Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crowMAW on March 27, 2005, 09:45:42 AM
-
I've heard the argument that the 1st Amendment is a guarantee for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And, since the majority of Americans are Christian, there is no reason not to have government endorsed prayer in schools and proselytizing religious icons on government property. Where is the line and did this cross it and why?
http://newsobserver.com/news/v-printer/story/2233207p-8613419c.html
Happy Easter Christians...
-
The other lesson said, "God has a niche for each creature He has created, down to the tiniest microscopic being. He also has a niche for each person He has created."
The suit says that when the parents complained to principal Deborah Anderson, she asked, "What's the problem? Don't you and your family go to church?"
Ashlee came home with a worksheet on which she was marked wrong for answering that "chance" was the reason many animals are colored to match their surroundings. The teacher indicated that the right answer was "God's master design," the suit says.
I've seen stuff like this before and asked my christian friends about it. Even when it's right in front of them, they frown a little, maybe scratch their heads. Then they look up at me, still frowning, and ask what's wrong with it. Some of them just don't get it.
-
It's a difficult one to call, I guess it depends on what sort of school it is. I went to a Church of England (Protestant) school so it was all Christian. Nearby was a Roman Catholic school so that was obviously Catholic teachings. Then other schools for other religions, such as Hindu, Sikh, Muslim and Jewish etc. So if someone is enrolled into such a school then that is what they should accept. However, and this is the issue, an individual should be given the right to practice whatever religion they choose. A school should provide as much guidance and support, if requested, for that person to 'find' what they are looking for. They shouldn't ram anything down anyones throats, especially children, since this would often have the opposite effect. It's a fine balance.
I know that when I was in the UK the PC brigade were making it more and more difficult to embrace the Church of England religion incase it offended non-Christian people. For example, some councils/districts were avoiding the use of 'Christmas' in case it offended people? Why? Near to where I used to live they had 'Diwali' which was an amazing Asian festival. It demonstrated the acceptance of non-Christian beliefs and was widely encouraged by non-Christian and Christian alike.
So... if this is your 1st Ammendment then yes, it should be a freedom of religion, whatever religion that might be. As for causing offence, well, I guess common sense should prevail. Do schools have questionaires for students with different religious beliefs? Are students asked if they have any objections? Quite often the people making the most noise are the PC people, and probably Christian, saying that it isn't fair towards other religions.
Religion.... a funny old thing eh?! :)
-
Nothing funny about it really. It's been used for centuries for mind control and setting ideas on human cattle.
Muslim extremists hate you and me from the bottom of thier heart only because they've been fed lies since birth. They live in a totally different world which has values opposite to ours.
This was achieved through abuse of religion.
-
A fifth-grader's family is suing the Cumberland County school system because her teacher used a Christian text that preached creationism and encouraged children to proselytize for Jesus.
Yes this went way to far. There is a difference between being free to practice one's religion and having it taught to your kids in a public school.
Yes, schools should teach theology but it should be taugh from a textual standpoint of historical and social implications.
as a parent and a christian I would not want my child's teacher telling him/her that there is but one god and his name is allah.
-
Agree completely Gunslinger. Way too far. I'm a Christian but I'd rather the public schools stick to teaching science, and let children receive religious instruction from their parents and/or church.
Creationism is not a scientific theory.
-
School is for science, church is for religion.
-
reminds me of that bumper sticker...
"You will not preach in my school and I will not think in your church. Deal?"
-
Pretty egregious violation of seperation of church and state. I find it hillarious that this teacher had no idea she was over the line the same for the principal.
As far as the subjects taught in a chrch sponsored school vs a public school, that should be a no brainer. A church sponsored school has it's own agenda and is obviously following it. It is also a private insitution where students are enrolled at the parents request. This is not the case in a PUBLIC school. Religion is not supposed to be taught in a public school in the US. That is not to say you cannot discuss the presence of religion, but that dogma or doctrine is not a subject for the class in a public school.
-
Storch is conspicuosly absent from this thread.
-
THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
I'm so damn sick of everyone saying this.
If you think the constitution says that Church and State must to be seperate, you need to take an adult learning class on reading skills.
-
Laser, would you mind commenting on whether you felt it was appropriate what the teacher and principal did? And if so, can you explain how a public school teaching about 'God's master design' is not related to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Seems pretty clear cut that what they did was catamount to making Christianity the Word in school.
-
Dammit, I so wish I went to that school...I would've so aced every exam with "it's God's master plan" to answer every question...unless it was multiple choice (doh what was I thinking - theres only one choice!! :D)
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
I'm so damn sick of everyone saying this.
If you think the constitution says that Church and State must to be seperate, you need to take an adult learning class on reading skills.
Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. I believe he originated the term.
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.
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 & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you think the constitution says that Church and State must to be seperate, you need to take an adult learning class on reading skills.
America's entire reason for being was predicated on seperating itself from the BS tenticle-like grasp of monarchy and piety.
It was why ya broke free in the first place.
Now ya got folks digging around trying to make the argument that this isn't the case. And that America is fundamentally Christian. And should govern as such.
These folks, however, are the antithesis of what America is about. They are what America broke free from in order to become America.
A coupla hundred years ago you saw past the madness.
Do we get dumber?
-
I agree that pushing religeon of any kind in schools is not appropriate.
What I want to know is, why in the past 10 years has there been so many attacks on religeon and government. The leftist media is always quoted saying "fundamentalist Christian morals" in a negative way. What is wrong with Christian morals? What is wrong with the 10 commandments being on public display on government property? Government endorsement of a religon is different than a government mandate saying you must be a certain religon. Forced religon was the ONLY purpose of the "seperation of church and state" part of the amendment.
If the idiots that attacked religon so much had their way, all of our basic morals and values would be out the door.
-
I never said that this was good. I'm just mad every time someone shouts seperation of church and state.
The state can have an official church. They just can't enforce it on you, benefit those who are in that church over those that aren't, or punish you for not being in the church.
-
may be you will hear more often things like
" Mr. President what will you do for us ?"
" I will pray for you my dear voters."
and everybody will be happy
(last time bush used this answer was 1 weak ago or so.)
:D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I never said that this was good. I'm just mad every time someone shouts seperation of church and state.
The state can have an official church. They just can't enforce it on you, benefit those who are in that church over those that aren't, or punish you for not being in the church.
Countries, where religion is connect with goverment are called Theocratic ... right ?
-
the government should have nothing to do with schools... it should be seperation of state and schooling.
lazs
-
Governments that are ruled by religion are called Theocratic. Just because a government has a religion, doesn't mean it rules by it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The state can have an official church. They just can't enforce it on you, benefit those who are in that church over those that aren't, or punish you for not being in the church.
Want to show some jurisprudence to back that up?
The 1st Amendment is pretty clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
And, the 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) with its Equal Protection Clause extends the 1st Amendment to the States.
As far as the separation of church and state...already posted is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, who btw were looking to Jefferson for help to rid Connecticut of its official church (the Congrgationalist Church, which was given special status including being the recipient of a religious tax collected from all citizens of the state).
But if that is not enough read from one of your own:
http://www3.baylor.edu/Church_State/journ2003Winter.htm#Editorial
The author, Dr. Derek H. Davis, is former director of J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies (Baylor University) and current director of Center for Science and Theology (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). The article was reprinted in Christian Ethics Today (Vol. 49 (http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/049/Issue_049_Spring_2004.htm))
-
Without a doubt. As one who does not have a problem with religious symbols on public land (particularly if presented in a historical context), or with allowing prayer at functions like public school graduations, or with including “intelligent design” as an alternate theory -- along side evolution -- to the origins of life in public school classrooms, I nonetheless would hold the school in the wrong for this obvious and forced religious indoctrination. In a private, religious-run school it would perhaps be appropriate.
I am no constitutional scholar, but I do not believe it was the intention of the founding fathers to exercise completely any mention of the divine from the public forum; only that there should be no influence of organized religion in government institutions. The term “endowed by their creator” in one of our founding documents, the use of the word “God” and “divine” on many of our public monuments, the practice of including an invocation at the opening of Congressional sessions, all point to the conclusion that the nation’s founders and early leaders were not against mention of God or spiritual matters in the public forum. Rather, their two-fold aim was to insure no one was forceed to practice a particular religion, or to deny anyone the free exercise thereof.
-
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.
Why do most people when arguing the constitution only include the part of the amedment that supports their personal view? You have a catch-22 in the second statement:
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
We the People are the government. So those we elect to represent our interests are of us, and we should know their religious backgrounds before we elect them. (Or we should know). The oath of office does not prohibit members of the government from practicing their religion while in office. Or even openly basing their decisions upon the tennets of their religion. They are prohibited from making their branch of religion the national religion of the U.S.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This statement makes the establishmnet of a National religion by congress a violation of the constitution. It does not forbid the practice of religion in the public arena or privately. And practicing religion in almost all religions encompasses talking about it in public, using words and phrases of said religion as a daily part of ones life....this can go on and on. It's funny how the third part protecting the freedom of speech tends to be forgotten these days when it comes to religion. Guess free speech is only free to secularists and stateists in the year 2005 of our Lord.
"or abridging the freedom of speech"
Religion has that awfull problem of being communicated by the faithfull as speech. So unless the United States has passed hate speech laws like the UK and Philidelphia has recently, I think religious speech is protected by the freedom of speech section. Just like if you don't care to hear several gentelmen of the other persuasion bragging about the boyfreinds they did last night, you are free to walk away or not listen. They in turn have the same freedom if they don't like hearing you talk about the bible. There is no right in the constitution to not be offended by what you hear. <---"or abridging the freedom of speech"
As for the school, unless it is a private school and you are paying for your child to learn God's plan, the teacher should not be teaching God's plan in place of science.
As for jefferson's "wall", his style of writing kind of leaves what inspired his choice of words up to interpretation. Jefferson was not a christian. He was a bit more of a secularist/natural deist. You might construe that he saw the Church as another form of tyranny and a hiderance to the independant natural developmant of a mans mind and spirit. He deplored goverments intrusions into the private lives of the people, Statism\Federalism. The Church can be looked on with this same suspicion in essence having hold of the hearts and minds of free men.
-
Jefferson by the way supported freedom of religion as shown by this bill he submitted:
In June 1779 the introduction of Jefferson's bill on religious liberty touched off a quarrel that caused turmoil in Virginia for 8 years. The bill was significant as no other state--indeed, no other nation--provided for complete religious liberty at that time. Jefferson's bill stated "that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions on matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." Many Virginians regarded the bill as an attack upon Christianity. It did not pass until 1786, and then mainly through the perseverance of James Madison. Jefferson, by then in France, congratulated Madison, adding that "it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."
-
It's totally inappropriate for her to do that..... and I'm willing to bet that she knew it.
She should be punished for straying from the corriculum she is paid to teach. She is not entrusted with those kids,so she can force upon them her beliefs.
It's completely disrespectful.
-
Originally posted by bustr
As for jefferson's "wall", his style of writing kind of leaves what inspired his choice of words up to interpretation. Jefferson was not a christian. He was a bit more of a secularist/natural deist. You might construe that he saw the Church as another form of tyranny and a hiderance to the independant natural developmant of a mans mind and spirit. He deplored goverments intrusions into the private lives of the people, Statism\Federalism. The Church can be looked on with this same suspicion in essence having hold of the hearts and minds of free men.
In these views I consider him a Libertarian, yet he advocated free public education as important to the health of our democracy. But the modern day libertarian view seems to be more along the lines of Lazs' thinking - that the state should have no part in schooling.
Kindof interesting. I suspect if the State left education to private hands, we would develop the same kind of gross inequity in education level that we now have in wealth and income. My concern is that both these trends weaken our democracy in the long term.
-
When you think of Jefferson's times, education came from your parents, church school, or if you had the resources a private academy. Education of the young is the best place to start for creating generations of citizens who think the way you want. So the church as a source of education other than religion would be suspect.
Jefferson's bill on religious liberty was a veiled hit on the organized church by freeing men to pursue knowlege freely without repercussions from the church, community, or government. Following the church is following dogma, which means no freedom of thought.
Extend this to his wall between church and state. He did not want church dogma to rule from congress, but instead men of free mind and christian moral foundation making rational decisions. He agreed with christianities moral foundation for it's positive influence on the health of a society. This is akin to the fear that John F. Kennedy as President of the U.S. would be taking orders from the Pope.
Jefferson did not want to destroy or expunge religion from the American public. He wanted our elected officials to think for themselves as free men who have a strong christian moral foundation.
-
If she's teaching in a public school, the curriculum is dictated by state standards which are state law.
The state law can't authorize religious indoctrination because of the 1st amendment and equal protection.
Therefore she was not teaching the standards, and deserves to be treated like any other teacher who is not teaching the correct curriculum. That is, she is expected to modify her curriculum or face disciplinary action.
As far as 1st amendment rights protecting the teacher's speech, you give up those rights when you walk into the classroom. Your job is to teach the standards and if you don't want to do that you should find another line of work.
-
Originally posted by bustr
This statement makes the establishmnet of a National religion by congress a violation of the constitution. It does not forbid the practice of religion in the public arena or privately.
And what defines establishment? Is it only if Congress (or State Legislative bodies given the 14th Amendment) expressly states: "The official religion of the United States shall be XXX". Or if I use the coercive power of the government to proselytize by placing religious icons in conspicuous locations designed to intimidate non-believers; or if I require students to pray to a god just after saying the Pledge; or if I place proselytizing slogans on currency and within statements of allegiance to the country...do those actions not constitute establishing a government endorsed religion? If not...why, and where do you draw the line?
Originally posted by bustr
It's funny how the third part protecting the freedom of speech tends to be forgotten these days when it comes to religion.
As for the school, unless it is a private school and you are paying for your child to learn God's plan, the teacher should not be teaching God's plan in place of science.
So, which is it...does the teacher have the right to exercise free speech in the classroom or not? Can she proselytize or not?
I would not presume that it is possible to take religion out of the people who make our government...but I would like to see that government stay out of religion. What is the danger if strong separation is not maintained? Well, two of the largest religions of the world today both require in dogma the conversion of non-believers. And from what I have seen of fanatical members who hold high office, both here and abroad, they will take every opportunity to use their position in government to convert non-believers. To me...that defines establishing an accepted religion by a government.