I think that we should be allowed to teach relgiion in school. I mean the admemnet from seperation form church and state should be taken away. Allow religion in schools, but make them in a diffrent class or something. I almost got suspended for taking my bible to school. But they just took my bible away and I got a detention

Do you know why it was added to our Constitution?

This document has has worked for us for almost 250 years and has allowed us our present place in the world which is pretty enviable. I don't understand why they were good enough for all of that and suddenly, when they have served us so well, someone will come along and suggest they have a better idea and it should be changed. It makes no sense.

Let me ask you...do you go to church and Sunday school? If so, do you go there to study things like geography and algebra or to study the Bible?

Should the teacher allow the Qaran and the Book of Mormon to be studied in school as well? Would your parents or church be happy you were learning this subject if it included learning all about the other books?

Do teachers have time to deal with all of this along with the basic education you need now?

My point is that things are working this way and we can all meet our spiritual needs without it coming between us in the classroom. Adults don't go to their boss and say they need time within their workday to study their Bible. That isn't what they are there for.

Juber: I think it is appalling that your Bible was confiscated and that you were given detention merely for bringing it with you. I don't believe that sort of action is implied by the First Amendment. However, I think it would be equally appalling if you or any other student were required to bring a Bible with you to school - never mind studying it as part of the regular classwork. I do believe that that is implied by the First Amendment.

Personally, I would have no problem with a comparative religion class being taught. I think it would be a good idea for American students to know more about Islam and Buddhism and Judaism and Shinto and Hinduism - as well as Christianity, especially if free from the dogma of any particular denomination. But I think the potential danger would be in the inherent prejudice of the teachers and the possibility of various religions and sects demanding equal time with major world religions. Would most teachers not color some religions as "less serious" or even blasphemous (however unconsciously)? Would we have to include Wicca and Animism and Cargo Cults and Japanese Golf Religion? And Atheism? So, unless some system could be devised which would be both equitable, comprehensive, and totally free of bias, it should probably be avoided in the public school curriculum.

yes, old story.

American christians dont want religion in school... unless its jesus. Just another special interest group.

I personally feel that religion should not be taught in public schools. If i wanted my children to learn religion then i would enroll them in one of the many religious private schools that we have in America. There are too many people out there who don't believe in an religion this would create an even bigger problem in the educational system i think. We have already had an incident with the pledge of allegiance. There are many private schools that teach children religion, in the public sector i believe that there is no purpose of teaching it because the diversity in the people that attend these public schools.

I believe that we should not teach our children religion in public schools, private schools well that is a different story. There is so much diversity in the children who attend public schools. I mean by race, religion and income level of the families. There are also to many different religions in the world today. You can't just teach about the Christian GOD and think you are gonna get away with it. There is no place for religion in the public school today. If i wanted my kids to learn religion i would send them a private school that offers religion.

Let me make myself clear- what i meant to say was should schools allow this as an elective in schools. Currently schools dont allow this to happen anymore. Why do the poor countrys ike nigeria and the ivory coast allow this in schools?

Maybe for the same reasons the Taliban did.

Separation of church and state
Where is this in the Constitution?
The First Amendment of the Constitution states;Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


The purpose of the First Amendment was to keep the federal government from setting up a national church.The words separation of church and state do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, In this letter he wrote about a wall of separation between church and state. There was some kind of talking about a national religion,
Jefferson made it clear in his letter that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.

The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people, of which 52 were Christians.

Could you please provide some proof that the authors of the Constitution "intended" for the U.S. to be a Christian nation?

It seems to me that if these men wanted us to all be Christian they would have just written that in the Constitution.

And this 'some kind of national religion' mentioned in the post above...it seems likely it was Christianity that they would have been discussing and that was turned down. Hard to know without a link or other way to verify the source.

I have studied this , reading letters from the founding fathers, that is how I see it that they intended for a christian nation.Some examples

Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment, he also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

" Let statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."John Adams on October 11, 1798

Congress and President George Washington in 1789 passed the "United States Annotated Code", Article III states: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Members of Danbury Baptist Association heard rumors of Congregationalists becoming a national religion. This encouraged Jefferson to write a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association .This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson wanted to make clear that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.

If you want to know what Congregationalists are here

http://65.107.211.206/religion/larsen5.html

Darkstar, I think your reasoning here is self defeating. First, you discount the "seperation" idea because it was in a letter, not in the constitution; then, in trying to show that the founding fathers intended a Christian nation, you use as a source, more letters and quotes. But not the constitution.

Freedom of religion necessarily implies a freedom from religion. I can't see any way that the two don't go hand in hand.

We live in a far more secular culture today than 200 years ago. That to me makes it all the more remarkable and important that the drafters of the constitution did NOT explicitly say anything about Christianity in the document itself - after all, they were living in an era when such a thing would have been expected and commonplace.

Why not teach religion in school , maybe taht'll teach some of these wacko kids some morals so they don't start something like Columbine. However, if you are going to teach religion, teah all of them, Christianity, Islam, Mormon, ect.

CP

From Dictionary.com

I don't see religion anywhere in there. In fact, I find that religion can often lead to immoral behaviour, such as homophobia, religious and sexist discrimination. More to the point, even the people most steeped in religion are capable of grave misdeeds by any standard; so I think that morality is a pretty flimsy justification for teaching religion in schools. That being said, religious HISTORY should definitely be discussed to promote awareness and understanding.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can find morals in the Bible, Koran, Torah, ect. Or is religion completely absent of such aspects .

CP

That's not even close to what I was suggesting. I spelled it out quite clearly; but since you didn't quite catch on I will do it again. Religion is NOT A NECESSARY ELEMENT of morality. I am all for teaching religion in schools, to promote understanding and awareness. I am NOT for propogating religion to provide a moral center because such a direction is unnecessary. One doesn't need to have faith in a higher being to learn how to respect the law and one-another.

That's right, but the topic of the thread was religion in schools, and that is what I'm talking about.

CP

You're right... there's nothing about teaching religion in schools there. I don't know what I was thinking...

First off you also said this [above], I am simpy saying that religion contains morals that can be applicable to kids.

CP

I fail to see how that necessitates teaching religious morals in schools.

Because religions contains 2 good things, morals and history, that's good, why not do it?

CP

The second you attach morality to religious studies it becomes exclusionary, that's why. Teach the history of religion. Teach the mechanics of religion. Heck, teach the language of religion. Do NOT teach the morals of religion because once you do that you inch over a line into preaching.

I am not trying to be an overbearing person here by posting on to much.

Who decides what moral aspects from what texts, will that fit to all the kids that are in a PUBLIC school. Dont you think kids have enough homework then learning about some story of times long ago.


It seems it would become another warground for groups to spread their ideas into a society that has enough segregation as it is. Not to mention this would hurt generations of young people that already have enough confusion in their lives.

I think it is sad to say that a person has to be a religous human not to use drugs, and is a bad sterotype some people have to live with.

In my mind, the only reference to religion that should be made in school is that religion has been the root cause of more wars, more violence, and more death than anything else in history, including money and power. Keep it out of schools....religion has no place in educational institutions.

Teaching religion might help children tolerate religions, in a school I visited I heard kids talking about Moslims and refering to them as "towel heads" . Relgion classes would explain that different religions are to be accepted.

CP

While I will disagree with the confiscation of a bible mentioned in the first post to this topic, I also disagree with the teaching of religion in school.
The First Ammendment doesn't include the words "separation of church and state," but it clearly outlines that the federal government is not to endorse or likewise impose any one religion over the people of this country. People are to choose their own person beliefs and run with them.
Perhaps a comprehensive course briefly covering all the religions and a brief explanation over the place of religion in society, but nothing beyond that. And, unfortunately as another poster has mentioned, you still run the risk of a teacher being bias.
For the time being, though, I would encourage all people who engage in this debate to look at the condition of our education system as compared to that of other first world nations. Considering how poorly we're doing in all other aspects (mathematics, geography, literacy) I don't think we have time to divert our resources to matters that parents should be dealing with at home.
I think kids should be allowed to pray or meditate or read whatever religious texts they desire in school so long as they do not attempt to convert or impose their beliefs on another student. I don't think the schools need to be teaching them (lest they be a private institution). If parents so desperately want their children to have spiritual beliefs, let them be taught in the home or in churches/places of worship.

Please forgive me, but I'm about to briefly stray from the topic to address some previous statements made throughout the board...
Many of the founders believed in a god, but were NOT Christians. They were Deists. There is a very significant difference as Deists do not recognize any divinity of Jesus or even the concept of a god who meddles in human affairs, as does the anthopomorphic god found throughout the Bible and Koran.
We can throw all kinds of quotes (found at the end) around showing that the founding fathers were deeply religious men, but there are several which clearly indicate they weren't fond of Christianity, or even of religion having too prominent of a role (taking into consideration the foolish atrocities carried out years before the Constitution in the European Inquisitions and American witch hunts).
And in regards to one of the last posts, not all religion classes could possibly teach that all religions are to be accepted, because the two major religions both contradict one another and claim that you must be of THEIR faith to acheive salvation. You can't very well heed only the word of Jesus and simultaneously heed only the word of Mohammed, et vice versa.

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" -- James Madison
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." -- Benjamin Franklin

Abs like Jesus, please stay on topic. If you would like to address another issue such as the founding fathers' belief in god, please feel free to start a new topic on that subject with a clearly defined question for debate.

Sincerest apologies for drifting off topic in my last post... I'll try to see to it I don't do so again.
One thing I wanted to go back to in regards to my first post though is in regards to the confiscation of the bible. I was thinking about this and similarly the stories I've heard regarding students and faculty being punished for prayer or religious icons in school. I'd like to refer everybody to the First Amendment's reference to religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Now, the situation admittedly gets messy when you begin talking about teachers and other faculty members exercising religion at (public) school(s) because they are being paid by the government to do their jobs. Clearly, they run the risk of violating the first half of the amendment. The students, however, are not being paid by the government and should therefore, I believe, have the rights to read their bible, wear a crucifix around their neck, etc.
I would discourage teacher led prayers during office hours, at sporting events and graduation, but if a student is elected to oversee or conduct any of these events, I do think it is their constitutional right. Since the students are more or less equals with all other students (as opposed to the authoritarian position held by a teacher or other administrator) they each should have the right and ability to exercise their own chosen religion, provided they do not impose their beliefs upon those of another student.
Please note, if you have not already done so, that I am still not condoning religious classes or practices conducted by the school, but rather suggesting that the students should still be free to exercise their rights without faculty (and thereby government) intervention. I don't see that religion should be treated any different than a student's right to read a novel at lunch time or wear the latest J-LO clothes (whatever).

I agree with Abs like Jesus.

The 1st amendment specifically prohibited the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Of course, you don't have the right to infringe on others' rights.

I think a student should be able to study, read, talk about, pray or do whatever with religion, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T DISRUPT THE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT. Preaching to others about religion is obviously out of line.

I do think the point that schools don't have enough resources to teach religion is off base. They have enough resources, but current school systems don't have the will to impose Discipline on their students. No discipline, no learning. Private schools teach all the subjects that public ones do, PLUS religion. AND they turn out better students (for the most part). So that argument doesn't fly.

One reason NOT to teach religion in schools is that not everyone will agree with what is taught. If the course is taught as a "History of Religion" you may have students outraged to have Jesus (or Moses, or Abraham, or Buddha, or Muhommed) referred to as a teacher or some other name...People will be offended by an inappropriate (to them) reference to their religious figures. So just keep teaching religion out of public schools..

Prayer, I believe, should be voluntary, not forced, perhaps in the form of a "moment of silence" at the beginning of the day. Then you can do what you want with your "moment of silence".

I do believe that the morality of the country is slipping, but teaching religion in school will never work out...

How is a moment of Silence voluntary?

A moment of silence wouldn't exactly be voluntary, but the moment of silence wouldn't be inherently religious either, thus preventing any imposing of beliefs on other people.

It is inherently exclusionary though. That is the sort of pressure that should be avoided. I have nothing I feel I need to be silent for in the morning, so why should I be?

Do most students feel they'll have any use for Geometry at the time? What about pep rallies? If they don't play sports or have any interest in the sports, they really have no reason to go to a pep rally. I'm sure at some point there's been several students who have felt they have no reason to go to school -- after all their parents take care of everything they need.

There are some things that are required by the school. What we're seeking to discuss on this thread is what the schools should and shouldn't do in regards to religion. Amlord and I both seem to feel that students should be free to exercise their religion so long as "they don't disrubt the educational environment."

A moment of silence is only talking about a brief moment. A student could use that moment to reflect, pray, doodle or maybe check out the girl praying next to him -- a moment to dream. Either way, students should be allowed the freedom to exercise their beliefs, but without school endorsement of any one over another. The moment of silence idea would grant this, while implementing a particular moment for those whining about the school needing to promote moral practices.

How is a school-scheduled activity promoting prayer not a school endorsement of religion?

I see no problem with a moment of silence if all types of non-disruptive silent behavior are allowed. Why should devout students feel they are being disruptive if they engage in prayer at school? We need to be careful about limiting freedom. A solution that allows moments of religious activity would be very helpful for some students and no more inconvenient than a pep rally.

I feel that religion should be taught in public schools but should only be taught by the approval of the parents or the option of the student as an elective class

Not a bad idea, but I don't really think it's workable in a public school. It's easy in a Catholic or other single denomination school to teach religion, but in a public school, even in an elective type, you have at least 6 denominations, and you have to be careful not to teach anything that clashes with the beliefs of even one of them.

I understand the thrust of your post, but there's still aproblem, at least as I see it. How do you decide what to teach? Even if you limited it to Christianity, the doctrinal differences between denominations can be huge. And there's still the question of staffing, scheduling, etc.

In Virginia, my kids went to a school where this exact practice was in place. It was a public school, and to get around the laws, they had the optional class across the street at a church. All the staffing was done by church volunteers. SOunds OK, but it wasn't. First of all, it was a SOuthern Baptist church. Secondly, only three kids didn't attend - 2 were mine. So 1 hour per week was wasted. My kids were given study hall during this time. The school was involving itself by scheduling and accomidating the church. Bad scene.

So who decides? And why can't my kid then elect to take the Buddhist class?

Are you saying that the whole school HAD this class. What do you mean by three kids did not attend this class. Was the class mandatory.

omg, what is that? Is that some common ground we're standing on Wertz?

Agreed. You should not have had your bible taken away Juber. You should be free to bring it, read it to yourself, study it at school (on your own time) etc etc. Religeous classes should not be mandatory.

I would have no problem with a class that discussed all religeons. The mechanics of them, etc etc. Who was Mohammad? Who was Jesus? What did they do? etc etc. It should not be a required course, but rather an elective

--cheers

Totally agree with you Digital Patriot. A class that discussed all religions would be perfect.

It was not mandatory, but only three kids in the school did not attend. 2 of mine and 1 other kid. By the way, I told my kids that if they wanted to go, they could go, but they said no thanks. So it wasn't mandatory, but it was taking up school time and resources, not to mention the fact that it was a very conservative denominational class from everything I gathered.

I agree with DP about a comparative religion class - it could even be mandatory, as long as it is a study and not denominational.

Put me in the mandatory column also. In today's world where so many countries governments are closely tied to religions it is imperative to become familiar with those religions. Even more so since they are not widely practiced here, making them even less familiar.

I do belive that we should have religion in our schools. The problem with a mandatory class even if it was a non denominational parents would complaine. This class would be perfict for a elective.

Actually, a class about religion could be handled as a class about philosophy. Students would learn about all the major philosophical approaches, both Western and Eastern, who argued the approaches, what the arguments are, and how to judge the validity of arguments.

I had just such a class in college, Philosophy 101. My professor was really good, so I learned a lot and have retained much of it. However, we did have some deeply Christian students, and these folks were reduced to tears as their cherished beliefs were scrutinized by the materialists and poorly defended by the spiritualists.

I'm not sure high school students are mature enough to handle this. But, maybe they are. I'm just not sure.

I went to a great high school and we had comparative religious study, we visited churches, synogogues and temples. Its was great. That was before everyone was so damn touchy. I learned tolerance and came to an early conclusion that there are many Gods, and to each ones own, a good thing for youth.
We also had sex education and I am continually thankful to it for saving me from early mistakes as well as other possible problems. Thats another subject, however growing up with a liberal education on worldly matters has proven worth the effort, at least in my life.

no, not now or ever, i dont get touched to much by most things but the thought of this i cant stand i would riot. no way, unless they give me ticket to another country. they can take that stuff in college, kids dont need to hear about zombies and hell and hopping ghosts and sea gods, they have cartoons.