This was my experience when considering switching to elementary education as an alternate career track, and that was back during the Shrub Administration (first term). I can only imagine the environment has worsened since then.
In reply to Commenter #1 (that's a really rude handle, just by the by): Disengaged parents need to be re-engaged, not blamed. If you want better parents, give them the support and resources they need: subsidized health care (physical and mental), subsidized quality child care for parents who work outside the home, more parenting classes, economic opportunities (more jobs, better wages), and more adult education opportunities. Incentives, not punishment, drive performance: that's basic human psychology. Think of it as using the research-proven tactics in business leadership for the public good.
Your view of Constitutional history is slightly skewed and incomplete.
1. That the United States was founded by Christians is an accident of history and culture. It is not any sort of evidence of a divine plan for a Christian Nation. It is not evidence of the existence of any deity.
2. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and a good many other of the founding fathers are rightly described as "Deists," not Christians. Yes, they had beliefs that might be described by religious, but they were not at all comfortable with the comingling of Church and State. Jefferson, in particular, is credited with coining the phrase "Wall of Separation."
3. Our Constitution does not mention the words "God," "Jesus," "Christ," or "church" anywhere in the body of that august document. In particular, the Preamble specifically states that the authority to govern is derived from "We the People" and their informed consent, not divine fiat or ecclesiastical approval.
4. Article VI, para 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
5. Historically, the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean a position of absolute neutrality with respect to religion, not that the government cannot interfere with religious institutions when their practices run afoul of our secular laws (consider, for example, the sexual abuse of children).
The rest of your arguments constitute the usual litany of insults and scapegoating that we have come to expect from religious bigots, and are not worth any further comment.
Recent Comments
In reply to Commenter #1 (that's a really rude handle, just by the by): Disengaged parents need to be re-engaged, not blamed. If you want better parents, give them the support and resources they need: subsidized health care (physical and mental), subsidized quality child care for parents who work outside the home, more parenting classes, economic opportunities (more jobs, better wages), and more adult education opportunities. Incentives, not punishment, drive performance: that's basic human psychology. Think of it as using the research-proven tactics in business leadership for the public good.
Your view of Constitutional history is slightly skewed and incomplete.
1. That the United States was founded by Christians is an accident of history and culture. It is not any sort of evidence of a divine plan for a Christian Nation. It is not evidence of the existence of any deity.
2. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and a good many other of the founding fathers are rightly described as "Deists," not Christians. Yes, they had beliefs that might be described by religious, but they were not at all comfortable with the comingling of Church and State. Jefferson, in particular, is credited with coining the phrase "Wall of Separation."
3. Our Constitution does not mention the words "God," "Jesus," "Christ," or "church" anywhere in the body of that august document. In particular, the Preamble specifically states that the authority to govern is derived from "We the People" and their informed consent, not divine fiat or ecclesiastical approval.
4. Article VI, para 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
5. Historically, the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean a position of absolute neutrality with respect to religion, not that the government cannot interfere with religious institutions when their practices run afoul of our secular laws (consider, for example, the sexual abuse of children).
The rest of your arguments constitute the usual litany of insults and scapegoating that we have come to expect from religious bigots, and are not worth any further comment.