October's Autumn

Wow, so much to respond to. I've seen various takes on the NCLB. Many districts that I've been applying to do not use the "Highly Qualified" terminology. They call it "NCLB Compliant." I think that is more accurate. Certainly it is *not* my ability to pass the CSET that makes me highly qualified, it is my ability to teach children! And the CSET certainly doesn't indicate that (I think there was one question that actually pertained to teaching rather than regurgitation of the facts). The Dual Immersion programs (teaching children two languages simultaneously) are interesting for one fact: By 6th grade children who have been in the program who have English as a second language out perform English Only students who go through a traditional English Only program. Of course the students who were speaking English in the first place do equally well to those who's language was something other than English. WHy isn't all of the United States doing this? I mean supposedly we want to improve our education as a whole and this would raise the bar of what the 50th percentile would look like! I personally think it is prejudice. As Americans there is a belief everyone else should speak English. Heaven forbid our child know Spanish or Vietnamese! This is my take on NCLB: THe ultimate goal is to "prove" that Public Education is a complete failure (which it is totally not). But "proving" this religious conservatives can get the government to pay for their children's religious education in a religiously conservative school. Of course they recently came out in the paper that when adjusted for income Public School students out perform private school students in Math. I suspect when the study is done for English Language Arts, Science, and History the same will hold true.

Jesus also (supposedly) calls a gentile woman a dog which would be equivalent to using some not-so-nice words about people of various races. For those who hold the bible literally they have a problem if they understand this because it is a very clear case of Jesus sinning. So there are a few options: Jesus didn't say it in which case you can't take everything in the bible literally (not an issue for most moderates or liberals). Jesus did in fact sin as does every human being. An issue for those who put a lot of emphasis on the death/resurrection of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice (ie one who did not sin). Now an moderate or liberal can "deal" with this easily. They either eliminate the story as a literary device (showing the conversion of Jesus from being for the Jews to being for all humankind). Or they simply understand that Jesus was in fact human and this is one of the many places that he shows his humanity (odd that we show our humanity by what we do wrong, eh?) For those who believe Jesus was in fact perfect and who understand this passage as literal, well, they have a problem. In my experience they deal with it by simply blocking the two pieces of information from it or deny historical evidence which shows the meaning of Jesus calling her a dog.

That is without question, even without NCLB!

Yes, complete epistles are not considered Pauline but rather signed by an apostle (??) of Paul. Of course the "apostle" did not pay too much attention to what Paul was saying in some cases... Deutero Pauline Epistles http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm This explains which epistles are suspect and why.

I've seen the problems, studied the problems, studied the solutions (dual immersion programs for all students, but at the very least ESL people) but politics being as they are they people aren't interested in what is right, just their own agenda (personal power, is my guess). What would happen if *all* parents refused to have their children tested? hmmm... grass roots revolution!

Little known fact: Parents have the right to refuse to have their kids tested!

Did you see the "Pastor" who said GI's are dying in Iraq because they are protecting a nation that harbors homosexuals? You can interpret things anyway you want. You could say that Katrina was God's judgement against a state that persecutes homosexuals!

Test Anxiety is a very real problem for too many people (kids and adults!) When I was in school in the mid-seventies to eighties they tested us in 2nd, 5th, 8th & 11th grade. That was sufficient. It costs a ton of money which could be used to hire teachers who have broader educations (like I do!) Most schools I sub in waste about a month teaching to the test right before the test. Lost learnign time. Argghh!

Fair enough. By those definitions then, there are relatively few real genuine "liberals," and not all of them are on the left! Sincere apologies if I read my own prior frustrations with this topic into your post. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, many are on the right and then move left I find "liberals" in the more common definition are just as likely to be stuck in their beliefs as are conservatives. I do the same thing (Reading prior frustrations into posts) so I'm sure you'll have to call me on it at some time in the future!

Oh yeah, nobody's ever heard of a know-it-all liberal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Go back and reread my post. I don't think you understood what I was saying. I didn't make up the definitions of liberal and conservative. They are in the dictionary. Liberal 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms Conservative 3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions from www.m-w.com

I've been a sub for almost 4 years now. I completed my credential this past May (with a slight delay -- long boring story). I have a Multiple Subject Credential. I *could* teach Math which is badly needed but becaue of NCLB I can't Right now that is about the only way to get a job (short of sleeping with the right person or otherwise being related to someone who knows someone!)

I'm not exactly sure where this belongs so I apologize (and ask the moderators to move it if it is on the wrong board) in advanced if it belongs elsewhere. My background: I was taught (and question) that God makes everything work out for the best, what is supposed to happen will happen, etc. I just completed my teaching credential last Spring although I've been interviewing and trying to get a permanent teaching position for the last 3 years. (I'm harmed by having a Master's Degree which requires districts to pay me more money and a lack of connections in school districts since I'm unrelated to anyone in CA). People keep telling me that I will get the right job at the right time, etc. etc. From my growing up I *want* to believe it is all in God's hands and that everything will work out for the best, etc. etc. But the logical part of me says that not all teachers are happy in their teaching positions (schools, districts, etc.) I also see a huge contradiction of God being "in control" and people having free will. If God is in control then how do people exercise their free will? Thoughts, feelings, etc.

I considered myself very liberal when I was in seminary. To go to seminary and actually learn something was an act of liberalism. However, my beliefs are much more liberal now then they were then. It is all a matter of perspective. So if you consider yourself a progressive then you are. THink of it this way: If you think you have it all figured out then you are a conservative. If you know you still have stuff to learn you are a liberal. I use the two interchangeable which may be incorrect...

This is going to be a partially double post. I just posted the title of the book on that thread. I read a book in Grad. School One Jesus, Many Christs by Greg Riley. It gives an very interesting understanding of the whole Jesus died for our sins theory. There is another similar one but I can't recall the title. The two professor came of with the same theory (or similar theories) separately.

Well, frankly my money is with Paul on this one too. (I feel like a bit of a black sheep in Progressive circles for believing that Pauline theology is essentially right on the mark in so many respects. I'm not on the current progressive "everybody gang up on Paul" bandwagon.) But I also don't disqualify texts from any consideration just because they may have problematic teachings, nor do I believe that there are any texts which are completely immune from error. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul is less of a problem when I broke away from my need to see the bible as infallilable and *the* word of God.

I just went to the 700 Club web page to see if I could find anything about the "attractive Scottish Lady" I feel like I need a shower... I went to the boards and posted my opinion on Sex Education and Public Schools. People are ignorant *sigh*

*hears NCLB and SCREAMS!!!!!!!!!!*

One Jesus, Many Christs by Greg Riley (I think) Good book, so-so professor!

SHeena Easton! No, but it is close to that, I always confused the two! I can't remember her name so I can't do a search.

As a resident: 3. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and California. But I spent a summer living in Virginia outside of Washington DC.

I've been to Alaska and NYC and I'd say neither I've lived in very rural areas and cityish suburbs. I like both. I like the space of the rural areas and (with the price of gas being $2.70 a gallon) the conveince of having everything I *need* close by! I love going to museums and art galleries and I love walking in the quiet woods. I like going to sit by a still lake and going camping. I also like to stay in hotels (and I stayed in a homeless shelter when I was in college with a class) in the city. If I had to choose? I'd probably take a cabin out in the middle of no where so long as I can take a hot shower in morning!

That's a good point. Jesus was born a Jew, so he was under the "old" covenant already. By being baptized, he outwardly expressed his joining of a "new" covenant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ummm.... no... Baptism is a take off (or perhaps a form of) the mikvah, a traditional Jewish cleansing that was in place long before John the Baptist. http://www.free-definition.com/Mikvah.html Jesus was not Christian, he was a Jew from the day he was born until the day he died. Baptism didn't happen once, it was a repeated ritual. Jesus didn't start Christianity, Paul did. And it was really a separate religion from Judaism but rather a sect of Judaism.

Actually, the reason for infant baptism (if you study the history) was to keep the infant from going to hell should they die. Since I don't believe in Hell and I certainly don't think God would send a child there if it did exist I see no point in it. Churches which do not baptize infants have a dedication which serves the same purpose -- welcoming the child into the family of God and introducing the infant to the church. The parents and church agree to raise the child in the Christian faith and set a good example. I see baptism of infants as essentially forcing a child into a religious mold. My husband was baptized Episcopal therefore he *is* Episcopal. My Brother in Law was baptized Catholic and therefore he *is* Catholic. When he started going to church for the first time as an adult he *had* to go to a Catholic church. It came come into a form of almost brainwashing where a person feels obligated to go to the denomination in which they were baptized as infants, without choice or free will! As for as anabaptists not being progressive? Not true. The first gay wedding I went to was in a Baptist church and one of the most progressive "churches" I went to was a Mennonite church! As individual congregations both of these were more progressive than the UCC I attend now.

Primarily culture. I'd prefer to be Jewish but it isn't as easy as converting. Hmmm... question for the person below me? What brought you to this board?

The Baptist Churches, Mennonite Churches, and Brethern churches (as well as Assembly of God) rebaptize because the usually don't recognize an infant baptism. The Baptists, Mennonites, & Brethern are known collectively as anabaptists because of this, they were a different part of the reformation that decided only adults should be baptized. I'm incline to agree... but that is another issue!