Religion in school (choice, America, church, atheist, religions)

[F_R_O_G]

why?

why?

why?

why?

why?

and where?

[painted wolf]

we are a democracy not a theocracy.... :roll:

we are a country based on equality and freedom, to establish governmental religion is to create a second class citizenship....

besides whos religion would you use?
Eaven if you chose a Christain faith there would be fighting ammong the christains about who's flavor it would be... It would be a garenteed recipie for civil war...

we already have accomidations.... so whats the big deal? 8)

here....
Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGON, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

wa:-do

[F_R_O_G]

ok now go back to my post titled "i started posting..." and look for my responce...

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

It clearly says that congress cannot make any law that favors one religion over another and that congress cannot make any law that restricts people from fallowing there religion. Once again it says Congress has nothing to do with religion being in high school it's up to the sates."

see 14th ammendment it clearly talks about states rights and human rights being protected from bad state laws.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

"most came to the "New World" to be able to practice religion wherever they were and not be restricted in any way. when the Supreme Court said a student couldn’t pray aloud in school that is clearly going against what the pilgrims wanted."

first off, the pilgrims have nothing to do with this... they wanted to kill witches too remember? :lol:

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

"the constitution supports atheism over everything else. it's not just religion its moral beliefs, atheist have a set of morals too; or are moral beliefs not part of religion?"

The contitution doesn't support atheism over everything elce.... it supports freedom of religious practice as well as the freedom to not practice. And no moral beliefs do not depend on religon... if you use morality then it would be more accurate to say we follow Jewish (if you use the 10 commandments argument) or to go to the root of law the code of Hammorabi which would make us babalonian.... :roll:
its a moot point.

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

. By no means am I saying religion should be forced to any student who does not want to be taught a religion, in the course of a lesson a teacher should be allowed to quote a verse or say something religious that is already extended to all atheist beliefs."

then you are forcing a child to learn a bible verse and your agument is faulty...

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

"The treaty of triply that you mentioned may look at first as an official statement that we are not a christen nation but once again you have miss quoted the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty makes it VERY clear that this nation is a christen nation. The proof surrounding my argument is so extensive that I would not be able to post it here...

your argument is based on a tenuious reading of a plainly put statement.

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

"I’m so glad you brought up the letter from Tomas Jefferson... first we must note that it is a letter, not an official document, that’s not to say this does not support freedom of religion, it does, just that it does not hold the same weight as the constitution. You did miss some parts "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem." his intent when he talked about a wall of separation is solely in making a law. This once again states that there should not be any restrictions on religion, nothing to do with this country being a christen nation. The words directly fallowing your quote of the letter is "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." this makes it even more clear that the wall is meant only for congress restricting the rights of man.

no it makes it clear that government has no place to intefear... otherwise why would he have passed the same laws in the state constitution...
The importance of such letters is to give a full understanding of what they ment when they wrote the consittution... it shows thier firm belief that religon should not be mandated by the governments.

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

"It is easy to quote parts of a document to make it suit your perpuce, I can say "congress shale make no law" so therefore congress should not be able to make any laws. That is clearly a misquote of the 1st amendment but if taken as fact without knowing the surrounding circumstances it can be very dangers.

your agument is silly... its just as easy to misrepresnt and try to blurr the issue with falce cleverness. :roll:

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

You are obviously an atheist and you are allowed to believe what you do. But as soon as you try to say the constitution only supports atheists, you’re trying to push atheism on others. It supports freedom of religion."

I'M NOT AN ATHIEST, I NEVER SAID I'M AN ATHIEST... I don't know where you get this from. I not christian but that doesn't make me an atheist... I NEVER SAID THE CONSTITUTION ONLY SUPPORTS ATHIESTS you are misrepresenting my arguments and prove that you have neither read them nor have any intrest in discussing things based on anything but a few repeatedly quoted works by others.

Originally Posted by F.R.O.G

"Our constitution as I said before is based on Christian principles. I thought we were talking about freedom of religion in schools. As far as the government making laws, the only laws that they can make are ones that agree with the constitution and since the constitution was made with Christian principles (not Christian religion) it should more or less fallow Christian morals."

if I may be allowed to use anothers argument on this one:
For one thing, it is clear that there is no obvious and unequivocal statement in the Constitution which specifies the importance of Christian principles or morals - at no point is Christianity in any way singled out as basis for anything which the text claims
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...on_xtnprin.htm

ps.. Franklin was a Diest and did not believe in Jesus Christ therefore he is not a christian... and his movement to open the sessions of the constitutional congress with prayer were ignored... no session of the C.C ever opened with prayer... seems like they started the seperation early.

wa:-do

[F_R_O_G]

Two things have come to my attention in the last week

The first one being that the first amendment say that congress can not support a single religion, but it may support a religion as long as it gives support for other religions too. So for example a teacher could teach that there is a God since there are many, many religions that believe there’s a God.

The second point that has come to my attention is that churches first started the schools in America, and so for a very long time they were a government funded Christian organization. And they found nothing wrong with that.

see 14th ammendment it clearly talks about states rights and human rights being protected from bad state laws.
Section 1.

The fourteenth amendment only refers to the creation of a law; the state can’t get involved in anything that is not challenging its own laws. All three clauses in section one restrict the government from making laws. “No state shall make or enforce any law…”, “Nor shall any state deprive any person…”, and “Nor deny to any person…” The state can’t create any laws that would infringe on our free exercise of religion.

The pilgrims have everything to do with this they were the ones that made this country. No, most of them did not want to kill witches. Most of them were the ones that cried foul against the people that were after the "witches"

The constitution doesn't support atheism over everything else.... it supports freedom of religious practice as well as the freedom to not practice.

o, so them what are we arguing about? if the constitution supports "freedom of religious practice" then why can't practice my religion? believe it or not this is a Christian nation and for that reason we have freedom of religion.

then you are forcing a child to learn a bible verse and your augment is faulty...

how am I forcing someone to learn a bible verse? that makes no sense, plz explain.

no it makes it clear that government has no place to interfere... otherwise why would he have passed the same laws in the state constitution...
The importance of such letters is to give a full understanding of what they meant when they wrote the constitution... it shows their firm belief that religion should not be mandated by the governments.

huh? where? how?

your augment is silly... its just as easy to misrepresent and try to blurr the issue with falce cleverness.

good, I’m glad we agree, so lets try not to misquote anybody...

I'M NOT AN ATHIEST, I NEVER SAID I'M AN ATHIEST

o good, but I’m sure you can see that this was a quote from somewhere else and so I never meant to call you something your not. but just curious, what do you believe in?

whether you believe that the constitution is made by Christians or not, that constitution supports freedom of religion as we have already agreed.

no session of the C.C ever opened with prayer

um, I don't think anyone else reading this topic will agree so I’m not going to waste another min of my time.

[F_R_O_G]

Two things have come to my attention in the last week

The first one being that the first amendment say that congress can not support a single religion, but it may support a religion as long as it gives support for other religions too. So for example a teacher could teach that there is a God since there are many, many religions that believe there’s a God.

The second point that has come to my attention is that churches first started the schools in America, and so for a very long time they were a government funded Christian organization. And they found nothing wrong with that.

see 14th ammendment it clearly talks about states rights and human rights being protected from bad state laws.
Section 1.

The fourteenth amendment only refers to the creation of a law; the state can’t get involved in anything that is not challenging its own laws. All three clauses in section one restrict the government from making laws. “No state shall make or enforce any law…”, “Nor shall any state deprive any person…”, and “Nor deny to any person…” The state can’t create any laws that would infringe on our free exercise of religion.

The pilgrims have everything to do with this they were the ones that made this country. No, most of them did not want to kill witches. Most of them were the ones that cried foul against the people that were after the "witches"

The constitution doesn't support atheism over everything else.... it supports freedom of religious practice as well as the freedom to not practice.

o, so them what are we arguing about? if the constitution supports "freedom of religious practice" then why can't practice my religion? believe it or not this is a Christian nation and for that reason we have freedom of religion.

then you are forcing a child to learn a bible verse and your augment is faulty...

how am I forcing someone to learn a bible verse? that makes no sense, plz explain.

no it makes it clear that government has no place to interfere... otherwise why would he have passed the same laws in the state constitution...
The importance of such letters is to give a full understanding of what they meant when they wrote the constitution... it shows their firm belief that religion should not be mandated by the governments.

huh? where? how?

your augment is silly... its just as easy to misrepresent and try to blurr the issue with falce cleverness.

good, I’m glad we agree, so lets try not to misquote anybody...

I'M NOT AN ATHIEST, I NEVER SAID I'M AN ATHIEST

o good, but I’m sure you can see that this was a quote from somewhere else and so I never meant to call you something your not. but just curious, what do you believe in?

whether you believe that the constitution is made by Christians or not, that constitution supports freedom of religion as we have already agreed.

no session of the C.C ever opened with prayer

um, I don't think anyone else reading this topic will agree so I’m not going to waste another min of my time.

[painted wolf]

you forget that there are many religions that don't believe in A god ... and so it would be against the 'fairness' and 'freedom of worship' to teach about 'god'....

they did find problems with churches running schools wich is why we now have the current public education system... if there was no problem with solely chuch run schools then why would they bother to make non-church schools?

I'm not saying you cant practice... but I dont think that 'practice' should include prostilitzing children in the protected learning environment of the school...

by using bible quotes in classes you expect the child to know the context of the quote...ie that it is bliblical and further as it is being used in a classroom-learning environment then the implyed obligation of the student is to understand the quote and if possible use it themselves....

I'm a native american... and I try as much as I am able to follow the ways of my ancestors...

"Trouble no one about thier religion; respect others in thier view and demand that they respect yours." -Tecumseh

wa:-do

[painted wolf]

you forget that there are many religions that don't believe in A god ... and so it would be against the 'fairness' and 'freedom of worship' to teach about 'god'....

they did find problems with churches running schools wich is why we now have the current public education system... if there was no problem with solely chuch run schools then why would they bother to make non-church schools?

I'm not saying you cant practice... but I dont think that 'practice' should include prostilitzing children in the protected learning environment of the school...

by using bible quotes in classes you expect the child to know the context of the quote...ie that it is bliblical and further as it is being used in a classroom-learning environment then the implyed obligation of the student is to understand the quote and if possible use it themselves....

I'm a native american... and I try as much as I am able to follow the ways of my ancestors...

"Trouble no one about thier religion; respect others in thier view and demand that they respect yours." -Tecumseh

wa:-do

[F_R_O_G]

Congress can't make AN establishment... meaning it can't make one and only one establishment. and that’s just dealing with separation of church and congress, there is nothing in the constitution that says that there is a separation of church and state.

what happened with church schools is they were not getting enough money for education so the government decided to step in and give these Christian churches money to run the schools, slowly after a few decades the government took responsibility of the schools that were stated by churches. now I understand that right now the states control the schools but back then there seamed to be no problem with church and state working together.

in school and you start learning about Gorge Washington it would be impossible to have a complete education about him without taking about what he believes because that influenced almost all of his desitions. and if you talk about what he believes someone would have to tell them how he came to what he believes. I’m not saying there should be a class that teaches only one religion but that you can't leave things out if they are related to the curriculum.

let me explain what I believe, we should not have one government run religion and we should not have a religion that runs the government, like in England during the 1700s. but we should be able to have limited involvement from either side to the other side if and only if it has reference to what is already being done.

[F_R_O_G]

Congress can't make AN establishment... meaning it can't make one and only one establishment. and that’s just dealing with separation of church and congress, there is nothing in the constitution that says that there is a separation of church and state.

what happened with church schools is they were not getting enough money for education so the government decided to step in and give these Christian churches money to run the schools, slowly after a few decades the government took responsibility of the schools that were stated by churches. now I understand that right now the states control the schools but back then there seamed to be no problem with church and state working together.

in school and you start learning about Gorge Washington it would be impossible to have a complete education about him without taking about what he believes because that influenced almost all of his desitions. and if you talk about what he believes someone would have to tell them how he came to what he believes. I’m not saying there should be a class that teaches only one religion but that you can't leave things out if they are related to the curriculum.

let me explain what I believe, we should not have one government run religion and we should not have a religion that runs the government, like in England during the 1700s. but we should be able to have limited involvement from either side to the other side if and only if it has reference to what is already being done.