posted on February 28, 2001 11:50:20 AM
Yup! That's what Dubya said last night: Character Schooling. That's the third prong of his schools approach in his speach last night.
Concidering that the Religious right has strongly objected to and won many a court battle against public schools teaching any sort of "morality" or "character" lessons being apart from their strict religious viewpoint, what the heck is Dubya talking about? Are religious missionaries going to have a classroom in my kid's school and will force thier viewpoint on all our kids? Since it is a government program and government rules will prevail, will my kids be taught Bhuddist rules of conduct or would it be from the Church of Satan? (can't object to any religion: gotta treat them all equally -- that's the law, right?)
I, for one, do not want religious missionaries of any sort in my kid's public schools. Do you?
posted on February 28, 2001 11:58:12 AM
I am not sure he meant religious training -- did he say religion or character? I must have missed that part.
I know that some colleges now offer "ethics" classes and I have often thought that something similar in lower grades should be taught. Apparently as a culture we have a hard time telling the difference between right and wrong, and if my child could take a character-building class in high school or grade school I would be all for it -- it doesn't necessarily have to be religious.
posted on February 28, 2001 08:57:21 PM
Hiya xellil! Bush said: C-H-A-C-T-E-R S-C-H-O-O-L-I-N-G.
If I mixed anyone up here, I apologize. What I meant to say is that it seems odd that Character (morals, values) is being proposed to be taught in public schools.
Many years ago, generic Character-building lessons were always taught in public schools: AEsop's Fables, Citizenship, and so forth. Then, in the 1970's, the Religious Right fought for many years with the public school systems to get it all bounced out of classrooms. They argued that if Christianity had to be removed from the classroom, then no other system of learning could replace it; that any such system was a religion. This "religion" turned out to be called "Secular Humanism". They went to court on it when a scholl wouldn't comply - and they won! Therefore, public schools do not teach our kids any system of values or maorality: the Flag of the Religious Right states that it ought to be up to Parents to teach their kids those things.
So ...
So, where does Bush believe that he'll be able to re-insert such "Character" schooling/course cirriculumn? Won't the Religious Right have FITS?? Why was it last night during the speech that the Religious Right representatives were smiling so smuggly?
posted on February 28, 2001 09:23:32 PM
Borillar: Character education and student volunteerism is alive and well in the majority of the nation's public schools.
Teaching citizenship, values and the like are as much a part of the daily curriculum as is reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Morals or morality? One need only look to the abstinence-only sex education programs taught and endorsed by schools that receive federal funds. More than $440 million in federal-state matching funds have been shelled out to schools that teach abstinence-only programs since 1996.
You tell me if that isn't teaching kids morals, morality or "character."
posted on February 28, 2001 09:32:16 PM
Like family values, character schooling is a vague, and highly imprecise, term used primarily for its rhetorical effect rather than denotative clarity. Hayakawa describes such terms as "purr words," a description that I like. Character schooling sounds like it would be a good thing to a casual listener but it's sufficiently vague to be subject to individual interpretation and its vagueness evades logical rebuttal.
We have to interpret it through what we know of Bush's religious agenda and the strategy for its use. You are correct that most materials and methodology which convey clear values have been removed from the classrooms, actually by protests from both the political left and right, and many at the state and local level. There's little chance for their return.
However, the voucher system, or school choice, would allow parents who choose to send their children to private religious schools to receive public money to help do so. I believe its use was strategically aimed toward support of the voucher system by indirectly placing the blame of the perceived declining morality in society on the failure of public secular education.
That's about all that I could interpret from the expression.
posted on February 28, 2001 10:06:43 PM
Yah, he was very vague and elusive when it came to any details or explanations. Here is how I figured out the speech last night:
Total Time 5:55pm PST to 6:55pm Pst.
1 Hour
Cleverly orchastrated applause from both sides of the isle: total time approx. 40 minutes worth.
Speech with the depth of a teaspoon: 20 minutes
20 Minute speech rendered from buzz words, catch phrases, slogans: 18.5 minutes, leaving 1.5 minutes of information.
Translation of real 1.5 minutes into normal english: Ha! Ha! >snicker< We've got the Upper Hand now! We'll get back to the Voters around NEXT election cycle! Wheeeeeee!!!!!
posted on February 28, 2001 10:13:20 PM
He's obviously hired a team of humorists to help in composing his speeches, and there were a couple of off time jokes, but I wondered why he bothered? Don't his advisors tell him how funny he is all by himself?
posted on March 1, 2001 03:48:55 AM
You can be sure any character buiding will have a heavy helping of supporting the war on drugs - don't share aspirin or you may get aids. Do your parents use drugs? (Swat team breaks in to find extra strenghth tylenol.)
Also the need to report others who hide weopons od mass destruction like nail clippers and key rings.
Of course the founding fathers HAD to rebel over a little tea tax but that is different than the government ripping off a third of your income to give to other people - some of whom live half way around the world.
When I was in high school they hauled me into the councelors office one day to yell at me about something and they had 3 teachers in there. The one said something about my morals. I said "Don't talk to me about morals when this fellow here (a young male teacher)
come 3 times a week to the whore who runs her business out of our apartment building."
Broke the meeting up pretty fast.
posted on March 1, 2001 06:52:44 AM
The "wisdom of the ages" (wisdom taught by great men for centuries) is all about character...can't the schools teach wisdom? Or is scientific, objective reason the only appropriate subject for public schools?
posted on March 1, 2001 07:35:30 AM
I think that lofsness is right, december3. Part of any classical education has always been the wisdom of ancient phylosophers; such as Aristotle, Plato, and so forth. In public schools, we used to teach kids basic morals and values through such stories as AEsop's Fables and mythology. In my experience, many parents do not teach and enforce basic morals and principles with thier children. This has been the case and has always been one of the main social benefits of a public education, IMO.
posted on March 1, 2001 08:21:06 AM
My son's school has a monthly "Character Building" theme. It ranges from responsibility, to honesty, to courtesy, to trustworthiness, to what it takes to be a friend, to random acts of kindness, etc. These themes are incorporated into the curriculum and recognition is given to students who perform deeds that fit into the criteria. For example during the "trustworthiness" month, two girls were given certificates because they returned a lost wallet they had found in the cafeteria.
These are very simple, non-denominational attempts to instill some good character traits into the students that they may not be getting at home on a regular basis. Religion has nothing to do with being a good person.
posted on March 1, 2001 02:32:26 PM
If anyone thinks that morality only springs from religion I jave to ask why the (godless) communists were a bunch of very straight laced moralists when it came to western culture? Remember how Krucheveh (spelling?)
hada a peasant fit when he saw the decadent
western dancers doing a can-can? Their laws are as restrictive as ours when it comes to vices. Not to say they can't be hypocrites also.
Now a question - What does a fellow do from Africa or the middle east who comes here and has more than one wife? Is he in danger of being charged with polygamy? How can the state make a law like that that has obvious religous roots? And does anyone know where there is anywhere that polyandry is legal?
