Christians and Jews.  Does Christianity teach any such thing?  Does Christianity teach genocide or racism?  No!  Christianity is necessary for our form of government to work properly!  Evidence:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"--George Washington


"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."—Benjamin Rush (Signer of the Declaration of Independence)

"We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism."—Benjamin Rush

"The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses."--Thomas Jefferson


"Three points of doctrine, the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of a God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it is possible for a man to disbelieve either of these articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark; the laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."--John Quincy Adams

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle…"--George Washington

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people . It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams


That's not all either, but that's all that I have time for now!

God bless!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 10:18 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david, i believe without a doubt that Jesus died and rose again, but it is not classified as historical fact. there is a difference between faith and fact. we do not need to teach a Christian agenda in schools


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:38 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, yes it is an historical fact!  Simon Greenleaf, (if I'm remembering the name correctly) who used to be a Supreme Court Justice, was challenged by someone to disprove the resurrection.  He tried, and failed.  His conclusion?  That the resurrection of Christ is the most solid historical fact ever!

By the way, about that "Christian agenda" that you don't think we should be teaching in schools: read my last post and you'll find out what our founders thought.


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 2:57 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david, you are soooo obsessed with our founding fathers. why???

can you give me a link to a site that explains what happened with Simon Greenleaf? thanks


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:21 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about.  They're the ones who set up the way this nation is supposed to run.  They wrote the Constitution.  That's why all of the emphases on the Founders.

Sorry, I don't have a site for you at the moment, but I'll find one and let you know about it as soon as I get the chance!

God bless!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 7:50 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What Thomas Jefferson thought about religion in schools may be seen from his founding of the University of Virginia in the last years of his life.  Prepared to transform the College of Williams and Mary into the principal university of the state, Jefferson would do so only if the college divested itself of all ties with sectarian religion.  The college declined to make that break so Jefferson proceeded with plans for his own university.  The University of Virginia opened in 1825 with professorships in languages and law, natural and moral philosophy, history and mathematics, but not in divinity.

Jefferson said "high quality education was not well served by those who preferred mystery to morals and divisive dogma to the unities of science.    Too great a devotion to doctrine can drive men mad; if it does not have that tragic effect, it at least guarantees that a man's education will be mediocre".  Moral content would be taught at the University of Virginia, but in philosophy, not divinity.  "If Almighty God has made the mind free, one of the ways to keep it free is to protect young minds from the clouded convolutions of theologians."

Jefferson wanted education separated from religion because of his own conclusions concerning the nature of religion, its strengths and its weakneses.

"Simon Greenleaf....was challanged by someone to disprove the resurrection.  He tried and failed.  His conclusion?  That the resurrection of Christ is the most solid historical fact ever"

Wow that is really impressive.  One man is asked to prove something didn't happen(which is intellectually dishonest to even be asked to prove a negative), and he can't, so that means it must be true.  That may serve as proof in homeschooling but would be laughed at as proof in the real world.

And as far as John Gatto, he is nothing more than a shill for homeschooling.  He makes his living writing books supporting homeschooling and speaking to homeschooling associations.  The homeschooling association of California even refers to him on their web site as "a staunch supporter of home schooling" when he spoke to them.  He is not a very credible source since he has such obvious bias against public education and in support of home fooling.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:16 AM on January 9, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, Fallingup, I was slightly mistaken about Simon Greenleaf.  He was a professor of law and one of the founders of Harvard University, not a member of the Supreme Court.  I must have confused him with someone else.  I found a couple of links for you.  The first one deals with the issue of the resurrection and mentions Greenleaf: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch20/default.htm

The other one links to an article written by Greenleaf himself: http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm


Guest, Jefferson said, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."  He did not subscribe to any particular denomination of Christianity and, as a divinity course would naturally be denominational, it's pretty obvious why he didn't include one in his plan for the college.

One thing to keep in mind, however, back in the Founder's day, God's hand was acknowledged in history, especially our own.
Benjamin Franklin put it this way: "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise and fall without His aid?"

Furthermore, the standard law textbook was Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law.  What kind of a book was this?  Well, a young man who, by his own admission, was practically a heathen, and who had heard very few sermons in his life, and had nearly no contact with the Gospel, decided to become a lawyer.  Naturally, he studied Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law.  The result?  Maybe you've heard of Charles Finney?  Yes, he was saved while studying law.

Simon Greenleaf was a legal expert.  He evaluated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Biblical account of the resurrection was true.

If that's not enough for you, maybe you've heard of Josh McDowell?  He was a young pre-law student (an atheist) whose friends challenged him to disprove examine intellectually the claim that Jesus Christ is God's son.  He wrote a book detailing his findings, and I would challenge you to read it.  It's called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", and you can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785242198/qid=1042126591/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-9585621-2432625?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Still not enough?  How about Lee Strobel, the investigative reporter with a degree in law investigated the claims of Christianity?  He later wrote a book called "The Case for Christ", which you can get here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310209307/qid=1042127093/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-9585621-2432625?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Notice what these three have in common?  A legal education.  Legal expertise.  The ability to analyze evidence.  Oh, yes, and the fact that all of them were atheists when they were challenged to analyze that evidence.

Guest, I'm challenging you to investigate.  Read those books and come to your own conclusions!

By the way, have you read Gatto's books?  Probably not.  Do it.  Then come back and try to refute them.

Gatto, in his book "The Underground History of American Education", hardly even mentions home education.  (And when he did, it wasn't a promotion, it was merely a factual statement about what some parents are doing)  Again, check it out!

By the way, as far as bias goes, everyone has it.  Every single person on the face of this earth has a bias, so that argument is null.  Gatto cites the writings of the founders of modern forced schooling themselves, so go ahead and read what your side says!  Follow it up!  Find the sources!

By the way, no one has yet explained how, if home education is such a horrible thing, home educators beat out the public schools in standardized tests and national academic competition.


Take a serious look at the evidence!


God bless!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:05 AM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jefferson was such a good christian and so suspicious of the traditional belief that the bible is the inspired word of god that he rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament.  He compiled his own gospel version know as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with Jesus' burial.  The Jeffersonian gospel account contained no resurrection, a twist to the life of Jesus that was considered scandalous to christians but perfectly sensible to Jefferson's Diestic mind.

In a letter to John Adams he wrote, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothing.  To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels no soul.  I cannot reason otherwise" (August 15, 1820).  Writing to Adams again, Jefferson said "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823).  These are hardly the words of a christian.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:12 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Other Guest,
Your right, Jefferson was a diest by any orthodox Christian standard. Yes, he cut out the miracles including the ressurection of Christ. But he still understood that there was a higher power (authority) that no one could overrule.
-FP
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:29 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." --Thomas Jefferson, _Six_Historic_Americans_ by John E. Remsberg

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, _Six_Historic_Americans_ by John E. Remsberg

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." -- Thomas Jefferson



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:11 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others I have quoted from Jefferson's writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their "Christian-nation" claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on "biblical principles." The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency. Saul K. Padover's biography related the bitterness of the opposition that the clergy mounted against Jefferson in the campaign of 1800

The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).

William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City, made perhaps the most violent of all attacks on Jefferson's character, all of it based on religious matters. In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn "accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality'" (Padover, p. 116). He referred to Jefferson as a "true infidel" and insisted that "(a)n infidel like Jefferson could not, should not, be elected" (Padover, p. 117). He concluded the pamphlet with this appeal for "Christians to defeat the `infidel' from Virginia"

Will you, then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence... vote for Mr. Jefferson?... As to myself, were Mr. Jefferson connected with me by the nearest ties of blood, and did I owe him a thousand obligations, I would not, and could not vote for him. No; sooner than stretch forth my hand to place him at the head of the nation "Let mine arms fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone" (quoted by Padover, p. 117).

Why would contemporary clergymen have so vigorously opposed Jefferson's election if he were as devoutly Christian as modern preachers claim? The answer is that Jefferson was not a Christian, and the preachers of his day knew that he wasn't.

In the heat of the campaign Jefferson wrote a letter to Benjamin Rush in which he angrily commented on the clerical efforts to assassinate his personal character "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." That statement has been inscribed on Jefferson's monument in Washington. Most people who read it no doubt think that Jefferson was referring to political tyrants like the King of England, but in reality, he was referring to the fundamentalist clergymen of his day.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:05 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, the claim that "Jefferson eliminated all miraculous accounts from his edition of the New Testament" is an old one.  It also happens to be wrong.  Jefferson compiled all of the teachings of Jesus into a single volume so that the Indians could learn Christianity's superior system of morality; it was not another New Testament.

Another note of Jefferson, since we seem to be so interested in him here: while he was president, he sent government sponsored Christian missionaries to the Indians.

As I said earlier, Jefferson wasn't too fond of many denominational teachings!  Again, he said "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Anyone who says that out loud in today’s world gets ridiculed!

Note the outrage when the early Americans were faced with a choice between two men who were not widely known Christians?

Everyone who is in the public eye will have someone on their back with accusations, some true, some false.  Jefferson was no exception.



It appears that we have wandered a bit from our course.  This debate is about public schooling.  Let's get back to the issue.  Has anyone read those books?  Do it!  You can't afford not to!

God bless!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 2:50 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what do you mean someone who says "i am a real christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus" gets ridiculed? ridiculed by other christians who read other parts of the bible other than the gospels? or ridiculed by atheists?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 3:42 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyone who publicly confesses Christ will be ridiculed.  Jesus said so: "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."  (John 15:20)

Did they persecute Him?  Yes!  Anyone who confesses Christ before men uncompromisingly will be persecuted.  That's why so many "Christians" today have watered down the truth to make it "less offensive".  I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem with that practice!

But again, back to the point at hand.  Public schooling.  I say, it's detrimental to America.  Obviously, others disagree.  Read the books I recomended, and refute them-if you can!


God bless!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 4:57 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does anyone know if there are listing/ratings of the top highschools in America??  Do the ratings describe how the schools were rated?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:43 PM on February 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to improve education, we must revive an interest in learning.  the youth of today that i see most are not interested in learning.  they instead pour their time and efforts into superficial, meaningless things.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:54 PM on March 25, 2003 | IP
tinmanyd

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Public schools have a "garbage in, garbage out" problem -- too many parents expect schools to raise their kids, and too many sociopathic kids are therefore dumped into overcrowded classrooms, raising hell and brutalizing classmates when teacher's back is turned.  Teachers spend too much time maintaining order and handing out rote work to really give our best and our brightest the schooling they deserve.  

Voice of Experience
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:30 PM on April 23, 2003 | IP
katie_king

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YEA they are failing i go to a private school and im smarter then most people at the middle school but thats only because our material is harder than theirs. yea there is a lot of smart people in public schools but they dont get a chance to use their intelligence.


-------
Always and Forever, Katie
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 8:08 PM on May 22, 2003 | IP
Kels_615

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree there are smart people in middle schools but in private schools you ge tindividiual attention and the teachers can help you with you homework.


-------
Don't make me mad....oh no, you don't wanna know what I'll do to you!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 9:03 PM on May 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I definatley think public education is a failure. Many teachers are not even qualified for the subject they teach. For example, in California 33% of all teachers are un-qualified. In Florida students are learning from politically correct history books. The bookd mention Gandhi more than any other person and fail to mention George Washington. As i recall George Washington and Thomas Jefferson changed the world, Ghandi did not. Students are being taught what the government wants them to hear, not the truth. In the state of Wisconsin public schools have classes on how to express yourself. That is sad that they need to teach them how to express themselves. Its a waste of tax payer money. In order to gain the students dedication to school you need teachers who are dedicated themselves. But the teachers are not dedicated because they are under payed. We need to pay teachers more money. Dump millions of dollars into education.

(Edited by admin 1/9/2004 at 10:34 AM).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:06 AM on January 9, 2004 | IP
neutraliam13

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey i'm a student so yeah certain school to me are failing. my old school(i wont mention its name for feared of being sued) was horrible.  Okay i admit tha there were some teachers there that we good at teachin and liked to teach. If a teacher doesnt like to teach adults blame the students saying that they arent trying. I treied to learn but if you had some of my teachers you wouldnt learn anything. thats just the way they were. also i know its juvinal but dont you wonder why kids do bad. sometimes its popularity(im serious on that one) other times its to piss of the teacher. We had a power hungy v.p. and to piss himm off 4 of us wouldnt eat luch. It got him so mad he puposfully forgot us. if the v.p. would do that y wont the teachers? they dont like you they will either humiliate or or ignore you   i think your all adults because by saying its the students fault you might be just as bad as the teachers.  i need to get into that sex ed forum because by learning sex ed you learn how to have safe sex. even though you are encourged not to use that knoledge till you r older wats going to stop you?   big failure of the school i went to: in the high school the other day to students were caught having sex on stge in the auditorium. more have been caught with drugs  but the big thing is all the weapons   im sorry but to me, students who have or done those items in school have been failed  by the school.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 9:52 PM on February 11, 2005 | IP
cmitch06

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The school system is a total failure.  Public school's curriculums have not grown at the rate that technology has grown. To get a good education and a good job you have to pay for it by going to college. I am in my senior year of high school and I feel as if I am wasting my time. The public school system lags back and dumbs everything down in an effort to get students through the system that shouldnt be graduating. Therefore, a high school diploma doesnt mean anything anymore.  Because as long as you can read and write you can graduate high school and sometimes even that isnt required.  But lets face it not every student needs to know how to find the slope of a line. We have to develop a way to stop passing kids through the system that cant read and shouldnt be there while we stop kids that have potential from learning all they can. How about after middle school you can either go to high school or trade school based on your test scores. Just a thought.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 01:02 AM on September 22, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.