|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2005 : 17:19:12 [Permalink]
|
I believe politicians must see that religious education has a proper place in the school curriculum. The Christian religion - which, of course, embodies many of the great spiritual and moral truths of Judaism - is a fundamental part of our national heritage. For centuries it has been our very lifeblood. Indeed we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible. Also, it is quite impossible to understand our history or literature without grasping this fact. That is the strong practical case for ensuring that children at school are given adequate instruction in the part which the Judaic-Christian tradition has played in molding our laws, manners, and institution. How can you make sense of Shakespeare and Sir Walter Scott, or of the constitutional conflicts of the seventeenth century in both Scotland and England, without some such knowledge?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 21, 1988 - from "Christianity and Wealth", a speech to the leaders of the Church of Scotland, Margarett Thatcher |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 17:20:18 [Permalink]
|
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labour to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politican, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 17, 1796 - from his farewell address, G. Washington |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 19:24:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Is the saying of a public prayer by an individual an act of establishing a religion by the State?
No one has yet to answer this question.
It is ignorance like this which causes many here to view you is less than a flattering light, Doomar.
The answer to the question - as simply as you've stated it - is a resounding NO. A good example would be the prayers before NASCAR races. NASCAR - despite the meaning of the N - is a wholly private organization, nobody confuses NASCAR governance with the Feds. These prayers are wholly acceptable.
Even a U.S. President, during an inauguration speech, is entitled to say a prayer. There is nothing unconstitutional about it, and I expect we'll hear at least one in less than four days.
What is unconstitutional is any sort of government mandate for prayer. Because, as you should know, promoting prayer when not everyone prays elevates some sects above others. And that even includes voluntary (but mandated) school prayer, because the kids are forced to make a choice between being "joiners" or "weirdos," and so would not be free to follow their conscience, no matter what their beliefs.quote:
And in conjunction, wherein is it written in the Constitution that public officials, such as president, congressman, senator, judge, magistrate, sheriff have no right to express their religious convictions in public?
Nowhere. Why do you bring it up?
What would be unconstitutional (for example) would be a sheriff saying "If you pray with me right now, I'll tear up this speeding ticket."quote:
Also, since when is a public school teacher, employed by a particular county forbidden by the Constitution from expressing their religious convictions? Can someone quote me this restriction in the law?
No such restriction exists. What they cannot do is teach their religion as if it were fact. They cannot base a grade upon how well a child assimilates a religious belief or ritual. And they cannot ostracize a child for not sharing certain religious beliefs.
You earlier wrote:quote:
Were most of you as strong for religious freedom and prevention of any prohibition of religion, we would have little to argue about.
Were you as adamant about teaching yourself about the separation of church and state as envisioned by the Founders, we would also have little to argue about.
You see, by simply quoting short bits of their words, you miss the big picture. Your own sources speak about what was going on in the late 18th century, but you seem to have either missed it, or misunderstood it.
The Founders were faced with the prevailing "wisdom" of the time: that no government could succeed without a religious basis, and no religion could succeed without being imposed by the government. The Founders, however, thought this "wisdom" to be incorrect, and instead thought that by separating the two, both could become stronger.
In other words, they thought that people would still go to church, even if no law mandated it. They thought that government would still function, even without a "mandate from God."
And they were right.
Back on page one, if I remember correctly, I quoted Jefferson as saying that only errors need the support of government, the truth will stand on its own. He was talking about religious truth, Doomar.
There is no need for religious instruction in school. Parents who care about their childrens' spiritual needs will educate them at home and in church. One of the 20th century's cases against prayer in school was brought by Unitarian parents who objected to the school teaching their child the wrong religion.
Let me quote you again:quote:
Were most of you as strong for religious freedom and prevention of any prohibition of religion, we would have little to argue about.
You also seem to have little understanding that with every right granted by the Constitution comes a responsibility not to abuse or misuse that right. We've got freedom of speech, but a responsibility to not incite riots. We've got freedom of press, but a responsibility to not print falsehoods which cost people their reputations or their jobs. As is commonly said, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
If I were against all prohibition of religion, I would be an activist for ritual human sacrifice. Burnt offerings in school cafeterias. The public and unregulated use of drugs. And considering that you've complained that ritual human sacrifice would strip someone else of their right to live, you aren't completely anti-religious prohibitions, either.
You have the right to teach your children (and anyone else who will listen) about your idea of god. You do not have the right to mandate that my child will be given the choice of learning about your god or being an outcast among his peers. Your fist, my nose.
It works both ways. Were your county to become a "little Delhi," I'm pretty sure you'd object to your child being forced to learn Hindu prayers. The Constitution exists in part to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the mob.
And please, Doomar, give me some indication that you've at least tried to understand all of the above. Don't write me a knee-jerk reply after reading the first sentence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 21:58:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave, believe it or not, I am very much in agreement with your assessment. I am not for state mandated prayer or Bible reading. I don't believe the state needs to be involved whatever. In like manner I don't believe the courts have the right to decide such issues, just as Congress does not have the right to impose laws promoting or prohibiting a particular group. When SCOTUS ruled in the Murray vs New York case, they mentioned some of the points you implied, such as "joiners or weirdos", in that they felt the Murray child, though not required to attend this morning prayer, was ostracized, therefore they ruled to prohibit the state of New York from imposing "voluntary" prayer. Where they went wrong, in my opinion, was in not emphasizing the freedom of individual teachers to pray with students according to the dictates of their own conscience. Also, this "ostracizing" idea has evolved into a new interpretation of law, in that if any peer or public pressure is put on any person, it is bad, whereas, this is not a fist hits nose issue at all, but thought hits mind issue. There is pressure throughout society to obey rules and conform in certain ways and it is good. The choice still remains with the individual. Individual responsibilty is learned during the school years. Choices of what to believe and what not to believe are made by each child. My point is simply that when a child hears a teacher pray a prayer or read from the Bible or even explain its meaning and relation to a situation a child goes through a process of maturity. It is part of life. Tolerance for other's beliefs is a good thing, hearing what a person believes is a good thing, thinking about other religions is a good thing. It is part of the learning process and maturity of an individual. To exclude it from public schools is to do a disservice to our children. To force a teacher or administrator to bend their principles and "neutralize" all of their speech is just plain evil.
Teaching a particular faith in a public school in a devotional way in a classroom where children are compelled to attend would not be right, of course, but I see nothing wrong with voluntary classes or devotional meetings done before or after school, or even classes for teaching the meaning and history of particular religions during school as elective classes. Do you? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 21:58:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And please, Doomar, give me some indication that you've at least tried to understand all of the above. Don't write me a knee-jerk reply after reading the first sentence.
My $ says he's not capable of understanding what you have summarized nicely Dave_W.
You're just gonna get some more out-of-context quotes and nonsense about how Doomar thinks christainity is being held down by the liberals..... he's almost getting verlch-like.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:03:36 [Permalink]
|
There is no need for religious instruction in school. said Dave.
That is your opinion, Dave. But the choice should be left to individual school districts, dont' you think...when the state or courts make these decisions they overstep their bounds. I think local citizens are well able to handle their own school issues. If they want to have religious classes that teach various religions, let that school system decide the matter. I trust the citizens closest to the issue far more than any judge, especially in matters concerning their own children. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:07:21 [Permalink]
|
My $ says he's not capable of understanding what you have summarized nicely Dave_W.
You're just gonna get some more out-of-context quotes and nonsense about how Doomar thinks christainity is being held down by the liberals..... he's almost getting verlch-like.
you lose. pay up..hehe |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:19:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
you lose. pay up..hehe
Nope. You clearly demonstrated that you fail to grasp the situation, yet again.
As clearly illustrated by your remark here:
quote:
That is your opinion, Dave. But the choice should be left to individual school districts, dont' you think...when the state or courts make these decisions they overstep their bounds. I think local citizens are well able to handle their own school issues. If they want to have religious classes that teach various religions, let that school system decide the matter.
Well, what is your opinion on a local school district in the US, in a majority Islamic fundamentalist community, teaching children in PUBLIC schools the version of fundie Islam that motivates the Taliban? Stopping 5 times a day to pray, forbidding women to be in school, ect... And what of the minority in that community who wouldn't want their children exposed to such?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:25:00 [Permalink]
|
I think some people get bent out of shape over this issue of authority figures expressing their personal beliefs. I had a social studies teacher who smoked heavily. He would even have to leave class for 10 minutes to have a smoke break, while we read something. Another teacher was pretty much a socialist and promoted such views in his classroom. Some teachers were very "liberal" minded about sex and such. Each of these teachers has strong ideas and behaviors that young people had to deal with in some way. Did I become a smoker or socialist or sexually promiscuous because my teachers were? No. Did some kids? Maybe. Point is, children have to deal with their teachers. If they are way out of line, parents will complain and eventually the teacher will be dealt with, but until then, kids need to learn to deal with the adult authority figures in their lives. So why is the religion of a teacher any different? Like Jefferson said, if free thought and expression are allowed about such matters, the truth will win out, but it is far worse to quench free thought to prevent some possible "indoctrination" into some religious belief, then to allow free expression, including religious expression.
Dave, I dare say that if young people are allowed and encouraged to question their religions respectfully and study them openly the churches would be better off and hypocrisy would be prevented from developing as easily as it does now. Those who did believe would be stronger and churches would be healthier. See this link concerning the "Churches unpardonable sin" http://pastorsb.com/Churcsin.htm |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:33:25 [Permalink]
|
In a striking passage written to his friend F. A. Vanderkemp, Adams declared:
. . . in spite of Bolingbroke and Voltaire, I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believed or pretended to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and to propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.
John Adams |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:43:14 [Permalink]
|
Dude, no need to condescend. We can have a civil discussion without belittling the other party.
Well, what is your opinion on a local school district in the US, in a majority Islamic fundamentalist community, teaching children in PUBLIC schools the version of fundie Islam that motivates the Taliban? Stopping 5 times a day to pray, forbidding women to be in school, ect... And what of the minority in that community who wouldn't want their children exposed to such?
If the parents wanted such a class, it is certain that the minority would not be forced to attend. Such a voluntary class would not be a problem with me, as long as those with other beliefs are still free to express their beliefs. When such beliefs as you mentioned are put into public view they're put to public (open) scrutiny, which is the strongest deterrent to error. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:54:26 [Permalink]
|
And what of the minority in that community who wouldn't want their children exposed to such?
I get really tired of parents who are afraid of "exposing" their children to someone else's religion. That is the reality of the world. Would to God they were more afraid of living hypocritical lives in front of their own children, as that is far more damaging.
Fear, in general, is not healthy. Why be afraid of someone else's religion? What is the point? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 22:57:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Dave, believe it or not, I am very much in agreement with your assessment. I am not for state mandated prayer or Bible reading. I don't believe the state needs to be involved whatever.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that 'state' in situations like this means 'government', all the way down to 'school board'.quote:
In like manner I don't believe the courts have the right to decide such issues...
No, the courts don't have the right to decide such issues, they have a duty to do so. The Constitutional mandate of the SCOTUS is to decide which laws (and other governmental decisions) conflict with the Constitution.
I know you've been upset with "activist judges" going against the will of the majority, but it's their job to do so. In the case of the SCOTUS, it's the equivalent of a nine-person veto. Or are you also upset that the President has the power to override the will of the people?quote:
...just as Congress does not have the right to impose laws promoting or prohibiting a particular group. When SCOTUS ruled in the Murray vs New York case, they mentioned some of the points you implied, such as "joiners or weirdos", in that they felt the Murray child, though not required to attend this morning prayer, was ostracized, therefore they ruled to prohibit the state of New York from imposing "voluntary" prayer. Where they went wrong, in my opinion, was in not emphasizing the freedom of individual teachers to pray with students according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Why should their decision have emphasized law which was not in question?quote:
Also, this "ostracizing" idea has evolved into a new interpretation of law, in that if any peer or public pressure is put on any person, it is bad...
The 14th amendment answers this issue. If certain "protected groups" are treated like second-class citizens, it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is a living document, and not frozen in time back at its first ratification.quote:
...whereas, this is not a fist hits nose issue at all, but thought hits mind issue.
You're missing the point of the "fist hits nose" sentiment. You're free to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't affect me. Whether that's a physical assault or a mental one doesn't matter.quote:
There is pressure throughout society to obey rules and conform in certain ways and it is good.
Indeed, the laws we have now basically outline where my metaphorical nose exists, and the space in which you may swing your metaphorical fist.quote:
The choice still remains with the individual. Individual responsibilty is learned during the school years. Choices of what to believe and what not to believe are made by each child. My point is simply that when a child hears a teacher pray a prayer or read from the Bible or even explain its meaning and relation to a situation a child goes through a process of maturity. It is part of life. Tolerance for other's beliefs is a good thing, hearing what a person believes is a good thing, thinking about other religions is a good thing. It is part of the learning process and maturity of an individual. To exclude it from public schools is to do a disservice to our children.
Yes, which is why we have "comparative religion" classes in state-run schools, which are fine and dandy. It is also why it is permissible for teachers to speak about their beliefs. It is not necessary - for this "maturity" to occur - to have a teacher say "God exists, it's a fact."
quote:
To force a teacher or administrator to bend their principles and "neutralize" all of their speech is just plain evil.
Who is doing so? Please note, this is a direct question, I expect an answer.quote:
Teaching a particular faith in a public school in a devotional way in a classroom where children are compelled to attend would not be right, of course, but I see nothing wrong with voluntary classes or devotional meetings done before or after school, or even classes for teaching the meaning and history of particular religions during school as elective classes. Do you?
Again, NO. There are such classes, before- or after-school groups, and comparative religion classes all over the place, Doomar. That you appear to not know this makes it seem that you're arguing from complete ignorance of the state of public education today.
You also wrote:quote:
That is your opinion, Dave. But the choice should be left to individual school districts, dont' you think...when the state or courts make these decisions they overstep their bounds.
This is what I was talking about above. Local government is not legally different from the Federal or any state government, in terms of the First Amendment. They cannot promote one religion over another, they cannot restrict the press, they cannot censor books, etc. Why is it that you think that the Lexington Town Council should be able to enact laws which the State of Kentucky cannot?quote:
I think local citizens are well able to handle their own school issues. If they want to have religious classes that teach various religions, let that school system decide the matter.
They often do have classes which teach various religions, they just don't force kids to take them, nor do they teach any particular religion as being true.quote:
I trust the citizens closest to the issue far more than any judge, especially in matters concerning their own children.
And |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 23:09:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I think some people get bent out of shape over this issue of authority figures expressing their personal beliefs. I had a social studies teacher who smoked heavily. He would even have to leave class for 10 minutes to have a smoke break, while we read something. Another teacher was pretty much a socialist and promoted such views in his classroom. Some teachers were very "liberal" minded about sex and such. Each of these teachers has strong ideas and behaviors that young people had to deal with in some way. Did I become a smoker or socialist or sexually promiscuous because my teachers were? No. Did some kids? Maybe. Point is, children have to deal with their teachers. If they are way out of line, parents will complain and eventually the teacher will be dealt with, but until then, kids need to learn to deal with the adult authority figures in their lives. So why is the religion of a teacher any different?
It's not, unless the teacher teaches the students that his/her religion is true.
The point is that the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the separation of church and state. It does not guarantee that teachers will not smoke, or that teachers will be apoliticial, or that teachers will not speak about sex. It tells people they have a right to teach their own children what is "true" in regards to religion, and it tells people that the government does not have that right.quote:
Like Jefferson said, if free thought and expression are allowed about such matters, the truth will win out, but it is far worse to quench free thought to prevent some possible "indoctrination" into some religious belief, then to allow free expression, including religious expression.
I asked you before, and you failed to respond. I'll ask again: Do you think that elementary school children have the ability to critical examine religious "truths" as put forth by a hypothetical public school teacher?quote:
Dave, I dare say that if young people are allowed and encouraged to question their religions respectfully and study them openly the churches would be better off and hypocrisy would be prevented from developing as easily as it does now. Those who did believe would be stronger and churches would be healthier.
Young people are allowed to question religion, unless their parents punish them for doing so. Teachers are allowed to encourage students to question religion, but see my last sentence for why it may be better if they don't (especially in highly evangelical communities). Why is it that you think that young people cannot question religion? Why is it that you think that teachers are prohibited from encouraging students from doing so?quote:
See this link concerning the "Churches unpardonable sin" http://pastorsb.com/Churcsin.htm
How much do I need to read before the epiphany should come about what your point was with sending me to read something which isn't obviously on topic? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 23:16:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I get really tired of parents who are afraid of "exposing" their children to someone else's religion.
Who said anything about the parents being scared of this? That's mighty prejudicial of you.quote:
That is the reality of the world. Would to God they were more afraid of living hypocritical lives in front of their own children, as that is far more damaging.
Fear, in general, is not healthy. Why be afraid of someone else's religion? What is the point?
Would you be "afraid" of someone teaching your child that two plus two equals five? Of course not, you'd just be angry that some idiot was trying to ruin your child's education.
Well, guess what? There are plenty of people in the world who think that Catholics are just plain wrong. They're not "afraid" of being exposed to Catholic ideas, they just think they're stupid, and certainly don't want their tax dollars spent advocating Catholicism.
The idea that fear motivates all this legal action over religion in public schools is laughable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
