Religion being TAUGHT in the PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Rant.

[Strong Atheist]

:rant:

EDITED: MY first official rant!

So I was in another forum, and a fellow progressive advocated teaching the bible in PUBLIC schools.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2038679#2040098

This really frosts my shorts, since I am not only an atheist, but a PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER. Don't get me wrong, teaching religion is fine, just not in PUBLIC SCHOOL. It should be taught at church, at home, and in PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. Additionally, teaching ABOUT religion in history courses is fine with me; just not teaching RELIGION ITSELF in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

I mean, if you are going to teach the bible, you should also teach the koran, and the torah, and all about satanism (I have known students who were satanists, don't want to leave out their "religion", do you?) and atheism, and deism and the church of bob, and scientology, and the FSM. Otherwise, it can all get thrown into court for not being "inclusive" enough. Teachers already have more liability problems in the normal course of their job than most professions do, we do not want to end up on the national news spending years as a court test case because of your desire to force religion in the schools.

I can tell you that as a teacher I must already be a judge and a social worker and a cop and a nurse and a psychiatrist and a mediator and a lawyer, and mom, and dad. I REFUSE TO BE A PRIEST, AS WELL!. Take your religion, and keep it in your church/home/private school and keep it out of MY classroom!

[William769]

1. I have always been a firm believer in separation Of Church & State.

But I got to tell you, since I have listened to some people on DU & their utter contempt for my beliefs. I am beginning to have a change of heart.

[Strong Atheist]

2. Wonderful. Just great. Hope you like having satanism and FSM

taught to your kids and grandkids in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

[Goldensilence]

3. change of heart how?

that it should be taught in school?

Strong Atheist would you be opposed to something like secular humanism at least being introduced? Not a believer myself either just curious though.

[Strong Atheist]

12. As far as I understand the term,

"secular humanism", that is the way the schools are now (at least in the areas that I am aware of ...).

[WhollyHeretic]

9. That is absolutely pathetic. You want to force your religion on people

because some people don't respect your belief. Disgusting.

[William769]

10. Whats disgusting is people constantly attacking me for my beliefs

I have always advocated separation of Church & State, but I finally said enough is enough.

Now I know I'll get flamed for this but o well, I don't think the parents of today Atheist & christians alike are capable of giving the kids the correct information to form their own opinion (now thats really disgusting). Maybe teachers will do a better job at being objective.

[Strong Atheist]

11. What makes you think

I will do a better job of that (as a teacher) than you? That's just ... weird. The opposite is true, parents have more moral authority than teachers.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Oh brother.

Show me where you were even once "attacked for your beliefs" on DU.:eyes:


And just who is supposed to decide what constitutes the "correct information" about religion?

You?

The school boards?

Fred Phelps?


Hey! Why not have teachers at public schools teach morality too, while they're at it?

Of course, many of the ones in red states would teach kids that homosexuality is immoral, but that wouldn't bother you, would it?

After all, we can't trust the parents to give the kids the "correct information", can we?


What a staggeringly ignorant argument for violating the the constitutional separation of church and state.

[WhollyHeretic]

19. This has to be the most ridiculous reasoning (I'm giving you way to much

credit using that word) I've seen on DU. Claiming your persecuted on a WEBSITE because you're Christian and then trying to use that in order to persecute people THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY (IN REAL LIFE). It's a completely insane idea. This is a place for discussion if you have such a problem with people disagreeing with you that you change your convictions (they must have been some pretty weak convictions in order for them to change so readily) maybe you should just pull out a piece of paper and write yourself friendly affirmations about how wonderful and inspiring your ideas are.

[jonnyblitz]

25. and the first thing they will learn is how evil gay folks are..

yeah let's teach the fucking bible in school. :crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

26. And he whines about how he's

supposedly persecuted on DU because he's christian?

Who the fuck does he think persecutes homosexuals?

Secular humanists?

Unfuckingbelievable.

[kwassa]

34. Doesn't explain all the openly gay Christian clergy I know ....

[Book Lover]

29. Eff you

I am the *only one* who *does* have the capability of teaching my children about religion. How many kids do you have?

[Zenlitened]

62. Gee, and some wonder why trust for the "liberal" religionists...

... is in short supply these days. :eyes:

[Peanutcat]

4. Believer in what?

Organized religion? Christianity? Can't do the poll unless you tell me what a "Believer" is . . . . .

[Strong Atheist]

13. Pick a category. That is why I put "other". nt.

[Peanutcat]

5. Oh! And . . . . .

GREAT Rant!

[Strong Atheist]

14. Thank you, thenk you! nt.

[StatsBabe]

6. It wasn't until AFTER I studied sociology that I realized

how much religion informs and shapes societies. As a teacher, I wouldn't want to teach religion either, but some courses about the influence of religion upon choices made in societies and governments would have really helped me.

My christian perspective on the world didn't allow me to really understand where people in the middle east (for instance) were coming from. I thought most people wanted the same things out of life and for their children. Boy was I wrong about that! I'll bet if most of the people who want religion taught in schools realized that other religions might/would be taught, they'd be against it.

I'm new here, so I don't mean to offend, but it seems to me that the answer to almost any problem is a broader world view, not a smaller one. Ours is too small already.

[Strong Atheist]

15. Welcome to D.U.! Congrats on your star!

The schools in my area, and in my aunt's area in Chicago seem to be "secular", which seems to me to be a good way to go. Teaching ANY religion will inevitably lead to teach MANY religions (through litigation); that way lies madness.

[salvorhardin]

24. But that's what Sociology class is for

And history and literature. As long as one religion isn't being advocated for over another. There's a huge difference between teach about religion and teaching the religion itself.

[mojavegreen]

7. Agreed

And once the door is opened to teaching Christianity, Catholicism or Islam in public schools, why not the occult, astrology, new age crap. Rational skeptics and atheists must band together and defeat the fundies, whether those fundies are Xtians, muslims, orthodox jews or catholic freaks (i.e the majority of the supreme court), or occultists and pagans. And
education, as Jefferson well knew, must be objective and non-theological if the democracy is to function properly.

Most Americans don't have a clue how deeply entrenched religion is. Christopher Hitchens, even if you disagree with some of his politics (and I do), has done an admirable job in pointing out many of the absurdities of modern religious hysteria, whether that hysteria is catholic, protestant or muslim.

[WePurrsevere]

8. Teaching religion, no, but teaching *about* a large variety of religions

(as well as Atheiism) in a "Comparative" information type of class in concept at least could be a good thing. It would at least expose children to the idea that there are many other spiritual paths out there other then their own and hopefully help remove some of the mindblocking fear that comes with a lack of knowledge.

Although I believe that non-Judeo Christians would be smart to read the Bible (knowledge is power and can be an amazing tool to open some "Christian" minds) I don't feel that the place to learn the Bible or any one specific religion is in a public school. IMO one way would not violate the "seperation of church and state" and one would.

[Strong Atheist]

16. We are in substantial agreement. nt.

[Smudge]

20. Well said.

[WePurrsevere]

28. Thank you. Welcome to DU. :-) n/t

[Zebedeo]

18. I had to vote "Other"

I am a believer who thinks that neither any religion nor any anti-religion should be taught as FACT in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Teaching that the principles of Christianity are false is as much or more of a breach of the "wall of separation of church and state" as teaching that such principles are true.

Teaching that the principles of Secular Humanism are true is as much or more of a breach of the "wall of separation of church and state" as teaching that the principles of Christianity are true.

PUBLIC SCHOOL should neither endorse, nor oppose, any particular religion. However, believers of various stripes should be permitted to FREELY EXERCISE their religious beliefs while in school. Thus, Muslims are permitted to say their multiple daily prayers (aloud) during the school day and on school property. Similarly, Christians should be allowed to say prayers aloud, during assemblies, before athletic contests, etc. Allowing this FREE EXERCISE of religion in no way establishes any particular religion as the official state religion. Endorsing religious freedom is not the same as endorsing religion.

[moggie]

31. Some examples?

Do you believe that schools currently teach "anti-religion"? If so, can you give some examples, so that we can see where you're coming from?

As for "Christians should be allowed to say prayers aloud during assembly": assemblies could quickly become a cacophony. Conservative Christians versus liberal Christians... muslims, jews, Satanists, wiccans, Buddhists, some kids over in the corner dressed as pirates and chanting about pasta. How would this work?

On edit: and why praying aloud? Why isn't silent prayer sufficient?

[Zebedeo]

35. a cacophany?

Pardon me, but somehow I don't think that the founders of our nation were worried about the prospect of a "cacophany" of different religious viewpoints, or thought that to prevent such a "cacophany" we should prevent people from the free exercise of their chosen religion. Just the opposite, as I understand it.

Why praying aloud? Well, currently, Muslim students are permitted to pray aloud, and Christians aren't. Are you suggesting that is OK? Would you require all prayer to be silent, even Muslim prayer? What if the religious beliefs of the student require spoken prayer? Does prayer harm anyone if said aloud?

I personally never felt the need to pray aloud while I was in public school, but some kids might. Some Catholics say a ritual prayer aloud before eating a meal. Should that be prohibited in the school lunchroom? Why? What is it to you if a Catholic student says grace before eating her lunch? Why is there a need to interfere with other people's religious beliefs and practices? That is what I truly do not understand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. You said prayer "during assembly"

that is, when the whole school (or a specfic part of it, such as a year) is present. Yes, if all were allowed to pray allowed as they like during an assembly, it would be a cacophony - or have to take an awful long time, since you'd have to give everyone their turn (what, 1 minute per person? That would be over 3 hours for an assembly of 200 people).

At what public schools in the USA are Muslims allowed to pray aloud, and Christians not? Audible prayer doesn't harm anyone any more than any other speech, but you do expect schools to have rules about when the pupils can speak - otherwise you're back to that cacophony. In an assembly you expect one person to speak at a time. In a class, you expect the teacher to talk unless they ask the pupils to.

[Zebedeo]

41. The New York public schools

*

[beam me up scottie]

43. Why are you posting neo-fascist disinfo on DU?

Where did you hear that ridiculous piece of reichwing propaganda?
Did it even occur to you to look into it?

Yeah, we need informed people such as yourself making decisions about the role of religion in schools.:eyes:

The Truth About "School Prayer"

The truth is, no one is trying to "make praying in school illegal," as the neo-fascist Religious Right claims. Nobody is proposing to forbid students from praying, yet supporters of teacher-led prayer in public schools habitually misrepresent the issue in terms that imply this. They are liars. The USA Constitution protects the right of USA students to pray in public school: no one is trying to revoke or abridge this right. The neo-fascist Religious Right, who claim otherwise, ARE LYING.

The Religious Right claim that prayer will be banned, to the detriment of the rights of followers of various religions. As is blatently obvious, students who want to pray have ample opportunity to pray if they want. Their rights are in no way abridged by not having a teacher lead them in prayer. And yet there are fools who believe otherwise, because their cult's masters tell them to believe.

A few years ago, it was common for supporters of teacher-led school prayer to claim that their opponents wanted to deprive students of the right to pray in school: that was a lie. (George Bush once borrowed this lie for another purpose. Barefaced, he accused people opposed to having teachers lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance of depriving students of the right to say the Pledge.)

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP SOMEONE FROM PRAYING!
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE PRAYING ILLEGAL!

The neo-fascist Religious Right make claims that there is some vast, organized effort to prevent students from praying and reading occult literature in public (tax-funded) schools. Not only is this a lie, but it is blatently absurd: there is no way to know if and when someone is praying! There is no organization out there trying to make students not pray in public schools, nor is there any organization trying to make students not read their occult literature (Bible, Bhagavad-gita, The laws of Manu, The Gospel (Buddha), The Word (also Buddha), The Great Learning (Confucius), Diamond Sutra, Papyrus Of Ani, Koran, Book of Mormon, Upanishads, Epic of Gilgamesh, Analects (also Confucious), apocrypha / pseudepigraphica, and all of the others)) in public schools. If anyone says otherwise, they are LYING.


http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/sch-pry.htm

Religion in the Public Schools: Joint Statement of Current Law

The Joint Statement of Current Law is a collaborative document undersigned by over 30 religious and civil rights groups that outlines the religious rights of students in the public schools. Most of these organizations are separationist in philosophy and practice, some of them (eg., ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State) aggressively so.

The document lays to rest the myth that prayer and other types of religious expression are banned in the public schools. On the contrary, religious expression generally enjoys the same protection as other forms of speech. This document forms the basis of President Clinton's guidelines for religious expression in the public schools. A copy of these guidelines were sent to all public school districts in the United States in September of 1995.

Religion In The Public Schools:
A Joint Statement Of Current Law


The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and
about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional
law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme
Court has declared the public schools "religion-free zones" or that the
law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally
permissible. The former claim is simply wrong. And as to the latter,
while there are some difficult issues, much has been settled. It is also
unfortunately true that public school officials, due to their busy
schedules, may not be as fully aware of this body of law as they could
be. As a result, in some school districts some of these rights are not
being observed.

The organizations whose names appear below span the
ideological, religious and political spectrum. They nevertheless share a
commitment both to the freedom of religious practice and to the
separation of church and state such freedom requires. In that spirit, we
offer this statement of consensus on current law as an aid to parents,
educators and students.

Many of the organizations listed below are actively involved in
litigation about religion in the schools. On some of the issues
discussed in this summary, some of the organizations have urged the
courts to reach positions different than they did. Though there are
signatories on both sides which have and will press for different
constitutional treatments of some of the topics discussed below, they
all agree that the following is an accurate statement of what the law
currently is.

Student Prayers

1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to
discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are
not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not
apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read
their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray
before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student
listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray
quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school
activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher
calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in
the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to
the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these
locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does
not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience
listen or to compel other students to participate.

Graduation Prayer and Baccalaureates

2. School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at
graduation, nor may they organize a religious baccalaureate
ceremony. If the school generally rents out its facilities to private
groups, it must rent them out on the same terms, and on a first-
come first-served basis, to organizers of privately sponsored
religious baccalaureate services, provided that the school does
not extend preferential treatment to the baccalaureate ceremony
and the school disclaims official endorsement of the program.

3. The courts have reached conflicting conclusions under the
federal Constitution on student-initiated prayer at graduation.
Until the issue is authoritatively resolved, schools should ask
their lawyers what rules apply in their area.

Official Participation or Encouragement
of Religious Activity

4. Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those
capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those
capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or
soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly,
when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage
in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may
engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.

Teaching About Religion

5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may
not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly
said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete
without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion
and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would
be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies
without considering religious influences.

The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other
scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within
some other existing course), are all permissible public school
subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively
about the role of religion in the history of the United States and
other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this
country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and
others have been subject to persecution or that many of those
participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights
movements had religious motivations.

6. These same rules apply to the recurring controversy surrounding
theories of evolution. Schools may teach about explanations of
life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in
comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class,
however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of,
or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious
critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools
may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid
giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by
labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools
must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine,
including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific
evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught.
Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious
doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's
religious explanation for life on earth.

Student Assignments and Religion

7. Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of
reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are
constitutionally protected. Teachers may not reject or correct
such submissions simply because they include a religious
symbol or address religious themes. Likewise, teachers may not
require students to modify, include or excise religious views in
their assignments, if germane. These assignments should be
judged by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance,
appearance and grammar.

8. Somewhat more problematic from a legal point of view are other
public expressions of religious views in the classroom.
Unfortunately for school officials, there are traps on either side of
this issue, and it is possible that litigation will result no matter
what course is taken. It is easier to describe the settled cases
than to state clear rules of law. Schools must carefully steer
between the claims of student speakers who assert a right to
express themselves on religious subjects and the asserted rights
of student listeners to be free of unwelcome religious persuasion
in a public school classroom.

a. Religious or anti-religious remarks made in the ordinary
course of classroom discussion or student presentations
are permissible and constitute a protected right. If in a
sex education class a student remarks that abortion
should be illegal because God has prohibited it, a teacher
should not silence the remark, ridicule it, rule it out of
bounds or endorse it, any more than a teacher may
silence a student's religiously-based comment in favor of
choice.

b. If a class assignment calls for an oral presentation on a
subject of the student's choosing, and, for example, the
student responds by conducting a religious service, the
school has the right -- as well as the duty -- to prevent
itself from being used as a church. Other students are not
voluntarily in attendance and cannot be forced to become
an unwilling congregation.

c. Teachers may rule out-of-order religious remarks that are
irrelevant to the subject at hand. In a discussion of
Hamlet's sanity, for example, a student may not interject
views on creationism.

Distribution of Religious Literature

9. Students have the right to distribute religious literature to their
schoolmates, subject to those reasonable time, place, and
manner or other constitutionally- acceptable restrictions imposed
on the distribution of all non-school literature. Thus, a school
may confine distribution of all literature to a particular table at
particular times. It may not single out religious literature for
burdensome regulation.

10. Outsiders may not be given access to the classroom to distribute
religious or anti-religious literature. No court has yet considered
whether, if all other community groups are permitted to distribute
literature in common areas of public schools, religious groups
must be allowed to do so on equal terms subject to reasonable
time, place and manner restrictions.

"See You at the Pole"

11. Student participation in before- or after-school events, such as
"see you at the pole," is permissible. School officials, acting in
an official capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage
participation in such an event.

Religious Persuasion Versus Religious Harassment

12. Students have the right to speak to, and attempt to persuade,
their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to
political topics. But school officials should intercede to stop
student religious speech if it turns into religious harassment
aimed at a student or a small group of students. While it is
constitutionally permissible for a student to approach another and
issue an invitation to attend church, repeated invitations in the
face of a request to stop constitute harassment. Where this line
is to be drawn in particular cases will depend on the age of the
students and other circumstances.

Equal Access Act

13. Student religious clubs in secondary schools must be permitted
to meet and to have equal access to campus media to announce
their meetings, if a school receives federal funds and permits any
student non-curricular club to meet during non-instructional time.
This is the command of the Equal Access Act. A non-curricular
club is any club not related directly to a subject taught or
soon-to-be taught in the school. Although schools have the right
to ban all non-curriculum clubs, they may not dodge the law's
requirement by the expedient of declaring all clubs
curriculum-related. On the other hand, teachers may not actively
participate in club activities and "non-school persons" may not
control or regularly attend club meeting.

The Act's constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme
Court, rejecting claims that the Act violates the Establishment
Clause. The Act's requirements are described in more detail in
The Equal Access Act and the Public Schools: Questions and
Answers on the Equal Access Act*, a pamphlet published by a
broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups.

Religious Holidays

14. Generally, public schools may teach about religious holidays,
and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holiday and
objectively teach about their religious aspects. They may not
observe the holidays as religious events. Schools should
generally excuse students who do not wish to participate in
holiday events. Those interested in further details should see
Religious Holidays in the Public Schools: Questions and
Answers*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious
and civil liberties groups.

Excusal From Religiously-Objectionable Lessons

15. Schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students
from lessons which are objectionable to that student or to his or
her parent on the basis of religion. Schools can exercise that
authority in ways which would defuse many conflicts over
curriculum content. If it is proved that particular lessons
substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if
the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring
attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the
student.

Teaching Values

16. Schools may teach civic virtues, including honesty, good
citizenship, sportsmanship, courage, respect for the rights and
freedoms of others, respect for persons and their property,
civility, the dual virtues of moral conviction and tolerance and
hard work. Subject to whatever rights of excusal exist (see #15
above) under the federal Constitution and state law, schools may
teach sexual abstinence and contraception; whether and how
schools teach these sensitive subjects is a matter of educational
policy. However, these may not be taught as religious tenets.
The mere fact that most, if not all, religions also teach these
values does not make it unlawful to teach them.

Student Garb

17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled
out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as
yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to
wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as
immodest.

Released Time

18. Schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises
religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or
discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend.=20
Schools may not allow religious instruction by outsiders on
premises during the school day.

-------------------------------

* Copies may be obtained from any of the undersigned organizations.

http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-1995/prayer.html

[Zebedeo]

48. Thanks bmus

I read through the statement that you posted, and nothing in it struck me as something with which I have a strong disagreement.

Unfortunately, it does seem that these standards are not applied in an even-handed manner in real life. Here's a column about the NY public school system and the double standard that permits discrimination against Christians.

Betsy Hart column

[beam me up scottie]

49. You're linking to a BETSY HART COLUMN ???

A bigoted right wing shill?

Are you sure you're on the right website?

:banghead:

Please tell me you're very young and naive and you don't know any better...

[WhollyHeretic]

50. Did you see some of the other contributors to that website?

Ann Coulter
David Horowitz
Dr. Laura
Michelle Malkin
George Will
Mona Charen

:puke:

[beam me up scottie]

51. I gagged when I saw her name.

I remember her homophobic comments about Vermont's Civil Unions from when I lived in that great state.

Let's see...she's anti-GLBT rights, pro-war, pro-school voucher, an anti-First Amendment christo-fascist and a misogynist to boot.

Does she have any redeeming qualities?

[WhollyHeretic]

52. It's absolutely nauseating when supposed liberals here link to hate-filled

sites. I guess some people here just feel right at home on the Reich-Wing websites.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Yeah, who knew you could use the internets to learn stuff?

I heard that there was this dude named "Google" who could get you anything you wanted, for free!

All ya gotta do is ask 'im.


Knowledge: the anti-intolerance drug.

[Zebedeo]

57. And

Nat Hentoff, the atheist Village Voice columnist

Chris Matthews, the former Carter administration aide and speechwriter and top aid to Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill

etc., etc.

There are a lot of different opinions represented on the website. I don't vouch for the website, and the website is not where I heard the story about the differential treatment of Christians as compared to adherents of other religions.

Anyway, what difference does it make who the other columnists linked on the website are? Is there some reason to believe that the facts discussed in Betsy Hart's column are not true? If so, please provide a link to a debunk. I think these facts were reported by mainstream news sources at the time this story broke. I have never had any reason to believe that the story was based on false claims about what the schools allowed and did not allow. If you have evidence that this is the case, I am willing to reconsider my position.

[WhollyHeretic]

58. I'll listen to "facts" from Betsy Hart just as readily as I would Rush

Limbaugh.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Reasons? How about the First Amendment?

That stupid homophobic racist misogynistic cow is even worse than Ann Coulter because she pretends to be a nice concerned christian mother.

Did you even read the statement?

This document reflects a significant new effort by religious groups to find common ground.

Organizational Contacts for "Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law"

American Civil Liberties Union
Beth Orsoff, William J. Brennan Fellow
202/544-1681 (x306)

American Ethical Union
Herbert Blinder
Director
Washington Ethical Action Office
301/229-3759

American Humanist Association
Frederick Edwords
Executive Director
800/743-6646

American Jewish Committee
Richard Foltin
Legislative Director/Counsel
202/785-4200

American Jewish Congress
Marc D. Stern
Co-Director
Commission on Law and Social Action
212/360-1545

American Muslim Council
Abdurahman M. Alamoudi
Executive Director
202/789-2262

Americans for Religious Liberty
Edd Doerr
Executive Director
301/598-2447

Americans United for Seperation of Church and State
Steve Green
Legal Director
202/466-3234

Anti-Defamation League
Michael Lieberman
Associate Director/Counsel
Washington Office
202/452-8320

Baptist Joint Committee
J. Brent Walker
General Counsel
202/544-4226

B'nai B'rith
Reva Price
Director
Political Action Network
202/857-6645

Christian Legal Society
Steven T. McFarland
Director
Center for Law and Religious Freedom
703/642-1070

Christian Science Church
Philip G. Davis, Federal Representative
202/857-0427

Church of the Brethren, Washington Office
Timothy A. McElwee, Director
202/546-3202

Church of Scientology International
Susan L. Taylor, Public Affairs Director, Washington Office
202/667-6404

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs
Kay S. Dowhower, Director
202/783-7507

Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot
Rabbi Mordechai Liebling, Executive Director
215/887-1988

Friends Committee on National Legislation
Ruth Flower, Legislative Secretary/Legislative Education Secretary
202/547-6000

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Gary M. Ross, Congressional Liaison
301/680-6688

Guru Gobind Singh Foundation
Rajwant Singh, Secretary
301/294-7886

Interfaith Alliance
Jill Hanauer, Executive Director
202/639-6370

Interfaith Impact for Justice and Peace
James M. Bell, Executive Director
202/543-2800

National Association of Evangelicals
Forest Montgomery, Counsel, Office of Public Affairs
202/789-1011

National Council of Churches
Oliver S. Thomas, Special Counsel for Religious and Civil Liberties
615/977-9046

National Council of Jewish Women
Deena Margolis, Legislative Assistant
202/296-2588

National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC)
Jerome Chanes, Director, Domestic Concerns
212/684-6950

National Ministries, American Baptist Churches, USA
Rene Ladue, Program Assistant, Office of Government Relations
202/544-3400

National Sikh Center
Chatter Saini, President
703/734-1760

North American Council for Muslim Women
Sharifa Alkhateeh, Vice-President
703/759-7339

People for the American Way
Elliot Mincberg, Legal Director
202/467-4999

Presbyterian Church (USA)
Eleonora Giddings Ivory, Director, Washington Office
202/543-1126

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
W. Grant McMurray
First Presidency
816/521-3002

Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center
202/387-2800

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Robert Alpern, Director, Washington Office
202/547-0254

United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society
Patrick Conover, Acting Head of Office, Washington Office
202/543-1517

[Zebedeo]

60. Yes, I read the statement

Did you even read the statement?

Yes. I said so in my post #48 above. I also said that I didn't have strong disagreement with anything in the statement.

That stupid homophobic racist misogynistic cow is even worse than Ann Coulter

Wow. So do you like her or not? Don't mince words; give it to me straight.

Look, I couldn't care less about Betsy whatever-her-name-was. I had never heard of her name before today. It was the FACTS mentioned in her column that cause me concern. I believe that there IS a double standard concerning treatment of Christians as compared with adherents of other religions in public schools today, and the FACTS mentioned in Betsy's column are some evidence of that double standard. If you have evidence casting doubt on whether the FACTS are true, I would be interested in knowing, because in that case, perhaps the problem is not as great as I thought. However, if all you have is name-calling about this Betsy (or worse yet, guilt by association because of certain of the other columnists linked on the jewish world review website), then I will stand on my original concern about the double standard, thank you very much.

[beam me up scottie]

61. So you're willing to take a right wing hatemonger's word as fact?

Do you do that with O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Coulter as well?

Why, we've just been too hard on them, haven't we?

BMUS is so mean...


Write this down, Z:


It's called A RIGHT WING TALKING POINT


A made up story to garner sympathy for their cause.


You know, like the "War On Christmas"

And "This Is A Christian Nation"

And "Saddam Had WMD"

And "They Hate Us For Our Freedoms"

And "Partial Birth Abortions"

And "Democrats Took Money From Abramoff Too"

And "Welfare Queens Drive Cadillacs"

And "ID Is A Valid Scientific Theory"



Are you getting the point?

Because there's tons more.


And as far as that disgusting piece of right wing garbage, Betsy Hart is concerned, she has ON RECORD, repeatedly attacked feminists, gays, muslims and, just to prove she's not particular with her christian goodwill, poor single mothers and battered women too.

But really, if you want to believe Betsy's "story" when NOBODY else has reported it and NO OTHER radical persecuted christian mouthpiece screamed bloody murder about this crime perpetrated against the poor little christian children, go right ahead.

I'm done.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Praying v. painting a mural is not a double standard

The Betsy Hart column described Muslims being allowed to pray in rooms - just as the Joint Statement said people should be allowed to. It also described a Christian mural being painted over - something I can't see covered anywhere in the Statement. The 2 situations are quite different - one is an act by individuals, not an official school action. The other is a permanent display - and normally people aren't allowed to paint murals wherever they like; it's often called 'graffiti'.

So why do you claim this is a double standard?

[Zebedeo]

64. There are two problems here

The first problem is government hostility to all religion. That is evidenced in such court decisions as these:

The Supreme Court has ruled that invocation and benediction prayers were not permissible at public school graduation, even though the prayers lasted less than a minute, were nonsectarian and were subject to restrictions that they be composed with inclusiveness and sensitivity to all faiths.

Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Federal courts have gone so far as to prohibit even a “moment of silence” at the beginning of the school day.

May v. Cooperman, 780 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1985), appeal dismissed sub nom. Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72 (1987).

The second problem is the government favoring certain religions over others. One example of this is the NY public school system, which has banned nativity scenes, but expressly allows the display of the Menorah and the Star and Crescent at school. Andrea Skoros, a mother of two public school students from Queens, complained about this, but the school refused to budge. So in December 2002, the Catholic League had to sue the school district. The school district absurdly claimed that the Menorah and the Star and Crescent were "secular symbols" like a Christmas tree. On February 18, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Sifton agreed with the school district and ruled that this school policy was not discriminatory against Christians.

Do you agree with the NY school district on this policy?

How about these:

In May 1995, U.S. District Court Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" would be arrested and tossed in jail for six months.
He continued: "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I’m kidding about this order better think again … Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."

In 1997, a high school student in Florida was suspended for handing out religious literature before and after - but not during - school hours.

Two high school students in Texas were told by their principal they could not wear rosaries. The Principal claimed that they were symbols of gang activity, even though the boys were not involved in any gang.

In 2002, music teachers in Michigan, Maryland, and Virginia didn't allow students to perform traditional carols like "Silent Night" and "The First Noel" during Chrismas.

A New Jersey public school banned the Charles Dickens play, "A Christmas Carol" because of its spiritual overtones and message of redemption.

I could go on and on and on with examples of bigotry and discrimination against Christians in public schools.

On the issue in your post about Muslims being allowed to pray in rooms (aloud, multiple times per day) -- do you support this? Do you support the right of Christians to do the same?

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. It's not government hostility, it's separation of church and state

Both examples are of officially imposed religious observations - prayers at an official occasion, which, however much you think they could include all faiths, are an imposition on atheists; and allowing a school to impose a minute of silence - which has a religious purpose, and so shouldn't be imposed. Pupils are still, of course, free to pray; they just don't get to force other people to shut up while they do it.

The case of a nativity scene against a menorah, and star and crescent, is debatable. The menorah is specific to Jewish culture, and has a religious history, but is also held to have a significance for the culture as well. The star and crescent are a symbol of the Ottoman Empire (taken from the non-Islamic Byzantine Empire after Constantinople was conquered), which many Muslim nations have used afterwards - which puts that symbol in the same category as a Christmas tree (at that time of year), which I see was allowed in the same display as the star and crescent. A nativity scene, rather than being a general symbol of a faith, however, is a specific claim of a religion (Jesus's birth in a manager, and an event that many Christians don't believe took place anyway).

Personally, I'd rather the schools didn't produce any of these religious symbols; but I can see there is a case for the way the judge ruled; I can also see a case for allowing the creche as a specific Christian symbol that actually appears in the Bible, as opposed to one just adopted in certain Christian countries.

Six months is over the top for someone breaking the rules - they should just be told to sit down and shut up. But that ruling specifically said that other deities mustn't be mentioned either. So it's not discrimination against Christianity - again, it's stopping a religious act at an official ceremony.

Having found the story on the rosaries, I see that some other known gang members had been wearing rosaries, and that the pupils who weren't gang members appealed and won. Do you know what the rulings were in the other cases you give?

Yes, I think it is OK for Muslims to use unallocated rooms for prayer, and Christians should be allowed to do the same.

Now, have you found examples of Muslims being allowed to pray, while Christians aren't? That was your original claim.

[beam me up scottie]

68. To real Americans, it's separation of church and state.

To citizens of the mythical christian nation, The United States of Jesusland, it's religious persecution.

Thanks for attempting to teach our less informed or willfully ignorant citizens about the Constitution, Muriel.

[Zebedeo]

69. That's real nice, bmus

That's classy. Now I am not a "real American" because you disagree with me about this issue. Beautiful.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Anyone who tries to violate my Constitutional rights isn't a real American

Sorry, but Poppy got it all wrong.

They're the fundamentalist traitors who can't stand the idea of freedom of and freedom from their religion.

[InaneAnanity]

67. Think of things from an Atheist's perspective

Even non-specific prayers don't work for us. We don't pray. Any school-sanctioned prayer should not be allowed.

Nobody has ever been stopped from praying. Its just that the school can't force anybody to pray. Anyone can pray at their own individual discretion, whenever they want (so long as they don't do so in a deliberately distracting fashion, for instance).

[Zebedeo]

72. That's a strawman argument

the school can't force anybody to pray

Did I say I wanted a school to force someone to pray? Come on, no one is asking that students be forced to pray. You know that is not the issue. The issue is whether students are allowed to pray. Anyone who doesn't want to pray (either because of atheism -- "we don't pray" -- or any other reason) is not "forced" to pray, nor have I ever heard of anyone advocating that students attending a public school should be forced to pray.

Nobody has ever been stopped from praying.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Did you read my post #64 above?

In May 1995, U.S. District Court Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" would be arrested and tossed in jail for six months.
He continued: "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I’m kidding about this order better think again … Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."

Lots of students have been "stopped from praying" under threat of punishment and even imprisonment by the state.

This is an issue concerning the free exercise of religion, not the establishment of a religion by the state.

[InaneAnanity]

73. You do realize

That, since you obtained that information from reich-wing websites, that it is almost certainly fabricated.

You need to educate yourself on what is and what isn't a reliable source.

[charlie]

84. No, he didn't forbid praying

Judge Kent's intent was not to disallow prayer. It was to prevent sectarian proselytizing, an issue that blew up spectacularly when 2 families outside the Protestant God 'n Football profile of the community (one Roman Catholic, the other Mormon) filed suit to end what they thought were heavyhanded and alienating prayers before school football games. Those are the sort of details you'll miss if you trust accounts from agenda-driven hacks.

Here's the single missing line virtually all chose to characterize rather than quote (the source is a critic who apparently missed the memo):

The court will allow that prayer to be a typical nondenominational prayer, which can refer to God or the Almighty or that sort of thing. The prayer may not refer to a specific deity by name, whether it be Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, the great god Sheba, or anyone else.

And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of Court. Anyone who thinks I’m kidding about this order . . . expressing any weakness or lack of resolve in that spirit of compromise would better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this Court gets through with it.

http://www.votechristianworldview.com/bhowse_article.php

Even the source for the story, alpha hack David Limbaugh, conceded that the ruling didn't prohibit prayer... for about 2 seconds, before he divined the true intent of Kent's dark heart and decided he was explicitly targetting Christian prayer.

http://www.harpercollins.ca/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060732075&tc=cx

Judge Kent has a reputation for colorfully abusing anyone who dreams of crossing his rulings. Ironically, you can find some of his other outbursts reprinted with enthusiastic approval on rightwing sites.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Wow!

Excellent research!
:applause:

Noted and bookmarked for future use!

Thanks!

[charlie]

98. I'm an ex-Texan

And though I was living overseas at the time, I remember this overwrought hoohah, so I just had to find stuff that corroborated my spotty memory. I don't know how the graduation turned out, but court rulings on football ceremonies inspired a ton of up-yours-liberal-scum mass prayers at the games. In much of Texas, you mess with God, you're messing with the natives. And if you fuck with their FOOTBALL sacraments... expect total war.

[beam me up scottie]

99. Glad you made it out alive.

And I thought Kentucky football fundies were bad...

Actually, the high school fans and parents here are the worst.

It's like the OTHER religion, the one they worship on Friday nights in the fall.


I've always been tempted, when in a local bar during football season, to switch the channel to WE! and destroy the remote while running for my life.
:evilgrin:

[charlie]

100. Yeah, I've occasionally been tempted

to smoke a kerosene-soaked stick of dynamite myself, to see what'll happen... wait, no I haven't. If I did though, I'd probably still outlive your running self by a few seconds :)

[beam me up scottie]

101. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

:rofl:

[trotsky]

110. Very well done, charlie.

Another right-wing "pity us poor persecuted Christians" talking point bites the dust.
:thumbsup:

[trotsky]

111. deleted

Deleted, dupe post.

[Crunchy Frog]

85. Has anyone run that by Snopes?

In May 1995, U.S. District Court Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" would be arrested and tossed in jail for six months.
He continued: "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I’m kidding about this order better think again … Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."

That story looks extremely dubious to me. Even if somebody made that statement, I profoundly doubt that such a policy could possibly be upheld. Please give some corroboration. If anything like that is actually going on, I'll contribute to the legal defense fund.

Really, kids utter the words "Jesus Christ" as an exclamation, without even thinking about it. You expect me to believe they would be arrested for it?

Edit: I read the explanation and the full context of the statement (misquoted in the original post-what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?). The story now makes sense in that larger context. I figured that there must be some context missing there.:)

[WhollyHeretic]

86. See posts #84 and #82. Every claim of persecution this person posted in

this thread was from a reich-wing hack and every story left out key facts.

[beam me up scottie]

89. You got that right.

When is he going to realize we are going to call him on this tactic every time?

For crying out loud, the VERY first listing I found when I Googled one of his phrases was from Fox News.

The second one was from Free Republic.



He'd be better off sticking with uninformed opinions, we can't debunk those.

[WhollyHeretic]

91. It's all right-wing garbage(including the obligatory omitted facts)

Don't look now but it looks like he didn't let the facts you posted get in the way of "christians are persecuted" insanity. I wouldn't expect any less from someone who links to the right-wing talking points that he does.

[beam me up scottie]

93. Yeah and CHRISTMAS trees don't really represent Christmas!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

What does the STAR OF BETHLEHEM represent, the religion of aliens from another solar system?

[WhollyHeretic]

94. It must be the star the Xenu is from.

The only reason they put up Menorahs as decorations is to justify putting up the Christmas stuff. It makes it appear inclusive and not a violation of church and state. Hanukkah is a relatively minor Jewish holiday.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Wow, it's great to discuss this with someone who actually comprehends

English.

The judge explained the reasoning behind using secular symbols, gave examples of the difference between them and overtly religious ones and he also cited precedents that have been on the books for years and have since been upheld.

Muriel used smaller words but it didn't help.


I even tried posting excerpts from and linking to the Federal Guidelines regarding the rights of students to express their religion in public schools.

[Crunchy Frog]

97. Yeah, I figured that out working my way through the thread.

:)

[beam me up scottie]

70. Get this straight: The Constitution is NOT hostile to religion.

But some citizens ARE hostile to it, and it's because of stupid fundamentalist mouth breathers who want to be allowed to force their beliefs down our throats.

You bet your ASS I'm hostile to your kind of religion.

And there's more than a few good reasons for those of us who don't believe as you do TO be hostile to it.


YOUR RELIGION is THE SAME ONE that Fred Phelps quotes when he tells us that our tolerance of GLBT people is the reason why our soldiers are coming home in caskets.

It's THE SAME ONE being used by Pat Robertson when he tells us that god smote Ariel Sharon.

It's THE SAME ONE that inspired Terry Randall to coach fundamentalist extremists about how to terrorize and kill doctors who perform abortions.

It's THE SAME ONE that Poppy practiced when he said that atheists aren't citizens or patriots.

It's THE SAME ONE used by ID proponents who want to dumb down America's children so that they can keep feeding their cult fresh new minds to corrupt.

And it's THE SAME ONE used by this administration whenever they need an excuse to further oppress and discriminate against minorities here and everywhere else in the world.


DAMN STRAIGHT I am fucking hostile to your religion.

And you'd better get used to it, because it's NOT JUST ME.



On the other hand, I have absolutely nothing against liberal christians and their religion.

They're our friends and allies and aren't threatened at all by the First Amendment.

[Zebedeo]

74. Your argument consists of pure hostility and guilt by association

I'm sure you don't consider yourself a bigot, but your "guilt by association" argument is dripping with bigotry.

Because Fred Phelps calls himself a Christian, that means that you are justified in your hostility toward all other people who call themselves Christian?

I think Fred Phelps is disgusting beyond belief, and when I saw his site, I was mouth agape at the reprehensible trash that he spouts. I could not believe my eyes that someone could possibly misinterpret Scripture in the hideously hateful way he does.

Yet you lump me in with Fred Phelps, merely because I am a Christian. Or is it because I am a Christian who is concerned about students being deprived of their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion during the time that they are required by the state to be in a school building?

Your smear of all Christians is patently unfair and invalid. How would that work if it were applied to you? Let's see, you are an atheist. Ooh, ooh! I know! That means that you and all other atheists can be blamed for the wrongdoing of Josef Stalin! :sarcasm: Millions of innocent people slaughtered. Show trials, gulags . . . It's all your fault!

On the other hand, I have absolutely nothing against liberal christians and their religion.

Sorry, but I see no evidence of that. You apparently don't consider me "liberal" enough, purely because you despise my traditional Christian beliefs. You might want to read some history, partner, because virtually all of the great liberals in this nation's history have been -- and still are -- outspoken Christian believers.

"We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt "fireside chat" radio broadcast, 1935

"As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul." As written by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Prologue to Gideon New testaments given to soldiers in WWII

I am a Christian and a Democrat—that's all.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), U.S. president. Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew, p. 330, Harper Colophon Books, n.d.. FDR's response to a reporter who asked him what his political philosophy might be.

For Jimmy Carter quotes, see my sig.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Nope. My hostility is justified against christians LIKE them.

You really need to start paying attention.

Read my post again, this time without the fundie goggles.

And in the future, if you want to be treated like a liberal christian, try acting like one.

A good start would be reading Jimmy Carter's opinions about the First Amendment and his inevitable rejection of the southern baptists instead of right wing propaganda from shills like Betsy Hart.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. I can't see anything in that about Christian prayer being disallowed

There's something about a mural being painted over, apparently because it featured Jesus; while that might be worth looking at (remembering it comes from a New York Post article, and they don't have the best reputation in the world for unbiased reporting), murals are more than just private activity. If there have been murals featuring other gods that have remained in New York schools, there might be a point there. Have you heard of that? Or people being told they can't say Christian prayers before lunch, which is what you claimed earlier?

[InaneAnanity]

76. Yea, Zebedo

Where is your proof that Christian prayer was disallowed???

[Zebedeo]

78. Nope, I don't have proof

that Christian prayer was disallowed by the NY public schools in this particular instance. But it is documented fact that the NY public schools banned Nativity scenes, while expressly allowing the display of Menorahs and the Star and Crescent.

Look, if you are fine with allowing Christians in public schools to take time out repeatedly during the day to go into rooms set aside for them, and pray aloud, and that the school must alter their class schedules to allow this, then just say so. I would have thought that would be something you would not want to allow.

[InaneAnanity]

102. When was there a ruling

equating the menorah and the star and crescent to a nativity scene??

Why does it upset you so much when a menorah is displayed?? I mean, hell, Christmas is a national holiday. Isn't that enough???

[Zebedeo]

79. I don't know whether Christians were not allowed to pray in this

particular instance. But they certainly have been preventing from praying -- or even mentioning the name of Jesus -- in other documented instances. And the NY public school system expressly allows the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent, while forbidding any display of a Nativity scene.

As for "murals featuring other gods," I don't know for sure, since I don't live in NY, but I have a strong suspicion that Halloween is celebrated in NY public schools, and that decorations and murals featuring witches, devils, demons, vampires, goblins and the like are festooned throughout the schools. These Wiccan, pagan and "other" elements are celebrated freely, while the Christian God is singled out for exclusion.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Can you be any more intellectually dishonest?

Confirmation bias:

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.


Not a wise move in this forum.

For instance, as Muriel already pointed out in his post #65, your claim of government hostility towards christianity is based on selective thinking.

Actually, since his explanation was so concise and reasoned, and since you never answered HIS question, I'll repost (emphasis mine):

It's not government hostility, it's separation of church and state

Both examples are of officially imposed religious observations - prayers at an official occasion, which, however much you think they could include all faiths, are an imposition on atheists; and allowing a school to impose a minute of silence - which has a religious purpose, and so shouldn't be imposed. Pupils are still, of course, free to pray; they just don't get to force other people to shut up while they do it.

The case of a nativity scene against a menorah, and star and crescent, is debatable. The menorah is specific to Jewish culture, and has a religious history, but is also held to have a significance for the culture as well. The star and crescent are a symbol of the Ottoman Empire (taken from the non-Islamic Byzantine Empire after Constantinople was conquered), which many Muslim nations have used afterwards - which puts that symbol in the same category as a Christmas tree (at that time of year), which I see was allowed in the same display as the star and crescent. A nativity scene, rather than being a general symbol of a faith, however, is a specific claim of a religion (Jesus's birth in a manager, and an event that many Christians don't believe took place anyway).

Personally, I'd rather the schools didn't produce any of these religious symbols; but I can see there is a case for the way the judge ruled; I can also see a case for allowing the creche as a specific Christian symbol that actually appears in the Bible, as opposed to one just adopted in certain Christian countries.

Six months is over the top for someone breaking the rules - they should just be told to sit down and shut up. But that ruling specifically said that other deities mustn't be mentioned either. So it's not discrimination against Christianity - again, it's stopping a religious act at an official ceremony.

Having found the story on the rosaries, I see that some other known gang members had been wearing rosaries, and that the pupils who weren't gang members appealed and won. Do you know what the rulings were in the other cases you give?

Yes, I think it is OK for Muslims to use unallocated rooms for prayer, and Christians should be allowed to do the same.

Now, have you found examples of Muslims being allowed to pray, while Christians aren't? That was your original claim.

You also ignored InaneAnanity's post attempting to inform you that any information gleamed from reich wing websites is usually unacceptable since they aren't considered reliable sources. (#73)

Seems like Muriel did his homework, look what I found:

Both sides agree that, as interpreted and implemented
by the DOE, the Holiday Displays memorandum does not permit the
public display of the crèche by school officials alone or as part
of a school-authorized holiday or seasonal display in the public
schools within the DOE. The holidays to which the DOE memorandum applies
include Ramadan, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, and Christmas, which coincide
nore or less with the winter solstice and with a winter vacation during
which the public schools are closed.

The parties jointly stipulate that the holiday display
in the lobby of P.S. 165 in 2001 included a menorah, Christmas
tree, star and crescent, and other holiday symbols.
The pictures of the display in P.S. 184 in 2002,
provided in the joint stipulation of facts, show the front
entrance holiday display including a festively decorated
Christmas tree and a table adjacent to the tree with several
dreidels and three paper menorahs, one with a sign stating
“Happy Hanukah.”
In addition, five dreidels and two kinaras apparently drawn by
students are displayed on the walls next to the Christmas tree

Pictures of the back entrance to P.S. 184 depict student artwork
affixed to the walls, including two snowflakes, six Christmas
wreaths with student written work, four dreidels,
and one menorah.
Pictures of Christos’ classroom in P.S. 184 in December 2002 show a
calendar representing the month of December with snowmen,
Christmas trees, dreidels, and Santa in his sleigh
pulled by reindeers. Hanging by clothespins from a line strung
across the classroom are student-created, three-dimensional paper
Christmas wreaths and dreidels and at least one drawing of a kinara.
Affixed to tables and chairs in the classroom are student-created
stockings, with a name on each, presumably the students' names.
There is also a paper wreath made of alternating snowmen and Christmas
trees topped with the Star of Bethlehem affixed to a wall, as
well as a display of snowmen under “A Winter Wonderland” sign.

Oh the HORROR! Those POOR persecuted little christian darlings must have suffered TERRIBLY.:eyes:
And, as hard as it is to believe, the blatant bigotry gets even worse:

The joint stipulation of facts also includes pictures
of the holiday images present in the hallways, classrooms, and
the administrative office of P.S. 169 in December 2002. Thirteen
photographs of the holiday symbols displayed around P.S. 169 are
included, displaying the festive nature of the holiday display,
not to mention the creative flare of the students, teachers, and
administrators. Included among the imagery are reindeers made
from small brown bags beneath a “Songs, Symbol, Signs of the
Season” sign; three-dimensional paper dreidels; Christmas trees
topped with the Star of Bethlehem, candles, snowmen, stars, paper
and stuffed teddy bears surrounding a card describing a book
entitled “The Chanukah Guest”; paper menorahs, paper Christmas
trees, decorated paper Christmas wreaths and bells, drawings of
Kwanzaa kinaras, gingerbread men cutouts surrounding a book
entitled “The Gingerbread Baby,” and a Christmas tree made of
cutout hand tracings colored green and covered with Christmas
decorations; a table-top artificial Christmas tree next to an
electric menorah; images of Santa Claus; candy canes, more paperbag
reindeer with cards inscribed with the verses to “Rudolph the
Red-Nosed Reindeer”; a snowman atop a mound of packages wrapped
as Christmas presents; cotton-ball snowmen; a sign reading “Happy
Holidays” and another reading “Let it Snow.”

In addition, a bulletin board in Nicholas’ classroom displayed
cards describing Kwanzaa, Christmas, Ramadan, and Chanukah.

Ramadan is described in one card as follows:
Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim calendar, is a
holy month for Muslims, believers in the religion
Islam. During Ramadan, Muslims fast (take no food or
drink) from dawn to sunset. It is a very spiritual
time for Muslims. They arise early for a pre-dawn
meal. At the end of the day, the fast is broken by
taking the lftar meal, often with friends or family
invited into one another’s homes. When the new moon
appears and the month of Ramadan is over, Muslims
celebrate a joyous holiday called Eid-ul-Fitr (Festival
of Fast-Breaking). They dress in their best clothing
for prayers at the mosque and celebrate with family and
friends.

The Chanukah card states:
Hanukkah is celebrated by Jews in remembrance of a
great victory, which won them the right to practice
their religion. Also called the Festival of Lights,
Hanukkah lasts for eight days because the oil in the
Hanukkah story lasted that long. Candles are lit each
evening during the eight days of Hanukkah. The candle
holder is called a menorah. It holds eight candles and
one servant candle, which is used to light the
others–one more candle each night of Hanukkah. Some
children receive gifts on each of the eight nights of
Hanukkah. They play dreidel games and enjoy special
Hanukkah foods.

The card describing Kwanzaa states:
Kwanzaa is the holiday when African Americans celebrate
their cultural heritage. It was created in 1966 by Dr.
Maulana Karenga, an African who wanted his people to
have a special time to celebrate and learn about their
cultural origins. Kwanzaa is celebrated from December
26 through January 1. Families and friends gather to
remember their ancestors and to enjoy African music,
dancing, poetry, and foods. The holiday has seven
days, seven symbols, and seven principles. The
principles correspond to the seven days of the
celebration and serve as guides for daily living.

The Christmas card states:
Christmas, December 25, is the Christian holiday that
celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. This holy time
is marked by Nativity scenes, caroling, and church
services where Christians hear again the story of the
birth of the baby Jesus. Christmas includes many
festive customs such as decorating homes and evergreen
trees with colored lights, bright ribbons, and shining
ornaments. People hang stockings by the fireplace,
send Christmas cards to friends near and far, and wrap
carefully chosen gifts for their loved ones. The jolly
figure of Santa Claus is the bringer of gifts in this
happy season.

Those EVIL teachers! How COULD they display such hatred and intolerance toward those little angelic christian cherubs?:cry:

And as Muriel already pointed out:

As interpreted, the policy prohibits not just the
crèche, but anything considered purely religious, including
excerpts from religious text such as the Torah or the Qur’an,
scenes of worship, objects of worship, illustrations of deities
or religious figures like Muhammad, and illustrations of
religious events.

Judge Sifton (I'm really starting to like this guy-thanks for making me look this up) goes on to say:

Accordingly, the message presented by the display of a
menorah and a star and crescent in the context of the greater
holiday displays in the public schools must be reviewed as
perceived by the children, Christian children in particular, but
not one hyper-sensitive Catholic child.

Upon reviewing the dizzying array of holiday symbols depicted in
P.S. 165, 169, and 184, it is impossible to conclude that Christian
students attending one of these schools may interpret the inclusion
of menorahs and a star and crescent in the temporary displays as an
endorsement of Judaism or Islam over Christianity or feel coerced
into practicing a particular religion.

The context of these holiday displays neutralizes the religious
dimensions of the menorah and the star and crescent such that even a
child participating in the creation of the display would not perceive
it to be an endorsement of Judaism or Islam. Nor would any child
looking at them objectively view these holiday displays,
including, as they do, numerous Christmas symbols, and perceive a
message of disapproval of Christianity.

Ultimately, the effect of the holiday displays at P.S. 165, P.S. 169,
and P.S. 184, is to allow students to share the knowledge of various
religious and non-religious holidays occurring during the winter without
feeling threatened by them. As in Elewski, a reasonable Christian child
observing the display would not perceive religious endorsement or coercion
but “a celebration of the diversity of the holiday season, including
traditional religious and secular symbols of that season.”

The photographs of the displays in P.S. 184 and P.S. 169 in
December 2002 reinforce the conclusion that the interpretation
and implementation of the DOE holiday display policy is a model
of neutralism and plurality.

(his reading on Ms. "HOW DARE YOU SUBJECT MY KIDS TO OTHER RELIGIONS?" Skoros is deadly accurate!)

Plaintiffs’ free exercise claims are based on their
allegations that, by virtue of exposure to their schools’ holiday
displays and discussions regarding the origins of Chanukah or
Ramadan during the creation of such displays, the children were
subjected to coercion to accept the Jewish and Islamic faiths and
to renounce Christianity. It is clearly established from both
the content of the Holiday Displays memorandum and the multiple
declarations of school teachers and administrators submitted by
the City that the defendants do not intend to restrict the
religious activities of any of the children in the schools,
including the Tine children. However, if neutral actions have a
restrictive effect, a court must inquire as to whether or not the
“government has placed a substantial burden on the observation of
a central religious belief or practice.” Altman, 245 F.3d at 79
(citation omitted). The evidence does not indicate that the DOE
holiday display policy on its face or as applied in the temporary
holiday displays in P.S. 165, 169, or 184 has the effect of
operating against or burdening the Tine children’s observation of
their religious practices or beliefs. As noted earlier, the
holiday displays evidenced in this action conveyed an inclusive
message, did not advance or promote any particular religion, and
did not coerce plaintiffs to reject Christianity. Thus,
plaintiffs’ passive exposure to and even their participation in
the creation of the displays, including symbols from several
different religious and cultural holidays, do not interfere with
their ability to practice their own faith. Similarly, lessons
given during the course of the holiday season about the meanings
of the symbols or the origins of the holidays they represent,
when presented in the secular manner evidenced here, do not
interfere with the Tine children’s ability to practice their own
faith. Accordingly, the DOE holiday display policy on its face
and as applied in P.S. 165, 169, and 184 does not violate
plaintiffs’ free exercise rights.

He concludes with:

Plaintiff Skoros’ parental rights claim is closely
related to the her children’s free exercise claim. Plaintiff
Skoros alleges that, by virtue of the DOE's coercion of her
children to accept the Jewish and Islamic faiths and renounce
Christianity, the DOE infringed upon her right (1) “to control
the religious upbringing and training of her minor children”; (2)
“to raise her children according to the religion, system of
values, and moral norms she deems appropriate”; and (3) “to the
care, custody, education of and association with her children,”
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

As previously noted, the evidence does not support a
finding that the Tine children were in any way coerced to have
them adopt Judaism or Islam or to renounce Christianity by their
participation in the creation of the temporary holiday displays.
In addition, the evidence does not support a finding that the
temporary holiday displays in the Tine children’s schools
interfered with plaintiff Skoros’ relationship with her children
or her ability to control their upbringing. Although plaintiff
Skoros repeatedly claims that Nicholas and Christos were
“directed” to make a menorah, the more credible explanation is
that offered by their teachers who state that the children were
provided coloring books containing an image of a menorah which
they chose to color. Certainly, such a situation does not amount
to an act “undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of
religious beliefs.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 218. Accordingly, the
DOE holiday display policy and the temporary displays in the Tine
children’s schools do not interfere in any way with plaintiff
Skoros’ raising her children.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the clerk of court is
directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on all
counts and to furnish a filed copy of the within to all parties
and to the magistrate judge.

I can see why you ignored Muriel's post and decided to keep repeating the propaganda found on fundamentalist websites.


Oh, and it took me all of one Google search to discover the fact that the arguments you use when you described that particular case (calling the Constitutional separation of church and state "bigotry and discrimination against Christians in public schools.", for instance) are also VERY popular at Freeperville.

And just as biased.

I guess you all get your information from the same sources.

Maybe you should listen to Muriel next time.

You may just learn the difference between what you consider a "fact" and the real thing.

[Zebedeo]

88. What a load

you took on to find these excerpts.

The reasoning of the judge in that case is ridiculous, and seems to be designed to arrive at his desired result. Evergreen trees, evergreen wreaths and bells have nothing to do with what Christians celebrate at Christmas. They are not religious in any way whatsoever, unless they are vestigial remains of some pagan traditions. For most people, they represent the purely secular traditions of the Christmas season (kinda like the songs "Winter Wonderland" or "Jingle Bells")

By contrast, the Menorah is a religious, not a secular symbol. It represents what the Jews believe to be a miracle from God. Last I checked, miracles are religious. Moreover, the menorah is expressly non-secular.

Menorah

The term menorah is also used for the lamp holder with spaces for nine candles or oil lamps that are lit during the eight-day holiday of Hanukkah. Hanukkah celebrates the rededication of the Temple after the successful Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy. According to the Talmud, the victorious Jews found only enough ritually pure olive oil to light the menorah for one day, but the supply miraculously lasted eight days until a new supply could be obtained. The menorah used during Hanukkah is also called a hanukkiah. One of the spaces in the hanukkiah is raised above the others and is used for an auxiliary light, the shamash, which guards against secular use of the other candles or oil lamps and is also used to light them.

The Torah states that God revealed the design for the menorah to Moses. A plant that grows in Israel called the moriah typically has seven branches and resembles a menorah, leading to the theory that it provided the inspiration for its design.

Evergreen wreaths, evergreen trees and bells have no similar connection to Christian religious beliefs. In fact, they have no connection at all to Christianity -- unless you would care to enlighten me about some connection of which I am not aware.

So I disagree with Muriel's point about the menorah being a secular symbol. It's not secular. It's explicitly religious and nonsecular - like a Christian cross. Would you think it would be appropriate for public schools to hang crosses or crucifixes on the wall at Easter?

Muriel said:

The menorah is specific to Jewish culture, and has a religious history, but is also held to have a significance for the culture as well.

Using the reasoning of Muriel and Judge Sifton, one could argue that the cross "is specific to Christian culture, and has a religious history, but is also held to have a significance for the culture as well." For example, you find the cross on the flags of many countries, including Norway, Sweden, and Denmark (just as the Islamic Star and Crescent are found on the flags of many countries). Until recently, you found it on the seal of the County of Los Angeles - hardly a Christian organization. It's on a lot of coats of arms, too. Certainly it has historical and cultural significance, easily as much as the Menorah.

Star and Crescent

Today, the star and crescent is widely accepted as a symbol of the Islamic faith, and is used in decorative arts, jewelry, and national flags- much like the cross in Christian countries.

Answer this question, and then we'll see who is being intellectually dishonest:

If the Islamic Star and Crescent are allowed to be displayed at public schools, do you agree that the Christian cross should be allowed also?

If not, why not? They are both religious/cultural symbols that are found on the flags of many countries and have historical and cultural significance.

Your continuing effort to paint me as a freeper is getting old. I am not a freeper. I have never posted on the freerepublic website. I have never read an entire thread on the freerepublic website. The only reason that I know it exists is because of links from this website.

The fact that Christians who post on RW websites have some similar concerns as Christians who post on progressive websites should not come as a big surprise, given the amount of anti-Christian bigotry displayed by both RWers and progressives at times. Your posts are exhibit A of such bigoted attitudes.

[WhollyHeretic]

90. A load? She used credible sources instead of reich-wing hate mongers

Maybe you should go join in the conversation at freeperville, it seems like you'd be a lot more comfortable over there. You can whine how christians are persecuted by the government when every position of power in the government is held by a christian (now that is a fucking load, utterly asinine) I'm sure they'd love to help you set up a theocracy.

[beam me up scottie]

92. Actually, it was ridiculously easy to find the COURT DOCUMENTS.

Of course, you have to want to find the facts in order to be successful.

See, if you would have actually bothered to READ the transcripts, you would have discovered that his decisions were all based on precedents.

Every one of them.

But I guess Fox News and reichwing religious extremist websites are of more use to someone such as yourself.



Let me get this straight, are you actually trying to tell me that a CHRISTMAS tree with a STAR OF BETHLEHEM on top doesn't represent Christmas?

:spray:

Priceless!

:rofl:



And FYI, there aren't many christians posting on progressive websites who agree with the christo-fascists on freepland and other right wing extremists.


As a matter of fact, right now, I can only think of ONE.


Liberal christians, like liberal non-christians, support the First Amendment.


And since I only loathe christian Talibornagains, (as evidenced in my posts which CLEARLY qualify my statements), your shrill cries of christian persecution by BMUS are laughable.

Toodles!

[InaneAnanity]

103. If you really have a problem with christmas trees...

...then, instead of insisting that schools displaying them are discriminating against Christianity (because Christmas trees don't count, in your mind), you should be going door to door to Christian households, informing them of the pagan ancestry of Christmas trees, and telling them not to buy them or use them in any fashion around Christmas.

Since they bother you so much, apparently, that is what you should do.

Let me know how it goes.

[moggie]

42. Are you moving the goalposts?

Prayer before a meal? I can see no problem with any student saying a quiet, personal prayer before eating, at their own choosing. Do schools really ban this? That sounds like a job for the ACLU. However, you were talking about prayer at assembly, an official school function. Praying aloud during assembly would appear to carry the school's imprimatur; the school couldn't privilege one particular religion this way, or one particular sect of one religion, so would have to extend this right to everyone who wanted it. It's not hard to see this getting out of hand.

The founders were well aware of the differing demands of rival sects, and the problems this could cause, including within education. For example, James Madison said:

The difficulty of reconciling the Christian mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a University established by law and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurous to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and without a toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord and animosity; and finally that these opinions are support by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law and religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware N.J., etc, has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory.

(Letter to Edward Everett, March 19, 1823)

As Muriel says, prayer is no more harmful than any other speech (unless you grant it the force which its adherents believe it to have). But it can be contentious: for example, if conservative Christian students prayed aloud about the "evils" of homosexuality, or Muslims referred to punishment of "infidels", or Wiccans said things which some Christians would denounce as witchcraft. Schools have to be very careful to avoid being seen as endorsing any such viewpoints.

[beam me up scottie]

45. How disgusting.

Our good friends from across the pond know more about our Constitutional rights than some of our so-called liberal citizens.

Save me a place, Moggie.
When the Amerikkkan Taliban finally takes over, I'm out of here.

[moggie]

46. No hiding place!

We may currently be, comparatively speaking, a hotbed of good wholesome secular depravity, but St Tony is a big fan of "faith-based" education, and we have a growing number of such schools with creationism on the curriculum, for example. Tonight's concluding episode of Richard Dawkins' TV programme "The Root of All Evil?" saw him visit such a school, where he found they teach that AIDS is a punishment from God. Of course, we've never had Jefferson's wall, and I received the standard Church of England indoctrination at school, mumble years ago. But I got better. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things". What's that they say about the Devil citing scripture? :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

47. At least you live

in a country where people like Dawkins can speak freely on television.

If we even so much as post a few sentences from him, the fundies declare a jihad on us.

I'll have to download the program in bit torrent.

from the Devil's Dictionary:

SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

:evilgrin:

[salvorhardin]

32. So...

Teaching that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old in Earth Science would be a bad thing according to you because that directly contradicts a principle of Christianity? Would that be anti-religion to you?

[Zebedeo]

36. No.

But teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than a mortal man is anti-religion. It has no place in public school.

Other examples would include:

1. Teaching that there is no God.
2. Teaching that God did not create the universe.
3. Teaching that the philosophy of materialism is true.

All of these propositions are beliefs that are taken on faith by atheists. They have not been proven to be true. They do not serve any purpose in education. Nothing is accomplished by teaching these things, except to attempt to indoctrinate students to have an atheistic viewpoint.

Please note: I do not think that teachers in public schools should teach the opposite of these propositions, either. I do not believe that students in public schools should be taught that Jesus was the Son of God, or that there is a God, or that God created the universe, or that the philosophy of materialism is false. I think that these subjects, if they come up, can be dealt with in a way that does not indoctrinate students at all.

For example, on the subject of Jesus, if for some reason this subject were to come up in a high school class, the teacher could say that some people, called "Christians," believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Other people have different views about Him. The Muslims believe that He was a prophet sent by God. The Jews believe that He was just a good rabbi with some radical ideas. The atheists believe that He was just a guy, and some of them even deny that He ever existed. There. That was easy. We didn't have to indoctrinate students about matters of religious belief. We just told them that some believe this, and others believe that. It seems to me that this would be an appropriate way to deal with these subjects in public school.

[salvorhardin]

38. OK. I'm fine with that.

Indeed, your last paragraph is actually my idea of secularism. Honesty about each other's beliefs but not denying that people have those beliefs. It's only when believers want religion taught in science class organized school prayer (for whatever deity) where I have a big problem. As others have pointed out, some subjects such as literature (or art or music or the social sciences) would be next to impossible to teach without mentioning religion and its dynamics. Though it'd be nice if the history of atheism was covered in history too. :-)

BTW: I don't think any honest philosophy teacher would say that any one philosophy was "true", especially in an intro. type class which is likely what a high school student would get. However, science by its' very nature is materialistic because that's its' domain -- the material world. So again, as long as you (or anyone else) doesn't see teaching science and the scientific method the way it must be, sans the supernatural, as advocating against religion then I see no conflict between our views.

And besides, don't you think that it's the parental units who are best equipped to teach a child about their beliefs?

One nit that's a beggin' for a pickin': You suggestion was, "...some of them even deny that He existed." I wouldn't deny that he existed, I'd just say some question the historical evidence for a single person fitting that description. But I'm probably arguing semantics here.

[Crunchy Frog]

83. Should they be able to have organized Hindu prayer

at school assemblies and before athletic contests ect.? What about Muslim prayers?

Tell me, as a Christian who believes the Bible to be inerrant, how do you reconcile your belief in such prayers with these words of your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?

5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[quaoar]

21. Get your facts straight

"a fellow progressive advocated teaching the bible in PUBLIC schools"

The Bible as history.

Get your facts straight before you go launching rants about comments I make on another thread.

I never said religious dogma should be taught in the public schools. I said that if nothing about the Bible is taught in public schools by people of moderate views, then kids will only be exposed to it by the fundies in church and will end up with a warped view of religion.

[Strong Atheist]

22. What was the point of reply #21, if not

what I said?

Your words:

I think his/her point was that if the Bible is not taught to kids in public schools by people of moderate views, it will be taught to them by fundamentalists. Not teaching anything about the Bible creates a vacuum that the right-wingers are only too happy to fill.

Then when I said

As long as it stays out of the schools, that is fine with me. Perfectly constitutional.

Your reply was


Go bury your head in the sand then.


Hmmmm.... the reasonable conclusion is that you are advocating the bible being taught in the public schools, and were unhappy that I advocated keeping it out of the public schools.:shrug:

Edited to add: Are you now saying that I am right, and that the bible SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

[WhollyHeretic]

23. You again make it obvious you want religion taught in schools, your

religion.

"if nothing about the Bible is taught in public schools by people of moderate views, then kids will only be exposed to it by the fundies in church and will end up with a warped view of religion."

You want your idea of religion taught in school. Religion should not be in schools at all, if you want to teach your child that then do it at home or church.

[Strong Atheist]

56. Well, I have given you several opportunities

to state your case, and you refuse to say that religion should not be taught in public school. I have made MY position CRYSTAL clear, both in your original thread, and here in my rant. By arguing with my position in your thread, by concluding that my position showed "my head was in the sand", and by refusing to say that RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL, you have made it clear that you believe religion SHOULD be taught in public school, Q.E.D. Therefore, I would say that I had my facts straight in the first place, and still do.

BTW: Your views are comfortably in the minority as represented in this poll, for which I say thank goodness! Have a NICE day!:evilgrin:

[Goblinmonger]

27. I certainly hope that my discussion of teaching religion

was not in your rant. As a Literature teacher, I think it is impossible (and a severe disservice to the students) to not include religious symbols in a discussion of lit. Teaching American Lit would be futile without it. Even the great mysogonist, non-Christian Hemingway used over-the-top biblical sybolism in Old Man and the Sea. I find the Christ figure a fabulous protagonist in literature (the movie Donnie Darko may be my favorite).

And for those of you who don't know me...atheist with a FIRM believe in Jefferson's wall.

[greyl]

30. Donnie Darko as Christ figure? Interesting.

I didn't see it that way. I don't recall that being mentioned during the commentary on the DVD, though I see how it can it can make a little sense. :)

I agree, damn good movie.

[Goblinmonger]

33. I could write for ever on this

but here is a quick summary of my thoughts (and it was a FABULOUS movie) with some spoilers:

The key for me that the director sees it this way is when he comes out of the theatre to "make things right," the marquee lists The Last Temptation of Christ. If you haven't seen, this is a movie that deals with what Christ sees as his option while on the cross (ultimately to come down off the cross and raise a family with Mary M). He chooses not to do this but to sacrifice himself for others--hence the bible story.

Donnie has the same decision to make in his life, and, ultimately, he does exactly what Christ does. He sacrfices himself so that his family can live.

[Strong Atheist]

55. Nope, not part of my rant. I don't even know what you are

referring to

:shrug:

so we are cool as usual.

:toast:

Edited to add: I found it. As long as we are not TEACHING religion, but TEACHING ABOUT religion, that is ok. I try to keep even THAT to a bare minimum.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. I'm an "other".

First off, a rant: The poll construction is flawed - "think religion should not be taught in schools" and "think the bible, the koran, the torah etc should be taught in schools" are neither mutually exclusive nor complementary. It's entirely possible to believe either neither (e.g. Dominionists) or both (e.g. believing that children should be taught about religion, but not taught religion).


That out of the way, my personal view is that children should not be taught anything about the relative merits of different religious positions in school, but that a vital part of an education in America or Europe is a rough grasp of the basic tenets, histories, associated cultures and current statuses (number and location of believers, issues of the day involving and so on) of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.

I also believe that a good understanding of the history of Christianity is essential to any attempt to understand Western history, philosophy, art or culture, or even much of science, and that as such it should also be taught in schools, although in the context of "history of thought" not "comparative religion".

[catbert836]

39. Those posts were laughable

I believe in separation of church and state, but if I don't like what some people of my faith are saying, then I'm free to break down that barrier so the "right" view of my beliefs is taught.

It's unbelievable what hypocrites people can be when it comes to their religion.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Catbert,

you are wise beyond your years.

I'll bet the fundies run when they see you coming. :evilgrin:

[catbert836]

80. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I guess having been one of them (or close to it, anyway) helps me a little bit.

[Maat]

66. Religious Scientist here ..

and I don't want children being taught religion in a public school.

[Strong Atheist]

77. Good! nt.

[Darranar]

81. I am staunchly in favor of comparative religion courses

and philosophy courses.

I am against teaching any religion as fact.

[Strong Atheist]

104. Wonderful. You volunteering to teach those courses, buddy,

cause I refuse to do it in PUBLIC SCHOOL. Have fun teaching SANTANISM, and ATHEISM, because if you have those courses, it will be forced by court cases eventually to be that INCLUSIVE. :mad: :grr:

[Darranar]

105. No one's making you do it.

Of course atheism should be taught, Satanism too if its numbers and influence ever become significant

Out of curiosity, do you support teaching Greek myth? Shakespeare, or any literature for that matter? Don't you think children should be taught about human culture and behavior?

[Strong Atheist]

107. "No one's making you do it."

BULLSHIT! As a public school teacher, I am indeed FORCED to teach what the administration wants me to teach. You obviously know nothing about the conditions under which teachers operate. Educate yourself, and when you know more, we will talk again. Or quit your cushy job, become a teacher, and find out what it is like. Then you can tell me all about what you want to force me to teach. Till then, your ignorance is appalling enough that your statements are completely laughable.


Edited to add: Those of you who want this taught in the PUBLIC schools are thankfully in the EXTREME minority on this board, according to the poll. Have a NICE day.:evilgrin:

[Darranar]

119. I would appreciate you answering my question.

It is really at the heart of this whole matter.

I think we are talking about two wholly different things regarding "forcing." If you teach social studies, you are obviously obligated to teach what the administration wants you to teach about social studies, if you teach math, you are obviously obligated to teach whatever the administration wants you to teach about math, etc. I did not suggest incorporating comparative religion into any of those courses.

[Strong Atheist]

120. If you are talking about college, that is fine,

see post #118. Otherwise, keep your religion in your home/private school/church WHERE IT BELONGS, and out of PUBLIC schools, WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG.

[Inland]

106. I'm missing the huge problem.

Not only is a comparative religion course or segment acceptable consitutionally and ethically, but it would be integral to any sociology studies. I'm not sure how one can understand much without having some basic knowledge of what motivates people and forms their perspectives, and religion is part of that.

Including atheism and satanism too, and any other religious philosophy that has enough adherents to make sense in including in the semester.

[Strong Atheist]

108. Religion has no place in public school except to be taught

about as part of history, or as background in literature, exactly like pornography has no place being taught in public schools.

[Inland]

109. How is that different from what I am saying?

If religion gets taught as a background in literature or history or sociology or anthropology, how is that different from a comparative religions course?

If kids were lucky enough to study the crusades, MLK, Plato, the cold war, Marxism, and current events one would get all the same content re religion anyway, and be the better for it.

Unless, of course, you seriously believe that a religion course really is the same as pornography, in which case it seems clear enough that religion shouldn't be taught because it's BAD. I wouldn't accept that, just as I wouldn't accept any complaints that atheism or islam should be not be discussed in the comparative religions class because they are BAD, or that marxism, MLK or the crusades should be left out because they are bad or say bad things about certain people.
BAD or not, it's important to understanding. Even if it wasn't, I would provide it if the kids found it interesting on its own. You are a teacher, and I may have low hopes and a memory of my own high school, but anything that spurs any learning is prima facie good by me.

[Strong Atheist]

112. As per my OP, religion should only be mentioned to the

extent necessary to provide background for history or literature courses. Religion SHOULD NOT be TAUGHT in PUBLIC schools, period. Keep that in the home/church/private school.

[Inland]

113. I disagree. There's nothing wrong, and much good, in such a class.

A comparative religions class is not like pornography, teaching them something that is simply bad for them.

A comparative religions class has interesting and useful knowledge in itself and allows for greater understanding of other matters of history, philosophy, art and literature.

A comparative religions class that ABOUT religion in a non-sectarian and non-proselytizing manner doesn't involve concerns of liberty or giving the kids beliefs.

I'm not sure if there's any spare time in the day. I'd sooner they learned math. I know I wish I did. But other than that, sounds good to me.

[Strong Atheist]

114. Comparative religion is for

PRIVATE schools and colleges. We have more than too much to teach of core courses as it is, in addition to RELIGION having NO place in PUBLIC schools.

[Inland]

115. But it does have a place. You said so yourself

Right there in the class with history and literature. You said so yourself. There's hardly a social studies subject that can be taught without it "being there", I think, and if those are taught without proselytation or injecting beliefs, then certainly any comparative religion class can be.

You might have too much to teach, and I'll accept that. There may not be room in the day for a comparative religion class, as an elective or otherwise. But aside from that, I can't put my finger on the basis of your objection.

[Strong Atheist]

116. I barely touch on it in my social studies class (6th

grade U.S. history to 1877) except to mention (as the textbook does) the horrible things done to the native americans in the name of religion by the Spanish and English. If I were to push Atheism, it would be as bad as the ones who want to push religion, and of course I don't do it. In fact, after 5 years of teaching, there have been perhaps 2 observant people (during the pledge, since I do not say "under god") who MAY suspect that I am not religious, otherwise no one knows and it is no ones business.

Luckily, as the poll shows, most here on D.U. understand the importance of separation of church and state; the overwhelming majority voted against teaching (as opposed to teaching ABOUT) religion in the PUBLIC schools.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. 'Comparative religion' is 'teaching about religion', isn't it?

as opposed to "teaching religion". It seems to me that Inland, and Darranar, are both talking about "teaching about religion". I'm surprised you can teach US history without mentioning the religious attitudes of the early English colonies (apart from the treatment of the native Americans), though - it's difficult to keep all mention of 'Puritan' out of them, for instance.

Neither of those DUers is advocating 'pushing' a religion, or atheism. They are talking about giving information on the basic beliefs of groups - just as discussions of politics in history have to include knowledge of the positions of political parties. You can talk about Republicans and Democrats without having to 'push' one party.

[Strong Atheist]

122. Lets make this crystal clear, shall we? First, see post #118.

Second, there should be NO RELIGION COURSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOL! Clear enough?

[muriel_volestrangler]

123. No, it's not clear enough

Sorry about that. In post #116 you said "as opposed to teaching ABOUT religion". It's not clear if you think teaching ABOUT religion is a 'religion course' and therefore something you are against. I did have a course, called, 'Comparative Religion', in the UK at about age 14, in which there were a few lessons on Islamic beliefs, a few on Hindu, some on Buddhist, and a few on one or two others. Since teaching about Christianity is built into the curriculum in English schools (much to my annoyance), they didn't include it in Comparative Religion, but I think a full course would treat Christianity as another religion to be explained. Knowledge of what is meant by 'agnostic' and 'atheist' ought to be taught too.

Obviously, this course was not trying to tell me that any one of these was 'correct', but it did teach me something about what people in the world believe in - useful knowledge to have, just as knowledge of capitalism and socialism is useful.

Are you saying that no course in which religion is the primary interest should be taught (which would stop Comparative Religion), or just that no course should advocate one, or any, religion? I really do think that Comparative Religion is a good thing to teach - because it gives a more balanced view of other religions, and people without religions, than a child will get if they only learn at a church.

[Strong Atheist]

124. Post #118, not #116. Other than that, RELIGION

has no place being TAUGHT in PUBLIC school, just like PORNOGRAPHY has no place being TAUGHT in PUBLIC school. Keep all that stuff at home.


Luckily, those of you who think religion should be FORCED on the PUBLIC schools are in the EXTREME minority on D.U., according to the poll. :evilgrin:

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. Yes, I know you referred to post #118

but I was saying that your post #116 seems to throw doubt on your position. You now seem to be saying that any mention in school of what a religion believes is wrong - that is, you think that teaching ABOUT religion is wrong, as well as "teaching religion". I think you will stunt the knowledge of your pupils if you take that attitude.

If 18 year olds are meant to be able to vote, don't you think they ought to have some understanding of why Bush referred to invading Iraq as a 'crusade', and why Muslims objected to it? Wouldn't it be good for them to understand why the story about flushing Korans down the toilet at Guantanamo was interesting to people? If teachers just say "that's religion, we can't talk about that", there's more chance the children will get some bigotted version from a pastor.

How do you talk to your pupils about early English settlements in the US? Do you just say "some felt they were persecuted in England", but not mention that it was about religion? Do you mention that they had strict and intolerant religious ideas of their own?

[Strong Atheist]

127. "How do you talk to your pupils about early English

settlements in the US? Do you just say "some felt they were persecuted in England", but not mention that it was about religion? Do you mention that they had strict and intolerant religious ideas of their own?"

Religion is mentioned as little as possible, by the book and myself. The bare facts are stated. Fifteen minutes out of a year course, and we move on.

[Inland]

128. Sixth graders, no. I was thinking more hs junior, soph

but the simple fact is that teaching about religions isn't a violation of church and state. It would be a waste of a sixth graders time, but it's still a worthy subject.

[Strong Atheist]

129. "but the simple fact is that teaching about religions isn't

a violation of church and state."

Of course it is, till college, were boys and girls are old enough to fend for themselves.

[Inland]

130. I can see your desire to protect minors from exposure to ideas

you don't approve of, and I'm sure that there are fundamentalists of other stripes that agree. But you can't use the first amendment as the excuse to keep people ignorant. It works the other way around.

[Strong Atheist]

131. Not a first amendment issue. We don't hand out playboys,

and we don't hand out bibles. Neither belongs in school. Not a first amendment issue; separation of church and state...


Edited to add:

I can see your desire to protect minors from exposure to ideas

I can see your desire to try to ram your beliefs down the throats of minors, but luckily in THIS country we are protected from that LOL! And here on D.U., your beliefs are in the EXTREME minority, as evidenced by the poll. Have a NICE day!:evilgrin:

[Inland]

135. Um...I guess you could try to prove that religion is an inappropriate s

subject of study, but of course, you don't try.

You acknowledge, in fact, that one HAS to learn something about religions in history and art class, but then you compare it to pornography.

I say it can be in a comparative religions course, include atheism and satanism, and you say that I am trying to "ram my beliefs down the throats of minors." Which beliefs were those, beyond wanting people to understand the art and literature and history in the manner you concede is necessary?

Really, it's too silly. You use the first amendment and rhetoric about "ramming beliefs" to insulate children from knowledge. Another fundamentalist trying to keep their kids from learning. All I can say is, it's hardly surprising that so many on DU evidence ignorance of islam, fundamentalism, and express surprise that Pat Robertson and the Pope don't see eye to eye on things. Apparently even knowing about those things is "dangerous".

[Strong Atheist]

136. Lol! Well the ACLU and I and others like us will

continue to successfully oppose those who try to force religions into to the public schools. A toast to the ACLU! :toast:

*********************************************************************

My religious friend who I am relating this argument to right here says "and a toast to parents who want to teach their children the religion of their choice, not the schools' choice!"

:toast:

*********************************************************************

May you continue to lose on this issue in the courts for centuries to come!:toast:

[Inland]

137. ACLU knows a comp rel. class isn't teaching the "schools choce"

of a religion. If you can find an ACLU policy...or a policy of any rights group....against teaching ABOUT religion in school, I'd be pretty surprised. You yourself admitted that you teach about religion yourself, so it's hard to imagine any rights group going so far.

Certainly no court has. And we can see why, as few are of the opinion that learning is dangerous. Some fundies on both sides of the coin, and thanks to that, there are too many too ignorant today. The fundie religious are against science, and the fundie atheists are against learning about religion, and the poor kids end up in an knowledge free zone. Too bad. I think it makes them susceptible.

[Strong Atheist]

143. "against teaching ABOUT religion in school"

Comp classes are TEACHING religion. We can agree that that can be done at the college level.

and the fundie atheists are against learning about religion

Oh, I think atheists know WAY more than we care to about such things...
In case you didn't notice, it saturates the culture; it's like *, you can't get away from it no matter how hard you try ...

:evilgrin:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Fundamentalism cannot withstand actually studying the Bible

I've just started an Episcopal church-based curriculum for adults called Education for Ministry (EFM), and one of the requirements is to read the entire Bible all the way through (with supplementary materials about the historical background and textual history) over a period of two years. We're still in Genesis, and while I've known for a long time that there are TWO creation stories (one in which men and women were created together and one in which Eve was created from Adam's rib), I've noticed for the first time that there are TWO stories of Noah's ark, back to back.

There are also fragments that seem to come out of nowhere, a clear sign of multiple authorship. (I've also known about the multiple authorship since taking a Biblical studies course at my Lutheran undergraduate college...)

In addition, I'm noticing the sources of literary allusions and idioms that come from a time when everyone read the Bible. It's as startling as finding the sources of idioms and cliches in Shakespeare. (I remember everyone in my senior English class in high school laughing when we found that the phrase "sweets for the sweet" comes from Ophelia's funeral in Hamlet.)

I grew up as a preacher's kid, familiar with the major stories in the Bible, but I'm enjoying revisiting the old stories and discovering some of the parts in between for the first time.

I would not want anything like EFM taught in public schools, since it is designed for churches and includes a component of discussing one's spiritual and ethical issues. However, I see no harm in letting students know where so much of our literary heritage comes from.

[Igel]

117. I'm not quite sure that the discussion on DU has actually

dealt with the issue raised in the article that is linked to in the thread you referenced.

It's easy to let the topic drift from "teaching Bible as relevant to culture and history" to "teaching Christianity as a cultural institution" to "teaching Christianity as a single set of religious dogmas." Of course, the latter is a myth, but that doesn't stop people from discussing other myths, and even believing them. Slippery slopes to exist.

I'm learning some Arabic. Replete in the early stages are the expressions for "God willing" and "Thank God", as well as various greetings (including one with an "Islamic" cast to it). Also early on is discussed Muhammed's family tree. The Qur'aan and Islam figure prominently in some of the texts. One cannot follow basic texts unless one understands the system of allusions and implications in the vocabulary, constructions, and references. Therefore, to properly understand even much secular writing, one must have at least a passing knowledge of the Qur'aan: what it says, because the wording is important; and what it's construed to mean by various sects and subcultures, because that's what what's said has to be understood to say.

The same argument goes for Tolstoy and Dostoevski. Except there, one doesn't need to read just the Bible, but specifically the traditional Russian translation. Reading the Baptist Synodal translation doesn't cut it. And translations of Tolstoy and Dostoevski frequently just leave out layers of meaning. So at the state-sponsored university I studied at, our atheist professor advised us all to become intimately familiar with the Bible. He should have added the church calendar, saints' days, liturgy, and standard prayers. One can't parse 800 pages of text to point out all the Bible and Orthodox allusions without making the class one that deals primarily with the Bible, and dissecting the text to point out the most relevant allusions is, in effect, to rape it and forcibly remove the author and social setting from the narrative: if one is to understand what the text says, one should already be briefed on what's relevant before reading it, so that construal is part of the reading process. Unless we read literature not because of aesthetic quality, but just to pass a test, or even to engage in intellectual masturbation: who knew Tolstoy wrote specifically about my problems last week with my republican parents? It's hard enough to not know the history, folk allusions and tropes properly: but usually a brief summary of the relevant events is sufficient, and dealing with the language is a long term affair.

English literature, and American literature even less, relies on Biblical allusions. But they're there. A fair number of American social movements involved religious thinking: sometimes traditional interpretations, sometimes reworked interpretations. But you can't see the reworking and recognize the innovations unless you know the traditional ones. A lot of political speeches, even by those that we progressives look to, rely on Bible motifs and themes. MLK drew heavily from that particular well. To understand what he's saying, in context, requires knowledge of the context. To understand Cotton Mather requires knowing what the hell his thinking was. This doesn't require believing; it requires understanding a set of facts. Those facts aren't typically taught these days, and you don't get them in most readings or in popular culture. Conclusion: We don't need Franklin, Jefferson, Mathew, MLK, or even Dickens. We have Mariah Carey. Hallelucarey! As for the rest, "critical thinking" means parroting whatever the high school teacher says.

I don't know what the answer is; having believing Christians in a Bible class would surely invite a few problems--polemic concerning points of interpretation, feelings of affirmation and validation (that they must, by all means, be denied in a secular, religion-tolerating state), claims that one POV is emphasized to the detriment of another. But straw man arguments that to be given a passing knowledge of the Qur'aan equates to indoctrination into Salafism work as well as to say that my reading the Torah in a *required* freshman literature class at a state university made me a Lubovitcher, or having a social and literary class (completely elective, at that) on the Bible makes kids into RW fundies. I guess reading Dante made me a medieval Italian Catholic. Ciao.

[Strong Atheist]

118. To be honest, I was not thinking of higher learning. You are

big boys and girls at that point, you can look out for yourselves. Besides, in college these things are electives. I am talking about high school and down, which is where the church/state wars generally are, and where I teach. The person I was arguing with in the other thread wanted religion TAUGHT in public schools below the college level, and that is just plain wrong....

[kwassa]

125. I don't think teaching comparative religion in high school is wrong

but short of an AP elective, it won't happen. The high school curriculum is not broad enough to encompass comparative religion. There simply isn't enough time to give kids the basic skills they need to get into college and stay there successfully, to teach something as specialized as this.

I do agree that Christianity as a cultural influence on Western culture is very important, and it is hard to understand many classic works without the knowledge and understanding of the Bible references in the first place. This is true in literature, visual art, architecture, and music.

[Strong Atheist]

132. "I don't think teaching comparative religion in high

school is wrong"

Of course it is. Separation of church and state. Keep that in your home/church/PRIVATE school, just like porn. Neither belongs in the PUBLIC schools, being funded with PUBLIC money...

[kwassa]

133. Teaching ABOUT religion is not TEACHING religion.

Do you see the difference?

Apparently not.

[Strong Atheist]

134. Of course. Teaching comparative religion is

teaching about religion, not mentioning it in passing when you teach history or literature. Duh. Keep that in you church, where it belongs.

[kwassa]

139. Comparitive religion is taught in colleges, not in any church that I know

Churches have no interest in teaching any other religion than their own, and even then, their own version of their own. Comparitive religion is currently part of college curriculums. Atheism, by the way, can be taught as part of a comparitive religion course.

Unfortunately for this forum, however, many atheists are extremely ignortant about Christianity or any other religious practice in the world. It is like talking mathematics with someone who has never taken a math course. They assume they ought to be able just to figure it out without ever actually studying it.

[Strong Atheist]

142. "Comparitive religion is taught in colleges"

I agree that it can be taught there. That is fine. We agree on that point.

Churches have no interest in teaching any other religion than their own

Lol, can't stand the competition! I agree with you again!



Unfortunately for this forum, however, many atheists are extremely ignortant about Christianity or any other religious practice in the world.

...and some could argue rings around some religious people about their own teachings. I admit that I have not studied religions in depth; I have no desire to waste my time that way. All the info I HAVE seen in my life has painted a complete enough picture, including having had to go to church for the first 12 years of my life. If that was not enough to give me the proper info, nothing would be ...

[WhollyHeretic]

144. That is absolutely ridiculous. The majority of atheists I know, including

the ones here know more about religion than most religious folks. I've read the Old and New Testament, Tao Te Ching, Qur'an, and parts of the Mahabharata. Most Christians haven't even read the entire bible. Most Christians know a few hand-picked passages that support there world view and are woefully ignorant of the rest of the bible.

[kwassa]

146. I disagree, of course

Otherwise many of the questions here wouldn't be so inane.

and I am reminded of a line from "A Fish Called Wanda". Something about gorillas that read Nietzsche. Not that this is the problem with anyone here.

[WhollyHeretic]

147. I don't really expect a whole lot of reading comprehension from

people who can't discern the difference between fantasy and reality.

[kwassa]

148. You are easily comprehended.

[WhollyHeretic]

149. .

:rofl: Thanks for proving my point.

[kwassa]

150. What? You had a point?

No shit.

[WhollyHeretic]

151. Don't strain your mind

Why don't you go outside and relax for a while, maybe try to catch a leprechaun.

[kwassa]

152. The leprechaun and I will be chuckling for hours over this one:

"The majority of atheists I know, including the ones here know more about religion than most religious folks."

Good joke!

[barb162]

138. I think that poster you highlighted was suggesting

that it be taught as a history/sociological/cultural item showing ts influence on society versus teaching christin doctrine. But you have an excellent point too, that you then end up teaching Buddhism, Islam, each Protestant difference, etc.

[Strong Atheist]

141. I don't think so. I made my position crystal clear, yet he

argued with me. Since then, I have given him several opportunities to say that religion should not be taught (as opposed to taught ABOUT) in PUBLIC schools, and he has refused to do so. What does that say? The answer is obvious ...

[nemo137]

140. We studied the religious contexts of history as part of AP World and Euro

Also in freshman world history and all 4 years of English. So we learned the basics of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Medieval Catholicism, German protestantism (Luther, Calvin and Zwingli), Anglicanism (Cranmer and early development), and Near Eastern Mythology, as well as why all of those were important to the time period we were studying. It's essential to know the backgroud for the really religiously informed periods of history, and to pick up things in literature ranging from the Illiad to Emily Dickenson. There's no need for a separate religion class, just teach about it in the existing English and history classes.

[Strong Atheist]

153. Agreed. nt.

[MemphisTiger]

145. Other, with all the dispute lately about what Islam or Chistianity

is and what it represents. I think it's a good idea to teach people the basic beliefs of each major religion in a history class. This would include Buddism, Hinduism, etc. These religions played a major part in history and still play a major part today and kids need to know what the differences are. However, they do not need to recite prayer or couduct any religious ceremony. If religion classes are taught, there needs to be an alternative class for students to take if it is against their personal beliefs.

[Strong Atheist]

154. "If religion classes are taught,"

Religion classes should NEVER be TAUGHT in PUBLIC schools (below college level, I am now modifying my statements).

[MemphisTiger]

155. What is wrong with learning about history?

That is the perspective I was speaking of.

[Strong Atheist]

156. No. Your words:

I think it's a good idea to teach people the basic beliefs of each major religion

No, this is not a good idea. It is a terrible idea IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Keep that in the home/church/religious schools. Don't use my tax money to force your religion in PUBLIC schools (not to mention forcing me to teach that non sense...)

[MemphisTiger]

157. I never said to force them to believe it, I said teach it

as history like the crusades and spanish inquisition. Religion has played a major part in recorded history. It needs to be discussed. To shield kids from this fuels ignorance and the kind of hate toward the Muslim religion we see today.

[Strong Atheist]

158. I have already said that religion can be mentioned in passing

in history and literature courses, and that comparative religion can be taught in colleges, but RELIGION has no place in PUBLIC SCHOOLS other than that.

[MemphisTiger]

159. I agree

[Strong Atheist]

160. Fine!

:toast: