Seperation of Church and State?

[Frogm4n]

school board make the rules. she knew them, she wanted to be a "persecuted christian". so she defied policy. When i was in high school i had a "stanic army" tshirt. they told me it was religous so i had to remove it. i did. no biggy. it would be a double standard if she would be allowed to break the rules.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by eskimo2
When it comes to children, and government representatives, rules and rights can be different.  Children, have special, or even limited right because of who they are, for obvious reasons.  

I'm not "against her freedom of religion".  I am against any gonernment employee expressing their religious beliefs in a public school, no matter how slight.  

(snip)

 its the constitution.

 

It's a radical interpretation of "seperation of church and state" that wasn't even considered until Madilyn Murray O'Hare had a cow over her children being within hearing range of other children praying to the Christian God, therefore undermining the otherwise supposedly rock-solid atheist foundation she had worked so hard to instill in her kids. The courts accomodated her and Christians within the public shool system took specific measures not to actively promote or even make personal preferences known to students regarding Christianity. But as is usually the case when it comes to those who make undue fuss over little to nothing, an inch was given and now a mile is demanded.

Our forefathers did not have in mind what "Mad Murray O'Hare" misinterpreted the constitution to mean. I suspect that had the minds behind the bench not been overly worried that her case had civil liberty merits at a time when there actually were some merits involved in the way other groups in this nation were being treated, they may have told her not to waste the court's time. As it is, the Surpreme Court upheld her case against the people and the public school system was changed. Such may have not been the case if the SC had the foresight to see how eventually those with anti-Christian agendas would petition the courts for everything from cancelling the playing of the National Anthem at sporting events to abolishing the inscription of "In God We Trust" on our currency. As recently as twenty years ago such efforts would have been called ludicrous to the extreme and laughed out of the courtroom.

Why am I so certain that those who interpret the seperation of church and state to mean that the government must squelch any and all display of one's religious affiliation in public schools (or on any government property or in any state supported organization for that matter) and who claim that that was the intent of our forefathers who wrote and ratified the constitution, do so in error? Because if that was the case, then those same forefathers would have taken measures in thier lifetime to assure that the schools, government offices and military bases of their day properly adhered to the constitution and would have further clarified it when it became evident that "the Christians were taking advantage of the system for their own evil agenda."

When I hear those with anti-Christian agendas use the excuse of "children are highly impressionable and seeing the teacher's assistant wearing a cross day after day will undoubtedly undermine the non-Christian foundation of the children with non-Christian parents!" I just wanna laugh ... and probably would had it not been proven already that such lunacy can and probably will be taken seriously in a court of law. What a shame. There was a time when this nation, on the whole, could be counted on disregarding the absurd when more important things required attention.

[midnight Target]

Sorry Arlo, but the founding fathers forgot to make Christianity the State religion.

Maybe they actually knew what they were doing.

No one thought it was wrong to pray in school until Mad Murray raised her hand, no one thought it was wrong to have sperate-but-equal public accomodations untli Rosa Parks raised her hand.

Acceptance of something in the past is hardly a good case for it being right.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Arlo, but the founding fathers forgot to make Christianity the State religion.

Maybe they actually knew what they were doing.

No one thought it was wrong to pray in school until Mad Murray raised her hand, no one thought it was wrong to have sperate-but-equal public accomodations untli Rosa Parks raised her hand.

Acceptance of something in the past is hardly a good case for it being right.

Oh .. I know they knew what they were doing. And as such they saw no need to fix what was working just fine. Those who seem to not know what they were doing are the current crop of whiners with a desire to "fix" the way the constitution is interpreted so their anti-Christian agenda can continue to progress satisfactorily.

Sorry Target, but it's not about the Christians wanting Christianity to be a "state religion. That old, tired argument doesn't hold water. It's one of the specifics mentioned in the constitution involving freedom of religion. Focusing on it when someone else brings up the part where Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion part is as red a herring as there comes.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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.

And I would have thought you could have picked up on my already mentioning that "Mad Murray's" crusade didn't hold the same merit that Rosa Park's brave stance did.

Rewriting (or in this case reinterpreting - why rewrite if you don't have to?) the constitution to fit a radical agenda that has no actual merit or benefit to the people of this nation is hardly a case for it being right.

[midnight Target]

And you seem to conveniently miss the first part of that little amendment..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Which is the part that is important to the point in question. 'Freedom OF' actually plays second fiddle to 'Freedom FROM'!

[Arlo]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And you seem to conveniently miss the first part of that little amendment..

Which is the part that is important to the point in question. 'Freedom OF' actually plays second fiddle to 'Freedom FROM'!

No I didn't. What part of "Christians aren't interested in having Christianity adopted as a state religion" confused you? Your paranoia over Christians wanting to force you to become Christian is outright silly. And freedom to express our religion was foremost in the minds of our forefathers. It's the first amendment penned in the bill of rights for a reason. It includes both the restriction of the government forming a state religion and the restriction on the government prohibiting anyone's free exercise of their religion. Anyone includes Christians ... anyone includes teachers ... anyone includes students ... anyone includes ... anyone. Get it yet?

No ... "freedom of" doesn't play second fiddle to squat.

"Maybe they actually knew what they were doing." - M.T.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Arlo
Chairboy talks of the inferior education given in Christian private schools based solely on it's preference of creationism over evolution and talks of concern over doctors and pilots who receive such an education. I challenged, you defended, I countered, you countered. If it turns out that your defense/counter is based on an entirely different perception of what Chairboy wrote then I'll give you an opportunity to withdraw your defense (as I'm sure you'll gladly step back from such an aggressive stance in your defense of it should it prove that he really doesn't have a problem with the level of education provided by private Christian schools and the doctors and pilots that recieved their elementary education in them).

I think our disagreement comes from my reading of the word when in "I suspect many of these schools cannot meet minimum levels of quality in education when they teach the Creationist line as fact," as if while you read it more as because.  

 

Nonono .... my inserting a statement on Christian hypocrisy was anticipatory and pre-emptive in addressing that possible argument.

If I were to write stuff like, "but to want to burn non-Christians at the stake certainly makes you seem like a demented psycho," would you not be completely befuddled as to how far out of left field such a statement came?  I'm exagerating, but that's how you come across.

 My mentioning your having possible unresolved issues that make you overly sensitive to discussions involving Christianity on the boards was not meant as an attack on you, just an observation on your reactions (which seem more evident with the continuation of our discussion).

Maybe if you bothered to figure out how many religion threads I've participated in on this board you'd realize how sensitive I am to such discussions.

 You obviously didn't embrace whatever Christian teachings you recieved in grades 6-12 as truths, which is fine, but it does seem that it had a negative impact on your life. I can't imagine any other reason that you would bring it up other than to try to impress me with your superior knowledge of the spiritual side of Christianity and it's possible inspiration to do right by your fellow man. But since you seem to not hold with that point of view, I discounted it.

I brought up the fact that I had an education in Christian principles because you said, "...if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity [...] then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," which a pretty radical statement to make.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Erlkonig

I brought up the fact that I had an education in Christian principles because you said, "...if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity [...] then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," which a pretty radical statement to make.

I suppose it's due to perspective. I'm refering to spirituality - especially when it comes to one's sincerity in treating their fellow man the way that Christ taught his followers to do. You seem to be refering to education. They aren't one and the same. It seemed fairly evident to me that Chairboy considered a physician's or pilot's belief in the origin of mankind more detrimental than their call to treat all of mankind with the utmost compassion. I couldn't fathom his apparently confused priorities unless he was totally unaware of how dedicated to his well-being the doctor or pilot would be because of his faith as well as his professionalism ... if indeed he/she was a disciple of what Christ taught.

"But suddenly it's ok to have my tax money go to organizations that cram hogwash into the impressionable minds of the people that will grow up to doctor my children, build the planes they fly in, and lead the country they live in?" - Chairboy

Is the "hogwash" he refers to only creationism or is it the entire Christian belief? Even if it is just creationism, how does that, in itself, make a Christian doctor, aerospace engineer or politician suspect when it comes to the basic welfare of Chairboy's children?

I don't concur with his premise and I really do think that if he had greater insight to what it really means to be a true disciple of Christ that he wouldn't be so worried about their possible negative impact on his kid's future.

I willingly confess that I'm not a good Christian rolemodel most of the time ... but I've been around enough of them to find it unsettling when I run across others that apparently haven't been.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Arlo
No I didn't. What part of "Christians aren't interested in having Christianity adopted as a state religion" confused you? Your paranoia over Christians wanting to force you to become Christian is outright silly. And freedom to express our religion was foremost in the minds of our forefathers. It's the first amendment penned in the bill of rights for a reason. It includes both the restriction of the government forming a state religion and the restriction on the government prohibiting anyone's free exercise of their religion. Anyone includes Christians ... anyone includes teachers ... anyone includes students ... anyone includes ... anyone. Get it yet?

No ... "freedom of" doesn't play second fiddle to squat.

"Maybe they actually knew what they were doing." - M.T.

Arlo

The separation of church and state argument is NOT an anti Christian agenda!  Christianity IS my comfort zone and I teach at a Catholic school.  My daughters will attend a Catholic school (the alternative is a very good public school) because it is MY choice.  If the local public school endorsed Christianity the way MY school does, I would not be concerned about MY children's exposure.  

As a teacher, I often try to view things as a minority might.  Even if there were only one non-Christian student attending a public school that endorsed Christianity in any way, it would be very wrong to put that student in an uncomfortable situation.  Just because no one complains, does not mean that no one has been offended, and does not mean that someone’s own religious beliefs have been stepped on.

Imagine this:
Tomorrow you wake up, and the world around you is 99% Muslim.   What laws would you want to be in place to protect your right to be the sole determinant of your child’s religious teaching and (adult) influence?

It’s EASY to expect minorities to conform to the expectations and traditions of the majority.  It’s EASY to say; “Our way is normal, who wouldn’t want to do things the way most of us do”.  It’s much harder to think outside of your own comfort zone and imagine how others may view a situation.

eskimo

[Arlo]

Originally posted by eskimo2
Arlo

The separation of church and state argument is NOT an anti Christian agenda!  Christianity IS my comfort zone and I teach at a Catholic school.  My daughters will attend a Catholic school (the alternative is a very good public school) because it is MY choice.  If the local public school endorsed Christianity the way MY school does, I would not be concerned about MY children's exposure.  

As a teacher, I often try to view things as a minority might.  Even if there were only one non-Christian student attending a public school that endorsed Christianity in any way, it would be very wrong to put that student in an uncomfortable situation.  Just because no one complains, does not mean that no one has been offended, and does not mean that someone’s own religious beliefs have been stepped on.

Imagine this:
Tomorrow you wake up, and the world around you is 99% Muslim.   What laws would you want to be in place to protect your right to be the sole determinant of your child’s religious teaching and (adult) influence?

It’s EASY to expect minorities to conform to the expectations and traditions of the majority.  It’s EASY to say; “Our way is normal, who wouldn’t want to do things the way most of us do”.  It’s much harder to think outside of your own comfort zone and imagine how others may view a situation.

eskimo

It has nothing to do with my comfort zone. It has nothing to do with making minorities conform. It has nothing to do with stepping on someone else's religious beliefs. My responses to you alone in this thread should have made it perfectly clear that I support everyone's freedom of religious expression as stated and supported in the first amendment of the bill of rights.

 Some want to believe that by squelching any and all religious self-expression in schools and on state property that they are adhering to the spirit of the first amendment. I think such logic is a strange perversion of the ideology of our forefathers. Free and open religious expression has existed in government far longer than the current trend of attempting to promote Atheism as a state religion. And if the members of a state sponsored organization demand equal time for all religious beliefs present, then I see no reason why reasonable measures can't be taken to accomodate them.

This isn't even an issue of school teachers and/or administrators trying to force their beliefs on anyone and the school board cracking down on them. It's a school system going to extremes in punishing anyone for exhibiting any trait it percieves as an inappropriate display of their personal beliefs. And yes, it does appear to be aimed specifically at Christians. And no, it shouldn't be taken to such extremes against anyone, no matter what their belief is. That is what freedom to express our religious belief is all about.

 The Constitution guarantees us in clear wording that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say "the free exercise in approved manners and areas as the state sees fit." We're not talking the institution of a "state religion". We're talking religious freedom. Religious freedom for everyone - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Athiest - anyone - everyone.

 If, for some odd reason, that got lost in the translation and you believe that I'm for oppressing non-Christians, then I'm afraid you've entirely missed my stance on the subject.

[midnight Target]

Your paranoia over Christians wanting to force you to become Christian is outright silly.

And bearing false witness is very unChristian of you sir. I never said I was concerned about this.

It is not the teachers freedom of expression that is in question here. The teacher is free to express her religion as she wishes when she is not acting as a State sanctioned authority.

Maybe it seems like people are picking on Christians, because there are just more Christians. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority.

And just so ya know, I am the product of a private (Catholic) school education too.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And bearing false witness is very unChristian of you sir. I never said I was concerned about this.

You don't support the school's excessive action of suspending the TA for wearing a cross after all, then? Because the main argument I've seen from everyone so far (other than "rules is rules and dems de breaks") is that her wearing that cross was a clear and present danger to the students since they are so impressionable and it could result in some of them converting to Christianity just from giving it one too many looks. You seem to support that argument. And it sounds bizarre and paranoid. I mean, gosh golly gee, that cross could really mess those kids up, yaknow. Not like sex and violence on TV and in video games and such.

It is not the teachers freedom of expression that is in question here. The teacher is free to express her religion as she wishes when she is not acting as a State sanctioned authority.

I suppose Christian chaplains in the military need to remove those offensive crosses on their collars too, eh? Or is the argument of visual brainwashing of young psychies the only one that "has substance?"

Maybe it seems like people are picking on Christians, because there are just more Christians. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority.

A democracy is also measured by it's justice standards for all, majority or minority. Having someone tell me that teachers who practice orthodox Islam should be forced to compromise their religious beliefs or be banned from teaching in public schools is every bit as distasteful as the suspension of the TA for her standing up for her right to wear a cross. Again, it's going beyond protecting students from active proselytizing. It's denying even the most passive expression of faith. The first amendment does indeed protect this fundamental right. I've yet to see a rational argument that can deny that. And yes, so far the only example I've seen are ones that enforce such extremes on Christians. That's not Democracy. That's not Justice. That's just plain stupid.

And just so ya know, I am the product of a private (Catholic) school education too.

Why in the world does everyone seem to think this is the perfect trump card to play when it comes to "proving" they don't really have a bias against Christianity?

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Arlo
"rules is rules and dems de breaks"

Yep. All the verbose rationalizing don't mean squat. So the young lady under discussion knew the rules and penalty, had been warned, and continued to break the rules. When the logical result came about, the whines started up about harrassment of Christians. I hope you are not saying good, upstanding Christians are so pure they only have to follow the rules they agree with.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Arlo

Why in the world does everyone seem to think this is the perfect trump card to play when it comes to "proving" they don't really have a bias against Christianity?

As a card carrying member of the group known as "everyone", I must refute your above statement. My own personal trump card to prove I have no bias against Christianity is the fact that I don't (usually) squeak-slap them when they come to my door to save me.

[lazs2]

eskimo... are you saying that the school is there to be black childrens "fathers"?

all schools should have to acheive minimum educational standards... Public schools don't do it now and do it even worse the more money we throw at them.   Priveat schools do more with a LOT less..

It is a question of focus... they (public schools)have lost so much focus that it is allmost impossible for them to regain it.   Money won't help... we have to start all over..  vouchers are the sensible way.   vouchers will indeed pay the entire cost of education.   Those who think that public schools don't cost parents any additional money are wrong... parents are dunned for money on a weekly, allmost daily basis.  

public schools are a bloated unfixable mess.  Private schools outperform them in every way measureable.
lazs