Hot Bed Question Bible Study In Public Schools

[ThisYouWillDo]

mkemse

I am no expert on the laws of the United States, but I do believe you are misinterpreting the Constitution when you say that expending public money on educating American children about religion, or, indeed, about Christianity specifically, is a violation of its provisions.

My reading of the First Amendment is that Congress may not restrict the practice of any religious activity, not that it must not promote it. But a balanced education would neither promote nor suppress religious ideas; it would examine them to identify what was good and bad about them.

I quote below the First Amendment, and also, Ron Paul's speech to the House of Representatives in 2003 on this matter:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2003

The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment" of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill.

I don't know the full history of the events leading up to Paul's speech, nor what happened afterwards, but the points he made seem eminently sensible to me.

TYWD

[mkemse]

But religion is a big part of the world. Lot's of people are religious. I don't see how this is any different than learning about geography, (which is another neglected subject in the states). Or what about political science, philosophy or history. How do you teach history without touching on religion? It's about communication. So is language. I don't see a difference. There's a world of difference between learning about something and having it preached to you.

I often see Americans say stuff like, "We've got a shared moral base because of our earlier shared faith in Christianity". That to me is a strong indicator that the educational system isn't working. If people don't know what makes Christian moral codes different from humanist moral codes, or Roman, they don't know why they believe what they believe. This is nothing less than intellectual poverty.

Saying a mountain isn't there because it isn't in the constitution, doesn't make the mountain go away.

The Educational system in most cases does not, not work because of the cirruculm, it does not work because of the lack of quailfied teachers,
The Religious aspect has nothing to do with how well a school or it's students do,
IE: You could be the Greatest PlAYERS in History but if you do not have GODD OR GREAT COACH (ie: teacher) you will not win, a school is as successfull as the teacher make it with their teaching skills, and students wil only learn as well as they are taught by qualified teachers
You can have good student with GREAT potential but if thier Teacher is not good, they student will not learn

[TomOfSweden]

The Educational system in most cases does not, not work because of the cirruculm, it does not work because of the lack of quailfied teachers,
The Religious aspect has nothing to do with how well a school or it's students do,
IE: You could be the Greatest PlAYERS in History but if you do not have GODD OR GREAT COACH (ie: teacher) you will not win, a school is as successfull as the teacher make it with their teaching skills, and students wil only learn as well as they are taught by qualified teachers
You can have good student with GREAT potential but if thier Teacher is not good, they student will not learn

I had a religion teacher once. She was a devout New Christian loon who had moved to Sweden from the states to be part of Swedenborg's religion close to where her prophet was born. She was not even an outstanding teacher. She was pretty biased in favour of New Christianity. But all it took was her mentioning other religions and having us read the literature for it all to sink in. She "knew" the true religion. So much was obvious. You don't need to be smart or even well read to be a teacher. Just to be blessed as a pedagogue, and know a little bit more than the students.

I'm still happy I was in her class. And as always, learning in school is more about being a diligent student than being exposed to great teachers. It's allowing oneself to be exposed to information that's the hard bit. Religion is mostly quite boring, so it's good that we get forced to read it in school. At least we in Sweden are.

Not only do I know Muslims are crazy. I also know why. I've been hanging out with devout Sikhs in Bangkok, (they have a massive beautiful temple hidden in the slums there) and been to a Kali puja in Hampi, (an huge temple complex hidden in the deep jungle in India). None of that would have happened if I hadn't been forced to understand their point of view in my youth. I'm sure of it.

It is very hard to understand purely abstract, (and fantastic) concepts. It needs some guidance. How would you explain the "unmoved mover" theory to somebody who'd never heard of it.

[mkemse]

I had a religion teacher once. She was a devout New Christian loon who had moved to Sweden from the states to be part of Swedenborg's religion close to where her prophet was born. She was not even an outstanding teacher. She was pretty biased in favour of New Christianity. But all it took was her mentioning other religions and having us read the literature for it all to sink in. She "knew" the true religion. So much was obvious. You don't need to be smart or even well read to be a teacher. Just to be blessed as a pedagogue, and know a little bit more than the students.

I'm still happy I was in her class. And as always, learning in school is more about being a diligent student than being exposed to great teachers. It's allowing oneself to be exposed to information that's the hard bit. Religion is mostly quite boring, so it's good that we get forced to read it in school. At least we in Sweden are.

Not only do I know Muslims are crazy. I also know why. I've been hanging out with devout Sikhs in Bangkok, (they have a massive beautiful temple hidden in the slums there) and been to a Kali puja in Hampi, (an huge temple complex hidden in the deep jungle in India). None of that would have happened if I hadn't been forced to understand their point of view in my youth. I'm sure of it.

It is very hard to understand purely abstract, (and fantastic) concepts. It needs some guidance. How would you explain the "unmoved mover" theory to somebody who'd never heard of it.

The whole point of my original post was, DO YOU THINK THAT STUDYING THE BIBLE should be a requirement of Law In The Unite Sates in Tax Payer {ublicly Funded Schools, NO, that is why the church established Religion Schools Perocial Schools, so they can teach those students thedetails of the Bible, Making Students in a Publicly Financed Schoo at Tax Payers and Government Expsense in the UnitedStaes Violate the Seperation odf Church and State in the United States, our Contition specifly says that the Gonernment, be it local or federal will not FAVOR one religion overthe other,
Therefore Be it Studying The Bible, in Class, The Torha In Class The Kouran In Class and going through each Religious book andsinis Palms and decussing indetail what each chapter means and does, IS A VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION, it is not allowed under our Fedral Laws except if the School is PRIVELTY funded and operated, the Churches in the United States own and operate 1,000's of Cathlic Schools, which is where Bible study should be not in Tax Payer funded Public Schools and made mandoroty, if a personin a Public School wished to privates on their own study the Bible, on their own time, in private, in a Library at SChool, I have no issue with thatm i do when a child is FROCED to study a Relgion that they do not pratice do to their up bringing
I do not want me child in a PUBLIC TAx Payer Governemt Funde schol being told "We do not care what you religious up brining is, you will study and learn the Bible," sorry, this is wrong a fatih calls where all religions are discusssed and compared to each other but a student is NOT indoctrinated into a specific Religion, is one thing, forcing them to study a religion, in depth and studing eacg chapter of a Bbile, what each Book Means, what it says ect is simply not allowed by our Contitution they do not believieve in or follow is another thing
That is why we Have Freedom of Religion, so everyone here can decide what religion they wish to follow and pratice as they see fit without ANY government interference or our gorvernemnt saying you MUST study this religion whether you want to or not

[Thorne]

But religion is a big part of the world. Lot's of people are religious. I don't see how this is any different than learning about geography, (which is another neglected subject in the states). Or what about political science, philosophy or history. How do you teach history without touching on religion? It's about communication. So is language. I don't see a difference. There's a world of difference between learning about something and having it preached to you.

Again, I have to agree with you here, wholeheartedly. The problem in the US, as I see it, is that the vast majority of the faithful don't WANT to know about the origins of their religion. That might lead them to question whether or not their religion (NOT their faith) is right after all. And THAT is the best reason I can think of to actually TEACH such things!

I often see Americans say stuff like, "We've got a shared moral base because of our earlier shared faith in Christianity". That to me is a strong indicator that the educational system isn't working. If people don't know what makes Christian moral codes different from humanist moral codes, or Roman, they don't know why they believe what they believe. This is nothing less than intellectual poverty.
Saying a mountain isn't there because it isn't in the constitution, doesn't make the mountain go away.

This is where things have gotten out of hand over here. Those who are fervently anti-religious don't even want the CONCEPT of religion uttered in schools. In my opinion they are shooting themselves in the foot. The more we teach children about the origins and evolution of religious doctrine, about how those in charge tend to pervert the teachings of their forebears to foster their own interpretations, about how and why moral codes came about, then the less likely those children are to commit to a specific religion and become more accepting of other people's beliefs.

Instead, the public school system has become a farce. Don't teach the kids a moral code, because our moral code is based upon the ten commandments, and that's religion. And when those kids do something against that code, why, it's not their fault! Don't punish them! Blame the teachers, blame the parents, but don't blame the system! I'm just glad my own kids are finally out of it. And I managed to teach them to be good kids without the "benefit" of religion and despite the school system.

Amen!

[ThisYouWillDo]

It's all Satan's influence!

[mkemse]

Again, I have to agree with you here, wholeheartedly. The problem in the US, as I see it, is that the vast majority of the faithful don't WANT to know about the origins of their religion. That might lead them to question whether or not their religion (NOT their faith) is right after all. And THAT is the best reason I can think of to actually TEACH such things!


This is where things have gotten out of hand over here. Those who are fervently anti-religious don't even want the CONCEPT of religion uttered in schools. In my opinion they are shooting themselves in the foot. The more we teach children about the origins and evolution of religious doctrine, about how those in charge tend to pervert the teachings of their forebears to foster their own interpretations, about how and why moral codes came about, then the less likely those children are to commit to a specific religion and become more accepting of other people's beliefs.

Instead, the public school system has become a farce. Don't teach the kids a moral code, because our moral code is based upon the ten commandments, and that's religion. And when those kids do something against that code, why, it's not their fault! Don't punish them! Blame the teachers, blame the parents, but don't blame the system! I'm just glad my own kids are finally out of it. And I managed to teach them to be good kids without the "benefit" of religion and despite the school system.

Amen!

you can teach children morals codes at home that is what parents are for

no offense meant but our moral code is NOT based on the 10 Commandments,
or not for everyone anyway,

School are terrible because the teacher that most schools hire are not qualified to teach
It is the Parents jobto teach morals, if parents want moral taught at school they should go to PRIVATE Schoos not Publiv Schools, i teach me children what I fele is right fore them, morals wise, nonoe has ever used drugs, they do not drink, they do not engagei n pre marital sex, and they are well over 18
i tough my chidrem what I felt they need to learn, i trust my schoold to teach my chidlrem how to read,write, spell, stay in good phyiscal shape, eat the right, study habbits, how hom work comes before before video games,

I od not expect nor want my school to twahc my children moral issues that is my job as a parent not their job, they can ddiscussi twiththem but it is my and my wifes decison, i supportthem, i pay fortheir educationand will ove them and supoortthem on ventrues all their lives after 12 years ofschool they will probsably neversee thier teachers again, but they will rmember the teahcer who tought them how to read for a job, how to spell for a job, how to speak correclty, how to stay in good physical sahape
Let Ptivate A religious Schools handle teaching the BIBLE, i have a very close firemd he and his wifr are very, very devoit Greeok Othodox and they told me "Public School is for teacing daily basics not for teraching and stufnig the Bbile, that iswht Private Schools were created so parents can have the scooldd that THEY psay for and the CHRUCH payts for teahc them and indoctronaye thme into thr Pible not a pyublic school teacher

and most kids thesedays that have no moral may very well come from brtoekn families, alchoholic or disfunctional families MORALS ARE WHAT A PARENT TEACHES HIS CHILD NOT WHAT MORAL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL DOES
yes ur public school are a mess, a discgrace forthe world to see, but hhat is not do to school not teaching them morals it is caused by bad behavior which is the PARENTS JOB

do you want your child in a public schol to be told by the public school, who they can and can not date, what movie they can and can not see, what they can and cannot wear daily ect no i think YOU want that job, you are teaching them that and their morals, the schools teach them everything else

btw have a wonderfull night

[ThisYouWillDo]

As far as I am aware, western morality is based on Christian thought.

My own morals are, I admit, more lax than those of most people - I know I am not a good teacher in that regard. I should have to say, "Do as I say, not as I do."

My kids were physically fit because of the exercise they got at school, not as a result of any drills I gave them.

I cannot understand anyone objecting to bible study - it's mind-broadening. I especially can't understand a Christian objecting to it, even an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I can understand him objecting to being made to participate in (say) Jewish acts of worship.

What you haven't explained, mkemse, is why you are advocting that state schools provide a poorer standard of education than independent ones. In an egalitarian society it is surely anathema to allow one section of the community an advantage over another because of things like wealth, relations, or contacts, not to mention race or (dare I say it) creed.

My kids wore school uniform. They were happy: I was happy - no arguments about what to wear.

TYWD

[mkemse]

As far as I am aware, western morality is based on Christian thought.

My own morals are, I admit, more lax than those of most people - I know I am not a good teacher in that regard. I should have to say, "Do as I say, not as I do."

My kids were physically fit because of the exercise they got at school, not as a result of any drills I gave them.

I cannot understand anyone objecting to bible study - it's mind-broadening. I especially can't understand a Christian objecting to it, even an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I can understand him objecting to being made to participate in (say) Jewish acts of worship.

What you haven't explained, mkemse, is why you are advocting that state schools provide a poorer standard of education than independent ones. In an egalitarian society it is surely anathema to allow one section of the community an advantage over another because of things like wealth, relations, or contacts, not to mention race or (dare I say it) creed.

My kids wore school uniform. They were happy: I was happy - no arguments about what to wear.

TYWD

My OBJECTION is NOT TO BIBLE STUDY, it is TO BIBLE STUDY AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE INPUBLIC SCHOOLS a violation of the United State Contitution Sepertion of Church and aState where is says that the governemnt will not favor 1 religion over another,

if schools public schools madate Bible study in Puniblic Scholds they are paid by Tax Payers money and local governemts who by federal law Section 1 of the US Contitution and the constitution are not allowed to show favortism of one relgion over another that is all i am saying nothing more less private schoold teach th bible, let public school teach everything else

Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs. [1]

In the United States, separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. [2]

if tax payer money is used to pat to mandate teaching the bible in school, yes there is free excersie of relgion in thiscountry you are freeto worship as you wish, the governemnt willnot tellyou you must folow this you mustfollow that, if they mandate Bible study in publicschools that is exactly what they are saying you must follow thisreligion you must follow and believe in that religion

[Thorne]

It's all Satan's influence!

"The Devil made me do it!" - Flip Wilson

[Thorne]

mkemse, would you have any objection to public schools using, let us say, "The Lord of the Rings" as part of a study of literature? It is considered by many scholars as a masterpiece of fiction. It is also filled with religious ideas and ideals. True, it's not Christian, though it's not far off.
How about a study of history? Hard to do without sticking religion in there somewhere. The Puritans came to this land to escape religious persecution. So did many others. Guess we shouldn't teach that in school, either.
Well, one thing for sure, we can teach the kids patriotism, can't we? Let's make sure they know the Pledge of Allegiance. No, wait, they use the "G" word in there, don't they? Guess we better not say that any more.
Anyway, we have to teach them about the marvelous Declaration of Independence, one of the building blocks of our nation. Just let them memorize... Damn! There it is again, right in the first sentence. And Holy Moses, the second sentence actually uses the word <whisper> "Creator." Can't have that! That implies a religious doctrine. Toss the Declaration!

Let's face it, this country was founded upon principles which are relatively common in most religions, but the founders were overwhelmingly Christian. They had the foresight to prevent the government from promoting one religion over any other, and allow the citizens of this country to worship (or not) as they choose. That does not negate the possibility of teaching ABOUT religion in schools. It does not mean you cannot teach the CONCEPT of God, whether the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Norse, Greek or Roman gods. Religion has played a tremendous role in the development of the world: you cannot teach children about the world without bringing religion into it somehow. And the Bible, Koran, Torah and many other religious documents have important historical significance as well. You can use these documents as tools of study, just as you would use Shakespeare's writings, or Poe's or Hemingway's. Studying the influence of religion on our world, or the evolution of religion throughout history, or even a comparison of religions, does not, in and of itself, promote a religious belief.

[mkemse]

mkemse, would you have any objection to public schools using, let us say, "The Lord of the Rings" as part of a study of literature? It is considered by many scholars as a masterpiece of fiction. It is also filled with religious ideas and ideals. True, it's not Christian, though it's not far off.
How about a study of history? Hard to do without sticking religion in there somewhere. The Puritans came to this land to escape religious persecution. So did many others. Guess we shouldn't teach that in school, either.
Well, one thing for sure, we can teach the kids patriotism, can't we? Let's make sure they know the Pledge of Allegiance. No, wait, they use the "G" word in there, don't they? Guess we better not say that any more.
Anyway, we have to teach them about the marvelous Declaration of Independence, one of the building blocks of our nation. Just let them memorize... Damn! There it is again, right in the first sentence. And Holy Moses, the second sentence actually uses the word <whisper> "Creator." Can't have that! That implies a religious doctrine. Toss the Declaration!

Let's face it, this country was founded upon principles which are relatively common in most religions, but the founders were overwhelmingly Christian. They had the foresight to prevent the government from promoting one religion over any other, and allow the citizens of this country to worship (or not) as they choose. That does not negate the possibility of teaching ABOUT religion in schools. It does not mean you cannot teach the CONCEPT of God, whether the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Norse, Greek or Roman gods. Religion has played a tremendous role in the development of the world: you cannot teach children about the world without bringing religion into it somehow. And the Bible, Koran, Torah and many other religious documents have important historical significance as well. You can use these documents as tools of study, just as you would use Shakespeare's writings, or Poe's or Hemingway's. Studying the influence of religion on our world, or the evolution of religion throughout history, or even a comparison of religions, does not, in and of itself, promote a religious belief.

My only objection is the Mandating Of Study In open Class The Holy Bible In Public Schools that is all i am saying and Indoctrinatung students to it in PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOOLS
If someone asked me if i would object to tax payer mnoey being used to mandate the study of the Torha in Public Schools, my answer is YES I do not believe that INDOCTINATION OF ANY RELIGION BELONGS IN PUBLY FUNDED TAX PAYING SCHOOLS, that is one of the thing that privateschoold are for
The Church owns schools so they can teach there student the way of the Catholic Church, that is what a Catholic School is for in addition to the other things they teach, their parents pay for that type of schooling the Government does not supprot fincialy that type of schoolYou can learn about religion in public settings without indoctrination f they have a class where ALL religions are sutdied but the bible is not taken book by book, the torha is nottken page by page the kouran then same and they discuss what the differcne is betwee n them, that is on e thing that is NOT FORCING STUDETS to study and comprehend 1 specific religion

[mkemse]

I have no issue with Religion but as a Tax Payer and a Parent when my kids are in a public school and they do not follow the Bible due to their up bringing (Meaning They Are NOT CHRISTIAN IN FAITH), i do not want the public school to tell them "We do not care if you like or follow the Catholic faith, you will still be required to study and learn the Bible cover to cover" that I have a huge issue with
I would feel the same about them being told to do this with the Torha, The kouran ect
I am not picking out Just the Bible, but any relgion indoctrination that is not why they go to pubic schools, ifi wanted them indoctrinated i wouls send them to a privateschool

[TomOfSweden]

you can teach children morals codes at home that is what parents are for

That sounds great, but it isn't working. The richest country on earth, (and therefore with the most money to educate its population) has 38% believing in creationism. USA's educational system is in crisis. Probably, blaming only the lack of religious education is simplistic. But something has to explain why 38% of the population hold to a scientific theory that died in the 19'th century. Constitutions and principals are great and all, but only if they're working.

[ThisYouWillDo]

if tax payer money is used to pat to mandate teaching the bible in school, yes there is free excersie of relgion in thiscountry you are freeto worship as you wish, the governemnt willnot tellyou you must folow this you mustfollow that, if they mandate Bible study in publicschools that is exactly what they are saying you must follow thisreligion you must follow and believe in that religion

Tax-payer's money is used to pay for the teaching of Bible Studies in state-run schools because it is considered necessary and important. I agree that it is necessary and important.

The authorities are not using the money to indoctrinate students, but if they focus on Christian Bible Study, that is because Christianity has most relevance to the greatest number of pupils.


TYWD