Alphecca

Great post. That's one reason my oldest son and his wife in Alaska are home schooling their two kids. It seems that all they were learning was how to swear and fight on the school bus. Now they are learning reading, writing, arithmetic, how to change a tire on a 4 wheeler, how to gut a moose, how to shoot and clean spruce chickens, and survival tactics in general. They will always be able to take care of themselves. The state mandates that they are tested periodically, and it seems that they are leaving the kids who are in school in the dust! The parents are real Americans who love this country and the kids will be the same. Jack.

I agree, great post. (And I homeschool, too.)

I would add a couple of things.

RE: #1, I object to the use of the word "holiday" due to the religious connotations. Instead, teachers should use the phrase "winter break" or "winter closing."

RE: #3, I have heard that red ink can also hurt a child's self-esteem. I suggest that teachers use only purple ink when writing "Fabulous" on student work.

Just so you'll know, my daughter's high school in Tennessee started school last week. Yup, on the 7th, believe it or not.

Number 5. You forgot that students having [evil]peanut butter[/evil] or any other peanut product will eat in a separate room just in case...

P.

Jeff, I agree with the sentiment on what is going on in the schools, and most of it is accurate, BUT:

point 1: agreed, the reaction to religion is very overboard in many schools, especially the refusal to call holidays by their correct names. but contrast that to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=173&topic_id=1263&mesg_id=1510

Being driven out of your school, community and state for refusing to pray at a school function is the other side of the coin, and why the First A. is there, and why forced prayer and preaching religion is supposed to be forbidden when done by government employees, which include teachers. This is also why forced public education, with no alternative for dissenters, is wrong, if not criminal. At the very least those that choose private or home school alternatives should get a tax break on school taxes. That would be in line with the First A., IMHO.

point 2: neither doc mentions god in the christian sense.
declaration mentions "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", specifically worded to be acceptable to all the various religous sentiments present, from devout christians, like Adams, to free-tinking deists, like Jefferson and Franklin.

constitution mentions god nowhere in the text, unless you count the common usage of 'year of our lord' in the date, which is similar to using 'dear' to preface letters.

Yes, the refusal to teach these documents as they were written is absurd, for any reason. Whether it is the liberal canard that the Second A. is for the state governments or the dominionist canard the freedom OF religion does not include freedom FROM religion. both are mendacious lies on their face.

Check it out yourself:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters.html

Signed, Tom 'doing my part piss off the right, left, and the other' Wright

Fabulous!

I agree with Tom - the First Amendment not only provides for the freedom *of* religion, it also provides for freedom *from* religion, especially that imposed by the State.

While "comparative religion" is an acceptable course for instruction, the "celebrating" of any religious holiday, be it "Christmas", or "Hannukah", or "Ramadan", or "Beltane", should be forbidden.

The State must be "religion neutral"; since it cannot successfuly lend support to *all* religions equally, it must not give even tacit support to some, or one, but not others.

This is why every reference to G_d in any public building, pledge, oath, anthem or coinage must be removed. Either everybody's rights are respected and upheld equally, or there is no equality, or freedom.

And I'm the furthest thing from a Lieberal you could find - I'm a libertarian, and an egalitarian.

You're kidding right? I mean, you think the constitution means freedom from religion? Really? I mean honestly you think that? I don't think our government recognizing a religion means it is "establishing" a government religion. It's really great the way people pick and choose their constitutional rights. I will grant you that Freedom "From" relgion is implied, but only within the context that nobody can make you join a relgion. I don't think it gives you the right to take God out of everything having to do with government.

In regards to using "in the year of our Lord" as a term much like Dear. Where did you come up with this? Anti-religion school? I mean you guys still go to that, right?

As for the state remaining neutral, again, you are twisted people. Neutral: not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy: The arbitrator was absolutely neutral. As soon as you say I can't put up a Xmas tree you are no longer neutral. I think ANY religion that wants, can put up symbols of their religion during their holy days. Saying no to any religion is against the constitution in my opinion.

Last but not least, the furthest thing from a Liberal is not a Libertarian. As a matter of fact, you need to go back to school Nimrod45 because the views you express are not the views of any Libertarians I know. Better you should say you are a Green party member.