Lotsa lively discussion. kek.

A few points:

1. All schools should be structured around serious parental involvement, in a model where the School is the servant and the Parents are the Masters empowering the schools and its staff. Just like the People should be guiding and running Government, not the other way around. Anything else is a recipe for disaster and infiltration of ideologies with agendas.

2. Should the Bible be taught in schools? There are two dimensions to such potential education:

One, teaching of the Bible from a non-religious, non-doctrinal perspective, highlighting the CONTENT of the Bible and examination of how that content has been reflected in and influenced the history, culture and development of Western Society and systems, with an emphasis on the positive benefits but also recognition of the issues and challenges conflicting religious views have involved. Here, kids are taught about their cultural and historical heritage.

Two, teaching of the Bible as a scriptural study. This should be done by creating breakout options where students can go to their chosen class and study with who they want: i.e. X teacher teaching about Bible from X perspective, N teacher studying Bible from N perspective, etc. Also to include non-Bible study group, for parents who want their kids to NOT study Bible.

Decisions as to what different study groups would be available MUST be decided by parental direction, availability of volunteers, etc. with N threshold (i.e. minimum number of parents who want this). This means that classes would reflect the actual values of the community of families (parents) and classes with one or two students would not get in. The parents collective can veto any particular type of class they think is bad. (e.g. So, trans and marxist activists cannot simply set up their own classes. Activist / fanatical "guardian figures" would have to suck it up and sorry, no, you cannot have a small LGBTQI class with 5 students.)

Here, tolerance will come into play. Some believers are kind of fanatical in their approach, thinking that any theology that doesn't confirm to their view is evil. But if the number of such believers is small, then a more tolerant broader community of faithful parents would not block different but not overtly harmful theological teaching, as long as there are enough parents who want this available to their children, and volunteers to teach/lead the study group could be found. (i.e. anything less than 20% support in the community would not get a class.)

Volunteers would teach, 2 or 3 times per week, and parents get to decide which particular class their kids go to, including an opt-out option (where the kids simply study biology or gardening, or something like that: for families that are non-religious.

Such a system only works if

A) there is serious and adequate interest and involvement from parents guiding this or supervising people who direct such a program. (See point 1. above).

B) there is a broader sentiment of religious understanding and tolerance on the part of the parental community

C) freedom is provided to the students ala direction from parents as to what, if any, study group they attend

(My kids attended a state-run primary school (re: elementary school) where such a system was in place to some extent. Parental involvement was limited, but it wasn't being overrun by Marxists at that point, and it worked well.

I even sent my kids ot Ba'hai classes for a period, because I wanted them to learn about other faiths and other perspectives. (We are a very faithful family, strongly dedicated to Christ, and are not threatened by the alternative views out there, but rather see them as something to understand in the context of humanity, Christ and God's providence. No real faith is completely devoid of truth, even if they do not understand or teach the centrality of Christ to all things.))

In a method such as described above, if the community is strongly Baptist, for example, a bible study could be offered from a Baptist perspective. It's Opt-in, and those who don't want their kids to participate get to opt-out and have their kids do something else.

Secularism is unhealthy. Neutrality in faith does not mean NO spirituality. It means a broad perspective, and one that appreciates the immeasurable positive benefits that faith in many diverse forms have brought to human societies. That's just the objective starting point. And all kids should be taught that religion has had such important and critical benefits, despite the flaws.

Practice of Faith, belief, etc, however, is a personal thing, and not something to be foisted on any student or family. So any dimension of education along those lines must be opt-in choice for all involved.

Kids should NOT be taught that religion is evil, as the Marxists think. (Marxism is a satanic ideology/religion). But they should also not be taught that religion doesn't matter. It does. Religion matters, Faith matters. There are many people - even nominal atheists - who recognize that faith practice brings great benefits to society, even if they do not practice it themselves.

Lotsa lively discussion. kek.

A few points:

1. All schools should be structured around serious parental involvement, in a model where the School is the servant and the Parents are the Masters empowering the schools and its staff. Just like the People should be guiding and running government, not the other way around. Anything else is a recipe for disaster and infiltration of ideologies with agendas.

2. Should the Bible be taught in schools? There are two dimensions to such potential education:

one, teaching of the Bible from a non-religious, non-doctrinal perspective, highlighting the CONTENT of the Bible and examination of how that content has been reflected in and influence the history, culture and development of Western Society and systems.

two, teaching of the Bible as a scriptural study. This should only really be done by creating breakout options where students can go to their chosen class and study with who they want: i.e. X teacher teaching about Bible from X perspective, N teacher studying Bible from N perspective, etc. Also to include non-Bible study group, for parents who want their kids to NOT study Bible.

Decisions as to what different study groups would be available MUST be decided by parental direction, availability of volunteers, etc. with N threshold. This means that classes would reflect the actual values of the community of families (parents) and classes with one or two students would not get in. The parents collective can veto any particular type of class they think is bad. (e.g. So, trans and marxist activists cannot simply set up their own classes.)

Here, tolerance will come into play. Some believers are kind of fanatical in their approach, thinking that any theology that doesn't confirm to their view is evil. But if the number of usch believers is small, then a more tolerant broader community of faithful parents would not block different but not overtly harmful theological teaching, as long as there are enough parents who want this available to their children, and volunteers to teach/lead the study group could be found.

Volunteers would teach, 2 or 3 times per week, and parents get to decide a) which particular class their kids go to, including an opt-out option (where the kids simply study biology or gardening, or something like that: for families that are non-religious.

Such a system only works if

A) there is serious and adequate interest and involvement from parents. (See point 1. above).

B) there is a broader sentiment of religious understanding and tolerance on the part of the parental community

C) freedom is provided to the students ala direction from parents as to what, if any, study group they attend.

(My kids attended a state-run primary school (re: elementary school) where such a system was in place to some extent. Parental involvement was limited, but it wasn't being overrun by Marxists at that point, and it worked well.

I even sent my kids ot Ba'hai classes for a period, because I wanted them to learn about other faiths and other perspectives. (We are a very faithful family, strongly dedicated to Christ, and are not threatened by the alternative views out there, but rather see them as something to understand in the context of humanity, Christ and God's providence. No real faith is devoid of truth, even if they do not understand or teach the centrality of Christ to all things.))

In a method such as described above, if the community is strongly baptist, for example, a bible study could be offered from a Baptist perspective. It's Opt-in, and those who don't want their kids to participate get to opt-out and have their kids do something else.

Secularism is unhealthy. Neutrality in faith does not mean NO spirituality. It means a broad perspective, and one that appreciates the immeasurable positive benefits that faith in many diverse forms have brought to human societies. That's just the objective starting point. And all kids should be taught that religion has had such important and critical benefits, despite the flaws.

They should NOT be taught that religion is evil, as the Marxists do. But they should also not be taught that religion doesn't matter. It does. Religion matters, Faith matters. There are many people - even nominal atheists - who recognize that faith practice brings great benefits to society, even if they do not practice it themselves.