The Bible in Public Schools

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Aeris Prayer in school is a hotly debated issue. Some are for scheduled prayer time, some think it should be voluntary, some think it should be private - but allowed. Some think it should be banned completely. There are miriad sides to this issue as with any other.

Of course, the real issue involving prayer in school was mandated prayer and it was rightly declared unconstitutional. However, to interfere with an individual student's free exercise of religion is also unconstitutional.

But I have a more specific issue. When I was a freshman in high school, I had a very Christian friend. She was nice about it - she knew I was a theist, didn't try to force her religion on me, she'd always pray silently when I was around. She only teased me about being a religious malcontent when I teased her about worshipping a 2,000 year old Zombie (No offense, to you Christians out there ) Very polite, if you ask me. And she also brought her Bible to school, just to read between classes.

No offense taken.

One day a teacher saw it, took it and her down to the Principal's office. She was almost expelled for reading, in my opinion, a book of fiction. The same type of books we're required to reading in Creative literature and in some cases philosophy. She was almost expelled, in her opinion, for reading a book of fact. The same thing we're required to do to pass any of our classes. In the end, she was suspended - for reading a book.

This is clearly an unconstitutional interference with the free exercise of religion. Students are allowed to bring religious texts to school, read such texts in between classes, pray, belong to extracurricular religious clubs, etc.

In 1995, the President of the United States ordered the Secretary of Education to give guidance to public schools on the religious rights of students. Two things are particularly noteworthy:

"First, schools may not forbid students acting on their own from expressing their personal religious views or beliefs solely because they are of a religious nature. Schools may not discriminate against private religious expression by students, but must instead give students the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they have to engage in other comparable activity. Generally, this means that students may pray in a nondisruptive manner during the school day when they are not engaged in school activities and instruction, subject to the same rules of order that apply to other student speech.

At the same time, schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. Among other things, of course, school administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage prayer exercises in the classroom. Teachers, coaches and other school officials who act as advisors to student groups must remain mindful that they cannot engage in or lead the religious activities of students."

It is further noted that "Public schools can neither foster religion nor preclude it. Our public schools must treat religion with fairness and respect and vigorously protect religious expression as well as the freedom of conscience of all other students. In so doing our public schools reaffirm the First Amendment and enrich the lives of their students."
SOURCE

Even the vile and contemptuous Americans for the Separation of Church and State acknowledged: "Nothing in the 1962 or 1963 rulings makes it unlawful for public school students to pray or read the Bible (or any other religious book) on a voluntary basis during their free time. Later decisions have made this even clearer. In 1990, the high court ruled specifically that high school students may form clubs that meet during "non-instructional" time to pray, read religious texts or discuss religious topics if other student groups are allowed to meet." SOURCE

Is the supression of religion itself an act by the government of establishment of religion?

No, it's an attempt to prohibit the free exercise of religion, which is unconstitutional.

By disallowing expression of religion in schools, be it Christian or not, are we effectively instituting an...I dont' know - anti-theistic regime?

No, it's an attempt to prohibit the free exercise of religion, which is unconstitutional.

Are we as a society and a government sticking our noses where they don't belong - into the lives of students?

Yes.

The free exercise of religion is absolute and the government has no right whatsoever to interfere with it in any way.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: kubedawg I personally think religion should only be taught in the home, not school. Having it in school just creates problems. But saying the pledge is different, it's believing in the country we live in, and honoring it's beliefs too, even if you don't worship the same god/any god.

So, how is believing in the country different from believing in some deity? Mandating that students pledge their allegiance to the United States of America (or any other country) is wrong on soooo many levels.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: jamesbdunn Getting back to the point of this discussion: Should the Bible be allowed to be taught in Public Schools?

No, nor should any other religious text. Nor, for that matter, should atheistic and secular humanist worldviews.

No, the Bible should NOT be allowed to be taught in public schools because it contradicts the "Ten Commandments".

Huh?

The Bible blatantly is ficticiously written to support the will of an oppressor. There is so much contradiction and vague references that it allows any learned person to twist the "meaning" around to suit their desired perspective.

My what hostility! Why are you so hostile toward a religious text?

The same is true for the Quran.

See above.

Religion should NOT be taught in Public Schools.

Neither should atheism or secular humanism. For that matter, the government indoctrination centers (public schools) should be disbanded.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: 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.

Much like the atheistic and secular humanist brainwashing that is considered appropriate in government indoctrination centers (public schools). Neither religion nor atheism and secular humanism - or any particular philosophy or worldview - have any place in public schools.

Religion is something for home not school.

The right to the free exercise of religion is absolute and neither you nor anyone else have the right to insist on limiting such exercise (as you are doing by insisting that it must be relegated to one's home). If you don't like people having the absolute right to the free exercise of religion then feel free to emigrate to a country like China or Cuba.

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.

The typical response of the anti-religious! The Bible is actually 66 separate books (a few more beyond that if you include the Apocrypha); thus you're really talking about 66 works of fiction. If you're going to make such hostile comments about a religious text then you should at least be accurate about the text.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo 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.

There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution.

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".

The only valid meaning of the Constitution is the meaning that the authors of it had when they wrote it. The Constitution is not subject to interpretation and its meaning does not change over time. If you want to change the Constitution, you must either amend it or scrap it for a new one!

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.

Except that Article III states, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." There is nothing in Article III that says Supreme Court decisions have the force of law. It is not the role of the federal courts to legislate!

"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."

See above.

Yep. In any dispute involving the meaning of the Constitution, whatever the Court decides is true.

Actually, there is nothing in what was quoted that even remotely says this.

However, what you think is largely irrelevant.

As is what you think. The Constitution means exactly and only what it says.

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?

If you want the Supreme Court to have the authority to interpret the Constitution and if you want the Supreme Court to have the authority to legislate from the bench, then feel free to get enough support to amend the Constitution.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ItsDarts This makes me wonder where Evangelicals get the idea that they need to "evangelize" to get more christian converts.

Those of you who don't know what Christianity teaches should not bother to make comments like the one you made here. They get it from here:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19).

And here:

"And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation'" (Mark 16:15).

And here:

"and said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46-47).

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?

See above. There is no contradiction because there's a difference between praying and evangelizing (but I would have expected you to know that).

And if it's contradictory, doesn't this mean its not an inerrant bible?

See above.

Or is this just one of many verse that various christians feel they can ignore in favor 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.

The issue is whether students have the right to the free exercise of religion, which they do. That right is absolute and no governmental authority has any right to in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion. Teachers, on the other hand, do not have the right to proselytize, pray, or engage in certain other expressions of faith while acting in their capacity as teachers (since, as teachers, they cease to be individual humans and are an impersonal arm of the government).

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Chancellor Much like the atheistic and secular humanist brainwashing that is considered appropriate in government indoctrination centers (public schools). Neither religion nor atheism and secular humanism - or any particular philosophy or worldview - have any place in public schools.

What, exactly, would constitute atheist and secular humanist teaching?

Quote by: Chancellor The typical response of the anti-religious! The Bible is actually 66 separate books (a few more beyond that if you include the Apocrypha); thus you're really talking about 66 works of fiction. If you're going to make such hostile comments about a religious text then you should at least be accurate about the text.

Many types of encyclopedias consist of a grouping of large entries but we still call it an encyclopedia. Life is easier that way.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 What, exactly, would constitute atheist and secular humanist teaching?

Science classes, for example, by promoting a view that absolutely does not allow for the existence of the supernatural.

Many types of encyclopedias consist of a grouping of large entries but we still call it an encyclopedia. Life is easier that way.

An encyclopedia being a collection of works.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor Science classes, for example, by promoting a view that absolutely does not allow for the existence of the supernatural.

My high school was a private catholic school. (not my choice) We had biology and an AP bio class. The books we used started human development with a background on old myths such as native american legends or far east stories about creation. The bible was mentioned only as a view point on creation but one that can't be scientifically proven so little was given about it.

The book focused on two views, the theory of evolution and intelligent design, with more being given on evolution. Both were explained as a yet to be proven theory. I expect the next edition of the series will feature more of the Int design.

This is how all public schools should be taught, offer the main views on man's development as a species and display it as a "leave it up to the reader to decide."

[Kamehameha34]

This is how all public schools should be taught, offer the main views on man's development as a species and display it as a "leave it up to the reader to decide."

Why should ideas be given equal classroom time or credence when not all ideas are equal?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Why should ideas be given equal classroom time or credence when not all ideas are equal?

How do you determine what ideas are not equal? Clearly old folklore is outdated, but as far as I know evolution is still a theory. Just because one is more popular does that mean it should be taught as the absolute truth of human development?

[Jack]

...as far as I know evolution is still a theory.

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved." First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

...to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation which is explained by the theory of gravity proposed by Newton. This theory, in addition to explaining why we see the Sun move across the sky, also explains many other phenomena such as the path followed by the Sun as it moves (as seen from Earth) across the sky, the phases of the Moon, the phases of Venus, the tides, just to mention a few. You can today make a calculation and predict the position of the Sun, the phases of the Moon and Venus, the hour of maximal tide, all 200 years from now. The same theory is used to guide spacecraft all over the Solar System.

What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

Since gravity is "only a theory", should we also teach that there's a black hole in the middle of the Earth that gives things weight?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: HelioPrime How do you determine what ideas are not equal? Clearly old folklore is outdated, but as far as I know evolution is still a theory. Just because one is more popular does that mean it should be taught as the absolute truth of human development?

Don't you know what a scientific theory is?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Helio apparently attended a more conservative school than I did, I always remember the biology teacher only mentioning creationism to say that it is invalid according to the current science.

As to the bible in public schools, it can have a place alongside other religious texts as a literary source, but if you want to be taught religion attend a religion class at a private school or sunday school.

[Pockets]

Another case that could be classified as knowing when to pick your fight. A good lawyer for either side could frame the argument correctly and win. The bottom line is the 'disruption' was the response, not the activity.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Don't you know what a scientific theory is?

I guess not. I learned something from Isher's link at least. But it still doesn't change the fact teaching just evolution as the only idea of human development could be considered teaching just the secular view.

At least I don't expect East, Northwest, St Pauls, Assumption, and the number of other catholic upper level schools here to use books that teach evolution alone. It's not really a conservative view, they don't even mention creationalism as a real concept, just a myth. They teach science which is for the most part evolution.

[Kamehameha34]

I guess not. I learned something from Isher's link at least. But it still doesn't change the fact teaching just evolution as the only idea of human development could be considered teaching just the secular view.

That's what science must be. Completely secular.

When you allow it to be influenced by religion, you defeat the purpose of science altogether - discovering and explaining the natural world through observation alone. and resulting inference.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor Even the vile and contemptuous Americans for the Separation of Church and State acknowledged: "Nothing in the 1962 or 1963 rulings makes it unlawful for public school students to pray or read the Bible (or any other religious book) on a voluntary basis during their free time. Later decisions have made this even clearer. In 1990, the high court ruled specifically that high school students may form clubs that meet during "non-instructional" time to pray, read religious texts or discuss religious topics if other student groups are allowed to meet." SOURCE

Are you being facetious? What makes AU so "vile and contemptuous"?

Quote by: Chancellor There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution.

What????

The very text you quoted says otherwise.

The only valid meaning of the Constitution is the meaning that the authors of it had when they wrote it. The Constitution is not subject to interpretation and its meaning does not change over time. If you want to change the Constitution, you must either amend it or scrap it for a new one!

Regardless, since none of the authors are alive, we need someone to interpret it to figure out what it meant when they wrote it. Thankfully, the authors anticipated this and designated the Supreme Court as this interpreter.

There is nothing in Article III that says Supreme Court decisions have the force of law.

And there is nothing that says there has to be. By the working of the courts they will have this effect since lower courts have to honor the decisions of the courts above them. If the Supreme Court rules that on law 123 they will rule X, it is pointless for a court below to rule Y, since it will only be overturned.
The fact that court decisions have the weight of law stems from the concepts of binding precedent and stare decisis. It's not written in the Constitution, it's simple mechanics, get it?

It is not the role of the federal courts to legislate!

Taken right from Bill O'Reily's idiot soundbites. Of course it isn't their role to legislate. But it is their role to adjudicate. And since we have a written record of how courts adjudicate on certain issues, it creates precedent. And because the place where laws are applied is those same courts, the precedent has the effect of law.

"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." See above.

Huh?

The text there says that the courts have the power to decide all cases arising under the Constitution - meaning any case that has a disagreement about the Constitution.
That means that when two parties disagree, the Court gets to say who is right. By saying this, they naturally will be "interpreting" the Constitution, whatever you want to call it.

As is what you think. The Constitution means exactly and only what it says.

Preposterous. Who decides what the Constitution says? There is no list of defined words. When a word is in the Constitution and we disagree about its meaning, the Court decides who is right and in the process an "interpretation" is made.

Quote by: Chancellor Science classes, for example, by promoting a view that absolutely does not allow for the existence of the supernatural.

::sigh:: Research anyone? Can't Volconvo draft some rule that there is an immediate ban for posting something that is such utter and complete nonsense that it can be debunked with a 10-second Google search?
NOMA
:rolleyes:

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Chancellor Science classes, for example, by promoting a view that absolutely does not allow for the existence of the supernatural.

And how exactly does science "not allow for the existence of the supernatural?"