The Bible in Public Schools

[Chris the Chees]

Religion has zero place in school. When I was at school we were forced to attend Christian religious services and study the bible, which in my view is totally unacceptable. It is an attempt to brainwash children into believing in a being when their empirical proof or logical reason to believe.

Religion is something for home not school.

As for reading a bible in school, thats OK, it is like reading any other work of fiction - just in the case of the bible a very poorly written piece of fiction.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood I suppose that they could always take a 15 minute chunk of time and set it aside as prayer/meditate/think/navel gaze time, without giving the lawyers something to sue over. But to what purpose? Why can't kids do all that at home?

Indeed, this is actually what the bible encourages.


Christians were never to make spectacles out of themselves, or thier beliefs, but the bible also tells them that they would eventually be persecuted for those beliefs, and many like to make themselves spectacles so they they can then play the martyr.


It's a whole different sort of "Attention Defict Disorder".

[gallo]

Quote by: The 68 Gallo: Just because the supreme court says that's what it means doesn't make it right. They didn't write it.

I see that you are much less informed than I had at first supposed. Either that or you are an anarchist, communist, or a christian theocrat. Obviously you aren't aware that it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret what the meaning of the Constitution is today. It isn't a matter of right (which in this case it is morally right), it is a matter of a correct legal decision.

Quote by: The 68 Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to the author.

And it isn't 1787 any more either, did you notice that? By reading the Constitution, decisions by the Supreme Court, commentaries on the Constitution, and case law I can pretty much learn what the Constitution means today. You see, the framers of the Constitution, unlike you, realized that it would not always be 1787, so they included methods to amend and to interpret the principles that they wrote into it. So sad that you would prefer a theocracy in which your religion is the law - kinda like the Taliban, only "christian".

Quote by: The 68 You assume that I'm in agreement with the supreme court.

No I don't. I assumed that you knew that Supreme Court decisions had the force of law. You're agreement is irrelevant. I way, way overestimated your knowledge of the topic.

Quote by: The 68 I think the supreme court is the poison that's gonna kill our country, because all of a sudden, they're all powerful, and whatever they say about the constitution is true.

"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." Yep. In any dispute involving the meaning of the Constitution, whatever the Court decides is true. However, what you think is largely irrelevant. Why don't you take it up with the people who wrote the Constitution. Oh! Wait! It's not 1787 anymore, is it? Then why don't you try to get enough support to amend the Constitution? But that doesn't fit into your christian fascism philosophy, does it? At any rate, it is the Constitution that allows you to speak out and advocate it's overthrow.

Quote by: The 68 So happens, that's a bunch of BS. 9 people with a liberal agenda now have the power to wreck our country.

Liberal agenda? To correctly characterize that comment would get me kicked off this board. Do you ever learn what you are talking about before you speak?

John Roberts - Extremely conservative. Not quite as ultra conservative as Rehnquist, but already falling in on the side of Scalia and Thomas in any case involving religion. Far right of center (.140 Segal-Cover score).

John Paul Stevens - Very slightly conservative. Just right of center. Very middle of the road. (.475 Segal-Cover score).

Antonin Scalia - Ultra-extreme conservative. (.000 Segal-Cover score).

Anthony Kennedy - Strongly conservative. (.200 Segal-Cover score).

David Souter - Moderate conservative (.365 Segal-Cover score).

Clarence Thomas - Ultra-extreme conservative, general chauvinist. (.070 Segal-Cover score).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Moderate liberal. (.680 Segal-Cover score).

Steven Breyer - Moderate conservative. (.325 Segal-Cover score).

Samuel Alito - Ultra conservative. (.150 Segal-Cover score).

By the way, .000 conservative <-> liberal 1.000

That gives the entire court an average Segal-Cover score of .267. That's conservative.

Quote by: The 68 By the way, If you fear christian retaliation, don't come to my town.

Or you'll put on your sheets and hoods and burn a cross on my front lawn? I thought as much. That's what the christians in Santa Fe, TX did because they couldn't use to PA system to pray at football games. The trouble was that they got the wrong family - the picked a Jewish family when the plaintiffs in the case were both Christians. But is seems that we can expect such treatment when we object to being forced into christian prayer. I actually expected as much from you. It seems that you and the people of your town aren't too much different than the christians of Santa Fe. You must admire David Duke very much.

Quote by: The 68 Yet more of the spew from the mouth of our liberal court.

How dismally ignorant. Have you bothered to actually check out the Court or any branch of the government? Liberal? You don't pay much attention, do you?

Quote by: The 68 Thanks for explaining what the constitution means. So funny how different that is than what it actually says.

But it isn't. It does make me certain that you have never actually read the Constitution or any commentary that explains what it meant in 1787 or what it means now. Of course, like the christians of 1787, you actually oppose the Constitution. Great christian patriots like Patrick Henry worked very hard to defeat ratification of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The major opposition to ratification of both came from christian pulpits.

I myself have read the Constitution, much of Madison's Journal, much of the Federalist Papers, lots of Supreme Court decisions, and lots of case law. You have read nothing.

By the way, Phoenixfire, I completely agree with you. I also appreciate the fact that you're wanting to teach. We need good teachers. Just between you and me, you can teach at my school. We don't have to deal with whining anti-theists down here, and nothing at all like the scenario at the top has EVER happened down here. A lot of this stuff is regional, and there are many places it is more prominant. I.E. Cal(iberal)fornia.[/quote]He can teach anyplace as long as he has the required education and certification. What he can't do as a teacher in a public school is to wave his Bible in his students faces while he teaches chemistry. Previously I would have encouraged him to act like a Christian and very carefully respect the religious rights of his students. After having dealt with you, I can see that acting like a christian may not be what I have in mind. Maybe I should say to act like an atheist and leave religion out of it.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Quote by: Isherwood Why can't kids do all that at home? Indeed, this is actually what the bible encourages.

Right.

Mat 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

And christians, when they try to make sure that everyone can see them praying with public monuments, school prayer don't even realize that they are being hypocrites. Doesn't speak very well for their religion, does it?

Quote by: Milton Bradley Christians were never to make spectacles out of themselves, or their beliefs, but the bible also tells them that they would eventually be persecuted for those beliefs, and many like to make themselves spectacles so they they can then play the martyr.

I think you've got it. In this country the fundamentalist christians control the three branches of government, they ignore the Constitution almost at will with "faith based government aid," our "leaders" pray at official events, and so on. There is little persecution of christians going on, so they just create situations that lets them feel that they are being persecuted. The claim that their freedom of religion involves imposing it on others. They are working towards a christian version of the Taliban.[/quote]

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Galo Mat 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

This makes me wonder where Evangelicals get the idea that they need to "evangelize" to get more christian converts. I'm sure there is some interpretation they use to justify this. But then wouldn't the above verse and any other verse be contradictory? And if it's contradictory, doesn't this mean its not an inerrant bible? Or is this just one of many verse that various christians feel they can ignore in foavor of another verse that lets them do whats on their agenda? What does any of this have to do with the bible in schools? Not much, except when we get evangelical teachers trying to pass on the faith.

[gallo]

Quote by: The 68 9 people with a liberal agenda now have the power to wreck our country.

I just thought that the above comment about the Supreme Court deserved further comment. A person has to be either asleep or rabid not to be aware of the make up of the Court.

This is from the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School course on Constitutional Law.

THE POLITICAL MAKE-UP OF THE CURRENT COURT Seven members of the current Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Two justices (Ginsburg and Breyer) were nominated by a Democratic president. THE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) and Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.) Most observers expect newly appointed Justice Samuel Alito to vote rather consistently with Scalia and Thomas, but it is too early to attach a label to Justice Alito. [note: Rehnquist was also an ultra-conservative.] CONSERVATIVES: C. J. Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush) and Kennedy (appointed by Reagan). Justice Kennedy is clearly the more moderate of these two justices, as his views tend to be more libertarian than those of Chief Justice Roberts. MODERATES: Stevens (appointed by Ford), Souter (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), and Breyer (appointed by Clinton). LIBERALS: Although more moderate than many past members of the Court who have worn this label, Justice Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton) is considered by many people to be a "liberal."

If conservatives don't like the liberal agenda of the Supreme Court, you would think that they would stop appointing all of those liberal justices. 7 of 9 appointed by conservative and ultra-conservative Presidents. And yet some ranting theocrats declare a liberal agenda. Poor persecuted christians.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: The 68 No, but it could be a personal "make yourself learn better and be more responsible" time..

Yeah, praying makes you learn better. Haha, and it makes you more responsible. To which God are these facts towards? And where the hell do you get this garbage?

Quote by: The 68 Whoops, sorry. Next time, before I post, I'll consult the demented soccer-imo who's obviously inside my head to make sure what I say agrees with him. My bad. Hey, wait, he can't be in my head and in michigan at the same time! I'm confused. Try playing a real sport........like football.

I don't know if you were going for straight up humor or a good point, but you failed at both. Stick to your point. And I play the most popular sport in the world. World Cup viewers=1 billion vs. Super Bowel=200,000.

[The 68]

Well, soccerboy, ya got me there. Anyway, those of you (Gallo) who want to say that our court is conservative and argue about it need to move this conversation to a new thread, because it seems a few of us like this one, but it doesn't pertain to the base point, so this one's to be continued. Oh, by the way gallo, do try presenting your ideas calmly, without excessive insinuations about the stupidity of others. Then people might actually listen to you.

[gallo]

Quote by: The 68 Anyway, those of you (Gallo) who want to say that our court is conservative and argue about it need to move this conversation to a new thread, because it seems a few of us like this one, but it doesn't pertain to the base point, so this one's to be continued.

Thank you for conceding defeat. Since none of them are theocrats who want to overthrow the Constitution, they aren't very pleasing to you. I can understand why you want me to start a new thread. That way you don't have to support your childish rants. What's that I hear? Oh yes. The pitter-pat of 68's little feet running away. If you have a point the start a thread. I've already showed you up so I may not respond unless you can say something intelligent.

Quote by: The 68 Oh, by the way gallo, do try presenting your ideas calmly, without excessive insinuations about the stupidity of others. Then people might actually listen to you.

Grow up. I never insinuated that anyone was stupid. Ignorant, uneducated, and lazy? Yes. Your flatulence about the Constitution and the Supreme Court demonstrates your lack of knowledge and your unwillingness to learn. I demonstrated your hysteria by supporting my point of view. Sadly, you cannot do the same but prefer to hysterically scream about how liberal our conservative court is, by agreeing with intimidation and crossburning as retaliation when someone asserts his rights, and how your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, even though you haven't bothered to read it.

By ducking out, you admit defeat. Your little "nah-nah" ploy is pretty transparent.

Bye now.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gallo Right. Mat 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Ah, many thanks for supporting my claim with the book, and verse. It has been a while since my studies, and I can no longer quote the book, and verse when quoting the bible. ( I used to have a nice electronic bible with a killer search feature, but I seem to have misplaced it. )

Quote by: gallo And christians, when they try to make sure that everyone can see them praying with public monuments, school prayer don't even realize that they are being hypocrites. Doesn't speak very well for their religion, does it?

I must admit that I do find myself questioning their motivation.

Quote by: gallo I think you've got it. In this country the fundamentalist christians control the three branches of government, they ignore the Constitution almost at will with "faith based government aid," our "leaders" pray at official events, and so on. There is little persecution of christians going on, so they just create situations that lets them feel that they are being persecuted. The claim that their freedom of religion involves imposing it on others. They are working towards a christian version of the Taliban.

As radical as that sounds, there is certainly some truth to that statement. We definately have some radical elements running around out there.

[phoenix_fire]

Oh, right. Christians are the same as the Taliban and Dubya is the reincarnation of Hitler and if good flag-waving anti-theists don't stand up and do something, then it's going to be the Spanish Inquisition all over again. Pfft. Absolute balderdash.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Oh, right. Christians are the same as the Taliban and Dubya is the reincarnation of Hitler and if good flag-waving anti-theists don't stand up and do something, then it's going to be the Spanish Inquisition all over again. Pfft. Absolute balderdash.

Complete strawman, and I suspect you're probably letting your past dealings with the more extreme "anti-theists" color what you see in any future statements of people who similar ideologies.

Now then, I think(Correct me if I'm wrong, Milton), that what is meant when someone usually refers to "radical elements" is not all Christians lumped together, but to an extremist, vocal minority of Christians who have some how gained some power and foothold in the political realm due to their playing on the more moderate Christian's fear of the declination of morality that would occur if the liberals, or even the more moderate conservatives and republicans, gained power.

Pheonix_fire: What do you think the disallowment of the civil union/marraige indicates about the conservative party, and what it would do with unilateral control of the law? I think it indicates that they would begin to persecute what they find distasteful, and that, much like in my sig, that "they would be pharisees...if only they had power!". They would gain their foothold thorugh cries of persecution, and then they themselves would begin to persecute; I believe they have already begun to show signs that they would do this merely through the actions they have made/attempted with the limited powers they already have!

So far the data I have collected backing my stance is limited, so you can take that as mere opinion if you wish. I'm merely trying to explain to you why I fear a completely religious-conservative governmental executive.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zinkovich Now then, I think(Correct me if I'm wrong, Milton), that what is meant when someone usually refers to "radical elements" is not all Christians lumped together, but to an extremist, vocal minority of Christians who have some how gained some power and foothold in the political realm due to their playing on the more moderate Christian's fear of the declination of morality that would occur if the liberals, or even the more moderate conservatives and republicans, gained power.

Thank you, and yes, you are at least partially correct.


I was not attempting to paint with a broad brush in this instance, though it is my style to do so. Any misunderstanding is probably my fault for not being more precise.


I was speaking about some of the more radical elements that have hijacked Christianity as an identity to hide behind while they spew their hatred. ( KKK, Christain Identity, Neocons, etc...) At the same time, I suppose those words apply just as well to a Falwell, or a Ralph Reed now that I think about it.

[gallo]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Oh, right. Christians are the same as the Taliban and Dubya is the reincarnation of Hitler and if good flag-waving anti-theists don't stand up and do something, then it's going to be the Spanish Inquisition all over again. Pfft. Absolute balderdash.

Look at your sig and then think about how we might get that idea.

"For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.--Deuteronomy 4:24"

"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!--Luke 12:49"

Nope. Nothing Taliban-like there. Why would you want to worship such a hateful creature?

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zinkovich Complete strawman, and I suspect you're probably letting your past dealings with the more extreme "anti-theists" color what you see in any future statements of people who similar ideologies. Now then, I think(Correct me if I'm wrong, Milton), that what is meant when someone usually refers to "radical elements" is not all Christians lumped together, but to an extremist, vocal minority of Christians who have some how gained some power and foothold in the political realm due to their playing on the more moderate Christian's fear of the declination of morality that would occur if the liberals, or even the more moderate conservatives and republicans, gained power. Pheonix_fire: What do you think the disallowment of the civil union/marraige indicates about the conservative party, and what it would do with unilateral control of the law? I think it indicates that they would begin to persecute what they find distasteful, and that, much like in my sig, that "they would be pharisees...if only they had power!". They would gain their foothold thorugh cries of persecution, and then they themselves would begin to persecute; I believe they have already begun to show signs that they would do this merely through the actions they have made/attempted with the limited powers they already have! So far the data I have collected backing my stance is limited, so you can take that as mere opinion if you wish. I'm merely trying to explain to you why I fear a completely religious-conservative governmental executive.

I wouldn't worry about Dubya too much. He's only pretending in order to solidify his base.

[gallo]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I wouldn't worry about Dubya too much. He's only pretending in order to solidify his base.

You mean he's lying? I thought Christians weren't supposed to lie. If you think about it, you'll realize why so many of us are very wary of christians. It seems that they can't be trusted to tell the truth, even when it's important.

[phoenix_fire]

Erm...if he's pretending to be a Christian, then it would mean that he was not really one, which would be of no help to you at all in a "Christians lie" argument.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Erm...if he's pretending to be a Christian, then it would mean that he was not really one, which would be of no help to you at all in a "Christians lie" argument.

Are you saying that he is intentionally pretending?

[shield772]

in WV a students rights to personal contemplation, meditation and or prayer is Constitutionaly protected

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: shield772 in WV a students rights to personal contemplation, meditation and or prayer is Constitutionaly protected

As it is in all other 50 states. You just have to remember, it has to be personal and it can't disturb others in class and it can't be endorsed by the faculty while on the public dime. Nobody, not even atheists, are trying to take that away. The main points in the constitution about religion was to prevent government from endorsing one religion over another, as is done in England, with the State endorsed Church of England.

[gallo]

Quote by: shield772 in WV a students rights to personal contemplation, meditation and or prayer is Constitutionaly protected

As is also true in the other 49 states, so that makes the WV Constitution redundant.

"3-15a. Voluntary contemplation, meditation or prayer in schools.
Public schools shall provide a designated brief time at the beginning of each school day for any student desiring to exercise their right to personal and private contemplation, meditation or prayer. No student of a public school may be denied the right to personal and private contemplation, meditation or prayer nor shall any student be required or encouraged to engage in any given contemplation, meditation or prayer as a part of the school curriculum."

Not sure what purpose that serves since if a person really wants to pray, no one can stop him/her because no one could possibly know that he/she was praying. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has upheld school policies that stipulate a moment of silent contemplation. It is constitutional because it isn't stipulated as being for prayer - a student may use the time for dirty thoughts if so moved.

However, a good summary of the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment as applied to government can be found in Section III of Epperson v. Arkansas (393 U.S. 97).

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of noreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.