School sued over religious ed

[douglas9]

Source: South Bend Tribune

HUNTINGTON, Ind. (AP) -- School officials in a northeastern Indiana district deny that a religious education program offered during the school day illegally advances religion, as a federal lawsuit claims.

A complaint filed by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of an unnamed woman and her 8-year-old son asks a federal judge to shut down the program and bar the school district from providing it with utilities or any other support.

The boy, identified only as "J.S.," attends Horace Mann Elementary School, which offers third- and fourth-grade students a "release time" program for "By the Book Weekday Religious Instruction" through the Associated Churches of Huntington, the suit states.

The Huntington County Community School Corp. argued in its Dec. 22 response to the lawsuit that the release time program neither advances nor inhibits religion.

Read more: http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20090102&Category=News01&ArtNo=901020372&Template=printart

[acmavm]

1. Neither advances or inhibits? Bullshit. That's why it's aimed at such young

and impressionable children.

I am all for religion and religious belief. BUT NOT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!

[MajorChode]

89. Here is the real tragedy

Even if you were sympathetic to actually teaching religion in school, you should still be against the assholes in this school district that are creating this situation.

Here is why.

This school district is purposely creating a legal confrontation they already KNOW they are going to lose. Reference McCollum v Board of Education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education

If you read McCollum, you will think, WOW! Dejavu all over again!

Only McCollum happened 60 years ago. So why would this school board try to defend a lawsuit that they KNOW they are going to lose? Can they possibly be that stupid. As it turns out, they really aren't that stupid. They are doing it for a reason. The reason is because they know the ACLU has to expend resources to challenge this crap and their objective is to break the back of the ACLU, and so long as they can use taxpayer dollars to do it, why not, eh?

Because there's one thing that every wingnut hates more than minorities, homosexuals, social security, the Dixie Chicks, and Tinky Winky, and that's the ACLU. They hate the ACLU because the ACLU defends the Constitution, and deep down inside the far right hates the Constitution most of all.

The next thing you know, the wingnuts are going to try and retry the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Oh wait, they HAVE already tried that numerous times. I keep forgetting.

[defendandprotect]

132. They may be hoping for a stupider America . . . and/or another Bush . . . ???

Another religiously inspired Supreme Court as we seem to have now . . . ???

Whenever I see a case like this, I send a contribution to the ACLU --

[MajorChode]

143. To be "fair and balanced"

You really should send a check to right wing organizations dedicated to defending ALL of the Constitution.

Oh wait, there AREN'T any!

Nevermind.

[No Elephants]

147. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito were not on the SCOTUS 60 years ago. They may think

the Bush boys in black robes might overrule the 60 year old case.

[defendandprotect]

131. Right . . . brainwashing has to start early --

"The Defendant's release time program does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion,"

Excessive?

[No Elephants]

148. This is why we have to pull back from the slippery slope of faith based initiatives and the

like, not expand them.

[defendandprotect]

158. Agree --- let's get our money back . . . Unconstitutional --

Maybe the religious fanatics on the SC will fix???

[Soylent Brice]

2. K&R

what part of separation of church and state do these morans not understand??

the sad thing is that this happens all too frequently. schools are focusing on the wrong things. they think religion will "fix" these kids and "restore order" in public schools.

they should look up the definition of insanity.

[silverojo]

73. Oh, they understand the separation of church and state, all right

That's why they're so hell-bent on destroying that barrier. :mad:

[No Elephants]

149. Well, what's left of it.

[livvy]

3. As an elementary public school teacher, I would be very upset.

That optional instruction takes an hour out of instructional time for all the students. I do not know of any teacher who would continue regular instruction (math, reading, science, etc.) with a portion of their students (even a small portion) out of the classroom. When I have students out of my room for additional services (reading, speech, social services, etc.), I read to my kids or they have a work period, when they can work on previously given assignments. I would not consider introducing new material, or giving any kind of lesson.

The point that the "program neither advances nor inhibits religion" misses the point entirely. It infringes on the rights of the students who opt out, by denying them instructional time.

I hope the parents whose children opt out of this program complain loud and clear. I hope the teachers are able to complain as well, without fear of retribution. I know the teachers in my district would be howling, and the union would back them 100%.

[SKKY]

4. You're a teacher?

Mind if I PM you? I've got a couple of teacher related questions to ask. I'm a soon-to-be retired Vet, and look to enter the teaching field when I retire.

[livvy]

15. Not at all! I'll look for your message. n/t

[Hepburn]

8. Excellent comment and I totally agree.

There are enough basics to learn without having to stop and allow a portion of the class to leave when this is being done. And, IMO, it is not just picking up where one stopped when some class members left ~~ I would assume that a brief refresher would be needed to pick up again on the interrupted lessons.

So, it is not IMO just an hour ~~ but the time the students get ready, leave, return and the teacher needs to refresh on the interrupted lesson, I would venture to say that additional time is lost to the basics that are necessary for success.

JMHO

Edit for typo

[MineralMan]

9. There was a "release" program in my 1950s grammar

school in California. I remember being in 6th grade and being one of the six or seven kids in my classroom who didn't go do the religion thing. Our teacher taught us Spanish during that time. Spanish has served me much better than Jesus over the years.

[Hepburn]

11. So true...

...and I say this as a resident of SoCal. Being bilingual in California is a major plus.

:hi:

[MineralMan]

12. That was California...and now, even living in Minnesota,

I find the Spanish I learned in 6th grade and practiced often during my SoCal youth still serves me very well.

[Hepburn]

13. I spoke Romanian at home as a child...

...and therefore Spanish was VERY easy for me to pick up.

I have not really used my Spanish for years and I am at the point where I "comprendo" much better than I "hablo." However, this has still served me well since I can at least understand those who cannot communicate in English.

In the early 70s when I taught Continuation HS in the barrio, I picked up Spanish immediately ~~ but had trouble with verbs. My Hispsanic students would bust out laughing because I would rattle off phrases 99% in Spanish with most verbs in English!

LOL!

PS: How are you as a Californian doing with those COLD winters???? Burrrr...:scared:

[MineralMan]

20. It's cold, but you get used to it.

[sunnystarr]

26. I was in NYC public schools in the 50's

and every Wednesday afternoon some kids left the school for religious instruction at the church and I believe they were all Catholic. Of course nothing was really taught during the time they were away and the class did silent reading. The boy and girl who had the highest reading level in each class went to Shop (for the girls) and Home Ec (for the boys) - which I loved because I was able to create things out of metal.

So whether the instruction is at the school or away from school the remaining children aren't taught. In this case the school's defense is laughable. The trailers are on school property. Trailers are utilized by many overcrowded schools across the country for portable classrooms. Are we to believe that those kids aren't really in school when they have a class in a trailer?

[Book Lover]

163. CDD was great for me as a catholic kid, because

the public school kids would come to our school, and we were let out early!

[defendandprotect]

133. The courage of this parent must be admired . . ..

it would be a much happier situation if many had come forward to protest ---

and those who do not participate receive no school programming during the release time, the suit alleges. The school district denies that students who do not participate in the program receive no instruction.

hmmmmm.......

[No Elephants]

150. When the kids in my class got released to go to the Catholic Church for religious retreats, the kids

who were not Catholic got to sit quietly.

[Marrah_G]

5. I would have been enraged over this

Then again I seriously doubt this shit would ever be considered where I live. I am pretty sure the teachers and principals here would find this appalling.

[Donnachaidh]

6. the trailer is on the school grounds, using the school's electricity, etc.

Case closed. School loses.

I wonder who the dumbshit was that thought they could get away with this nonsense?

[Xithras]

154. Exactly. I have no problem with release programs, but there's no "release" here.

Unlike many here, I have no issue with allowing kids to take time out of school to pursue alternative activities. I obviously also advocate that release time be available to all students of all faiths or nonfaiths. I do, however, have a serious issue with ANY school providing non-neutral religious education on school grounds. This doesn't just blur che church/state line, it erases it.

[T Wolf]

7. Simple solution - proceed with regular class instruction. If the children whose

parents put them in this indoctrination fall behind, tough shit. If they fail and have to be held back, tough shit.

There have to be consequences for actions. And if this obviously unconstitutional action continues, then let the families who choose to "act out" by this method suffer those consequences.

[Hepburn]

10. I do understand the sentiment you have....

...but I have a problem with basically punishing innocent children for the dumbshit decisions of their parents.

JMHO

[T Wolf]

14. These "innocent" children will grow up to be the GOPers of the future. Fuck them....

[JTFrog]

19. Really? Cuz my parents made me do that shit and I sure didn't grow up to be a GOPer.

Leave the fucking kids alone. It's not their fault their parents are acting like idiots. They are 7 and 8 years old.

[TankLV]

85. Me too - my sister and cousins all went - and we're almost all dems now...

nice ignorant blanket posting there by that ignorant poster...

[Posteritatis]

23. Nice, even third-graders are the enemy now? (nt)

[alfredo]

67. Marilyn Manson went to Christian Schools. He turned out fine.

[Dorian Gray]

141. If you think

a poseur douchebag is "fine...?"

[No Elephants]

151. These kids are in public schools, at taxpayer expense, though. And the trailers are on school

property. And they are impacting the kids left in the classrooms, not to say anything of the peer pressure. Isn't this like school prayer in that respect?

[livvy]

18. I just couldn't do that.

I understand where you are coming from, but I just couldn't do that to the kids. When you truly love to teach, it's all about the kids. The politics, some of the parents, and the administration are just annoyances you tolerate so you can see that little light go on, and a happy, well-educated, smiling kid who loves to learn.

Well, these little breaks through the year are pretty nice, too, even if they are not paid vacations. :)

[Ilsa]

69. The only problem with that is that it opens

the door for them to be dismissive of academics. Once they fall behind, they will be less likely to appreciate and understand political issues based on real science and scientific methodology, etc. We'd be perpetuating the dumbing down.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. How could it not?

Unbelievable!

[moggie]

17. Does it have to be on a weekday?

If you want to give kids Christian instruction, you could do it on a Sunday. Crazy idea, I know, but it might just work.

[Dorian Gray]

142. Or after school.

I went to CCD for years as a child. Monday afternoons at four pm.

It didn't interfere with school.

[glinda]

21. They need to go back to Philosophy Courses

[askeptic]

22. For Cryin' Out Loud - There's a church every 5 blocks

Can't they get their fill of religion there? Constantly want to use the public schools to indoctrinate young minds. Now I'd be all for it as long as one of the books used was Atheism: The Case Against God -- Then they'd be getting a balanced religious education.

[progressoid]

24. All y'all heathens are missing the point.

Ya get more learnified if you add some Jezus to the schoolin.

Everybody knows that the mathification and the Englishing and the histrionics and whatknot sink into the brainium better with the support of our Lord and Savior™, Jezus H. Christ.

[newtothegame]

25. The school should have never implemented, but a lawsuit?

Congratulations Hungtington County, your tax dollars at work. Forget homeless shelters or food banks, lets take money from our schools and give it to lawyers.

[northernsoul]

27. Yeah, a lawsuit - kind of like the one that brought us Brown v. Board of Ed.

My guess is that the plaintiff's attorney will get very little, if any, renumeration for this. Lawsuits are how citizens get the government to obey the law.

[newtothegame]

29. Yeah I understand your argument...

Just about anything today can be justified if we look at something positive that happened in the past. Sorry, that's what's also killing the unions today; you can't justify everything you do in the present because union workers that predated you and that you never even knew brought us the 5-day workweek.

[YvonneCa]

77. Prayer in schools...is what this is about. It has ALWAYS...

...been legal. What is NOT legal is when a government agency (school, in this case) promotes it, leads it, or organizes it. That's why this will be a court case...by setting aside release time, the school is the leader. That's illegal.

[Festivito]

28. I'll say GOOD for the school, it SHOULD BE allowed.

The school's job is to teach its students a set of basics for which it receives a basic supplant from government. Beyond that, it should be able to teach what it wants under the guide of the community which also offers it money, space and support.

The use outlined here respects the freedom of religion rather than respecting a singular religion. Whereas those who ardently believe there is no god seem to wrangle government to respect their belief in law above the beliefs of others, and disrespect the freedom of separate beliefs co-existing in this country side by side.

I understand the separation of church and state and know of many here who cannot wait to type it and use it as an end all of further conversation. Don't. It's not the law, it's a band-aid decision. The right is written in the first amendment, and if you want to make separation an amendment to the Constitution, by all means, go to it.

Until you make it law, the right to be free to choose religion exists everywhere, as does the right to free speech. Unless you agree with "free speech zones," which I do not, and certainly not within schools.

[and-justice-for-all]

31. It should NOTbe allowed...

If people want their kids to have a religious education, there are plenty of private schools that offer it.

[Festivito]

36. It SHOULD be. Don't take student's time away from them.

Making students waste there time in transit is not necessary and offers no benefit except to castigate the children for fact that their parents choose to believe.

(Sorry, but I responded to you upon a different post you made, mistaking it as in line with mine. I hope you can read it as well before responding here, if you will.)

[Solon]

37. The students are having time taken away from them, from subjects like science and literature...

so they can take this religious instruction DURING SCHOOL HOURS.

[Festivito]

43. Well, you must then insist there is not enough time in a day.

I doubt that argument would hold water in a courtroom.

Yes, there is time outside of the basics to teach all manner of things.

[Solon]

46. Schools have limited budgets, and limited time, yes...

That's obvious, religious instruction is outside a public school's stated purpose, and should be ignored, for all intents and purposes, by public schools, Churchs run sunday schools on their own, and other religious bodies, the fact that public schools don't provide religious instruction is no barrier to parents pursuing such education for their children on their own dime and time.

[Festivito]

48. Not so limited that they cannot find time for the parents and students.

The money can be a problem, if they school is able to show it is unable to afford to allow an unused classroom, already heated, already lit, for any length of time, then I'd say fine, can't do it. But, instead, I think really you're starting to stretch your argument too far beyond your ability. The religious group would still win the argument and a good atheistic judge, hearing the school could not afford it, would throw the contending school system out on its collective ass.

[Solon]

50. "good atheistic judge" where do you come up with these fascinating misconceptions...

do you honestly think that only an atheist would object to schools acting in this way? Also, they are using a trailer hooked up to the school's electrical system.

[Festivito]

53. A little dull minded today? That was meant as a judge on your side.

They do exist, atheist judges, and what I'm saying is that your argument is so poor even a judge already on your side would be fair enough to dump your argument down the toilet.

[Solon]

60. On whose side? n/t

[Festivito]

68. Hmmm. Am I dealing with someone with multiple personalities? /nt

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

54. Unless it's education of world religions- no

World religion, with equal time to ALL world religions is acceptable, but christian education is a violation.

[Festivito]

56. No, it's freedom of religion, not religions.

Although, a class on many religions would be acceptable to me as well.

However, a class that allows for the people to be free to pick their own religion should also be just that, free.

[askeptic]

61. Not in Public Schools - with compulsory school attendance laws

Kids are required to be there. If the government is neutral on religion, it is not their place to educate for religion, or to point out the fallacies of reasoning needed for belief. We already give tax-free status to churches. If the government is going to get into the religion business, it is not just to advocate for religion, but also to point out the inconsistencies of the written texts with the facts of science, as well as to point out the logical fallacies within the belief systems and concepts themselves.

[Festivito]

94. Students are only compelled to attend basic courses.

The school is compelled to know where the students are for the safety of the students. If a student skips his religion class taken as a matter of choice it would be same as if he had skipped a break period or mandatory library time during the school day.

If a class on religion is not a matter of choice, then it should include all aspects. I know of no such required class in any public school.

[YvonneCa]

97. What about elementary school classes, where...

...the kids are in one room (for all subjects) all day?

[Festivito]

107. Are you suggesting the students cannot move themselves?

Are they invalids or comatose, more than usual?

[YvonneCa]

108. I'm talking about what the California Education Code defines...

...as a 'self-contained classroom.'

[Festivito]

117. Does that mean that students cannot move?

Then they would be stuck there, together, without the ability to separate into individual groups. Boys, girls, counseled, ...

[YvonneCa]

118. Not without teacher decision and...

...supervision. So, yes, I guess they are stuck there. ;)

[Festivito]

121. That makes no sense.

If there is a teacher decision and supervision then why are they still stuck?

[YvonneCa]

122. You used the term, 'stuck'...

...not me:


"Then they would be stuck there, together, without the ability to separate into individual groups. Boys, girls, counseled, ..."

Here's a story you might enjoy. It's about the reasons for the establishement clause and the free expression clause. The reason for government(think 'state sponsored schools') not being allowed to lead prayer or lead religious activity is to help our country KEEP our freedoms. Our founders came from England, where the king had just done the opposite. They had seen the results...


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/127284/the_henrician_reformation_in_england.html

[Festivito]

125. Perhaps the California Education Code has us stuck.

I have no idea why kids in California cannot leave a classroom, even if it is because the California Education Code says something and a teacher must approve. I just hope nothing ever catches on fire there.

Here in Michigan, if the teacher allows a student to leave class into some other safe approved venue, it can happen. CA seems to have been very strange of late indeed.

Sorry we can't get past this simple point, but, oh well, at least I know where we became stuck. Makes no sense, but I know where.

House friends gone, airport friend home, dinner et, cats in bed, time to finish reading and crash. Night.

[primavera]

87. And how will non-Christian children be free to make that choice...

... in a classroom in which only one religion is taught? If I'm a Muslim child or a Hindu child or an atheist child, why should I have to waste my time in school listening to a teacher instruct me in a religion which I do not choose? Why should I have to listen to a teacher espouse his/her own personal religious views as the "one true faith," insinuating that my religious choice is somehow less valid? If you'd like to teach a world's religions class in which all religions and atheism are given equal treatment, great, then the child is being exposed to all viewpoints, with no emphasis being placed upon any one perspective, and the children are, as you say, free to choose the beliefs to which they wish to adhere. But there are an awful lot of religions in the world, teaching them all would be quite a challenge. Yet the moment you decide to exclude some religions in favor of others, you've begun making choices for the children in your class, by constraining their access to the information they require to make for themselves the decision to which they are constitutionally entitled. What these guys are doing doesn't even attempt to teach world religions, it's bare, naked, undisguised proselytizing, the aim of which is to influence impressionable children into making the decision their teachers want them to make. If that's okay with you, is it also okay if the government pays Republican activists to go into schools and "teach" your kids a class on "Civics" in which they exalt the virtues of Republican ideology and lambast the evils of liberalism? There's no difference between those two scenarios - if you have a problem with one, you should have a problem with the other.

[Festivito]

95. Simple, they don't attend that room at that time.

Their fellow students already know that they don't attend Sunday School. I would hope they would be scheduled to library time or such instead.

Firstly, I'm dealing with a classroom experience of choice. So, the rest of what you say is pretty much moot.

There is no desire to exclude any other religion. They just need different times, places or both.

Civics class being required, UNLIKE RELIGION CLASSES, need to show both sides.

[primavera]

116. Not that simple

If students had a religion period in which they could choose between any one of a dozen or so religion classes, then, yes, students would be free to choose one or the other without prejudice. But the situation being described here is that the non-Christian student has the choice to accompany the rest of the class in an activity in which they are engaging, or they may elect to set themselves apart from their classmates and go sit in the library and do nothing for that period of time. Few children are strong-willed enough to not be susceptible to peer pressure and comfortable asserting their right to do something other than what the majority is doing. How many would even know and understand that they even had the choice? How many of those who WERE Christian would understand that THEY had a choice?

But there's a very simple solution to this complex problem: teach religion in churches to which students may freely go or not go as they wish; don't try to impose it upon the heterogenous community of students in public schools whose presence is obligatory. Most of life is learned outside of school anyway; why are you so adamant that people must learn religion in schools - and give rise to all of the proselytizing problems - rather than learn religion in those institutions which are appropriately devoted to religion, namely, churches?

[Festivito]

119. Not that complicated either.

If the school does nothing with the student, then we have a school problem. And, that, not being consistent with the purpose of the school could say that they cannot allow the other program for the fact that it leaves some students in a lurch. Nothing against the religion, it just doesn't follow the needs a program must accomplish.

WHY HAVE IT AT ALL?
Because the kids who do take the extra instruction after school or some distance from school are kicked out of after school sports/activities, which I must say is unfair. They're trying harder, so the get less.

[primavera]

127. Not unfair, just the way life is

There are a finite amount of hours in each day, that's not unfair, that's just a fact. I wish employers would allow me time off from work or schools would allow me time off from study in order to do gardening or play with my dogs or read or whatever, but it doesn't strike me as particularly unfair that they don't. School, like work, exists to serve a specific function and that function isn't religious worship, which would be the function of a church. Religion, like most activities, therefore falls under the category of extracurricular activities which one attends to when one is not engaged in another activity. If students wish to participate in sports and/or other after school activities, they are free to do so, they simply must make the same choice that every other living creature on the planet must make every hour of every day of their entire lives - deciding which which priority is greater? If they prefer to spend their time in faith-based activities, they are free to do so; if they prefer to spend their time playing sports, they are free to do that as well. If religious activities conflict with them being able to play sports, they are at liberty to petition their local church to provide opportunities for them to engage in religious activities which do not interfere with their other priorities. Or if faith plays such a central and time-consuming role in a person's life, perhaps that person is destined to be in orders and they would be best served by seeking out religious schools which can accommodate their special needs. If their problem is that the country in which they live does not devote as great a percentage of its time to religion as they would like, they may emigrate to a theocratic country which shares their need to place religion at the center of life. I see nothing unfair about any of this, it's just life. One has the right to make any one of a great many choices; one does not have the right to expect the rest of the world to rearrange itself to suit ones personal convenience.

I therefore don't think it's a problem at all, but if you insist upon considering it one, then why do you not advocate to have school sporting activities rescheduled? Or why do you not advocate to have churches offer religious education at times better suited to the schedules of local students? Why is your solution to your "problem" to go into an established institution fulfilling a function which has nothing to do with religion, and look to them to make compromises in their curriculum in order to accommodate an extracurricular activity? Do you seriously expect the world should cease to revolve on its axis because you wish to practice your faith? How many of your employers have allowed you to take off an hour a day from work each day in which to worship? So why do you expect schools to be different? Where do you draw the line? If you perceive that you should be able to blow off work and school in order to accommodate your need for constant worship, is it okay to stop your car in the middle of a busy interstate and demand that other motorists stop and wait while you pray? Put another way, just how batshit crazy are you? If you think that's reasonable, maybe you should consider emigrating yourself to a theocratic country.

[Festivito]

134. Being unfair is not necessary.

Kids have free time during the day where the extra education can be accomplished and a clear reason should be given if they cannot be given the time they deserve.

..And not just a lot of words.

Where do I draw the line? I don't like drawing lines, I prefer principles.

How batshit crazy am I? Enjoy your fascinating delusion.

[primavera]

138. You've been given several compelling reasons...

... you simply choose to view them as "just a lot of words."

What I still wait to hear from you is a compelling reason why secular educational institutions should compromise their educational programs in order to perform the function of a church. Apparently I will be waiting a long time for that reason as, of course, there is no reason why they should, but that fact you find inconvenient to your "principles" so you choose to dismiss it as readily as you dismiss the myriad reasons which have been provided by the many, many posters on this thread regarding why schools should not perform the functions of churches.

Forgive me, but I cannot help but chuckle a bit at being described as delusional by someone who apparently believes that the universe was created by an omniscient and omnipotent being who came down to us in the form of a carpenter who happened to be his own father, born of a virgin mother, who can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present because a woman grown out of a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. And yet I'm the delusional one here because I don't think everyone should be taught to believe that. You gotta admit, it's pretty funny. As far as delusions go, I think you'd at least have to agree that yours is much more fascinating than mine.

[Festivito]

140. You might try to reread your own signature line.

There's no need for a contest of fascinations, provided you are indeed fond of your own.

No, I did not simply view what you wrote as a lot of words. I will say that it was a lot of words to express your point. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever imply that you might be verbose. If I am the first, let me add that you write well, albeit long, and that I tend to be overly brief, or at least I try to be, bad boy that I am.

Adding a program of education for a school does not automatically "compromise their educational programs." Nice attempt to frame, but no.

A memory program would enhance today's schools, not compromise them. It does not matter so much what is memorized, it builds the ability. Having different religions teach it offers diversity. Finding secular material for those not involved with religion would not be hard. (Understand that I offer this as example of part of what a religion class might offer, I'm not trying to be complete such as to receive a treatise on my quickly developed example.)

Aside, there is a bit of judgment in your cute attack. For a little fun, let me go on a bit. About that tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (A rather lengthy name) Man, mankind, disfruits of this tree, enjoys this tree. Enjoys judging, judging what's good, judging what's bad. And that is his downfall, judging others.

I hope you see more than just a delusion when you look at things you judge as worth the chuckle.

[Festivito]

As long as there are hard-atheists who go beyond lack, and deny god, you'd be wrong.

(MOVED FROM MY ERRANT POST BEHIND ANOTHER LINK)

Soft atheists lack a belief in god, but there are those evangelical hard-atheists who go out of their way to deny god, to say god is a myth. They invoke their own system of belief by going beyond a statement that they simply don't believe in a god, they go that extra step to say that god does not exist or that god is a myth.

The FFRF, Freedom From Religion Foundation, recently put up a poster saying that god is a myth. Yes, these people do exist.

Thank you for responding.

[Solon]

40. And that applies to this lawsuit how? n/t

[Festivito]

44. It responded to a different post by and-justice-for-all.

The and-justice-for-all post was just a simple denial of atheism being a religion. I edited and retracted it from someone else's thread, placing it here behind another and-justice-for-all post.

Do not feel the need to respond to it, as it had nothing to do with you, unless you want it.

[Solon]

34. It looks like a church is running the instruction itself...

during school hours, that in itself shows preferential treatment of said church on school property. The school, being an arm of the State, is in violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, which itself, applies to schools thanks to the 14th amendment.

[Festivito]

38. I would contend it is not preferential unless it displaces another religion.

..or causes death or incarceration.

If two contending religions wish a certain space at certain time the same, then there is a problem where if one is not equally protected under the law, they'd have a lawsuit they would win. This is not that case.

[Solon]

39. That makes absolutely no sense, and since when do death and incarceration enter into it?

Were any other churches, or other religions, even offered the position? How was this church allowed to park a trailer on school property in the first place?

[Festivito]

41. But it does. It's called a Constitution.

In it we are named, establish justice, and a few other things, and we place life and liberty before we talk of amendments.

You should know that.

What I'm saying is that life and liberty would trump the freedom of speech and religion. It was only meant as an all to obvious joke. Sorry, it did not come across well.

Again, when it comes to competing religions, one should not be raised above the other inconsistently with the rest of the constitution.

[Solon]

45. Actually, technically, life and liberty were NOT in the constitution originally...

hence the Bill of RIGHTS. But that again isn't really what I'm talking about, also, just to let you know, at one time, it did have something to do with death, the Philadelphia riots lead to many injuries, and even death, all over school prayer, as in, whose school prayer should be recited in public schools, Protestant or Catholic. The fact is that this school's actions must pass the lemon test in order to pass Constitutional muster.

This is it, as follows:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Now, Public Schools are an arm of government, as courts have also ruled, time and again, so they also must also pass the lemon test. In the school's case, the courts would list this instead:

1. The School's action must have a secular educational purpose;
2. The School's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The School's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Now, my question to you is this, does the school pass the lemon test?

[Festivito]

47. And, if you elevate the Lemon test to an amendment, I'll heed it.

And, it was the pursuit of happiness that did not make it into the Constitution.

Beyond the Lemon test becoming the amendment superseding the first, I'll only take heed of its existence. So, lemon: 1. It educates students and does so in a manner parents want. 2. It allows any religion to request time, space and resource, and further, not doing so could be labeled as inhibiting religion. 3. The school already has the function of allocating classrooms and time along with other activities. That hardly constitutes entanglement.

So, yes, it does pass the lemon test.

[Solon]

49. Where would it inhibit religion? This is a fascinating interpretation you came up with...

I'll ignore the rest since, frankly, its Originalism claptrap that has no basis in how the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts, but I'm really fascinated by how you think this inhibits the practice of religion. As far as I can tell, STUDENTS are free to practice their religion however they see fit, and as long as it doesn't disrupt classtime, schools are forbidden from interfering. Why do schools have to take a proactive approach to religious instruction as well?

[Festivito]

55. You'll ignore the rest because of one point that did not matter?

And, even that point is arguable. Point 2 of lemon test: disallowing a religion from equal access given to students for other instruction because those student should, by some antagonist, be encumbered to excessive transit times while available classroom space lies fallow, can be and should be viewed as inhibiting.

What is this? Do you guys get together and send the dullest person to talk for everyone?

Good day.

[Solon]

58. What classroom is lying fallow in this case? Its a church owned trailer...

at least get your basic facts straight.

[Festivito]

71. That would be one that is not being used. /nt

[askeptic]

64. Yes, Festivito, that is consistent with your previous posts

However, the supreme court decided that the atheistic viewpoint is a religion from an equal time standpoint, so unless the criticism of religious belief, consistent with critical thought and logic are not also presented, it simply advances religion - not the role of the public schools OR the governement under compulsory attendance laws.

We already (unfairly IMHO) don't tax churches - so if you want to have that little mind filled with religious nonsense, do it there.

[Festivito]

70. If compulsory, yes, this, however is not.

So, again, it should not be causing a problem. I'd love to employ the ACLU to fight the parent's side of those who want this service, as the freedom to practice religion of choice should not be inhibited by unnecessarily forcing the students to transit unnecessary time and distance to obtain education consistent with the school's purpose.

[Solon]

72. The school's purpose is to educate these kids in secular subjects, not make religious instruction...

easier for them to obtain. That is OUTSIDE the PUBLIC schools scope, period. Also, that is, I must admit, the stupidest definition of freedom of religion I've ever seen.

[Festivito]

74. Let me guess, you're the DEFINER person.

We must all bow to definitions of yours.
I bet you're even a legend in your own mind.

If YOU say "the school's purpose is to educate these kids in secular subjects, not make religious instruction easier for them to obtain."
Then all others must cow-tow to your cow tail and view its emanations with all due respect.

Well, I mean to give your restated opinion all doo respect.

But, then you invoked the eminent period. With a period behind it no less. How can any person argue beyond THAT. Bloody hell, that's inarguably the most incredible flow of prose I've seen from someone like you.

The final ring of truth seems best expressed in the fleeting brilliance of the self-deprecating last sentence that rings with excruciating truthfulness.

Either that or teaching is teaching and helping students can be done in spite of it not being mandated. But, that might just be me.

[Solon]

82. Like I said, its outside the public school's scope to provide facilities for religious instruction.

Not providing such facilities, during school time, is NOT prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and to say otherwise is sheer idiocy. The students are free to form their own Bible study group to meet after school or during lunch room hours, however the school's faculty can only approve the organization of such a club, they cannot lead it, nor endorse it to the exclusion of any other, nor can they give it any special treatment, such as being able to meet and discuss the Bible during instruction hours. Your argument is completely without merit, you have a gross misunderstanding of the role of public schools, and even of the ACLU. You do realize that when schools forbid the organization of Bible study or other religious clubs in schools, the ACLU has defended the student's rights to organize such clubs in court, don't you?

[Festivito]

90. Prohibiting use of facility is prohibiting a religious activity there.

Just like a free speech zone prohibits free speech when it sends people elsewhere. You say religion must only have free practice on their own property or a sidewalk or where Solon says so. That's not for me.

I'm against the Bush admin's free speech zones when it comes to speech, and I'm against your free practice zones when it comes to religion.

You seem caught in knee-jerk reactions which you keep trying to justify, and that is fine, however, when for example, I say I'd like to employ the ACLU to help this organization, and then you claim that I don't know the ACLU might help an organization, I can't help but think there is something wrong with you -- free practice zones and all.

[YvonneCa]

99. This is not a free speech argument. This post is not about...

...Bush free speech zones (which I don't like either, BTW). It's about decisions made by government (federal, state, county or municipal) being FAIR to all religions.

Use of a facility (school or other government building) must provide EQUAL access to all religious groups who may want to use it. There are two ways to provide such equal access in relation to religion. One, if you let the Methodists use the auditorium, you must also let the Catholics, Baptists, atheists, etc. Or, two, close it to EVERYBODY. Otherwise, the school (or other government body) is violating the 'Establishment Clause' of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Period.

This has nothing to do with free speech.

[Festivito]

109. It was a PARALLEL to free speech.

You don't like free speech zones.

But,

you do like free practice zones.

See how the words in the above sentences correspond? They are in a parallel construction.

[YvonneCa]

111. That's just plain...

...silly.

[Festivito]

115. So was yours.

It was a parallel to free speech, not about free speech.

And all I got in return was that it was not about free speech. Kind of a duh-yeah, and huh, what about the rest of it.

[YvonneCa]

78. It's about government being prevented...by law...

...from promoting, organizing or leading prayer or religious instuction. That's separation of church and state.

[Festivito]

92. You need to start at the beginning. /nt

[YvonneCa]

100. Define...

...'beginning.' Beginning of time??? Beginning of the thread?? Beginning of our country??? The 'biblical' beginning??? :)

[Festivito]

102. What version of the movie "Airplane!" are we in?

Let me know what's happened up till now.

Well, first there was light, then dinosaurs, and a big meteor hit the planet, with darkness, brrrrr, ...

[YvonneCa]

104. I'm sorry. I seriously did not understand...

...your post. I'm confused about this one, too. Could you clarify what you are asking?

[Festivito]

At approximately which word did you start noticing this confusion? /nt

[Festivito]

106. At approximately which word did you start noticing this confusion? /nt

[YvonneCa]

98. You seem not to understand that the First Amendment...

...sets out two clauses about religion. One is the 'free exercise' clause...which you focus on with most of your argument. The OTHER clause is the 'Establishment' clause. I'm not sure you understand that part of the First Amendment.

[MajorChode]

88. Separation of church and state IS the law already

Obviously you don't understand the first amendment or separation of church and state even though you claim otherwise.

You seem to be claiming that just because there isn't an amendment that contains the phrase, "separation of church and state" it's "not the law".

To which I say, hogwash.

The USSC has already determined what the establishment clause means and there are numerous decisions that define it. Case law IS law because it's up to the USSC to determine what the law means, not you or I or the Huntington County Community School Corp. So whether you like it or not, that IS the law, it is effectively written into the constitution, so if you don't want it in there work on getting your own amendment to remove it. As you said, "go for it." The onus is not on me to have an amendment written that is redundant.

Try reading McCollum v. Board of Education sometime, which is practically the exact same issue and has already been adjudicated. The school will loose and they are simply wasting taxpayer dollars defending something that's completely indefensible. That's not good for the school regardless of what you think.

What is really sad is the taxpayers in that district are being forced to have their tax dollars wasted so some local politician can make a religious statement.

[Festivito]

91. You're right, I should have used "right" instead of "law"

because there are certainly people who will preach over the difference. I was hoping people would be smart enough to realize that the USSC decision was based on the Constitution and that the Constitution was not changed, and that Constitution remains the law, but further, it remains the law over and above this decision and any future decisions that might arise. I was wrong, and am sorry.

The Constitution outlines a right, and the decision creates an arguable point of law, applicable as such with the caveat that it can certainly be argued as a USSC contestable point of law.

Hopefully that straightens the nomenclature.

You are correct that McCollum v. Board of Education is close to this case to a degree, but there are more decisions, some relenting this decision also to a degree. I'd be with the minority to the decision that said it went to far, and I think later case law agrees with me.

I think the school board in that case in essence hung it self. It made no changes based on the need of a child, and for that was castigated with overreaching effects.

When we have a case that has thirty students pitted against one, we have a difficult situation. Here the one student wins and the thirty students lose. There is something wrong with that as well. I would think there would be a better solution.

Yes, these things cost money. And if it is being used for some politician, I think that can be addressed and should be addressed. He should raise the money for the lawsuit himself and thus separate himself from using state funds for his own re-election. Put well, a misuse of funds like this would make a great campaign against him as well as having done this would be a good campaign for him.

I feel compelled to fight these overreaching results. My first post outlined my major reasoning.

[MajorChode]

113. It wouldn't have made a difference if you had used "right"

Rights are outlined and guaranteed by the Constitution. For the purpose of this discussion, the result would have been the same because we're talking about the law that is derived from the Constitution.

The USSC is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. In theory, once the USSC hands down a decision regarding it, that decision can not be contradicted unless the Constitution is amended. Of course, if more justices like Clarence Thomas are seated, I suppose anything can happen. At any rate, I have read quite a few establishment clause decisions and I haven't seen anything that moderates McCollum v BOE in its 60 year history. Now there are some very limited circumstances where school facilities can be used for religious purposes, provided all other points of view (yes that includes atheists') are given the same opportunity to be represented and school officials don't participate, but those situations aren't the same as this one. Now perhaps your opinion is that the decision is overreaching, but it really doesn't matter. The decision is final. As you suggested, if you don't like it and feel compelled to fight it, figure out some way to amend the Constitution and go for it.

Your statement that "one student wins and the thirty students lose" is really quite preposterous. Our rights aren't up to a majority vote. The founding fathers well understood the tyranny of the majority and that's the very reason why the Bill of Rights was created. But you are right, there is a better solution. If the kids have a burning desire for Bible study, let them do it at a church or some other private facility, or let the parents home school them, or send them to a private school. Do you really think that other facilities weren't available in that community for their purpose? The purpose of public schools is to educate children, not to sponsor religious indoctrination.

[Festivito]

120. Well, I'm not as precise with words as you seem to require.

I tend not to care as long as I don't find myself ambiguous. You seem to want only great precision of words even if the distinction is clear. Sorry.

If you honestly think that USSC will never re-address this before a Constitutional amendment is made, well, at least we know a place where we disagree. You seem to dwell on this one point and I do not think I can achieve the precision you demand in conversation to go deeper.

I wish you well.

[MajorChode]

124. You're the one trying to make this an issue of semantics

Now you're trying to project your own excuse back towards me and I reject it.

I quite clearly explained that it didn't matter which words you chose, you are still wrong. So whether by intent or semantics, I can't agree with you on certain points. I'm pretty sure I fully understood your intent, but if I didn't it's certainly not my fault you can't articulate your thoughts with any degree of fidelity.

The USSC does not readdress the exact same issues unless there is a change to a law or an amendment that was the basis for the decision. If the exact same issue is presented, it will either refuse to speak to the issue at all, or will remand it back to a lower court. That's how the USSC works and has for the past 200yrs or so. If you believe differently, you should better educate yourself on the intricacies of jurisprudence in the US, or at least stop passing yourself off as an authority on matters you clearly know little about.

I understand your intent as you don't agree with the decision and you think it will be reversed. It won't. The decision has lasted 60 years, so if you want to wait for another 60 years and hope for a different outcome, don't let me stop you.

[Festivito]

129. Just an overview, review.

True, I would like our country to have a more relaxed view of religions and many rightfully fear the thought. But, alas, I deem it essential to the health of our nation so I pursue the discussion. I am not doing this based on case law. I am doing this based on my feeling for why the first amendment was written the way it was, and my feeling that I understand and concur on how Jefferson felt it would lead to a wall of separation between church and state.

People seem so mired in separation of church and state that they cannot seem to think outside the box holding their thoughts. Separation has become the reason rather than the outcome. You, yourself, immediately ignored the real part of my first post and railed on the difference between right and law as it applies to separation. Aaaargh.

And, what's this latest thing? I'll never get the court to hear another case on the subject because of what? Because I might present the "exact same" case? Huh? Why would I do that then? It could be just different enough to for them to hear. Do you think the Roe v Wade people are fearing NOTHING from the courts that might overturn that decision since, AS YOU WOULD DRONE, that's how it "works and has for the past 200 years"? Huh? It too will be a slightly different case. DUH?

Then you tell me that it won't be reversed. Jeepers, bully for you, you predict the future now? But, maybe that's because you still think I'm going to present the "exact same issue". Gag me.

And, yes I know there are several avenues of action available to me such as one: a new amendment. Thank you.

Have fun, be well, sleep soundly.

[MajorChode]

137. A review of the overview

The "real part" of your first post, as I understood it, was simply saying you believe the school SHOULD be allowed to have a religious indoctrination program. I didn't ignore it. I just didn't take issue with it because you're certainly entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Claiming that I ignored you because I didn't challenge your right to have an opinion is quite asinine. But if you want to instead engage in a discussion on whether they "SHOULD" or shouldn't is fine too as my opinion is the opposite.

What I take issue with is when you made an assertion of fact that separation isn't part of the LAW and when you said it isn't part of a RIGHT. I reject both and never rallied on the difference. That was your claim. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not their own set of facts.

[YvonneCa]

146. We agree. Here was my ....

...downthread comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3668535&mesg_id=3672330

[MajorChode]

152. This is one of my favorite quotes on the subject...

...the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.

-- Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority in McCollum v Board of Education, 1948

[YvonneCa]

153. That IS ...

...a good quote. Thanks.

[Festivito]

155. Thanks for acknowledging my opinion as my opinion and arguing

the part that did not matter, that I only put in so it would not be the argument. So, I gather what happened is that I posted my opinion because I'm entitled to have an opinion and not because I'd like to interact with others about that opinion and it is that thinking, thinking that others would interact with me about my opinion that makes me asinine when I would have the audacity to imagine when they did not interact with me surrounding my opinion that they were somehow ignoring my opinion.

Oh, silly silly me, the only thing worth discussing is an errant word choice in a part that does not matter to the opinion, that opinion, again, is only there because I have a right to have an opinion and would not in my wildest imaginings find others engaging it in discussion since the right to have an opinion is apparently all that matters.

Well, that judicial decision made to be called law or whatever you deem appropriate to call it is overturnable. And, if my opinion is correct, it should be overturned. And I did post it with reasoning so some major chode would not pose some lame "my opinion is the opposite" as though such name is a mere indicative.

[MajorChode]

156. The above sums up why your opinions are irrelevant....

...better than I could ever have demonstrated on my own.

[Festivito]

157. From you, an honor. /nt

[YvonneCa]

160. Unbelievable.

[Festivito]

162. Isn't it though. /nt

[YvonneCa]

123. Great post. n/t

[YvonneCa]

96. First Amendment...

...to the Constitution:

"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."

There are two clauses to consider. The second clause ("Congress shall make no law prohibiting free exercise thereof") prevents our government (first federal, and then willed to the states, who are responsible for public schools) from stopping religion anywhere...even in schools.

The first clause (bolded), however, is the one I think you misconstrue. It says, "Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion." That is the part of the Constitution that separates church and state...in the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion. Doing that would show preference for the religion being established over others...and is not allowed under the Constitution. This is not about free speech at all.

For the story at hand, a school cannot legally be a participant in leading (establishing) any activity (curriculum or program or schedule or use of facilities) for religious purposes. It can (fairly to all religions) DEFER such activity to it's parental community.(Example...school auditorium can be made available for church event if ANY church is allowed to avail itself of said services.) The mistake this school made was participating in school schedule changes to benefit ONE group during school hours.

[Festivito]

101. Thank you, well aware, so on to the rest...

We certainly should not establish a religion, nor should we make law respecting an establishment of religion.

Then, perhaps in keeping a public school system, that act of having a public school system, itself makes law respecting an establishment of religion, in fact, it attempts to make law respecting more than just one religion, it makes law denying religion free practice in certain areas of our country. After all, if schools cannot allow freedom of religion, then it is public schools that must go.

I would rather suggest that 1. we keep public schools and that 2. these public schools allow the free practice of religion (As I see it: follow the Constitution.) 3. wherever they happen to exist and 4. whenever they exist.

It is NOT the concept FREE SPEECH of which I speak, it is the zoning of free speech that I dislike and the zoning of free practice that I denounce in this thread.

In the OP, the case at hand, the school system has not disallowed any other religion the same courtesy. The children mandated to attend school are not mandated to attend the course except by their parents who do retain that right. Other religions remain to avail themselves of the same courtesy.

[YvonneCa]

103. Where to begin...

...where to begin... :)


Your words:

"In the OP, the case at hand, the school system has not disallowed any other religion the same courtesy. The children mandated to attend school are not mandated to attend the course except by their parents who do retain that right. Other religions remain to avail themselves of the same courtesy." Your argument is about the second clause, 'free exercise of religion.' The article clearly defines it as an 'establishment' case. The school is being sued for SETTING UP a religious program...by making release time in the daily schedule for it. This is 'establishing' . They can't do that. If they had just given a building for that purpose...opened to use by any church...that would have been different. If they had not changed the schedule with 'release time', that would have been different.

" We certainly should not establish a religion, nor should we make law respecting an establishment of religion." I agree.

"I would rather suggest that 1. we keep public schools and that 2. these public schools allow the free practice of religion (As I see it: follow the Constitution.) 3. wherever they happen to exist and 4. whenever they exist." I agree with 1 and 2. I don't know what you mean by 3 and 4.

"Then, perhaps in keeping a public school system, that act of having a public school system, itself makes law respecting an establishment of religion, in fact, it attempts to make law respecting more than just one religion, it makes law denying religion free practice in certain areas of our country. After all, if schools cannot allow freedom of religion, then it is public schools that must go." I have to admit, this one confuses me. The only thing I can figure is that you...as many people do...believe the myth that prayer isn't allowed in public schools. Understandable, as the RW has spun that one for years. :7 I am a teacher. I've spent years ...practically 24/7...in public schools. That myth is untrue. I DO know, however, that it IS out there. I've had students bring a Bible to school and ask if they can read it during silent reading (they can...I just can't read it to them). It's like they are testing me as a representative of public schools. The RW have used this as an argument to divide us. I thought most DUers picked up on things like that.

"It is NOT the concept FREE SPEECH of which I speak, it is the zoning of free speech that I dislike and the zoning of free practice that I denounce in this thread." Again, this is RW spin. This is not about free speech...it's about government not being allowed to 'establish' or lead religious training. That would be unfair to people of a different religion than the one 'established.'

[Festivito]

105. Glad we can agree on at least some little part.

If you must quote, try adding some white space between my quotes and yours. Thanks for being a teacher. It's good hard work. Many in my family do it and I do it on occasion. No, this is not about prayer in school.

I do not, here in this thread, care about how shell-shocked you are about the RW spin machine, let alone that you would dare to call it mine. Invite me to another thread or PM me and I'd be glad to help you.

What I'm seeing is that our walls of separation are becoming weaker and the reason as I see it, is because we have continued not to celebrate our freedoms, rather we have begun to limit our freedoms needlessly, such as in where we can celebrate our religions or lack of religion for that matter.

Let's try this. Suppose the school sets a program for any group to enter the school grounds and use facilities as available for use consistent with education and/or under the approval of the local school board.

No respecting any religion there. No mention of it. Yet, if the local church wants the auditorium for a day, it can fit into the program as written. An AARP group could rent a room, maybe they'd let them have the room for a day a week -- no charge. How about a local business that wants to run an art class for the students, which it does really to find workers but everyone is allowed to the class that wants to attend.

Now a religion comes along, wants to teach memory for people wanting to memorize their religion of Shakespeare sonnets. It fits the program rules also. Then, why not let them do it also.

ONE PRE-ANSWER:
Religions may fight over the room. True. They want the same time and the same room the same day and cannot come to agreement on anything else. They can take it to court, but, I'd tell them they screwed themselves. The right of the one has equal right to the other, and neither can be elevated over the other so neither can have the room at that time.

[YvonneCa]

110. People are entitled to their own opinion...

...but they are not entitled to their own facts. It's clear to me that you enjoy debate...and I read in your profile that you don't mean the putdowns personnally, so I won't take them that way. But it's also clear that you have no idea about ed. code or the law around public schools. This sentence...


" What I'm seeing is that our walls of separation are becoming weaker and the reason as I see it, is because we have continued not to celebrate our freedoms, rather we have begun to limit our freedoms needlessly, such as in where we can celebrate our religions or lack of religion for that matter."


...tells me that you only see one side of the First Amendment...the free expression part. Congress , in the Constitution sets out TWO edicts. One prohibits Congress from passing a law to limit religious expression. That's the only one you ever discuss.


You miss the point of the Establishment clause completely. It is the establishment clause that HELPS US KEEP OUR FREEDOMS.

[MajorChode]

126. Much of this issue boils down to the motives of organized religion

If a community has few facilities available and the biggest meeting room within a 25 mile radius is the school gym, I can understand how it serves the community to allow the school to be used under certain circumstances provided the establishment clause is respected.

However, rarely is this the case. Most churches have adequate facilities of their own and you also have many civic organizations like Lion's Club, Rotary, Knights of Columbus, and many others that have facilities available for the asking. So why do so many of these groups seek so desperately to utilize the public schools?

The answer is actually quite simple. The public schools are, without a doubt, the most prime real estate for religious recruitment you could ever imagine. When religious fanatics come knocking on your front door, most people tell them to get the hell off their porch. They figured out a long time ago how to get through your back door, and that is through your kids on the schoolyard. Inevitably the kids are convinced to come to the church and they know that more often than not the adults will follow, or at least can be tapped for donations at that point. All of this happens at very young ages. The fanatics know that once kids are too old to believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, their prospects for recruitment become much more slim, at least until they hit about 40 and have drunk enough Wild Turkey to float a battleship and collect enough guilt to be "born again".

[primavera]

128. OMG, that's hilarious!

:applause: Allow me to pay homage to such eloquence and perceptiveness! :toast:

[MajorChode]

139. I had some help in that one

My father was a Unitarian pastor when I was growing up. Naturally when you are a little kid on the playground other kids ask about your religion. When I told them I was Unitarian, they told their parents and that's when the shit really hit the fan. They had no idea what a Unitarian was, but they sure as hell knew it wasn't Baptist and that's all they needed to know. From then on I was bombarded at school with every religious pamphlet you can imagine talking about his Jesus fellow. Now I had no idea who this Jesus guy was, but his picture looked a lot like my reefer smoking uncle who I thought was pretty cool. Naturally I wanted to know more because if he was anything like my uncle, he had to be a great guy. Well the other little Christer kids took me to church with them a few times and I started hanging out at all kinds of Christer functions. They taught me all kinds of swell stuff, like I was going straight to hell if I didn't accept Jesus as my one and only lord and savior. It wasn't long before they hit my dad up for a check. Naturally he told them to go urinate up a rope (probably in a nicer way). Not long after that the Christers didn't seem to care much for my immortal soul anymore and they stopped giving me rides to their church.

[Festivito]

130. Not in all cases, but too true for too many cases, and funny too.

It's just not the only reason. Not all religions are just plainly bad.

[MajorChode]

135. I would never suggest they were all bad

I don't have a problem with religion. There's a lot of people out there that need someone else to tell them what to believe. There's a lot of people out there that need help to stay on the straight and narrow. If organized religion serves that purpose, it's certainly good. However there's also the potential for bad just as with any other organization. You can't give these people a free pass simply because they have what they think are good intentions. That's all I'm saying.

[Festivito]

136. No one should get a free pass.

And, religion is not the only place for followers to congregate and be lead and mislead.

[MountainLaurel]

144. You've hit it dead on

Look at the favored recruiting mechanism for churches all across the land: vacation bible school. They lure in kids with nothing better to do in the summer (i.e., those whose parents aren't probably paying attention) with promises of games, music, crafts, and Kool-Aid. Then, once the kids are sated with cheap cookies, they get to the hard sell: the horrors of hell, being left all alone after the Rapture (playing on abandonment fears -- what all children are afraid of), with the added bonus of eternal riches and love.

[baldguy]

30. Do Atheists have a chance to promote their views to the students?

Do Muslims? Buddhists?

Religious education has no place in publicly funded schools.

[and-justice-for-all]

32. Atheism is not a religion...nt

[baldguy]

33. It is a belief system.

And just as valid as any other - including any of the various Middle Eastern myths that are generally promoted.

[Tempest]

42. It's a lack of belief

In order to be considered a system it has to be organized.

There is no organization outside of small informal groups.

[baldguy]

52. Lack of belief on the God of Abraham is not an indication of a lack of ALL belief.

And certainly doesn't make it any less valid simply because Atheism doesn't have the same market share as the myriad forms of Christianity.

[Tempest]

65. In that case, they're not really atheists

Atheism is a lack of ALL belief when it pertains to religion and all its incarnations.

[baldguy]

66. Christians are atheists with regards to the belief in Amun, Jupiter and Quetzalcoatl.

If we won't spend tax dollars promoting those beliefs, why should we promote any belief? What makes Christianity special?

[Festivito]

35. Self-delete, attached to wrong post. /nt

[askeptic]

63. It is a religious stance and is entitled to equal standing

McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
By a 6-1 vote the Supreme Court agreed with Mrs. McCollum, an atheist mother, and disallowed the practice of having religious education to take place in public school classrooms during the school day.

ESA v. Rylander (2001)
A Texas district court ruled that a nontheistic Ethical Culture Society deserved a religious tax exemption. The Court rejected State arguments that religion must be defined by a belief in a "Supreme Being."

FFRF v. Rhea County Board of Education (2002)
A federal district court decides that a public school cannot have students from the local Bryan College come in to teach Bible classes.

As you can see, this has already been ruled on several times.

You might find that atheism is really little more than critical thinking applied to the subject of religion, and I won't be against it as long as their is equal time given to pointing out the inconsistencies both within the texts themselves and with the body of scientific knowledge, and to the logical fallacies inherent in the god hypothesis itself.

[GinaMaria]

51. IIRC, I was sent to CCD after school

There would be a bus that picked me up at school at the end of the day, one day a week and then would drop me at home when it was over. I'm not sure if other denominations did the same. This was in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. I think I would prefer sending a child to the church for religeous instruction over a trailer in the school parking lot, but I guess that would depend on the Church.


It would seem the more equitable solution would be to offer electives during this time frame. One of the electives can be this religeous class, but other classes can be offered that can contribute to a child's future, like foriegn language, art, drama, play writing, physics, architecture, first aid, industrial arts, cooking, sewing... whatever. It seems weird that this is the only elective class offered. If I am reading this correctly, students who do not participate just sit there or the student who do participate miss classroom time. The elective would be up to the parents to decide which one they think best prepares their child for the future.

[damntexdem]

57. Well, if the program "program neither advances nor inhibits religion," then ...

opposition to it can't be characterized as anti-religious, can it? ;-)

[jazzjunkysue]

59. The line was crossed when the teacher delivered the kids, and it was on school property.

The picture changes entirely when they do it the way my school does: Kids leave a little early on a bus to the church.

The plaintiff will win this one, which will make the kids leave the property in the future.

The school administration was fooling themselves to think this wouldn't be challenged one day.

I'm sure there are going to be religious supporters in the administration and school board in this town, and they're going to take this very very personally. They're going to feel they've been singled out, victimized and their rights restricted. But the plaintiff is right: It's his rights that were infringed when he was handed that pamphlet by school personnel during the school day.

[Solon]

62. OK, I'm a little mystified here, when I went to public school, as far as I'm aware of, the school...

wouldn't let kids out of school unless there was a valid medical reason, and I never heard of kids leaving early to go to church or for any religious instruction. I'm not exactly living in the most liberal area of the country either, nor the most secular, and most religious classes were scheduled well after school hours, I was myself sent to PSR(Parochial School of Religion) a Catholic program, and it was always scheduled around 5-6 PM in the evening, and on weekends(twice a week program). No need to leave Public School early in that case.

ON EDIT: For clarification, I was sent by my PARENTS, not the Public School, they had as little to do with each other as possible.

[whopis01]

76. You have really never heard of that?

A lot of school districts have shorter days on Wednesday. This was started to allow students to go to religious instruction that day. I know it is very common in New York and Florida (don't have much experience with other places)

[YvonneCa]

80. Perception. That's the problem. I am a teacher. Most districts in most ...

...states have an early day. Parents may think it's for religious instruction...or sports...or something else. Schools may have even told them that, so they wouldn't complain about the early day. But those days were set up for STAFF TRAINING. Period. BTW, teachers hate it too.

[Solon]

81. Nope, never heard of it, we'd have half days, but those were for parent-teacher conferences...

Or, as the other poster said, staff training. In addition, we never had it be weekly, usually it would happen once a month, maybe twice a month, but rarely more frequently than that. I'm in Missouri, and never heard of this, and why Wednesdays anyways?

[GinaMaria]

93. Never heard of it either

We had teacher institute days, but they were not weekly. My church coordinated a bus to pick up public school kids one day a week AFTER school for religeous instruction. I used to miss that bus a lot ;-)

[YvonneCa]

79. I completely agree. There is a huge misunderstanding...

...of the whole 'separation of church and state' thing. It is about the role of a school. Schools cannot promote one group over another.

[MajorChode]

159. Not only that, the school is really freewheeling down a slippery slope

Equal access insures other groups like Muslims, Wiccans, Rastafarians, Buddists, Vaishnavites, and even atheists are allowed the exact same access as the Christians. Then when a Wiccan dares to sermonize anywhere close to school property, which group do you think complains the loudest?

[YvonneCa]

161. I know. What defines a 'church' or a 'religion'? There is no ...

...universal agreement. So schools (and other government bodies), to be fair under the establishment clause, either must allow equal access to ALL...or make a decision not to accommodate ANY.

I think many people do not understand this. They think...when a school says a church can't hold a meeting on their property...that they are taking away their right to express their religion...or to free speech. They are only focusing on the 'free expression' clause of the First Amendment. That clause gives people the right to believe what they want...or not to believe, if they so choose.

But government bodies (federal, state, county, municipal, school boards) are bound by the 'establishment clause' as well. They can NOT appear to or actually support one religion or church over another. To do so, under law, is to make that religion or church the ESTABLISHED one. Our Constitution does not allow that.

[donco6]

75. These programs have been around for a long time.

Usually, though, they are taught off-campus. I knew of one school where the church would come in an RV-kinda thing. The kids who took the classes trooped out once a week while the bus sat just off-campus. It was about as disruptive as intermediate music classes where the kids have to go to the music room with 20 minutes of math left.

But these trailers are evidently on school grounds, and using school electricity. I've never heard of that.

[sarcasmo]

83. Religion pushing it's agenda, imagine.

[TankLV]

84. My family did that when I was in school - every Monday.

We were released to go to the local Catholic Church school for religious ed - since we were all Catholic and had to sign a release form, and it was VOLUNTARY and the SCHOOL DIDN'T PAY FOR IT, I don't see where the problem is!

I think my parents had to pay for the priveledge of Religious Ed...

The church school was a few blocks away - it took about a half hour to walk there...

If it was at the PUBLIC school, then it would be a problem.

But if the people want it, and it's at the local church, then it's NOT a problem, IMO.

Of course, my parents took me out of THAT Roman Catholic school so I could attend UKRAINIAN school on SATURDAYS for my "First Communion" - which really pissed off the Roman Catholic school! - The teacher - Mrs. GRIMM (I kid you not) punished the rest of the class because I was away!!! - but that's another story...).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Minnesota has (had?) a law allowing released time religious instruction

but not on school grounds. My classmates would leave about an hour early on Wednesday afternoons and walk to the church.

Only two churches (Catholic and Missouri Synod Lutheran) in town took advantage of this program. Mine and most of the others had classes AFTER school, which worked fine, so I never saw the point of it.

[RJ Connors]

112. And the fact there is a disclaimer in the front of the book which says

"The Bible is the true source of all knowledge and truth because it was written by God. The only people who do not understand this is godless heathens who are working for Satan.", should not be construed as supporting religion as it is just a statement that supports what is the truth.

[Torem]

114. Separation of Church and State

Some people in this country fail to realize that our Constitution forbids linking Church and State. Republicans, to be more specific.

[zelta gaisma]

145. i remember this type thing...

and if you don't go you get ostracized and picked on in some classes . In a different class you might be picked on if you DID go. can't win for loosing.

[KamaAina]

164. Best-known former Huntington, Ind. schoolchild? None other than J. Danforth Quayle.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

although, as an overprivileged rich kid, he likely went to private school.

edit: header