Teaching children decency, integrity, ethics, principles....

[_Mary]

Jason, i think what TD correctly states is true: LDS and other main-streamers DO NOT address issues that can in the least be considered moral from a political/social point of view. ie. global issues from warming to wars, povert, resource and income disparity, social justices on all fronts...

With good reason: They would lose their tax-privileges! The seperation of church & state serves a more evil than righteous purpose. Unfortunately the praying masses have been blinded from both sides to think of that policy as a divine-unction. Everything but! It is a license to corrupt and fraud with little accounability except to the demands of conscienced secular society that dares to question and challenge the priveleged. Be they government or ecclesiastic ...

Wow. There's a lot to think about in your post Roger.
Over here in the UK I can see why church and state were separated (not that they were always together!). I don't much like Theocracy's, depending on how they are run I suppose, but it seems that a theocracy will intervene on matters of conscience and has historically been far more brutal in the implementation of those laws. (Think Israelites being stoned for committing adultery for instance, together with modern day muslim women who will meet a similar fate) I guess what we have is the remnants of the influence of a theocracy so some laws still sought to dictate on homosexuality for instance (Oscar Wilde and all that), and the role of women and children.

It's such a tricky area, because where does the state end and the church begin, and how much is one influenced by the other?

The Church of England still has a voice over here but no real political clout, same with the monarchy who now wisely stay out of politics in terms of coming down on one side of the camp or another.

The Catholic Church is having a problem with adoption laws over here at the moment, because it has been decided by the government that it will be illegal to discriminate (in terms of where a child is put) on the basis of sexual orientation. As a matter of conscience the Catholic church wants to be exempted from this law. The government is deeply divided on the issue. Difficult.

I do think that there are many issues that should rightly be taken up by religious groups though. Global Warming being one of them. I do take the point that if the churches would lose tax exempt status by tip toeing on to the political arena then they would be effectively gagged, but having said that, in a democracy they can still vote with their feet, and the LDS church is well aware of that, as is President Bush so it seems.

It seems to me also that Bush himself is strongly influenced by his own and others religious views, as is Tony Blair, and ultimately it is they who are directing policy?

What I am trying to say in a long-winded way is that the church and state might not be a separate as we think.....

[_Roger Morrison]

Jason, i think what TD correctly states is true: LDS and other main-streamers DO NOT address issues that can in the least be considered moral from a political/social point of view. ie. global issues from warming to wars, povert, resource and income disparity, social justices on all fronts...

With good reason: They would lose their tax-privileges! The seperation of church & state serves a more evil than righteous purpose. Unfortunately the praying masses have been blinded from both sides to think of that policy as a divine-unction. Everything but! It is a license to corrupt and fraud with little accounability except to the demands of conscienced secular society that dares to question and challenge the priveleged. Be they government or ecclesiastic ...

Wow. There's a lot to think about in your post Roger.
Over here in the UK I can see why church and state were separated (not that they were always together!). I don't much like Theocracy's, depending on how they are run I suppose, but it seems that a theocracy will intervene on matters of conscience and has historically been far more brutal in the implementation of those laws. (Think Israelites being stoned for committing adultery for instance, together with modern day muslim women who will meet a similar fate) I guess what we have is the remnants of the influence of a theocracy so some laws still sought to dictate on homosexuality for instance (Oscar Wilde and all that), and the role of women and children.

It's such a tricky area, because where does the state end and the church begin, and how much is one influenced by the other?

The Church of England still has a voice over here but no real political clout, same with the monarchy who now wisely stay out of politics in terms of coming down on one side of the camp or another.

The Catholic Church is having a problem with adoption laws over here at the moment, because it has been decided by the government that it will be illegal to discriminate (in terms of where a child is put) on the basis of sexual orientation. As a matter of conscience the Catholic church wants to be exempted from this law. The government is deeply divided on the issue. Difficult.

I do think that there are many issues that should rightly be taken up by religious groups though. Global Warming being one of them. I do take the point that if the churches would lose tax exempt status by tip toeing on to the political arena then they would be effectively gagged, but having said that, in a democracy they can still vote with their feet, and the LDS church is well aware of that, as is President Bush so it seems.

It seems to me also that Bush himself is strongly influenced by his own and others religious views, as is Tony Blair, and ultimately it is they who are directing policy?

What I am trying to say in a long-winded way is that the church and state might not be a separate as we think.....

Ditto, in your post Miss Taken! UK? One of Canada's colonies? Kidding of course :)

I can't recall the name of the famous English PM who pushed for Church & State separation in the 1600s?? But i think it was during a time of power-struggle between the two institutions. Sort of an accord allowing each to Rule-Their-Own without interferrence by the other... Which was/is of little benefit to those attempting to share life's good stuff stuck between the two powers, and paying each out of meager resources!?

Yes, i agree with your observations re Bush et al. Unfortunate to be ruled by those pretending to follow Christ who lead us into war...

In none of this criticism am i suggesting a Theocracy. Knowing that too would be man-made...

Side-bar: Seems inconsistant for a tax exempt institution--church--to be so negative about folks receiving welfare when it's welfare that they prosper on! In NA anyway, not sure of UK?

What i'm suggesting is that as social-political-spiritual beings there should be no lines drawn that seperates attendance to human needs. That CHURCHES accept their priveleged state is abomniable, while at the same time they beg/intimidate for money from many who could use it to benefit their families, or others in need!

SINCERE advocacy groups who attempt government policy change, (exmple, Canada Council) finance their activities by member contributions with NO INCOME TAX BENEFIT, as church contributers get!!

Thanks for your response, MT. WOW! All the way, from the UK!! Warm regards, Roger

[_Mary]

Roger, Hi, thanks for your response.

I can't recall the name of the famous English PM who pushed for Church & State separation in the 1600s?? But i think it was during a time of power-struggle between the two institutions. Sort of an accord allowing each to Rule-Their-Own without interferrence by the other... Which was/is of little benefit to those attempting to share life's good stuff stuck between the two powers, and paying each out of meager resources!?

This from wiki

Magna Carta
Main article: Magna Carta

In England, the principle of separation of church and state can be found in the Magna Carta. The first clause declared that the Church of England would be free from interference by the Crown. This reflected an ongoing dispute King John was having with the Pope over Stephen Langton's election as archbishop of Canterbury, the result of which England had been under interdict for 7 years. The barons, who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, wanted to create a separation between church and state powers to keep the Crown from using the Church as a political weapon and from arbitrarily seizing its lands and property. However, the Pope annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear" one month after it was signed. Nevertheless, the Magna Carta was reissued in 1216 and 1225.

This.... (didn't separate them but put them both under Henry VIII's domain)

On November 11, 1534, the Statute of Supremacy was voted. This gave the King sovereignty over the Church and State in England, the new national Church was Christened, Ecclesia Anglicana, and gave the King absolute power over morals, organization, heresy, creed, and ecclesiastical reform. The Act also made it a treasonable offense to speak or write of the King as a usurper, tyrant, schismatic, heretic, or infidel.

The monarch is still head of the church of england (will be interesting for Charles) and the c of e is ostensibly the 'state' religion, and ultimately must answer to government, BUT in reality monarch and church play a minor advisory role if any in the formation of policy. The Queen's speech is NOT written by the queen but by the government.

[_asbestosman]

Whens the last time you saw an empty shelf at the grocery store?

Last month when the power was out for a week. Couldn't get any gas either.

[_Gazelam]

Asbestos, where do you live? Alaska?

[_asbestosman]

Asbestos, where do you live? Alaska?

No, in the dog house, just like my profile states.

Somewhere on the west coast.

[_Jersey Girl]

Where are our children going to learn decency, integrity, ethics, and principles?

Where are the great role models for children today?

How often are children exposed to really great people these days? Or truly great ideas for bringing peace and healing to our world?

Children will not learn decency and integrity from politicians, movie stars, athletic greats, business people, or world leaders...

Certainly not from the media or mainstream society...

Often basic principles are not taught in school (for good or bad)...

Seems most religions are more interested in ritual, eliticism, and rewards of the afterlife than they are about real world issues...

Families are so busy with the overwhelming demands of life seems there is little time for learning the basics of ethics and integrity...

I'm just feeling a little sorrowful at the moment.

I know there are great people, great organizations, great ideas but I worry for the little ones growing up in this world. I'm not talking about where they "should" learn this but where "will" they learn it... how will they learn it?

I'm asking that this discussion be respectful... (smile). Any thoughts?

Thanks!

;-)

~dancer~

Hello TD,

I've been meaning to reply to your OP here. So long as parents in America continue to institutionalize their children from an early age, children will learn their "values" from the relative strangers who are raising them.

Jersey Girl

[_JAK]

Where are our children going to learn decency, integrity, ethics, and principles?

There is no single place as your question might imply. Rather, “decency, integrity, ethics, and principles” are a composite of exposure at every conscious level as well as some unconscious levels of exposure to observed behavior. “Where” is not a singular.

Where are the great role models for children today?

“Today” there are many, many sources of “models,” not a singular one.

How often are children exposed to really great people these days? Or truly great ideas for bringing peace and healing to our world?

Item 3 depends upon what one might regard as “great people.” If they are dedicated to principles of accuracy and validity, that’s likely quite different than if they are dedicated to some dogma for which they are in no way responsible. Today, there are many complex combinations of exposure to what might be regarded as “great people.”

Children will not learn decency and integrity from politicians, movie stars, athletic greats, business people, or world leaders...

Certainly not from the media or mainstream society...

What you may mean by “media” is different than what others may mean by the same thing. “Mainstream society” (whatever that is) clearly has a significant impact on people (even young people). Unless one deliberately prevents access to a multiplicity of television, movies, discussion, and educational exposures, “mainstream society” is going to play a significant role in shaping one’s perspectives.

Often basic principles are not taught in school (for good or bad)...

Seems most religions are more interested in ritual, eliticism, and rewards of the afterlife than they are about real world issues...

Contrary to your perspective, “basic principles” are conveyed in school through school rules, regulations, and enforcement or the lack of enforcement for those. It’s incorrect to conclude that “basic principles” are not presented both openly and subtly in “school.”

It varies with the “school.” If it’s a private religious/fundamentalist school, that “school” is quite different from a public school. And even in public schools, there is wide diversity from state to state and certainly from country to country. Yet, “basic principles” are taught by implication or rule in schools of all sorts.

Families are so busy with the overwhelming demands of life seems there is little time for learning the basics of ethics and integrity...

Again, “real world issues” depends upon what one regards them to be. There are many people who watch or read nothing about “world issues.” They avoid newspapers, television, and magazines which discuss “real world issues.” That disconnect is relative to individuals and family groups. Some see/hear/read in marginal ways about “real world issues.” Others confine their exposure to conservative views only and avoid exposure to what might be regarded as “main stream.”

The case can surely be made that: “Families are so busy with the overwhelming demands of life seems there is little time for learning the basics of ethics and integrity...”

At least some of those families address only the issues and problems which confront them directly and which demand immediate address. They have little interest or motivation to address what you might regard as “real world issues.” Or, they may not regard what you perceive as “real world issues” as important. They choose to disregard or ignore what you might regard as of paramount importance.

JAK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just feeling a little sorrowful at the moment.

I know there are great people, great organizations, great ideas but I worry for the little ones growing up in this world. I'm not talking about where they "should" learn this but where "will" they learn it... how will they learn it?

I'm asking that this discussion be respectful... (smile). Any thoughts?

Thanks!

;-)

~dancer~

Hello TD,

I've been meaning to reply to your OP here. So long as parents in America continue to institutionalize their children from an early age, children will learn their "values" from the relative strangers who are raising them.

Jersey Girl[/quote]

[_Roger Morrison]

Jak, some interesting responses to TD's concerns re child learning ethics and values... I think your implicite, "what and whose" is good ground from which to move from subjective to objective... Assuming that is possible, and to serve what ends... You say:

Again, “real world issues” depends upon what one regards them to be. There are many people who watch or read nothing about “world issues.” They avoid newspapers, television, and magazines which discuss “real world issues.” That disconnect is relative to individuals and family groups. Some see/hear/read in marginal ways about “real world issues.” Others confine their exposure to conservative views only and avoid exposure to what might be regarded as “main stream.”

The case can surely be made that: “Families are so busy with the overwhelming demands of life seems there is little time for learning the basics of ethics and integrity...”

At least some of those families address only the issues and problems which confront them directly and which demand immediate address. They have little interest or motivation to address what you might regard as “real world issues.” Or, they may not regard what you perceive as “real world issues” as important. They choose to disregard or ignore what you might regard as of paramount importance.

RM: I think you are saying: To a great many, "real world issues" are "their-world" issues: Having & keeping a job; their kids in school--doing well; their family together; doctor/dental/car/mortgage bills paid, et al...

Such folks, generally speaking, have little interest in universal affairs/concerns that do not, to their parochial perception, effect them by the moment financially. A socially conditioned sense of security--money is the way & means to happiness, safety, self-confidence and personal-value.

I think that was made clear following 9-11 when GWB encouraged the American public to get out into the market-place to keep THE economy going!! How utterly pathetic from a moral and ethic stance not based on cash-flow to business & finance... This was reaffirmed last night on CNN-Larry King, by Mit Romney who said his, "...main purpose was to see Americans prosper..." And to see America as THE World Super Power...

When asked would he "talk" to NK and other Nations-of-illrepute, he said something to the effect "my 'People' would talk to their 'People' but He would not lend respect and integrity to 'their Leaders' by sitting across the table from them in dialogue..." I think that too is a pathetic expression of cowardice & arrogance. The new US slogan should now be, *"God" Forgive America* as it descends to its place along side of other fallen Nations.

IMSCO, this is not setting the example that i think TD had in mind that would elevate coming generation's honour to a higher level of morality and integrity than in the past, or the present.

IF this is the sad-state of National/International affairs, what remedies does JAK see "paramount" to improve human efforts to cohabitate peacefully?

Warm regards, Roger

[_Fortigurn]

Are homeless people a family problem, or because of urban sprawl eating up resources?

Both.

Are third world people straveing a political problem, or an enviormental problem?

Both.

The First World could choose to end most Third World starvation, poverty, and debt. But it chooses not to. On the other hand, there are elements in the Third World which also prevent the ending of Third World starvation, poverty, and debt because it would be disadvantageous to certain groups for these things to end.