NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it okay to teach Scientology and other fringe religions or religious beliefs at the tax-payers expense?

The only religion that should be taught in schools is Pastafarianism.

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

The only religion that should be taught in schools is Pastafarianism.

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

I most surely hope you were wearing a pirate costume* as you wrote that, lest you displease his carby monstrosity.

*I never take mine off.

I think if we must hear the Christian story of Intelligent Design, we must allocate it 5 minutes and include a couple of hundred alternative stories of creation. Including tribal African ones. After all, they are all equally valid.

I don't think that any religion should be taught at public school, for the simple reason that people outside of that religion would not present it properly and also I think that religion is best handled at home. I am really worried at the discovery of some of the whacked up things people on these forums think about Christainity and I can only assume that these falsehoods were passed down by nonchristains. I really hope that my kids aren't exposed to these things, it could severly slant thier view on religion.

Catholicism must be the only religion taught as required by the Church Herself. Only then can a true moral education be achieved.

Who cares? If the Republicans and Democrats followed our own constuitional framework, it would up to each individual state to decide the issue. And it doesn't bother me if Texas teaches its children if the sky is blue or purple.

Who cares? If the Republicans and Democrats followed our own constuitional framework, it would up to each individual state to decide the issue. And it doesn't bother me if Texas teaches its children if the sky is blue or purple.
*points to the 14th Amendment*

No, it wouldn't.

*points to the 14th Amendment*

No, it wouldn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Education is a service, neither a right nor a protection...regardless of what the 1960's government believes is an acceptable interpretation. The broadest stroke this amendment can paint is that people should not be discriminated against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Education is a service, neither a right nor a protection...regardless of what the 1960's government believes is an acceptable interpretation. The broadest stroke this amendment can paint is that people should not be discriminated against.

But if a tax-payer funded school extablished any religion as the one true religion (which is what teaching only one religious belief would do,) it would violate the 1st Amendment and would discriminate against those that do not hold that religion to be true. On the other hand, no one tells a private school what to teach. Therefore, if you want to to have your children taught religion by someone other than yourself and your priest (who also does it for free,) then go and get your child a private education. Period. If you don't like it, then I guess you really don't like America. Whay do you hate America for it's freedoms? :eek: :D

nope, the constitution forbids it-separation of church and state. I mean really nobody can pray but someone wants to teach a cult religion in the schools give me a break? All that scientology crap is driven by celebrities to say hey we have a spritual side and we pay all this money into this cult and call ourselves religious....with Tom Cruise as their spokesman? :rolleyes:

nope, the constitution forbids it-separation of church and state. I mean really nobody can pray but someone wants to teach a cult religion in the schools give me a break? All that scientology crap is driven by celebrities to say hey we have a spritual side and we pay all this money into this cult and call ourselves religious....with Tom Cruise as their spokesman? :rolleyes:

Sigh...how could you think I was serious about Scientology? Did you even look at option 4?

Who cares? If the Republicans and Democrats followed our own constuitional framework, it would up to each individual state to decide the issue. And it doesn't bother me if Texas teaches its children if the sky is blue or purple.

Actually, since the 1st Amendment is spelled out in the Constitution, it applies to every state. The constitution only says that the states have the power to decide on things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

I suggest you re-read the Constitution instead of taking someone else's word for it.

Is it okay to teach Scientology and other fringe religions or religious beliefs at the tax-payers expense?

What do you mean "teach" religion at the tax-payer's expense?

Do you mean "inculcate" religions?

Do you mean "compare and contrast belief systems"?

What the fnook are you talking about..?


-The REAL Iakeo

But if a tax-payer funded school extablished any religion as the one true religion (which is what teaching only one religious belief would do,) it would violate the 1st Amendment and would discriminate against those that do not hold that religion to be true. On the other hand, no one tells a private school what to teach. Therefore, if you want to to have your children taught religion by someone other than yourself and your priest (who also does it for free,) then go and get your child a private education. Period. If you don't like it, then I guess you really don't like America. Whay do you hate America for it's freedoms? :eek: :D

Would it REALLY establish it as the one true religion? That seems to be stretching the teachings quite a bit...it all depends on how it is taught in the class. :p
Teaching Scientology, strictly from the Wikipedia article, would be a great job of discrediting it. I certainly want to hear about the man who would take me away in his spaceship, or whatever garbage they teach. I imagine the Christians would DEMAND students be taught this!
Long live America! (Hey, if it is true, that means WE get to fly away in spaceships...then everyone is happy. We get a utopia, the world gets a place without America. :D )


EDIT: You just posted this, so...

Actually, since the 1st Amendment is spelled out in the Constitution, it applies to every state. The constitution only says that the states have the power to decide on things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

I suggest you re-read the Constitution instead of taking someone else's word for it.
Teaching a religion does not neccessarily mean lending support to it, which doesn't create a government-sponsored religion.
Safe to say, though, the Constiution wasn't well followed in the early days. People were taking religious oaths for offices all the time, if I remember correctly, and, also if I remember correctly, that's pretty much explicitly forbidden. Unless it says just "United States official" and you paint a broad-stroke. :p

Sigh...how could you think I was serious about Scientology? Did you even look at option 4?The poll doesn't leave any options for us non-christians... :(

What do you mean "teach" religion at the tax-payer's expense?

Do you mean "inculcate" religions?

Do you mean "compare and contrast belief systems"?

What the fnook are you talking about..?


-The REAL Iakeo

It's called an analogy. Sit back, relax, and see the humor/brilliance of it. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Education is a service, neither a right nor a protection...regardless of what the 1960's government believes is an acceptable interpretation. The broadest stroke this amendment can paint is that people should not be discriminated against.
According to 100 years of Supreme Court decisions, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Guess what's in the Bill of Rights. That's right, the First Amendment. Teaching religion violates it. It's pretty damned simple.

The poll doesn't leave any options for us non-christians... :(

Hence why the poll says "Christians..."

My child can learn religion at home. School has far more important things to teach him: Like how to properly worship his corporate masters. :p

Hence why the poll says "Christians..."Exactly. All four options are for christians. You could have put up at least one option so I don't have to stare at four possible choices all the time... :p

The constitution does not forbid the teaching of religion in public schools and I would like someone to post what article of the Constitution provides for a seperation of church and state? I have never actually found it, nor seen it referenced, though I hear people claim it is their.

Exactly. All four options are for christians. You could have put up at least one option so I don't have to stare at four possible choices all the time... :p
Those options are not the same--some are far worse then others.

According to 100 years of Supreme Court decisions, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Guess what's in the Bill of Rights. That's right, the First Amendment. Teaching religion violates it. It's pretty damned simple.

Teaching a religion doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. Indoctrination does.
And even that is a broad view, because the amendment, of the top of my head, says only that Congress shall not ESTABLISH a religion.

My child can learn religion at home. School has far more important things to teach him: Like how to properly worship his corporate masters. :p


LUNE...!! DUDE...!!! :D

I've missed your razorsharp <insert appendage or mental characteristic here>
in the extreme..!!

People... LUNE is a GOD...!! So listen to what he/she (I still don't know
which) says..!!

Anyway,.. Yeah,.. the extension of the "family" (home) is the church, and
that's the place for religion.

But isn't "comparative religion" REALLY just a weird mix of psychology and
literature..? And that is indeed fair game for "school".

..with, of course, a healthy dose of "corporate master worship" thrown in for
flavoring and to appease the "political" gods.


-The REAL Iakeo

The constitution does not forbid the teaching of religion in public schools and I would like someone to post what article of the Constitution provides for a seperation of church and state? I have never actually found it, nor seen it referenced, though I hear people claim it is their.
The First Amendment.

"The separation of Church and state" does not and CANNOT possibly exist except in the dreams of anti-Christian activists, atheists, "agnostics," and other such lowlifes.

Teaching a religion doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. Indoctrination does.
And even that is a broad view, because the amendment, of the top of my head, says only that Congress shall not ESTABLISH a religion.

"Amendment I

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

Public exercise of religion is protected--thereby public exercise in a Public school should as well be protected. This is not a seperation of Chirch and state--and I submit my question again--can someone please reference the exact article of the Constitution which declares a Seperation of Church and State.

The first Amendment prohibits congressional Endorsement, or essentially the declaration of State sanctioned religion. It in no way declares any restriction on teaching or practice.

The First Amendment.
try reading it. Parrot.

"Amendment I

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



Damn, I should pull out my pocket copy more often, or perhaps put it my pocket where it belongs.
But, current law structures state that this Amendment does indeed rule as the supreme law of the land and refers to all states.
This quite clearly prevents governments from endorsing a religion. But, like I said, it doesn't prevent teaching.

"Amendment I

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

Public exercise of religion is protected--thereby public exercise in a Public school should as well be protected. This is not a seperation of Chirch and state--and I submit my question again--can someone please reference the exact article of the Constitution which declares a Seperation of Church and State.

The first Amendment prohibits congressional Endorsement, or essentially the declaration of State sanctioned religion. It in no way declares any restriction on teaching or practice.

No one has ever said that you have to stop being Christian when you walk inside a school's door. You're free to pray at recess All we say is that our tax-dollars will not be spent on something that endorses religion.

The constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore it forbids even the first step in a religion being established...otherwise the founding fathers wouldn't have included the word I emphasized.

"Amendment I

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

Public exercise of religion is protected--thereby public exercise in a Public school should as well be protected. This is not a seperation of Chirch and state--and I submit my question again--can someone please reference the exact article of the Constitution which declares a Seperation of Church and State.

The first Amendment prohibits congressional Endorsement, or essentially the declaration of State sanctioned religion. It in no way declares any restriction on teaching or practice.


"Seperation of Church and State" is a "buzz word." It never says that exactly, anywhere. What it does say is that it cannot lend support for, or make any prohibition against any religion. The problem, in my opinion, is not can we teach religion in schools. In an ideal situation the answer would most definitly be yes.

The problem becomes, where do you find enough teachers who are ENTIRELY UNBIASED to teach the religions. Everyone has an opinion (more or less) about the religion issue. It would be certainly very near to impossible to find people who would not lend support to their own beliefs when presenting the religious options to students. The problem also becomes: what religions qualify to be taught in a school? How old, or how many worshippers must a religion be or have, respectively?

The other problem becomes the issue of "Captive Audience." Since the students are required by the government to be there, the government should not force any religious teachings on them.

Since federal education isn't constitutional anyway, I don't see why this debate is even relevant. But on the issue of separation of church and state: that's a modern doctrine, an interpretation of the First Amendment. Those words never appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Since it's an interpretation, I advise the separation of church and staters not to assume it's what the framers meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion."

*Edit: Praying during classtime isn't an establishment of a religion. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...," it doesn't take issue with individuals or groups deciding to pray.

Since federal education isn't constitutional anyway, I don't see why this debate is even relevant. But on the issue of separation of church and state: that's a modern doctrine, an interpretation of the First Amendment. Those words never appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Since it's an interpretation, I advise the separation of church and staters not to assume it's what the framers meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion."


It is an issue because State laws cannot contradict Federal laws. The only time States get to make laws is when Federal law doesn't cover the issue.

Damn, I should pull out my pocket copy more often, or perhaps put it my pocket where it belongs.
But, current law structures state that this Amendment does indeed rule as the supreme law of the land and refers to all states.
This quite clearly prevents governments from endorsing a religion. But, like I said, it doesn't prevent teaching.

But if public schools only teach one religion, that is a de-facto endorsement, pure and simple, and I won't stand for my tax-dollars paying for it. Even if you have a teacher teach all religions, they are really only going to do a decent job in teaching the religion they themselves believe in.

But if public schools only teach one religion, that is a de-facto endorsement, pure and simple, and I won't stand for my tax-dollars paying for it. Even if you have a teacher teach all religions, they are really only going to do a decent job in teaching the religion they themselves believe in.

100% Agreement from me.

It is an issue because State laws cannot contradict Federal laws. The only time States get to make laws is when Federal law doesn't cover the issue.

It's not an issue because FEDERAL PUBLIC EDUCATION isn't constitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then that makes any debate about federal public education irrelevant.

It's not an issue because FEDERAL PUBLIC EDUCATION isn't constitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then that makes any debate about federal public education irrelevant.

Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to understand what you're saying here. Could you please clarify it?

But if public schools only teach one religion, that is a de-facto endorsement, pure and simple, and I won't stand for my tax-dollars paying for it. Even if you have a teacher teach all religions, they are really only going to do a decent job in teaching the religion they themselves believe in.

I'll ask this again, and HOPE that someone (GYMOOR!) answers me...

What do you mean by "teaching" a (any) religion..?!?


-The REAL Iakeo

But if public schools only teach one religion, that is a de-facto endorsement, pure and simple, and I won't stand for my tax-dollars paying for it. Even if you have a teacher teach all religions, they are really only going to do a decent job in teaching the religion they themselves believe in.
Why? I learned in depth about Marx's theories in my history class, and compartivley little about Smith. I certainly hope you're not saying my McDonald's run government is supporting scientific socialism! :eek:

I'll ask this again, and HOPE that someone (GYMOOR!) answers me...

What do you mean by "teaching" a (any) religion..?!?


-The REAL Iakeo

Pretty sure he means if it is included in any part a class curriculum. Whether it be as part of a biology class (Intelligent Design could potentially be taught there?) or even a class devoted to giving kids religious awareness (which obviously doesn't exist at the moment).

If a teacher explains anything about a religion (or even a theory based on a religious idea), that, in my opinion, would qualify as teaching it.

Gymoor, that what you were shooting for?

But if public schools only teach one religion, that is a de-facto endorsement, pure and simple, and I won't stand for my tax-dollars paying for it. Even if you have a teacher teach all religions, they are really only going to do a decent job in teaching the religion they themselves believe in.

Firstly, a de-facto endorsement still isn't an endorsement. Unless Congress--not public schools, but the actual Congress--establishes a religion, there's no violation of the First Amendment.

On a lighter note, if you're going to accept the current system of taxation--you vote for your Congressmen, they vote to take x% out of your income via various taxes--then you must also accept that you have no control over your money once it's taken from you. That's the way it works: the money stops being yours once the government decides to take it. There are a lot of programs that my taxes go toward that I disagree with and even hate. But then again, I oppose all forms of taxation, so I don't feel like a hypocrite when I say that.

Why? I learned in depth about Marx's theories in my history class, and compartivley little about Smith. I certainly hope you're not saying my McDonald's run government is supporting scientific socialism! :eek:

There are no laws prohibiting the government from favoring any particular political theories ;)

No, but curriculum doesn't always allow time to cover everything it should, which is part of the problem with teaching religion. Someone will always feel like their beliefs weren't spotlighted enough or handled correctly.

Why? I learned in depth about Marx's theories in my history class, and compartivley little about Smith. I certainly hope you're not saying my McDonald's run government is supporting scientific socialism! :eek:

Okay, then we bring out all the warts.

We teach how the Bible contradicts itself in certain places and how known history in some cases disagrees with the Bible.

We teach about the Inquisition.

We teach about witch burning.

We teach about the how many translation inaccuracies are in most common Bibles.

Because I'm sure that your Marxist education didn't present a sunny picture of Marxism in practice, and if it did, then I do actually find fault with your teacher.

Also, as Red Lion pointed out, Marxism isn't a religion. (excellent point, and much more clear than mine.)

Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to understand what you're saying here. Could you please clarify it?

Sure.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress can make federal departments, departments like the Department of Education. But the powers vested within a federal department aren't always constitutional. For example, the Department of Depriving Black People the Right to Vote would be unconstitutional. The Department of Education is unconstitutional because Congress doesn't have the authority to create public education. Article 1 contains all the enumerated powers of Congress. Public education isn't one of 'em.

So what I'm saying is this: federal public education isn't constitutional. Since there should be no federal public education, a debate about whether prayer can be conducted in a federally funded public school is irrelevant.

"Seperation of Church and State" is a "buzz word." It never says that exactly, anywhere. What it does say is that it cannot lend support for, or make any prohibition against any religion. The problem, in my opinion, is not can we teach religion in schools. In an ideal situation the answer would most definitly be yes.

The problem becomes, where do you find enough teachers who are ENTIRELY UNBIASED to teach the religions. Everyone has an opinion (more or less) about the religion issue. It would be certainly very near to impossible to find people who would not lend support to their own beliefs when presenting the religious options to students. The problem also becomes: what religions qualify to be taught in a school? How old, or how many worshippers must a religion be or have, respectively?

The other problem becomes the issue of "Captive Audience." Since the students are required by the government to be there, the government should not force any religious teachings on them.

Actually if you read where you qouted me, I posted exactly what it says, and it doesnt say anything about "support"--it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" period.

Sure.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18



Congress can make federal departments, departments like the Department of Education. But the powers vested within a federal department aren't always constitutional. For example, the Department of Depriving Black People the Right to Vote would be unconstitutional. The Department of Education is unconstitutional because Congress doesn't have the authority to create public education. Article 1 contains all the enumerated powers of Congress. Public education isn't one of 'em.

So what I'm saying is this: federal public education isn't constitutional. Since there should be no federal public education, a debate about whether prayer can be conducted in a federally-funded public school is irrelevant.


I guess I see what you're saying. But, the matter at hand is, there is a Federal Department of Education. Now, what should we allow it to do?

Actually if you read where you qouted me, I posted exactly what it says, and it doesnt say anything about "support"--it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" period.

Respecting, respecting, respecting, respecting, respecting, respecting.

Got it yet?

Also, may I point out how pleased I am that at the time of this posting option #4 is outpacing option #2.

No one has ever said that you have to stop being Christian when you walk inside a school's door. You're free to pray at recess All we say is that our tax-dollars will not be spent on something that endorses religion.

The constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore it forbids even the first step in a religion being established...otherwise the founding fathers wouldn't have included the word I emphasized.

Allowing free exercise is not establishing a religion--and no where does the Constitution protect you or your tax dollars or your children from religion.

Simply put--A Christian according to the tenets of the faith is obligated to bear witness--that is EXERCISING thier religion--whereby if a teacher being a Christian teaches about there religion they are bearing witness according to their faith.
The State is not Sanctioning the establishment of a religion--they are simply not prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE--you dont seem to understand that the first Amendment protects the right of the Religious to carry out that most basic of religious doctrine and that is prostletize, students and teachers are protected in that tenet of their faith. You are free to decline the offer--but not to shut us up even in school that your fathers tax dollars go to.

Respecting, respecting, respecting, respecting, respecting, respecting.

Got it yet?

Main Entry: re·spect·ing
Function: preposition
1 : in view of : CONSIDERING
2 : with respect to : CONCERNING

"Amendment I

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


"Amendment I

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


Yeah, I got it--do you.
Here, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" there is no disclaimer next to that phrase GOT IT YET?

or maybe your simple minded enough to believe that word is used in the inappropriate context of Respect--as in reverence. Laughable.

Allowing free exercise is not establishing a religion--and no where does the Constitution protect you or your tax dollars or your children from religion.

Simply put--A Christian according to the tenets of the faith is obligated to bear witness--that is EXERCISING thier religion--whereby if a teacher being a Christian teaches about there religion they are bearing witness according to their faith.
The State is not Sanctioning the establishment of a religion--they are simply not prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE--you dont seem to understand that the first Amendment protects the right of the Religious to carry out that most basic of religious doctrine and that is prostletize, students and teachers are protected in that tenet of their faith. You are free to decline the offer--but not to shut us up even in school that your fathers tax dollars go to.

This is where "captive audiences" come into play. Since all children are required to be at school, if the government allows children to practice religion at school. The other children are forced to watch whatever the practice may be. While this is not anobvious endorsement, you must think: if they allow kids to get in a circle and sing hymns, do they also allow the kid to drink his goat's blood or other such things? If the answer to any religion is no, then that is a prohibition of free practice, and a favoritism towards the ones that are allowed.

Now, I don't particularly have a problem with them doing it during recess or before or after school (unless they are required to be on a school bus with other students). My real gripe is when class time is given up to allow children to pray or whatever it is that they want to do.

You are free to decline the offer--but not to shut us up even in school that your fathers tax dollars go to.

It's not so much the use of religion wherever you want, but I wouldn't want my tax dollars to be used to further the agenda of any religion. The church has their tithes right? Now they want to use tax dollars too? Nope, keep your hands out of there if you please. Do that, and things will be fine I think.

I guess I see what you're saying. But, the matter at hand is, there is a Federal Department of Education. Now, what should we allow it to do?

That's sort of a 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' kind of question, but all right. It's absurd to think that we'd simply excise an entire part of history, especially one that played such a central motivating factor in so many areas, just because some people today find some religious practitioners to be offensive. Like it or not religion happened and it continues to exist. I suspect the original post was supposed to be about indoctrinating students with religious views, and not simply teaching about the existence of religions. The former is despotic and the latter is idiotic.

Yeah, we should teach religions just like we teach about other subjects. It's not a First Amendment 'indoctrination' issue any more than teaching the existence of countries besides America is treason.

Anyone who thinks we can stop viewpoint-indoctrination in schools by stopping references to God needs to visit a typical elementary school on Earth Day, though.

or maybe your simple minded enough to believe that word is used in the inappropriate context of Respect--as in reverence. Laughable.

This does not need to become personal. When it gets down to insults you have clearly run out of good points.

You quoted the definition of "respecting" as "concerning." So, if they can do nothing CONCERNING religion, then schools shouold not be able to lend endorsement to any religion.

That's sort of a 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' kind of question, but all right. It's absurd to think that we'd simply excise an entire part of history, especially one that played such a central motivating factor in so many areas, just because some people today find some religious practitioners to be offensive. Like it or not religion happened and it continues to exist. I suspect the original post was supposed to be about indoctrinating students with religious views, and not simply teaching about the existence of religions. The former is despotic and the latter is idiotic.

Yeah, we should teach religions just like we teach about other subjects. It's not a First Amendment 'indoctrination' issue any more than teaching the existence of countries besides America is treason.

Anyone who thinks we can stop viewpoint-indoctrination in schools by stopping references to God needs to visit a typical elementary school on Earth Day, though.


Ah, now we're talking the same issue (or non-issue... hypothetical? :D ). And I do definitley agree with you that no matter what we say, Religious ideas will still be spread in school (intentionally or not). I really think that "World Religions" or something should be a high school class. At least if there was a standard curriculum it would help stem the tide of rumors and misconceptions that occur? Hopefully?

Main Entry: re·spect·ing
Function: preposition
1 : in view of : CONSIDERING
2 : with respect to : CONCERNING

"Amendment I

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


"Amendment I

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


Yeah, I got it--do you.
Here, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" there is no disclaimer next to that phrase GOT IT YET?

Congress shall make no law concening an establishment of religion sounds like it means no law will be made that has anything to do with religion. Also note that it doesn't say "a religion" it says "religion" meaning any religion of any sort.

So, in other words, it says that Congress will not pass laws that deal with any religion in any way.

I feel it would not be bad to have a comparitive study of a bunch of the major religions in a theology class

Congress shall make no law concening an establishment of religion sounds like it means no law will be made that has anything to do with religion. Also note that it doesn't say "a religion" it says "religion" meaning any religion of any sort.

So, in other words, it says that Congress will not pass laws that deal with any religion in any way.

I think that what it's talking about is that the Government should not make a law restraining any religion. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I, personally agree with UpwardThrust. There should be a class talking about all the religions. They should, however, get it right. No religion should be misquoted or misunderstood. They should be presented to the students as they are with no discrimination. I don't want teachers, for example, teaching that Islam is the only true religion. And the students should be presented with their influences in history as well. There should be a class from the gods of Egypt to the Christianity of our founding fathers and everything in between. It should be up to the home to say which they believe is right.

I think that what it's talking about is that the Government should not make a law restraining any religion. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I, personally agree with UpwardThrust. There should be a class talking about all the religions. They should, however, get it right. No religion should be misquoted or misunderstood. They should be presented to the students as they are with no discrimination. I don't want teachers, for example, teaching that Islam is the only true religion. And the students should be presented with their influences in history as well. There should be a class from the gods of Egypt to the Christianity of our founding fathers and everything in between. It should be up to the home to say which they believe is right.
Exactly maybe alow the students to pick 6 or 8 of the ones they have the most questions about and discuss them throughout the year

As much as I dont believe in religion It is a massive influance on individuals and groups ... we should not shun it just because we dont believe in it ... it as everything else deserves an objective study

Though I am pretty sure we will be hearing bitching from all the religions if we study them objectivly (specialy historicaly)
Some are not or have not been pretty at times
None of them really want that part studied

OK,..

This is the LAST time I'm gonna say this..!!

I WANT SCIENTOLOGY TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS..!!

It would be most amusing, and give me and my kid something to laugh about
at the end of the day over the dinner table.


-The REAL Iakeo

OK,..

This is the LAST time I'm gonna say this..!!

I WANT SCIENTOLOGY TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS..!!

It would be most amusing, and give me and my kid something to laugh about
at the end of the day over the dinner table.


-The REAL Iakeo

I want ALL religions to be taught in school.

I see no justification for picking just one - all must be considered equally valid.

And some of them ARE quite amusing...

Just DON'T teach them in science class.

I want ALL religions to be taught in school.

I see no justification for picking just one - all must be considered equally valid.

And some of them ARE quite amusing...

Just DON'T teach them in science class.Agreed. By teaching all religions:
1) the Goverment is not favoring any one Religion.
2) the Students can decide for themselves which Religion (if any) they want to follow.
3) this would be the greatest test of any Religion. to stand the test of comparasion and to see how many of their basic Dogma would change to "lure' new converts.

Well, I'm not a Christian, but I think Scientology should be taught in schools. School was so boring most of the time, it could with a bit of extra comedy.

Agreed. By teaching all religions:
1) the Goverment is not favoring any one Religion.
2) the Students can decide for themselves which Religion (if any) they want to follow.
3) this would be the greatest test of any Religion. to stand the test of comparasion and to see how many of their basic Dogma would change to "lure' new converts.

This still begs the question: "What does it mean to TEACH a religion in
school?"

Personally,.. I think it's only possible to "teach" religion in school as one
would "teach" art appreciation.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that "teaching" art appreciation IS teaching
a "religion". It's an "exposure" of various aesthetical forms to essentially
clueless people.

What I'm saying, I suppose, is that you can't really "teach" religion,.. you can
only "display" it.

Instruction in religion is the province of "wise people" who actively USE the
religion in question to accomplish what they accomplish with their religion.

And the use of religion is a "craft", much like "art", whereby we create
something (using the tool of religion) that we find personally aesthetically
pleasing or useful.

Public school is a fine place to display and discuss the art-work of religion.

Public school is not a good place to teach this "craft", as a craft, because it
requires a "wise-practitioner", and that practitioner must be sanctioned by
the sub-culture (family, etc) of the informed-&-consenting student to have
any hope of teaching the subject.

(( A truly "wise" religion, by the way, is one that knows what parts of
the "craft" to teach to the not yet informed-&-consenting student, aka the
child, within their sub-culture. To instill any negative associations with the
practice of the "craft" in a child is a bad idea, for obvious reasons. I do wish
there were more wise religions out there..! ))

Teaching religion as a "craft" in the public school would be like teaching the
craft of sex in the public school. Thus the "emotional intensity" of the subject.

..and sub-cultures HATE to be overruled "on their territory" by the "dominant
culture".

Even you communal leftists out there, as well as you mountain hide-out
rightists, would agree with each other on that one...!


-The REAL Iakeo

The courts have stated consistently that granting federal funding to a religion violates the first amendment. So, as long as the courts, who are the supreme interpretation of the constitution, change thier mind funding to public school for any kind of religious activities is unconstitutionnal.

Besides, teaching one one religion (or a small group) is considered discrimination and is also prohibited by law. So, no I don't want scientology to be teached in public school, just like I don't want Buddism to be teached or Catholicism either.

While I do agree that a religious studies class should be included as an option for public school students I believe that it's focus should be on the Big 5 Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. From there it can branch off into smaller sects, and hopefully by importance, such as the importance of Shinto to Japanese history, or the various forms of Animism that have been held around the world. Scientology would be somewhere in the fringe religions, in amongst the various small time religions, like UFO cults and the like. Just my opinion though.

While I do agree that a religious studies class should be included as an option for public school students I believe that it's focus should be on the Big 5 Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. From there it can branch off into smaller sects, and hopefully by importance, such as the importance of Shinto to Japanese history, or the various forms of Animism that have been held around the world. Scientology would be somewhere in the fringe religions, in amongst the various small time religions, like UFO cults and the like. Just my opinion though.

Except, of course, that it could be argued that the West was JUST AS influenced by Greek/Roman religion. So - since that predates our modern 5... shouldn't preference be given to those two?

Maybe spend the first couple of years exploring the Mesopotamian roots of Judeo-Christian religion, hit a few terms of Greek and Roman mythology, and it's importance to our arts, culture and society. And, then spend a couple of semesters discussing Celtic religion (that shaped MUCH of our interpretation of early western culture, and our view of popular Christianity).

Then, in the last year, you could discuss the mere modern religions...

Plus, of course... you have six faiths in your top five.... :D

The courts have stated consistently that granting federal funding to a religion violates the first amendment. So, as long as the courts, who are the supreme interpretation of the constitution, change thier mind funding to public school for any kind of religious activities is unconstitutionnal.

Besides, teaching one one religion (or a small group) is considered discrimination and is also prohibited by law. So, no I don't want scientology to be teached in public school, just like I don't want Buddism to be teached or Catholicism either.

You know, Canuck, you fall into the same trap as most other people on this
subject.

Instead of thinking the problem out, you simply state "the courts say it's
unconstitutional and I always agree with them unconditionally."

Now what kind of thinking is that, you freakin' drone..!!?
(( The above sentence was said with the due amount of love and sensitivity
for the freakin' drone's feelings. ))

The question is, why is teaching (or not teaching) religion in public school a
bad thing..?

Why do YOU think it's a bad idea, dip-shneit..? :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Damn, I should pull out my pocket copy more often, or perhaps put it my pocket where it belongs.
But, current law structures state that this Amendment does indeed rule as the supreme law of the land and refers to all states.
This quite clearly prevents governments from endorsing a religion. But, like I said, it doesn't prevent teaching.
Why would a government teach what it didn't support?

Listen Oekai...

you are on my ignore list because I was warned by the mods the last time I interacted with you. So, in the interest of continual longevity, keeping my nation and the fact that I think your opinion is worthless and is stated in an arrogant and confrontationnal manner, I will refrain from answering any and all of your questions even the sensible ones.

Have a nice life outside of my sight.

BTW, adding smilies after a disparaging comment does not constitute humour. It's flamebait thinly disguised.

*Edit: Praying during classtime isn't an establishment of a religion. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...," it doesn't take issue with individuals or groups deciding to pray.

Of course, if the prayers are disrupting class, the students can be asked to stop, and can be disciplined if they do not.

Of course it is true that students can pray when they want - and can even get groups together to pray (so long as they are not disrupting the working of the school). These prayers simply cannot be administrator/teacher-led.

Originally Posted by Andaluciae
While I do agree that a religious studies class should be included as an option for public school students I believe that it's focus should be on the Big 5 Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. From there it can branch off into smaller sects, and hopefully by importance, such as the importance of Shinto to Japanese history, or the various forms of Animism that have been held around the world. Scientology would be somewhere in the fringe religions, in amongst the various small time religions, like UFO cults and the like. Just my opinion though.

Except, of course, that it could be argued that the West was JUST AS influenced by Greek/Roman religion. So - since that predates our modern 5... shouldn't preference be given to those two?

Maybe spend the first couple of years exploring the Mesopotamian roots of Judeo-Christian religion, hit a few terms of Greek and Roman mythology, and it's importance to our arts, culture and society. And, then spend a couple of semesters discussing Celtic religion (that shaped MUCH of our interpretation of early western culture, and our view of popular Christianity).

Then, in the last year, you could discuss the mere modern religions...

Plus, of course... you have six faiths in your top five.... :D

Just give an exposure to the ART (words and physical artifacts) of all
religions.

That would serve the dual purpose of exposing children to the fact that there
are other cultures than their own, and distract all the silly parents who both
want and don't want "religion" taught in the public schools.

(( Just read my words of wisdom above. That leaves no room to talk about
this silly subject any longer, as I've laid it out perfectly and definitively,
having answered all the points of view with complete sense and rationality. ))

(( But if you HAVE to be argumentative,.. continue blithering like the silly kids
you are proving yourselves to be... ))

(( ..go on,.. scat... go home,... The movies over..!! ))


-The REAL Iakeo :)

Of course, if the prayers are disrupting class, the students can be asked to stop, and can be disciplined if they do not.

Of course it is true that students can pray when they want - and can even get groups together to pray (so long as they are not disrupting the working of the school). These prayers simply cannot be administrator/teacher-led.
I feel sorry for the Strict believer Muslim people at schools.

Simply put--A Christian according to the tenets of the faith is obligated to bear witness--that is EXERCISING thier religion--whereby if a teacher being a Christian teaches about there religion they are bearing witness according to their faith.

A Christian is not asked to witness every waking moment of every single day. A teacher can spread the Gospel all she wants, when she is not acting as a representative of the state. However, when representing the state, she cannot give the impression that the state supports her personal religion. If a teacher talks to a student at church, or at the grocery store, or at the local restaurant about religion - that is her right.

A student can witness all they like, so long as it does not disrupt the school. He cannot stand up in the middle of class and start preaching, but he can witness to other students (or even teachers) at lunch, recess, in between classes, at after-school activities that are not too structured.

Listen Oekai...

you are on my ignore list because I was warned by the mods the last time I interacted with you. So, in the interest of continual longevity, keeping my nation and the fact that I think your opinion is worthless and is stated in an arrogant and confrontationnal manner, I will refrain from answering any and all of your questions even the sensible ones.

Have a nice life outside of my sight.

BTW, adding smilies after a disparaging comment does not constitute humour. It's flamebait thinly disguised.

Wow,.. YOU got warned the last time you interacted with ME..!? ( How does
THAT happen..!? I'M the "bad-guy"! )

You should have told me! We should gang up on them (whatever that means)
to combat such a goofy injustice..!

I'm on your side, MAN..!! We can take 'em..!! :D

Since Canuck is ignoring me, actually,.. let this be an object lesson to the
rest of you out there..!!

Having an interesting conversation, and talking about your "worthless"
opinions, can be hazardous.

..though...

I thought that's why we were here? To hear each other's "worthless" opinions.

Oh well,.. that's why I'm here. Perhaps that's NOT why some people are here..

Here's hoping they have fun with that..! :)


-The REAL Iakeo

I feel sorry for the Strict believer Muslim people at schools.

Why? Strict Muslims pray 5 times a day. Only one of those prayers must fall during school hours, and can be accomodated at lunch - where it does not disrupt class at all.

This girl has found a way to do it:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/05/muslim.friendly.school.ap/index.html

Why? Strict Muslims pray 5 times a day. Only one of those prayers must fall during school hours, and can be accomodated at lunch - where it does not disrupt class at all.

This girl has found a way to do it:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/05/muslim.friendly.school.ap/index.html
Good for them.

The first amendment says nothing about 'seperation of church and state' it says that the government cannot make any law respecting free excersize fo religion or prohibit it (or something like that.) What that means is that the government can't have a state religion or stop people from practicing a religion. Sooo the ban on praying in public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Islam and other religions in the public schools is unconstitutional.

Nasuan :

Just give an exposure to the ART (words and physical artifacts) of all
religions.

That would serve the dual purpose of exposing children to the fact that there
are other cultures than their own, and distract all the silly parents who both
want and don't want "religion" taught in the public schools.



I agree that the 'artifacts' of religion are important... worthwhile both for their 'significance', and their 'impact'.

And, while I whole-heartedly condone the exposure to the 'art'... I think it is important that an introduction to the 'concept' of religion explores the POSSIBILITY that no ONE religion is any more 'true' than it's religious compatriots.

Thus - while I say an avowed 'yes' to the exhibition of artifacts, I also think it important to show the 'evolution' of religious thought over the last few millenia.

Perhaps children wouldn't be so confused, or so easily gulled, if they could see that there were ALTERNATE 'theories about evolution' (ha!) of religion.

Would the average Southern-Baptist-raised child so easily swallow the Diluvium myth as FACT, if they had also read Babylonian and Sumerian flood myth?

Sooo the ban on praying in public schools

There is no such ban. The law says that a school administrator/teacher cannot lead or require prayer. Any individual can pray at any time. Students can pray individually or in groups.

the removal of the Ten Commandments

That is a removal of a very obvious establishment of religion. Notice that the Supreme Court has ruled very differently on 10 Commandments cases depending on why they were put there in the first place. When a crazy fundamentalist judge sneaks a monument in in the dead of night without any approval and with an obvious cause of spreading his religion, it cannot be allowed -as it suggests that the court is partial to Christianity. However, when a copy of the 10 Commandments is on display as part of a "history of law" kind of mural, or in a historical context with Moses as a "bringer of law," there is no problem and the monument can stay.

and the teaching of Islam and other religions in the public schools is unconstitutional.

Teaching of a religion, as in, "Be this religion," is unconstitutional. A comparative religion class, so long as it lived up to its name and taught about the various religions, rather than teaching the religion itself, would be perfectly constitutional.

I'm not really sure about this. Admittedly, religion is a big part of the world, no matter what your personal faith, but in my experience, it often ends up as 'Why Our Religion Is Better Than Theirs'. But, I go to a catholic school, and they tend to be a little wierd about religion.

Is it okay to teach Scientology and other fringe religions or religious beliefs at the tax-payers expense?

It is ok, but I cant think of any high school level class that it would be appropriate for. A comparative religion elective is generally not a high school level course, though if it can be dumbed down enough it could be. Generally, history classes only discuss the major religions that have helped shaped the world. Scientology doesnt fall into that category. So, while there is nothing wrong with teaching it, I cant think of any reason to teach it unless a school decided to offer a comparitive religion elective.

Catholicism must be the only religion taught as required by the Church Herself. Only then can a true moral education be achieved.
Yes, be cause of course BEHIND every well educated boy is a well educated Catholic Peder..er Priest. (uh-uh-uh-grunt)

I urge everyone to read the constitution in it's entirety. Look for the words "Jesus" "God" or "Christ".

You won't find them.

Now look for "Lord". You'll find it exactly once, when the date is referred to (in the year of our Lord.)

Think about this. These were generally religious people, be they Christians, Deists or whatnot, and yet they never mention God. Now, from talking to people of faith, they feel God is such an important part of their life that they bring him up constantly. You can't have a discussion about politics, morals, law or science without God coming up.

Then we have the Constitution, where God is never mentioned. The framers must have consciously left God out of the Constitution. Now, why would they do this? The answer is simple: The division of power. Checks and balances.

The Constitution is full of them. Why? Because the greatest fear of the framers of the Constitution was the over-use and concentration of power. This is why the President is not supposed to declare War. This is why the three branches of Government have powers to hold the other branches in check.

This is why religion was left out of government. The combination is simply too powerful, and the temptation to wield such power too strong. The seperation of Church and State wasn't put in place to punish religion, it was put in place to protect Man from Man. Men in power simply cannot be trusted too far without significant oversight, and a man of both temporal and spiritual power is especially to be distrusted. History has taught us this over and over again. It shouldn't have to repeat itself yet again.

Don't take my word for it, read the Constitution yourself, and see if you find God in it.

Finally, no one is trying to take your religion from you. No one says you have to stop being religious. A Judge can pray, a child in school can pray. On the other hand, no Judge or teacher can compell or even suggest that you pray, so long as they are excercising their state-given authority.

Can't even the most religious see the incredible common sense of this? It's not a religion's fallibility that the Constitution protects us from, it's the fallibility of Man.

Scientology is a plutocratic "religion." Unless you have lots of money to blow you're not going to get very far or deep into the "mysteries" which basically tell you that space aliens blew up a bunch of people and their souls are scattered all over the Earth.

And for fundies who keep calling the Separation of Church and State a myth, do you know what you get if there is no Separation of Church and State?

As Margaret Atwood aptly put it, you get the Republic of Gilead.

Or if you want to dismiss that example as liberal propaganda, let's take some real world examples.

You get Iran, or you get Taliban Afghanistan.

It doesn't matter the faith, when there's no separation between Church and State you get very bad results.

My son is in Primary school and has so far been taught about the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions. He has a better understanding of people. He questions the differences and similarities. Not to teach these things is a head in the sand, reactionary step back to the dark ages.

There is no problem with knowledge, just what application it is put to.

I can't believe a supposed civilised country is that scared of providing it's children with knowledge and understanding.

Scientology is a plutocratic "religion." Unless you have lots of money to blow you're not going to get very far or deep into the "mysteries" which basically tell you that space aliens blew up a bunch of people and their souls are scattered all over the Earth.

And for fundies who keep calling the Separation of Church and State a myth, do you know what you get if there is no Separation of Church and State?

As Margaret Atwood aptly put it, you get the Republic of Gilead.

Or if you want to dismiss that example as liberal propaganda, let's take some real world examples.

You get Iran, or you get Taliban Afghanistan.

It doesn't matter the faith, when there's no separation between Church and State you get very bad results.
Yes like the UK where the head of state is the head of the church. Just look how terrible it is to be a muslim or Jew in the UK.
there is no separation in the UK we arew a Christian country that allows the free practice of all relligions (more or less).

A better question would be: "How many Christians want Christianity to be taught in public schools?"

I know I wouldn't. They can't even teach history correctly and they want to teach my religion? Thanks, but no.

Yes like the UK where the head of state is the head of the church. Just look how terrible it is to be a muslim or Jew in the UK.
there is no separation in the UK we arew a Christian country that allows the free practice of all relligions (more or less).

You mean the King or Queen of England, which is now a ceremonial title with no real governmental power like in the good old days?

Oh and the Muslims are all ready starting to feel the pressure of Islamaphobia squeezing around them in the wake of the subway bombings.

Yes like the UK where the head of state is the head of the church. Just look how terrible it is to be a muslim or Jew in the UK.
there is no separation in the UK we arew a Christian country that allows the free practice of all relligions (more or less).

Yes but compare how religious the US is compared to the UK. Gauthier left out a possibility with state supported religion, it becomes an empty organization with more cleregy than worshippers as it is in most Western European countries. The reason why religion has been so vibrant in this country is precisely because of the "hands off" approach that the government has taken. So you have to ask yourself whether you want empty slogans in our goverment and empty churches or each church and religion run without government meddling and full with support of their parrishners. When church and state climb into bed with each other you get ugly little bastard children which are all consuming like Iran or empty and hollow withiout a voice of their own like the UK.

You mean the King or Queen of England, which is now a ceremonial title with no real governmental power like in the good old days?

Oh and the Muslims are all ready starting to feel the pressure of Islamaphobia squeezing around them in the wake of the subway bombings. No the Two houses are Christian also, and the state religion is Christianity.

And there has been some adverse reaction to the London bombing but people of all religions are free to practice. There are no state sponsored restrictions on Muslims, unlike Saudi where it is against the law to take a bible.

The Queen is no ceremonial title, true she has less power than of old and uses those she has rarely.

Then we have the Constitution, where God is never mentioned. The framers must have consciously left God out of the Constitution. Now, why would they do this? The answer is simple: The division of power. Checks and balances.

Indeed. Very consciously. One of the delegates made a motion that Jesus Christ be mentioned in the preamble. It was nearly unanimously turned down. Even in the Declaration of Independence, which so many people bring up, they were careful not to mention any specific god, but simply referenced a Creator that could be any of the many concepts of god or even nature itself.

No the Two houses are Christian also, and the state religion is Christianity.

And there has been some adverse reaction to the London bombing but people of all religions are free to practice. There are no state sponsored restrictions on Muslims, unlike Saudi where it is against the law to take a bible.

The Queen is no ceremonial title, true she has less power than of old and uses those she has rarely.

But honestly, how many people are involved in their religion compared to the US? (I'm almost sure the US has a much higher rate of church attendance an involvment) How does the Christianity impact the culture of the UK campared to that of the US? (I'm almost sure that Christianity influence the culture here much more than the UK) Can the Church take stances against government practices without fear of reprisals (such as loosing funding) or stances in favor of government practices without being accused of being a pawn of the state?

Now I have another question what makes the UK a Christian one beside the empty slogans? How would the UK change if it moved from a Christian to a secular one with all religions treated equally, besides removing a couple of words from traditional sayings. Finally I ask you, do you really think God needs government support and handouts? If so I would say it is a very weak God that deserves to die as quickly as possible.

I agree that the 'artifacts' of religion are important... worthwhile both for their 'significance', and their 'impact'.

And, while I whole-heartedly condone the exposure to the 'art'... I think it is important that an introduction to the 'concept' of religion explores the POSSIBILITY that no ONE religion is any more 'true' than it's religious compatriots.

Thus - while I say an avowed 'yes' to the exhibition of artifacts, I also think it important to show the 'evolution' of religious thought over the last few millenia.

Perhaps children wouldn't be so confused, or so easily gulled, if they could see that there were ALTERNATE 'theories about evolution' (ha!) of religion.

Would the average Southern-Baptist-raised child so easily swallow the Diluvium myth as FACT, if they had also read Babylonian and Sumerian flood myth?

Hae ae ae... even (especially!) theologians would agree that all religions
evolve out of the societies they "spring" from.

No religion springs full grown, like Aphrodite, from out of the ocean,.. now do
they. :) Though, that might irk some "super-duper fundamentalists", it's
very difficult to argue against. But why on earth (or under heaven!) would we
care about irking "super-duper fundamentalists" (or anyone else who can't
stomach a difference of opinion)..!?

A child FORCE FED stories will indeed "swallow" ANY semi-plausible (to said
child) story if it's "fed" with enough fervor by the elders.

But, eventually, when exposed to the stories of "other cultures", they will feel
at least a bit "odd" about the similarities with their own charished stories.

Exactly HOW they react this "new" information is the question. It could be a
positive reaction or a negative one.

In these forums the predominant reaction is to feel betrayed and duped.

That's too bad, in my opinion, as there is a better, more positive reaction.
That would be to become an adult, and study the subject to find out why
their "elders" would do what they did, and also to study the other stories in
context to find out why the similarities (and differences) exist.

..but that's just my take. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Considering how well public schools teach most other subjects, Christians really shouldn't want Christianity taught in public schools.

I urge everyone to read the constitution in it's entirety. Look for the words "Jesus" "God" or "Christ".

You won't find them.

Now look for "Lord". You'll find it exactly once, when the date is referred to (in the year of our Lord.)

Think about this. These were generally religious people, be they Christians, Deists or whatnot, and yet they never mention God. Now, from talking to people of faith, they feel God is such an improtant part of their life that they bring him up constantly. You can't have a discussion about politics, morals, law or science without God coming up.

Then we have the Constitution, where God is never mentioned. The framers must have consciously left God out of the Constitution. Now, why would they do this? The answer is simple: The division of power. Checks and balances.

The Constitution is full of them. Why? Because the greatest fear of the framers of the Constitution was the over-use and concentration of power. This is why the President is not supposed to declare War. This is why the three branches of Government have have powers to hold the other branches in check.

This is why religion was left out of government. The combination is simply too powerful, and the temptation to wield such power too strong. The seperation of Church and State wasn't put in place to punish religion, it was put in place to protect Man from Man. Men in power simply cannot be trusted too far without significan oversight, and a man of both temporal and spiritual power is especially to be distrusted. History has taught us this over and over again. It shouldn't have to repeat itself yet again.

Don't take my word for it, read the Constitution yourself, and see if you find God in it.

Finally, no one is trying to take your religion from you. No one says you have to stop being religious. A Judge can pray, a child in school can pray. On the other hand, no Judge or teacher can compell or even suggest that you pray, so long as they are excercising their state-given authority.

Can't even the most religious see the incredible common sense of this? It's not a religion's fallibility that the Constitution protects us from, it's the fallibility of Man.

You hit it perfectly, Gymoor..!! :)

The problem is not between people who have "work" to do (such as the
framers of the Constitution).

It is between people who are pissed off at "the other side". These people we
commonly call the anti-god people (those actually annoyed at the concept of
god), and the my-god-needs-my-help people (those who are so insecure that
they believe that god needs their assistance to "rule over and control" the
world).

The anti-god (actively anti-god) people are atheists, who would actively
abolish the concept of god entirely. These are mostly (I would say nearly
exclusively) the "children" of the my-god-needs-my-help folks who came to
the logical conclusion that their childhood "cult" was (as taught) a pile of
nonsense.

The my-god-needs-my-help people are those influenced by unwise "elders"
(practitioners) of their "cult", who insist on making it impossible for "their
people" (congregation, whatever) to integrate the beliefs of their "teachings"
into a rational view of the world.

The constitution does indeed attempt to protect man from man by putting
god in his rightful place. And that rightful place is, singularly, as the creator
of "everything AS everything", and not of "everything in the particular".

It's the job of men to make laws for the protection of what they find
valuable. It's up to god to simply have done his (singular) job and created the
universe.

The framers knew that the subject matter at hand, namely governance of a
society, was not something that they could palm off on god. They respected
him enough to know what his job is and what their job is.

You don't give a job to your father (or mother) that is yours to do. It's
disrespectful and just plain rude.

..and will get you whacked up-side the head in short order.

-The REAL Iakeo

Bingo. If you believe in God, he doesn't need the government's help, and if you don't believe, then his presence in gov't is most unwelcome. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.