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

[ThisYouWillDo]

It's all Satan's influence!

[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

[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

[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

[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