Mandatory Prayer/Religious Teachings in Public Schools Paradox - Page 2

YamiB. · 07-30-08, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

The OP is full of Bollucks. For one thing, I'm a conservative, I think parents should be the ones responsible to teach religion and morals. Schools shoul and are SUPPOSED to remain neutral. Not secularlist, not christian, not buddhist, but neutral. A trend that does exist(althoug mostly universities, not schools) is to push secularist ideas and a total lack of moral ethics. Everyone knows this exists, just look at some of the people who come out of these universities, Ward Churchill, Arthur Butz, Bernie Ward, some of the Berkely students; hell, just to satisfy you liberalson why universities should be neutral, Fallwell and Pat Robertson both graduated. This is equally as bad as pushing radical islamist agenda IMO.

This huge 3-way contest in agendas between radical secularism, christianity, and islam is poisoning our education system.

Secularism is not atheism. If secularism on the part of the schools is not the neutral position, then what is?

American · 07-31-08, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

Secularism is the removal of religion from the public sector, i.e. government and public schools. It's nothing more than that, if you don't think that religion should be taught in school, that's a secular thought. If you don't think religion should be intertwined with government, that's a secular thought. I would say that secularism is the neutral case, it doesn't say religion is bad or wrong, but rather that it's not appropriate in things such as govenrment and public schools, which is true.

Overly simplistic. A neutral position would suggest that you disregard the teaching, just as believers must decide to disregard Darwinism, if they so choose. Given the existence of the 1st Amendment, secularism is the source of action taken to remove religion and therefore is not neutral. The fact that religious rituals existed within govt from the beginning (e.g., prayer in SCOTUS and Congress), it is actually the more neutral. The belief in the existence of a Creator that bestows inalienable rights upon mankind is confirmed in the Declaration of Independence (the founding document of the United States).

YamiB. · 08-01-08, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Overly simplistic. A neutral position would suggest that you disregard the teaching, just as believers must decide to disregard Darwinism, if they so choose. Given the existence of the 1st Amendment, secularism is the source of action taken to remove religion and therefore is not neutral. The fact that religious rituals existed within govt from the beginning (e.g., prayer in SCOTUS and Congress), it is actually the more neutral. The belief in the existence of a Creator that bestows inalienable rights upon mankind is confirmed in the Declaration of Independence (the founding document of the United States).

So the neutral position on religion is to have your religion put in positions of power? I don't get how anybody could possibly think that secularism is not the neutral position. Yes, secularism was used to remove religion from public, because it was decided that it was not having religion there was not neutral. The non-neutral positions would be promoting either some type of religion or atheism.

Lachean · 08-04-08, 11:15 AM

I amazes me how many people confuse secularism with atheism or a "removal" or anything that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

shuamort · 08-04-08, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Overly simplistic. A neutral position would suggest that you disregard the teaching, just as believers must decide to disregard Darwinism, if they so choose. Given the existence of the 1st Amendment, secularism is the source of action taken to remove religion and therefore is not neutral. The fact that religious rituals existed within govt from the beginning (e.g., prayer in SCOTUS and Congress), it is actually the more neutral. The belief in the existence of a Creator that bestows inalienable rights upon mankind is confirmed in the Declaration of Independence (the founding document of the United States).

We rule from the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta or Stephen King's "The Stand".

Tucker Case · 08-04-08, 12:14 PM

What if we had prayer in schol 5 times a day while facing east. They can say Christian prayers, like the our Father and such, but they must do it five times a day while facing east. Is that OK?

More to the point, there is no banishment on teaching religion in schools. You can teach religion to your heart's content, so long as you teach all of them equally. I'm actually totally in favor of adding theology as a course in shool, with every dogma taught as a theology from Taoism, to Christianity, to Islam.

Atheism can be touched on at the end of the course by saying, "Remember all of that stuff I just taught you, what everyone in every faith believed. Obviously nobody believes all of it. Mosty people just believe one secition of it, and others pick and choose different things in different places and they believe that. Others have minor details that are different, such as the different sects of Chrsitianity do, but they generally believe the same basic framework. Now tehre is another group called Atheists. Tehse people don't believe any of that stuff. Literally none of it. And Agnostics are people who don't know really know what to believe or not believe."

The point is, Teaching religion is very possible right now, as long as the teacher does not promote one faith over the other, doesn't show preference, and doesn't state that the beliefs as though they are facts. The teacher can teach religion as theology and the facts are that peole believe or have believed these principles.

So basically, religion can be and always could be taught in schools. As various beliefs that people have. Not as factual evidence of God.

When any religion is taught in public schools as fact, it state-sponsorship of one religion over the other. That is why the people who argue for religion in schools are usually wrong. They do not want the concepts of Religion taught in school (which can already be done), they want the concepts of THEIR religion taught in schools (which cannot be done).

They want prayers in school, but they are unwilling to make it a prayer to Vigoth the Worm God.

And the thrity seconds of sielnce thing is a waste fo valueble tax payer resources. If student were currently prevented form taking their own 30 second moment of silent reflection, I would give them that, but every single school in the country has a break time. Throughout the day. All of the kids can use that time as their own to do all the silent reflecting they want. Hell, have them fast in God's name and you get the whol lunch break of silent reflection for your kid if you want.

Also, if someone absolutely needs their kid to pray in the morning, wake them up earlier. Seems pretty simple to me.

new coup for you · 08-04-08, 12:45 PM

I find it fascinating that people take a look at the miserable failure of public schools, which cannot communicate very basic concepts, and think that teachers are capable of subliminally planting coded messages into children's minds regarding complex moral situations. If they could do that they could probably teach them long division.

American · 08-04-08, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YamiB.

So the neutral position on religion is to have your religion put in positions of power? I don't get how anybody could possibly think that secularism is not the neutral position. Yes, secularism was used to remove religion from public, because it was decided that it was not having religion there was not neutral. The non-neutral positions would be promoting either some type of religion or atheism.

Nope, religion being allowed is the neutral position; not religion in power. Secularism forces religion out.

American · 08-04-08, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

We rule from the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta or Stephen King's "The Stand".

Again, overly simplistic. English common law is part of our system, just as The Natural Law is. The DoI sets the reasons and basis for our independent nation. The Constitution does not declare our independence, it only establish the form of the federal government and the extent of its powers.

shuamort · 08-04-08, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Again, overly simplistic. English common law is part of our system, just as The Natural Law is. The DoI sets the reasons and basis for our independent nation. The Constitution does not declare our independence, it only establish the form of the federal government and the extent of its powers.

Your summation is incorrect. They may be the basis for the country but they are not the laws under which we govern. Authority comes from the constitution and the rights and limits it expresses. The DoI is pretty but we do not use it on how we choose to govern ourselves.