In a recent thread discussing a weirdo with a squirt gun, one poster commented that SAT scores had declined since 1962 when bibles were no longer allowed in public schools. The latest response on that thread pointed out that anyone can cite an effect and come up with a cause of reasonable proximity. I'd like to pursue this topic further a bit [although I realize that this forum isn't inclined of late to discuss matters that involve reaching into other areas of thought.]

The original poster couldn't cite a reference, but the statement seems to stem from David Barton. David Barton, apparently is a noted speaker in the Fundamentalist Christian arena, and has been chided for his revision of history before. In addition, the poster seems unaware of the history of bible teaching in the schools, in particular the episodes in the 19th century wherein the schools used the King James Version of the Bible, which was NOT the version acceptable to Roman Catholic Christians. The religious wars that ensued played a large role in Roman Catholics enrolling their children in private schools so that Protestant teachings would not replace the desired parental religious teachings.

Moving along, the poster also seems unaware of the united effort of various denominations of faith to compromise on what constitutes religious teachings in public schools, while still remaining within the bounds of the constitution.

Questions for discussion in this thread might include whether or not one believes the founding fathers were all practicing Christians. If so, which version of the Bible might be the one they had in mind. There's a close correlation to this thread and the one Z started on Christianity, yet my interest in THIS thread is to separate the belief system from the constitution, as well as address societal changes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000

Answers

I would have less problem with those who want to "separate" church and state if these same people weren't so evangelical in pushing their own secular religion in public schools.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 12, 2000.

Lars:

To whom do you refer?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita:

I am one who believes religion is a private matter [not very Pauline am I?]. As one who has studied the matter for 40 years [on the side as a hobby], I look at your statement about Lilith, Lilake or whatever [sp]. You said something like, when the bible was compiled she was left on the cutting room floor. Yes you are correct, and so was a lot more [ie, left on the cutting room floor]. Most of the information about the time in question was gleaned away. So discussing the matter with those that memorize the KJV serves little purpose. I am interested in the reasons for exclusion; more so that the reasons for inclusion. Tells us something about TPTB at the time.

Just one person's opinion.

Best wishes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita, you said, ..."my interest in THIS thread is to separate the belief system from the constitution, as well as address societal changes." I too think this is interesting and worth discussion without all the name calling.

Barton, is truly famous for bending facts, and revisng history for his own purposes, which is to promote the religious right. Some less fundamental Protestants have distanced themselves from his inflamatory rhetoric.

In 1972 scales were developed to measure literal, nonbelieving, and symbolic stances concerning Christian beliefs. It was found that the "literal and mythological believers did not differ on "intelligence, authoritarianism, or racial prejudice. Religious Believers as a group were...significantly less intelligent and more authoritarian than...Skeptics"

Also, low intelligence contributes to low esteem. and five separate studies have shown negative relationships between religiousness and intelligence/education. Check Who's Who for more on this.

Concerning the founding fathers, "The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore is probably the best book I've read on this issue. Although Jefferson embraced a personal religion, he felt religion should be kept separate from the constitution.

Lars, what do you mean about the same people being so evangelical in pushing their secular religion in public schools? You surely can't mean the teaching of science or evolution of the big bang theory, etc., For after all, the idea that the earth was round began with a theory which proved to be fact. Without scientific investigation, we would still be living in the dark ages. I'm not saying science is always right, but the difference is, they start with a theory and build on what they and others discover. It may take many false trails and trials to find the real answer, but it is a process that often takes time.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 12, 2000.

It would be impossible to fairly allow religion in schools. There is the choice to send a child to the religious shcool of their choice, but that cannot always be accomplished. I feel that alternative schools should be allowed so that parents can send their children to the one that more closely follows the all of the beliefs of the family the (not just pertaining to religion).

Due to the fact that all people have different strengths and weaknesses, life views and lifestyles, children should not be forced to conform to one square box.

The way children are taught today is horrible, they are not graded on their abilities, but their performance and conformance to a set standard.

As difficult as it is to attempt to accomidate the different foods necessary to cover health, religion, and ethnetisity, attempting to occomadate for the multitude of personal beliefs is impossible. It should not even be attempted.

That is a good example for alternative education, if a group would prefer to have their children educated in their beliefs as well as academically then they should be responsible for that portion of the learning and not expect the government to provide it as it would the academic teachings.

In otherwords the government continues to do what they do now (or better than they do now) in providing the means for academic teaching, where the powers that be of the secular foundation provides the cost of supplies and teachings of their particular "group".

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 12, 2000.

XZI, I also believe that religion is a private matter, and I too have studied both sides of the issue for *almost* 40 years. My reasons were different, but the results have been enlightening. In fact, I took several religion and philosophy courses for personal reasons, as they were not part of my degree program.

Then of course, being a bibliophile, this led to collecting books on the issue of religion and nonbelief. It has now become a hobby. Once I was at a small rural aution and bought several book on religion, atheism, satire of religion, defense of religion, agnosticism, etc., and most of them were wrapped in brown paper from grocery stores to keep the local fundamentalist community from seeing the titles.

Before I go any farther, I will state that I am not bashing religion, but I do not think religion has a place in education. That is what churches. and sunday school classes are for, or whatever a particular religious group has for their study of religion or the bible.

In fact that is what caused the author Zacharia Sitchin to write his wonderful Earth Chronicles. He questioned the meaning of a Hebrew definition of a word by one of his teachers.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 12, 2000.

Interesting responses, although I disagree with most. I'm NOT a Christian, yet I feel that an education is incomplete without an introduction to religion, including Christianity. Suggesting that the study of religion is better served by a home or a church is suggesting that a huge chunk of history and sociology is better served by a home or a church.

Prior to 1962, the public schools had evidently allowed a sort of "bland, non-denomination" prayer be recited. I went to school prior to 1962 and didn't see any prayer recited at all, but let's assume that some schools did. The 1962 ruling simply indicated that this was inappropriate as a function of the STATE as an imposed part of the curriculum. I agree with that COMPLETELY. This ruling didn't mean that the Bible was removed from the schools at all. Students could still bring Bibles to school, pray aloud or silently, etc., as long as they didn't disrupt the classroom in so doing, or when called upon by the teacher use prayer as an excuse for a non-response. This is common-sense.

I'm trying to think back to when my KIDS started public school, and I'd guess the year was perhaps 1985 or 1986. I followed their studies dilligently, and it seems to me that they WERE introduced to various religions, although were not taught the differences of opinion between the various sects within each. The suggestions contained within the link I presented "within the bounds of the constitution" would further the education of public school children to include these differences in the normal course of historical or sociological studies. I'm reminded of my son presenting me with some information on a friend of his from school. I asked, "Is he Roman Catholic?" My son said, "No. He's Christian." The concept of Roman Catholicism hadn't been included in his school curriculum under Christianity. I felt it SHOULD have been, but ALSO felt that the study of Christianity should have included the other sects within. It did not.

Z: I feel that religion is PERSONAL, yet PRIVATE is too strong a word, IMO. The evangelizing of Christianity puts the issue on our plates every day. Sex is personal as well, yet it's a function of our lives as much as breathing. We can start another thread on "the cutting room floor". I'd enjoy a discussion on that, as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

The history of cultures having highly organized, dominant religion(s) is almost universally the same: total control over science, philosophy, ethics, war, morality, diet, etc. (the list would be lengthy). The middle/dark ages were filled with the death of inquisitions, crusades and other religious warfare. Science was carefully kept within the strict bounds of religious 'knowledge'.

Unfortunately the history of cultues NOT having such religions is at least as bad! The bloody deeds of the madmen (& women?) who ruled the old USSR and Mainland/Communist China are still fresh in mind.

So what's the answer? All encompassing and dominating religion(s) or all encompassing worship of the state (i.e. Communism, Fascism)?

Up to now we've all been pretty lucky here in the good old USA -- we've got the paperwork which says that religion should not be allowed to overwhelm us (as with a state religion) NOR should religious worship be prohibited/inhibited or constrained by the state...a pretty delicate balancing act considering past history. This careful balance must be maintained - or else we would likely fall to one of the extremes of either state or religious worship.

-- (Cyber@Squat.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita, as you know, I too am NOT a Christian, although I was raised by Christians, did all the rigamarole, and so on. But when I said I did not think religion had a place in education, I meant bible study, or learning the particular religion of choice at that particular school.

But in the context of religion in history, sociology, philosophy, art, etc., I can't see any reason for objections. After all religion is intertwined in all of these studies, and a big part would be lacking without the role religon has played through the centuries.

But to include bible teaching, or teaching the religion of the majority should not be allowed unless it's a religious school. Luckily, I grew up when school was school, and church was church.

I think that religion is one of the most devisive issues in our society. I'm in the process of reading Close Encounters with the Religious Right by Robert Boston, and it is an eye opener.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 12, 2000.

Gilda:

I'd like your opinion on the offerings of the "within the bounds of the constitution" link I provided. As a non-Christian, would you think these suggestions went too far, didn't go far enough, or seemed 'just about right'?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Gilda,

I read your post, and hear what you're saying. I don't want to convince you of anything, but to share my perspective on religious schools. I send my kids to a Catholic school because:

-Education in their religion,

-Standardized test scores are higher than the surrounding public schools (may not be true for all RC schools)

-the parents there PAY to be there, and seem more involved with their kids' education (as a rule), as a side benefit to this, any kid who is really "bad" (criminal) would get expelled, and not disrupt the rest of the class.

Another part I like about sending the kids to an RC school is that it *allows* them to feel more a part of the community, integrating their religion with their education, and making for a nice school atmosphere. Obviously this wouldn't make much sense if you didn't believe the religious aspect though.

Frank

P.S. I also like the kids wearing uniforms. No big arguments over what to wear.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 12, 2000.

Anita,

I don't refer to anyone in particular. I'm not up on public school issues since I no longer have young children and since I am no longer married to a HS math teachur.

But I do perceive that public education is not as effective as it should be, as it used to be. IMO, its basic job should be to teach lil kids to be mathematically and linguistically literate and to be civil and informed citizens. It's not getting that job done.

I don't think SAT scores have much to do with whether or not the Bible is in schools. But SOMETHING has happened in the last 40 years to dumb-down education. If you agree, what do you think it is? I don't buy the notion that we aren't spending enough money. Good grief, we are spending hundreds of billions a year. Is that money well spent?

By secular religion, I am talking about the ideologues who monopolize the Education Establishment (the NEA, the Ed schools, some politicians) and who have made it a priority to purge any religion (except their own socio-religion) from public education. These types are more interested in promoting a student's self-esteem via "social promotions" than in promoting academic excellence. Their agenda includes militant egalitarianism, legitimization of certain lifestyles, so-called sex ed and certain special programs that are of more benefit to those who teach than to those who learn. The people in this Establishment are often elitists who think they know what's best for your child. It's a big ripoff and I for one am for more competition in education thru privatization. I'm for some government support but not government control. I think that that support should include religious schools of all religions including secularism. Yes, I consider secularism to be a religion--it has all the trappings of a religion: a world-view, a belief system, a preisthood, a sacred language.

Gilda,

I am not anti-science. But where science and religion are in conflict, I think public schools should present the religious viewpoint as well as this year's scientific "truth". What is truth anyhow--it is what IS and science can't tell us all that; often, science leads to more questions. As far as evolution is concerned, my view is that it doesn't refute Creation. It is just a part of Creation.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 12, 2000.

Interesting perspective, Lars.

As presented in a few of the links I provided, several things occurred in the 60's that COULD account for educational differences, yet "Why Can't Johnny Read?" was published in 1955. ONE of the changes included the Federal Government turning control of the schools over to the individual states. ANOTHER difference was unionization of teachers. I THINK the history of these two events is included in the links I provided, but if not, I'll be happy to provide more information.

However, change doesn't happen overnight, so you may be interested in what changes occurred in the 50's to put these changes in the proper perspective. New thought processes were already occurring when the television hit households in the U.S. Check out how many hours kids spent in front of new T.V.'s in the 50's, and you'll see little difference between then and now. Don't just stop there, this link is FULL of change that began in the 50's.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita, I'm getting too old. I should have said "the last 50 years". I agree many things, good and bad, that weren't obvious til the 70s or later had their Genesis in the 50s.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 12, 2000.

Anita:

Z: I feel that religion is PERSONAL, yet PRIVATE is too strong a word

We can agree to disagree. Things that can be verified are a suitable subject for social engineers. Things that can't should remain private and not politicized. You should read about Paul's agenda.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita (and all),

You asked a question regarding the beliefs of the founding fathers.

The following founding fathers were not Christians; they were Deists: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and arguably George Washington; there may have been more.

Deism is a belief in God based on reason alone; a God who created the world but thereafter didn't intervene in its operation. Deists might recognise, as many did, a moral law in the universe entailing an objective difference between right and wrong and even belief in an afterlife in which one's condition would be determined by one's conduct in the present one.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

That is interesting Eve. I don't question it but how do you know? Are there any European-based churches that are Deist?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 12, 2000.

Duuhh, I guess Judaism would qualify. Any others? I don't think Unitarians even believe in a God anymore.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 12, 2000.

who says evolution is NOT a religion? it fits nicely in the framework of secular humanism.

i became a christian without requiring proof. although i am an analyst and skeptic, i guess i am fortunate in that I have always been kind of sensitive in the area of spiritual things or the "other dimension". it was a matter of faith. but the longer i am a christian the more my belief/faith is supported by evidence that god provides in history, science, his word, etc. i am continually amazed as to how perfect, how orderly, how systematic god is and how it is embedded into his creation and his order--the one we can see and the one we can't see.

just an interesting little tidbit that kind of gave me a moment of awe. (i think god is giving us more and more evidences of the bible being true lately) i can't claim it is first hand knowledge but i have no reason to disbelieve this person. i also plan to check it out further to confirm.

i was listening to a well known speaker (michael yusef--"leading the way") today. he and a group of people made a trip to egypt. they were fortunate to be there in one of the rare moments when they allowed tourists to view a room (i didn't catch the name of the museum or exhibit) where they house the bodies of a number of egypts earlier rulers.

the guide (who is NOT a christian but a muslim) told them to look for something unusual with one of the bodies. he did not go into the room with them. when they came out, he asked them if they had seen it--and yes, they had. all of the bodies had olive colored skin. one of the pharoahs, however, had white, white skin. the guide told them that this is the pharoah that went to the bottom of the red sea when moses and the israelites crossed it. it took them quite a bit of time to recover his body to prepare it for burial and the sea had bleached it white.

interesting.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

tt:

Creation vs. evolution is another reason why I feel children should be introduced to ALL theories discussed in society. They shouldn't hear of EITHER behind the barn. [That's an old saying I think I learned from my mother, if you're unfamiliar.] I wonder how many religions [or sects within each] ignore evolution completely. Anyone have a clue? Eve: Any input here on Judaism?

Z:

Let's get the next topic straight, eh? Is it to discuss who was left out, or question why some were included? [Referencing Paul there, I am.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Lars,

Offhand I'm not sure about Deistic churches. But if you check out the following website (which I believe is the most well known site on Deism on the web), you should get more info on Deism and the founding fathers as Deists than you'd ever want:

http://www.deism.com

Hi Anita,

Your seemingly simple question on Judaism's position on creation vs. evolution is actually very complicated -- because there are so many different types of Jews nowadays. They range from Orthodox to Conservative to Reform to Secular Humanist, even Athiest! I'm sure the Orthodox would believe in Creationism, as they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. The rest would have progressively more liberal views as you run through the spectrum.

My belief is pretty much Deistic, but it's close to Agnosticism. I believe in God, but my belief is very abstract. My parents were the same way; many modern Jews have been less God-oriented (with more emphasis on tradition) since the Holocaust.

This is a cool thread, by the way -- thanks, Anita. Anyway, I think that religion shouldn't be taught in taxpayer-supported schools, because it forces at least some taxpayers to violate their convictions, by providing funds for the dissemination of ideas which they consider to be false and possibly vicious.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Oh yes -- regarding my personal views on creationism versus evolution: Because I'm not very religious, some might tend to think that I'd naturally favor evolution. I do favor evolution, but, you know -- it doesn't matter much to me. We're here now, and we've got this fascinating world of humanity around us, and that's what counts.

I am curious about our origins, but from a metaphysical (existence/reality) standpoint. To me, the creation side of it becomes not necessarily "Who created us?" but the more interesting (to me, anyway) "Who created existence?" and then: "Who created the one who created existence," and so on...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

People, people, people!

It seems that I must spell this out for you, as you are unable to connect the dots on your own.

Declining SATs, immorality, teen pregnancy, school shoootings etc can all be traced a series of events, events that had nothing to do with the removal of the Bible from the schools!

When the Second World War ended the bible was still in the schools, yet promiscuity among returning vets was rampant. Why? Well just look to the recently captured German V-2 rocket program! Rockets captured by the Allies were being experimented upon in the US, rocketry was in it's infancy, as was debauchery.

In the Fifties the US was sending rockets up, and the beginning phases of the missle program were under way. And what was the reflection of this in popular culture? ROCK AND ROLL! As missiles were guided by gyroscopes Elvis gyrated his hips! Co-incidence? I think not!

In the Sixties you have a creeping away from good old fashioned family values, lead by the rockets with longer and longer ranges! Just consider if you will the year of 1969. Free love, pot smoking, acid, drop in tune out the height of lawlessness was accompanied by the heights of a rocket to the MOON!! The debauchery of the early 70s was accompanied by further moonshots! Need I go on?

Fast forward to the 80s. Declining SAT scores, and low and behold: SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM! Slayings at McDonalds in thelate 80s: Hubble Space Telescope! School shootings: Women in the MIR Space Station!

Please, let history be your guide, boycott any talk of Mars Landings, lest all that is good be lost!!!!!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Thanks for the comments, Eve. My thoughts on Judaism extended to belief in the Old Testament of the Bible, but I didn't know if the more orthodox of Judaism adhered strictly to this, or preferred the Talmud. It's no surprise that Judaism has split into sects. The history of religious transition in itself is a a reason why I think children should study religion in public schools. My daughter wrote an interesting term paper for school on the Moslem religion. I still have it, at least 10 years later. She delivered it orally at school and asked me to listen to her recitation. Once she was done, I suggested that she go next-door to the home of a Moslem family and recite it again with the thought that any errors could be corrected. She asked that I accompany her, and I did. The Moslem family was of the Orthodox sect in their faith, and the mother and I would oftentimes discuss her religion and the reasons behind covering the hair [if female], etc.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita,

From a purely personal standpoint, I don't have a problem with religion being taught; in fact, I find it fascinating, and I think my kids would handle it just fine. The hard line I take on this is from an overall perspective, where many very religious families can't handle the teachings, yet their tax dollars are paying for them.

And I should clear up my comment on the Orthodox and the "Bible." I got a little lazy there; I should have said the Old Testament as well as the Talmud. The Orthodox believe that God revealed the laws of the Torah (the first five books) as well as the Talmud (other laws and interpretations that were "oral" until about A.D. 200, when they were finally written down in works called the Mishnah and Gemara) on Mount Sinai.

-- eve (eve_rebakah@yahoo.com), May 13, 2000.

The have been 5 US Presidents that were Unitarian. Most Unitarians believe in ONE God and not Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

-- fauna (x@y.ed), May 13, 2000.

There have been 5 US Presidents that were Unitarian. Most Unitarians believe in ONE God and not Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Unitarianism has been around for four centuries and was popular with our founding fathers.

They didn't burn witches.

The Unitarians do not have dogmas and creeds but rather allow one to use their own reason in their personal belief.

-- fauna (x@y.ed), May 13, 2000.

who says evolution is NOT a religion? it fits nicely in the framework of secular humanism.

It never fails to astound me that someone can declare a scientific theory a religion. No matter how many southern Baptists decry the idea that we may have evolved from (genetically similar) primates to affirm their religious devotion, the fact is religion and science are not mutually exclusive or even remotely similar in their essence.

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), May 13, 2000.

If evolution is a religion, then so are gravity and relativity.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 13, 2000.

Anita, concerning you link, "within the bounds of the Constitution," at first it sounds like a good idea. Then when you read through it, you can tell it isn't going to work.

First, the evangelical religions are based on converts. They send people to the ends of the earth to make converts. How do you think those, whose religions don't actively seek converts, will react to those who will continue to proseltize and testify. That opens a big can of worms right there.

Also, in one place it said the students may pray silently, or aloud, in the cafeteria for instance. This will cause grandstanding on the part of some students and resentment on the part of students who consider praying a private affair. What's the verse about going into a closet to pray? Some religions prostrate themselve when praying, others kneel, others chant a litany of some sort. I can see all sorts of "can you top this" behavior going on.

Finally, say a majority of students belong to religion A, and the minority religion is B, then there are only maybe a dozen or so of religions C, D, and E, throw in a sprinkling of nonbelievers, pagans, Wiccans, etal, and you have a volatile situation from day one. The minorities will be in for a lot of put-downs. Dont' think so? Then why the hell are Ireland, Kosovo, Bosnia, the Mideast, and many others, still fighting after hundreds of years. Religion is the dominant factor in many wars, civil and otherwise.

If people want their children to have religion taught to them for whatever reason: to enfore their beliefs, to get them hooked while they're young, to keep them from sinning, for spiritual edification, etc., Fine! Send them to private religious schools.

But if you are a family that doesn't believe in religion, or else a family that believes that schools have enough problems without bringing religion into them, or simply a family that wants their child to acquire as much education as they can before they graduate, then religion is a hinderance.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 14, 2000.

Gilda,

I was quite shocked when I read your post,

or simply a family that wants their child to acquire as much education as they can before they graduate, then religion is a hinderance.

Could you explain how in your opinion religion hinders education?

Thanks,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 16, 2000.

Frank, I shocked you!!! Amazing. OK, here's my thoughts on education. There are all sorts of stuff taught in school that I think is the biggest waste of time in the world. Now you understand this is a personal opinion.

For instance, about a hundred years ago when I was in school. I took Home Economics. It was the biggest waste of my school time I could possibly have had except for P.E. I realize educators want kids to have a well rounded education, so they try to throw in a little of everything. Baloney. The hours spent at school are few and their are dozens of time wasters. Can you believe when I first went to college there was a class, for credit, called Spectator Football.

When my son was in school he took Shop, another time waster. He made some junky stuff that didn't amount to zilch. In my opinion, if you want a good education, cut out the unncessay stuff, and that means religion, along with the others classes I mentioned.. We can learn plenty about religion in chruch, Bible study classes, or study on our own time. I learned 50 times more about literature, studying on my own than I did in high school or college either one.

Of course if you plan to be a minister, or chef, or work in a cabinet shop, or try to make the big leagues in sports, then those classes might be important. To me, I could have slept through Home Ec., Art, P. E. and Psychology and got along just as well in all my jobs and my life without them, for I didn't learn a thing. They were duds.

As one of my professors said in my second year of college "If they cut out all the useless classes, a student could earn an under graduate degree in 2 years."

So I'm saying religion doesn't hinder education, but it could be time better spent in learning math, english, biology, writing, or anything to make it easier to get a job in the real world. What the hell good does it do to be able to quote long Bible passages, if you can't get a job, or write a simple declarative sentence, with correct spelling and punctuation.

Also, like sports, I think it is something best done on a person's own time. In Germany, most sports take place after the school's classes are over. I met an exchange student from Germany that loved going to school here because it was "so much fun." But she was only going to stay one year, because if she stayed two, she said she would never be able to catch up on her studies, which were much harder and more intensive than here. She was amazed at our emphasis on sports.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 16, 2000.

Gilda,

I'd wholeheartedly agree that an increased workload should be given to U.S. students, but would disagree with "streamlining" education too much. Today it's too easy to get through college (in the sciences at least) without much of an education in other areas at all. If anything, I'd say our citizens could use a bit of "broadening" (myself at the top of the list).

OTOH, I still have some serious disgust for junk I had to sit through, and wouldn't want the kids to have to do the same.

Frank

P.S. Glad you weren't targetting religion per se after all. :-)

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 16, 2000.