Why exactly would blacks be offended by weekday religious education?
Here is the third amendment, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law". Does that mean the military can require an apartment or condo owner to quarter troops? How about businesses? It clearly says house. Do we agree originalism has issues without any context whatsoever?
Here is the sixth amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
It wasn't until 1963 that the Court noticed that last part, "and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense". I throw that in since he assumes the early courts read the document clearly and it was muddled later. That isn't so, it quite clearly specifies that a defendant is to have, "the assistance of counsel for his defense". There are zero ifs, ands, or buts. So early courts could make mistakes.
But to use his argument, nothing in the document gives the power for the government to create or enforce a religion. of any kind. In addition, article 6 clearly says there can be no religious test for any oath of office.
The Articles of Confederation specifically referenced God several times and the Declaration referenced God. Isn't that a sign of religious neutrality creeping into the founders? The document does not mention God one time.
And we did sign a treaty on this. The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in 1796 and says, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
Going back to Madison, he said it best:
The bill falsely presupposed “that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth,” and that the same illegitimate authority used to “establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendmen...supposed “that,exclusion of all other sects.”
If you allow the state to say "there is a God" the state gains the right to say "and it is the God of this specific group". And to throw it in since he's a Hoosier, below is what the state constitution says which makes the rest moot for Hoosiers.
Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience. Section 4. No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).Section 5. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for any office of trust or profit.Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.
Clearly, no one has the power to say, "members of X cannot be elected, or cannot vote". As a result, religion will never, ever, be eliminated as one might suspect. Look at the Supreme Court, all claim a religion. Have we had a known atheist in the White House?
And what's your interpretation of DC vs Heller re: the 2nd Amendment? Was that about a "well-regulated militia?"
Gotta be Protestant one, Catholics get Hail Mary on Tuesday.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Going back to the original subject, there is no need to teach religion to teach character. The linked podcast doesn't deal with that: it deals with grit, but opens up a discussion regarding all character traits. As the participants touch on, it is also essentially what SEL and anti-racism curriculums are attempting to instill in children today.
In a multi-cultural society, how do you determine which should be taught and which should not? How do you decide those questions? Who decides them? I find these the more interesting/difficult questions.
In a multi-cultural society, how do you determine which should be taught and which should not? How do you decide those questions? Who decides them? I find these the more interesting/difficult questions.
I agree they are difficult. I was thinking how tough the "respect others" might be. There are people who might think gays don't deserve respect, or fundamentalists don't deserve respect. So even something simple becomes hard because of who we have become.
Edit to add:
Excerpt from All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten | Penguin Random House Canada
Essays on life that will resonate deeply as readers discover how universal insights can be found in ordinary events.
Last edited:
Odd that you post in terms of groups of people; gays, fundamentalists,, any other groups?
One thing I would definitely teach, is that people are individuals, not members of groups or of a certain skin color. People deserve respect because they are people, not because they may believe in climate change or because they drive a pickup and own a gun.
I thought a lot about this thread. I think we can teach politeness, beyond that character becomes too ambiguous.
I was trying to pick groups from both sides of the aisle. I could have just used the universal villain, lawyer. Simply put there are people teaching their children certain groups do not deserve respect, do you suggest this never happens.
People are part of groups, gay kids DO report being bullied more often.
I still think honesty and accepting responsibility can be taught along with respect.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
As the podcast discusses, simply by teaching and controlling the classroom, you are teaching some type of character traits: respect for authority, honesty (not cheating), valuing the right answer, etc. It's almost impossible NOT to reinforce some types of character traits and discourage others. I think respect for other students goes along with that (and has been taught for at least 100 years, I would think).
I think character is more about developing than teaching, but clearly there is an element of teaching involved. Moral codes are a traditional way to instill character.
The Way To Happiness is a moral code based on common sense. It has 21 precepts to assist one in living a happy life. I think it fits into this thread for building character.
“Since 1981 some 100 million copies of The Way to Happiness have been distributed in more than 114 languages and in over 170 countries.”
In a perfect world, that would be wonderful. In the real world, there are millions who hate others simply because they're part of a specific group - - Jews, Chinese, gay, Dem, Republican, etc. Those are discernible groups, and the members have every right to be proud of, and public about, their inclusion in the group. Unless and until the hatred toward identifiable groups stops (and that's obviously not happening anytime soon, if ever), it's naive to believe we can or should ignore group membership and expect people to perceive others simply as unique individuals.
Absolutely. And if that were widely viewed as problematic, we're done as a society.
Right. The question was about teaching character in public school. For me, the starting point is to stop all this group BS.
I don't understand your hatred of America, America has always had groups. The Germans came and settled in areas, they spoke German, they kept German customs. The Irish came over and lived in Boston and NY and lived in groups together, they largely served as police and fire leading to the standard movie meme. The Chinese came over and formed into groups, many large cities have a Chinatown. Blacks were brought over and weren't allowed to mingle. Natives were kept on reservations and not allowed to mingle.
Before the Civil War, most people thought of themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, Hoosiers. There wasn't an "American" culture. Virginians were as foreign to a Hoosier as a Frenchman. The Germans formed up their own corps in the Union Army led by German-speaking officers. The Union had an Irish regiment, the Confederacy an Irish Brigade.
The states' rights argument is an argument to add 51 groups in addition to Black, White, straight, gay, Christian, Athiest. If you want fewer groups, you should want more federal power.
I don't have an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I have only its words as they had meaning in 1789. It has an original plain meaning and that's all it means. There is significant discussion of what the Framers sought to protect surrounding the adoption of the 2nd Amendment. That advises what they meant when they wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment, but the meaning of those words cannot change. Yes, appellate jurisdictions and literature disagrees with my view. That's ok. I think the way the Constitution is understood and "interpreted" is wrong.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Don’t you think we’ve culturally evolved though? That we are better off judging each person as an individual rather than as just another identical version of Group X?
Judging, or belonging? Sure, I don't want people to judge based on group membership. They do, but I don't know how to stop it. But people will belong to groups. I belong to a group called Methodist out of choice. I belong to a group known as White from birth, same for male.
For a very long time in human history, group member was critical. Tribes fought and killed other tribes simply out of group membership. Then we went into slavery based on group membership, and group membership grew to be nationality. Humans are conditioned evolutionarily to be group-oriented. It is a problem.
People have the freedom and right to belong to a group. I've suggested in the past that we might be better if the Democratic and Republican parties didn't exist, but I haven't seen CO suggest those groups are bad (they are but people have a right to belong). But there are no groups in America more divisive than they are. If we aren't going to tackle that problem, then gays have a right to meet and act as a group, fundamentalists have that right, Libertarians, Hispanics, Blacks, left-handers, and even Boilermakers. Should we judge the individuals for being in groups., nope. But that isn't what CO is saying, CO has opposed people thinking of themselves in these groups not people judging them for it.
This is why I used people like Madison on Separation. What the founders intended is quite clear. Why apply that with the 2nd but not the first?
I apply that to the Constitution and amendments. SCOTUS doesn't but that's my approach. I believe the Framers intended to set forth their meaning by using plain language meaning exactly and only what it said on that paper and - geniuses that they were - they provided 2 methods of changing it if it was thought to need changed. No meaning should be changed from the ratified meaning absent amendment. That is the contract the states entered into to establish a representative republic. Plain meaning to those who ratified, change it if you can get the votes to amend. No court should ever give a meaning to the Constitution and Amendments different from what the states ratified in entering into their side of the bargain by ratifying, Unilaterally change the meaning? You've breached the contract and the other party is no longer bound. This is far too short but summarizes my view. Its certainly not the majority view and I get that. its ok, the courts can be wrong. Sometimes the courts get it right. Usually for the wrong reasons, but right outcome.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I have to disagree with your first sentence. Of course you have an interpretation.
If you apply meaning to words, you interpret them.
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprət/
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwjW8MfAubn2AhXRaM0KHbgQDcgQ3eEDegQICxAK
verb
- 1.
explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
"the evidence is difficult to interpret"
Interpretation of the Constitution can't be escaped. Even Scalia, et al. agree with that.
But there are different methods to use in coming up with a meaning, and figuring out how to apply the words or rule to a particular situation. Originalists or textualists (Hugo Black) think their interpretative method superior for a variety of reasons (promotes democracy, transparency, clearly delineates powers of the branches of govt., etc.), but there is no doubt that what they are doing is interpretation.
Lucy, your comments come close to my definition of character.
My definition would be the qualities distinctive to an individual.
In a classroom the emphasis is on learning such things as reading, writing, and arithmetic. This requires students to be disciplined and focus their attention on the subjects being taught.
By the time we go to school, our individual traits are already formed to at least some degree with some of us being more adapted to spending a day learning in a classroom than others. For good or for bad, we are products of our parents, relatives, friends, and the environment in which we were raised.
True character, outside of whether a person is easily adaptable to a classroom environment, can be seen playing games at recess and how they conduct themselves with other students outside the classroom. After school sports and extra curricular activities can reveal a students real character.
Having said all that, i do realize many of us look at schools as sort of a boot camp where we learn universal mental and moral qualities distinctive to an American culture. Then when people don't conform to these qualities we look to the schools as having failed us.
I read them and apply the meaning of the drafters or Framers. I don't interpret. I find out what the people who enacted it meant. That is the basis for the Constitution and Amendments to be ratified - its what they agreed that the words meant and the meaning was the basis for ratification. Change that meaning by interpretation, the deal is broken, the contract is breached, other party not bound.
Last edited:
