When Bible Study Is Controversial (Bible Study clubs in public schools)

[shawn703]

The recent battle to try to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance highlighted the perpetual struggle between those who want "God" banned from public schools altogether, and those who don't. CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson notes that one controversial mix of religion and public schools is student Bible clubs, which are said to be growing in popularity.

Attkisson spoke with 16-year old Kara Meeks of Salisbury, Maryland. She leads a teen Bible study group.

During the school year, the group meets on the public high school campus, once a week for about an hour. It meets elsewhere during the summer.

School Bible Clubs face constant court challenges, but they're perfectly legal - as long as they follow strict rules to maintain the constitutional separation between church and state, as Kara's group does.


more...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/31/eveningnews/main633260.shtml

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Bible Clubs nothing new

When I taught school in Southern Illinois twenty years ago, the Baptist preacher's wife had a Bible Club after school. She was also a teacher, but no one questioned that it was ok for her to do this. As I recall, the club was pictured in the yearbook. (This was an elementary school, btw). The teacher was always asking me if I was 'saved', which bugged the tar out of me, as I was active in a different church at the time. One good thing about it, though-the principal couldn't say anything if I told the kids about other faiths as we studied world cultures.

[qanda]

2. What's wrong with having a Bible study club?

Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

[leesa]

4. Nothing. As long as I would be allowed to have an atheists club, or

the local coven could have there meetings there as well. How about Shite Muslims meeting there?

[Frodo]

5. If the "local coven" is made up of HS students and has a teacher sponsor..

...they can't stop them.

[qanda]

8. I totally agree with you

This may be a first :toast:

[Occulus]

11. Shiite nt

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Or maybe a nice chapter of the NeoCon Youth Corps...

...they could wear uniforms with tan shirts, suspenders and arm bands with the soon to be designed NeoCon insignia.

They could probably meet together with the Evangelical Christian church clubs and save a lot of time coordinating activities.

[thomas82]

62. LOL!!

n/t

[0007]

14. Nothing wrong with a bible study club as long as it isn't using

public facilities and the taxpayers aren't paying the light bill.

[Baltimoreboy]

19. Public facilities mean the public gets to use them

And ANY club can do so.

[salin]

25. agreed - I think more of the issue

is financial sponsorship (which these don't require - so no public dollar issue) and voluntary nature. Things get confused if/when students are required to attend, or there is coersion to attend/particpate even if it is not officially mandated.

[thomas82]

61. agreed

let the kids read the bible.
Tom

[Bronco69]

3. The bible has been studied for how many years?

Shouldn't they have it down by now?

[LiberalFighter]

18. On a late show last nite...

They made fun of gw* reading the Bible.
Asking why he hasn't finished reading it yet.
Guy said that he had read over 3 novels since gw* been in office.

[jdj]

53. that's hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle.

Down here in the South there are FCA (fellowship of Christian Athletes) chapters in every school and have been for years.

[JVS]

76. Our country is over 200 years old.

Clearly we're too old to still be in school. Therefore I propose the closure of school.

[SoCalDem]

6. When did all the churches close?? Did I miss it?? Was it in the news??

Bible study/catechism classes belong THERE...not in a public school..

Public schools need ...

photography clubs
math clubs
debate clubs
spanish/german/french clubs
drama clubs


Unless the churches have all closed, there is no need for bible clubs at school

[WindRavenX]

7. disagree- if the kids want a bible club, they should have it

It's not being "taught", it's an extracurricular activity that's out of the way. If the kids want it, they should be allowed to have a Bible study class.
This coming from an atheist.

[Dookus]

13. agreed

I'm an atheist and a staunch separationist. But I see nothing wrong with such clubs, provided they follow the same rules as other clubs, and that secular clubs or non-christian clubs are also allowed.


Outside regular school hours, the public schools are a taxpayer funded resource that should be used by the community.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Tax monies are being used for this purpose

By utilizing the facility
By utilizing the instructor who is the sponsor for legal purposes.
By utilizing janitorial and/or security services.

It is the parishioners that are financially responsible for providing the religious education. Not the public.

I for one and I am sure everyone expects the government to watch every penny that they spend. I find it intolerable for the government to tax me and everyone else so that religous classes are conducted by religous organizations that are contrary to my belief.

The government or religious organizations have no right to dictate what my beliefs are or to have it offered in a government setting.

[Frodo]

23. Not really

And if they WERE, they're tax monies paid by the families who have those kids in school as much as the rest of us.

Will the mortgage cost go up for having a meeting there? If no (and it IS "no"), then there is no expense.

Does the instructor get paid for the after-school activity? If no (and it IS "no"), then there is no expense.

Do the security/janitorial staff have to be there anyway? If yes (and it IS "yes"), then there is no expense.

I doubt there's even an extra electric bill to be paid since the lights are on while students are in the building.

It's well established - if any non-academic clubs (key club, etc) get to meet on school property - ANY student organization can.

[LiberalFighter]

40. It is no different back in the early days...

when taxpayers were paying for ministers and churches in their community. It didn't make any difference if you were a member of the church that did not receive assessment monies that other churches did. In many cases if you didn't attend church you were fined. People were moving out west to the boonies to escape ministers and churches. Except now we can't escape like they did.

Jefferson and Madison were responsible for eliminating the church taxes prior to the Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. And the Virginia constitution was a model on the religious freedom.

Why is it necessary for bible classes to be held in a government setting? There is no legitimate reason to do so. Put it back in the church where it belongs!! The schools are not there to include religious classes. The schools are not there to lead prayers directly or indirectly.

The religious organizations should and must be responsible financially for their place of worship. If their members don't want to provide the finances then they should fold up.

I don't want my kids to feel intimidated by a religious influence in the school. They are there to learn school subjects NOT religion!!

[Frodo]

49. Again - you mistake "bible study" for "bible classes"

An after school club where like-minded students get together for their prefered social activity is NOT a government sponsored "religious classes". Nor is it "government led prayers"

How can you not run afoul of the constitution ("free exercise of religion" remember?) if the only club that CAN'T meet after school is a religious one?

The existence of a debate club does not intimidate your kids, nor does a keyette club or a poetry reading club or a D&D club or a Young Democrats club.

[LiberalFighter]

52. Bible study is the same as bible classes!!!!

[Frodo]

64. Nope. Not even close.

You've obviously never been to one.

[Baltimoreboy]

24. You can't discriminate AGAINST religion either

So if you forbid religious clubs, you must forbid ALL clubs.

Who suffers then?

[Swamp Rat]

34. Well I'll be! How hypocritical of you Baltimoreboy!

You were just telling me in another thread that I should be *deservedly* locked away for promoting another religion in school!

How AMERICAN is that Baltimoreboy?!

[Baltimoreboy]

36. It's not IN school, it's AFTER school

You and I could form a club and get access to the facilities as well. After school, it becomes a public building.

[Swamp Rat]

56. ... not for promoting one's faith.

[Frodo]

66. Yes actually. For promoting one's faith.

You can't say "'free speech' as long as it isn't religious speech"

[Swamp Rat]

71. Then one can sue based on discrimination.

Discrimination can be proven and it has.

[LiberalFighter]

41. It is not discrimination if religous clubs are not permitted.

It does not promote or prohibit one from worshipping their faith.

The other clubs are not religious in nature and they do not promote one religion over another or all religions.

It is unconstitutional if a government facility is used in any way for religous purposes. Even if the facility is leased from a private entity.

[Baltimoreboy]

43. Of course it is discrimination

You are discriminating against them because they are religious. If clubs are allowed, religious clubs must be allowed.

These are private clubs making use of a public building. If I wanted to have a DU meeting, I could do that too.

[Swamp Rat]

59. Thank you LiberalFighter, that's all I'm trying to say.

You know, I think Robert C. Byrd is smart to carry around a pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution, just for occasions like this.

[mrbassman03]

30. of course

As long as there is NO restriction on a Buddhist club, or Wicca, or the like... though school officials might not be so keen on some of the more pagan clubs that might spring up...

[Judi Lynn]

12. Absolutely right. What could be clearer? Half-wits. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

20. I agree!!

Bible study belongs only in the church or home!!!

The students should request the use of their church for that purpose. Why aren't they able to meet at their church? Why would anyone want someone from another religion or church to be in charge of a Bible study? If I was the minister I would seriously frown on such a gathering.

When I attended school Catechism classes were held Saturdays for those attending public school and during the day for those attending the parochial school. If those students absolutely must have bible classes then they should be enrolled in parochial school.

It is irresponsible to utilize a public place for religious purposes. Any utilization of the public school for religious activities takes away from the purpose of the public school. And in all liklihood results in the students failing to attain the standards set and to compete in the world market.

As far as I am concerned they want to utilize public schools so that they can endoctrinate students that they would normally never reach.

[Baltimoreboy]

21. Clubs are for after school

and not all children have transportation to get them to a bible class.

[LiberalFighter]

42. That is not the responsibility of the government to supply transportation

for that purpose.

It is the responsibility of the parents to supply transportation that is not for the express purpose of the school. And if the church members feel so strongly about getting those kids to a bible class then they should foot the cost themselves.

[atreides1]

75. It's Not The Responsibility

Of the government to provide health care either, but not to many people seem to have a problem when they do.

[Frodo]

27. A couple of your posts show a misunderstanding of what a "bible study" is.

It isn't a church service or an indoctrination or a "class".

The first Bible printed in english in the US was printed BY the Congress for the express use of the public schools. This was right after the ratification of the Constitution and by the same men (by and large) who wrote the document. There is no correct interpretation of the Constitution which can say bibles should not be in a school.

Nor, for that matter, is there a correct interpretation which says the Koran (or scripture inserted here) should not be there either.

[LiberalFighter]

45. Where do you get your facts?

1782 Aitken Bible - The first Bible printed in English in America.

The 1st Session of Congress was from 1789-1791

New Hampshire
John Langdon x
Nicholas Gilman x
Massachusetts
Rufus King x
Nathaniel Gorham x
Connecticut
Roger Sherman x
William Samuel Johnson x
New York
Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey
William Livingston
David Brearley
William Paterson x
Jonathan Dayton
Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robert Morris x
George Clymer x
Thomas FitzSimons x
Jared Ingersoll
Gouverneur Morris x
James Wilson
Delaware
George Read x
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett x
Jacob Broom
Maryland
James McHenry
Daniel Carroll x
Dan of St. Thomas Jenifer
Virginia
John Blair
James Madison, Jr. x
North Carolina
William Blount
Richard Dobbs Spaight
Hugh Williamson x
South Carolina
John Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler x
Georgia
William Few x
Abraham Baldwin x

That is 19 out of 38 were members of the 1st Congress that had 91 members

65 were Representatives
26 were Senators

As for the differences... bible class is the study of one's religion. It is a class!! It is indoctrination because it is intended to reaffirm beliefs as accepted by the church.

[Frodo]

67. Apperently from more than a Google search.

Your own post should answer your question. The "first session of congress" began in 1789 (the list you gave). Yet the bible was printed in 1782.

Now where's the hole in that logic? (hint: it isn't that congress didn't print that bible)

We'll leave it as an exercise for the student.


And "bible class" WOULD be a "class" (and could still be constitutional if offered as an elective without prostlytizing content - but I admit that's a tougher argument). A bible study however is NOT. Again, you've obviously never been to one.

[JVS]

77. They're too busy hosting AA meetings

[PurityOfEssence]

9. The courts upheld putting religious flyers in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL kids' bags

I remember a while back when Ashcroft filed an Amicus Brief in a case in Maryland where Christian proselytes were putting flyers for a Christian group in the cubbyholes and backpacks of grade school kids on public school property. According to this report, their "right" to do so has been upheld.

How would they feel if I put something their kids' stuff?

[Blue Gardener]

15. Trying to recruit elementary school children

Should NOT be allowed. It is the parents right to provide the religious education of their children, not some fundie nutjobs. If I had a child that brought garbage like ths home I would be livid!

[LiberalFighter]

47. Same here...

I would be making a big issue about it both to their worthless minister, the mayor, the school board, the superintendent and the media.

[Grins]

16. Funny you should mention it...

In YESTERDAY'S Washington Post (front page):

"The Montgomery County Board of Education voted Thursday night to ban religious clubs, the Boy Scouts and other community organizations from distributing fliers in student backpacks, a move those groups say will cripple their recruitment efforts. The new policy, approved by a 7 to 1 vote, is the latest attempt by the school system to prevent the Good News Club, an after-school Bible group, from having its recruitment fliers placed in backpacks along with other informational material for students and their parents.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, ruled last month that the Montgomery school system violated the Christian group's free speech rights three years ago when it refused to distribute the club's fliers to elementary school students, even though it had done so for more than 200 other groups.

"School board members said they hope the new policy -- which will allow PTAs, government agencies, student groups, day-care centers, nonprofit sports leagues and the school system to continue disseminating fliers -- will pass legal muster. The school system plans to file papers with the appeals court Monday arguing that the new policy makes the court's prior decision moot, said Judith Bresler, the school board's general counsel."

Two other comments from board members:

""I don't know how we got into being the Pony Express for all organizations," O'Neill said. "We could create a situation where our kids are pack mules."

"I find this to be the only way to deal with the decision of the court," said board Vice President Patricia O'Neill (Bethesda-Chevy Chase). "This is the only way to keep out proselytizing pieces of literature."

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28685-2004Jul30.html>

[LiberalFighter]

46. I would file a lawsuit for invasion of privacy

It is no different when addresses and phone numbers of students are private and cannot be disclosed.

By the way... Aschroft is a POS

[rpannier]

10. About your picture...

Charm and Wit????? shrub and croney??? I think not!!!

[Malva Zebrina]

17. as an atheist it always strikes me odd that this god must rely upon

human beings to sell him.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Ha! They wanna play hardball? Then I'm gonna bring copperheads, rattlers

and cottonmouths to school for biblical show-and-tell. How about a "Holy Ghost" revival on campus with hip-slappin' music, poisonous snakes and speakin' in tongues?

Grok dog

[Baltimoreboy]

28. Public safety issues would still apply

And you would be, deservedly, locked away.

[Swamp Rat]

33. So I can't pactice MY religion right? Only YOU can.

Hell, if the snake bites ya Baltimoreboy, dat's YOUR fault 'cause you be a SINNER!

To me, Christians practicing religion in public schools is the same as me throwing poisionous snakes at you in your church. Got it?

[Baltimoreboy]

38. Of course you can practice your religion

If you go ahead and get the permits for dangerous animals and such, you could probably bring them, depending on the jurisdictional regulations on deadly reptiles.

After school, the building is just that, a building. ANY public group can make use of the classrooms. Got it?

[Swamp Rat]

58. No, you did NOT get it. I was joking around as usual, trying to help you.

My little analogy was meant to point out that religion cannot be practiced in a public school building before, during, and after school hours. Don't take my word for it. Call Nadine Strossen, the President of the ACLU, and ask her if this is Constitutional or not.

I'd bet you that it would be a lot easier for me to get a permit to bring poisonous snakes into a classroom than it would be to get a permit to read "The Bible." One might get away with reading religious texts if nobody is offended, but if I were there, I'd demand a full reading of "Al-Qur'an", the "Bhagavad-Gita" and a hundred other religious texts.

[Frodo]

69. Wrong on all points.

The ACLU has no problem with a religious use of school buildings (OUTSIDE of school hours).

If they did, the ten's of thousands of churches who use public schools every week would have been sued decades ago.

In fact - from the ACLU's own webstie:

Student religious clubs in secondary schools must be permitted to meet and to have equal access to campus media to announce their meetings, if a school receives federal funds and permits any student non-curricular club to meet during non-instructional time. (emphasis mine)

And -

The Establishment Clause issues are quite different where a school district wishes to make its facilities available for use by student or community groups during non-school hours. In such cases, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit opening the school's facilities to religious groups -- provided no elements of school sponsorship or endorsement are present.

Indeed, once the school district opens its facilities for use by students or members of the community during non-school hours, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment requires that the school district not discriminate based on the point of view of groups seeking access to those facilities. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985); Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983).

The ACLU defends our constitutional protections. That doesn't mean they agree with YOUR interpretation of those protections. Where the constitution is clear (as it is here) they defend those on the right or left.

They are just as concerned about governmental restrictions on the free excercise of religion (and on free speech) as they are concerned about seperation of church and state.

[Swamp Rat]

70. You left out this part

"Although schools have the right to ban all non-curriculum clubs, they may not dodge the law's requirement by the expedient of declaring all clubs curriculum-related. On the other hand, teachers may not actively participate in club activities and "non-school persons" may not control or regularly attend club meeting."

So perhaps STUDENTS may have their little club, but if it is on campus it will be highly regulated... damn near impossible if you ask me. Why not have club meetings in a church or home? Strossen was pretty clear about the Equal Access Act when we spoke and explained how easy it would be to sue the group. If one student dislikes ANYTHING done or said in a religious club they can be sued. This Equal Access Act may not hold up in years to come, depending on where our government is headed.

"Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment requires that the school district not discriminate based on the point of view"

My point of view is that they DO NOT BELONG in a building I paid for with my tax dollars. All I have to do is show up and complain about what they say in the meeting. If they persist, I can sue them... and I would. Isn't it funny how this works? I could demand that a given group stop their hateful religious practices on public property... I'll let you in on a secret, this really works.

You must also remember that amendments can be struck down, and if I EVER have anything to do with it THIS one will... though, I do think all religions should be taught - yes in public schools - from a relativist/historical perspective. You say my interpretations are not in agreement? That depends on who and where the law suit is taking place. Well, the ACLU is ready to defend me whenever I decide to sue a religious club for discrimination. My view is that these religious clubs are discriminatory by nature and I am actively doing something about it... and succeeding.

[Baltimoreboy]

80. Go ahead and try

You will be violating THEIR rights and if you intrude, you can be arrested.

[Swamp Rat]

81. Nope. I already won.

And I will NEVER stop.

[Baltimoreboy]

82. That is until someone stops you for intruding into their club

Or arrests you for trespassing. Or you get in a fight with someone as you continually harass them. etc.

[Swamp Rat]

85. I don't think you are understand this at all.

So, just keep your religion away from me. Got it? ... No, I didn't think you would. I am used to religious people intruding on my privacy but it doesn't mean I will ever give up the fight for my freedom from it. I do expect we shall be rid of the yoke of religion one day, but it will take a lot of education and deprogramming. Look to Norway for our future, when religion will be a historical afterthought.

[Joanne98]

29. Why don't the little nazis do bible study in their churches?

Is there a church shortage I don't know about?

[Frodo]

32. You can only do a bible study with someone who goes to your church?

Not some of your friends from school?

Also - refering to believers as a whole as "nazis" is REALLY going to improve the party's image... don't you think?

[LiberalFighter]

48. Then they should invite their friends to their church's bible study

[Frodo]

50. And they say conservatives are the intolerant ones.

The Supreme Court has ruled over and over again on the issue. Free Speech doesn't mean "as long as it isn't religious in nature" and forbidding just that one type of club constitutes prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I'm sure it will further shock and offend you that the first building almost every start-up church uses is a public school. Yes, probably every Sunday there's some group of Christians holding religious services in the building your kid goes to school in. It's a public building and it can be used by religious groups under the same rules as non-religious. Just like our local symphony rents the same space on some evenings for performances.


Here's a lesson for you. Why do African Americans vote 90% Democratic? Surely, the positions of the two parties would imply a healthy majority of support, but 9-1??? Take a poll of African Americans and you will find that they are MORE conservative then Democrats in general on a number of issues (ranging from religion to school vouchers to abortion to "faith-based" initiatives and certain family-friendly tax policies) and yet they don't vote republican in any great numbers? Why? It's really rather simple, most African Americans don't believe that Conservatives respect them. That there is a congenital bias against people of color within that party.

Positions like yours are going to turn away a HUGE number of Democrats who agree with you on a host of issues... but don't like to be refereed to a "nazis" for believing in God.

[LiberalFighter]

51. EXCUSE ME... I didn't make any reference to Nazi's

And for the Supreme Court... just because the SC rules continously one way does not make it constitutional. There have been many times that they have been wrong just as the what you described.

And just because it is being done does not make it constitutional.

AND I am not being intolerant by standing up and supporting the separation of church and state. I am not being intolerant of having religous organizations using government facilities. I am not being intolerant of religious organizations invading schools for the purpose of forcing their beliefs on the students.

I am tolerant of people practicing their religion in their own church and in their own homes. I am tolerant of people praying before and after their meals in restaurants or athletes praying before they participate (as long as a minister is not involved and each athlete does it on their own). A good example is a wrestler doing the sign of the cross before they blow the whistle. I am tolerant of those praying in times of emotional stress and disaster. I am tolerant of those attending church on a regular basis, irregular basis or not all.

[Frodo]

65. Riiiight. That kind of tolerance we do not need.

What if you were "tolerant" of gays as long as they keep it in their own homes? Don't bring it in to the workplace (asking for benefits and such), and DON'T ask us to publicly accept a "marriage"???

What if you were "tolerant" of blacks as long as they stayed in the "designated" (read "slum") areas?




Real tolerant.

I'll say it again. The men who WROTE the constitution had bible studies in schools. The Federal Government bought and paid for bibles to be used in those schools. The same men who wrote the document. There is no possibly interpretation of the Constitution that could say that this kind of bible study is unconstitutional (though some described on this thread WOULD be). Heck, it's even constitutional to have a bible based CLASS in a public school (bible as literature for instance) as long as it's an elective. But we needn't argue that one.

Shouting "separation of church and state" (the implied language of PART of the 1st Amendment) cannot trump "free exercise of religion" (the actual words in the document, not an implication).

You can't say "yes you have the right to 'practice' your religion as long as you confine it to this one building."

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

31. "The Good News Club",,we had one in the 1970s....

They met after school, had a faculty sponsor, and they where in the yearbook.
& I was friends with some of the members.

I have No problem at all with this.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. I thought churches provided the environment for Bible study...

...in a tax-free environment? What is driving this need to use public school space supported by the taxpayers?

[progressivebydesign]

37. My experience with "harmless little bible studies" in school.

My stepdaughter attended a public elementary school in California a few years ago. The school had a HUGE population of evangelical kids. The main push of the kids and their families, appeared to be trying to make the school as close to a Christian private school as possible. Every book report was on either The Bible, or a Left Behind Book. Every answer to the essay question, where would you like to visit? would be "heaven". Every hero essay? Jesus. Extremely Christian songs were sung at the holiday concerts, etc.

One of the teachers at the school was also a Sunday teacher at an evangelical church. She, and some of the parents, started a bible studdy group at the school 2 to 3 times a week, during lunch. The bible study was advertised in the school newsletter, the teacher came to the study and passed out bibles, the parents used the office to run off copies of things for the study group...

The kids that didn't attend were badgered as to why they didn't want to. The kids used to get in arguments at school over who was more religious. It was a nightmare. They skirted every law about bible study at school, and even though some teachers and parents complained, nothing was done. "It's up to the Principal" to decide what does and doesn't happen at the school. These kids can meet on their own time.. they can LIVE without studying the bible during a school day. BETTER yet? They can send their kids to private school, if that's what they'd like.

[customerserviceguy]

44. Interesting

You couldn't find some news media (even from a nearby larger city) to cover this? In my experience, most serious newspeople would eat this up. Put the thumpers on the defensive.

Sounds like your experience was an extreme one that should have been cleared up by exposing it to the light. More often than not, bible clubs are just another boring little group. Trying to rid the schools of them brings out the fundamentalists big time, so its best to just ignore them. Also, if agnostics or wiccans wanted to have a club, they'd have to be granted the right to do so under the same rules. The news media also loves to make fundies look like the hypocrites that the most vocal among them are.

[rman]

54. are you sure this isn't about keeping creationism out of science class?

-

[kiahzero]

55. To everyone attacking religious groups

Don't ever complain about the Right not respecting the Constitution... it's clear you don't, either.

This really isn't a complex issue: if secular clubs are allowed, religious clubs must be as well, under the same regulations. Similarly, if religious clubs are allowed, secular clubs must be allowed, under the same regulations. Nobody's club is banned specifically because it is or is not religious.

[Frodo]

68. Exactly!

OR, more appropriately... "Amen!"

[Kinkistyle]

57. Allow Atheist Clubs, Koran Study groups and Wiccan Covens!

If they also allow clubs for other religions then I have no problem with Bible study clubs

[shanti]

60. growing up in southern california

in the sixties...i remember "released time christian education", during grade school. we considered it fun as we got out of class and we were given treats and such. it was held in a trailer brought in just for the purpose, a traveling church.

wow, that was an old memory!

(on edit)

good grief! i looked this up and found this:

http://www.rtce.org/html/Index.cfm

it's been around since the forties!

[Egalitarian]

63. This is wrong and here's a new legal challenge to try

For instance, I live in an area with a huge percentage of conservative Christians. Probably we have after school bible study clubs here right now-I'm not sure. Let's say I decide I'd like to start a "The truly religious have no religion" club at my local high school. I would not have equal access to these kids to push my cause. I would need a current teacher willing to sponsor the club. This teacher would likely risk their career within the local school system and suffer the wrath of the local community by becoming said sponsor. This is therefore not an equitable rule. It favors the formation of clubs which are socially/politially powerful. It disenfranchises students who would wish to form a socially/politically unpopular club.

Within the requirement that a government employee be present (even at an unpaid capacity) one cross' the line between separation of church and state.

Get rid of the requirement for the government employee's presence and you are within the rule of law IMO, but I'm no lawyer. Any thoughts on my logic?

[knitter4democracy]

73. It does make sense, but . . .

the kids can get together unofficially without the teacher moderator as well. We did in high school--a few of us Christians got together weekly before school in the library for Bible study and prayer. We did it to help us get through the day, since we were often under attack as being conservative Christians (no dancing, no drugs, no drinking, no smoking, no card playing, no movies of R rating or higher, dress modestly, watch what you say, don't be judgemental of others but pray instead for more faith, stuff like that). I had kids throw stuff at me in the hallway, melt the lock on my locker, trash my locker frequently, and I had a teacher say that I had to stay and watch an un-rated movie (sponsored by Playboy) or face expulsion from the Honors classes. After I turned her in, she made the entire class debate me (and me alone) on why we needed to watch that particular movie. Finally, my best friend helped defend me but the teacher tried to make me miserable for weeks. All of this was in a politically conservative area where Christians supposedly are the majority.

I would say that they should send their kids to Christian schools, but the parents do pay taxes like everyone else, and those kids have the right to peacefully assemble and speak freely. If you want a different group for your child, start asking around. You'd be suprised how many different faiths the teaching staff often represents.

[Swamp Rat]

74. Well, it may happen if Bush&Co have their way.

This country will then be on its way to the Christian theocracy that Scalia dreams about. If that happens, I will leave this country for good. In the mean time, I will fight tooth and nail against ANY religious group that enters my school. On the other hand, I'd like courses on comparative religion taught.

I'm confident that Christianity will die out, morph into something else, or become very insignificant after a while as more immigrants of other faiths come and more people become educated about the origins of religion.

[Swamp Rat]

72. These Bible Study clubs in public schools can be defeated.

Attend a few meetings, then just sue them for discrimination - it really works. The religious folks will learn soon enough that church and private schools are much better places for religion.

[Solon]

78. I don't understand your objection to Bible Study groups after school...

This is no different than allowing students to pray during lunch or before school. Hell there are Atheist Bible Study clubs in schools as well, should they be banned?

[Swamp Rat]

79. Never heard of "Atheist Bible Study clubs" before... that's strange.

And yes, if it is a group that is dedicated to discriminating against Christians I'd go after them too.

Solon, I'm glad that Americans can choose their religion. I fully support that and would defend Christians if they were REALLY being persecuted. I just don't want it in my school unless it is equally balanced with other perspectives. So far, the only place I can find this situation is in an anthro grad course.

Why can't people keep their religion out of MY life? Why must folks daily shove their religion in my face, but I am not allowed to complain? How about we remove the act of swearing on the Christian Bible and replace it with the Al-Qur'an?

I have always felt that having prayers in the classroom and school was wrong. When I went to a Catholic high school, I was irritated but understood why it was appropriate... then I left the next year. When folks say prayers (that are religion specific) when I'm getting ready to eat, I feel the infernal fire of discrimination.

[cmkramer]

83. Clinton Administration

I worked for a state education department during the Clinton Administration and I remember when the rules came down from the feds. Basically, you're allowed to have Bible/religious clubs in school just as long as there's no attempt at prosletyzing and Bible clubs must be treated like any other school club. If the kids in the Chess Club or the Future Homemakers of America are allowed to go on field trips related to their club, so are the Bible Club kids. However, if they aren't, the Bible Club kids aren't either. By the way, the same rules apply to any other religious clubs.

I remember telling a nun at my Catholic grade school that I supported the idea of no prayers in public schools although they are perfectly appropriate in religious schools. Anyway, we decided to have a class debate about it and it turned out that about half the class were skeptical about a lot of Christian dogma including the Virgin Birth. Even the nun in the class pointed out that the word "virgin" could easily just mean "young girl" and not necessarily "someone who has not experienced sex yet".

[shawn703]

84. Virgin in the Bible

There's no way to prove definitively whether or not the word "parthenos" means virgin as a young married woman or as a sexually pure person. That's where faith comes in in determinining which is true.

However, here's why I think it means a sexually pure person in this context.

The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 says “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”

1. A young married woman bearing a son is hardly something that could be taken as a sign from God, but a sexually pure woman conceiving is something that could be seen as a sign.

2. The word used in the Old Testament is "almah" which is never used as "young married woman" in the Old Testament, always of someone who is a virgin.

3. If Matthew were to claim Jesus' birth is fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, he'd know what Isaiah's prophesy was.

Also Luke (a physician) notes in Luke 1:34-35:

And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.


Of course, you could argue that Matthew didn't understand the prophecy, stuff was made up, etc., but I'm pretty sure the authors of those verses meant to show that Mary was sexually pure when she conceived.