Separation of Church and State?

[alphanubilus]

In the 50's and 60's there was a huge movement to remove Christian-related teachings from schools and other public places under the banner of Separation of Church and State. While obviously there is a problem with forcing all students regardless of religion and origins to learn Bible lessons, that there is only one God, and so on and so forth, some anti-Christian activists took it to the extreme, such as the case of a NY teacher who was suspended for wearing a cross pendent on her sweater to class.

I can understand that our classes should, as much as possible, leave religion (other than what is needed for history purposes... such as the first book published on a printing press was a Bible) out of the class room and leave that up to the parents and the students to decide... why are so many educational boards quick to teach Islam in public schools?

I found this article...

"A textbook monitoring group said that Maryland middle and high school students will be required to read about Islamic teachings that have been dumbed down and are products of political correctness.

According to the New York Examiner, a new report issued by the American Textbook Council said that administrators who approved books for use in the Montgomery County school district caved into pressure by pro-Islamic groups seeking to present a less violent interpretation of Islam.

Gilbert Sewall, director of the council, stated that, for example, the definition of jihad has gone through "amazing cultural reorchestration" in textbooks, losing any connotation of violence, the Examiner wrote.

Other terms, such as sharia law, have been adjusted or removed from lessons to avoid what he called "inconvenient truths."

Montgomery County Public Schools defended the decision to use the books, saying in a statement that all texts used by teachers had been properly vetted and were appropriate for classroom uses."

Some districts in California are already teaching children in gradeschool the fundamentals of Islam, including allowing kids to dress up in traditional Islamic garb (excluding gernades)... sarcasm for those without humor) as well as various practices, such as prayer and customs.

I was at a local library and I found a hand guide to help teachers teach children about Islam...

So let me get this right, is separation of church and state suppose to keep religion out of public places or was it intended just to keep Christianity out?

While its proponants argue that they are just showing that there are good qualities to Islam to counter the more negative images as seen on the News... They want us to be more understanding of the Muslim plight... I can't help but wonder why they don't leave that up to the Muslims? Isn't it the job of Muslims to stand up against extremists and show us what real Islam is like.

[PariahPoet]

Well, while I wouldn't have a problem with my (imaginary) child learning a bit about Islam, I would rather handle that myself at home. No religion (including my own) should get preferential treatment in schools.

Allowing the traditional clothing is fine with me as long as all religions have that opportunity.

The reason separation of church and state was instated was not to prevent people from practicing their religion in a government establishment, it was to prevent the government from forcing a religion on people.
I think that making these texts required reading is kind of stepping over the line unless it was a relevant history lesson and other religions were included as well. But don't dumb it down or omit uncomfortable truths. Kids learn all about the crusades and the inquisition, they should learn that all religions can be harmful when used as an excuse to oppress people.

[Lukas]

Hebrew Hammer says "keep religious teachings out of public school, Shabbat shalom"

[MattSullivan]

I agree, ESPECIALLY Islamic teachings.

[Howlitzer]

seriously, religion should NOT be taught in public schools.(edit: by this I mean avoiding teaching it as an ideology, etc, not from a historical/factual context) However, it's gone to the point where it is almost like Christianity has become a dirty word....and the only religion that anyone wants to "ban" from school or other state affairs IS Christianity....if they're going to stink over religion, do so reasonably and EQUALLY, don't play favorites or least favorites. I don't care if Christianity caused problems in the past, that was the Church's fault at that time, not any fundamentally offensive characteristic of Christianity in itself....just leave it in the past for goodness sake.

I am NOT particularly religious. I'm very, very agnostic and don't have any problem with somebody being religious or non-religious. What I do have a problem with, and what I will call people on, is stupidity. Here's my take on it:

-The "Holiday Tree" thing is a load of big, stinky cr@p. I don't care if it isn't even an official Christian symbol, it is a popular symbol of a specific holiday, Christmas...the same as the Menorah is the symbol of Hannukah. Leave it alone. It's a Christmas tree. It's a Menorah. It's a Festivus pole. Nuff said.

-Firing employees for saying "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays"....cr@p again. If the employee celebrates Christmas, they are not imposing it on anybody by wishing them a merry Christmas, they are simply wishing a person a good day, on a day that happens to be a holiday that that person recognizes. If that holiday falls on THAT day, why not acknowledge the actual name of the day?! People shouldn't make a stink over being wished a "Happy (insert specific religious holiday here)" unless it's something blatantly offensive or distasteful. Like wishing a Jewish person "Happy Hitler Appreciation Day".

- "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance....even if it wasn't there originally and was inserted in WWII or whenever. Leave it alone. Don't go trying to outlaw that part of it or the entire thing. First, the United States was, no matter how hardly you try to ignore it, founded as a Christian country on some basic principles taken from Christianity. Second, if you don't agree with the "Under God" part....DON'T SAY IT! Nobody is making you! If somebody scorns you for not doing so, that is their own damn problem and they have some issues that need to be straightened out.

- The removal of the 10 Commandment displays outside some courthouses....is kinda stupid, once again. Unless they start preaching Christianity in the courtroom, or showing religious preference IN THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS OF THE COURT...like, blatantly so, I see no problem with the 10 Commandments plaque or whatever. Once again...the country was founded on Christianity, and the latter part of the 10 commandments (excluding the religion-specific "I am your God, there are no others" parts), regardless of religious affiliation or belief, are still some good fundamental rules to live by. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, don't commit adultery, etc. I fail to see anything wrong in displaying that. Are people saying that we shouldn't tell people not to steal, kill, or cheat on their spouses because those basic guidelines for living happen to appear in a religious text that those very laws, in our government today, were based off of?

- The "Separation of Church and State" was specifically intended to prevent the Church, as in the institution in itself, from BEING the government or otherwise controlling the government. It was NOT intended to outlaw the display or use of various *basic*, fairly reasonable Christian values, etc....like, the "no stealing and no killing" ones.... as they happened to appear in the foundations of the government. Its only main purpose was to keep the Church from taking literal control of the country. Not to fire teachers for wearing a cross pendent.

- Having said all this....If I ever go to the local bakery and the owner, as she has done to me and a couple of friends, begins babbling something about an invisible suit of armor and forces me to "say a prayer and accept Jesus" before I can eat the food...then hands me a booklet with a huge cross separating two lists saying "Good People" and "Bad People".....I WILL find somebody with a nice Satanic getup and go back in there in full costume.

[Shadow Wulf]

heres an interesting article that talks about the situation and it mentions some events that howlizter mentioned. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... llwell.DTL

[alphanubilus]

heres an interesting article that talks about the situation and it mentions some events that howlizter mentioned. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... illwell.DT

The Link has been removed... Might want to recheck it...

[Terastas]

I just want to state, for the record, that there's a difference between preaching and discussing religion from an objective perspective. You can't accurately discuss history or geography without mentioning religion, so I think it is well within the school system's boundaries to acknowledge religion, discuss it objectively and subject it to critique.

The reason Christianity gets singled out from objective, unbiased critique is, to put it bluntly, because fanatical Christians can't stand to see anyone pointing out flaws or inaccuracies in their system of belief.

I don't think it was right of them to intentionally choose soft textbooks, but I can understand why they did. Most of us are already familiar with the radical side of Islam, and most American Muslims will be the first to tell you that Islam is not supposed to be about militant extremism. The soft textbooks, I would therefore assume, were an attempt to balance the classroom lessons with all the negative press we already know. I don't agree with it, I just understand it.

So if they want to discuss Islam in class, I'm OK with that, but ideally that same class discuss Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and all forms of Christianity during the semester and was equally as critical of all of them. I don't care if they mention religion; I just don't think it's within a teacher's right to preach.

[alphanubilus]

I don't know of any flaws in my beliefs, other than what skeptics note, but then again most skeptics that I've had the pleasure to meet openly admitted to not really studying Bible lore, histories, and such. While most have a remedial understanding of the Bible, I honestly believe that if somebody is going to point out, "flaws" they should do their research. Alas...

However other than that point, I do agree with you Terastas. Learning about other countries and cultures is a valuable learning experience, and the truth is, you can't ignore the religious aspect of that country or culture, just because you are going to be afraid to offend somebody. Most NORMAL people aren't offended easily if the material is placed in an educated enviroment.

What I dislike about this Islam is the fact that they are candy coating it. If you half-heartedly studied Islamic histories, you will find that Mohammed used terrorism, assissination, black mailing, and all the fine qualities we see in our terrorists today to further his cause. The DIFFERENCE between Mohammed and the terrorists today, is that Mohammed had to resort to these tactics in order to survive. Most of the clans around Mohammed despised him, especially those in Mecca. Mohammed used these tactics to cut off supplies, to create allies both willing and unwilling, and to destablize his enemies. Before people cry foul and say he was a monster, OUR forefathers of the United States used similar tactics to drive out the English in the Revolutionary war.

I can understand schools wanting to bring discussions about Islam into their classrooms, with the war in Iraq, issues in the Middle East, and terrorists, but to omit information or change information because it might breed negative press against Islam, is foolish. If you want to discuss a religion make it fare and balanced.

In short I whole-heartedly despise political correct activists. Honestly these people's ignorance amazes me, and the fact that the government listens to them, amazes me even more.

[Dreamer]

Well, actually, from what I know, a lot of athiests seem to be more informed about Christianity than most of it's followers. That's probably why they convert to Atheism, because they're so horrified by what they see. And actually, I've heard a large amount of pretty nasty stuff in the Bible. Even though it's a parody site, [urlhttp://landoverbaptist.org/]Landover Baptist[/url] has some choice examples of how most Christians probably shouldn't be so gung-ho against other religions, for those in glass houses should not throw stones.

And besides, aren't our Christian fundimentalists just as insane and politically active as their Muslim ones, only the Christian fundimentalist's activism is a little less explosion-oriented?

[Terastas]

*nods* Like I said, I don't agree with what they did, I just understand why they did it.

he DIFFERENCE between Mohammed and the terrorists today, is that Mohammed had to resort to these tactics in order to survive. Most of the clans around Mohammed despised him, especially those in Mecca.

That's what I wish they would teach: religion as a product of history.

[Shadow Wulf]

ok link should work now.

[alphanubilus]

Well, actually, from what I know, a lot of athiests seem to be more informed about Christianity than most of it's followers. That's probably why they convert to Atheism, because they're so horrified by what they see. And actually, I've heard a large amount of pretty nasty stuff in the Bible. Even though it's a parody site, [urlhttp://landoverbaptist.org/]Landover Baptist[/url] has some choice examples of how most Christians probably shouldn't be so gung-ho against other religions, for those in glass houses should not throw stones.

And besides, aren't our Christian fundimentalists just as insane and politically active as their Muslim ones, only the Christian fundimentalist's activism is a little less explosion-oriented?

That is not entirely the case. Most atheists carry only a remedial understanding of the Bible. An atheist told me, she read only a few chapters and that was enough for her. The truth is many of the supposed errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies, are really just misunderstandings of what is being written.

I doubt they are really horrified as they just don't want to believe in God, and be accountible for the way they run their lives. Let's face it, you don't have archeaologists refusing to study ancient Mayan, Aztec, and Inca civilizations even though they practiced human sacrifice on a daily basis.

What many skeptics of the Bible convienantly forget is the time, culture, and people the original Torah was written to. They don't like the idea of all of those strict laws, but it is those laws that helped perserve the culture of the Jews today. Many other cultures at their time period, such as the Amorites, Hitites, Moabites, and Philistines completely vanished from the earth, because the assimulated into other cultures as they were conquered. Not so for the Jews.

In short most skeptics of the Bible approach the Bible with a closed mind from the beginning. They already KNOW it is wrong, so they don't have to go further.

As for skeptics knowing more than Christians... even if it only a remedial level, you are pretty close, as most Christians, unfortunately don't read the Bible. Many Christians can't differ between Christian tradition and what is actually in the Bible.

Only far left wing liberals, of whom also believe that the World Trade Center attack was government planned, compare Christian fundamentals to terrorists. We may disagree, but we never resort to violence to resolve our issues. And before any one brings up the Inquisition and such... That was led by crooked priests who abused their power to force their will, not God's, on people. It was human foolishness, not the religion's fault.

Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him...

[Berserker]

not any fundamentally offensive characteristic of Christianity in itself

Quite a few philosophers would strongly disagree with you.

[Howlitzer]

not any fundamentally offensive characteristic of Christianity in itself

Quite a few philosophers would strongly disagree with you.

too bad.

Thanks for taking only a snippet of my full sentence.

[Berserker]

I don't care if Christianity caused problems in the past, that was the Church's fault at that time, not any fundamentally offensive characteristic of Christianity in itself....just leave it in the past for goodness sake.

Quite a few philosophers would strongly disagree with you.

too bad.

Thanks for taking only a snippet of my full sentence.

There I fixed it. There was more than one part of your sentence that I could have been responding to otherwise.

[Howlitzer]

I don't care if Christianity caused problems in the past, that was the Church's fault at that time, not any fundamentally offensive characteristic of Christianity in itself....just leave it in the past for goodness sake.

Quite a few philosophers would strongly disagree with you.

too bad.

Thanks for taking only a snippet of my full sentence.

There I fixed it. There was more than one part of your sentence that I could have been responding to otherwise.

ok, thank you... now, true, I might be off base in that bolded part of the sentence. But, I might as well rephrase myself....I maintain that I think the biggest problems were caused MAINLY by the church, as in the institution in itself rather than the foundations of the religion....i.e. what it was *originally* meant to be (of which we have no true idea because we weren't there). True, it might have it's flaws, but what's to say that many of these were not *caused* by the warping of the religion BY the church over time. That's the way it works....religions might start out as a relatively good thing, some basis by which there's a reason beyond "common decency" for people to BE decent....but they then get warped and altered by greedy people in the institutions they create.

That does not mean that they do not contain fundamentally good rules by which to live, and that does not mean that they should be scorned and banned outright. It's people that screw good things up.

[JoshuaMadoc]

Everyone should read up on their own faith in their free time. That way your kids wouldn't flunk their studies just because some fundamentalist bollocks disillusioned them into avoiding furthering their knowledge (aka dumbing yourself down to a single neuron) "in the name of God". Same goes with every other faith.

As for religious apparel, why not? If it doesn't match a school's uniform, have some decency to not be an a** and ask a muslim girl to find a hijab that matches the color.

[Aki]

I just want to state, for the record, that there's a difference between preaching and discussing religion from an objective perspective. You can't accurately discuss history or geography without mentioning religion, so I think it is well within the school system's boundaries to acknowledge religion, discuss it objectively and subject it to critique.

Same here.

I like religion in school under this context. It helps dispel lies and rumors about religions, but also tells the truth about the ugly stuff. In 8th grade my social studies teacher did a bit on religions. Buddhism and Islam are the only ones I recall, but it was interesting. I had fun. I don't see why other kids shouldn't get the chance to learn like that.

But introducing books that lie to make things PC like mentioned in the OP's post is simply wrong. Making things look nicer than they are is just as bad as making it look worser than it is.

[JoshuaMadoc]

I just want to state, for the record, that there's a difference between preaching and discussing religion from an objective perspective. You can't accurately discuss history or geography without mentioning religion, so I think it is well within the school system's boundaries to acknowledge religion, discuss it objectively and subject it to critique.

Same here.

I like religion in school under this context. It helps dispel lies and rumors about religions, but also tells the truth about the ugly stuff. In 8th grade my social studies teacher did a bit on religions. Buddhism and Islam are the only ones I recall, but it was interesting. I had fun. I don't see why other kids shouldn't get the chance to learn like that.

But introducing books that lie to make things PC like mentioned in the OP's post is simply wrong. Making things look nicer than they are is just as bad as making it look worser than it is.

Because apparently, the more you lie and the more horrifying the lie, the bigger the WAAAAAAAHMBULANCE the other person calls when the truth is out.

[Black Claw]

The one thing I hate is that when you try to talk about God and all the miraculious things He's done, people critizes it as religion. IT becomes RELIGION when you try to force it upon the people. I'm native american indian and proud of it but i'm also a contemporary christian so i know the rules and laws that apply to both sides. One of the Elders of my ceremonial ground always talks about how our tribe is interlinked with God. So there is a way to interlink school and christianity but we can't shove it on to them, we have to show them and allow them to be connected to it somehow.

The only way to do that is by connecting to what they do, people that like rock and roll usually will get connected through christian rock and roll without God being said in the lyrics. It's just going to take time for it to become connected to the school and back into the government.

[geekboy1500]

Well, while I wouldn't have a problem with my (imaginary) child learning a bit about Islam, I would rather handle that myself at home. No religion (including my own) should get preferential treatment in schools.

Allowing the traditional clothing is fine with me as long as all religions have that opportunity.

The reason separation of church and state was instated was not to prevent people from practicing their religion in a government establishment, it was to prevent the government from forcing a religion on people.
I think that making these texts required reading is kind of stepping over the line unless it was a relevant history lesson and other religions were included as well. But don't dumb it down or omit uncomfortable truths. Kids learn all about the crusades and the inquisition, they should learn that all religions can be harmful when used as an excuse to oppress people.

I agree wholeheartedly, separation between church and state is meant as just that separation It does not mean that one group or groups should be discriminated against or promoted as "correct."

and BTW, this is going to turn flame-worthy very quickly if we aren't careful.

[Set]

a religious text that those very laws, in our government today, were based off of?

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jef ... us_matters

*basic*, fairly reasonable Christian values, etc....like, the "no stealing and no killing" ones....

Plz to not be acting like Christians invented GOOD, kthx. Really, they're not the first, last, or only people to have those guidelines. It annoys me when someone tries to pin a religion tag on something that has nothing to do with it.

I doubt they are really horrified as they just don't want to believe in God

Er, I want to a Christian school, "horrified" is a perfect description.

Only far left wing liberals, of whom also believe that the World Trade Center attack was government planned, compare Christian fundamentals to terrorists. We may disagree, but we never resort to violence to resolve our issues.

I will assume that you don't consider "fundamentalists" to be the same as "religious nut jobs". Because they do blow people/places/things to little smoldering bits.

Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him...

No, but Jesus was a Jew.

The one thing I hate is that when you try to talk about God and all the miraculious things He's done, people critizes it as religion.

That's because the whole POINT of religion is being about God.

[Terastas]

And before any one brings up the Inquisition and such... That was led by crooked priests who abused their power to force their will, not God's, on people. It was human foolishness, not the religion's fault.

Most Muslims would say the same thing about Al-Qaeda; that they are crooked and are not to be treated as a true representation of Islam. You can't point at all the bad things that have been done in the name of one religion, then try to brush it off as inapplicable when someone else points to all the bad things that were done in the name of another religion. That's called hypocrisy.

Christianity is just as easy to abuse as Islam, and is still widely abused to this day. Hell, if it wasn't for idiot fundamentalists, Bush never would have been elected even with Florida all bought and payed for. So please, don't try and tell me that there's a difference between the inquisition and what's going on today in the Middle East. It's pretty much the same thing: a bunch of pricks using religion as a means to excuse all of their sins and prop themselves up above everyone else. The Inquisition was the result of Catholic priests justifying their own sinful behavior at the expense of non-Catholics just as Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network are justifying their own bad behavior based on the fact that they are Muslim and we are not.

So take your religion off of that platform and put it down here with all the rest of them.

[Howlitzer]

a religious text that those very laws, in our government today, were based off of?

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jef ... us_matters

once again...it drives me nuts when people take only one sentence...then take that sentence and ONLY take a snippet of it.... out of the context of my post to nitpick. PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.

But, ok, fair enough, you might have me there, but my basic point still stands. Without attacking me about it, allow me to rephrase: the country WAS overwhelmingly Christian when founded. Under that consideration you could say that the United States was in its beginnings a Christian country. Those basic rules "don't steal, don't kill, etc." appear in the 10 commandments, so unless religion is being IMPOSED or FAVORED while the court is performing its duties and functions AS A COURT, I see no problem in having a plaque with the 10 commandments simply sitting outside a courthouse. In fact, I find it *somewhat* relevant to the context in which it appears. The 10 commandments, outside a court of law....could seem somewhat fitting so long as the God part is left out of the function of the courthouse.

*basic*, fairly reasonable Christian values, etc....like, the "no stealing and no killing" ones....

Plz to not be acting like Christians invented GOOD, kthx. Really, they're not the first, last, or only people to have those guidelines. It annoys me when someone tries to pin a religion tag on something that has nothing to do with it.[/quote]

Once again, do not snippet my sentences like that.

And....I DID NOT SAY OR MEAN TO IMPLY THAT CHRISTIANS INVENTED GOOD. mkay? Once again, the country was not founded overwhelmingly by athiests, muslims, hindus, or any other of the countless spiritual (or non-spiritual) views out there. It was founded by a Christian majority, therefore that simple fact is an inescapable part of our history and thus had some influence on the context under which the documents founding our country were written. That's all.

What I was saying in that snippet you critiqued was that some basic, common sense rules to live by (NOT the ones pertaining specifically to god and worship, but rather the "no lying, no stealing, no killing" type ones) *appear* in the 10 commandments, so I see no problem in displaying them outside a courtroom, especially since Christianity *was* a major part of this country's history.

In my rant, I specifically used Christianity because I see it as one of the religions becoming more ridiculously "Politically Incorrect" in today's world....suddenly it's not PC to have "Christmas Trees", but we can still have Menorah's and countless other icons for OTHER religions and their holidays. I DO NOT MEAN TO FAVOR CHRISTIANITY. What I say still applies to other religions. Basic rules to live by, and basic rules for simply being a decent person, are NOT exclusive to Christianity, I NEVER SAID THAT. So don't take it as such. I was going by context, and by example. In this context, and with the example I used, it happened to be Christianity.

Put simply, no matter the religion, so long as it isn't harming anybody in the process, isn't being imposed, and isn't being favored while the State is performing its duties, I DO NOT see a problem in referring to religion, or displaying things in a religious context. Separation of Church and State is ONLY meant to prevent a religious INSTITUTION from controlling the government, not to try and wipe out public display of religion outright.