Interesting C. S. Lewis quote

Sunny said:
When I was a child and later became a teacher in NJ, every school day in the NJ public schools had to start out with the teacher reading 5 verses from the Bible, and the kids reciting the Lord's Prayer and the pledge of allegiance.

An example of the moral busybodies imposing their religious values on a captive audience, perhaps? (Well not audience exactly. Captive participants is more accurate.)
Click to expand...
I don't mean to go off topic, but in your teacher role what time-frame are you referring to?
 

This Wreckage said:
The problem, as Lewis himself often wrote, is obvious: whose choice of values is objectively Christian? The evangelical Right who support Donald Trump? The much smaller evangelical Left who want a kinder, more egalitarian society? The Roman Catholics who want to ban abortion? Take your pick. There are Bible verses to support pretty much any value of interest.
Click to expand...

First, I don't think it needs to be a problem at all. I agree with what my high school teacher said: 'A Christian is a person who, to the best of his or her ability, follows the ways and teachings of Jesus Christ.'
You can either take the long-ago expression 'WWJD- What Would Jesus Do?' or check out a red-letter edition of the Bible- as one friend advised 'Read the words of Jesus and nothing else.'

Second, where you said 'verses' I'm guessing you're referring to the practice known as prooftexting, or as some call it cherrypicking- taking a statement or two out-of-context. I've yet to find any legitimate mainstream Christian religion that approves of it.
However, when individuals want to support their own viewpoints, or even do wrong, that's the approach that's used.
 
Draw your own conclusion

If you are old enough to remember the cultural values on the 1950's and early 60's:
the events of today are beyond comprehension.

"What happened?"
"We did."
"What do you mean?"
" I'm not sure, but the culture of today reflects the values and mores we allowed."
"Your statement is fuzzy and not specific."
"I know."
 
jerry old said:
Draw your own conclusion

If you are old enough to remember the cultural values on the 1950's and early 60's:
the events of today are beyond comprehension.

"What happened?"
"We did."
"What do you mean?"
" I'm not sure, but the culture of today reflects the values and mores we allowed."
"Your statement is fuzzy and not specific."
"I know."
Click to expand...
Cultural values of the 50s & early 60s? Like women being unable to get financial credit? Like Jim Crow laws and segregated school?

Yeah, I remember those days and don't see them through rose colored glasses.
 
During elementary school, we did mostly like many others. Bible reading a few verses, followed by the Lord's Prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Then, maybe singing the National Anthem every once in awhile. I remember us having a JW in our fifth grade class. He was only with us for that one year, then his family moved again. I didn't even know what a Jehovah's Witness was. Anyway, he was allowed to refrain from saying the Lord's Prayer.

During high school years, 7-12, we just said the Prayer and the Pledge.
 
Sunny said:
The late 50's, early 60's. I think they removed that Bible-reading stuff from the curriculum shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...
Not meaning any offense, I keep forgetting many/most members here are older than I... When I was in Kindergarten the teacher had the children "say grace" before lunch, but that was the extent of it. The practice ended by the time I started first grade.
 
We always said the pledge to the flag every morning. On Wednesday afternoons, we went down the street to a baptist church for religious instructions. I still remember the minister using felt cutouts to put on a board as he told the story of Jesus.
 
StarSong said:
Cultural values of the 50s & early 60s? Like women being unable to get financial credit? Like Jim Crow laws and segregated school?

Yeah, I remember those days and don't see them through rose colored glasses.

Yes, 50's & 60's an era of great injustice, but also stable-transgression was not acceptable.
The major social changes required legislation.

'You can't legislate morality.'
'Yea you can; legislation appears to be the only method of dramatic social change.

So her we are, confused on what to do.
Click to expand...
 
StarSong makes valid points about the rigidity and inability to see or act on the need for social changes.

We have social engineers in our universities, but who wants to listen to them?
They are a peculiar bunch.

There are two many factors involved in any society that have been ignored.
Race is one, sex is another-were working of these-yes/no.
Not fast enough for those denied their share of the American Pie.

I see very little of mention of class in American Society, that is and has always
been the defining factor in this nation, and the other nations of this world.
 
jerry old said:
StarSong makes valid points about the rigidity and inability to see or act on the need for social changes.

We have social engineers in our universities, but who wants to listen to them?
They are a peculiar bunch.

There are two many factors involved in any society that have been ignored.
Race is one, sex is another-were working of these-yes/no.
Not fast enough for those denied their share of the American Pie.

I see very little of mention of class in American Society, that is and has always
been the defining factor in this nation, and the other nations of this world.
Click to expand...
Thank you for mentioning this.
I jump at every opportunity to recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1230457.The_Status_Seekers
It was published in 1959, and is as relevant today as it was then.
You- and anyone else- can probably find it on Amazon or similar site for a dollar or so.
 
Status Seeker,

Wrote a lot of essays in school about social class
I've never understood how we can remain oblivious to the mechanisms that have
and continue to determine our behavior and our thoughts.
 
Gaer said:
"Under God, INVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all. every morning.
Click to expand...
I don't meant to be rude but I think the word is "indivisible". Entirely different meaning.

The Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Click to expand...
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Click to expand...
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Click to expand...
 
gennie said:
I don't meant to be rude but I think the word is "indivisible". Entirely different meaning.

The Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:


In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:


In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
Click to expand...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pledge-of-allegiance/
 
Sunny said:
When I was a child and later became a teacher in NJ, every school day in the NJ public schools had to start out with the teacher reading 5 verses from the Bible, and the kids reciting the Lord's Prayer and the pledge of allegiance.

An example of the moral busybodies imposing their religious values on a captive audience, perhaps? (Well not audience exactly. Captive participants is more accurate.)
Click to expand...
You know, my schooling started in the late 30's and sounds very similar to what you describe. Truthfully, I don't think that we, as children, or our parents either, saw anything "odd" or sinister about this.

The huge majority of the kids in my school were Catholic/Protestant, and only the ending of the prayer left some in silence. By high school (1948-51), I think that the bible reading and prayer were gone but the allegiance pledge was still with us. No one batted an eyelash as I recall and I would surmise that other countries had their own versions of "openings" of their school days and I might have been mystified if I had been in one of these classes.

Did children of Japan and Germany, to pick a couple, also have allegiance pledges during the WWII years? It would surprise me if they didn't.

Different time - different world. To over criticize it today is foolishness and not worth a comment.
 
gennie said:
I don't meant to be rude but I think the word is "indivisible". Entirely different meaning.

The Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:


In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:


In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
Click to expand...

The addition of that phrase, "Under God," was done under the Eisenhower administration, and was widely regarded by many as being a political ploy. Lots of people objected to the insertion of religion into the Pledge, and still do. Some of them refuse to recite the Pledge at all for that reason; others go silent when those two words are spoken. You can actually hear the voices drop in volume.

Probably the worst thing about sticking those words in was the crass politicization of profound religious feelings. What is the harm? Well, if you believe that reciting such a pledge is a sincere statement of loyalty and belief, it is forcing people to swear allegiance to a religion that may not be theirs. If this seems trivial, try substituting the name of any other deity and think about the "cultural values" of being forced to swear allegiance to him/her/it.

At the time, it didn't seem that awful, but now in retrospect, it does. I'm glad we've evolved away from it.
 
Sunny said:
The addition of that phrase, "Under God," was done under the Eisenhower administration, and was widely regarded by many as being a political ploy. Lots of people objected to the insertion of religion into the Pledge, and still do. Some of them refuse to recite the Pledge at all for that reason; others go silent when those two words are spoken. You can actually hear the voices drop in volume.

Probably the worst thing about sticking those words in was the crass politicization of profound religious feelings. What is the harm? Well, if you believe that reciting such a pledge is a sincere statement of loyalty and belief, it is forcing people to swear allegiance to a religion that may not be theirs. If this seems trivial, try substituting the name of any other deity and think about the "cultural values" of being forced to swear allegiance to him/her/it.

At the time, it didn't seem that awful, but now in retrospect, it does. I'm glad we've evolved away from it.
Click to expand...

My post had nothing to do with religion or with any of the changes that were later made. I simply think that when our Pledge of Allegiance is quoted, it should be correct. There is a huge difference in the two words 'invisible' and 'indivisible' and I waited for one of our scholars to point it out but it didn't happen.

Maybe the quote I corrected was meant to be a joke. If so, I apologize for my lack of a sense of humor.
 
Gennie, I wasn't replying to your post. You were absolutely right about the correction of "indivisible." I doubt that Gaer meant it as a joke.

My post about "under God" was meant to convey my own strongly held convictions on this. I am a very strong believer in the separation of church and state, and think that is largely what has made this country great. I don't like seeing politicians sticking extraneous religious ideas into something like the Pledge, and then forcing kids to recite them.
 
In my state primary school in Sydney I remember flag drill on the school playground with these words - "I honor my god. I serve my king. I salute the flag." Then we marched off into our classrooms. This was in the early 1950s. I remember that on the day the death of King George VI was announced we all sang his favourite hymn, Abide with Me.

Later in secondary school at our weekly assembly in the school hall we would sing the national anthem - God save the Queen", the school anthem and the Crimond version of the 23rd psalm. We also learned and occasionally sang patriotic songs such as Land of Hope and Glory.

We did not question these practices until much later in adulthood when Australian nationalism was on the rise.
 


Back
Top