Posted on 08/24/2008 2:16:12 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“If you teach Christianity in certain public schools, then you have to allow Islam to be taught in others, if the local community wants it to be taught. Give that some thought.”Hey Blade, are you sure your not putting up a strawman here?
“Click on the link, dumbass.”Knock it off!
I believe that metmom has stated upthread that she is in favor of Christian-prayer and Bible study in public schools.
That, IMO, is the teaching of Christianity in public schools.
“I believe that metmom has stated upthread that she is in favor of Christian-prayer and Bible study in public schools.I didn't see where she said that, and you have completely failed to link to where she said that.
That, IMO, is the teaching of Christianity in public schools.”
Metmom and I were talking about allowing teachers, during school hours, to lead prayers and read from the Bible- that is an unconstitutional practice, as it involves the expenditure of public money to teach the tenets of one religion.
We're not talking about students starting up parayer groups or Bible-study clubs, which is a wholly different issue, and has been ruled Constitutional on many occasions.
There is a difference between public funds being spent on the government sanctioned teaching of Religious material, and the free exercise of constitutional rights in public.
Of course there is, and 1st Amendment case law is pretty clear that it is unconstitutional for teachers to lead prayer or read to the students from religious books during class time. It has also ruled that schools have to allow students to exercise their religion, with some reasonable limitations (such as that they can't try to convert their classmates in the middle of math class).
“Metmom and I were talking about allowing teachers, during school hours, to lead prayers and read from the Bible- that is an unconstitutional practice, as it involves the expenditure of public money to teach the tenets of one religion.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]Once again, you fail to provide links.
“We're not talking about students starting up parayer groups or Bible-study clubs, which is a wholly different issue, and has been ruled Constitutional on many occasions.” [excerpt]Oh really?
As far as teacher led anything reading and prayer, as long as its not mandatory, I don't see what anyone could do about it.
I don't think I'm misrepresenting her position when I conclude that she is okay with teachers leading prayer and Bible-reading during class time. That's what I took from our exchange, but she is free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
By your own admission, you were talking about allowing, not mandating and funding.
If a school allows a teacher to use class time for prayer and Bible reading, then public money (such as the portion of the teacher's salary as well as the cost of running that classroom during that time) is funding that teacher's religious activities.
Its only unconstitutional if the state sanctions and funds it.
If the school allows a teacher to use class time for these activities, how is that not sanctioning and funding of the activity?
What if a teacher wants to start and lead a prayer/bible-study group?
Outside of class time, that's fine. The school would have to treat that the same way as they would treat any other club started by a teacher.
So Bladey, next are you going to tell me that thanksgiving is unconstitutional?
Why would it be?
Should teachers be prohibited from saying 'Mary Christmas'?
There's no Constitutional bar to teachers wishing their students a Merry Christma, Happy Passover or Joyous Eid.
Should all the buildings in Washington D.C. have all references to God sandblasted off?
I'm only familiar with the murals on the side of the SCOTUS building, which are an exhibit of historic lawgivers, not a religous display.
The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Of course. What's your point?
That statement applies to trying to argue with an opponent who uses dirty tactics. I haven't done so on this thread, AFAIK.
Its been my observation that when someone does not have a valid argument, they resort to cheap slight of hand tricks like bait-and-switch, elephant hurling and strawmen, etc.
That's nice. But what does it have to do with our discussion here?
Now, why don't you go do something useful like donating to some hurricane relief fund, or better yet, the next FReepathon.
I'll give your advice the consideration it deserves. Which is pretty much none.
Well, that IS your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it under the Constitution (even though you're not right), just as students and teachers alike are allowed the free exercise of their religion under the Constitution.
There is no exemption in the First Amendment that prevents any public employee from availing themselves of their right to the free exercise of their religion.
If that's what the framers meant, they would have put a stop to it back in the 1700's when everyone practiced their religion freely anywhere they wanted in public.
So by your reasoning, the military should not have chaplains, the House and Senate should not open with prayer, there should not be a chaplain for the House of Representatives, because that would be establishing a religion.
We should take down any copy of the Ten Commandments in every town and city across the country because having public funding paying for the erection and maintenance of those is establishing a religion.
While we're at it, we ought to get rid of all those statues commemorating war heroes etc, if they have any religious reference engraved on them.
Just how far do you propose on going with this "reasoning" that allowing is endorsing?
You certainly are misrepresenting my position.
For one thing, I don't advocate using classroom time for prayer and Bible reading. I'm talking about opening the day with it as used to happen in schools across this country for most of its history. No one considered that the *establishment* of religion for the hundreds of years in which it happened. I'm sure it happened in public schools at the time the Constitution was written and the framers and signers of the Constitution never insisted that schools not open with Bible reading and prayer, and they would know what they meant. If they thought that that activity represented the "establishment" of religion, they would have put a stop to it then and there.
Another misrepresentation is when you equate "allowing" with "teaching" and say that when I say "allow", I mean "teach". No. They are not the same thing.
Allowing is permitting, teaching is educating. Neither one qualifies as establishing.
But okay, you mean outside of class time. Do you mean during official school hours, or after? In other words, if school starts at 8:15, does this "opening the day" activity happen from 8:05 to 8:15 for any kids that are interested enough to show up early, or is it an official school activity that happens from 8:15 to 8:25, and the kids that aren't interested have to be at school then anyway? If it's outside of class time, Citizen Blade has already said that's fine.
You have also said that "If I sent my kids to those schools [in a country where the majority religion was not the one I practiced], I would expect them to hear about that religion" (#307). It sounds like you expect non-Christian kids to be there for the prayers and Bible reading--is that accurate?
That's still classroom time- the kids are in their seats and school has started. I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw.
No one considered that the *establishment* of religion for the hundreds of years in which it happened.
People can be blinded by their own cultural assumptions. For much of American history, the student body of any given school was probably 99% Christian. Though still majority Christian, we're no longer so overwhelmingly religiously homogenous. Preventing the majority from using tax dollars for religious purposes, especially in the context of public schools where kids are required to attend, seems to be the heart of what the 1st Amendment was aiming at.
Another misrepresentation is when you equate "allowing" with "teaching" and say that when I say "allow", I mean "teach". No. They are not the same thing.
If we're talking about a teacher reading from the Bible and leading prayers during during class time, I again can't see the distiniction between "allowing" and "teaching," in that context. What's the difference, in your mind?
No problem. Chaplains respect and aid all members of the service and generally do not "preach religion.
the House and Senate should not open with prayer, there should not be a chaplain for the House of Representatives,
There was a time in US early history that they had no chaplain because our founders felt that it violated church/state separation.
It is impossible to live a perfect life, ergo, live a life of sin?
It is impossible to live a perfect life, ergo, live a life of sin?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We all sin. Thankfully, we have Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Even though the righteous person sins, he can, at the same time, renounce the sin. In fact, it is a moral person’s obligation to renounce sin, while striving for repentance.
The hypocrite is the person, who condemns others for behavior that he believes he has a right and dispensation to commit.
So....I doubt that you will hear the word sin mentioned very often in the government school. Failing to teach about sin has just a profound religious consequence and discussing it. In other words, this is one more example of why government schools can not be religiously neutral.
Hiya, newbie.
"Hiya, newbie."I must admit I was a bit surprised to see such a foul personal insult coming from an old salt like yourself.
The government school is in a Catch 22. Allowing funding to follow the child is a a solution to this Catch 22.
Where is the Catch 22? Please compare the following:
1) The very act of forcing children into government buildings and ordering them to be silent most of the day automatically prohibits the free exercise of religion of the children and their parents. It does not matter that these buildings are misnamed “schools”.
2) Allowing children to freely speak about their religion and exercise their religion would create chaos in the classroom, and subject other unwilling captive children to their proselytizing.
3) Forbidding the teaching of religion by the government teaches all the children that religion is unimportant, irrelevant, or ( worse of all) is so shameful it must be hidden like a bathroom activity.
4) Teaching about religion immediately puts the government into the position of establishing religion. Which religion gets the government imprimatur? And...There are parents who do not want their child exposed to any religion whatsoever.
So....Fichori....There is only **one** possible solution! Start the process of getting government out of the education business.
There is no possible way that government schools can avoid establishing religion. They will either establish are godless worldview or a God-centered one, and neither is religiously neutral. Government schools will silence religious speech and practice of religion.
"So....Fichori....There is only **one** possible solution! Start the process of getting government out of the education business."I am with you 100% on that!
Homeschooling
Private/Charter schools
.
.
.
.
Government schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.