NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called "Mid-Winter Festival".

That's OK with me. Really! Because there is a "separation of church and state" in America. If I wanted to have that kind of stuff at my kids' school, I could always send them to a private school of my choice.

And I believe the rules apply to everyone. Every religion.

I wonder if the ACLU is asleep at the switch. Or are they silently assenting to this?

ANN ARBOR, MI — On Wednesday, October 19, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, California, will hear oral arguments in Eklund v. Byron Union School District. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents several parents and children who challenged the Byron Union School District’s practice of teaching twelve-year-old students “to become Muslims.”
For three weeks, impressionable twelve-year-old students were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups, took Islamic names, wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon, which is the symbol of Muslims, were handed materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper,” completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting, and memorized and recited the “Bismillah” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” which students also wrote on banners that were hung on the classroom walls.

A federal district court judge in San Francisco had previously determined that the school district had not violated the constitution.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “There is a double-standard at play in this case. If the students had done similar activities in a class on Christianity, a constitutional violation would surely have been found. If the public school’s practice is upheld on appeal, all public schools should begin teaching classes on Christianity in the same manner as the Islam class was taught in this case.”

What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?

What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?Big time.

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called "Mid-Winter Festival".

That's OK with me. Really! Because there is a "separation of church and state" in America. If I wanted to have that kind of stuff at my kids' school, I could always send them to a private school of my choice.

And I believe the rules apply to everyone. Every religion.

I wonder if the ACLU is asleep at the switch. Or are they silently assenting to this?



What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?

If it's a public school, absolutely. No establishment of religion, period.

If it's a public school, absolutely. No establishment of religion, period.

It is a public school.

yes

I wonder though what the actual purpose was.......

yes

I wonder though what the actual purpose was.......

It doesn't matter what the actual purpose was.

I'm sure that if we had a class for "Christian familiarization" where everyone got "Christian names" and wore a cross around their neck, and memorized and recited the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer, and made banners that said "Christ is the Lord", people would say that the class was religious indoctrination, no matter what crazy explanation was given otherwise.

Hmm this is an interesting case.

I would say that it's unequal to teach one religion over the other in most cases, but on the other hand, since about 85% of Americans are Christians (correct me if I'm wrong on that, I'm not quite certain about it), whereas comparatively few are Muslims, it might well be useful to teach people more about Islam (as it's not as widespread and well-known) as Christianity (which in a lot of the US, surrounds everyday life).

Still, making people hang up religious banners to any religion isn't really on, I agree.

No it does not. Not even close.

It is an exercise in experiencing other cultures. The school is not, in any way, establishing Islam as its religion. It is simply providing what any good school should - exposure to different sets of beliefs and ideas.

Now whether you feel that Muslims should be able to retain their cultural behaviour when they have chosen to live in a Christian country is another matter. But if they do (and they do) then one of the only effective means of reducing friction between them and the culture in which they are inserted is to provide a means by which the members of that culture can understand what they are about.

Here's an example that might be more subtle.

Say a jury started its deliberations with a prayer. One juror asked if anyone objected and everyone thought it was a good idea. The prayer was said and the deliberations commenced.

Anything wrong with that?

Do you have a link to this story?

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called Mid-Winter Festival".

Neo Pagan Festival???? The only way around this problem would seem to be not to make any mention, including veiled ones, to any religious festival.

Holy constitutional violation, Batman!

No it does not. Not even close.

It is an exercise in experiencing other cultures. The school is not, in any way, establishing Islam as its religion. It is simply providing what any good school should - exposure to different sets of beliefs and ideas.

Now whether you feel that Muslims should be able to retain their cultural behaviour when they have chosen to live in a Christian country is another matter. But if they do (and they do) then one of the only effective means of reducing friction between them and the culture in which they are inserted is to provide a means by which the members of that culture can understand what they are about.
You can educate students about a culture without actually having to experience many fundamental tenets of that culture. Making them memorise Islamic prayers is way over the top. In addition, wouldn't making them fast be a big civil rights violation?

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/legal_cases.cfm?legalcaseid=142

Follow the link above to a description of the case from an unbiased legal perspective. I will qoute the relevant bit.

A California district court held that there was no violation of the Establishment Clause because the course lacked “any devotional or religious intent” and was only educational. Also, the district court held that the activities in which the children engaged were not true Islamic religious rites, but only “approximated” such rites.

I guess judges and children know when people are playing 'pretend', while some full grown adults do not.

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=364
This link is where I assume Deep Kimchi found the OP article.

Hmm this is an interesting case.

I would say that it's unequal to teach one religion over the other in most cases, but on the other hand, since about 85% of Americans are Christians (correct me if I'm wrong on that, I'm not quite certain about it), whereas comparatively few are Muslims, it might well be useful to teach people more about Islam (as it's not as widespread and well-known) as Christianity (which in a lot of the US, surrounds everyday life).

Still, making people hang up religious banners to any religion isn't really on, I agree.


Plenty of secular atheists here. Are you saying it would be OK to "familiarize" them with Christianity (since they've never set foot in a church and probably never will) by hanging crosses around their necks and having them recite the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer?

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/legal_cases.cfm?legalcaseid=142

Follow the link above to a description of the case from an unbiased legal perspective. I will qoute the relevant bit.



I guess judges and children know when people are playing 'pretend', while some full grown adults do not.

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=364
This link is where I assume Deep Kimchi found the OP article.The roleplaying still comes a tad close to showing favor to an established religion. If the kids had a wider amount of choices to pick from and different groups in the class represented different religions, then it would be a bit less slanted towards one religion.

Do you have a link to this story?

It is from a Thomas Law center email news letter.

Also, the case itself can be googled (the appeal failed).

http://nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=438&DID=37401

More information at that link.

For you atheists out there, would you be offended if there was a similar class on Christianity? Complete with prayers, re-enactment of the birth of Christ and his Crucifixion, and everyone getting a new "Christian name" and wearing crosses?

What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?
I think it definitely crosses the line.

I think it's great to try to teach children to empathize with other people and other cultures. That's super. I think there's good reason to do this with Islam in particular these days, because of all the misconceptions and misunderstandings that are floating around right now.

However.

Three weeks of being forced to follow superstitious rituals and recite prayers? That's not just a violation of the separation of church and state, that's a goddam waste of time. The superstitions are totally beside the point. You teach kids to respect the PEOPLE. You teach them to empathize with MUSLIMS. You inform them about the culture, the context, and the conflicts that are important in our world.

You do not waste your fucking time trying to teach kids to relate to a goddam Sky Fairy. I don't care if it's the Christian Sky Fairy or the Muslim Sky Fairy, it's still a waste of time and money and does not belong in a public school lesson plan.

The entire point of empathy is to be able to imagine yourself in the shoes of others. It's not to make you BECOME others. You are supposed to learn to be understanding of Muslims and their culture even if you are not a Muslim. The lesson is totally worthless if the only way you can identify with a group is by becoming a member.

It is a breach and should not be allowed, If they were talk about Islam In an academic since, It would be fine and should be allowed. Making them say prayers fast, that is going to far. Its putting the faith in the school, I dont care if its not the main religion, I see no difference from this and saying "Alright everyone were going to go get baptized today so you know what’s its like, it counts as a test"

I also think all religious texts should not be allowed in schools at all, unless all are their in the fiction section, or a religion section, that has all major religions present.

Plenty of secular atheists here. Are you saying it would be OK to "familiarize" them with Christianity (since they've never set foot in a church and probably never will) by hanging crosses around their necks and having them recite the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer?
The flag pledge already assumes that they're Christians by making them say "under God", which is fairly ludicrous.

And religious education on all faiths would be useful to everyone, to be honest, but I think that atheists in the US would need less teaching about Christianity and more about other religions, simply because Christianity is a fairly large influence of the US and people are exposed to it a lot more often.

Learning about Buddhism, Sikhism, Hindu, and all of that business would be valuable also.

Plenty of secular atheists here. Are you saying it would be OK to "familiarize" them with Christianity (since they've never set foot in a church and probably never will) by hanging crosses around their necks and having them recite the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer?Funny that you mention that, because it seems that athiesm and agnosticism are so uncommon here that the "faithless" have to stage PR meetings to allow people to become familiar with the concepts. :D

I think it definitely crosses the line.

I think it's great to try to teach children to empathize with other people and other cultures. That's super. I think there's good reason to do this with Islam in particular these days, because of all the misconceptions and misunderstandings that are floating around right now.

However.

Three weeks of being forced to follow superstitious rituals and recite prayers? That's not just a violation of the separation of church and state, that's a goddam waste of time. The superstitions are totally beside the point. You teach kids to respect the PEOPLE. You teach them to empathize with MUSLIMS. You inform them about the culture, the context, and the conflicts that are important in our world.

You do not waste your fucking time trying to teach kids to relate to a goddam Sky Fairy. I don't care if it's the Christian Sky Fairy or the Muslim Sky Fairy, it's still a waste of time and money and does not belong in a public school lesson plan.

The entire point of empathy is to be able to imagine yourself in the shoes of others. It's not to make you BECOME others. You are supposed to learn to be understanding of Muslims and their culture even if you are not a Muslim. The lesson is totally worthless if the only way you can identify with a group is by becoming a member.

You should read this amicus curiae.
http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/34200/34136.pdf

If we take the meaning of this brief correctly, the school district doesn't want to be sued every time they come up with a curriculum that involves religion. But they should be observed and investigated every time - otherwise, we'll all be back to the way it was when I was growing up - with Christmas decorations all over the school, singing about the baby Jesus, and reciting the Lord's Prayer at school functions.

and to bring up a point, Ive not said the pledge since elementry school cause i think its unamerican. (constitution is american, anything thats against it in any way is trying to destroy america, so under god, is anti american)

It wouldn't surprise me if they started doing that kind of thing in schools over here. A lot of teachers seem to be enthusiastic little dhimmis.

The flag pledge already assumes that they're Christians by making them say "under God", which is fairly ludicrous.

No, it assumes you're either Jewish or Christian.

The roleplaying still comes a tad close to showing favor to an established religion. If the kids had a wider amount of choices to pick from and different groups in the class represented different religions, then it would be a bit less slanted towards one religion.

This is true. And it may even be the case in this school that such roleplaying is used to teach about several cultures, and it has simply not been mentioned in any of the articles so far.

However, you could then argue that since the reading list for the english class is composed almost entirely of white, christian, anglo-saxon men, the school already has a bias towards one religion. But that's a tangent.

It is from a Thomas Law center email news letter.

Also, the case itself can be googled (the appeal failed).

http://nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=438&DID=37401

More information at that link.

For you atheists out there, would you be offended if there was a similar class on Christianity? Complete with prayers, re-enactment of the birth of Christ and his Crucifixion, and everyone getting a new "Christian name" and wearing crosses?The TMLC doesn't look like an impartial institution to me.

For you atheists out there, would you be offended if there was a similar class on Christianity? Complete with prayers, re-enactment of the birth of Christ and his Crucifixion, and everyone getting a new "Christian name" and wearing crosses?
Absolutely. And guess what? I'd also be offended if there were a class in which Christian students were forced to give up their Christian names and were forced to recite mantras about how there is no God.

I'd be offended if students were forced to wear symbols of ANY belief system they did not follow, or forced to recite prayers/oaths that ran contrary to their own beliefs. It is one thing to study another person's perspective; it is quite another to be compelled to adopt it as your own.

The TMLC doesn't look like an impartial institution to me.

Neither does the other site I linked to (in the opposite direction).

Pretty simple though. Yes, teach about Islam.

Making people wear religious symbols and recite religious phrases is religion. Period.

I'd be offended if students were forced to wear symbols of ANY belief system they did not follow, or forced to recite prayers/oaths that ran contrary to their own beliefs. It is one thing to study another person's perspective; it is quite another to be compelled to adopt it as your own.

Agreed (and the point of my OP).

yes

I wonder though what the actual purpose was.......
What's the actual purpose?
This:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm
As part of their social studies curriculum, Grade 7 pupils throughout California do study ancient Muslim cultures and the impact of Islam on world history, but only as one of eleven units that comprise that year's social studies course, not as a special indoctrination into a particular religion as the ASN article presents it. The intent is to teach the position of this belief system in history, not the religion itself

We've had this shite before and it was proved wrong that time as well. No doubt in a few weeks someone else will feel all indignant and make yet another bloody thread about it.

It is from a Thomas Law center email news letter.

Also, the case itself can be googled (the appeal failed).

http://nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=438&DID=37401

More information at that link.

For you atheists out there, would you be offended if there was a similar class on Christianity? Complete with prayers, re-enactment of the birth of Christ and his Crucifixion, and everyone getting a new "Christian name" and wearing crosses?

As an atheist I would be offended to have to pretend to belive to any religion whether it is christianty, islam or the big spaggetti monster, if I couldn't choose to participate by one self. I play alot of RPG so I know it can be fun to play another role, but to be forced to do so is just wrong...

As a soon to be teacher I also find to be a waste of resources and time, which could have been used to other things, such as the teaching of the many other religous belifs that exist in a country. Or the teaching of science, which studnets get to little of according to me :p

Absolutely. And guess what? I'd also be offended if there were a class in which religious students were forced to give up their Christian names and were forced to recite mantras about how there is no God.

I'd be offended if students were forced to wear symbols of ANY belief system they did not follow, or forced to recite prayers/oaths that ran contrary to their own beliefs. It is one thing to study another person's perspective; it is quite another to be compelled to adopt it as your own.

What if it were a Drama class, where the kids were told to perform the role of an imam, or rabbî?

Neo Pagan Festival???? The only way around this problem would seem to be not to make any mention, including veiled ones, to any religious festival.

Um, I've never celebrated anything called "Mid-Winter Festival". Solstice, Yule, Saturnalia, but never a holiday called Mid-Winter Festival" . . .

They're telling the students to always honor Allah. That's definitely reeking of establishment.

What if it were a Drama class, where the kids were told to perform the role of an imam, or rabbî?

Here in Fairfax County, Virginia, a choral class for students cannot sing any songs that include the word "God", "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ".

You get a sharply reduced Christmas song list for "MidWinter Chorus" performances. Usually about reindeer and Santa and snow.

Um, I've never celebrated anything called "Mid-Winter Festival". Solstice, Yule, Saturnalia, but never a holiday called Mid-Winter Festival" . . .

They call it Mid Winter here so as not to offend anyone. Christmas and other holidays around this time of year officially do not exist.

What if it were a Drama class, where the kids were told to perform the role of an imam, or rabbî?
:rolleyes: If you can't see the difference in that one, I don't know if I can help you. :)

Here in Fairfax County, Virginia, a choral class for students cannot sing any songs that include the word "God", "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ".

You get a sharply reduced Christmas song list for "MidWinter Chorus" performances. Usually about reindeer and Santa and snow.

Ummm. Great. Okay.

What does that have to do with my question?:confused:

What's the actual purpose?
This:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm


We've had this shite before and it was proved wrong that time as well. No doubt in a few weeks someone else will feel all indignant and make yet another bloody thread about it.

Thank you, I didn't vote because I KNEW this smelled like something that had been Snopesed.

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called "Mid-Winter Festival".

That's OK with me. Really! Because there is a "separation of church and state" in America. If I wanted to have that kind of stuff at my kids' school, I could always send them to a private school of my choice.

And I believe the rules apply to everyone. Every religion.

I wonder if the ACLU is asleep at the switch. Or are they silently assenting to this?



What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?How convenient that you snipped the section of the article--for which you provided no link--that mentioned this was in a world history class. That makes more than a little difference, I think.

If its a school sponserd event, and it sings about jesus, I wont support it and will insault it. That is my stance.

(Im a christian, but belive in the constitution)

I also told osme people at my school that were trying to get the 10 commandments put up, I would vandalise them
(they thouhgt id support them since my dad is a master of theology and a pastor)

:rolleyes: If you can't see the difference in that one, I don't know if I can help you. :)

That's it, though. The kids were told they were basically putting on a skit. When we did the same with the Iliad in English, or with World War One in Social Studies, no one argued that we were trying to establish the religion of ancient Greece, or training kids to be fifth columnists.

Pretending to be someone or something at the behest of your teacher does not constitute establishment of religion or ideology.

However, you are correct in saying that if I couldn't tell the difference then I would be hopeless!:)

How convenient that you snipped the section of the article--for which you provided no link--that mentioned this was in a world history class. That makes more than a little difference, I think.

How convenient that you didn't read all of my posts, including a link to another site that showed that it was a world history class. That makes more than a little difference, I think.

It's also still "establishment" to make people wear religious symbols and recite religious statements. Even in a world history class.

You can't make a kid sing "Christ The Lord Is Risen Today" in chorus class - it's considered establishment, even though to some it's just a song in a chorus class.

They call it Mid Winter here so as not to offend anyone. Christmas and other holidays around this time of year officially do not exist.

Not relivant to my point that I have never heard of a Neo-pagan holiday called Mid Winter Festival . . .

Not relivant to my point that I have never heard of a Neo-pagan holiday called Mid Winter Festival . . .

It is relevant. Our county picked the name precisely because no such holiday exists.

Being a world history class donst make it any diffrence, would you like it if in your world history class I forced you to become babtist?

It is relevant. Our county picked the name precisely because no such holiday exists.

It's irelivant because I was responding to this post:


<Neo Pagan Festival???? The only way around this problem would seem to be not to make any mention, including veiled ones, to any religious festival.>

that seemed to indicate the poster thought there was.

How convenient that you didn't read all of my posts, including a link to another site that showed that it was a world history class. That makes more than a little difference, I think.

It's also still "establishment" to make people wear religious symbols and recite religious statements. Even in a world history class.

You can't make a kid sing "Christ The Lord Is Risen Today" in chorus class - it's considered establishment, even though to some it's just a song in a chorus class.

The real question is whether or not the kids had a chance to opt out. I'd be willing to bet they did, because that's what got me out of all sorts of religious crap when I was a kid--I was a Jehovah's Witness, and the "it's against my religion" clause trumped pretty much everything. My bet is--and this is based on nothing but my experience reading these kinds of cases--that the parents had the option to keep their kids from participating and decided to sue instead because they didn't want their kids
exposed to Islam.

Edit: in case it isn't clear, if there's an option to opt out, then there's no Establishment violation, as far as I'm concerned.

They call it Mid Winter here so as not to offend anyone. Christmas and other holidays around this time of year officially do not exist.
As far as I'm concerned, public schools should not be worried about teaching kids about Christmas. Saturday Morning Cartoon commercials can do that just fine.

The "Christmas pagents" and "Winter festivals" that I attended in school were all huge wastes of time. They kept us busy learning stupid songs and cutting out snowflakes. They appeased our parents by dressing us up and making us perform adorable routines. Meh. It wasted our time and their money, but it meant we didn't have to do spelling drills for a couple of weeks.

The real question is whether or not the kids had a chance to opt out. I'd be willing to bet they did, because that's what got me out of all sorts of religious crap when I was a kid--I was a Jehovah's Witness, and the "it's against my religion" clause trumped pretty much everything. My bet is--and this is based on nothing but my experience reading these kinds of cases--that the parents had the option to keep their kids from participating and decided to sue instead because they didn't want their kids exposed to Islam.

They tried the opt-out thing with chorus here. The problem is, you still have to sit there and listen to them sing the song.

Sorry, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. No religion in school. Period.

That's it, though. The kids were told they were basically putting on a skit. When we did the same with the Iliad in English, or with World War One in Social Studies, no one argued that we were trying to establish the religion of ancient Greece, or training kids to be fifth columnists.

Pretending to be someone or something at the behest of your teacher does not constitute establishment of religion or ideology.

Putting on a three-week long skit...yeah, I stick by my evaluation of this as a huge fucking waste of time. Skits are handy in small doses, but three weeks of pretending to be a member of a superstitious cult (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zeus-ian, whatever) is a waste of time.

and at some ages, for most people, opting out is really uncomfertable and socially akward. Making it a virtual none option for most

They tried the opt-out thing with chorus here. The problem is, you still have to sit there and listen to them sing the song.

Sorry, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. No religion in school. Period.

No problem with teaching religion in school as long as it's part of the overall curriculum--say, as part of a comparative religions course. The problem is that there are precious few schoolteachers who are qualified to teach that sort of course, so the safer thing is to keep it all out and leave the kids ignorant and dependent on their parents--which, if we're talking about religion, is how the kids probably wound up ignorant in the first place.

No problem with teaching religion in school as long as it's part of the overall curriculum--say, as part of a comparative religions course. The problem is that there are precious few schoolteachers who are qualified to teach that sort of course, so the safer thing is to keep it all out and leave the kids ignorant and dependent on their parents--which, if we're talking about religion, is how the kids probably wound up ignorant in the first place.

Fairfax County is considered one of the most progressive public school systems in the US, and consistently ranks in the top 3 percent of school systems in terms of test scores and kids who go to college (and finish).

They've cleansed it of Christianity. Completely.

Which is fine with me. If I want Christianity, I go to church.

If I want Islam, there's the library and the Internet. Or a local mosque, if I want to convert.

Not in the schools, thank you.

and at some ages, for most people, opting out is really uncomfertable and socially akward. Making it a virtual none option for most
Denis Leary: "Life is tough. Get a helmet."

Sorry, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. No religion in school. Period.
Hmmm, careful there.

I think it's perfectly fine to have classes about religion, or classes which include information and subjects about religion. Religion is a pervasive force in our world, and has been for as long as recorded history stretches, so you can't very well have a good history class if you exclude religion in every way.

I just don't get why so many people have trouble with the distinction between teaching kids about religion and indoctrinating them into religion. Maybe empathy is still the problem.

You can educate students about a culture without actually having to experience many fundamental tenets of that culture.

Yeah, but no matter how many times you tell someone what Islam is really about, they will still think all muslims are terrorists because their religion says so.

It reminds me of this one school that was trying to teach the holocaust. Students whos last name began with certain letters were "Jews" and were treated differently.

Hmmm, careful there.

I think it's perfectly fine to have classes about religion, or classes which include information and subjects about religion. Religion is a pervasive force in our world, and has been for as long as recorded history stretches, so you can't very well have a good history class if you exclude religion in every way.

I just don't get why so many people have trouble with the distinction between teaching kids about religion and indoctrinating them into religion. Maybe empathy is still the problem.


It's one thing to read about Islam in a history book. Take tests on the content of the book.

It's another thing to wear religious symbols and recite religious statements of belief (like the Five Pillars).

Right now, we don't cut anyone any slack in a chorus class (a class ostensibly about singing) and they can't sing anything with any religious content or context - period. That rules out a lot of classical music, which, for a long time, formed the backbone of musical instruction in voice.

So tell me once again about "empathy" or common sense.

Since there isn't any, I'm all for eliminating religion from the schools at least to the degree we have here in my county. Which is almost entirely.

What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?
If I'm not mistaken, there's an article in Snopes about how these sorts of classes don't actually exist.

I just don't get why so many people have trouble with the distinction between teaching kids about religion and indoctrinating them into religion. Maybe empathy is still the problem.

Because if you give these marxist teachers an inch they'll take a mile. Let them talk about islam and they'll come out with the usual cultural relatavist crap and practically encourage kids to convert to islam as a way of encouraging better 'community relations'. That's exactly why I would support the complete elimination of islam from any part of school curriculum.

If I'm not mistaken, there's an article in Snopes about how these sorts of classes don't actually exist.

Bullshit.
http://nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=438&DID=37401

I can even cite the court case documents, if you like.

Yeah, but no matter how many times you tell someone what Islam is really about, they will still think all muslims are terrorists because their religion says so.

I try to hold on to a little more idealism than that, at least when it comes to young children. :)


It reminds me of this one school that was trying to teach the holocaust. Students whos last name began with certain letters were "Jews" and were treated differently.
And THAT is a far better way to get across the real message, which is about helping kids to understand how stupid and hurtful it is to use nutty arbitrary criteria to decide who is treated with respect and who isn't.

Those kids weren't made to recite Jewish prayers or wear Jewish stars in order to empathize with the Jews. The message was delivered without any indoctrination into one faith or another. Because, of course, the faiths involved were NOT the point!

That's what I'm trying to get at with my comments. Focusing on the superstitions actually hinders the real point.

Because if you give these marxist teachers an inch they'll take a mile. Let them talk about islam and they'll come out with the usual cultural relatavist crap and practically encourage kids to convert to islam as a way of encouraging better 'community relations'. That's exactly why I would support the complete elimination of islam from any part of school curriculum.

I love posts like these. They illuminate quite clearly the seamless transition of hatred from commies to terrorists that resides in certain american subcultures.

I love posts like these. They illuminate quite clearly the seamless transition of hatred from commies to terrorists that resides in certain american subcultures.

I'm not American :)

I'm not American :)

Oh no! It's spreading!:)

Plenty of secular atheists here. Are you saying it would be OK to "familiarize" them with Christianity (since they've never set foot in a church and probably never will) by hanging crosses around their necks and having them recite the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer?
Agnostic... but I'm already plenty familar with christianity, I was raised christian and I deceided it wasn't for me, I've probably looked into it more than most christians out there. But yeah, that would suck and I stated as much in my poll response...
And most people living in North America are familiar with christianity, whether they've been to a church or not.

Bullshit.
http://nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=438&DID=37401

I can even cite the court case documents, if you like.

Ok then, it's an incredibly stupid class, children should be learning things that are actually valuable instead of pretending to be a part of a religion they don't believe in. It's an utter waste of time and should be done away with on those grounds.

And then again... the snopes article seems to indicate that your representation of the class is in error, and your link doesn't really refute that unless you take the claims made by the people suing as being 100% accurate when there's no indication that they are... and if they're suing then why wouldn't they exaggerate?

It's one thing to read about Islam in a history book. Take tests on the content of the book.

It's another thing to wear religious symbols and recite religious statements of belief (like the Five Pillars).

Right. That's what I was saying.


Right now, we don't cut anyone any slack in a chorus class (a class ostensibly about singing) and they can't sing anything with any religious content or context - period. That rules out a lot of classical music, which, for a long time, formed the backbone of musical instruction in voice.

Who is "we" in this discussion? My kid brother is in (public) middle school right now, and his chorus performed Beethoven's Ode To Joy in a recent recital. (The words were sung in alternating verses in German and English.) If you've ever heard that song, you know it is profoundly and overtly religious.

When I was in public schools (only a few years back) I participated in a concert that included Masses by Bach.

My art courses included detailed study of religious art and iconography. We spent an entire semester studying the art of the pre-Renaissance, including creating our own "modernized" versions of church artwork.

And my schools were in a suburb that was predominantly Jewish! A majority of my classmates were non-Christian, as were a majority of my teachers.


So tell me once again about "empathy" or common sense.

It seems that there has been miscommunication. Let me see if I can clarify.

My point was that a lot of people don't seem to be able to understand why certain "religious" classwork is appropriate and other classwork is not. They do not seem to perceive why a non-religious person, or a person of another faith, would be bothered by some activities and not by others. I feel that this is a problem of empathy, because it seems that some people aren't able to put themselves in the shoes of the "other side."

They have trouble understanding why an atheist could be fine with their child reading Genesis as part of an English Lit course, but would not be fine with their child being taught Genesis in a science course. They cannot understand why somebody would be comfortable having their child learn about Islam and the history of the Muslim religion, but would be uncomfortable having their child reciting prayers of the Muslim faith.

I don't think most people are cruel or intentionally nasty to one another. I think, more often, they just don't see where other people are coming from.


Since there isn't any, I'm all for eliminating religion from the schools at least to the degree we have here in my county. Which is almost entirely.
That is certainly one way to deal with the disconnect I am talking about. I honestly don't know if there is another viable option. Ideally I would like it to not be that way, but I tend to think that you're right.

That is certainly one way to deal with the disconnect I am talking about. I honestly don't know if there is another viable option. Ideally I would like it to not be that way, but I tend to think that you're right.
I grew up in this school district in the 1970s. Back then, we sang Brahms' Requiem in concert.

It is forbidden to sing it now in a public school, taught by a public school chorus teacher, sung by ANY public school students, in my county.

I grew up in this school district in the 1970s. Back then, we sang Brahms' Requiem in concert.

It is forbidden to sing it now in a public school, taught by a public school chorus teacher, sung by ANY public school students, in my county.
Huh. My school district doesn't work that way at all. I find that rather odd, since (as I said) my district is mostly non-Christian...you'd think that if there were going to be a school-wide purge of Christian material, it would happen in a place with fewer Christians.

Hmm this is an interesting case.

I would say that it's unequal to teach one religion over the other in most cases, but on the other hand, since about 85% of Americans are Christians (correct me if I'm wrong on that, I'm not quite certain about it), whereas comparatively few are Muslims, it might well be useful to teach people more about Islam (as it's not as widespread and well-known) as Christianity (which in a lot of the US, surrounds everyday life).

Still, making people hang up religious banners to any religion isn't really on, I agree.

Teaching about Islam is fine - I had a class in which we learned about several different religions. We even went and visited a synagogue and a cathedral. But this seems to go well beyond teaching about a religion.

Of course, if their intent was to teach about culture in Arabic countries, taking Arabic names and such for a role-playing type exercise would be fine. My Spanish teacher in high school gave us all Spanish names and no one would object to that. But this sounds, from the information given, as if it was focused on religion, rather than culture.

Ok then, it's an incredibly stupid class, children should be learning things that are actually valuable instead of pretending to be a part of a religion they don't believe in. It's an utter waste of time and should be done away with on those grounds.

And then again... the snopes article seems to indicate that your representation of the class is in error, and your link doesn't really refute that unless you take the claims made by the people suing as being 100% accurate when there's no indication that they are... and if they're suing then why wouldn't they exaggerate?

Does the snopes article talking about the class in his district? Or does it talk about stupid email chains telling people to "foward to everyone you know" to keep this from happening etc.

Does the snopes article talking about the class in his district? Or does it talk about stupid email chains telling people to "foward to everyone you know" to keep this from happening etc.

Like I said, you can read the court documents, instead of Snopes, if you like.

They're online.

Also, the school district never denied the claims of the plaintiffs - the classes were as described, except that the school district was insisting that this was "role-playing".

Huh. My school district doesn't work that way at all. I find that rather odd, since (as I said) my district is mostly non-Christian...you'd think that if there were going to be a school-wide purge of Christian material, it would happen in a place with fewer Christians.

Actually, the reason why it is like that could be becouse people which are not christian in your district is not so effected by people trying to force christian belifs on you, so they don't care if kids sing a traditional christmas song which contains lyrics about God e.t.c. On the other hand, people who live in a district with a lot of christians may be more defensive against christians since these christians may have had more influence on the schools before. Therefore they may not wan religous songs in school.

My experience from Sweden is that altough we are not very religious (the reason why have so many "christians" is due to that people haven't bothered o leave the former state church), but stillwe sing christmas (and summer) songs which is about Jesus and not many seems to care.

First off, teaching kids about Islam in public schools is not a bad thing. Teaching "This is what Muslims believe, this is how the religion got started, and these are some of the issues Muslims face today" is not endorsing religion. It's a history lesson, if anything. Frankly, a course on world religions ought to be required more than once in school. Teach them young, then again in high school. No endorsement of religion is necessary, and frankly, if people know more about other religions, the perception of "all Muslims are terrorists" or the like should disappear. (That is, assuming the government wants it to disappear. It's very possible that the government keeps people in the dark about this stuff so everyone remains good Christians and supports wars that kill lots of Muslims.)

This example takes it too far. This is a violation of the separation of church and state. In grade school, I learned about Jerusalem and celebrated, along with my classmates, the 3000th anniversary of its founding in some educational ways I don't remember. Honestly, I felt lost the whole time (a chunk of my classmates were Jewish; I am not.) I didn't consider that a violation, since it was a history lesson, not an endorsement of religion. I didn't wear a Star of David or use a Jewish name. It was kept reasonable, and the reason that the story in the OP is a violation is that it wasn't kept reasonable.

i say it does but i have heard in the past some people argueing that because muslim is not the religion of the majority it doesnt matter. i guess minorities are able to intrude on the majority but the majority is not able to intrude on the minority.

i say it does but i have heard in the past some people argueing that because muslim is not the religion of the majority it doesnt matter. i guess minorities are able to intrude on the majority but the majority is not able to intrude on the minority.

It's not what the Constitution says, or case law surrounding the Constitution on this matter.

It's not what the Constitution says, or case law surrounding the Constitution on this matter.

Precedent for this matters seems to have been established in Brown v. Woodland:

Some student participatory activity involving school-sponsored ritual may be permissible even under [the Establishment Clause] where the activity is used for secular pedagogical purposes. For example, having children act out a ceremonial American Indian dance for the purpose of exploring and learning about American Indian culture may be permissible even if the dance was religious ritual. Similarly, a reenactment of the Last Supper or a Passover dinner might be permissible if presented for historical or cultural purposes

No it does not. Not even close.

It is an exercise in experiencing other cultures. The school is not, in any way, establishing Islam as its religion. It is simply providing what any good school should - exposure to different sets of beliefs and ideas.

Now whether you feel that Muslims should be able to retain their cultural behaviour when they have chosen to live in a Christian country is another matter. But if they do (and they do) then one of the only effective means of reducing friction between them and the culture in which they are inserted is to provide a means by which the members of that culture can understand what they are about.

And yet, if as school even did a tenth of those things based on christianity, the school would be closed down. See the double standard?

school is an authority figure with public funding, no christian roleplay, then no islam/jewish/other roleplay either

can't say christian bad but all others are good - got to be level playing field

or kill the aclu pricks [lol], concentration camp for non christian, establish a church like england did and let the war start lol ymmv

:cool:

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called "Mid-Winter Festival".

That's OK with me. Really! Because there is a "separation of church and state" in America. If I wanted to have that kind of stuff at my kids' school, I could always send them to a private school of my choice.

And I believe the rules apply to everyone. Every religion.

I wonder if the ACLU is asleep at the switch. Or are they silently assenting to this?



What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?
Absolutely it does. Public schools have no business teaching religion. Why should the tax money taken from everyone be used to indoctrinate kids into a minority of the people's religion?

school is an authority figure with public funding, no christian roleplay, then no islam/jewish/other roleplay either

can't say christian bad but all others are good - got to be level playing field

or kill the aclu pricks [lol], concentration camp for non christian, establish a church like england did and let the war start lol ymmv

:cool:

Totally incomprehensible bit of wordage there...

No it does not. Not even close.

It is an exercise in experiencing other cultures. The school is not, in any way, establishing Islam as its religion. It is simply providing what any good school should - exposure to different sets of beliefs and ideas.

Now whether you feel that Muslims should be able to retain their cultural behaviour when they have chosen to live in a Christian country is another matter. But if they do (and they do) then one of the only effective means of reducing friction between them and the culture in which they are inserted is to provide a means by which the members of that culture can understand what they are about.
It's one thing to familiarize the kids with culture. Let them cook and eat some Arab or South Asian food, learn to sing a couple of secular songs from the region, even learn a few words of Arabic or Pashtu or something, but when the teacher starts teaching them religion and reciting prayers to a god you're establishing religion and that's unconstitutional.

Here's an example that might be more subtle.

Say a jury started its deliberations with a prayer. One juror asked if anyone objected and everyone thought it was a good idea. The prayer was said and the deliberations commenced.

Anything wrong with that?

Not in my book, but if the judge decided to start out with a prayer I think there would be a problem.

Totally incomprehensible bit of wordage there...

learn to read or get a dictoniary

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called "Mid-Winter Festival".

That's OK with me. Really! Because there is a "separation of church and state" in America. If I wanted to have that kind of stuff at my kids' school, I could always send them to a private school of my choice.

And I believe the rules apply to everyone. Every religion.

I wonder if the ACLU is asleep at the switch. Or are they silently assenting to this?



What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?
It depends, the original purpose of "Separation of Church and State" was to assure a pastor that the Government would not interferre with his church's growth.

if ALL Religions were taught in such a fashion equally and as elective courses, them may be, it might not violate the first Amendment. If only one or three Religions were taught (with no plans to include others) as well as making such courses "Mandatory" then yes.

Learn to read or get a dictionary.
Bolded for corrections.

Quite the intelligent response there.

Your grammar is so incredibly convoluted that I really cannot tell where the subject and object are in at least one of the sentences. Not only that, but your use of that abomination known as "Leetspeak" makes me shudder.

Bolded for corrections.

Quite the intelligent response there.

Your grammar is so incredibly convoluted that I really cannot tell where the subject and object are in at least one of the sentences. Not only that, but your use of that abomination known as "Leetspeak" makes me shudder.

Oh come on, any one can read his posts and see his points, even if his gramma is a bit quirky.

Ya gramma nazi!

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called "Mid-Winter Festival".

That's fairly excessive, that is...

I've done the Requiem with a school orchestra (and choir), and that wasn't an issue.

That is where seperation of Church and State crosses over to interfering with a realistic education. The best choral music has always been sacred, not secular. That would be like cutting out the Friar's part in a Robin Hood play in order to keep things clean.

---

That said, yes, this case is a violation because it crosses the line from teaching what the prayers and customs are to forcing people to take part in them.

That's fairly excessive, that is...

I've done the Requiem with a school orchestra (and choir), and that wasn't an issue.

That is where seperation of Church and State crosses over to interfering with a realistic education. The best choral music has always been sacred, not secular. That would be like cutting out the Friar's part in a Robin Hood play in order to keep things clean.

---

That said, yes, this case is a violation because it crosses the line from teaching what the prayers and customs are to forcing people to take part in them.

It might be excessive but it's getting more and more common. School in Seattle, the orchestra was prevented from playing "Ave Maria" as an instrumental because the original piece was too religious.

Ya gramma nazi!

Thanky much :D

I think I'm living in a different America than some of you. Can't call it Christmas? In my public school, we called it Christmas and sang Away in a Manger in music class. That said, I think that role playing that much with Muslim culture is a violation of church and state unless they are willing to do the same with all religions. As researching every religion in existance and doing a period of role play with it would not be feasable, it probably would be best to cut any religious docterine.

It might be excessive but it's getting more and more common. School in Seattle, the orchestra was prevented from playing "Ave Maria" as an instrumental because the original piece was too religious.

As a clarification, the orchestra was kept from playing Ave Maria at a graduation. They had played it at concerts before with no complaint. Graduations are very different from normal concerts, because everything done in them has a weight of meaning that normal concerts don't have.

No, I don't believe so. I think its good to introduce different cultures such is Islam. I would have liked to do this kind of thing when I was in school.

Edit: in case it isn't clear, if there's an option to opt out, then there's no Establishment violation, as far as I'm concerned.

so, you are now okay with the "under God" in the pledge since kids can opt out of saying it?

so, you are now okay with the "under God" in the pledge since kids can opt out of saying it?

I don't mind if they leave out "Under God" in the pledge.

I don't mind if they leave out "Under God" in the pledge.
me either. I was just pointing out what I thought to be a contradiction in his reasoning.

No it does not. Not even close.

It is an exercise in experiencing other cultures. The school is not, in any way, establishing Islam as its religion. It is simply providing what any good school should - exposure to different sets of beliefs and ideas.

Now whether you feel that Muslims should be able to retain their cultural behaviour when they have chosen to live in a Christian country is another matter. But if they do (and they do) then one of the only effective means of reducing friction between them and the culture in which they are inserted is to provide a means by which the members of that culture can understand what they are about.

That's absolute bullshit. It's one thing for the teacher to make Arabic food and teach everyone to say "Hello" and "how are you" in Arabic, and read some "A day in the life" articles about Tehran or Dubai. That's perfectly fine, as are social studies lesson on the main tenets and history of Islam and Islamic/Arabic civilization.

But having students obey the Five Pillars of Islam, including fasting, recite the major prayers of the religion, make references to Allah in Arabic, etc. is on a completely different level. You are quite literally teaching religion to kids, for whatever crazy stretched reason you claim to be doing. It departs from the legitimate purpose of cultural exposure completely, and is one of the most obvious violations of the SbSaS since the Scopes trial.

As a "role playing" exercise, this went way too far. Having little kids who are not members of a religion ape the practices, prayers and rituals of a religion seems horribly disrepectful of that religion, doesn't it? How will this school teach them about race relations? By having the white kids go around in blackface during class? To me, this is just a case of ignorant people trying to do the right thing but doing it from the standpoint of ignorance, so it comes out horribly wrong. It seems they know as much about teaching as they do about Islam.

It violates the establishment clause only in a technical way, I think. This does not seem to be an attempt to establish Islamic rules in the individual school or the school district. It's just a case of unbelievable stupidity. However, invoking the establishment clause might be the quickest way to show them why they are wrong to do it, and to make sure they stop doing it.

I wonder if the ACLU is asleep at the switch. Or are they silently assenting to this?



What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?
This is what I think: http://snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

so, you are now okay with the "under God" in the pledge since kids can opt out of saying it?

Different issues. When I was a kid, I was opting out of the pledge, not the under god part. It was the whole thing that was objectionable to my faith. (As a kid, I didn't really care one way or the other.) I don't have a real objection to the pledge being said in schools either with or without the "under God" bit, because of the opt out part, and also because no one can be forced to say it. I still think that it shouldn't be there in the sense that as long as the pledge is a part of government approved speech, there ought not be any reference to god in it. But frankly, it's not very high on my list of things to worry about. Kids dying in Iraq; runaway budget deficits, lack of functional or affordable health care--that's the kind of stuff that bothers me.

My experience from Sweden is that altough we are not very religious (the reason why have so many "christians" is due to that people haven't bothered o leave the former state church), but stillwe sing christmas (and summer) songs which is about Jesus and not many seems to care.

This seems to be the difference between letting Christianity wither and drop off on it's own and trying to hack it off with a knife while it's still attached to nerves.

If it's a public school, absolutely. No establishment of religion, period.

Or atheism... you atheist surely don't think you get an exception, do you?

...

Seriously, if religion is illegal, that counts atheism in my book.

Or atheism... you atheist surely don't think you get an exception, do you?

...

Seriously, if religion is illegal, that counts atheism in my book.

When a teacher on the public dime stands up in front of class and tells the kids that they shouldn't believe in god I'll be right there with you complaining about it. Until then atheism in the schools is a non issue. Ignoring god is not denying the existence of god.

Or atheism... you atheist surely don't think you get an exception, do you?

...

Seriously, if religion is illegal, that counts atheism in my book.

Atheism is not a religion

Atheism is not a religion

Even so it's a belief about religion and god. Therefore a teacher in a public school shouldn't endorse or promote it. School should ignore religion and atheism as well.

Hey, we can't even sing Christmas songs that have the words "Lord", "Jesus", or "Christ" in them at my kids' schools. Can't call it a "Christmas" choral program - it has to be called "Mid-Winter Festival".

That's OK with me. Really! Because there is a "separation of church and state" in America. If I wanted to have that kind of stuff at my kids' school, I could always send them to a private school of my choice.

And I believe the rules apply to everyone. Every religion.

I wonder if the ACLU is asleep at the switch. Or are they silently assenting to this?



What do you think? Does this class violate the "separation of church and state"?

YES it does.

Holy constitutional violation, Batman!


You can educate students about a culture without actually having to experience many fundamental tenets of that culture. Making them memorise Islamic prayers is way over the top. In addition, wouldn't making them fast be a big civil rights violation?

Either that or a health problem at that age if they are not taught how to fast properly.

The roleplaying still comes a tad close to showing favor to an established religion. If the kids had a wider amount of choices to pick from and different groups in the class represented different religions, then it would be a bit less slanted towards one religion.

That would have been better.

How will this school teach them about race relations? By having the white kids go around in blackface during class?
Very good analogy. :)

I also told osme people at my school that were trying to get the 10 commandments put up, I would vandalise them
(they thouhgt id support them since my dad is a master of theology and a pastor)

I am sure that our Lord will love that.

I guess judges and children know when people are playing 'pretend', while some full grown adults do not.

But if they had been pretending about Christianity, there would be an uproar!

I am sure that our Lord will love that.

Side question - Is your name in reference to Allegheny County, PA?

Either that or a health problem at that age if they are not taught how to fast properly.

Apparently, the "fasting" these kids did was to skip a single lunch, so there really wasn't much chance of any health problems being caused.

Looking into this a little bit more, I think it is a case of a good idea gone a bit too far. The idea was that Islam, at present, is not well-understood and apparently, students in this school were being cruel to Muslim students and using "Muslim" (and other more colorful descriptions) as insults. The school felt that students should undergo curriculum that gave them more sensitivity towards a religion and culture not their own. Thus, the purpose of the class was a good one.

However, I think they probably went too far with it. Role-playing in class is fine and often helpful. Learning about a religion is fine, especially in the context of what impact that religion has had in history. A three-week module focused on role-playing a particular religion probably crosses the line from simply teaching about religion to establishing religion. Even though the intent was not to win any converts and none of the "religious rites" were official (the teacher wasn't Muslim, nor were the school administrators), spending this much time on Islam (without similar attention to other religions) would suggest to students (and parents) that Islam is somehow a more important religion than all the others. That, in my opinion, either skirts dangerously close to or crosses the line into establishment.

Another problem I have is the fact that they actually recited prayers and such. Reading them is one thing, being asked to recite them in a more ritualistic (even role-playing) manner, is another. By the school's logic, if Catholic students were being bothered in the halls, it would be appropriate to teach mini-Catechism classes and simulate First Communion. What kind of uproar do you think that would bring? What if students wearing yamulkes were being referred to by anti-Semitic terms? Would it be appropriate to hold simulated barmitzvahs (I'm positive I spelled this wrong)?

Atheism is not a religion

Atheism has a theology: a notion about God which says He doesn't exist.

This theology is made manifest (acted out or acted upon) in many different ways. That manifestation is a religion. And therefore, atheism is a religion.

Furthermore, one cannot prove that God does not exist. Therefore that belief is accepted on/by faith.

Side question - Is your name in reference to Allegheny County, PA?

*bows*

Yes it does. And Yes, I know I misspelled it. That was intentional.

Apparently, the "fasting" these kids did was to skip a single lunch, so there really wasn't much chance of any health problems being caused.

Ahh.

Looking into this a little bit more, I think it is a case of a good idea gone a bit too far. The idea was that Islam, at present, is not well-understood and apparently, students in this school were being cruel to Muslim students and using "Muslim" (and other more colorful descriptions) as insults. The school felt that students should undergo curriculum that gave them more sensitivity towards a religion and culture not their own. Thus, the purpose of the class was a good one.

I can see that.

However, I think they probably went too far with it. Role-playing in class is fine and often helpful. Learning about a religion is fine, especially in the context of what impact that religion has had in history. A three-week module focused on role-playing a particular religion probably crosses the line from simply teaching about religion to establishing religion. Even though the intent was not to win any converts and none of the "religious rites" were official (the teacher wasn't Muslim, nor were the school administrators), spending this much time on Islam (without similar attention to other religions) would suggest to students (and parents) that Islam is somehow a more important religion than all the others. That, in my opinion, either skirts dangerously close to or crosses the line into establishment.

I agree with you.

Another problem I have is the fact that they actually recited prayers and such. Reading them is one thing, being asked to recite them in a more ritualistic (even role-playing) manner, is another. By the school's logic, if Catholic students were being bothered in the halls, it would be appropriate to teach mini-Catechism classes and simulate First Communion. What kind of uproar do you think that would bring? What if students wearing yamulkes were being referred to by anti-Semitic terms? Would it be appropriate to hold simulated barmitzvahs (I'm positive I spelled this wrong)?

I can imagine the uproar. It would be front page news and all cable channels broadcasting a blow by blow on their tv shows.

*bows*

Yes it does. And Yes, I know I misspelled it. That was intentional.

I'm from Washington County, but I'm in Allegheny County for college.

Back to the topic now!

And yet, if as school even did a tenth of those things based on christianity, the school would be closed down. See the double standard?


Now, we don't know if they do or do not do that with respect to Christianity.
Let's look at the class curriculum:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020124220246/http://www.cde.ca.gov/standards/history/grade7.html
Looking at the class curriculum, we see that the Roman Empire, medieval China, medieval Africa, medieval Japan, medieval Europe, Meso-American and Andean civilisations, and 4 different units on European history are also taught.

Are they taught the same way? We don't know. But without knowing, it would be impossible to claim that the school only teaches Islam in that manner.

From my perspective, the curriculum is biased. Biased to favor the cultural legacy of white, christian, european men, which is no surprise when we are discussing a North American education.

From my perspective, the curriculum is biased. Biased to favor the cultural legacy of white, christian, european men, which is no surprise when we are discussing a North American education.

Umm, yeah. It should be biased. Because we're talking about North American education, it should be biased to include that at the elementary level rather than the beginnings of the Bantu people or whatever because that is when they will get the info of what formed their nation and of what impacts their culture.

It's only later in middle school and higher that different ideas should be discussed, because that is the age when the children are able to think about the ideas. Before that, they just blindly follow. But even in middle and high schools, they still don't think well! They think about what sounds best rather than what is best. It's only in college that real thinking begins. Or at least for the vast majority of people.

Kids aren't as intelligent as they used to be. They don't need to be "grown-up" by the 8th grade, so they grow slower: much too slow if you want my opinion.

I'm from Washington County, but I'm in Allegheny County for college.

Back to the topic now!

I sent you a telegram.

Umm, yeah. It should be biased. Because we're talking about North American education, it should be biased to include that at the elementary level rather than the beginnings of the Bantu people or whatever because that is when they will get the info of what formed their nation and of what impacts their culture.

It's only later in middle school and higher that different ideas should be discussed,

(a) These children ARE in middle school, my dear.
(b) The class is called WORLD HISTORY and geography, not North American or even Western history.

Atheism has a theology: a notion about God which says He doesn't exist.

This theology is made manifest (acted out or acted upon) in many different ways. That manifestation is a religion. And therefore, atheism is a religion.

Furthermore, one cannot prove that God does not exist. Therefore that belief is accepted on/by faith.Still not a religion. There is no pantheon, no organized structure, no rituals, no clergy, nothing which a religion has. It is a belief system, but not a relgion.

If its a school sponserd event, and it sings about jesus, I wont support it and will insault it. That is my stance.

(Im a christian, but belive in the constitution)

I also told osme people at my school that were trying to get the 10 commandments put up, I would vandalise them
(they thouhgt id support them since my dad is a master of theology and a pastor)

I wonder what % of pastors daughters are strippers vs the rest of society?

I wonder what % of pastors daughters are strippers vs the rest of society?Whatever it is, it's not high enough to suit me. :p

Very good analogy. :)

Thanks. :)

I wonder what % of pastors daughters are strippers vs the rest of society?I dunno, does running adult websites count as "stripper"? :p

Umm, yeah. It should be biased. Because we're talking about North American education, it should be biased to include that at the elementary level rather than the beginnings of the Bantu people or whatever because that is when they will get the info of what formed their nation and of what impacts their culture.

It's only later in middle school and higher that different ideas should be discussed, because that is the age when the children are able to think about the ideas. Before that, they just blindly follow. But even in middle and high schools, they still don't think well! They think about what sounds best rather than what is best. It's only in college that real thinking begins. Or at least for the vast majority of people.

Kids aren't as intelligent as they used to be. They don't need to be "grown-up" by the 8th grade, so they grow slower: much too slow if you want my opinion.
I'm sorry, but this post seems to imply some kind of ideological agenda. You want to limit the number of ideas kids are exposed to in elementary school -- why? So they can learn what, precisely, about their culture? We're talking about the USA here. You can't learn about US history or culture without learning about world history and culture. Nation of immigrants, remember?

You seem to be saying that kids have to be taught what they are and how they should act in a way that -- someone? who? -- approves of before they are allowed to learn about anything else. Why? Are you afraid they won't turn out the way you think they should if they learn how other people live and think before you've got them properly indoctrinated?

And I like the way you try to explain (or excuse) these weird remarks by saying that kids these days are dumb. That's actually funny in two or three different ways, but the bottom line is it's irrelevant. Whatever American kids are these days does not in any way change the responsibility of adults to educate them.