[Glock Glockler]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84997,00.html

I wonder what's next: the prohibiting of mentioning what faith one is, or maybe those with religious names will have to get govt. approved code names to use in schools. It certainly is refreshing that people are standing up to the govt's attempt to eradicate religion.

[Marko Kloos]

Contrast that with schools in this area, where teachers made a Jewish student remove her Star of David as a "gang-related" symbol, and where the same school told the Jewish parents flat-out that "if parents don't save souls, we will". We just recently had a lawsuit by parents whose daughter was continually harassed by students and teachers for not wanting to participate in the annual crusade, which is heavily endorsed and promoted by the school.

If you think that religious expression is stifled in public schools, I'll let you go to the local mountain county school where my wife does speech therapy: every Wednesday, they have a Baptist preacher and his wife come in to witness and preach to the kids before school. Just before Easter, a teacher asked her kids (in earshot of my wife) if they knew what happened on Friday, and told them about Good Friday. "That's when Jesus died for our sins!" That goes beyond teaching kids about religion and letting them make up their own minds; that's a state-paid teacher endorsing and presenting the tenets a specific religion as indisputable fact to a classroom of CDC kids.

I don't agree with prohibiting "religious jewelry", since personal expressions of faith are constitutionally permitted in public schools. It only becomes a problem when an agent of the state (a teacher) promotes or endorses one religion over all others while on the clock. I do see where the line would be difficult to draw, though. If a cross is OK, how about a pentacle? Or a yarmulke? Or a Sikh turban? How about a Muslim keffi'yah or bur'qa? You either have to allow all of them as part of the teacher's personal religious expression, or prohibit all of them. I lean towards allowing all of them as equal opportunity to express personal faith, but I can guarantee you that the same parents who don't mind a cross around a teacher's neck down here would scream bloody murder if the same teacher showed up with a pentacle or a bur'qa.

[Sir Galahad]

The religous talisman ban was so that no one of other faiths would be "offended". Can someone show me in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says people have the right to NOT be offended? The First Amendment specifically guaruntees religious freedom, to include religious expression of faith (as in wearing a Crucifix, Star of David, or Pentacle.) Now, lots of liberals think the term "separation of church and state" appears somewhere in the Constutition, but, in fact, it does not. Where it says, "...shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion...", the word "respecting" is not in the context of "paying homage to". It is in the context of "in respect to" or "in regards of". That means the government CANNOT pass laws forbidding religion or telling you what religion you have to believe in. A teacher wearing a cross is not a state endorsement of Christianity. Has this teacher's Constitutional rights been violated? Yes. The government has put FEELINGS (which are not Constitutional rights; you do not have to right to not be offended) over this teacher's First Amendment rights. Am I saying that teachers should be allowed to wear Crucifixes, Stars of Davids, burqas, Pentacles? Yes. I am saying that.

What I find disturbing is that the new mantra of "diversity" seems to exclude Christians. Now, mind you, I am not a Christian and even I see this! Christians are fair targets for various laws and "tolerance" issues and that, quite frankly, is wrong. I am not saying Christians should be witnessing in public schools. But ging so far as to forbid someone a talisman of their faith (which some people attach certain protective qualities to also) is the first step towards what the First Amendment was written to prevent: the government passing laws in RESPECT to the establishment of religion. And it also persecutes a faith for holding beliefs that some people dislike.

[Glock Glockler]

Lendrigser,

The situation I posted about and the ones you describe are both wrong, and just because you might have one instance of something really over the top, like the state ramrodding religion down someone's throat, does not excuse the govt from telling a techer to take off her crucifix.

I agree that the "line" can be a very difficult thing to distinguish, but I do know that the govt is basically a pack of thugs out for their own interests, which might be forcefully promoting religion or banning it outright, depending on where you are.

I think a much better arbitrator of where the line should be is the free market. You can play your games and I can play mine, everybody's happy. If I want to send my kid to a Catholic school, it's no skin off your back, and if you want to send your kid to a school where the word "God" is not allowed to be uttered, it's no skin off mine.

Govt involvement in schooling has been an absolute disaster, the last thing we need is them aggravitating the situation by deciding what manner of dress and jewelry teachers can wear.

[Gmac]

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF". What's so hard to understand about that? ( This from someone too ignorant to use bold script):p

[Marko Kloos]

Like I said, it's not unconstitutional (and shouldn't be illegal) for a teacher to wear religious jewelry or garb as a sign of personal faith, but it should be illegal (and is unconstitutional) for that same teacher to actively endorse their particular religion while being on the government's payroll.

[Standing Wolf]

The leftist extremists are using—abusing—the First Amendment as an excuse to wage jihad against Christians and Christianity.

[Glock Glockler]

"but it should be illegal (and is unconstitutional) for that same teacher to actively endorse their particular religion"

You said yourself that this can be a difficult thing to distinguish, yes?

"while being on the government's payroll"

This, fortunately, is not a difficult thing to distinguish. You've heard of 'divide and conquer", yes? When things of this nature become areas of the state, everyone tries to use the state as a lever to push their agenda, so why don't we get the state out of it all together? That way, you and I, along with scores of others, can go back to argueing about something else, and it would probably have to what other stuff to get the govt out of.

Govt thugs love issues like this, because it gets pro-freedom people of various opinions and convictions to argue with each other, diverting their attention away from other nonsense the govt is pulling.

[zahc]

One thing I'd like to point out, is that in many religious arguments ppl tend to treat Atheism as religiousy neutral. It is not.

If the government allows no mention of God or gods then it has made Atheism the state religion. Athiesm IS religion. So the government can't just say "ok, no mention of God or any god" because that would be endorsing atheism. It's quite messy.

[Marko Kloos]

Athiesm IS religion

That's factually incorrect. If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color. There is nothing common to any group of atheists, other than a lack of belief in the existence of a god. If you call atheism a religion, then every group of people loosely sharing a belief becomes a religion by your definition. Republicans, golfers, NASCAR fans...you get the idea. Religion is defined (in the Oxford English Dictionary) as follows:

"Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or in a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means to to achieve spiritual or material improvement; acceptance of such belief (esp. as represented by an organized Church) as a standard of spiritual and practical life; the expression of this in worship etc., also: a particular system of such belief."

Atheism does not constitute a religion by any accepted definition. If you stretch the definition of religion so far as to include atheism, you render it meaningless.

[zahc]

I was trying to make the point, though, that the government endorsing atheism, to the point of prohibiting religion, is certainly not being religiously tolerant and neutral. The government cannot enact an official state uh, atheism.

Forcing atheism ("So the government can't just say "ok, no mention of God or any god" because that would be endorsing atheism"--me) is 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.

So the statement "atheism IS religion"--me again, was not correct, thanks. But my point stands.

[MeekandMild]

I took the liberty of resorting your post for commentary.

That's factually incorrect. If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color.

That is not at all a true analogy. I do hope you are merely trying to illustrate by analogy rather than reasoning by analogy. You are making the common mistake of confusing "religion" with "establishment of religion".

Religion is a set of beliefs with which one governs their life. The beliefs can be theistic or atheistic or animistic something in between. They can be individual or mutally held and can be associated with any amount of ritual from none to the weeklong fasting and meditation associated with the contemplative sects.

Establishment of religon is the codification and formalization of agreed upon beliefs associated with an hierarchy of leadership. The key here is the hierarchy of leadership, which the founding fathers did not want to become part of the government. Such codification of the humanist manifesto and other secular works sufficiently meets and exceeds the definition of religious establishement.

Let me help you by paring down the redundant verbage in your dictionary quote:
"Belief ... in a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means to to achieve... material improvement; acceptance of such belief ...as a standard ...of...practical life...also: a particular system of such belief."

There is nothing common to any group of atheists, other than a lack of belief in the existence of a god. Nor is there anything common to any group of theists other than the belief in the existance of a god. You merely make the assertion that atheists have sects, groupings and divergent (a)theologies. Which is of course true.

Sadly, I doubt the garden variety Eurohumanist atheist would recognize a Zen thinker as being a brother and kindred spirit, due to the latter's experiantial exploration of the transhuman dimension.


Jumping back on topic now, I think the problem is not that there is religious expression in the schools but that the State has taken over the education of the children, taking it away from the family and non-State community. I'm much more comfortable with the various sects, including the hundred or so flavors of Atheism, providing private schooling to their respective children than the monolithic State trying to be all to everyone.

[dev_null]

I'm a strong "separationist," so to speak, but I cannot see the sense in the religious jewelry ban.

-0-

[Destructo6]

As said, atheism is as faith-based as Christianity, Islam, etc.

Number 4 should be of particular interest here.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

I wonder if the same school would prohibit a woman from wearing a burkha or hijab.

[Chris Rhines]

The obvious solution is to eliminate government schools.

- Chris

[Zundfolge]

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF". What's so hard to understand about that?

Its about as difficult to understand as "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

:banghead:


(oh well, at least I got this discussion back to firearms :neener: )

[Feanaro]

I don't see how a cross could offend anyone. And if it does they are way too high-strung. If people are preaching in school, okay, I might have a problem with that. But wearing a cross is far from preaching or bringing church and state together.

[Don Gwinn]

Who said anything about endorsing Atheism? If a school does not allow teachers to preach, it's endorsing Atheism? Doesn't make much sense to me. At most schools, a teacher pushing Atheism is smacked down just as hard as a Christian who wants to teach the students the miracle of the Gospel (or NOT smacked down, as the case may be.)

If a teacher feels strongly that it's his job to teach the students religion, rather than the job of their parents, then he ought to do the honorable thing and work at a religious private school where the parents sign on for that sort of thing.

There is nothing wrong with strong religious preaching, just as there is nothing wrong with making love to one's wife. However, neither is appropriate for a teacher on the clock in a school building. If you want your kids to learn about your religion, you teach them. It's not only not my job, it's the opposite of my job.

[Zander]

We just recently had a lawsuit by parents whose daughter was continually harassed by students and teachers for not wanting to participate in the annual crusade, which is heavily endorsed and promoted by the school. I haven't seen any opinion to the contrary; in fact, the local school board has refused comment pending the resolution of the lawsuit. Isn't this fact? If so, what do you know about the opposing opinion...or is that important to your argument?

...every Wednesday, they have a Baptist preacher and his wife come in to witness and preach to the kids before school.If it's before school, what is your objection? Are you in favor of banning student prayer-groups which meet before classes start? Can students expect protection when they gather before school to pray as a group without being murdered by the likes of Michael Carneal?

Are you familiar with the 1st Amendment Right re: freedom of expression of religion?

It only becomes a problem when an agent of the state (a teacher) promotes or endorses one religion over all others while on the clock.Then you would be in favor of banning a teacher carrying a Bible to class? How 'bout if a teacher says grace over her lunch? Students sharing prayer over their lunches? A student giving thanks to God during her valedictory address at graduation? A student choosing the life of Jesus Christ as the subject of his essay for his senior English class? All of these were were "banned" by overzealous, discriminatory school administrators/teachers...the latter two within twenty miles of my home..."down here".

Are you familiar with the 1st Amendment re: freedom of religious expression? Not the bastardized definition of "freedom from religion" but the freedom of religion?

I lean towards allowing all of them as equal opportunity to express personal faith, but I can guarantee you that the same parents who don't mind a cross around a teacher's neck down here would scream bloody murder if the same teacher showed up with a pentacle or a bur'qa."Down here"?!? How exactly do you define "down here"?

I repeat: Are you familiar with the 1st Amendment re: freedom of religious expression? Or are we to gather from your remarks that those of us "down here" are just too stupid to understand the true meaning of the 1st Amendment?

[Zander]

The obvious solution is to eliminate government schools. -- CRVery occasionally, we agree...

[Beorn]

Dear God, how did this topic get so off-topic?

The problem with most public schools is that they receive public funds, therefore, legislators who know nothing about education tell teachers/adminstrators what to do.

Let the teachers teach, let the students study, let the counsellors council, and let the administrators deal with the daily ministrations of the school site, and most of the problems would go away.