Religion in school

[Runt]

Um, WHERE? How in the world are you coming to such assumptions?

*shrug* You asked for it.

Where I came up with the crazy notion that the Constitution calls for a seperation of church and state:

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Article VI " The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

No, the exact wording "Seperation of Church and State" is not found in the constitution. However, Congress has an interesting little set of powers called the Implied Powers, which are granted by the the Elastic Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause.

Elastic/Necessary and Proper Clause: allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. " (Article I, Section 8 )

The Implied Powers granted by the Elastic Clause allow legislaters to make the laws we need to survive in our changing society, so that we are not living in the modern word with an anachronistic body of laws. They led to the loose interpretation of our Congress we use today and have used for some time, which allows us to make laws and give our government powers that are not explicitely stated in the constitution. For example, we can have an air force, even though the makers of the Constitution did not know about airplanes, because the Constitution allows for the formation of an army and navy, and therefore it is IMPLIED that it also allows for the formation of an airforce.

These powers also allow courts and legislaters to interpret the above Articles to mean there must be a "seperation of church and state". Which they have done. Multiple times.

Court cases dealing with the issues:

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948): Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

 

[F_R_O_G]

Two words "previous posts"

If we say that these "implied powers" make it so congress can do whatever it wants then our constitution is meaningless

The courts decisions don't matter because we are debating what the constitution means not what judges think the constitution means, furthermore we have the phrase "in God we trust" on our coins and many other double standards

 

[Runt]

Two words "previous posts"

I've read the previous posts. All of them. I was the original moderater of this forum, remember?

In the previous posts people provided some of this evidence. You claimed it had been taken out of context and thus was not conclusive. I put it back in context and am showing you that it IS conclusive, and why.

If we say that these "implied powers" make it so congress can do whatever it wants then our constitution is meaningless

This is why we are lucky we have the Supreme Court. It gets to declare whether or not something is "constitutional". (Have you never taken a government class before or is it that long since high school?) It has prevented Congress from doing several of the things it wanted to do in history, thereby protecting the American people.

The courts decisions don't matter because we are debating what the constitution means not what judges think the constitution means

Ah, but again you are wrong my friend. The court decisions DO matter because, you see, one of the powers of the Supreme Court is the ability to have the final say in the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the only one allowed to decide what the Constitution is really saying... this is established in Article III of the Constitution.

Article III, Section II: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

The part about the courts being allowed to handle "cases arising under this Constitution" established the SC's right to be the ones who decide what the Constitution is really saying. This right is called "Judicial Review" and was established in the case Marbury vs Madison.

 

[F_R_O_G]

Actually I took a class called "law and American society" this year it was really interesting and that’s where I wrote my voluntary essay on what the first amendment really means... I’m glad the Supreme Court has protected my rights.

Yup your right the courts do have the final say on what the constitution means and that’s why we no longer practice memorization by quoting Bible verses, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Isn’t that what were talking about whether the courts are right or wrong? I’m trying to tell you why the courts are wrong

Are we going to continue to talk about what this post is about, or do you have a response to the post that I posted 9 posts ago? er... the one titled "miss conseptions"

 

[Runt]

Are we going to continue to talk about what this post is about, or do you have a response to the post that I posted 9 posts ago? er... the one titled "miss conseptions"

As a matter of fact, I did have a response to that post a while ago... but I will respond again.

I see your enthusiasm and that it may look like there is separation of church and state but you have misquoted, stretched, and simply miss understood the constitution.

I have already responded to this by putting some of Death's "evidence" back in to context... which shows that the Constitution says exactly what he thought it did. Show me evidence that it DIDN'T, taking into account both the strict and loose interpretation used by legislators and the Supreme Court.

In the first amendment it says congress can not interfere with anything religious, it says nothing about religion being a part of high school, only that congress cannot make laws that restrict religion (that’s why it's in the Bill of Rights) furthermore it is only referring to congress it does not say government, president, state, or school. It’s ONLY refers to congress making a law.

Again, the part of the first amendment about religion says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Don't you think making laws that allow religion to be a part of high school counts as a law that respects an establishment of religion? A law respecting, in particular, the Christian establishment of religion?

When you said that the constitution says "only that congress cannot make laws that restrict religion" you were ignoring this first part of this statement in the Amendment in favor of the second.

furthermore it is only referring to congress it does not say government, president, state, or school. It’s ONLY refers to congress making a law.

Again, the only governmental body that can make laws IS Congress.

The President CANNOT make laws... he cannot even propose laws.

The Supreme Court can declare a law unconsititutional, and the President can threaten to veto a law, but they cannot make laws and they cannot initiate them.

Schools can make their own laws, as can states, but only so long as the Supreme Court considers their actions constitutional and Congress doesn't make laws that nullify school rules and state laws. And, Congress has made laws forbidding religion to be practiced or taught in school, and the Supreme Court has said, "Yes, the Constitution DOES suggest this, it is constitutional."

I never said the Christian religion is the official United States religion and it is not, simply that when the constitution was being made all laws, rights, and restrictions were made with christen morals so therefore laws are made with christen morals. They would not teach the ABCs with bible verse unless it was acceptable by the US constitution, and it is.

Yes, when the Constitution was made it was made with Christian morals in mind, and yes, SOME of the early laws were made with the same morals. However, SOME aspects of Christian moral code were left out of the Constitution, purposely, because they were believed to have no place in a governmental body. The only Christian morals in the Constitution also happen to be shared with many other religions; that is why they have not been removed from the Constitution. They only taught the ABCs with bible verse waay back when it was acceptable; however, since then the interpretation of the Constitution has changed, and it is not allowed anymore (except in some schools that manage to defy the system).

The treaty of triply that you mentioned may look at first as an official statement that we are not a christen nation but once again you have miss quoted the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty makes it VERY clear that this nation is a christen nation. The proof surrounding my argument is so extensive that I would not be able to post it here... so I have provided a link http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

I neither know about the Treaty of Triply, nor care about it. It is irrelevant, because it did not, and CANNOT, be used to interpret the Constitution. And you are making the mistaken assumption that if the founding fathers were Christian, then our government is based completely on Christian ideals, when the truth is that, despite their own religious beliefs, they were very careful to do their best NOT to instill too much religion into the Constitution. Remember that one of the original reasons people came over to the "New World" (other than to seek wealth) was to escape religious persecution in Europe under the theocracies in power over there. The founding fathers were too smart to try to place similar restrictions on the citizens of the new country. Thus, they made laws that while based somewhat on Christian (and, unknowingly, other religion's) morals, did not restrict the freedom of other religions, and did not allow for the state to become mixed up in matters of faith.

I’m so glad you brought up the letter from Tomas Jefferson... first we must note that it is a letter, not an official document, that’s not to say this does not support freedom of religion, it does, just that it does not hold the same weight as the constitution. You did miss some parts "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Yes, it does not hold the same weight as the Constitution, and neither does the Treaty of Triply. But neither does it support that the US is a Christian nation. It is a nation filled with Christian, founded with some Christian ideals, but that has slowly been changing over time as people insist more and more that the government abide by the court decisions about the seperation of church and state.

his intent when he talked about a wall of separation is solely in making a law. This once again states that there should not be any restrictions on religion, nothing to do with this country being a christen nation.

Yes, solely in making a law. But he did not JUST mean that there should not be restrictions on religion. He also meant that religious beliefs should have no weight in creating laws.

The words directly fallowing your quote of the letter is "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." this makes it even more clear that the wall is meant only for congress restricting the rights of man.

The rights of man he spoke of were the Rights of Man proposed by Locke in the 18th century: equality and liberty.

Locke basically suggested, by equality, that all men are equal because all men have the liberty (not, however, that all men are equal under law, just under opportunity) to pursue different ends, to have nothing in common but this right.

Now, one of the ways in which Congress could have restricted the rights of man is by imposing laws based only on religion; however, most of these laws have gradually been eradicated.

And whether this one little passage suggests that Congress cannot make laws on a religious basis or only that it can't make laws restricting the rights of man, Jefferson STILL said earlier in the letter that there should be a "Wall of seperation between church and state".

You are obviously an atheist and you are allowed to believe what you do. But as soon as you try to say the constitution only supports atheists, you’re trying to push atheism on others. It supports freedom of religion.

Saying that laws supporting religious beliefs are unconstitutional is not the same as saying the Constitution supports only atheists. It is merely saying that it does not support only Christians, or, for that matter, ANY religion over another!

 

[F_R_O_G]

I never asked for congress to establish the Christian religion as the only religion that can be thought in school

Could someone please explain this misunderstanding in the first amendment it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It clearly says that congress cannot make any law that favors one religion over another and that congress cannot make any law that restricts people from fallowing there religion. Once again it says Congress has nothing to do with religion being in high school it's up to the sates.

Schools can make their own laws, as can states, but only so long as the Supreme Court considers their actions constitutional and Congress doesn't make laws that nullify school rules and state laws.

good I’m glad we agree again, but congress cannot make laws that restrict religion. the judicial branch has completely overstepped it's boundary’s by saying praying aloud is not ok. where they get this I don't know...

Congress has made laws forbidding religion to be practiced or taught in school

really what ones? if it has, those laws are unconstitutional

the Supreme Court has said, "Yes, the Constitution DOES suggest this, it is constitutional."

isn't that the question. is the Supreme Court right in allowing religiously restrictive laws and making it's own religiously restrictive rulings? I’m saying the Supreme Court is wrong in restricting religion in school and, correct me if I’m wrong, your saying the Supreme Court is right in restricting religion in schools.

They only taught the ABCs with bible verse waay back when it was acceptable; however, since then the interpretation of the Constitution has changed, and it is not allowed anymore

shouldn't the constitution be interpreted the same way all the time, no matter what date this is. what makes you think we are more intelligent in interpreting the constitution than those that were around when the constitution was being made?

before my post on the treaty of triply I had only heard of it before and I had no clue what it meant, but I did know that treaties trump the constitution, so therefore it is VERY important. I spent at least a good hour researching the treaty and for a time thought that it did say that we are not a Christian nation, but soon released that it simply said that we are not the same kind of Christians that hated the Muslims (in Eruope there were lots of people that called themselves Christians and hated the Muslims), but that we were a christen nation that fallows a set of morals.

most came to the "New World" to be able to practice religion wherever they were and not be restricted in any way. when the Supreme Court said a student couldn’t pray aloud in school that is clearly going against what the pilgrims wanted.

unfortunately most people are abiding by the courts decisions but I disagree because they’re rulings have clearly violated the first amendment. the treaty of triply trumps or at least is equal to the constitution and is therefore very important! Article. III. Section. 2. Clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..." there is also nowhere in the constitution that would suggest that the constitution is more important than a treaty. that is why people on the Indian reservations can make there own laws.

how can beliefs not effect the creation of laws? that’s simply impossible it is like news claiming that there fair and balanced (every news station), everyone has their bias that will show every time they’re talking or writing about issues. if beliefs shouldn't affect laws than why isn't murder ok? you may say "it's wrong" but isn’t that a belief?

I don't understand how you know what Jefferson meant when he said men are equal. I think he meant what he meant to mean.

there goes that tape again "wall of separation" it's getting old. I have already shown what Jefferson meant by this "wall" by getting the bigger picture if you refuse to see the big picture than we will get nowhere fast...

the constitution supports atheism over everything else. it's not just religion its moral beliefs, atheist have a set of morals too; or are moral beliefs not part of religion?

I’ll be gone for a week so maybe you can do some research…

 

[Runt]

really what ones? if it has, those laws are unconstitutional

LAWS made by Congress and okayed by the Supreme Court that restrict religious practice in schools (all under the Establishment Clause):

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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. "

isn't that the question. is the Supreme Court right in allowing religiously restrictive laws and making it's own religiously restrictive rulings? I’m saying the Supreme Court is wrong in restricting religion in school and, correct me if I’m wrong, your saying the Supreme Court is right in restricting religion in schools.

I am saying it would be wrong NOT to restrict religion in schools. While some schools could handle it, others would use the opportunity to teach religious beliefs to unwilling students. Because students are FORCED to go to school (we're not paying to attend public high school, but are required to attend by law), we should not be forced to learn about religious beliefs that we don't share. It is fine for schools to allow students to explore and to guide that exploration (though not really allowed); it is not fine to preach to students, to teach one religion at the exclusion of all others, and without the restrictions on religion in public schools, this WOULD be the reality in some places!

shouldn't the constitution be interpreted the same way all the time, no matter what date this is.

No. If we interpreted the Constitution the way the founding fathers wrote it, only white men who own property would be allowed to vote. There would be no airforce. Etc etc etc... If we can't interpret the constitution, we CANNOT make the laws we need in today's society, because the Constitution is a reletively short document and does not address the issues of today's world at all.

most came to the "New World" to be able to practice religion wherever they were and not be restricted in any way. when the Supreme Court said a student couldn’t pray aloud in school that is clearly going against what the pilgrims wanted.

First, prayer IS allowed in schools. It has to be private though; it can't be a student forcing other students to pray with him or her, it can't be led by teachers, it can't be done over the intercom, it can't be directed by the school at ALL. For example, allowing the Christian school administrators to force me to pray in school (like they force me to stand for the Pledge) restricts MY religion! But allowing Christian students to pray privately, or in small groups, without school endorsement is fine; it does not affect me, NOR does it show any restrictions on them.

And although everyone coming over from Europe were, in the early days, Christian, they were all different KINDS of Christians. The Pilgrims would not want to hear a Catholic prayer in their schools... the Catholics would not want to hear a pagan prayer... and so on and so forth.

I'll have to respond to the rest of your comments later... I have taekwondo in ten minutes

 

[Runt]

***Okay, after Taekwondo (man did I get beat up!) and a day of school (BOOOORING!), I am back to respond to the rest of your comments, Frog. Sorry I didn't do it yesterday... it was late when I got home ***

unfortunately most people are abiding by the courts decisions but I disagree because they’re rulings have clearly violated the first amendment.

Wrong. The court rulings forbade schools to allow religion to be taught in schools. To do otherwise would be to do the exact thing the first amendment says Congress can't do... to make a law "respecting an establishment of religion" (Christian religion, since it is the only one that would end up being taught... rest assured! Even at my school, where you can have religious education OFF CAMPUS, Seminary is only offered when it teaches the Christian religion... I was denied the right to have Seminary for my last period with a Wiccan religious instructor)

the treaty of triply trumps or at least is equal to the constitution and is therefore very important!

Perhaps, but the treaty has no say in what that Constitution really means. Only the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution.

there is also nowhere in the constitution that would suggest that the constitution is more important than a treaty. that is why people on the Indian reservations can make there own laws.

Indian reservations can make their own laws because they are soverign nations. Their status is similar to that of a US state (which can ALSO make its own laws as long as those laws do not interfere with the laws made by the federal government) except they have more power in the say of their own laws.

You can't use a treaty to interpret the Constitution. Not in such a way that would stand under law, at least.

how can beliefs not effect the creation of laws?

Of course personal beliefs are going to effect the creation of laws! But it is the duty of Congress to make laws that are NOT going to favor any one religion!

if beliefs shouldn't affect laws than why isn't murder ok? you may say "it's wrong" but isn’t that a belief?

We are arguing about whether or not laws supporting the Christian religion (such as the right to teach religion in schools) is okay, NOT whether or not laws that reflect the morals of SOCIETY should be allowed. There is a BIG difference. EVERYONE will agree that murder should not be alowed because "it's wrong" and yes, "it's wrong" is a belief... but NOT everyone will believe that we should, for instance, make premarital sex a crime because it is a "Sin"...

And there are differences between religious beliefs and beliefs. I have morals that are not based on my religion at all... they are based on "This will hurt people, this will not hurt people".

I don't understand how you know what Jefferson meant when he said men are equal. I think he meant what he meant to mean.

...

Locke wrote a paper on the "rights of man", which each man was entitled to because they were equal.

The French Revolutionaries borrowed Locke's "rights of man" when composing their Declaration of the Rights of Man. They defined these rights in their Declaration as "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression".

Interestingly enough, Jefferson an ambassador in France at that time...when he wrote the Declaration of Indepenence, it is no surprise that the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appeared.

Obviously, Jefferson was a HUGE proponent of Locke. When he referred to the "rights of man" in his letter, he was undoubtedly referring to LOCKE'S "rights of man"... this INCLUDED the concept of equality that I mentioned above.

More on Locke: Locke's "Letter on Toleration" (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke-t/locke_toleration.html) greatly affected the formation of our Constitution, ESPECIALLY in matters such as the seperation of church and state! His "rights of man" were rights that every individual was born with that could not be taken away by either society or the government. He wrote "Nobody, therefore, in fine, neither single persons nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon pretence of religion." And to show he did not mean JUST Christians when he said "religion": "Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion."

there goes that tape again "wall of separation" it's getting old. I have already shown what Jefferson meant by this "wall" by getting the bigger picture if you refuse to see the big picture than we will get nowhere fast...

You are the one misinterpreting it. Jefferson did not want the government having any say in religious matters; by default, if the government could not have say in religious matters, nor could religious matters have a say in government.

the constitution supports atheism over everything else. it's not just religion its moral beliefs, atheist have a set of morals too; or are moral beliefs not part of religion?

Fine... the Constitution supports atheism over everything else. So why would an atheist Constitution support having religion taught ins schools?

I’ll be gone for a week so maybe you can do some research…

No, I think it is your turn to do some research. I am getting tired of your only arguments being "No, that is NOT what he meant!" "You are misinterpreting it!" and "Show me where it says that!"

 

[F_R_O_G]

We are getting nowhere, I far as I can tell you believe that there should not be an official country religion, as I also believe. Now I may be wrong but you believe that no religion should be taught in school and the constitution supports that, I believe that it is impossible to not teach a religion, so we should accommodate all religions according to the available resources as provided by the constitution.

Patrick Henry put it best to what I believe the fathers of the constitution meant in the constitution
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."

Just a few things that I feel are important....

What do you think the first amendment refers to? Congress the government the states? It only refers to congress. That means any and all other governmental afflictions are not bound in ANY way to the first amendment and are clearly allowed to have a state religion, but that would be a good idea.

No part of the government has any place to restrict religion being practiced in school by a student. By no means am I saying religion should be forced to any student who does not want to be taught a religion, in the course of a lesson a teacher should be allowed to quote a verse or say something religious that is already extended to all atheist beliefs.

 

[Runt]

Actually, Frog, we have come to a place where we agree. Not only do I think it is impossible not to cover religion in schools (because so much of our history and the history of other cultures orbits around religion), but I also believe that religion SHOULD be a required course... but COMPARATIVE religion in which students are not taught religion from a "this is Truth" standpoint but a "this is what Christians/Buddhists/Muslims/Pagans/Atheists/Agnostics/etc. believe and why" point of view. Activities such as praying, meditating, or other forms of religious worship should not be allowed in the class.

I am in Comparative Religion. My curriculum includes reading about different religions, interviewing practicioners of different religions, comparing and contrasting religions and religious ceremonies (that is why I am allowed to come on this site and other religious forums during school), and lots and lots of writing... yet nowhere am I taught that these things are "Truth", that I "must believe", that "this religion is wrong", or any other kind of dogma.

*Shrug* It works for me. I do not feel confined in this type of environment to believe as I wish...nor do I feel like I am having other people's religions forced on me...

 

[F_R_O_G]

ok good , but do you bleive there can be a student lead prayer at a football game?

correction from last post*
but that would (not) be a good idea.

 

[Runt]

Can there be a student led prayer at a football game? Yes. SHOULD there be? No. It is not fair to people who believe differently than the person leading the prayer. People come to football games to watch football. People can go to church to pray in groups, or they can pray alone and silently.

 

[THEDARKONE4]

Religion should be allowed in schools. The only reason it isn't still in schools is because of the Supreme Court of 1962-1963 that took what Thomas Jefferson said completely out of context and also changed the definition of church.

 

[painted wolf]

THEDARKONE4
If mr. Jefferson was so for church being a part of government why did he kick it our of the Verginia constitution?
The problem, and he knew this, is who's church do you let run the schools... its either all or none and right now none is best.

private religious schools are ok, but church must stay out of public education.

check out:
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

wa:-do

 

[Green Gaia]

Religion should be allowed in schools. The only reason it isn't still in schools is because of the Supreme Court of 1962-1963 that took what Thomas Jefferson said completely out of context and also changed the definition of church.

Really?? Well, what did he say and how was it taken out of context, and what do you believe he really meant? Please keep in mind that Mr. Jefferson held Unitarian beliefs....

 

[F_R_O_G]

We can start by saying that Jefferson was only referring to the federal government and not the states that runn the schools...

 

[w00t]

While all the main world's religions should be studied in schools, I do not believe that it is appropriate for a state school to proselytize.

 

[painted wolf]

FROG-
you didn't check out my link on Jefferson getting rid of state churches did you? :roll:
He made shure that it wouldn't happin... Jefferson was for TOTAL SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! both on federal and state levels...
again check out...
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

I agree with you Tangenfedd that it is important to study religion so that you can have a balanced outlook and not an ignorat one... and that shools (unless you pay for it) should not try to convert others...

wa:-do

 

[F_R_O_G]

Why do you favor one statement over another, I have read his letter, it is very clear what he is trying to say is a wall that blocks all influence from the state to the church.

Lets discuses these quotes

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind"
"All attempts to influence it [mind] by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness"
"And are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion"
"Who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do"
"That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men"

And this is just from a small part of the first paragraph, after quoting so much stuff I realized that I was quoting the letter; the entire letter is filled with reasons why we should have religion in school and why we should be able to pray over the loud speakers at the beginning of a football game.

Look, the entire first paragraph tell of how he came to the conclusion that there is a wall that blocks the state from being involved in the church. If you look at the very first sentence it shows that God created the mind. And for that very reason we have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. "Total separation of church and state is not possible" (Lemen v somebody) so even the courts admit it is impossible to have a wall of separation, so how could someone so smart be referring to something that is impossible?

Btw he could not be meaning what your saying he’s meaning and also say "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

 

[painted wolf]

well if you want to trade quotes by Jefferson on religon...

his words on the subject...

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

shall I go on?

wa:-do