[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

#E53: lauren's 1D: reply to #E23 (author unknown) (fwd)

From: lauren <gofnelau@auden.webster.edu>

lauren gofney
assignment 1D

in response to this essay by (?):

the first bit of confusion struck me when reading the first paragraph.  The 
thesis sentence read, "in creating this plan i chose my school to be a 
religious school, this was done for several reasons."  the author then goes 
on to talk of the priority to teach students the basics - here s/he 
mentions reading, writing, and arithmetic - which seems to imply that these 
things are grounded in the school being a religious institution.  is this 
the author's opinion?  if so, i'd like to know how s/he came to that 

later, the author comments on the critical tools that are needed to "earn a 
decent living" and "be a contributor to society."  what is meant by both of 
these statements?  what is a "decent living" to the author?  enough to 
scrape by, or enough to by a large house and several unnecessarily 
expensive vehicles?  what is meant by being a "contributor to society?"  do 
you mean paying taxes or volunteering, or both or neither?

i don't feel that religion is an integral component to one's education, 
based on the author's argument.  while it's a wonderful thing to lean about 
different religions and respect each of them fully, i get the impression 
that this parochial school will focus on one faith - which means that the 
students will be learning about the religion that someone else chose for 
them (their parents).

the comment that "we want our children to abide by the ten commandments but 
our government does not think that they should be exposed to it in school" 
is rather misleading.  my understanding of this comment, if i were 
completely ignorant of the situation, would be that unless a child attends 
a religiously affiliated school, s/he will be completely devoid of morals.  
this is simply not the case.  i challenge the author to find one public 
school in the united states that does not attempt to instill basic moral 
values into its students, including "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall 
not steal," among all the others.  sharing is taught widely.  the ten 
commandments are intrinsically found in any school system, in whatever form 
they may be in.  

as for this school's priorities:  "the first priority of this school should 
be to give the students the educational background to progress within their 
educational endeavors.  our secondary priorities should be to give the 
students a well rounded and diverse education."  i do not disagree with 
your first priority.  however, i do disagree with shoving the well rounded 
and diverse education to second place.  it seems that this is a matter of 
students either a) knowing one or a few things very well (their 
"educational background"), or b) knowing lots of things very well (the 
well-rounded).  which is preferable to you?

the author questions where the world would be without the scientists and 
inventors and doctors who made life so much easier for us all.  s/he then 
makes the claim that "i am quite sure that our society would not be worse 
off if some of the great composers or artists had not created some of their 
works of art."  so let me ask you this:  imagine a world full of 
scientists, doctors, and inventors.  imagine that's all anyone ever was.  
pretty boring, huh?  now imagine a world full of artists, musicians, 
dancers, singers and actors.  imagine *that's* all anyone ever was.  still 
pretty boring.  which is why it's essential that we nurture students and 
lead them to whatever paths they may choose.  for balance and excitement 
and intellectual stimulation, we need a mix of every type of person.