"...they don't belong in our country!!"

[Aesa]

Why do people assume Muslims are against Christmas? True, Islam does not celebrate the Pagan holiday of the Winter Solstice co-opted by the Catholic Church and called Christmas but neither did most Christians until more recent times. Did Joseph Smith's family have a Christmas tree? No they didn't -- in those days you might have people over for a family meal but that was the extent of it.

That being said, many more Muslims are celebrating Christmas -- when the sunami hit Thialand and Indonesia some imams claimed it was punishment for Muslims celebrating Christmas.

I have never heard of Muslims calling for an end to Christmas. Muslims put more emphasis in the koran on Mary and the birth of Jesus than the Bible does. They just don't see Jesus as the Son of God, just a major prophet.

The people who get all bent out of shape over Christmas tend to be white, secular, wimpy, "celebrate diversity" types who'se extent of celebrating diversity might entail picking up on the local men on the beaches of Beleze while on holiday (if they are females...oh wait, maybe...) or buying some ethnic CD or some other ritual to prove how open-minded they are. They feel they have to protect people from being offended even though the vast majority of those people are not offended by traditions. The problem is, they think everyone loves them for their efforts yet the people they seek to "defend" don't have any particular love for them nor do the people who enjoy the traditions their parents and grandparents passed on.

This is an excellent post. :)

In America, as a child, we sang with our right hand covering our heart the American anthem. I attended.

Well I hope that still doesn't happen, that creates kids who are unlikely to question their government.

Perhaps you're listening to the wrong Christmas carols. I listen to plenty of them that testify of Christ.

I'm not particularly listening to them. Mainly I'm reffering to the nationalised christmas carols on tv when they insist on saying that Jesus was born on the winter solstice, and 3 kings attended, and oh...

Not to turn this into an education debate, but if the government got out of it all together, you would see literacy statistics in this country go farther down than they already are, because half the families in the country couldn't afford to send their children to school.

Well that's the thing -- it'd be good, but we wouldn't be ready for it tomorrow. I think you'd probably see a lot more church owned schools pop up, personally.

[TheyCallMeMom]

Not to turn this into an education debate, but if the government got out of it all together, you would see literacy statistics in this country go farther down than they already are, because half the families in the country couldn't afford to send their children to school.

that's in inaccurate statement..

who pays for the education now? free market education is much more effective

Well that's the thing -- it'd be good, but we wouldn't be ready for it tomorrow. I think you'd probably see a lot more church owned schools pop up, personally.

a major reason the home school population has tripled over the last years

[austro-libertarian]

Not to turn this into an education debate, but if the government got out of it all together, you would see literacy statistics in this country go farther down than they already are, because half the families in the country couldn't afford to send their children to school.

Of course you do not know that literacy statistics would drop. Schools were private for a long time and literacy levels were quite high (97% among whites in the 1840s).

In regards to affordability, if literally "half the families in the country" couldn't afford school, schools would then have to lower their prices to attract customers. Half the families in the country is a lot of potential customers. It would be based on consumer demand and supply, as opposed to govt force.

[TheyCallMeMom]

Of course you do not know that literacy statistics would drop. Schools were private for a long time and literacy levels were quite high (97% among whites in the 1840s).

In regards to affordability, if literally "half the families in the country" couldn't afford school, schools would then have to lower their prices to attract customers. Half the families in the country is a lot of potential customers. It would be based on consumer demand and supply, as opposed to govt force.

exactly

[Aesa]

All this talk of private schools reminds me of Ron Paul on the health system -- which as government involvement has increased has become more expensive and less accessible.

[DigitalShadow]

What if the mushroom is shifty?

I refuse to respect a fungus

[DigitalShadow]

On a more serious note...

In my opinion Christmas is more a matter of tradition than religion. I've always been agnostic/atheist (depends on your definition) and I've never felt uncomfortable with Christmas carols in school or any direct Christmas references. You can't even go into Walmart the day after Halloween without being assaulted by Christmas music and decorations all over the place so I would say the holiday has become more a part of the American culture than a part of any particular religion and you can choose for yourself how you want your family to celebrate it.

[Wingnut]

Of course you do not know that literacy statistics would drop. Schools were private for a long time and literacy levels were quite high (97% among whites in the 1840s).

In regards to affordability, if literally "half the families in the country" couldn't afford school, schools would then have to lower their prices to attract customers. Half the families in the country is a lot of potential customers. It would be based on consumer demand and supply, as opposed to govt force.

It's not the whites I was worried about.

[austro-libertarian]

It's not the whites I was worried about.

I figured I would get that response. There was no data available for blacks in regards to literacy. Here is the only question on literacy from that census:

How many white males over 21 who cannot read and write.

The nature of the questions refer to "slaves" (meaning black slaves) and "free blacks" and "whites." For example, "How many idiotic or insane slaves and free blacks," was one of the questions for blacks. The question for whites was "How many idiotic or insane whites."

Assuming you are referring to blacks, unfortunately the government at the time did not allow blacks to enter public schools--it was up to their "masters." It was even illegal in many states to teach blacks to read and write! Here was the penalty:

People caught teaching African-Americans would get arrested or have to pay large fines. Blacks caught learning would get a whipping or some other punishment.

The government very reluctantly and very slowly allowed blacks to attend school, albeit under segregation laws and without similar funding compared to whites. Governments have done much harm to blacks in many areas of life, including public schooling.

[Moksha]

I love to hear choirs singing Sacred Renaissance Polyphony, Gregorian Chants and Christmas Music. As a matter of fact, it would be nice if HiJolley would sing us a few chants right on this forum. Let America sing!

On the other hand, while this country is one that embraces diversity and freedom, I would be happy if they did not allow any more Marilyn Manson music - ever.

[rameumptom]

(bolding mine - mn)

See, that's the rub. Who decides which is a "good" religion, and which is not? I happen to think that LDS is a lovely religion. Others think it's dangerous heresy.

My position doesn't come from fear (I even like the shifty mushrooms!) but from a position of fairness and practicality. I'm more than happy to leave religious education up to families and places of worship. I have no problem sending my kids to other churches for activities, we're a multilingual family, we mix with all flavors of people. I *do* embrace all good faiths, for they all are of God. I still don't want the state having to cope with who's who and what's what when it comes to the issue of religion.

That's easy to determine which are "good." All religions that support the basic structure of society should be supported to the level that they have supporters. For example, if a school has 90% Christians, then they should get more attention towards the Christmas celebration. If a school has 2% Druid or atheists, then they should be allowed some attention, as well - pushing forth the good points of the religion.

[FunkyTown]

Of course you do not know that literacy statistics would drop. Schools were private for a long time and literacy levels were quite high (97% among whites in the 1840s).

In regards to affordability, if literally "half the families in the country" couldn't afford school, schools would then have to lower their prices to attract customers. Half the families in the country is a lot of potential customers. It would be based on consumer demand and supply, as opposed to govt force.

Surprisingly, I agree with you, Austro - Not on 1840s education rates. The average person now has far more education and knowledge.

Rather, I disagree with how public school works. Essentially, public school plays to lowest common denominator: Whole classes concentrate on the needs of the slowest and, even in that case, many are allowed to squeak by.

I see this as being part of our culture of permissiveness, where no child can be criticized for want of hurting their precious little feelings. Because of this, we stifle creativity in the intelligent and do no favours to the least intelligent.

And this is due to a public schooling system based upon the idea that a citizen should be trained to be a cog in the wheel of the civilization he is part of. It's maddeningly ineffective.

[rameumptom]

I am of the belief that high school needs to be restructured. There should be two high school tracts: college and trade. A kid, with parental guidance, chooses which direction he will go.

For those in the trade level, he would learn one or more important job skills (carpentry, welding, plumbing, LPN, etc), so he.she is ready to start work as soon as he is out of high school. Otherwise, the person finishes high school in order to begin learning a trade, extending out the time it requires for a person to be able to financially support him/herself.

Those on the college circuit would be focused on college prep, even taking initial college classes while in high school (you know, the ones everyone takes: English, math, history), so that by the time they have graduated, they already have an Associate's Degree and are ready for their last two years of a Bachelor's degree.

Right now, our archaic system is causing kids to drop out in huge rates. Less than 40% of kids in Detroit graduate. A big part of the cause is that the current system does not prepare them for the modern world. We are competing globally, and the Japanese and Chinese do not care if a worker can properly conjugate a sentence. We cannot compete with the world, if we end up with a society of uneducated people, whose biggest learning experience in school was how to properly have sex (with a condom) in sex ed.

A big problem with education is it wanders and drifts in attempting to be all things to every lobby. It needs to be managed in an engineering method. Establish a base line, from which to experiment on better ways to do things. Don't just wander down a path, and when it doesn't work, keep wandering down the same path because there is no where else to go. Have a base line which you can go back to, which works!

Kids should have focus classes on finances/budgeting, math and science; and these supported by English, History, etc.

[austro-libertarian]

Does anyone think education, as in years 1-12, should be optional, i.e., not mandatory? Just curious.

[Aesa]

Does anyone think education, as in years 1-12, should be optional, i.e., not mandatory? Just curious.

This is a tough one, you have the libertarian ideals - which I don't know, I feel would lead one to say everyone should have the right to choose.

But then again, take onto account the responsibility of the parents or the society is what I feel it comes down to.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Aesa,

I'm not going to give my opinion on the so-called "War on Christmas" (other than putting it in quotation marks! ). My advice, though, is generally to avoid contending with your nan. What's important here is your relationship with her. Chances are you can't convince her you're right by arguing, and she probably can't convince you she's right. So just don't argue. You know, the whole "soft answer turneth away wrath" thing. :)

HEP

[rameumptom]

Does anyone think education, as in years 1-12, should be optional, i.e., not mandatory? Just curious.

I think education needs to be mandatory. Everyone needs to know how to read, write, and do basic math, know key Constitutional history, and how to balance a budget.

Beyond that, I think issues should be optional on what is taught/learned. Not everyone really needs a semester of a foreign language, music appreciation, or home economics.

School should gear people for living as adults in society, particularly in this global competition we live in now.

A century ago, or even 50 years ago, when most people had never seen a computer and most could do okay living on the farm, most of these issues were not important one way or the other. But the dynamics of home have drastically changed, as has the work place environment. You are not just competing locally with the farmer next door, but with millions of farmers in dozens of countries - you can't remain illiterate and compete in such a world.

High School no longer works for many kids, which is why so many drop out. We think all kids should go to college, but not all kids are geared for college intellectually. Turn high school into a dual purpose program: college prep and technical skill prep. Why not let a high school kid graduate with a Microsoft Engineering Certificate (MCSE, etc)? Why not let a kid graduate, ready to be a journeyman carpenter, or a plumber? Or have the college prep kid get all of his basic classes out of the way during high school, leaving him half way done with a Bachelor's degree?

[FunkyTown]

I think education needs to be mandatory. Everyone needs to know how to read, write, and do basic math, know key Constitutional history, and how to balance a budget.

Beyond that, I think issues should be optional on what is taught/learned. Not everyone really needs a semester of a foreign language, music appreciation, or home economics.

School should gear people for living as adults in society, particularly in this global competition we live in now.

A century ago, or even 50 years ago, when most people had never seen a computer and most could do okay living on the farm, most of these issues were not important one way or the other. But the dynamics of home have drastically changed, as has the work place environment. You are not just competing locally with the farmer next door, but with millions of farmers in dozens of countries - you can't remain illiterate and compete in such a world.

High School no longer works for many kids, which is why so many drop out. We think all kids should go to college, but not all kids are geared for college intellectually. Turn high school into a dual purpose program: college prep and technical skill prep. Why not let a high school kid graduate with a Microsoft Engineering Certificate (MCSE, etc)? Why not let a kid graduate, ready to be a journeyman carpenter, or a plumber? Or have the college prep kid get all of his basic classes out of the way during high school, leaving him half way done with a Bachelor's degree?

I am intrigued, Rameumptom, and wish to subscribe to your news letter.

[austro-libertarian]

I think education needs to be mandatory. Everyone needs to know how to read, write, and do basic math, know key Constitutional history, and how to balance a budget.

Thanks for the reply. A couple of follow-up questions then:

Would you say that everything everyone "needs to know" should be mandatory?

How do you decide what everyone "needs to know"?

Is knowing "key Constitutional history" something everyone "needs to know" outside of the US, or just American citizens, i.e., should it be mandatory in other countries?

(I am still curious and not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand the argument.)

Thanks!

[rameumptom]

Thanks for the reply. A couple of follow-up questions then:

Would you say that everything everyone "needs to know" should be mandatory?

Rameumptom: There are traditional "need to know" things that have always been in curriculum. Like reading and writing. Arithmetic, basic economics(budgeting, investing). If people cannot read or balance their checkbook, they will not be ready for the adult world. The financial crunch is due to over-extended credit, using credit as income (instead of expense), and not saving/investing for the future.

It is true we've added so much fluff to the requirements in the lower levels that kids today know a little about everything, and a lot about nothing. Time to refocus this. Most of the fluff stuff should be electives or given outside of school.

How do you decide what everyone "needs to know"?

Ram: See above. Then all else becomes electives to learning. This allows each student to find his/her own path(s) of interest and pursue them. This will ensure fewer drop outs, and more focus on the original purpose of education: preparing kids to be adults and workers.

Is knowing "key Constitutional history" something everyone "needs to know" outside of the US, or just American citizens, i.e., should it be mandatory in other countries?

Ram: Personally, I would prefer all nations to learn about written constitutions, so as those without the rule of law and freedom have something to aspire to. However, being a realist, I would ensure America have it as mandatory. Australia also should have a history of law, as well, which should include British law, which Aussie law is based upon. Each nation would have to determine it, but hopefully would focus on issues of freedom and basic/essential human rights, so that future kids will understand the importance of the freedoms they may or may not have.

(I am still curious and not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand the argument.)

Thanks!

Ram: No problem.