• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

One Would Think A Public High School Would At Least Try To Hide Its Overt Christianity

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
It is a public school. It certainly isn't for the promotion of causes of any kind. If they want to express their Christianity in public I would never deny them that right, however a wall painted with a Bible quote is overstepping their right to free expression.

It's amazing most religious contentions are almost always about Abrahamic religions. Those religions seem to demand compliance from all other people.

On that same basis I would deny a naturalist quote from being painted on a public school wall. Public school is for all different kinds of people for the sake of learning, understanding and applying knowledge. To me there should be no favoring of causes promoted by any public schools.

And I do not think that methodological naturalism is a cause, it's a method.

Public schools must be allowed to promote knowledge. General guidelines for general values and behaviour should be taught and enforced.

I would hate to see freedom of expression squelched for the sake of someone's cause though. Public expression of a cause is a right within appropriate limits for sure.

It is surprising that the Islamic schools of Dearborn MI which are public schools were not mentioned
but really... I'm fine with respecting concience locally and not into undo restrictions I would expect a predominantly Jewish Muslim, or Christian public schools to make reasonable accommodations for both the majority and minority views.

Religon is a constitutionally protected right after all and students don't give it up when they step into a school Respecting others and conscience is important Banning religion form public school is more like opposing the free exercise of religion and that appears unconstitutional and illegal

Telling students to hide their religion is probably illegal
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I cited the original language which clearly is about the Federal Congress making no law hindering the free exercise of religion among other things.. it is not a limitation on other groups.

Wiki actually does not make your case... it's really saying what I said... limitation on COngress

"The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation forcing an establishment of religion, broadly making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. Furthermore, it does not prevent the placement of religious symbols on government premises."
It does not matter what you cited since you did not understand it. When it comes to the Constitution and its interpretation your opinion means nothing, my opinion means nothing. All that matters is the interpretation of the Supreme Court, and their opinion in these sorts of matters is clear. What the school did was illegal.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
It does not matter what you cited since you did not understand it. When it comes to the Constitution and its interpretation your opinion means nothing, my opinion means nothing. All that matters is the interpretation of the Supreme Court, and their opinion in these sorts of matters is clear. What the school did was illegal.

I believe you were the one bringing up the Wiki article... not you are abandoning it?
Could it be you just don't like religion and don't care what the original intent was of the establishment clause?

And really? Is the Supreme court so clear cut on this? Many think not.

"...In light of President Bush’s faith-based initiative and support for private school vouchers, the relationship between religion and government is again in the national spotlight. The Supreme Court has not established clear jurisprudence to predict how it will address these issues. Over the past 50 years, Supreme Court justices’ personal characteristics and preferences have influenced jurisprudence more than the political climate and most legal factors have. Without a clear, workable legal precedent, justices tend to develop jurisprudence more pragmatically, which has made it easier for justices to favor some religions over others. ..."

Brian Holman

The oriignal wording is regarding 'Congress shall make no law" in that regard not others
seems the original wording is more clear.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe you were the one bringing up the Wiki article... not you are abandoning it?
Could it be you just don't like religion and don't care what the original intent was of the establishment clause?

And really? Is the Supreme court so clear cut on this? Many think not.

"...In light of President Bush’s faith-based initiative and support for private school vouchers, the relationship between religion and government is again in the national spotlight. The Supreme Court has not established clear jurisprudence to predict how it will address these issues. Over the past 50 years, Supreme Court justices’ personal characteristics and preferences have influenced jurisprudence more than the political climate and most legal factors have. Without a clear, workable legal precedent, justices tend to develop jurisprudence more pragmatically, which has made it easier for justices to favor some religions over others. ..."

Brian Holman

The oriignal wording is regarding 'Congress shall make no law" in that regard not others
seems the original wording is more clear.
I did not abandon anything. I know you love to quote out of context and off topic.

And the Supreme Court dealing with another issue really has nothing to do with this. When it comes to public schools their position is clear.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If true this would be highly unconstitutional and should be examined and scrutinized.
I think that he got his facts messed up again. I could not find any Islamic public schools, though I did find one Islamic private school at a building that used to be a public school before it was closed.
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
Yup. Stuff like this never happened before Trump took office.

Trump's fault...not the people that put up the sign...not the school board for allowing it to happen. Thanks for the invaluable insight.

Lots of people are joining the lets-hate-Trump for {anything bad}
Here's an example Icame across when I emailed some Jewish friends(in London) of mine asking them about their thoughts on Corbyn/Labour anti-Semitism. Here is part of one reply I received.

I hear of many Jews emigrating to Israel because of the proliferation of anti-semitism.I think since Trump became President it has given license for racists in general to speak their minds and act out and this has become increasingly visible in the UK and Europe with a lot of extreme right wing politicians with racist views getting voted in and all this with Corbyn and the Labour party.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I did not abandon anything. I know you love to quote out of context and off topic.

And the Supreme Court dealing with another issue really has nothing to do with this. When it comes to public schools their position is clear.

It's clear that student and teachers and parents religious rights do not end when they enter school indeed!

But the constitutional language is clear 'Congress shall make no law' It speaks to Federal congress not other groups
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The SCOTUS has long concluded that it applies to all public institutions, which includes public schools.

That's quite odd because the establishment clause starts "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." clearly the limitation is on the Federal Congress

As Justice Sandra Day Occonner might say 'What could be clearer than that?"
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's clear that student and teachers and parents religious rights do not end when they enter school indeed!

But the constitutional language is clear 'Congress shall make no law' It speaks to Federal congress not other groups

Teachers have very little in the way of "religious rights" in school. They cannot try to pass their beliefs on. Students have the right to pray on their own, to have a Bible or other religious book. Neither has the right to publicly display religion where it does not belong. You should be able to understand this. Your claim about Muslim schools in Dearborn Michigan appear to be wrong. There are private Muslim schools, but put yourself in that supposed situation. How would you feel if your child went to a school where the Quran was pushed on them? A religious person may go to school but a religious person may push his beliefs upon others.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's quite odd because the establishment clause starts "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." clearly the limitation is on the Federal Congress

As Justice Sandra Day Occonner might say 'What could be clearer than that?"
Quoitng out of context without supplying the source of the quote is usuallly done as an attempt to be dishonest. Quote mining is a form of lying and should be avoided.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Teachers have very little in the way of "religious rights" in school. They cannot try to pass their beliefs on. Students have the right to pray on their own, to have a Bible or other religious book. Neither has the right to publicly display religion where it does not belong. You should be able to understand this. Your claim about Muslim schools in Dearborn Michigan appear to be wrong. There are private Muslim schools, but put yourself in that supposed situation. How would you feel if your child went to a school where the Quran was pushed on them? A religious person may go to school but a religious person may push his beliefs upon others.

There's a difference between free exercise and pushing

But secular humanism is not a neutral arbiter of religion. Thats like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
.
Then again, if they're stupid enough to promote it why would they be bright enough to hide it.


". . . this is the locker room at Letcher County Central High School in Whitesburg, Kentucky:


LetcherLockerRoom-1024x734.jpg
The sign says “But the Lord is with me like a Mighty Warrior. Jeremiah 20:11.”

[The] Kentucky high school [was] called out for promoting Bible verse in locker room. So far, the district hasn’t responded to any of the concerns."
source
Considering how often this violation is committed down in Dixieland one is encouraged to wonder if the intellect of Southern Christians is rivaled only by garden tools.

.
I thought about hitting the rainbow button just to get a rise out of people. :)

Although it's not the worst thing to ever put on a wall (and trust me there are much worse things that football players could put on their walls) I can understand why at a public high school it is inappropriate.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There's a difference between free exercise and pushing

But secular humanism is not a neutral arbiter of religion. Thats like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
Correct, and what was being done in the locker room was clear pushing. And you do not appear to know what secular humanism is. You could not ask for a better overseer. Secualr humanism is religiously neutral.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's quite odd because the establishment clause starts "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." clearly the limitation is on the Federal Congress

As Justice Sandra Day Occonner might say 'What could be clearer than that?"
Your argument is with the SCOTUS and their decisions on this over the last several decades-- thus not I. Maybe you should write them a letter and tell them how wrong they are?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Your argument is with the SCOTUS and their decisions on this over the last several decades-- thus not I. Maybe you should write them a letter and tell them how wrong they are?
Well that's every one of these discussions in a nutshell, isn't it? The fundies come in and assert that all the courts have been wrong for decades and we should really be some sort of mini Christian theocracy ('cause we all know which religion....wink....wink....they're talking about when it comes to such "freedom").
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Well that's every one of these discussions in a nutshell, isn't it? The fundies come in and assert that all the courts have been wrong for decades and we should really be some sort of mini Christian theocracy ('cause we all know which religion....wink....wink....they're talking about when it comes to such "freedom").

The plain reading of the constitution says in this regard "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...: not ABSOLUTELY ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN ANY MANNER IN THE US SHALL NOT MAKE A LAW..."

Why is it a problem to express an opinion. No one is disputing that's the original language.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The plain reading of the constitution says in this regard "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...: not ABSOLUTELY ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN ANY MANNER IN THE US SHALL NOT MAKE A LAW..."

Why is it a problem to express an opinion. No one is disputing that's the original language.

One can express an opinion. This locker room was an example far beyond that.
 
Top