Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

"Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom from Religion" are synonyms, and in our system mean the same thing. The only people who make a distinction between the two don't understand what our freedoms mean (that's on both sides, from the religious and the non-religious).

Freedom of relgion means that you can indeed choose to not have any religion, and freedom of speech means you can work toward convincing others that your view is right. However, you have no right against having your feelings hurt by others exercising their freedom of speech. Just as you can say they believe in a "bronze age mythology" or that you don't "adhere to a set of rules in musty old books" and that at death "there is nothing, and you die", they have a right to tell you that you are headed straight to hell for your views. You are free to pout if it hurts your feelings too much.

 

Or Confucious, for that matter. There's a lot of ancient, excellent wisdom out there. The world would be a much better place if the followers of these great thinkers would stop worshipping them and just listen to what they were/are saying. The thing that pisses me off about a lot about conventional religion (not a specific philosophy necessarily) is that there is way too much emphasis on process not results. <_< I think that ties in somewhat with your statement about the fanatics.

 

With all due respect, Schmika---

certified high school teacher here---not flaunting any "authority" with that, but I can speak to it from a curriculum standpoint---taught HS World History---

1. This just isn't logical. Enforcing the "wall of separation" (Jefferson) between church and state has nothing to do with fear. Analogy: husband has opportunity to "cheat" (consummate sexual relationship) on wife with single, attractive woman. Decides against it for several good reasons (he's already wrongly allowed his attention to wander too far, broken marriage vows, loyalty to wife, anticipation of wife who "doesn't seserve it" being shattered if she finds out, religious prohibition, etc.)
"Other woman" says to herself (and him), "you're just afraid you'll fall completely in love with me." He already KNOWS her, ADMIRES things about her, CARES for her a lot---but her "reason" isn't even close to what holds him back.

2. No. I'm glad you said "teachings about rather than "teaching Islam", "teaching Buddhism", etc. At least you know that much, whereas I hear many others saying that we (in public schools) actually "teach the religion", that is, explain the tenets and advocate one or another religion (but not Christianity).

It's been standard practice nationwide for the past 100 years + to include a "unit" on "the world's great religions" in World History---including Christianity. The amount of detail and attention given the subject varies greatly---it may simply be a 1- or 2-day summary, corresponding to a textbook chapter. On the other extreme, it might even involve a "research paper" (properly assigned, and with parents' option to opt out).

Other than that, kids in most states are taught American History twice between grades 7-12. This includes due attention to the Christian denominations of the people who settled in the U.S., 1600's to 1800's (Puritans, Catholics, Protestants, etc.). Again, "major beliefs" can be and usually are enumerated

Most public high schools do not have social studies electives such as sociology, humanities or religion.

Where ID belongs, IMO, if taught in high school, is as an "adjunct" to a "religion unit".

3. If kids are to be "good kids" at least partly because they are "discussing Biblical issues", they should also be discussing the moral/ethical behavior advocated by Confucius, Zoroaster, Old Testament Judaism, Mohammed, etc. And, as you know, each major denomination is itself split into sub-faiths or factions, e.g., Conservative and Orthodox Jews, Gnostic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, MANY Protestant sects, etc. Lots of ground to cover. (Does President Bush really want us to "teach the controversy" in all or most cases where controversy exists, or just with respect to ID?)

4. More as an aside (and you don't have to answer), many of the members of one of the American sects who refer to themselves as "...a peculiar people" are "Mormons" (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Are you L.D.S.?

 

No, I'll answer. I am a Baptist. (not SBC) I belong to an independant Baptist Church. I was quoting a biblical passage. Our church also teaches that any person, once he accepts Christ as his saviour, becomes a "Saint"? So, from now on, all shall address be as Saint Schmika!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually, we refer to each other as Brother and Sister, as we all are in the family of Christ.

Thanks for noticing the subtlety of teaching "about" religion rather than teaching religion. Someone, in replying to one of my posts, mentioned everything was OK unless I "mentioned" religion. That made them uncomfortable...that is kind of the point I am trying to make.

I agree, following the teachings of Confuscious, Mohammed, etc are similar to Christ...the only difference is "acts" cannot offer salvation. Man cannot reach salvation on his own. Now, if you don't believe in Heaven/Hell/Salvation, then this is all an exercise in rhetoric...noting matters, you will eventually die and that will be the end of it.

Me, I beieve the soul will live on...where, well, there are only two choices for me.

Well, I digress and ramble...thanks for the discussion.

 

That is not a science issue then.

That is an issue of separation of church and state, which I wholeheartedly agree with the 1st amendment and the Establishment Clause.

It has been the precedent of the United States Supreme Court that teaching creationism, specifically advocating one religion above all else in school in fundamentally unconstitutional, and I completely agree with them.

You're acting as if there aren't ENOUGH venues to learn about Christianity... if a young person wants to learn about Christ, that's why Churches exist.

Schools have a lot more to worry about than to start doing the jobs of Churches.

 

I completely agree.

 

We have a perspective difference. First, the 1st amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the FREE exercise thereof.- I interpret this to mean there shall be no official gov't religion and each person can exercise their own. Does not address having religious symbols, etc in gov't locations (of course...the Supreme court makes that interpretation, not you or I) I disagree with the courts interpretation.

I did not ask the schools to do what churches should, however, I think "Gov't" has been told to QUASH religion, not just consider it neutral. JMHO.

 

As someone who's been through the public school system recently, I can corroborate Jack's account. In my World History class, we were taught about the progression of world religion, including a lengthy discussion of Christianity through the centuries... from Roman times, to the middle ages, the rise of Protestantism, and to colonial religion, to present day.

I found that that curriculum was well placed, and in no way was it trying to advocate one religion over another.

But there is a line, however between teaching about religion and teaching religion. Teaching Intelligent Design/Creationism in a science class is vastly different from teaching about it in a history class or a sociology class. Teaching it in a science class is TEACHING RELIGION by painting it as an "alternative"...

 

Schools are not individuals. Schools are institutions that are definitely an arm of the government.

That means all of the rules of lawmaking apply.

An individual has all of the rights to believe, worship, and say whatever he wants... but if that individual is a teacher, he is acting as an agent of the government of the United States... and he cannot cross that line if he is in the role of teacher.

Government has *NOT* been trying to quash religion... it has been quashing attempts by religious groups to undermine the constitution by putting that stuff in school. You interpret it as quashing religion, but in reality that's because certain religious groups and certain individuals have overstepped their bounds.

 

We will just have to disagree here...BTW, when I say "gov't" here, I mean the arm that consists of the courts.

Of course, I also think part of our nations problem is that schools are "governmental". I have no problem w/ using taxes and gov't to fund the schools, but I DO have a big problem with them being "run" by the gov't. I support charter schools.

I think every child should have a certain "credit" towards schooling and be able to use it ANYWHERE. The ONLY thing the "gov't" can do is require annual testing to prove that their money is being spent properly, in lieu of that, annual inspections of some type. Wow, this is way off the OP subject.

 

:blink: And you don't think the government writing a check to pay for a religious education constitutes a forbidden establisment of religion.

 

We practically have that. It's called home schooling.

 

Negative...they just supplied the money that we taxpayers pay in to educate...the family chose the school. I don't have a problem with that distinction.

 

Yea, but that has limited applicability. I like small, community based schools, whether they be muslim, christian, catholic, yada, yada.

 

:huh: I don't see the distinction to which you are referring.

 

They would simply be funneling the money....Now that you asked...I don't support the NEA, I don't support the respective states "NEA"

Education is local. There should be a "base" amount of funding for every child. That is collected and given to each child to pick the school of thier family's choice. Now, wealthier school districts can vote for higher taxes and supplement that. The point being, there will be a basic "entitlement" for every child. Get rid of as much "administration" as you can. We don't need any gov't higher than the state level funneling this money.

By just "funding or collecting and processing" the money, the gov't did not "establish" any religion and indeed did not make any law respecting the free exercise thereof.

If I want to choose the local Baptist Academey for my kids, they that academy gets the money they are now spending for the gov't school.

Let's face it, the monopoly of education is not helping our kids.

 

You won't find the word "funneling" in the tax law nor the constitution.
The government taxes and it spends.
Calling it "funneling" is just spin.

 

Translated, you're saying, "public education is a failure." Pretty broad brush, and I couldn't generalize that much. Public schools function perfectly well in many (most? do not know) places.

However, even liberal ol' me is slowly changing my mind about experimenting with some vouchers. Why? Because we're finally getting some national and---where they didn't exist before---state standards. As long as those are respected, I don't care any more if Susie and Johnny get their daily dose of religion. (I'd also like statewide school dress codes, even more heretical for a liberal, but that's another thread.)

 

The government does not and never has had anything like a monopoly on education.
There have always been private schools in this country and there is no movement that I am aware of to ban them.

 

Just to help out Smika., Kiloran...Private education is what it is., the Government in the use of vouchers, and other programs supporting private education alternatives, makes no distinction on WHAT religion carries out the education. If you are going to complain about Christian based educational institutions, then also you must complain about the Jewish ones, the Arab ones, the Black Muslims ones, the Quaker ones, the Mormon ones etc...religion is religion. One cannot specifically endorse or reject or proscecute on the basis of a specific religion. The Constitution documents never mention separation of church and state, it only mentions government endorsement, or mandating religious idealogy of a certain type. There should be no movement of any type by the government to curtail any specific religious education, and that should apply accross the board.