• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion in school

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
perhaps an interfaith club? or where people can talk about their own religions and listen to others.

that would be kinda neat. i wonder what happend to our interfaith club at our school. course, i go to a catholic school. ...hmm....
 

Pah

Uber all member
Gerani1248 said:
perhaps an interfaith club? or where people can talk about their own religions and listen to others.

that would be kinda neat. i wonder what happend to our interfaith club at our school. course, i go to a catholic school. ...hmm....

It can be intra- or interfaith. The purpose of a club is generated from student interest.
 

F_R_O_G

Member
this is very simple. the courts think that the Constitution creates a wall of separation, i think it doesn't. why is there a problem with that? the courts can change there mind you know, so they must be wrong at some point.

i do agree that "Constitutional law is the sum of all the court cases and Amendments to the Constitution, and the body of the Constitution itself." but i'm not talking about constitutional law... constitutional laws can change with court decisions, the Constitution doesn't (except for amendments) so why are you bring it up?

The phrase "wall of separation" does not appear in the amended document.

thank you, i'm glad we agree, now if only ceridwen will believe me...


Which part of the Constitution says this?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" now if they wanted to say that the government can't be involved in any religion they would say "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" i just don't understand how this could be referring to the church, read the amendment and think about what it really says to YOU. when i read it it only refers to Congress not the church!

please stop listening to those preagrenaed history professors. they look for evidence that supports what they want to believe not what the truth is. our founding fathers were all Christians, the only reason some think they wern't is because may of them said there were not the same "Christians" as in england, but i assure you they did try to be "christ-like"

theres no conflicting statement, both of them talk about that laws that restrict people can't be passed. there certainly no laws that can be made by a teacher. if anything the teachers rights are being restricted.

just a question for you guys... why are schools allowed to teach evolution but not creation?
 

Pah

Uber all member
F_R_O_G said:
this is very simple. the courts think that the Constitution creates a wall of separation, i think it doesn't. why is there a problem with that? the courts can change there mind you know, so they must be wrong at some point.

i do agree that "Constitutional law is the sum of all the court cases and Amendments to the Constitution, and the body of the Constitution itself." but i'm not talking about constitutional law... constitutional laws can change with court decisions, the Constitution doesn't (except for amendments) so why are you bring it up?

pah said:
The phrase "wall of separation" does not appear in the amended document.

thank you, i'm glad we agree, now if only ceridwen will believe me...

You are making a distiction with no practical application and ignoring the examples of other law concepts that do not "appear in the Constitution"

F_R_O_G said:
Which part of the Constitution says this?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" now if they wanted to say that the government can't be involved in any religion they would say "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" i just don't understand how this could be referring to the church, read the amendment and think about what it really says to YOU. when i read it it only refers to Congress not the church!

It applies not to the church but to the governement. Churches establish splinter groups all the time. The wall is erected on Government territory.

You do understand, don't you, that governemnt can not function without law being passed by Congress and signed by the President. In fact, it can not even be established without a formulating law.

F_R_O_G said:
please stop listening to those preagrenaed history professors. they look for evidence that supports what they want to believe not what the truth is. our founding fathers were all Christians, the only reason some think they wern't is because may of them said there were not the same "Christians" as in england, but i assure you they did try to be "christ-like"

You do realize that these Christians framed a "Godless" Contistitution and the people, some of whom were Christian, approved it.

F_R_O_G said:
theres no conflicting statement, both of them talk about that laws that restrict people can't be passed. there certainly no laws that can be made by a teacher. if anything the teachers rights are being restricted.

Simply not true. Religious expression is restricted, Free speech is restricted. Criminal behavior (which is NOT found in the "your" Constitution) is restricted and punished. Marriage benefits are restricted.

F_R_O_G said:
just a question for you guys... why are schools allowed to teach evolution but not creation?

The short answer is that creation is not a science - it deals with origins which evolution, in schools, does not. But that is probably another thread.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
F_R_O_G,

this is very simple. the courts think that the Constitution creates a wall of separation, i think it doesn't. why is there a problem with that? the courts can change there mind you know, so they must be wrong at some point.

i do agree that "Constitutional law is the sum of all the court cases and Amendments to the Constitution, and the body of the Constitution itself." but i'm not talking about constitutional law... constitutional laws can change with court decisions, the Constitution doesn't (except for amendments) so why are you bring it up?

Bottom line? Everyone who has any say in politics pretty much accepts the 'wall of separation', so for now, whether or not you like it you're gonna have to live with it. Good luck with changing that though.

thank you, i'm glad we agree, now if only ceridwen will believe me...

Haha, I never said I disagreed, actually. I meant what pah said-- sorry for the miscommunication.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" now if they wanted to say that the government can't be involved in any religion they would say "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If you could, name for me any religious establishment which could not also be defined as a religious establishment.

You are waging a foundationless battle of semantics here.

they look for evidence that supports what they want to believe not what the truth is.

They are in boundless company.

our founding fathers were all Christians, the only reason some think they wern't is because may of them said there were not the same "Christians" as in england, but i assure you they did try to be "christ-like"

Or, perhaps the reason 'some' people don't believe they were Christian is because they point blank stated that they were not. Either or, I suppose...

Being 'Christian' and being 'christ-like' are two very separate endeavors. I am not Christian, yet I still attempt to be 'christ-like' in many ways.

theres no conflicting statement, both of them talk about that laws that restrict people can't be passed. there certainly no laws that can be made by a teacher. if anything the teachers rights are being restricted.

If a teacher wants to teach something specific, they can go to a school that allows that particular class, or become a college professor-- god knows there's a professor of everything.

They could also band together and petition Congress like everyone else. Basically though, teaching is a JOB. The teachers must teach what their customers desire, or no one will want their kids or themselves to be taught by them. Bottom line, this is a non-existent conflict...or are you a teacher who feels you are being restricted?

just a question for you guys... why are schools allowed to teach evolution but not creation?

Because the theory of evolution is based upon secular science, as well as being widely accepted by the scientific community, whereas the theory of creationism is based upon religious beliefs, and is NOT widely accepted by the scientific community. Also, it comes back to the 'wall of separation'. Creationism is religiously founded, and therefore cannot be taught in a secular school.
 
Religion in public schools is ok if it is practiced on an individual basis and one single religion is not expressly endorsed as being the right one. I do not believe that students should be held back from practicing their religion openly in school. The constitution provides for the "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."
 

Pah

Uber all member
LCMS Sprecher said:
Religion in public schools is ok if it is practiced on an individual basis and one single religion is not expressly endorsed as being the right one. I do not believe that students should be held back from practicing their religion openly in school. The constitution provides for the "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."

I agree with the first part ("Religion in public schools is ok if it is practiced on an individual basis") with the reservation that the Constitution does not allow for the public expression of an individual's faith during school (except perhaps for the "T-shirt" with a religious message that conforms to an established dress code). It does not matter whether is it one or many religions - none can be endorsed singly or collectively

The principle is that the state or its agents may not host (indirectly endorsing) religious expression within curriculum or within scheduled activities of the school because of the compulsary nature of public school (in other words - not before a captive audiance).

I totally disagree with the last part. The "freedom to ..." implicitly grants the "freedom from ..." and is explicitly exemplified by the cases involving contraception.
 
Should the state then prevent Christian kids from praying at lunch then because their words might be heard by a Muslim (or any other religion)?
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
LCMS,

No, I don't think so. I think kids should be allowed to say their prayers, just as long as they aren't expecting everyone to quiet down for them or something. However, the first kid to complain about being offended is going to ruin it for eveyone.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Ceridwen018 said:
LCMS,

No, I don't think so. I think kids should be allowed to say their prayers, just as long as they aren't expecting everyone to quiet down for them or something. However, the first kid to complain about being offended is going to ruin it for eveyone.

As long as it it done silently -

Matthew 6 said:
(5)And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. (6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
 
Wait a minute-- kids can't pray out loud at lunch? That's a tad strict, I think.

I could understand if Voodoo worshippers couldn't kill animals at lunch....but praying out loud in a noisy lunchroom....I don't see the problem with that.
 

Pah

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


http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jnt-sta.htm

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.

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix

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
 

quick

Member
The problem, in a nutshell, is that most religions create a worldview that is outcome determinative on many issues. As a Christian, my faith affects my view of human nature, good and evil, scientific truth, marriage, other religions, etc., ad infinitum. Many other religions are similar.

The problem is a fundamental one with our entire system of government. For generations, we had a de facto state Christianity that formed the basis for almost everything we did, officially or otherwise. IT was more fundamental than our Declaration or our Constitution, and predated these documents by many centuries. Our Founders simply did not recognize that this culture would become so diverse (as opposed to simply northern European) that freedom of religion would come to mean Islam and Christianty and Wiccan living side by side, rather than Methodists and Presbyterians getting along.

Eventually, someone's ox will be gored, and then the polity will be in crisis. If your religion means anything to you at all, there are points as to which compromise is not an option. I can tell that within 30 or 40 years, Christians will be on the run in this country that we founded, and we will either fight back or die, unless God, in his wisdom, brings us a spirit of revival. It is impossible for many of these religions to peacefully co-exist unless they are "believed" to the extent of parlor conversation and nothing more.
 

Pah

Uber all member
quick said:
The problem, in a nutshell, is that most religions create a worldview that is outcome determinative on many issues. As a Christian, my faith affects my view of human nature, good and evil, scientific truth, marriage, other religions, etc., ad infinitum. Many other religions are similar.

The problem is a fundamental one with our entire system of government. For generations, we had a de facto state Christianity that formed the basis for almost everything we did, officially or otherwise. IT was more fundamental than our Declaration or our Constitution, and predated these documents by many centuries. Our Founders simply did not recognize that this culture would become so diverse (as opposed to simply northern European) that freedom of religion would come to mean Islam and Christianty and Wiccan living side by side, rather than Methodists and Presbyterians getting along.

Eventually, someone's ox will be gored, and then the polity will be in crisis. If your religion means anything to you at all, there are points as to which compromise is not an option. I can tell that within 30 or 40 years, Christians will be on the run in this country that we founded, and we will either fight back or die, unless God, in his wisdom, brings us a spirit of revival. It is impossible for many of these religions to peacefully co-exist unless they are "believed" to the extent of parlor conversation and nothing more.

I have copied this post by quick and will answer it in The Dichotomy of Christians. where it is more appropiate.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
quick,

Our Founders simply did not recognize that this culture would become so diverse (as opposed to simply northern European) that freedom of religion would come to mean Islam and Christianty and Wiccan living side by side, rather than Methodists and Presbyterians getting along.

Do you think that our Founding Fathers would have acted differently had they known? Do you wish that they had acted differently?

If your religion means anything to you at all, there are points as to which compromise is not an option.

So don't settle for a compromise...go to a private school.

I can tell that within 30 or 40 years, Christians will be on the run in this country that we founded, and we will either fight back or die, unless God, in his wisdom, brings us a spirit of revival.

This quote disturbs me. What makes you think that Christians are in danger of persecution? That goes against everything our country stands for. It would also be quite the '180', as Christianity is about the biggest religion in the US as of now.

It is impossible for many of these religions to peacefully co-exist unless they are "believed" to the extent of parlor conversation and nothing more.

I don't think it's impossible. In fact, many of these religions are co-existing peacefully in our country right now. Maybe not in other parts of the world, but we are definately setting a good example.

Just because you aren't fighting to the death over something, doesn't relegate it to 'parlor conversation'. God calls you to witness your faith to non-believers, not beat it into them with an Uzi. So, you do the best you can, and people either accept your message or not, but once you've presented your case to someone, it stops being your problem, and becomes theirs.
 

quick

Member
Ceridwen018 said:
quick,

Our Founders simply did not recognize that this culture would become so diverse (as opposed to simply northern European) that freedom of religion would come to mean Islam and Christianty and Wiccan living side by side, rather than Methodists and Presbyterians getting along.

Do you think that our Founding Fathers would have acted differently had they known? Do you wish that they had acted differently?

If your religion means anything to you at all, there are points as to which compromise is not an option.

So don't settle for a compromise...go to a private school.

I can tell that within 30 or 40 years, Christians will be on the run in this country that we founded, and we will either fight back or die, unless God, in his wisdom, brings us a spirit of revival.

This quote disturbs me. What makes you think that Christians are in danger of persecution? That goes against everything our country stands for. It would also be quite the '180', as Christianity is about the biggest religion in the US as of now.

It is impossible for many of these religions to peacefully co-exist unless they are "believed" to the extent of parlor conversation and nothing more.

I don't think it's impossible. In fact, many of these religions are co-existing peacefully in our country right now. Maybe not in other parts of the world, but we are definately setting a good example.

Just because you aren't fighting to the death over something, doesn't relegate it to 'parlor conversation'. God calls you to witness your faith to non-believers, not beat it into them with an Uzi. So, you do the best you can, and people either accept your message or not, but once you've presented your case to someone, it stops being your problem, and becomes theirs.


Contrary to what you suggest, I think only a relative handful of people in the US are Christians. From data I've seen, only between 20 and 40% of people in the US go to any church (Christian or otherwise) once a week. In Germany, it may be more like 10 or 12%, and we seem to follow Europe, albeit a few years afterward. See link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm
Many folks who go to church aren't true believers. In short, Christianity is on the decline here and in Europe, just as it is on the rise dramatically in Asia and Africa. When the numbers get this low, the discrimination starts in earnest.

Right now, Christians are fired if they say "too much" at work. Christians are demonized in public schools. They are sent home for wearing religious symbols and clothing in some jurisdictions. Christian holidays, formerly national and without dispute, are under attack. Christians are ridiculed and marginalized in press and media. Church tax exemptions are under attack. Many people say the most insulting things to and about Christians--things they would never say to Jews, for example--and it goes unchecked. Our mainstream culture is drifting farther and farther from a Christian model every day, and when enough people reject the faith, the majority will prevail.

Since we have universal suffrage here, trampling on the Constitution for the sake of the majority is not all that difficult. Just look what has happened in the field of gun ownership--many regs and restrictions are in place, all without a Const amendment. Our leaders pander to the majority to garner votes, and if the majority wants to trample on Christians, it will happen. The last bastion of safety, our courts, are increasingly filled with those who have little sympathy.

Christ said we would be persecuted (See below). The relative safety with which we have been able to practice our faith here in the US is an historical anomaly. I would suggest our own blasphemy and rebelliousness may have caused the Lord to reduce his grace upon this nation.

See these verses from Matthew 24, especially verse 9:

"Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[1] ' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
 

Pah

Uber all member
quick said:
Contrary to what you suggest, I think only a relative handful of people in the US are Christians. From data I've seen, only between 20 and 40% of people in the US go to any church (Christian or otherwise) once a week.

It is 43% and that is up from 42% in 1994.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=159

In Germany, it may be more like 10 or 12%, and we seem to follow Europe, albeit a few years afterward.

Germany shows an increasing trend in church attedance from 4% in 1999 to 7.4%
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/02a/20020909e.shtml

You numbers are overly pessimistic

Many folks who go to church aren't true believers.

You might consider that when you say we are founded by Christians and are a Christian nation.

In short, Christianity is on the decline here and in Europe, just as it is on the rise dramatically in Asia and Africa. When the numbers get this low, the discrimination starts in earnest.

It is not on the decline!!! Period!!!!

What you are seeing is a lose of control socially. Others are finding their voice and not putting up with the suppression and discrimination that is given out by a Christian society

Right now, Christians are fired if they say "too much" at work. Christians are demonized in public schools. They are sent home for wearing religious symbols and clothing in some jurisdictions.

The workplace is for making profit. The "too much" is seen as disruptive to the business of the workplace.

Schools have never had as much afterschool Christian activity as they had before. Never has secondary eductaion seen the power of the Christian college than is present today.

Christian holidays, formerly national and without dispute, are under attack.

Christmas is still Christmas. Blame the capitalistic drive of America for the commercialization - this by a largly Christian ownership Thanksgiving is and was the only other I can think of and that remains a family oriented holiday.

That makes 2 out of 13.

Christians are ridiculed and marginalized in press and media.

I see Christian networks on television channels.

I see the Passion of Christ at the box office. I see an influx of new religious themed movies taking advantage of this. I see TV series with a religious theme.

Church tax exemptions are under attack.

About time! Why should religion enjoy tax advantages that other non-profit organizations are denied?

Many people say the most insulting things to and about Christians--things they would never say to Jews, for example--and it goes unchecked.

I would not expect those insulting Christians would use the same words for Jews. They, the Jews, are defiled by Christians for other reasons (money and world domination come to mind - all from a basis of "the killer of Christ".

I also see atheists vilified and threatened with stoning in the good ol' OT way. I see "heretical" denominations continually marginalized

Our mainstream culture is drifting farther and farther from a Christian model every day, and when enough people reject the faith, the majority will prevail.[/qupte]

As it should drift in a secular society that recognizes the rights of individuals. The Christian model is suppression of women and other races - an enforcement of a partiarchal stucture. It's marriage views are one man, one woman with the man in charge.

Since we have universal suffrage here, trampling on the Constitution for the sake of the majority is not all that difficult.

I am tempted to say "what goes around, comes around".but rights have never been about the "majority". It is the minority individuals that need the protection from the majority. Should your dire fears come to reality, you can rest assured that you will be protected.

quote]Just look what has happened in the field of gun ownership--many regs and restrictions are in place, all without a Const amendment. Our leaders pander to the majority to garner votes, and if the majority wants to trample on Christians, it will happen. The last bastion of safety, our courts, are increasingly filled with those who have little sympathy.

Gun control has gone though the courts - no amendment needed. You can't honestly say that the populace should be armed with automatic weapons or the same weapons as held by our military - or can you? The ultimate question - whether the people should have guns at all - has never been tested I think you have little reason to see "sympathy" where there has been no occassion to exercise it.

Christ said we would be persecuted (See below). The relative safety with which we have been able to practice our faith here in the US is an historical anomaly.

Since about 300 CE, the Christian faith has been formally protectded by the state. America is not an anomaly.

I would suggest our own blasphemy and rebelliousness may have caused the Lord to reduce his grace upon this nation.

You and Jerry Fallwell (sp?).
 

+Xausted

Well-Known Member
[Anyway, Religion in School.. negative. School should be about Logic and Science and Facts - it should be kept that way. They can get Religion at home - I did, and that worked fine (for a time :) )

EL[/quote]
religion has a great impact on sociology, politics, history...well in fact everything that most of us believe, even if we are unaware. it should be taught in schools ( love the way you americans call public school state...here in england public school is private school). all religions should be taught even handlely , througherly and thoughtfully. once people have an understanding of other peoples beliefs they can be more tolerant
 

wednesday

Jesus
Right now, Christians are fired if they say "too much" at work. Christians are demonized in public schools. They are sent home for wearing religious symbols and clothing in some jurisdictions. Christian holidays, formerly national and without dispute, are under attack. Christians are ridiculed and marginalized in press and media. Church tax exemptions are under attack. Many people say the most insulting things to and about Christians--things they would never say to Jews, for example--and it goes unchecked. Our mainstream culture is drifting farther and farther from a Christian model every day, and when enough people reject the faith, the majority will prevail.

Since we have universal suffrage here, trampling on the Constitution for the sake of the majority is not all that difficult. Just look what has happened in the field of gun ownership--many regs and restrictions are in place, all without a Const amendment. Our leaders pander to the majority to garner votes, and if the majority wants to trample on Christians, it will happen. The last bastion of safety, our courts, are increasingly filled with those who have little sympathy.


Wow, i don't know where you live but we are slaves to Christianity here whether we embrace it or not. I got sent home for wearing a concealed necklace that was'nt a tratitional cross. Christians have it easy, yet they think the world is out to get them. Saying too much creates workplace conflict, i know i'd be uncomfortable working with a die-hard. Religion, christianity or not, has no place anywhere but in your home and in your place of prayer.
 

Somkid

Well-Known Member
I sent my daughter to a Christian school this year because it is one of the best schools in Chiang Mai although she has learned a lot about math, computer, English, Thai, etc. science is lacking untruthful and it has confused her to the point where my wife and I have to do damage control. Needless to say my wife and I have decided to put her in a government school next semester where the standard is lower but the truth is of the utmost importance.
 
Top