Religion in school

[Mr Spinkles]

FROG--

I do not think students are being indoctrinated. Are you addressing your question to CJW?

 

[painted wolf]

And note that Christianity already influences the state by bringing up the notion of separation of church and state in the first place.

ok... if seperation of church and state is so very christian then why are you trying so hard to get rid of it?

and remember the dark ages... you know the time that Christianity ruled much of Europe? Holy Roman Empire ring any bells? If its so christian an ideal to seperate church and state then why didn't it take off in Europe before the 1700's? Why do so many Christian countries have state sponsored churches today? Doesn't sound very seperate and christian of them does it?

Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue. Reported by the News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, 1993-AUG-16:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

An american Theocracy in action:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0104.mencimer.html

yes, christianity influenced the decision to seperate church and state... it influenced it by providing an exaple of why it was bad to have the church wrapped up in the politics of the nations.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't care what you think the public's schools should or should not be teaching. What children are taught should be up to their family/community and not you or an atheistic and increasingly totalitarian federal judiciary.

I agree--atheism should not be taught in public schools. Neither should any one religion be promoted over another.

Let's face facts. In your support of the federal judiciary and their trashing of the Constitution you cannot then turn around and say, "I believe these matters must be left to parents." These are discriminations that are not being left to parents but are being made by the federal judiciary.

Descrimination occurs when teachers promote one religion over another, against the wishes of parents. If your child's religious education requires constant reminders of the divine, you should take that into your own hands--not ask the government to do it for you, and force it on everyone else's kids in the meantime.

This is just what Thomas Jefferson predicted would happen. He argued that this would be the unbalanced branch that would become tyrannical. You are supporting what they are doing and then turning around and disingenuously saying, "Leave it to the parents." If the public schools are the publics and not some state schools run by atheistic/agnostic totalitarians then very well, leave it to the parents/community/public. But instead by what you say here it is clear that you seek to inflict your atheism/agnostism on everyone.

I can't make it any more clear--no, I do not want to inflict my beliefs on everyone. Atheism should not be taught in public schools. Teachers should not tell students that there is no God. You're just mad becauce you want your religion taught, and you perceive it not being taught as a direct negation.

So the federal judiciary gets to decide what parts of the Constitution are "constitutional"?! Do you realize what you're saying?

Yes, I realize what I'm saying. I'll clarify: The Constitution says in the 14th amendment that all citizens have equal protection under the law, and that 'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States'. But the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. Therefore, according to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights must be applied to citizens of all states (not just D.C.). That includes the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which seperates church and state.

This is just the sort of thing that Jefferson predicted. You fail to see the tyrrany because you apparently agree with a sort of totalitarian state enforcement of atheism/agnosticism on the parents/communities/public (and on children).

No, I don't agree with that. Not promoting one religion isn't enforcement; teaching one religion above all others is enforcement. James Madison made an equally disturbing prediction: without a federalism in which rights gauranteed by the federal government also applied to localities, citizens' rights would be stripped away by a tyrannical majority (read the federalist papers by James Madison).

Bah, you reference to "evolution" can mean anything as common as simply being born to a total explanation of reality as we know it.

As long as the teacher doesn't say "evolution happens...therefore there is no God" there is no encroachment. I'm sorry if the worldwide scientific community disagrees with your personal religious beleifs...but if we stop teaching evolution we might as well stop teaching that the Earth is round, because some Christians believe that too contradicts the Bible.

That depends on what you mean by the propaganda word "evolution." How about we look to textbooks and see what "evolution" is and if scientists say it is founded on atheism or not?

Ok, sure. If it's a well-established scientific theory, it should be taught. Even if the implications of a given theory are that God does exist, I would still argue it should be taught, because what the scientific community beleives to be true (and why) is vital knowledge.

Do you honestly think that he federal judiciary has a better track record when it decides to be the legislature, the executive and the total of government taking all powers away from "We the people...."?

If "the people" at large decide to, for example, prevent blacks from voting in the South by intimidation etc, then yes I think the judiciary is an appropriate venue to force the majority to accept the rights of a minority. That's part of the reason we have the judiciary--so it can make decisions in accordance with the Constitution, even if they are unpopular decisions. We don't live in a direct democracy for a reason.

What is "restriction" the federal judiciary making all of the people's discriminations for them or parents/communities/the public making their own discriminations through the legislature? Any pretense of totalitarianism among those who blindly support an increasingly totalitarian judiciary is projection.

Again, the absence of any one religious indoctrination is not equivalent to atheistic indoctrination. If public schools did promote one religion--say, Islam--your right to teach your kids Christianity would be restricted, as it is directly being contradicted to your child by the government. The only 'right' that's being restricted now is your right to have government employees indoctrinate your kids into your religion for you during the day, which is a right you do not have.

Neither did the Nazis say that they were extirpating traditional religions that bore the "Jewish influence" from public life. But that's still what they did.

Good analogy :roll: . Here's an interesting tidbit: More than 95% of politicians, legislators, judges and citizens believe in God. They don't want religion out of public life--just out of government.

Governments are guided by religion, i.e. systems of belief, period. It is only a matter of what the beliefs are, not whether beliefs will guide government.

Fair enough. But the beleifs on which our government is founded are in the Constitution and the men who wrote it--not in the Bible (the Bible was an influence, as were the writings of John Locke, and many ancient non-Christian philosophers).

Notice how merely praying to God in schools and/or mentioning God and/or mentioning the metaphysical (e.g. Intelligent Design) is not a "religion" that the state is adopting. Theism is a philosophic issue that is part of some religions.

Atheism is also a philosophic issue that is part of some religions. And teachers can mention the metaphysical--there are even classes dedicated to teaching about different religions/philosophies. But to declare to the students that one religion/philosophy is right over all the others is wrong.

But look how far you go in supporting a federal judiciary that is tending to fascism. And I don't use the word fascism lightly as some stigma word. It has philosophic meaning and it is an increasinly fascist oligarchy that you apparently support whole-heartedly. In fact, it seems that you believe that if we don't let the this oligarchic state make all of our discriminations for us then disaster will result in which we'll all run around making evil intolerant discriminations. Where do you get this sort of phobia from and from whence comes this blind faith in the judiciary?

Before the judiciary stepped in, people (especially in the South) were making evil intolerant discriminations against blacks (highly religious Chrsitian people, no less). And I do not support all of the judiciary's decisions whole-heartedly--please do not put words in my mouth.

There is a reason that atheism correlates to totalitarianism. It is the same sort of reason that you are so utterly blind of how you inflict your atheistic/agnostic views on others. Certain issues of philosophy and religion are too important to deal with in a totalitarian way. One way or another they must be left to parents and the community. If that means giving you your taxes back so that you can seek out a way to educate your kids in a way that you see fit. So be it.

That's how it is right now--if you want your kids exposed to your religion constantly by their teachers, go send them to a private Catholic school.

You are working from a set of false options. But again I note that atheistic totalitarians are the exact same people seeking to limit options and then saying, "THe options are limited, so indoctrinating atheism/agnosticism is the only safe bet." So they rationalize discriminating against all believers in the favor of some little minority based on a set of false options. If you really think it is dangerous for your kids to learn anything that even smacks of God in school then you could certainly find an atheistic school. Seeking to limit everyone's options and then saying that you're supposedly victimized if they disagree with this sort of totalitarianism would be immoral.

Kids can learn things that 'smack' of God, and they can learn things that don't 'smack' of God. The important thing is that they get an education in math, science, social studies, and english without the 'totalitarians' promoting one religion over another to your kids while their at school.

Well, the Golden Rule is a part of various religions but not a part of others. So it would be discriminatory against some minorities to teach it and it must be extirpated.

No, because no one could learn anything at all if kids can't get along in school and be respectful to teachers. Learning can still take place whether or not one believes in God or any other deity though.

See how the new atheistic totalitarianism works? Frankly, it's the same old thing. And I note your reference to the "Jewish influence." That's pretty much it, isn't it? You're fine with everything but that. Christianity sans the Judeo part, as long as Christianity is merely some social gospel similar to Marxism, fine. That's not the "religion" that atheists/agnostics really seem to have a problem with. No, typically it's the "Jewish influence" like the Ten Commandments, etc. This would all sound very familiar if you were familiar with history. But apparently you're not. If you were then it is doubtful that you would be following the pattern you're following here.

I don't have a "problem" with "the Jewish influence" any more than you have a "problem" with it. You are implying that because I don't agree with Jewish beliefs I'm prejudiced against Jews, which is absurd. I'm not "fine" with "some social gospel similar to Marxism" either. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Evolutionism in its grand Darwinian narrative is a mythological narrative of those with a Nature based religion. And what is actually in the textbooks on this issue is far from science, in fact it is fraud.

You and science will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Go to the evolution forum for this one.

Because of the length I won't go into this now. I mentioned frauds presented as established scientific facts in textbooks in order to promote atheism/agnosticism. That is one way. If you want the examples I can provide them.

Yes, I do want the examples.

It is not a matter of if the government is going to be guided by religion but what type of religious philosophy the government is going to be guided by. I guess I will have to keep repeating this. There is no sense in moving on until this inane belief in neutrality is done away with. There is no neutrality in belief. Even if you believe that you don't believe something that is still a belief. And it seems that atheists/agnostics are the first people to inflict such beliefs on other people using the state. I would disagree with you if you said, "I believe that the state should be agnostic/atheistic." But I would respect you more than when you say, "I think that the state must be neutral." putting a level of disingenuous inbetween your philosophy and what you advocate that the state do. What if I were to argue that, "THe state must be neutral...." while it was clear that I thought the "neutral" view was Christianity?

Christian religious doctrine clearly refutes other religions. If public schools teach one religion over all others, all the other parents of different religions will not only have to teach their kids their religion--in addition, they will also have to refute what the kids have been taught in school by the government. This is a detriment to the authority of the school itself as a source of learning for students and it restricts the rights of parents to not have local OR federal government telling their kids their religion is wrong.

It has plenty to do with it. And in supporting vouchers you're actually following through in deed the notion, "I want parents to decide." But in supporting the judiciary making all of our discriminations for us (which is the role they want to take on) you fall away from that. And note the judiciaries view of vouchers in which they still want to mangle the Constitution (some parts we'll adhere to, others we won't, etc.) in order to inflict their views on everyone. (Rather than having their viewpoint limited to the Constitution.)

They may conflict with your views of the Constitution, but not "the" view of the Constitution. The judiciary is meant to have room for interpretation in the Constitution. For example, the founders said Congress shall make no law "restricting freedom of speech". What, exactly, constitutes a "restriction of speech" is left up to the judiciary. The Constitution was meant to be flexible, (though only to a degree, i.m.o.).

Hmmm, that seems to be what the moderators of these forums do. A religious philosophy is criticized and they literally throw themselves in front of it and then claim some sort of personal attack. There can be no discussion this way because anyone can claim to take things personally. And anyone can make any unverifiable personal claims on an anonymous forum to claim to take offense to pretty much anything. At any rate, I said atheistic philosophy and that's pretty clear. If you take offense to philosophic disagreement with and criticism of atheistic philosophy then so be it.

First of all, I am not a moderator. Second--you and I are the ones debating, not you and "atheistic philosophy". By bashing it so much, you imply that I ascribe to the "atheistic philosophy" that you characterize, but I do not. You can rail against Naziism, Marxism, and totalitarianism all you want, but I am not any of those three--please stick to debating my arguments, not theirs.

"You don't need to teach about God, Allah, Jehova, Jesus, Buddha, etc to have discipline."

Yes you do. And that is quite simply the end of it.

First of all, even if that were true, we could compromise--public schools could teach them all for educational purposes without promoting one above all others. Secondly, you do not need to teach those things to have discipline, you need rules, punishments, and rewards.

As to the personal argument you made. Of cousre you will take personal offense to saying anything of it, I suppose. But you did make it personal by citing yourself as evidence. Note the irony of an atheist who just finished Catholic school saying, "See, you don't need the metaphysical for discipline." All this really proves is that atheists can live off of the moral capital of others, just as you live off the moral capital of America. But your purely physical type of "philosophy" is totalitarian in its very nature.

First off, I didn't say I took offense to it. I merely asked politely that you not imply I believe something when I haven't stated as such. For example, in this last quote of yours--I'm not sure what philosophy you're talking about, but it isn't mine. My philosophy acknowledges that in order to get along, we are going to have to respect others' rights to their religious beliefs. This is democratic/pluralistic in its very nature. On the other hand, a "purely metaphysical philosophy" that doesn't acnkowledge other beleifs is totalitarian by its very nature. Some examples include but are not limited to: the Pharoahs, the Roman Emperors, Medieval Kings, Japanese Emperors, and almost every ruler in history who claimed to rule by some kind of divine authority. All or most of these examples of religion-based government were neither just nor moral--in fact they were downright savage.

It is very likely that if that moral capital was not there and so ingrained in you and if you were in an atheistic society you would join fellow totalitarians in their purely physical focus.

It is very likely that anyone--you, me, whoever--without ingrained morality raised in a totalitarian society would focus purely on the physical. But you greatly mischaracterize my philosophy. I do not "deny" the metaphysical--I only realize that what was thought to be metaphysical is in fact physical. Our thoughts, in fact, are physical particles in a brain made out of matter. There is no greater spiritual world which justifies our physical thoughts any more than it justifies our hands or our feet or our favorite color. Still, that is not to say one should "deny" one's own thoughts just because they are physical--I wouldn't deny my own hands or my favorite color, after all. So I do not "deny" supposedly metaphysical things like equality and freedom (although ironically, theocracies and most Christian governments in history have denied those things--THAT is totalitarianism).

This is where the masses are to be conditioned through propaganda methods manipulating the emotional/physical (i.e. visceral emotions) and so on. People who disagree must be liquidated, physically. All is physical, so politics must deal with things in a physical way. Politics is medicalized, people who disagree are "sick" or "infected." You see, there is no such thing as a metaphysical disagreement and everything is viscerally/physically personal. That is, after all, all the person is. Your philosophy supports totalitarianism to its very core. It defines totalitarianism. It seems like you simply don't know history.

It seems you, in fact, don't know history. Most totalitarian governments operated on the meyaphysical belief that the ruler(s) were either given authority by God/the gods or were actually a god incarnate. Because they deny the physical world, brutal acts of oppression and injustice were justified by a believed "greater good" done in the spiritual world. The theocracies of the Middle East, for example, are religious intolerance "to its very core"--they "define" a government in which one religion must be upheld and all others stamped out by religious fanatics who can't accept diversity. I would encourage "the masses" to think for themselves rationally to discover and improve morals, rather than blindly follow the tryanny of ancient religious codes which deny and brutalize the physical world because these actions are believed to be required by an imaginary spiritual world.

Perhaps you have forgotten the majority of European history..."religious totalitarians", because all they care about is supposed salvation in the after life, committed the most despicable acts of torture and execution to get people to admit to being, for example, secretly Jewish during the Inquisition. This kind of brutality was justified, in their religious dogma, because it saved souls in the afterlife. American democracy was a step away from the religious totalitarian governments of old and a step towards a pluralistic, secular, rational government.

If there was a vast international pattern of Christians around the world all coming to the same conclusion that Christianity calls for racism then common sense would indicate that there is something in Christianity itself causing this phenomena.

At many times in history, there were vast international patterns of Christians launching Crusades, fighting pointless wars over how many sacraments there are, and oppressing Jews (yes, Jews were oppressed by Christians for hundreds of years before the Nazis came to power). It wasn't Christianity itself that was causing this, but the religious intolerance/non-secular attitudes of the culture in which Christianity resided.

There is a vast international pattern of Muslims around the world coming to the same conclusin that Islam calls for terrorism. It seems to me that a reasonable person would think that there is something in Islam itself causing this phenomena.

A reasonable person might think that initially, until he realizes that the fundamentalist Islam of today is as brutal as Christianity was in the Middle Ages. Islam generally exists in third world countries where culture is still trying to catch up with the Western world--they are intolerant of other religions and not as secular as we have (thankfully) become.

Nope, they generally didn't. This was a problem for them in elections so sometimes they did. In their own writings and so on they did not. Christianity bears the "Jewish influence," after all. Other things you said could stand some correction. But you have quite a laundry list to be dealt with. Only on some of it do you have a point. E.g. the Oklahoma city bombing, etc.... but if that is supposed to be the evidence of a comparable vast international pattern of Christian terrorism then you have a long, long way to go. Either you don't understand the depth of the pattern of Islamic terrorism or you are very phobic with respect to Christianity and don't understand how shallow that pattern is.

The Christian pattern of violence is shallow now (in comparison to Islam), yes, because Christianity is based in the Western world which has become increasingly secular and tolerant of other religions. Third world countries, in many ways, still exist in the Dark Ages of religious intolerance. Before the Western world became (more) secular, Christians were at least as violent as modern day Muslim fanatics. It isn't a matter of which religion (Islam or Christianity) so much as it is what time period and what degree of religious tolerance in the culture at large.

Given your notion about how if Christianity influences the state "DISASTER!!!" will result, I suspect the latter.

When did I say that if Christianity influences the state disaster will result? I just don't think Christianity should be taught in public schools over all other religions. Most Americans agree with me.

And note that Christianity already influences the state by bringing up the notion of separation of church and state in the first place.

First of all, if that was true, any argument promoting the teaching of one religion over others in public schools would be decidedly un-Christian, because it violates the "Christian" principle of seperation of Church and state. Secondly, if Christianity came up with the notion of seperation of church and state, it also came up with the notion of rule by Divine Right, an utterly totalitarian (and often violent) monarchy that was the norm in Christian nations for centuries (Christianity didn't come up with the notion of seperation of church and state--this came from non-Christian Enlightenment principles during the 18th century). By the way, the Islamic rulers of the Middle Ages were MUCH kinder to their non-Muslim subjects than Christian rulers were to non-Christian subjects. Islam, it seems, practiced religious tolerance in government far before Christians picked up on it.

 

[F_R_O_G]

I don't care what you think the public's schools should or should not be teaching. What children are taught should be up to their family/community and not you or an atheistic and increasingly totalitarian federal judiciary.

“Total separation is not possible in the absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.” The constitution does not “require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” Lemmon v. Kurtzman,1971

I do not want to inflict my beliefs on everyone. Atheism should not be taught in public schools.

then why the hell is evolution taught in public schools?! in order for evolution to be true they can be not creator!

Mr_Spinkles what law is being created if a teacher teaches creation?

but if we stop teaching evolution we might as well stop teaching that the Earth is round, because some Christians believe that too contradicts the Bible.

EXSACTULY we can't not teach religion in school, so why are you trying to force people to not teach any religion?

As long as the teacher doesn't say "evolution happens...therefore there is no God" there is no encroachment.

they teach evolution and not creation so that’s the same thing as saying "evolution happens...therefore there is no God" there no difference

Ok, sure. If it's a well-established scientific theory, it should be taught. Even if the implications of a given theory were that God does exist, I would still argue it should be taught, because what the scientific community believes to be true (and why) is vital knowledge.

but wait, you just told us that no beliefs should be taught. evolution is a belief, is it not? what’s it going to be teaching evolution or having not beliefs taught?

the absence of any one religious indoctrination is not equivalent to atheistic indoctrination.

you seam to think that atheism not a set of beliefs and so should be taught. do we agree that atheism has a set of beliefs or is it everything but Christianity?

Fair enough. But the beliefs on which our government is founded are in the Constitution and the men who wrote it--not in the Bible (the Bible was an influence, as were the writings of John Locke, and many ancient non-Christian philosophers).

the DOI stated exsactualy what the founding fathers wanted "[our laws are to come from] the laws of nature and of natures God" nothing more to say about that

well this is pointless, I have already heard all the augments. there’s always tomorrow though

 

[Pah]

I'll erase this if I find it answered in following posts

This may shock you; it shocked me when I first heard it.

... The constitution gives God the ultimate power. ...

The Constitution does not even mention God. It derives and maintains it's power from the people. The framers of the Constitution were mostly (if not all) elected officials from the Confederation. The proposed document was ratified by, I believe, 3/4 of the states and usually by the elected officials in the legislature. All of the amendments were added by simular procedure.

The Declaration of Independence, mentioned in a post just following the one quoted above, has no legal bearing on the founding of the current government. It was a notice of intent to separate from the rule of the British King. It conatins no details of the formation of a government nor forms a government but merely lists the reasons why the colonies should be free.

 

[Pah]

... In the first amendment it says congress can not interfere with anything religious, it says nothing about religion being a part of high school, only that congress cannot make laws that restrict religion (that’s why it's in the Bill of Rights) furthermore it is only referring to congress it does not say government, president, state, or school. It’s ONLY refers to congress making a law.

Congress and state legislatures have passed laws upheld by the US Supreme Court that do restrict the practise of religion. In Oregon, the court ruled against a Native American religion that expressed it's faith in using hallucinogens and in Florida, restricted the sacrifice of animals, a tenet of a Caribbean religion, to only those that would be eaten soon after the sacrifice.

In the US government nothing is done without a law passed by congress. Acts of the administration are established by law and carry oversight responsibilities. Schools are considered a part of government created by state law and subsequently can not seem to establish religion not allow religious expression in it's official duties. It's teachers and administration officers may not favor any religious group in offical duties.

However, in a school building, students may form clubs meeting outside of the time for public instruction without that restriction. And ciriculum may be designed to teach the literature and history of a particular religion generally in a inclusive manner.

... when the constitution was being made all laws, rights, and restrictions were made with christen morals so therefore laws are made with christen morals. ...

Actually the laws were made using common law (from England) as the basis of our laws. There is a coincidence of Christian morality and secular law but neither includes all of the other.

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... so I have provided a link http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

There are two versions of the Treaty of Tripoly. I beleive the quote is taken from the Arab version of the treaty and is left out of the American copy.

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. The entire letter http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=82

Jefferson's letter has made it's way into a Supreme Court decision and is now a part of constitutional law. I will find the case and quote it, if asked.

... 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.

The Constitution supports all people regardless of religious belief but it is a secular document - not atheist, not Christian but a document that establishes its own system - that of law.

 

[student_of_god]

Religious education should be left to the people whom represent the faith in their holy places / buildings and every thing esle within the rooms of a school. The two should never be mixed, as it has been seen to many times where representitives have corupted state education with religious beliefs in a lot of under-developed and developing countries.

 

[Ceridwen018]

F_R_O_G,

then why the hell is evolution taught in public schools?! in order for evolution to be true they can be not creator!

Mr_Spinkles what law is being created if a teacher teaches creation?

they teach evolution and not creation so that’s the same thing as saying "evolution happens...therefore there is no God" there no difference

Evolution is not an Atheistic belief, but a scientific theory. Just because Atheists accept science, doesn’t mean you can take it out of the context it’s meant to be in.

Evolution is taught in schools over creationism because it is much more widely accepted within the scientific community than creationism is by far. The only thing keeping creationism alive right now are the religious who support it, because it’s not like we’re getting new scientific evidence for it. That said, it is only logical that something which is religiously founded (i.e., the theory of creationism) should not be taught in a school where there is to be NO religion or religiously influenced curriculum.

Evolution is accepted by many Christians. In fact, the theory of evolution and the theory of god are not difficult to fit together. Therefore, the teaching of the one most certainly does not undermine the validity of the other.

EXSACTULY we can't not teach religion in school, so why are you trying to force people to not teach any religion?

Ok, you basically have two options here: all or nothing. In a school which is supposed to represent everyone equally in this incredibly diverse country, you must either teach no religion, or ALL religions. Due to the lack of wall space available for hanging all of the necessary religious relics, amongst other reasons, our government has decided that the absence of religious education in secular schools is the simplest way to go.

The great thing about America though, is that anyone can go off and start their own private school, in which they can teach whatever the hell they want. So, if you truly desire for your religion to be present with your child’s education, send them to the proper school—no one is stopping you.

but wait, you just told us that no beliefs should be taught. evolution is a belief, is it not? what’s it going to be teaching evolution or having not beliefs taught?

Evolution is not a belief, but a scientific theory, garnered through countless studies and observations done by countless scientists all over the world…Big difference.

you seam to think that atheism not a set of beliefs and so should be taught. do we agree that atheism has a set of beliefs or is it everything but Christianity?

Atheism is a pretty broad term, but I think it’s safe to say that there are certain accepted ‘beliefs’ which are shared. Mr. Spinkles never said there weren’t. What he’s trying to get you to understand, is that the absence of Christianity does not mean the presence of Atheism, any more than it means the presence of Hinduism.

For you to even mention that Atheism be ‘everything but Christianity’, is to shout your closed-mindedness to the rooftops. Christianity is not the only other religion out there kids! You call for a merger of church and state, fine. What if the federal judiciary proclaimed tomorrow that Buddhism be taught in all public schools? There’s your merger…but what? You’re still not happy?

You Christians talk of a merger between church and state, and for religion to be taught in public schools, but what you really mean, is for every state building to hang a crucifix! America is built on the principle of recognizing the minority. Just because Christianity is the majority doesn’t give it any special rights above other religions! I find it extremely entertaining that the only religious people debating the separation of church and state are Christians! Why? Because if a Taoist did, for example, they realize that they would only be fighting to allow Christianity into secular schools—they themselves would be no better off! Alright, I’m done with my vent.

the DOI stated exsactualy what the founding fathers wanted "[our laws are to come from] the laws of nature and of natures God" nothing more to say about that

Yes, but what they meant by that, is that our laws would fit in with religious morality, i.e., no killing, etc. Our founding fathers made sure that such a statement wouldn’t be taken out of context by people when they called for separation of church and state in the Constitution…well, maybe not you…

Keep in mind that we are governed by the constitution, not the DOI.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think perhaps my view on this matter needs to be clarified.

I don't think 'God should be taken out of schools'. In fact, I don't even think the word God should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance (an odd view for a 'totalitarian atheist' isn't it?). Public schools CAN teach about different religions in school....there are optional religion, theology, philosophy, and world cultures courses at many public schools. All I'm saying (and again, most Americans agree with me) is that public schools should neither endorse nor negate a religion, but only teach ABOUT various religions, for educational purposes.

One last thing...teaching evolution does not necessarily go against belief in God, any more than teaching gravity does. Many Christians (including the Catholic Church) accept evolution as the means by which God created Man, just as they accept that gravity is the means by which God causes objects to fall to Earth.

 

[F_R_O_G]

well i duble posted but sincee i edited is so many times, why not just one more to add something productive


Ceridwen018 could you show me where in the Constitution it says "separation of church and state", i'm having truble finding it.

 

[F_R_O_G]

Ok, I’ve just got one more question, then I’ll probably give up because were getting nowhere but i might do some fallow up. What single religion would be promoted if they were to teach the bible in schools? Well it would promote many different religions you would need a lot of fingers to count them all... for example.. Protestants, orthodox, Lutheran (over a hundred other denominations) Jews (and all there denominations) Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, some Muslims and probably lots of other religions that I can't think of at this moment... well um, thats more than one...

 

[Pah]

Ceridwen018 could you show me where in the Constitution it says "separation of church and state", i'm having truble finding it.

Sorry to butt in here but I have some citations in which the phrase "a wall of separation between Church and State" appears.

It is found in Reynolds v US and reaffirmed in Everson v Board of Education and Mitchell v Helms.

 

[Ceridwen018]

F_R_O_G,

Ok, I’ve just got one more question, then I’ll probably give up because were getting nowhere but i might do some fallow up. What single religion would be promoted if they were to teach the bible in schools? Well it would promote many different religions you would need a lot of fingers to count them all... for example.. Protestants, orthodox, Lutheran (over a hundred other denominations) Jews (and all there denominations) Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, some Muslims and probably lots of other religions that I can't think of at this moment... well um, thats more than one...

You are right, in a sense. Parts of the Old Testament are recognized by many religions, on account of because Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace their lineage back to Abraham. However, that's about where the similarities end. The Jews have their Torah, the Muslims their Q'ran. The Mormons most certainly have their own holy book, and the bible of the Catholics vs. that of the Christians varies greatly.

All of these religions include parts of the bible in their doctrine, but not all of them accept all of it-- especially the New Testament. The situation remains no less complicated.

A philosophy class which teaches a highly generalized version of the bible for part of a semester would be a fabulous idea.

 

[F_R_O_G]

i'm not saying we should have a class that teaches about God. i'm saying we should allow the schools to decide what to teach and not be forced to teach a New Age education.

if two or more separate groups of people agree on a idea then that idea can be taught according to the Constitution. but i don't think the founding fathers even thought that anything else but Christianity would be taught so when they said no establishment they meant no single Christan denomination.

we all know that wall of separation was used in the courts but i still can't seem to find it in the Constitution because ceridwen said "when they called for separation of church and state in the Constitution"

 

[Pah]

...

if two or more separate groups of people agree on a idea then that idea can be taught according to the Constitution. but i don't think the founding fathers even thought that anything else but Christianity would be taught so when they said no establishment they meant no single Christan denomination

It doesn't matter if all but one group agree to teach an idea. The constitutionality of an idea is not decided by a majority of people outside of the majority of Justices that vote on the constitutionality of the idea in the Supreme Court.

we all know that wall of separation was used in the courts but i still can't seem to find it in the Constitution because ceridwen said "when they called for separation of church and state in the Constitution"

Constitutional law is the sum of all the court cases and Amendments to the Constitution, and the body of the Constitution itself. The Supreme court is charged with determining what is and is not constitutional since Mabury v Madison. Each case the Supreme Court decides is by a review of all preceeding constitutional analysis made on the original document and the amendments thereto. This analysis is contained in the opinion of the court affixed to each decision.

The phrase "wall of separation" does not appear in the amendended document. But then, neither does pornography nor the right to marry Society depends on constitutional law and not just the literal document which is highly ambigious in places.

I did include above some of the case that place the "wall of separation between churh and state" clearly within the Constitution.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

if two or more separate groups of people agree on a idea then that idea can be taught according to the Constitution.

Which part of the Constitution says this?

but i don't think the founding fathers even thought that anything else but Christianity would be taught so when they said no establishment they meant no single Christan denomination.

Many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. Besides, the country has changed since back then....there are lots of other religions besides Christianity.

we all know that wall of separation was used in the courts but i still can't seem to find it in the Constitution because ceridwen said "when they called for separation of church and state in the Constitution"

There must be a wall of seperation in order to reconcile the conflicting statements in the Constitution and its amendments. The 14th amendment gaurantees that the Bill of Rights applies to state as well as federal government. Therefore the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" applies to the states as well. The courts have interpreted this clause to roughly mean (and the judicial branch does have the right to interpret the law) that government should make no law promoting or discouraging an establishment of religion.

So public schools, because they are part of the state/local government and everything they do is mandated by the legislature and its laws, cannot promote or discourage an establishment of religion--even an establishment that agrees with multiple religions.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

schools should at least teach about what other religions do, holidays, scripture, teachings, culture, etc. it doenst make sense not to.

this is the real world. people who travel and live in the US are going to meet many different people. get used to it.

sure, church and state are separate, but its not like you are forcing religion upon them.

kids have the right to know about the world. it is our duty to open thier mind to the world.


sure, its possible that sum teachers may abuse this and go crazy, preaching religion. oh well... go to a parochial school.


whine whine whine!

 

[Ardhanariswar]

schools should at least teach about what other religions do, holidays, scripture, teachings, culture, etc. it doenst make sense not to.

this is the real world. people who travel and live in the US are going to meet many different people. get used to it.

sure, church and state are separate, but its not like you are forcing religion upon them.

kids have the right to know about the world. it is our duty to open thier mind to the world.


sure, its possible that sum teachers may abuse this and go crazy, preaching religion. oh well... go to a parochial school.


whine whine whine!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Gerani-- schools are allowed to teach *about* religions. I don't have a problem with that. Teachers can say what groups/individuals think what, and why, and how they behave in light of their thoughts. Teachers just shouldn't preach one religion as truth and try to indoctrinate kids....that's all I'm saying.

 

[Pah]

Gerani-- schools are allowed to teach *about* religions. I don't have a problem with that. Teachers can say what groups/individuals think what, and why, and how they behave in light of their thoughts. Teachers just shouldn't preach one religion as truth and try to indoctrinate kids....that's all I'm saying.

I'd like to add, that even students may not teach nor express religious faith when school is in session. However, they may have religious expression in school sponsered clubs that meet after school on school property and there is a teacher or administrator in attendance.