prayer in school

[jakobmuller]

I am writing a pro/con paper on the "prayer in school" issue .

I wanted to get some of y'all's views on it since I need a well-rounded paper with both sides of the issue represented equally, not to mention that I have always been curious in the first place.

I want to make sure I do justice to both sides in the paper, even though in the last part of the paper I have to choose a side and defend it.

I am going to defend the separationist side, and say that school and religion should be kept apart, since they'll both benefit that way. Just like Thomas Jefferson said.

Opinions?
Agreements, Disagreements?

thanks

[K.M Roberston]

Well it really depends. If it's a Catholic school (states the religion of the school in the title) then yes, because being a Catholic school we are trying to teach the students of their religion, and a great way to do that it to pray together. It much easier if the school is of one religion, than there's not so much conflict. But if it's a public school, than maybe not because there are so many different religions mixed together that it may offend one or the other. But students should still be able to express their religious views openly in school.

[Carrolb2]

The 1st Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. Praying in a public school would not allow for free exercise of religion (or lack thereof) and would be unconstitutional. Private schools can do whatever. Allowing a particular religion to hold services on school property can easily be interpreted as government endorsement of that religion which is a big "no-no" under the constitution. The point of our government is not only to follow the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. If 99% of a school follows one religious belief, there will always be at least one kid that does not. Kids have enough problems dealing with group acceptance in school (especially middle/high school) and having something like group prayer that will inevitably leave kids out of the majority doesn't help them fit in any better. Another argument that I would make is that schools are there for children to learn. Our public schools are under funded enough as it is and American kids need all the help they can get (especially in math and science). Time spent praying is time that could be better spent increasing those test scores.

[JBI]

What pros are there other than alienating the non-believer? What is gained by praying that requires a school atmosphere? If praying means anything to the prayer, then they would already have their fix praying at home, if it doesn't, that it is merely a waste of tax dollars.


The only way to justify this is to assume a religious truth, and therefore argue that if people are made to pray in school, their souls will be more likely to be saved. Good luck arguing that.

As for other possible arguments for - a sense of community established, and a sense of spirituality - couldn't one better spend the time actually doing community activities, and what is spiritualism, and why is it dependent on religion?

I don't particularly see any use in praying, so all I can conclude is that if you pray in school on tax payer dollars, you are wasting tax payer dollars.

[Rorshach69]

I am writing a pro/con paper on the "prayer in school" issue .

I wanted to get some of y'all's views on it since I need a well-rounded paper with both sides of the issue represented equally, not to mention that I have always been curious in the first place.

I want to make sure I do justice to both sides in the paper, even though in the last part of the paper I have to choose a side and defend it.

I am going to defend the separationist side, and say that school and religion should be kept apart, since they'll both benefit that way. Just like Thomas Jefferson said.

Opinions?
Agreements, Disagreements?

thanks

How
long is the paper?

[TheSadist]

I don't see anything wrong with it, personally speaking. Everyone is free to exercise their religion... In fact i think it's good since it could give exposure to another person who is a follower of another religion. Maybe it's far fetched but it could be the base of relieving the religion tension that has become quite the issue nowadays

[Rorshach69]

I don't see anything wrong with it, personally speaking. Everyone is free to exercise their religion... In fact i think it's good since it could give exposure to another person who is a follower of another religion. Maybe it's far fetched but it could be the base of relieving the religion tension that has become quite the issue nowadays

If only it worked that way, Religion is a fickle thing because one belief always tramples all over the other. So the only thing that a kid is going to kid out of the thing is "Man they think what i believe is wrong." Which will either cause the kid to doubt his own faith, or follow one that is probably just as ridiculous.

[Lynne Fees]

The 1st Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. Praying in a public school would not allow for free exercise of religion (or lack thereof) and would be unconstitutional. Private schools can do whatever. Allowing a particular religion to hold services on school property can easily be interpreted as government endorsement of that religion which is a big "no-no" under the constitution. The point of our government is not only to follow the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. If 99% of a school follows one religious belief, there will always be at least one kid that does not. Kids have enough problems dealing with group acceptance in school (especially middle/high school) and having something like group prayer that will inevitably leave kids out of the majority doesn't help them fit in any better. Another argument that I would make is that schools are there for children to learn. Our public schools are under funded enough as it is and American kids need all the help they can get (especially in math and science). Time spent praying is time that could be better spent increasing those test scores.


The First Amendment provides that the government will not "establish" a religion. This meant that we would not have, for instance, a "Church of the United States," as England had a "Church of England." The founding fathers and mothers clearly saw teaching the Bible as part and parcel of a well-rounded education.

The First Amendment also provides for freedom of religion. This means that we all have a right to exercise our religion. I would propound that it especially means we can exercise religion on "government" property. Therefore, if any student wishes to pray or have a Bible study, the fact that this occurs on "government" property does not "establish" religion. This is a fallacy that is too often taken as true.

Now, as far as prayer in the public schools. I have the advantage of going to grade school when it was okay to teach the children that the Pilgrims came to America to find religious freedom, and that the Pilgrims were Christians. Since this is historic fact, I have a big problem with the way public school skirts the issue now.

As far as prayer, I think reminding the children that God is there and He cares about them would be a nice thing. It might also help discipline, as right and wrong and a healthy respect for authority are all concepts set out by God in the first place.

[kiki1982]

I was in a Catholic primary and secondary school because in Belgium state education is of a low quality.

The primary school was maybe more 'convinced'. We regularly went to church and said prayer every day, although that decreased as we got older.

The secondary school was Catholic but it was not so 'convinced' as the primary one. As I recall, we never said prayers in six years, we went to church maybe twice a year (?) and we got taught Darwin (only!) in Biology and philosphy and other religions in Religious Education. Of course we got taught the Creation story, but from a philosophical point of view (the free will and what not).

I am happy I was taught to pray. I hardly do it now, and differently than I was taught if I do, but one cannot practice without learning. If you want children to learn arithmetic, you'll need to have them practice. I was taught there was soemthing useful in that book, that there was something useful in prayers and that church could be fun. In that I started to apreciate it.

I suppose they didn't try to 'force' religion on secondary school pupils because it doesn't work. You had to sit through two services a year and that was it. If you weren't interested you didn't listen (one might not be bodily free, but one is free in one's head). It didn't do me any harm and my parents dragged me to church until I was 18 every week. It didn't indoctrinate me because I never go now, but it gives me ease when I do have to go. I know what to say, what to do, how and when. It is not a job, it's a second nature.

I would like my children to at least know what they leave behind. I would like them to go to church, to learn to pray and know what it is about. Believing is their own choice, but they'll at least know where to go, how to go about it, and how it is built up.

But what I do believe is that in schools there should not be made any religious arguments against scientific fact, like against Darwin. In that, school and education should not be mixed beause it is a danger to humanity.

[JBI]

I'm in Canada though. There are many cultures, many religions, many backgrounds, and many different people and views. How could one possibly have prayer in schools without breaching the policy of multiculturalism that is the foundation of Canadian society. For a religious school, it makes no difference, since you are assumed to be a believer in that before you are enrolled, but for a public school? there used to be prayers and religious teaching, before, for Ontario, a Baha'i family protested, as their child was being taught she was going to hell for not being baptized or believing in Christ the Savior. The fact that any child would have to learn that is, to me, revolting.

[Sk8ynat]

This whole topic is very odd to me. I'm from New Zealand, I go to a public secular school but we have a school prayer that we regularly say in assembles and hymns that we sing. We also have a Christian group that meets weekly at lunchtimes. I'm assuming your paper is only on American schools so my opinion may not be much help but I'll say it anyway! ;)

I am a Christian and I pray all the time! I see prayer as a personal thing, there's no point in making someone pray if they don't believe it's doing any good.
But you can't ban prayer, that's ridiculous, it's like telling someone you can't talk to God while they're in school. I find school really hard and prayer is often my only way to get through it. I've had many of my friends asking me to pray for them at school when they're worried about an exam or something like that. And our school Christian group is a huge lifeline for me too, being able to hang out and pray with other Christians in the middle of the school week is awesome.

So I guess you can ban prayer in schools, but you can't stop it.

[jakobmuller]

The First Amendment provides that the government will not "establish" a religion. This meant that we would not have, for instance, a "Church of the United States," as England had a "Church of England." The founding fathers and mothers clearly saw teaching the Bible as part and parcel of a well-rounded education.

The First Amendment also provides for freedom of religion. This means that we all have a right to exercise our religion. I would propound that it especially means we can exercise religion on "government" property. Therefore, if any student wishes to pray or have a Bible study, the fact that this occurs on "government" property does not "establish" religion. This is a fallacy that is too often taken as true.

Now, as far as prayer in the public schools. I have the advantage of going to grade school when it was okay to teach the children that the Pilgrims came to America to find religious freedom, and that the Pilgrims were Christians. Since this is historic fact, I have a big problem with the way public school skirts the issue now.

As far as prayer, I think reminding the children that God is there and He cares about them would be a nice thing. It might also help discipline, as right and wrong and a healthy respect for authority are all concepts set out by God in the first place.

i know that i was taught that the pilgrims came here for religious freedom. How else could they teach it? That's got nothing to do with schools supporting prayer. they have no reason to skirt it.

Once again, you think it would be nice to tell the children to be told that God is there and that He loves them. Ok. That's all fine and dandy for the religious people, but what about the kids who have no such beliefs. They will benefit in no way by that. Everyone's classtime would be wasted with that kind of stuff being a part of public schools. The only way to make it fair for EVERYONE is to not have religion be a part of schools. at all. Unless, of course, you want the kids to learn that stuff in school, in which case the obvious choice would be to send them to a private religious school. Isn't that what they are for

And just for the record, this is off-topic, but i think it is a horrendous and pitiful notion that god somehow created "knowing right vs. wrong" and respect for authority. When people of religious faiths look down on other faithless people as primitive and unfeeling beasts, it really makes me sick.

Religious people do not have better morals that nonreligious people. That's that. They only have what they think is a better system in which to do so.



But you can't ban prayer, that's ridiculous, it's like telling someone you can't talk to God while they're in school. .....
So I guess you can ban prayer in schools, but you can't stop it.

I get what youre saying, but noone wants to ban prayer. Its just prayer that the school supports or has any part in at all.

It almost makes the argument pointless because of the simple fact that.....

ANY child in ANY school in America can pray silently at ANY time if they want to.

If someone really wanted to make a fuss about praying out loud, if teacher won't let you, just go to the bathroom or something jeez :D

[billyjack]

ever wonder why you're not supposed to tell people what you've wished for after you blow out your birthday candles?

its because wishing and other superstitious activities, like prayer, should be kept to yourself...not to make the wish/prayer come true, but to keep up the illusion that your sanity is in tact

a little off topic right here but relevant. i think that religions, all of them--from Shintoism to Christianity--oughta be taught in geography or whatnot. maybe this is already happening in the usa, i couldnt say for sure. knowledge of other religious beliefs, if nothing else, sheds one's ignorance and fear of other religions. hopefully knowledge of all the religions would produce an enlightened youngster that sees that all relgion is basically morality wrapped up in myth, with no need for a dogmatic/exclusive belief system

[Drkshadow03]

ever wonder why you're not supposed to tell people what you've wished for after you blow out your birthday candles?

its because wishing and other superstitious activities, like prayer, should be kept to yourself...not to make the wish/prayer come true, but to keep up the illusion that your sanity is in tact

a little off topic right here but relevant. i think that religions, all of them--from Shintoism to Christianity--oughta be taught in geography or whatnot. maybe this is already happening in the usa, i couldnt say for sure. knowledge of other religious beliefs, if nothing else, sheds one's ignorance and fear of other religions. hopefully knowledge of all the religions would produce an enlightened youngster that sees that all relgion is basically morality wrapped up in myth, with no need for a dogmatic/exclusive belief system

Actually in the high school I attended they did teach us about other religions during Social Studies, which encompassed history, geography, and anthropology. We learned about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam during the appropriate historical period. We also probably talked about Hinduism and Buddhism, but I don't remember much.

Likewise, while we talked about the core ideas of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam they were still pretty superficial as well. I'm not sure knowledge of other religions automatically creates tolerance, I've heard some pretty nasty about my religion/culture from people who took the same damn classes I took.

[billyjack]

well i'm pretty jacked to hear that religions being taught in social studies. that's a start...

that's a shame you have ignoramuses culture bashing out there in new england. i always figured patriots for a well-schooled, tolerant bunch

[Delta40]

I think religion has an undeniable historical context. I seems so silly to deny a fundamental element of our history - and our present. I think the theory of creation is just that - a theory yet it has stood the test of time - regardless of whether you believe in it because history undoubtedly testifies to the fact! Why not incorporate it in this way?

[Drkshadow03]

well i'm pretty jacked to hear that religions being taught in social studies. that's a start...

that's a shame you have ignoramuses culture bashing out there in new england. i always figured patriots for a well-schooled, tolerant bunch

I went to school in New York actually. Long Island to be more specific. I am in New England for Grad school.

I am Jewish; I am used to people hating me, my religion, and my culture for no good reason.

[billyjack]

I think religion has an undeniable historical context. I seems so silly to deny a fundamental element of our history - and our present. I think the theory of creation is just that - a theory yet it has stood the test of time - regardless of whether you believe in it because history undoubtedly testifies to the fact! Why not incorporate it in this way?

well there are a few definitions of theory in websters. one of them, the one i subscribe to, is basically a plausible or scientifically accepted principle. the other defintions of theory are synonymous with the word belief.

creationism clearly falls into the latter definition of "theory". it doesn't belong in schools unless its being taught as evidence of creationist ignorance or as a tasty example of a bronze age error in human reasoning

i couldn't quite tell delta if you actually wanted creationism taught in line with evolution or if you just wanted to point out that schools could address the humanistic tendency to believe anything just so long as it explains the unexplainable

anyways, back on point: prayer

[Delta40]

well I view schools as possessing an educative nature, that is why I suggested it. it is irrelevant about its evidentiary point since historically it does not need to be proven in this regard. Culturally, one can examine the diverse creation theories that abound across the earth and the various practices involved - prayer being one of them without questioning the validity of such things. They just are.

[Lynne Fees]

I am happy I was taught to pray. I hardly do it now, and differently than I was taught if I do, but one cannot practice without learning. If you want children to learn arithmetic, you'll need to have them practice. I was taught there was soemthing useful in that book, that there was something useful in prayers and that church could be fun. In that I started to apreciate it.

I suppose they didn't try to 'force' religion on secondary school pupils because it doesn't work. You had to sit through two services a year and that was it. If you weren't interested you didn't listen (one might not be bodily free, but one is free in one's head). It didn't do me any harm and my parents dragged me to church until I was 18 every week. It didn't indoctrinate me because I never go now, but it gives me ease when I do have to go. I know what to say, what to do, how and when. It is not a job, it's a second nature.

I would like my children to at least know what they leave behind. I would like them to go to church, to learn to pray and know what it is about. Believing is their own choice, but they'll at least know where to go, how to go about it, and how it is built up.

But what I do believe is that in schools there should not be made any religious arguments against scientific fact, like against Darwin. In that, school and education should not be mixed beause it is a danger to humanity.

I think you have hit upon a good point. Taking children to school does not force them to believe anything; it gives them a grounding in faith that God does care about them. As adults, they can obviously do what they want with this training.


i know that i was taught that the pilgrims came here for religious freedom. How else could they teach it? That's got nothing to do with schools supporting prayer. they have no reason to skirt it.

Once again, you think it would be nice to tell the children to be told that God is there and that He loves them. Ok. That's all fine and dandy for the religious people, but what about the kids who have no such beliefs. They will benefit in no way by that. Everyone's classtime would be wasted with that kind of stuff being a part of public schools. The only way to make it fair for EVERYONE is to not have religion be a part of schools. at all. Unless, of course, you want the kids to learn that stuff in school, in which case the obvious choice would be to send them to a private religious school. Isn't that what they are for

And just for the record, this is off-topic, but i think it is a horrendous and pitiful notion that god somehow created "knowing right vs. wrong" and respect for authority. When people of religious faiths look down on other faithless people as primitive and unfeeling beasts, it really makes me sick.

Religious people do not have better morals that nonreligious people. That's that. They only have what they think is a better system in which to do so.

I am going to assume you weren't talking about me when you said people "look down on other faithless people" and that this really makes you sick. Because we are discussing prayer in the schools, and I can state my opinion without being accused of such things!

Where do you think right and wrong come from?

[1n50mn14]

No, no, no, without a doubt, it should not be allowed in PUBLIC schools. Prayer is an expression of one religion when done in school- Christianity. Where are the options for the kids who aren't Christian, or who pray to a different God?

School is not about religion, other than LEARNING FACTS from an unbiased teacher... not about praying. Waste of time and money.

[BienvenuJDC]

Humanism is as much of a religion as any other. If one wants to teach their baseless "Theory of Evolution" (in quotes because it doesn't really have enough evidence to actually qualify as a scientific theory) as if it is a fact, why can't other beliefs be considered in school also. Some of the so-called facts that are taught in schools are plainly incorrect. However, when the scientific community find that one of their assumptions is wrong, it doesn't seem that the schools are too quick to correct it. Many anti-God concepts are taught in school, but those who adhere to a spiritual faith must remain silent?

[grotto]

I know it was a pro or con opinion that was being asked, but I would like to offer a compromise that I think might actually work. “A moment of silence” any and every faith or belief could use it as they saw fit, pray in silence, meditate or just use it to contemplate what ever. I think anything that could be used to calm these little buggers down for a few minute and to think about what ever without and idea would be a good thing.

Never mind a moment of silence, make it 5 minutes! Do you know how hard it is to get a kid to sit still for 5 minutes! I think it would be a good thing.

If I have to pick a side, I’m against prayer in schools. I am against the perpetuation and continuing of all dogmas. But I do think a history of religion should be taught in schools, maybe as a high school course.

[JBI]

Humanism is as much of a religion as any other. If one wants to teach their baseless "Theory of Evolution" (in quotes because it doesn't really have enough evidence to actually qualify as a scientific theory) as if it is a fact, why can't other beliefs be considered in school also. Some of the so-called facts that are taught in schools are plainly incorrect. However, when the scientific community find that one of their assumptions is wrong, it doesn't seem that the schools are too quick to correct it. Many anti-God concepts are taught in school, but those who adhere to a spiritual faith must remain silent?

Footnotes please. The Theory of Evolution, as far as I know, has seen plenty of research and supportive evidence. Perhaps the original Darwinian model is somewhat false, but as a general principle, from what I know of scientific study, it is generally accepted to be as close as we can come to understanding the descent of man.

As for religions not being able to handle it - Judaism has no real particular issue handling it, and I don't think Taoism, or Buddhism, or Hindu practices do either. I'm not sure what the outlook of Islamic scholarship is, but I see no reason why they cannot believe in the theory either, much less why some fervent Christians continue to dismiss it.

Quite simply though, even if evolution is false, how old is the light traveling in the sky we see shining from the stars (some of which are no longer there)? Either way, if an error in science occurs, it will be corrected. Most religions, including the Roman Catholic Church in some form or another accept or don't dismiss evolution on religious grounds. Even if evolution is falsified, and we find out that the light in the sky we see is not actually millions of light years old, there is no point in using this to justify God or a tradition. The science acts outside of the religion, as the religion doesn't concern science.


Quite simply, science looks outside of communities, whereas religions are only within communities. In that sense, religions exclude, assuming not everyone is part of their community, whereas science makes no distinction between people. If someone told me I was going to hell because I didn't get baptized in school, I would be furious. IF someone told me there is a prominent supported theory of how we arrived in this world, backed up by more evidence than one can read it ones own life time, then I could accept that. The difference is, one is grounded and applies to everyone, whereas one divides and segregates the nonbeliever.

[BienvenuJDC]

Quite simply though, even if evolution is false, how old is the light traveling in the sky we see shining from the stars (some of which are no longer there)? Either way, if an error in science occurs, it will be corrected. Most religions, including the Roman Catholic Church in some form or another accept or don't dismiss evolution on religious grounds. Even if evolution is falsified, and we find out that the light in the sky we see is not actually millions of light years old, there is no point in using this to justify God or a tradition. The science acts outside of the religion, as the religion doesn't concern science.


Let's just take one thing at a time. Humor me for a moment to consider that God created the heavens and the earth. If He created the star that is one million light years away from us, and He created the earth. What would stop Him from creating all of the light between that star and the earth, so that on day 4 (that's the day that the Bible says that the stars were created) it could be seen? The Bible says that He created the stars "for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years" (Gen 1:14). If He created it for that purpose, then He would have created the light so that man could have used it right away. That argument is just about as flimsy as could be.

[JBI]

Let's just take one thing at a time. Humor me for a moment to consider that God created the heavens and the earth. If He created the star that is one million light years away from us, and He created the earth. What would stop Him from creating all of the light between that star and the earth, so that on day 4 (that's the day that the Bible says that the stars were created) it could be seen? The Bible says that He created the stars "for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years" (Gen 1:14). If He created it for that purpose, then He would have created the light so that man could have used it right away. That argument is just about as flimsy as could be.

Which God and how. I live in Canada, the population here believe in multiple faiths and multiple denominations of multiple faiths. I don't see one God when I see one education as I don't see one dominant culture as an objective hegamon to be established by education.

Either way, The Roman Catholic Church itself says there is nothing unreligiousabout belief in evolution, and belief in God and religion are complementary, rather than exclusive. Where is the problem, with a bunch of fundamentalist conservatives?

[Scheherazade]

Just a reminder:

I am writing a pro/con paper on the "prayer in school" issue .

I wanted to get some of y'all's views on it since I need a well-rounded paper with both sides of the issue represented equally, not to mention that I have always been curious in the first place.

I want to make sure I do justice to both sides in the paper, even though in the last part of the paper I have to choose a side and defend it.

I am going to defend the separationist side, and say that school and religion should be kept apart, since they'll both benefit that way. Just like Thomas Jefferson said.

Opinions?
Agreements, Disagreements?

thanks
Please discuss the issues raises by the OP.

If you would like to discuss other issues, please start separate threads.

[The Comedian]

I think the main issue here is public school -- there is just no way prayer should be required in public schools (in the US, at least) because of our separation of church and state. And, as the OP pointed out, this separation in in the interest of both parties: If you let church into your government (which is what the schools represent), then you better be ready to let the government into your church. And nobody wants the latter option.

Of course, if you want to pray in school, then thankfully you have a lot of options: you could attend a religious school (in the small town that I live in we have a Catholic school and a Lutheran school, and my town has less than 8000 people). Of course, even in a public school, a person is free to pray (privately) as much as he or she wants over the lunch hour, recess, between classes, ect . . .

So school-wide mandatory prayer in public school is a big "no" for this LitNeter. But, man, there are so many options available for people who want to pray in school or during school hours.

[BienvenuJDC]

Which God and how. I live in Canada, the population here believe in multiple faiths and multiple denominations of multiple faiths. I don't see one God when I see one education as I don't see one dominant culture as an objective hegamon to be established by education.

Either way, The Roman Catholic Church itself says there is nothing unreligiousabout belief in evolution, and belief in God and religion are complementary, rather than exclusive. Where is the problem, with a bunch of fundamentalist conservatives?

Back to the original post...

One should be able to have prayer to their God (the one they wish to praise) who typically is their Creator. If the option of NO Prayer is chosen, then I think that those who believe that NO God exists then get their way. There really is no way to be completely fair. I don't agree with forced prayer, but it seems that if 99 students want prayer, and 1 student does not want prayer, then the 1 student gets their way. Maybe the 1 student should just be allowed to be dismissed from the prayer.

[jakobmuller]

I am going to assume you weren't talking about me when you said people "look down on other faithless people" and that this really makes you sick. Because we are discussing prayer in the schools, and I can state my opinion without being accused of such things!

Where do you think right and wrong come from?

No, i was not talking about you, or anyone specifically. I don't know where right and wrong came from. They're ideas, but i would guess people had a conscience before the bible was written. I apologize for the pointless digression. I have a bad habit of those lol

Anyways, back to the thread.

Thanks to everyone who's posting, it's a great help to see the views of both sides of the issue.

[JBI]

Back to the original post...

One should be able to have prayer to their God (the one they wish to praise) who typically is their Creator. If the option of NO Prayer is chosen, then I think that those who believe that NO God exists then get their way. There really is no way to be completely fair. I don't agree with forced prayer, but it seems that if 99 students want prayer, and 1 student does not want prayer, then the 1 student gets their way. Maybe the 1 student should just be allowed to be dismissed from the prayer.

As apposed to what? You sanction one religion, and allow that one to win over all other faiths? This way, people are free to practice whatever they want in their homes, without fear in the public sphere of having their personal rights violated by a government policy that asserts the dominance of one set of beliefs and one culture over their own, and devalues their right to not be subjected to a forced conversion put upon their kids.

It's enough that people in Canada in schools are only exposed to certain cultures, mainly English and American culture, but to enforce a sense of Christian culture on top of that, and sanction it as more important is nothing short of cultural supremacy over the rights of both parents and children.


In England there is a State religion, in many European countries there is essentially a State religion, if not a State sanctioned one. Perhaps then, one would feel the rights of the collective vast majority, if it can be justified, outweigh those of the minority, which to me is ridiculous and disgusting, but perhaps someone can argue it. It seems pure xenophobia, but who knows - perhaps that is the "best" plan.

As for me, I come from a Jewish background. My parents openly practice Jewish holidays, to which I partake. Schools are open about it, and allowed me to miss certain days, such as Yom Kippur, and even the day after the second Passover sader, which technically was only missed from exhaustion and hangover. I think that is fair enough. I don't think that is letting the crazy nonbelievers win (who by the way, make up a larger portion of the population than one would think). In truth, the amount of people whose religions or lack there of accept evolution is vastly higher than appose it in Canada at least, and from what I hear, there are serious doubts about God within European, and international circles as well.

Does that mean people cannot go to church on Sunday, go to Sunday school, go to Shul on Saturdays, or every day if they so wish it? No, it doesn't. It simply means that the Jewish kid of about 6 years old doesn't need to sit there while everyone prays and preaches the lords prayer, or, perhaps even worse, wait in the hall while everyone goes around taking praying to God. I would hate to think one's own religion, and one's own status as belonging to the majority religion within a national system is not influencing such bias.

I'll put it simply, in Canada, in most cases it was believers who overthrew the praying within institutions. like I said, it was a Baha'i family in Ontario who got prayers removed from schools, not a non believing family. You create a false opposition between believer and nonbeliever, when quite simply, it is a matter of freedom to not be subjected to the will of a majority within a pluralistic society. You either accept that the projected self-importance of one culture imposed on children is establishing a cultural hegemony, forcing the segregation of minorities as right and justified, or not. I say it is not, perhaps though, that comes from being a minority. I would hope that people are not creating opinions based on the fact that they happen to fall within the majority category.

[BienvenuJDC]

As apposed to what? You sanction one religion, and allow that one to win over all other faiths?

It's enough that people in Canada in schools are only exposed to certain cultures, mainly English and American culture, but to enforce a sense of Christian culture on top of that, and sanction it as more important is nothing short of cultural supremacy over the rights of both parents and children.



I never said anything about Christianity. I never said anything about sanctioning any one religion. I never said anything about forcing religion. But it seems that you want to force that masses to hide their own religions.

"God" is not a name for the god of the Jewish or Christian religion. That would either be Yahweh, or Jehovah, ...Messiah, Christ or Jesus... But it seems that you want to oppress those who have a belief, just so that those who don't believe won't be offended.

[JBI]

I never said anything about Christianity. I never said anything about sanctioning any one religion. I never said anything about forcing religion. But it seems that you want to force that masses to hide their own religions.

"God" is not a name for the god of the Jewish or Christian religion. That would either be Yahweh, or Jehovah, ...Messiah, Christ or Jesus... But it seems that you want to oppress those who have a belief, just so that those who don't believe won't be offended.

No he isn't. God is not the name for the Jewish deity. He is not the same as the Christian one, or the Muslim one. In fact, he is not even the same God between different sects of Jews, or even Jews themselves. People like to assume a sort of Judeo-Christian heritage, but I would argue something like Islam is far closer to Judaism than Christianity, and even that is lightyears away. There is no shared God, there is no shared religion, or even shared text. There is a shared core text, which becomes completely distorted, according to a Jewish perspective, by the Christian or Muslim reading, and there is an oral Torah, which is completely ignored by a Christian or Muslim reading.

And who assumed I am repressing? Why, by not letting people have a prayer session in a school? By not letting people sit around and bless a God belonging to only a portion of them? The last time someone tried to inscribe a religious teaching onto a group of people, in order to educate them "away from their barbaric beliefs", we had residential schools, and things are still not made right after the heinous disaster those programs inflicted upon minorities.

Who says you cannot pray at home? Who says you cannot pray. I only say you cannot make a prayer session in a school. You can do so on your break, or on your lunch hour, but you cannot have a 10:00 prayer time, or whatever, or a 5 minute Lordsprayer break before the morning announcements. I think that is beyond fair.

[BienvenuJDC]

No he isn't. God is not the name for the Jewish deity. He is not the same as the Christian one, or the Muslim one. In fact, he is not even the same God between different sects of Jews, or even Jews themselves. People like to assume a sort of Judeo-Christian heritage, but I would argue something like Islam is far closer to Judaism than Christianity, and even that is lightyears away. There is no shared God, there is no shared religion, or even shared text. There is a shared core text, which becomes completely distorted, according to a Jewish perspective, by the Christian or Muslim reading, and there is an oral Torah, which is completely ignored by a Christian or Muslim reading.

And who assumed I am repressing? Why, by not letting people have a prayer session in a school? By not letting people sit around and bless a God belonging to only a portion of them? The last time someone tried to inscribe a religious teaching onto a group of people, in order to educate them "away from their barbaric beliefs", we had residential schools, and things are still not made right after the heinous disaster those programs inflicted upon minorities.

Who says you cannot pray at home? Who says you cannot pray. I only say you cannot make a prayer session in a school. You can do so on your break, or on your lunch hour, but you cannot have a 10:00 prayer time, or whatever, or a 5 minute Lordsprayer break before the morning announcements. I think that is beyond fair.

JBI...I'm not going to sit and argue with you about what the word "God" means, nor if the God of the Christian religion is the same God of the Jewish religion. I was using the term God in a generic sense meaning a Deity. If those in a school setting want to take their time separate into different rooms to pray to a God of their choice, why should that make any difference to you who are not even present?

If you want to prohibit others from doing something that you don't like, that is oppression. Secular Humanism is imposed on religious people all the time, but that's okay...isn't it? I say that we need to be consistent.

[JBI]

JBI...I'm not going to sit and argue with you about what the word "God" means, nor if the God of the Christian religion is the same God of the Jewish religion. I was using the term God in a generic sense meaning a Deity. If those in a school setting want to take their time separate into different rooms to pray to a God of their choice, why should that make any difference to you who are not even present?

If you want to prohibit others from doing something that you don't like, that is oppression. Secular Humanism is imposed on religious people all the time, but that's okay...isn't it? I say that we need to be consistent.

I'm not a secular humanist, I am a post-post-modernist, or whatever term you can muster. Secular humanism is a European construction. I am beyond that. But either way, how is secular humanism imposed on people? Because we tell people to share or something? Because we tell people to like each other? You will find, that many of the core values between people are shared across religions. And one of those core values involves not being treated as inferior, or as something outside the norm. Having a Jewish room to pray in while all the good majority people are in their Christian room, to me sounds a lot like a section on the bus where African Americans should sit. Where do you draw the line. The whole point of public school, and society, is that people should get together and share in experience. How does dividing people by background cause that? How does making all the Jewish people go to one place, all the Hindus another, all the Catholics to one side of the room, Protestants on the Balcony, or whatever do anything but segregate, and force people to be associated based on religious classification and/or ethnic background, or perhaps even as nonbelievers, who we are told by Dante have a nice ring in hell waiting to fry them up, no matter how good poets they are.


I don't care if people pray, but not on my time, and not in schools that my tax dollars pay to support. If they want to go to their religious schools, they can be my guest, but not a cent of that will come out of my pocket as long as I can fight against it.

[SleepyWitch]

But you can't ban prayer, that's ridiculous, it's like telling someone you can't talk to God while they're in school.

yep, but allowing individual students to pray is not the same as having compulsory religious assemblies for the whole school, is it?

[Scheherazade]

Some posts have been removed due to their personal content.

Further off-topic posts will also be removed without any further notice.

Those who insist on posting in a similar vein face temporary/permanent bans from the RT section as well as receiving infraction points.

[Hurricane]

I go to a public college, and every day there's a prayer at noon meal. Lunch isn't optional either, everyone's required to be there. The ACLU wanted to sue last year, I'm assuming unsuccessfully since we still do it.

I am not religious at all. I consider myself to be an atheist, so I elect to not participate. This has never been an issue with anyone, and I have never felt pressured to participate or felt awkward about my stance.
The majority of people respect me and my beliefs, so in turn I respect that they want to have a prayer at noon meal. It's a tradition, and honestly, it doesn't hurt me to just stand there for an extra thirty seconds.

Personally, I don't think prayer has a place in elementary or lower-level schools. But from high school on students should have the maturity to be able to properly handle a prayer, whether they elect to participate or not.

[Lynne Fees]

Humanism is as much of a religion as any other. If one wants to teach their baseless "Theory of Evolution" (in quotes because it doesn't really have enough evidence to actually qualify as a scientific theory) as if it is a fact, why can't other beliefs be considered in school also. Some of the so-called facts that are taught in schools are plainly incorrect. However, when the scientific community find that one of their assumptions is wrong, it doesn't seem that the schools are too quick to correct it. Many anti-God concepts are taught in school, but those who adhere to a spiritual faith must remain silent?

I remember one public school my children attended. They studed Judaism and Islam, but not Christianity. The principal said, "They all already know about Christianity." And as you point out, Darwinism is just a theory; I can't see the harm in teaching children that some people believe in a Creator. Otherwise, don't the Christian kids feel "out of place." Or is it that we don't care about how they feel because they're Christians?




Quite simply, science looks outside of communities, whereas religions are only within communities. In that sense, religions exclude, assuming not everyone is part of their community, whereas science makes no distinction between people. If someone told me I was going to hell because I didn't get baptized in school, I would be furious. IF someone told me there is a prominent supported theory of how we arrived in this world, backed up by more evidence than one can read it ones own life time, then I could accept that. The difference is, one is grounded and applies to everyone, whereas one divides and segregates the nonbeliever.

You point out an interesting idea. I had my children in a private elementary school which taught that, if a church didn't prescribe to their method of baptism, it was un-Biblical. It was a great opportunity for us to write to the school principal and really search the underpinnings of what we believed. This assumption that children have to subscribe to everything that's espoused by the teacher is ludicrous

Later, in public school, I told my kids to answer the evolution questions as per the book, and then feel free to tell the teacher what they really thought. When they did, they were harassed by the other students worse than any child from a "non-believing" home would be. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of religion in public schools...

[Hurricane]

Later, in public school, I told my kids to answer the evolution questions as per the book, and then feel free to tell the teacher what they really thought. When they did, they were harassed by the other students worse than any child from a "non-believing" home would be. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of religion in public schools...

When I was in AP Bio last year (private, secular school) and we got to evolution, the teacher took a second at the beginning of class to tell everyone that while she respected the opinions of those who did not believe in evolution and preferred creationism, creationism was not on the Advanced Placement Biology exam, so we'd be learning evolution. I had some friends in that class who were very religious, and they were fine with this. My point is that there's a time to be assertive about your beliefs and there's a time to "shut up and color".

Your children have freedom of speech and religion, and your post infers that they didn't have any problems with the school administration, just from other students. You and your children can believe whatever you want to believe, but have to be ready to accept that other people feel differently and you may face negative attitudes/comments/whatever because of it.

[JBI]

You point out an interesting idea. I had my children in a private elementary school which taught that, if a church didn't prescribe to their method of baptism, it was un-Biblical. It was a great opportunity for us to write to the school principal and really search the underpinnings of what we believed. This assumption that children have to subscribe to everything that's espoused by the teacher is ludicrous

Later, in public school, I told my kids to answer the evolution questions as per the book, and then feel free to tell the teacher what they really thought. When they did, they were harassed by the other students worse than any child from a "non-believing" home would be. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of religion in public schools...

Whose fault is that? The system, or the parents? It isn't the teaching of evolution that causes this problem. The teaching itself isn't doing anything. As you said, you told your children to assert their considering of the teachers, and the curriculum's subject matter in the point of view of their religious affiliation. That is fine, and now you complain that the other kids, whose parents taught them something else are reacting? Where is the fault with the actual education though? Was it not that merely the assertion of certain values as being more important than the lesson, as prescribed by a parent had a residence over the authority of a student.

Lets be honest, you have a music class, and a kid who sits there playing Beethoven, and then gaily exclaims, hey guess what everyone, at home we are told Beethoven is a moron, and is polluting our minds, and is a half-rate crack-headed, falsified, blasphemous, sacrilegious, heretic, etc. etc. musician.

Or lets go another direction, to shake things up a bit. You get a literature class where people are reading the Bible as literature, and you get your Atheist kid sitting their talking about how it is the worst book ever, etc. etc., and how you are all idiots for believing in it, or thinking it is good, or worth reading, and whatnot. Then the rest of the kids decide to ridicule him.

The point is, there is a tartuffish arrogance in openly contradicting what the teacher, and the school board, and the academic community, and scientific minds of the world say, and then getting mad that some non believers happen to critique your opinion. Is this a slight against the believer? No, it is a slight against the assertion of a better answer by a nonbeliever in a situation where ones own opinion matters not at all, as quite simply, it is science class.

Certain sects of Haredi Jews still believe Rain comes from God by his will, and interpret the world that way. If they said this in a public school class, when discussing how water vapor forms and then comes down in the form of rain, I would suspect they would be laughed at too. And for good reason - such comments belong with those who believe them. Science doesn't care about belief, as it doesn't concern itself with individual beliefs, but what can be proved. There are gaps, and there are false notions, and things are proven wrong, or expanded, or redefined. But in essence, it doesn't act to block out all other modes of thought, it only works as itself. To prove itself. It doesn't concern itself with creationism, it concerns itself with what can be proven through its own methodology, and whether God created the world or not is not the subject of science, how mankind descended from another species over time is the subject, because that has sufficient evidence to be studied, and has led to many other discoveries.

As the above poster stated, Religion is not on the final exam, Biology is. If Sunday schools have exams, let those answers suffice there.

No one told your Children, but you, to state their opinion as contradictory to the other kids. Who here is complaining that the other kids had to have their nonbeliefs violated by your children's proclamation of religion as the correct answer? You said they should feel free to tell their teacher what they thought. And the nonbelievers parents said their kids should feel free to tell the believers what they think. It seems to me to be quite fair, actually. The only harm done, I think, is that people are telling their children what their view on certain issues are, which to me seems ridiculous. That's like flagging your newborn baby as a Republican, which to some seems probable, and in practice, occurs quite often, but from a viewpoint of democracy, is as far from democracy as one can get.


But here we have another binary being created. The binary doesn't exist until the creationist or the atheist, or whomever creates it. Evolution theory does not create the discrepancies with religion. People who believe in religions create them, or those who are militant about their atheism or whatever create them. And either way, what the **** does this have to do with praying in school? Lets be honest, this assembly of us versus them needs its own thread, as it is a hypocritical and off topic question. One cannot justify praying in school by saying kids are being indoctrinated in science class. Of course people will laugh at people if they come in with beliefs that are completely in contradiction to the evidence-backed facts that are in front of the class, and being discussed by everyone. If I came into my science class and said I didn't believe in gravity, how much respect would I gain? If I came in and said I didn't believe atoms existed, or that Protons were real things, and that everything was merely the four elements, and decided to waste the time of the lesson to state my opinion, as if it was the only sane one, why shouldn't other people have the right to laugh at me? But to pray, which has been tested, and proven to not have any affect on events, and for that to be authorized, and paid for by the taxpayers buck, that is just ridiculous.

[mono]

Whew, a very controversial issue!
Feeling unsure where most of the posters come from, including the thread starter, I will assume that "prayer in school" refers to the majority-rules religion in my country, Christianity (including its subsidaries), and its expression, prayer, in public schools (where most children attend). I voted a firm "no" on this topic, and this seemed a really hot topic while I attended public schools K-12.
Prayer seems a lot about expression of one's religion and "communicating" with one's believed-in Superior Being, but, having attended public schools, we had many individuals of different belief systems, ethnicities, backgrounds, etc. I think it safe to say that prayer seems a place built and intended for learning. To promote equality among religions, and not acting in a majority-rules like fashion to the preference of Christianity, if we bring active prayer to the classroom, I would expect time spent for similar rituals in other religions as well, for Muslims, the Jewish, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. The problem? Taking all of this time, which could get quite consuming, would subtract from the time for learning, why tax-payers involuntarily contribute their funds for schools. If a minority of voters, as we have thus far noted on this poll, desire prayer in the classrooms, then alternatives exist - private schools, religion-based schools, or home-schooling.
In my high school, a group started an after-school Bible study. I think secondary to the Star Trek club, they got teased an awful lot, but as the group grew, the teasing tapered off and eventually dissipated entirely. Several months later, an even smaller group started an after-school group for Muslims; of note, this occurred before 2001. Seeing that Islam existed as a minority religion in public schools, even as a free, non-academic program, these group meetings quickly stopped due to the controversy it created. At least in my former public school, it proves that only Christian prayer could have existed, and never a free religious classroom expression, not even for the second most common religion in that school, also explaining why it required such a heated, and useless, to remove the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, words that got added not in the Pledge's original composition in 1892, but in 1951.

As we speak primarily of public schools, let us take this idea furthermore in an analogy. Most restaurants exist for the public, at least in my country, the U.S., and Christianity remains the most common worshipped and practiced religion here. If one family in a booth bows their heads for grace, should they expect all of the other families to pray before their meal, regardless of their religious beliefs? Equally so, should a Hindu family, two restaurant booths away, expect everyone else in the restaurant to consume only vegetarian food? Should the Jewish expect the restaurant to close, in observance for Yom Kippur? Absurd!

[jakobmuller]

Feeling unsure where most of the posters come from, including the thread starter, I will assume that "prayer in school" refers to the majority-rules religion in my country, Christianity (including its subsidaries), and its expression, prayer, in public schools (where most children attend)

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for the indiscretion :thumbs_up

[Lynne Fees]

But here we have another binary being created. The binary doesn't exist until the creationist or the atheist, or whomever creates it. Evolution theory does not create the discrepancies with religion. People who believe in religions create them, or those who are militant about their atheism or whatever create them. And either way, what the **** does this have to do with praying in school? Lets be honest, this assembly of us versus them needs its own thread, as it is a hypocritical and off topic question. One cannot justify praying in school by saying kids are being indoctrinated in science class. Of course people will laugh at people if they come in with beliefs that are completely in contradiction to the evidence-backed facts that are in front of the class, and being discussed by everyone. If I came into my science class and said I didn't believe in gravity, how much respect would I gain? If I came in and said I didn't believe atoms existed, or that Protons were real things, and that everything was merely the four elements, and decided to waste the time of the lesson to state my opinion, as if it was the only sane one, why shouldn't other people have the right to laugh at me? But to pray, which has been tested, and proven to not have any affect on events, and for that to be authorized, and paid for by the taxpayers buck, that is just ridiculous.

My thoughts were in relationship to the idea that a teacher-led prayer in, say, elementary school, would make children from non-believing families feel uncomfortable. Expressing religious beliefs, if laughed at, is tantamount to the government "establishing" that the "state" religion is non-belief.

My point is that things are being actually taught as fact in the public schools that are not really fact. No one can prove how life began. "Proof" entails experiments which can't be done on things which happened in the past. Evolution "facts" are supported by extrapolation of research with certain scientific factors held as true which may not have been true thousands of years ago. When these teachings go against my children's closely-held beliefs, their freedom of speech rights are violated if they feel intimidated into silence.

As long as you're not Amish and you cut your family off from mingling out there in the cold, cruel world, guess what? Children grow up and become adults and can believe just what they want to, anyway. That's why there's no harm in praying in school. If the children get comfort and guidance from God due to the praying, what's the harm. If they get nothing from it, what's the harm?

[JBI]

My thoughts were in relationship to the idea that a teacher-led prayer in, say, elementary school, would make children from non-believing families feel uncomfortable. Expressing religious beliefs, if laughed at, is tantamount to the government "establishing" that the "state" religion is non-belief.

My point is that things are being actually taught as fact in the public schools that are not really fact. No one can prove how life began. "Proof" entails experiments which can't be done on things which happened in the past. Evolution "facts" are supported by extrapolation of research with certain scientific factors held as true which may not have been true thousands of years ago. When these teachings go against my children's closely-held beliefs, their freedom of speech rights are violated if they feel intimidated into silence.
Evolution doesn't act to teach how life began - it teaches how life evolved from one organism. There is a difference. Either way, it is a scientifically proven process - the exact details of the actual descent of man are still greyish, but that doesn't mean evolution is false.

Religion though - what is a believer? Who is a believer? which believers? Believers in what? That's the point - the world isn't as monolithic as that - and, *gasp*, not everyone prays to the same god, or even prays. In contrast, everyone is descendant from the same one cell - everyone may have the opportunity to become a biologist, or a doctor, everyone will be entitled to the same grade of education as required to preform these days on an academic level. Take out evolution, and you essentially shoot everyone in the foot - evolution is not just a crackpot god hating idea - it is a way of thinking that has led to much discovery, and is somewhat a requirement in the study of biology. Just because one doesn't believe in it doesn't mean that everyone else's children, and even their own, should be cheated out of an education that will lead them to success at a higher level.

What would prayer do? Does it provide a pathway toward anything but a religious position? Does it make them better people, by giving them a sense of community, or is a sense of community rather just a sense of exclusion toward everyone outside of the community? Is prayer worth the time spent, to everyone as a whole, or would children be better off with more time to eat their lunches, and to develop social skills amongst each other? What about as a sense of open mindedness? Does praying make one more open minded, or less? does it encourage, or dissuade one from asking questions about religion, or embracing new traditions and perspectives? Is endorsing one culture even applicable in this world anymore, given that places are diversifying, and cultures are mixing - also, is it even respectful to many religions or nonreligious people to use a building like a school as a place for prayer?

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Further posts containing inflammatory comments will lead to thread closure

(as well as earning their posters infraction points).

[Omniglot]

F i n a l W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Further posts containing inflammatory comments will lead to thread closure

(as well as earning their posters infraction points).


This is my first post on this thread and bearing in mind the above warning I will just stick to the normal method of posting, which is I presume, making your point. I assume that the above warning was for someone making ad hominum remarks.

Anyway......Public schools are for the benefit of the public. No suprise there! No matter, what we have seen over the past few years is the politicized and methodological attack on science in America, from the right wing Christain extremists. They have attempted to undermine centuries of scientific research, especially Darwinian, with their 'faith' in creationism. Creationism has absolutely no basis other than word of mouth. It's that simple.

With that out of the way, we can move onto the implicit attack on secularism that has been stated. Secularism means the separtion of state from religion. Prayers are a direct attack on secularism.

There should be no religious influences in secular schools.

[JBI]

This is my first post on this thread and bearing in mind the above warning I will just stick to the normal method of posting, which is I presume, making your point. I assume that the above warning was for someone making ad hominum remarks.

Anyway......Public schools are for the benefit of the public. No suprise there! No matter, what we have seen over the past few years is the politicized and methodological attack on science in America, from the right wing Christain extremists. They have attempted to undermine centuries of scientific research, especially Darwinian, with their 'faith' in creationism. Creationism has absolutely no basis other than word of mouth. It's that simple.

With that out of the way, we can move onto the implicit attack on secularism that has been stated. Secularism means the separtion of state from religion. Prayers are a direct attack on secularism.

There should be no religious influences in secular schools.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with what you say. I feel that you stress a divide between those who believe in science, and those who believe in creationism, which really isn't there, or perhaps only applicable to certain areas. One's faith has nothing really to do with science, and most people, even if they are religious, or nonbelievers, treat science the same.

Either way though, there shouldn't not be praying in schools because they are secular, but there shouldn't be praying in schools because that endorses one view, and schools are supposed to be pluralistic. See the difference? One of them reinforces this imaginary binary, whereas the other says, since no one can really agree, or it wouldn't be fair to take one side, we merely compromise and allow all sides.

[Omniglot]

Either way though, there shouldn't not be praying in schools because they are secular, but there shouldn't be praying in schools because that endorses one view, and schools are supposed to be pluralistic. See the difference? One of them reinforces this imaginary binary, whereas the other says, since no one can really agree, or it wouldn't be fair to take one side, we merely compromise and allow all sides.

No, sorry you are missing the point.

Your way would therefore leave open the door to pray in all the methods of the host sites religious interests: thus a school with say christains, muslims and hindu pupils would in your eyes be perfectly fine to have prayers in all three faiths so that no one faith is endorsed over another.

Secularism which is far superior, protects the innocents from ALL religions. Thus atheists would not be subjected to what they would see as mumbo-jumbo chanting.

Thanks

[JBI]

No, sorry you are missing the point.

Your way would therefore leave open the door to pray in all the methods of the host sites religious interests: thus a school with say christains, muslims and hindu pupils would in your eyes be perfectly fine to have prayers in all three faiths so that no one faith is endorsed over another.

Secularism which is far superior, protects the innocents from ALL religions. Thus atheists would not be subjected to what they would see as mumbo-jumbo chanting.

Thanks

Again, you reinforce the binary - allowing people of the same background the ability to have the ability to express themselves is the goal. The problems occur when one group gains power over the rest. Your argument seems to be establishing a natural bias for the unbeliever, but that is merely ignorant. You cannot say, we aren't allowing people to express themselves because they are wrong - that is not the idea. The idea is to say that we are not letting just one group have the right to express themselves over the collective - that is a completely different perspective.

As I have stated, I respect the rights of people to pray. I just don't respect a system that endorses their prayers over the rights of others. If people wish to waste their lunch time, it isn't my problem. But when a loud speaker goes on in the building, then it becomes my problem. You cannot justify the absence of state endorsed prayers in a school by saying praying and religion don't belong in schools. That is hypocritical, to say the least. And beyond that, that is also a very occidental perspective of looking at the situation. Praying is more than just people talking with Jesus - for many it isn't even talking with a God, for some it is purely a communal thing, others, a way of reaching back into their heritage - you cannot say that is ridiculous, and should be banned - that merely establishes one perspective over the other, you can only say that giving some the ability to do that over others is wrong, because it doesn't leave room for dissent, or differing opinion.


Secularism, the way you phrase it, doesn't protect the "innocents" from all other religions, it merely endorses a lack of respect to all religions equally. Atheists may see it as mumbo jumbo nonsense, but I'm sure some people think it isn't, and who is one group to say that because I think it is nonsense, it shouldn't be permissible at all? Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with the question. Whether science is right, or religion is, or even if the two are actually separate sides of a spectrum isn't the question. What is the question, is how much room are groups allowed to have in expressing themselves. To endorse prayers would mean one group takes all the room, or some groups take all the room. To endorse none, yet allow all however, is what one should strive for. I don't agree with most people on these boards, but quite honestly, I wouldn't want them banned, or unable to speak.

[kiki1982]

I agree with JBI. Religions should have the right to practice in public schools, although not during classes (enforcing others of other beliefs to do the same).

But maybe it would be interesting to have people of other religions shown how you as a hindu, muslim, christian whatever practice. It would provide insight in another religion and it would maybe take away a lot of prejudice.

That said, it shouldn't happen every week because that would be forcing it on others. Maybe an excursion? For me as a catholic it is interesting to go to an Anglican wedding, because they pray differently, sing different songs etc. Even among Christians there are differences and it is intresting to see them from the inside and not only from the outside/theory.

Secularism is great, but it should be and stay secular: indifferent to religion and not against. It should allow, but limit. Thus it should be possible in public schools to have certain pray-sessions/offering-sessions/meditation-sessions, free for everyone, during a time where no-one is really occupied. Seculars or atheists are not forced to go, are they?

[JBI]

I agree with JBI. Religions should have the right to practice in public schools, although not during classes (enforcing others of other beliefs to do the same).

But maybe it would be interesting to have people of other religions shown how you as a hindu, muslim, christian whatever practice. It would provide insight in another religion and it would maybe take away a lot of prejudice.

That said, it shouldn't happen every week because that would be forcing it on others. Maybe an excursion? For me as a catholic it is interesting to go to an Anglican wedding, because they pray differently, sing different songs etc. Even among Christians there are differences and it is intresting to see them from the inside and not only from the outside/theory.

Secularism is great, but it should be and stay secular: indifferent to religion and not against. It should allow, but limit. Thus it should be possible in public schools to have certain pray-sessions/offering-sessions/meditation-sessions, free for everyone, during a time where no-one is really occupied. Seculars or atheists are not forced to go, are they?
That would be in a religious discussion, not a religious right though. I'm all for religious teaching, as it pertains to multiculturalism, and learning about other people, but I'm not for everyone once a week having the ability to sit around and pray in front of a Torah - you cannot have that, as, Judaism for instance, doesn't really allow that. Education about religions is important, but not in religions, or from a perspective which takes side. And as such, instruction in prayer takes a side if everyone is required to sit around and do it. Scanning hymn books for prosody doesn't hurt anyone, but forcing them to sing, or singing and allowing people not to sing, does.

[kiki1982]

That would be in a religious discussion, not a religious right though. I'm all for religious teaching, as it pertains to multiculturalism, and learning about other people, but I'm not for everyone once a week having the ability to sit around and pray in front of a Torah - you cannot have that, as, Judaism for instance, doesn't really allow that. Education about religions is important, but not in religions, or from a perspective which takes side. And as such, instruction in prayer takes a side if everyone is required to sit around and do it. Scanning hymn books for prosody doesn't hurt anyone, but forcing them to sing, or singing and allowing people not to sing, does.

In that you're right... Maybe it would be too difficult (as you state about Judaism), after all.

Which is not to say that all religion should be banned from schools, at leas tnot for the ones that want to take part. Or is it such a hot potato across the atlantic?

[JBI]

In that you're right... Maybe it would be too difficult (as you state about Judaism), after all.

Which is not to say that all religion should be banned from schools, at leas tnot for the ones that want to take part. Or is it such a hot potato across the atlantic?

Depends where - I think, for all their constitutional pride, religion is far more ingrained in American politics and policy than in places which have State religions. I know when I learned evolution in highschool, there wasn't even an intro - people just accepted it. Likewise, praying has never been a part of my public school education, and it is rare that such things happen. Of course, there was a Christian Fellowship "club" at my school, but they had 8 members, and all they were more toward community service than anything else. The Jewish culture club, as I live near a very Jewish area in Toronto, and my high school had many Jews, had just as many non-Jewish people as Jews, and merely acted as a cultural place, where people could once a week get a free Kosher meal, and eat seasonal/holiday delicacies, and engage in Jewish forms of celebration. I think there isn't much of a problem there - there was certainly a very nonreligious aspect.

That being said, education is relative to the municipality and the province (so I cannot really speak with any sureness for other places) in Canada. Also, constitutionally, Roman Catholic schools receive government funding, but even that doesn't do much. I think the overall sentiment here leans more toward an "each as they see fit", rather than a collective "we". And in that sense, in Ontario at least, religion doesn't really seem to be anywhere.


That being said, I'm sure there are challenges and whatnot, but that doesn't really lead to much. I don't particularly think most people care what others believe here, and merely look out to make sure their rights aren't trampled over, or made subordinate to others. In truth, a large part of the arts culture seeks to undermine any binaries set up by the cultural/governmental systems in Canada. I don't think one could get away with doing much that negatively effects others here without a major backlash. I think, from experience, it is safe to say that Americans see their government, and their heads of State as leaders, whereas Canadians for the most part, I think, see them more as accountants. Religious issues just aren't touched in governmental debates, because they know that if they are touched, voters will be alienated, and things will go wrong.


As for the U.S., from what I understand, religion seems more central to politics and education. I think there is a tug of war going on from both sides, and a lot of hot potatoism, as you said. I think that really has to do with the fact that a large portion of them, see themselves as having a set of core fundamental values, and those are tied in with religious observance. In that sense, there is a large fear from moving forward, and a huge divide, which has historic geographical roots as well.

As for Mexico, and all the countries in central and South America, that is a completely different story. I don't feel confident enough to post on those sides of the issue.

[Lynne Fees]

We're still bending over backward to make the children from atheist families (minority) feel more comfortable than the children of believing families (majority). Why? What is the harm in a general "Dear God give us a good day at school and keep us safe." Where is the "establishment of religion" in that? How did prayer exist in our schools for so long if it was unconstitutional from the get-go? Haven't we gone way overboard? Aren't we taking something precious away from our children?

[JBI]

We're still bending over backward to make the children from atheist families (minority) feel more comfortable than the children of believing families (majority). Why? What is the harm in a general "Dear God give us a good day at school and keep us safe." Where is the "establishment of religion" in that? How did prayer exist in our schools for so long if it was unconstitutional from the get-go? Haven't we gone way overboard? Aren't we taking something precious away from our children?

Again, you insist on establishing the binary. The binary doesn't exist, yet you create a false sense of oppositionalism. You would note, than in the United States, the decision to be secular had nothing to do with a lack of belief in God - it actually had to do with a divide in religions, so that the State could not endorse one, like England did Anglicanism. Instead, they decided not to, and let each protestant or catholic be left to his own measures. In truth, the secularism was put in place to protect the 'good Christians from the 'bad Christians', in the public sphere, but people could not decide who was good or bad, so they decided to protect everyone. You forget, that Jews do not worship "Our Lord". It isn't atheists who are against praying in schools, or at least, it isn't only atheists. In truth, atheists have been and still are, a relatively quiet group.

Either way, you impose your value judgments, (something precious, etc.) on the whole, whereas it is impossible to do that anymore, and still pretend that one is living in a democracy, or in a society that allows for multiple perspectives. That's the irony - for all this talk about Freedom, there is very little talk about whose expense this freedom is coming from.

"Bending over backwards", in other words, you say, why should we accommodate them? We are the majority, let them cope or get out. Seriously, what's different about that then Rome's refusal to allow Christians rights, and the programs of Romans against Christians, starting with Nero? How can one belief in a religion that respects the sacrifice and venerates the prosecuted of its practitioners in the world, yet turns their face when it happens to someone else? Isn't that more fundamentally flawed to Christian values than an accommodation of other beliefs?

[grotto]

Having no open prayer specific to any religion in public schools allows choice and ones personal definitions of God (or no God) to flourish. Forcing prayer only allows some to win, some to lose, a lot of confusion and resentment in later years. I see forced prayer only as a way to start the divide against who is wrong and who is right at an early age. For many it carries through their whole lives and the divide widens. Just look at the political front where religion for some is the most important agenda versus the well being of a nation and it’s people.

Some will get information or religion from their families’ there community or their neighbors. A sense of personal curiosity, wonder and the seeking for an answer to life’s, (or the after life’s) meaning is best fostered from a deep personal longing as opposed to from a defensive stance where one has to rid them selves first of resentments, anger and forced dogmas before they can accept their own definition of God or a personal religion they wish to follow.

I am all for teaching religion in schools on a strictly academic and historical front where thoughts can be encouraged and those who wish, can take that information, continue to seek, talk to those around them and make their own decisions. I am against having one specific religious beliefs be the sole beliefs that I have to hear every time I enter a public establishment or school.

We are bending over backwards for no one, it’s not Christians against atheists, there are many other religions that also have a voice, do those religions also have to bend over backwards for Christians? What is wrong with the compromise of silence?

[Lynne Fees]

Again, you insist on establishing the binary. The binary doesn't exist, yet you create a false sense of oppositionalism. You would note, than in the United States, the decision to be secular had nothing to do with a lack of belief in God - it actually had to do with a divide in religions, so that the State could not endorse one, like England did Anglicanism. Instead, they decided not to, and let each protestant or catholic be left to his own measures. In truth, the secularism was put in place to protect the 'good Christians from the 'bad Christians', in the public sphere, but people could not decide who was good or bad, so they decided to protect everyone. You forget, that Jews do not worship "Our Lord". It isn't atheists who are against praying in schools, or at least, it isn't only atheists. In truth, atheists have been and still are, a relatively quiet group.

Either way, you impose your value judgments, (something precious, etc.) on the whole, whereas it is impossible to do that anymore, and still pretend that one is living in a democracy, or in a society that allows for multiple perspectives. That's the irony - for all this talk about Freedom, there is very little talk about whose expense this freedom is coming from.

"Bending over backwards", in other words, you say, why should we accommodate them? We are the majority, let them cope or get out. Seriously, what's different about that then Rome's refusal to allow Christians rights, and the programs of Romans against Christians, starting with Nero? How can one belief in a religion that respects the sacrifice and venerates the prosecuted of its practitioners in the world, yet turns their face when it happens to someone else? Isn't that more fundamentally flawed to Christian values than an accommodation of other beliefs?

Ah, but you forget that an atheist was the person who originally took the case to the Supreme Court so that there wouldn't be prayer in the schools. Secularism was not put in place to protect anyone from anyone. It was not "put in place" at all; I have no idea what you mean by that comment.
My point is that a teacher praying to "God" in a public school at the beginning of the day is not the same as the government establishing "religion." Children have a First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Does this mean only inside the 4 walls of the church building? Does this mean only when no one is offended? The dialogue has stopped when you say, "Your Christian values mean your kids have to take the heat for expressing their religious views."


Having no open prayer specific to any religion in public schools allows choice and ones personal definitions of God (or no God) to flourish. Forcing prayer only allows some to win, some to lose, a lot of confusion and resentment in later years. I see forced prayer only as a way to start the divide against who is wrong and who is right at an early age. For many it carries through their whole lives and the divide widens. Just look at the political front where religion for some is the most important agenda versus the well being of a nation and it’s people.

Some will get information or religion from their families’ there community or their neighbors. A sense of personal curiosity, wonder and the seeking for an answer to life’s, (or the after life’s) meaning is best fostered from a deep personal longing as opposed to from a defensive stance where one has to rid them selves first of resentments, anger and forced dogmas before they can accept their own definition of God or a personal religion they wish to follow.

I am all for teaching religion in schools on a strictly academic and historical front where thoughts can be encouraged and those who wish, can take that information, continue to seek, talk to those around them and make their own decisions. I am against having one specific religious beliefs be the sole beliefs that I have to hear every time I enter a public establishment or school.

We are bending over backwards for no one, it’s not Christians against atheists, there are many other religions that also have a voice, do those religions also have to bend over backwards for Christians? What is wrong with the compromise of silence?

I agree with you that schools could teach religion on an academic and historical front. Unfortunately, everyone is now to scared of lawsuits.
Silence to me says God doesn't exist.

[JBI]

Ah, but you forget that an atheist was the person who originally took the case to the Supreme Court so that there wouldn't be prayer in the schools. Secularism was not put in place to protect anyone from anyone. It was not "put in place" at all; I have no idea what you mean by that comment.
My point is that a teacher praying to "God" in a public school at the beginning of the day is not the same as the government establishing "religion." Children have a First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Does this mean only inside the 4 walls of the church building? Does this mean only when no one is offended? The dialogue has stopped when you say, "Your Christian values mean your kids have to take the heat for expressing their religious views."

I'm not American - there is more to the world than those 50 States. I don't care really how things unfolded in the States. From what I understand, for a country that prides itself on its secular break from the British Empire, it is quite ironic to look at the stances of many of its citizens. I'm not going to argue with you, because I don't want to get banned, and beyond this point I feel one cannot really look into your arguments, without acknowledging a strand of thought which, by naming, may seem to be offensive.

I will say though, there are more people than just American Christians on these boards, and your post is somewhat offensive.

[grotto]

I agree with you that schools could teach religion on an academic and historical front. Unfortunately, everyone is now to scared of lawsuits.
Silence to me says God doesn't exist.

Well. To some, God doesn’t exist. What about them? What about those who believe in a different version of God than you do?

This is not an attack but, If silence says to you that God doesn’t exist, then I would check the strength of your personal convictions. My personal understanding can't be put into words and I know what I know, I also know that I don’t know and no amount of heard words, be it prayer, or a sermon is going to convince me that I all of a sudden know it all.

There are no words as powerful as an individuals own knowing in silence.

[Lynne Fees]

I'm not American - there is more to the world than those 50 States. I don't care really how things unfolded in the States. From what I understand, for a country that prides itself on its secular break from the British Empire, it is quite ironic to look at the stances of many of its citizens. I'm not going to argue with you, because I don't want to get banned, and beyond this point I feel one cannot really look into your arguments, without acknowledging a strand of thought which, by naming, may seem to be offensive.

I will say though, there are more people than just American Christians on these boards, and your post is somewhat offensive.

The forum rule is that we cannot get personal. We are to stick to the actual issues at hand. I am, of course, speaking from a frame of reference of the United States public schools, because that is where I live. I disagree that the USA "prides itself on its secular break from the British Empire." The pilgrims came here to be able to practice their Christian beliefs without government intereference. Children learned the Bible in school for most of our history.


Well. To some, God doesn’t exist. What about them? What about those who believe in a different version of God than you do?

This is not an attack but, If silence says to you that God doesn’t exist, then I would check the strength of your personal convictions. My personal understanding can't be put into words and I know what I know, I also know that I don’t know and no amount of heard words, be it prayer, or a sermon is going to convince me that I all of a sudden know it all.

There are no words as powerful as an individuals own knowing in silence.

Silence doesn't say to me that God doesn't exist. Silence tells the children that the public school system believes God doesn't exist.
And yet, our money, our Supreme Court building and many of our government buildings make it clear that God has been involved in our country since its beginnings.

[jakobmuller]

Silence doesn't say to me that God doesn't exist. Silence tells the children that the public school system believes God doesn't exist.
And yet, our money, our Supreme Court building and many of our government buildings make it clear that God has been involved in our country since its beginnings.

SIlence says that they are taking no stance.

[grotto]

In my personal opinion; the word “God” should be removed from every public building, in “God we trust’ should be removed from all of our currency (it hasn’t always been there by the way) and no government or state funded institution should endorse any form of prayer.

Separation of church and state does not mean all churches but the Christian related churches, unfortunately, that is the way it has developed. I’m afraid this isn’t going to ever be resolved; it will always rear its ugly head every generation under a new banner. One generation uses fire and brim stone, the next uses the term “tolerance” which only means, tolerate us, we have no interest in tolerating you, or, we have first amendment rights! We need to be heard! Yes, we have all heard, we have been hearing it for centuries and over seas of blood I might add, but of course, it’s only people, not God who draws violence and abuse to its final head. The same people who think that religion should be taught on their terms and in their own way. And what happens if the Christians finally win? Do they start fighting among them selves as to what denominations is the right one? So where does it end?

Yes, God has been involved since the beginning, but that doesn’t make it politically correct. Slavery, arranged marriages, segregation, debtor’s prisons, lack of women’s rights, child labor and tyranny have also been around since the beginning and I might add under the judicious guidance of the church. Does that make them also worth resurrecting?

Religion indeed is the opiate of the masses, and as any opiate, the withdrawal is a killer.

[Lynne Fees]

In my personal opinion; the word “God” should be removed from every public building, in “God we trust’ should be removed from all of our currency (it hasn’t always been there by the way) and no government or state funded institution should endorse any form of prayer.

Separation of church and state does not mean all churches but the Christian related churches, unfortunately, that is the way it has developed. I’m afraid this isn’t going to ever be resolved; it will always rear its ugly head every generation under a new banner. One generation uses fire and brim stone, the next uses the term “tolerance” which only means, tolerate us, we have no interest in tolerating you, or, we have first amendment rights! We need to be heard! Yes, we have all heard, we have been hearing it for centuries and over seas of blood I might add, but of course, it’s only people, not God who draws violence and abuse to its final head. The same people who think that religion should be taught on their terms and in their own way. And what happens if the Christians finally win? Do they start fighting among them selves as to what denominations is the right one? So where does it end?

Yes, God has been involved since the beginning, but that doesn’t make it politically correct. Slavery, arranged marriages, segregation, debtor’s prisons, lack of women’s rights, child labor and tyranny have also been around since the beginning and I might add under the judicious guidance of the church. Does that make them also worth resurrecting?

Religion indeed is the opiate of the masses, and as any opiate, the withdrawal is a killer.

Religion is seen as the opiate of the masses by the government in communist countries; those governments want people to look to the government for their hope. The U.S. is becoming more like that, to its ruin.
Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That is an empirical fact, whether your opinion is that you like it or not. That is why "In God We Trust" is on our currency, and why Bible history is depicted in our Supreme Court building. It is part of our history. Not everything in our legal system was, or is, biblically based. The Bible has not changed; our society has fortunately become more humane and is in the ways you list becoming more Christ-like. True Christians were in the forefront of the abolition of slavery and child labor. God does not bring violence; he brings love.

[JBI]

Religion is seen as the opiate of the masses by the government in communist countries; those governments want people to look to the government for their hope. The U.S. is becoming more like that, to its ruin.
Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That is an empirical fact, whether your opinion is that you like it or not. That is why "In God We Trust" is on our currency, and why Bible history is depicted in our Supreme Court building. It is part of our history. Not everything in our legal system was, or is, biblically based. The Bible has not changed; our society has fortunately become more humane and is in the ways you list becoming more Christ-like. True Christians were in the forefront of the abolition of slavery and child labor. God does not bring violence; he brings love.

Keep in mind, in October 1929, with all its splendor, while the Judeo-Christian principles, which by the way is a load of rubbish, as Judeo-Christian is an oxymoron, and the term was actually introduced by mostly left-leaning, and certainly socially active Jewish immigrants in the early years of the 20th century, in order so that the concept of "Christian America" could include "Jewish America" into one heading, in order to combat the sense of isolation caused by discrimination and segregation of Jews in American society, a political move which perhaps had some positive benefits, but never was a reality in terms of perspective, as Jews even to this day are seen in many places of the U.S. as secondary citizens to their Christian counterparts, but in 1929, while this Christian America was falling apart, and the old system was shown to lead to failure, the so called communist countries were booming, having higher standards than ever, and growing at a rate almost unheard of - in one generation, from essentially serfdom to industrialization. It wasn't God who would help the allies win the Second World War either, it was the power of the communist spirit, in resisting the forces that, up until Pearl Harbor, the bulk of America supported.


Now lets ask another question - in Vietnam, was it the evil, Godless Vietnamese causing all the trouble, or the God-wielding colonialist capitalists? China may have been cut off from the rest of the world, but the cultural and economic change perpetuated by rejecting this colonial mentality most certainly helped them from going from a ruined, pre-industrial society, to one that owns half of the United States (a fact that many Americans fail to realize, that these so called communists are the only thing keeping said country from absolute bankruptcy).

God may not bring violence (I agree with that, I don't think he brings anything) but judging by the militancy you have against the non-believer on this thread, I would certainly say he brings aggression. And please, do not use the term Judeo-Christian to force your argument; the Judeo side of the equation most certainly would not support Christian indoctrination in schools.


And perhaps you may wish to look into, more closely, the slavery history of the U.S.. It most certainly had Church support, and religious justification over the fact that Blacks were seen as somehow less than human, and therefore justifiably fair game to be taken as slaves. In fact, history textbooks up until not to long ago actually praised colonizations and slavery in Africa as benevolent in bringing Christianity to the people. Similar rhetoric to the stance on residential schools for Native Americans, who, being physically, emotionally, and quite often sexually abused at a young age, saw the collapse of everything at the hands of the Bible. The Bible almost from its putting together has, and still is a colonial tool, used to dehumanize the nonbeliever, and separate them from the believer as something inferior.

In that regard, lets say we put the Bible into classrooms in the U.S.. For the Christian kids, what happens? Do they become more religious? Are they effected in any way, except feeling that they are perhaps more dominant over the nonbeliever? Certainly, if they are good Christians, their faith won't alter much. Now lets look at the perspective of the nonbeliever. They are shown as not part of the group. Their family's and personal traditions and lifestyles are questioned. Their connection to the community is jeopardized, and they are left with a sense of either feeling as one who cannot belong under their current value system, or else one that ultimately cannot be a part of the circle of Christians. In other words, prayer in school, if we consider everything, would affect the nonbeliever far more than the believer, as the believer already would have the sense of religion spoonfed to him by his parents since the cradle, and therefore would not be in any need of reinforcement.

Really though, it would be interesting to just change the notion of prayer, with Americanism, and see the same arguments reinforce themselves all over in a global setting. Quite simply, in other parts of the world, including places like Italy, which has the longest history of Christianity outside of the Middle East, and has a culture rooted heavily in Christian history, one doesn't seem to see this sort of problem as rampant, with this failure to accept a secular identity amongst a Christian one. Why is it then, that when the U.S. is concerned, being a country that was revolutionary in its separation of Church and State, that such issues with accepting a little understanding of different perspective is so difficult?


I think, one needs to question what is really behind the issue then? To me, it seems to have really kicked off with the Civil Rights movement, when finally, in a country that since its creation had been dominated by racist programs, had its values questioned. This reinforced by the sense of anti-Americanist sentiment, generated by opposition to the Vietnam War culminated in, I would argue a divide - that between people clinging to the old way, as a means of justifying America, and its place in the world (a result of the lost of innocence, and an inability for people to really believe in the paradisaical view of America before it). As Leonard Cohen, writing after the L. A. riots put it in his song "The Future":

Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

While the Berlin Wall, and Stalin still lived, there was a possibility of good within such an image, but today, there is nothing. The American way bankrupted itself (now, quite literally), and no longer can a view of The U.S. as an innocent, free country be perpetuated.

How does this relate to prayer in schools then? Well, quite simply, some wish to move forward, while others want to regress, and try to reestablish the status quo. To me, it seems like the factions between Monarchists and Revolutionaries in France just after the Revolution. Some wished to sustain themselves, by clinging to the old way, and perpetuating it as a myth of the orderly, well structured, God-prescribed way, whereas the others realized this was a bunch of toss, and simply wished to move forward.

The religiosity in the States then, tying into prayer in schools, can be interpreted perhaps as an inability to let go, and admit that perhaps The United States wasn't perfect from the beginning. When something good happens, one always seems to thank God, but what happens when something bad happens by God-fearing people? Can we blame God for that? Americans seem to not think so, as God is all love, and quite simply, how can someone who believes in God, and follows the way of God do evil? The answer: For all its religiosity, Truman's America had no problem wiping over 100,000 civilians off the face of the world in a matter of minutes. In fact, they had no problem doing it twice.

Now, to stop diverting much, and sum things up. I think I have demonstrated what I believe the cause of such a debate is - an inability to really let go, and admit one was wrong. There is a feeling by those who wish to maintain a failing status quo that if religion is somehow removed from everywhere, America will lose its sense of America - something which these people are not ready to do. To them, I would argue, religion is what separates Americans from an outside evil, that perpetually threatens to undermine it - a view shared by not all Americans, I would add - and therefore "lowering their guard" would mean opening up the culture, and questioning whether or not America truly is the one, and dominant perspective. This inability to open up, and to accept others in, quite simply, I would argue, is the thing which perhaps is pulling the United States down. Not the communists, not the Muslims, or the Democrats, or whatever, but quite simply, an inability to stand by the core values - tolerance, and respect for your fellow humans, and equality to all, that supposedly were the reason for the foundation of the United States. In the 18th century, to quote Emerson, a "shot was heard around the world," and quite simply, I think in many places, it has stopped being heard. The hypocrisy is extraordinary. A denial of the same privileges Americans fought for to people who do not belong to the dominant group. What then does America stand for?

Seriously, for a country that criticizes other places in the world for lack of tolerance, this seems a pretty darn intolerant argument.

[Stargazer86]

I've always felt that anyone has the same right to pray as the next person has a right not to in a public school. That right not to includes the right not to hear the prayer or be asked to pray. I went to a Catholic school for elementry and middle school and it was just part of the daily routine. By enrolling in Catholic (or any school with religious affiliation) you are agreeing to partake in any religious ceremony, including prayer. Public school is a whole other story. Seperation of church and state should most definately be upheld. I think the most appropriate solution would be a daily moment of silence. Those who want to pray may do so silently and those who don't want to can read or meditate or just relax quietly for a few moments. You don't have to pray out loud or make a show of it or even include anyone to be religious or spiritual. Be humble. You don't need a production or a bunch of other people to be closer to your God. I never understood why anyone made such a big deal out of this issue. What are you trying to prove? And to whom? Another alternative is Prayer groups and clubs at school run by students (not school administration). In my high school they had a Christian club who would go sit in a classroom at lunchtime and discuss among themselves. It was optional and not out in front of everyone and that's the way it should be.

[Taliesin]

In the early nineties, when Estonia had just regained independence, there were ideas of introducing a compulsory prayer hour to the parliament. A protest party, Independent Royalists, responded to it with an hour-long Neopagan rite, complete with a tambourine.
After that, well, people really weren't so fond of the idea any more.

Really, I read through the topic and I haven't yet seen a plausible pro on this topic.
I don't quite see why everyone must be forced to be the same, when there is a totally valid and nice option that respects the differences between people?

Silence doesn't say to me that God doesn't exist. Silence tells the children that the public school system believes God doesn't exist.
And yet, our money, our Supreme Court building and many of our government buildings make it clear that God has been involved in our country since its beginnings.

I'm telling you, the absence of "heterosexual minutes" in school just tells those kids that they should really be gay! And why should all the heterosexuals be repressed so terribly? They are the majority after all. We should introduce the official "heterosexual minutes" right away where everyone shows how straight they are -and well, those who aren't can sit in the corner or pretend they are straight or something - it's all for the greater good, who is harmed?

[JBI]

I'm telling you, the absence of "heterosexual minutes" in school just tells those kids that they should really be gay! And why should all the heterosexuals be repressed so terribly? They are the majority after all. We should introduce the official "heterosexual minutes" right away where everyone shows how straight they are -and well, those who aren't can sit in the corner or pretend they are straight or something - it's all for the greater good, who is harmed?

Better not say anything - someone on this thread may take that seriously.

[Stargazer86]

Bravo Taliesin and JBI! Points well made :nod:

[grotto]

Oh snap!!! I bow to the wordsmith with superior knowledge to me, a Canadian with no horse in an American prayer race.

For what it’s worth, I had no intention of being aggressive, sorry if it comes off that way. I’m poking with a smile, that’s all. I need to practice my writing skills more.

[West]

It was convinient for muslim students to have had a meditation room available at college. Prayer is timely and if a student wanted to pray, they did it in an empty classroom or in an isolated corner. It was nice the school was willing to give us a room for prayer as our numbers grew. We were thankful to the school management. I must add though as a minority who brings a new culture to a majority who knows or understands little of it, sometimes things can get unnecessarily inflammatory. It is only in America, with all its troubled past and present, one can find an accomodation(even if they have to fight for it(the accomodation) first through legal means). There is benefit to having different cultures and I think it is what makes America strong and very attractive to many.

[JBI]

It was convinient for muslim students to have had a meditation room available at college. Prayer is timely and if a student wanted to pray, they did it in an empty classroom or in an isolated corner. It was nice the school was willing to give us a room for prayer as our numbers grew. We were thankful to the school management. I must add though as a minority who brings a new culture to a majority who knows or understands little of it, sometimes things can get unnecessarily inflammatory. It is only in America, with all its troubled past and present, one can find an accomodation(even if they have to fight for it(the accomodation) first through legal means). There is benefit to having different cultures and I think it is what makes America strong and very attractive to many.

Have you been a minority in a country other than America? From what I understood, America seems to have had a pretty rough civil record of treatment toward minorities - the only in America bit seems a bit dated to me.

But beyond that, you are coming from a perspective which has benefited from a secularization - the argument is not whether this is good or not, but whether one's country should regress (or return if you will) back to a point where one religion has support within a school, and all children are made to pray from primary schools onward.

[West]

Have you been a minority in a country other than America? From what I understood, America seems to have had a pretty rough civil record of treatment toward minorities - the only in America bit seems a bit dated to me.

But beyond that, you are coming from a perspective which has benefited from a secularization - the argument is not whether this is good or not, but whether one's country should regress (or return if you will) back to a point where one religion has support within a school, and all children are made to pray from primary schools onward.



Well, I am judging America from my perspective and wouldn't counter someone else's view who has legitimate complaints about it. With respect to the "Only America", it is true compared to how difficult it can be to assimilate immigrants in other countries. You can challenge me on that by bringing examples of countries who successfully assimilated/assimilate immigrants without isolating them for decades into ghetto areas like brittain. America has the system of assimilation in place and it is a land of immigrants. I don't think of it as a perfect country, but it is better than most, other countries are catching up to it.

I may have benefitted from seculirazed institutions in the sense that these public institutions do not impose particular faith on people. Neutral government is always important institutionally. Religious based governments, unless they have in their faith/religious texts a complete freedom for others to practice their faith, minorities would have issues living under such governments. So we want to keep the American government secular but people ought to practice their faith as they please as long as they are not hurting, or disrupting others who share a space with them. No forced religion in public schools. If some students want to practice their faith on their own and take time for it during school hours, they should be accomodated.

[JBI]

Yes, great assimilation, especially of Native Americans and Blacks right? Seriously, to me it looks as if you have just bought into the system. I can think of many countries who have better records to immigrants today. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, I would even say France, Italy, and others too. Of course, one can only guess.

Your point is, countries who assimilate immigrants the best though, which to me is hogwash. Is that good treatment of immigrants? Seriously, if it is, perhaps the United States wins, but that whole idea sickens me. It implies an inferiority of one tradition over another, and then a unraveling of custom and culture in support of a more dominant one. Perhaps if you value that, then the U.S. wins, but quite frankly, the ability for immigrants, and minorities to speak whatever language they want, eat whatever food they want, practice any religion they want, and not be judged for it is far more to be preferred than a culture that prides itself on how it assimilates these cultures, in other words, destroys these cultures. That's a pretty 1850s look at immigration, to be honest - the world has changed, I would hope, well, perhaps not as much as one would think.

[West]

Yes, great assimilation, especially of Native Americans and Blacks right? Seriously, to me it looks as if you have just bought into the system. I can think of many countries who have better records to immigrants today. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, I would even say France, Italy, and others too. Of course, one can only guess.

Your point is, countries who assimilate immigrants the best though, which to me is hogwash. Is that good treatment of immigrants? Seriously, if it is, perhaps the United States wins, but that whole idea sickens me. It implies an inferiority of one tradition over another, and then a unraveling of custom and culture in support of a more dominant one. Perhaps if you value that, then the U.S. wins, but quite frankly, the ability for immigrants, and minorities to speak whatever language they want, eat whatever food they want, practice any religion they want, and not be judged for it is far more to be preferred than a culture that prides itself on how it assimilates these cultures, in other words, destroys these cultures. That's a pretty 1850s look at immigration, to be honest - the world has changed, I would hope, well, perhaps not as much as one would think.


I am a recent immigrant and being proud of my ethnic culture comes naturally to me. I dream in my own ethnic language so to speak. I never thought of America as providing anything superior to mine except opportunities that benefit my material gain and education. With that said, America is a respectable country to me for the things it has gotten right. And there is room for more progress definitely. Without the blacks and their history in this country and that of the wiped indians, I wouldn't get the opportunity I got, so thanks in part to them as well.

With respect to your view of assimilation, we are close. I don't think the American version of assimilation means immigrants have to be stripped of their culture and be given or they take up another in its place. To me, as an immigrant person myself, I never felt such pressure. I studied english because I had to, it is the key to education/knowledge and opportunities since it is the language used officially. I am still the same person culturally and keep everything about me alive, because that is who I am, America doesn't make me but I in fact make America in my image as I practice my religion without fear or feeling others have something better than I got. All I am saying is, America, with its dark past and present problems, other countries have something to learn from it as much as I am sure, America needs to learn something from them. The countries you mentioned are good but they are not as matured as the US me thinks.

[JBI]

Give it a few more months. Seriously though, I don't dispute that the States is a good place to immigrate, I just don't like when people claim it to be the best country, or treats immigrants the best in the world, or is the most open to minority opinion, because, if you really read around, you'll find many racist wholes in immigration policies, and many other countries who do the same, and who seem to have just as, or more open viewpoints and acceptances. Back to prayer though - if your kid was made to worship Jesus Christ, or be present while everyone else was - wouldn't you interpret that as somehow detrimental? Wouldn't that be a huge debasement of your rights?

[West]

Give it a few more months. Seriously though, I don't dispute that the States is a good place to immigrate, I just don't like when people claim it to be the best country, or treats immigrants the best in the world, or is the most open to minority opinion, because, if you really read around, you'll find many racist wholes in immigration policies, and many other countries who do the same, and who seem to have just as, or more open viewpoints and acceptances. Back to prayer though - if your kid was made to worship Jesus Christ, or be present while everyone else was - wouldn't you interpret that as somehow detrimental? Wouldn't that be a huge debasement of your rights?



LOL@give it a few more months. Do you think I will change my opinion by then? I have been here since late 1995 and seen enough to make a good judgement of the system. There are a lot of things I disagree with in America, no country is perfect, and America is not. The justice system is not very fair and sometimes people get punished severely for minor crimes, or face prejudice in the system because of their race, the punishments don't fit the crime often, they could change those bad laws on the books written from the view point of racism and ignorance, or out of emotion. Other than that, America isn't that bad compared to many other countries. Xenophobia is huge issue in many parts of Europe. Also, I am aware of immigration policies favouring immigrants from Europe to America, nonetheless, thousands of noneuropeans come to America each year as well.

Anyway, the answer to your question is, yes, it would, and thankfully, public schools are not religion oriented, should be kept that way. My opinion is :-

A- Not to impose religious teachings in public schools, because they are public and open to different cultures. B- Let the kids who want to practifce their faith in these public schools get an accomodation for that without their classmates.

As long as no official religion is imposed on anyone, we are fine. Private schools can do whatever they please, that is their prerogative. Whoever signs up with them is already willing to participate in whatever goes on there.

[Lynne Fees]

I fail to see where I have exhibited any agression. If so, please point it out to me. However, I feel that plenty of it has been directed towards me. Many, many words does not make a good argument.
I am looking for responses to the points I make.
True Christians were instrumental in abolishing slavery. Not everone who calls himself or herself a Christian really exhibits faith in Christ. A person who does brings love, not hate, to the situation.
The original question was regarding prayer in the public schools.
Since I believe that God has power to answer prayer, I believe that prayer in the schools could help children feel loved and secure. It would also give them a frame of reference for having self-control in the classroom.
You do not believe these things. Therefore, you do not want children learning them and see it as somehow harmful because slavery used to exist, and people calling themselves Christians backed the idea. Your argument seems to be that prayer will turn the children into bigots??
I can use the term "Judeo-Christian" if I like, since the Old Testatment is held sacred by both groups.

[Lynne Fees]

And just to show I have no agression towards any of you, I'll pray that God will show Himself strong in a special way for all of you today.

[BienvenuJDC]

SIlence says that they are taking no stance.

If we are speaking of the USA, WE took a stance that WE are One Nation under God from the beginning. If others do not like that, then they are free to live here without persecution, but they are not free to take God out of our nation.

[West]

Does America have one God? That is the question one needs to answer before they speak for all Americans. It would be difficult to make religion the unifying factor for all Americans. Some segments would love the idea, but they are on the fringe of society. America is different from what it used to be way back and presently multicultural identity took hold. So, the saying should go this way; "If one doesn't like America's multiculturalism, they should seek life elsewhere where the same people, the same religion, and the same culture is predominant". I think some European countries might be a good immigration destination for such people. These European countries will change too as well in the future from one culture to many.

[BienvenuJDC]

Why should the American culture be forced to change because new people with new cultures have arrived? If people do not like the God that this country was established under, then they can either worship with the freedom that was guaranteed by the Constitution in silence, OR they can go back to the country or land in which is their origin and worship their own God (or gods) there. If they choose not to worship any God, then they can do that in silence. I do not discriminate against anyone because they do not believe the way that I do, but I do not expect that the principles that this country was founded upon...nor the way of the majority (yes, Christianity is still the belief most held in America) should be forced to be changed.

This is my feeling. I am not alone. The separation of Church and State was not established for this purpose, and people have twisted and manipulated it to mean something different than it was originally supposed to mean.

Since this thread is dominated by those who do not believe in God, I do not expect to change any minds, nor to have anyone agree. I have found that the arguments contributed are very wordy, and they do not give validation to the points that have arisen. If you have an opinion about the prayer in schools in any other country, since I don't live in that country, they can do as they wish. There are some countries that do not even permit Christianity to be practiced, and that is their decision.

[West]

One can hold on to their version of history which nobody else shares with them and be emotional about it, or become reasonable and look at America today for what it is, a very multicultural country. Whoever came in last doesn't matter because those who came earlier came with their guns blazing, robbed everyone on their sight, bloodied, massacred millions told and untold, and forcibly converted kids they stole from other cultures. If people with that history can claim America to be theirs, surely, others with less baggage with them can lay claim to it as well and call America theirs. At least recent immigrants didn't committ any crime in settling here, they are more respectable. How America was founded doesn't address the issues at hand. What matters is now and the future, one country for all under no particular God where each and every person keeps their faith to themselves. That is not too much to ask and Uncle Sum is doing pretty good job of keeping everyone in line.

[BienvenuJDC]

One can hold on to their version of history which nobody else shares with them and be emotional about it, or become reasonable and look at America today for what it is, a very multicultural country. Whoever came in last doesn't matter because those who came earlier came with their guns blazing, robbed everyone on their sight, bloodied, massacred millions told and untold, and forcibly converted kids they stole from other cultures. If people with that history can claim America to be theirs, surely, others with less baggage with them can lay claim to it as well and call America theirs. At least recent immigrants didn't committ any crime in settling here, they are more respectable. How America was founded doesn't address the issues at hand. What matters is now and the future, one country for all under no particular God where each and every person keeps their faith to themselves. That is not too much to ask and Uncle Sum is doing pretty good job of keeping everyone in line.

These comments seem unrelated to whether there should be prayer in school... The sins of some do not negate the intentions of others. Not to mention that it seems that you get much of your history from Hollywood.

[Scheherazade]

-

Further personal and inflammatory comments will lead to thread closure.

-

[West]

My earlier reply related to your line of Argument that America was founded on certain faith and therefore others should either leave the country if they are not pleased with certain ideas or tow the line. If the foundation was corrupt to begin with and absolutely wrong, now mistakes have been corrected somewhat and to some extent, at least the right mindset seems to be the majority and America is not one faith country, therefore, America for all. With regards to prayer in School, I gave my opinion. Any kid who wants to pray should and be accomodated without inconviniencing others. Keep it private, give them meditation rooms out of other student's view. Why is that wrong? I am against people claiming America for themselves to the exclusion of others because those "others" either do not believe in anything or are nonchristrians by faith. I do not recognize America belonging to christians and the so called founding fathers do not concern me really.

[JBI]

I fail to see where I have exhibited any agression. If so, please point it out to me. However, I feel that plenty of it has been directed towards me. Many, many words does not make a good argument.
I am looking for responses to the points I make.
True Christians were instrumental in abolishing slavery. Not everone who calls himself or herself a Christian really exhibits faith in Christ. A person who does brings love, not hate, to the situation.
The original question was regarding prayer in the public schools.
Since I believe that God has power to answer prayer, I believe that prayer in the schools could help children feel loved and secure. It would also give them a frame of reference for having self-control in the classroom.
You do not believe these things. Therefore, you do not want children learning them and see it as somehow harmful because slavery used to exist, and people calling themselves Christians backed the idea. Your argument seems to be that prayer will turn the children into bigots??
I can use the term "Judeo-Christian" if I like, since the Old Testatment is held sacred by both groups.

No it isn't. The Torah, and the Nevi'im maybe, but Christians don't read more than half the Jewish canon, and the parts that are read are misappropriated, and mistranslated, and reformed and reinterpreted. Quite simply, when you use the term Judeo Christian when applying to values, you make an assumption a) that Christians hold these values, a tough descision, and b) that Jews hold the same values, an even tougher decision. Quite simply though, Jewish dogma teaches that it is a great sin to pray to Jesus Christ, or to "The lord", and is against protocol to even pray within a school setting like that, as prayers have certain times of day attached to them, certain procedures, and certain requirements, such as needing 10 males who have reached the age of Bar Mitzvah, also known as a Minyan. In truth, even Jewish schools would have a problem with praying in school, if they were very religious ones, because the time for prayers doesn't fit in with the school hours (Shacharit is earlier, Minchah is after school, and Ma'ariv is after Minchah.


As for the rest of your argument, the same Christians that freed the slaves (though, didn't exactly free them - that is still in the making, though it took a big step during the civil rights movement) also happened to be the ones that enslaved them. Quite simply, the way I read history, the reason why it was religious groups who acted for emancipation was simply because in those days it was religious groups who acted - period. who wasn't part of one in those days? Society itself was spun around religious institutions in public life, and therefore it would only make sense that any form of mobilization went through a common meeting place for people - a Church. The actual process itself doesn't seem rooted in dogma, more in a realization that perhaps it is a little bit disgusting to treat a human being like that - though many religious people still haven't clued quite into that.

I have no problem with whatever religion people practice, but quite simply, that is only if they practice their religion, and don't make others practice it. Prayer in school has been proven to lead to people feeling terrible. The example I gave you about the girl from a Baha'i family illustrates as much.

As for points directly addressing your points, well, I found it quite difficult to answer remarks I found bigoted, without calling them bigoted, and therefore risking this thread being closed, so I decided to beat around the bush, and address the bigger picture. After all, I don't see you addressing any of my points, or saying anything that really hasn't been addressed (as you might as well copy and paste each time you post from the previous post), so, quite simply, there is no real point.

As for more words not meaning a good argument, I agree. A lot of words that make sense, however, do make a better argument.

[Taliesin]

The idea of giving religious people rooms for them to do their rituals in private seems quite okay to me, however, a question arises: should all the religions get their own rooms? What if there are a lot of different religions? Should a child who is the only representative of some faith in his/her school get a special room for him/herself - and if no, where to draw the line?
Anyhow, this idea is reasonable.


Why should the American culture be forced to change because new people with new cultures have arrived? If people do not like the God that this country was established under, then they can either worship with the freedom that was guaranteed by the Constitution in silence, OR they can go back to the country or land in which is their origin and worship their own God (or gods) there. If they choose not to worship any God, then they can do that in silence. I do not discriminate against anyone because they do not believe the way that I do, but I do not expect that the principles that this country was founded upon...nor the way of the majority (yes, Christianity is still the belief most held in America) should be forced to be changed.

This is my feeling. I am not alone. The separation of Church and State was not established for this purpose, and people have twisted and manipulated it to mean something different than it was originally supposed to mean.


Pardon, but are you implying that American culture and way of thought should be the same as it was on the 18th and 19th century? (including the imperialism, considering slavery and racism normal etc?)

Anyhow, how is not forcing everyone to be the same publicly such a terrible forceful violation of the American mentality?


Imagine a school there are 70 per cent of Christians and 30 per cent Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Satanists/Other.
Actually, when all of that 70 per cent go to some rather large private room to pray together and when there is a public praying and those who don't like it can sit in the corner and ignore it, there isn't really much of a difference on the level what happens - but the difference would be onthe level of the message conveyed - one would be "Religion is a private thing so we'll go and do it privately" and the other would be "Religion is a public thing. Isn't it nice that we are all Christians?"
The minorities are marginalized - them and their beliefs do not exist. I do not see why the second option should be followed.

The question about whether the first option would be a good thing or not is a separate case, but it is late, so I'll stop now.

[JBI]

My earlier reply related to your line of Argument that America was founded on certain faith and therefore others should either leave the country if they are not pleased with certain ideas or tow the line. If the foundation was corrupt to begin with and absolutely wrong, now mistakes have been corrected somewhat and to some extent, at least the right mindset seems to be the majority and America is not one faith country, therefore, America for all. With regards to prayer in School, I gave my opinion. Any kid who wants to pray should and be accomodated without inconviniencing others. Keep it private, give them meditation rooms out of other student's view. Why is that wrong? I am against people claiming America for themselves to the exclusion of others because those "others" either do not believe in anything or are nonchristrians by faith. I do not recognize America belonging to christians and the so called founding fathers do not concern me really.

Yes, but if you look at the thread, you will realize that there is a strong segment of American society who feels that Nonchristians are somehow less American. {edit}
In that sense, a conservative argument would propose that prayer in school perhaps reinforces the fundamental values of society, and educates children properly. My arguments were aimed at trying to examine what these "fundamental values" really mean (one thinks of certain groups riding in the back of the bus, to say the least), and why there is such an "urge" by some to return to them.

[West]

Yes, but if you look at the thread, you will realize that there is a strong segment of American society who feels that Nonchristians are somehow less American. {edit} In that sense, a conservative argument would propose that prayer in school perhaps reinforces the fundamental values of society, and educates children properly. My arguments were aimed at trying to examine what these "fundamental values" really mean (one thinks of certain groups riding in the back of the bus, to say the least), and why there is such an "urge" by some to return to them.


"Why" Beats the hell out of me mate. {edit}If conservatives want prayer in school for their kids, only their kids should do it in rooms assigned for them with the exclusion of other kids because America doesn't belong to conservative christians. No one shares their exclusionary philosophy. That is the bottom line. PS: I am a US citizen, they call us Naturalized Citizens because we aren't born here, and we are not asking for acceptance from anyone because we own the land itself just like anyone whose grandfathers came owned a piece of the land :D

[grotto]

For those of you who like to throw the word God around in relation to America’s history, here is a little basic historic info.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, it was not a founding fathers document. “One nation under God” wasn’t original to the pledge; it was added in 1954 thanks (if one could say), to the not so gentle push of The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal order. It wasn’t an easy sell either.

In God We Trust is the final stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner. Written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key (and later adopted as the U.S. national anthem), "The Star-Spangled Banner" was recognized for official use by the Navy in 1889 and the President in 1916, and was made the national anthem by a congressional resolution on March 3, 1931

In God We Trust, The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.

The motto E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto


Many have argued against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined in order for this nation to continue properly.

There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

That leaves open, however, the possibility that the document expressed the will of the same people who wrote the Constitution — thus, it provides knowledge about their intent as to what sort of government we should have. Leaving aside for the moment whether or not that intention should bind us, there are still serious flaws to consider. First, religion itself is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This makes it difficult to argue that any particular religious principles should guide our current government.

Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.
One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.

Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.

What this all means is that arguments against the separation of church and state which rely upon the language of the Declaration of Independence fail. First, the document in question has no legal authority with which one could make a legal case. Second, the sentiments expressed therein do not support the principle that government should be guided either by any specific religion (like Christianity) or by religion “in general” (as if such a thing even existed).
Jefferson would take such terms as an insult if applied to his draft. He thought most theology an enemy to man's freedom, and he opposed any religious tests for holding office or citizenship.
Something to keep in mind: Dr. Stephen Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who had spent the previous 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence made the following points:

The men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it was about, what it meant etc. That all these religious connections and meanings etc that have been added by others later was never implied as written or as understood at the time by it authors, that they were not part of what was originally important, the original understandings, meanings, intentions. etc.
The Declaration was not meant to give a religious foundation to this nation, to its founding, its founding documents, its legal system or laws. It was not intended to give a theological discourse on the creation of mankind.

The Preamble states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended. It was thought by the Federalists during this time that there was no need for a bill of rights as they thought that the preamble spelled out the people's rights.

The Bill of Rights; First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to petition, 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.

The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof, forbids infringement of "...An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country. Such a sanction is discouraged in the United States, where this is covered by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Just info.

Also, for those who also like to say, “what would the founding fathers say”, Well, here is what they had said.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." – (Thomas Jefferson)

Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." – (George Washington)

"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – (Benjamin Franklin)

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- (Thomas Paine)

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." – (Thomas Jefferson)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." – (James Madison)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

[Lynne Fees]

If we are speaking of the USA, WE took a stance that WE are One Nation under God from the beginning. If others do not like that, then they are free to live here without persecution, but they are not free to take God out of our nation.

Yes, it's really a matter of history. Maybe it's not true for every country, but it is true for ours.

[Lynne Fees]

No it isn't. The Torah, and the Nevi'im maybe, but Christians don't read more than half the Jewish canon, and the parts that are read are misappropriated, and mistranslated, and reformed and reinterpreted. Quite simply, when you use the term Judeo Christian when applying to values, you make an assumption a) that Christians hold these values, a tough descision, and b) that Jews hold the same values, an even tougher decision. Quite simply though, Jewish dogma teaches that it is a great sin to pray to Jesus Christ, or to "The lord", and is against protocol to even pray within a school setting like that, as prayers have certain times of day attached to them, certain procedures, and certain requirements, such as needing 10 males who have reached the age of Bar Mitzvah, also known as a Minyan. In truth, even Jewish schools would have a problem with praying in school, if they were very religious ones, because the time for prayers doesn't fit in with the school hours (Shacharit is earlier, Minchah is after school, and Ma'ariv is after Minchah.


As for the rest of your argument, the same Christians that freed the slaves (though, didn't exactly free them - that is still in the making, though it took a big step during the civil rights movement) also happened to be the ones that enslaved them. Quite simply, the way I read history, the reason why it was religious groups who acted for emancipation was simply because in those days it was religious groups who acted - period. who wasn't part of one in those days? Society itself was spun around religious institutions in public life, and therefore it would only make sense that any form of mobilization went through a common meeting place for people - a Church. The actual process itself doesn't seem rooted in dogma, more in a realization that perhaps it is a little bit disgusting to treat a human being like that - though many religious people still haven't clued quite into that.

I have no problem with whatever religion people practice, but quite simply, that is only if they practice their religion, and don't make others practice it. Prayer in school has been proven to lead to people feeling terrible. The example I gave you about the girl from a Baha'i family illustrates as much.

As for points directly addressing your points, well, I found it quite difficult to answer remarks I found bigoted, without calling them bigoted, and therefore risking this thread being closed, so I decided to beat around the bush, and address the bigger picture. After all, I don't see you addressing any of my points, or saying anything that really hasn't been addressed (as you might as well copy and paste each time you post from the previous post), so, quite simply, there is no real point.

As for more words not meaning a good argument, I agree. A lot of words that make sense, however, do make a better argument.

What I'm trying to say is this: Our country was founded on Christian values. Most of our country is still Christian or Jewish; thus, prayers to "God" should not offend. Christians and Jews share the belief in Old Testament Scriptures. Perhaps misguided Christians, or Christians who were not really Christians, owned slaves. However, Christians and Christian churches were the impetus for abolishing slavery, were the people who started almost all of the churches, schools, orphanages and "poor houses." Turning our back on our Christian heritage is serving to force our children to grow up in a spiritual vaccum. These ideas are not bigotry in any sense of the word. Therefore, I think prayer should exist in the schools and I think children should learn the Bible.

I am sorry to hear all of your anger.

Happy National Day of Prayer!

[jakobmuller]

I'd say that for the most part we could teach them christian values without necessarily making them "christian" or having them pray.

Hope that makes sense :-)

[JBI]

I'd say that for the most part we could teach them christian values without necessarily making them "christian" or having them pray.

Hope that makes sense :-)

Christian values, like what? What is a Christian value? Keep in mind, it needs to be something that is somehow of great value, yet idiosyncratic to the Christian faith.

[billyjack]

Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.


I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- (Thomas Paine)



maybe the most informative post i've seen. strangely no one referenced it as far as i could tell. instead i saw ambiguous unfounded references to the usa being a christian founded country. c'mon people

[Taliesin]

What I'm trying to say is this: Our country was founded on Christian values. Most of our country is still Christian or Jewish; thus, prayers to "God" should not offend. Christians and Jews share the belief in Old Testament Scriptures. Perhaps misguided Christians, or Christians who were not really Christians, owned slaves. However, Christians and Christian churches were the impetus for abolishing slavery, were the people who started almost all of the churches, schools, orphanages and "poor houses." Turning our back on our Christian heritage is serving to force our children to grow up in a spiritual vaccum. These ideas are not bigotry in any sense of the word. Therefore, I think prayer should exist in the schools and I think children should learn the Bible.

I am sorry to hear all of your anger.

Happy National Day of Prayer!

Ah, the No true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman) argument/fallacy.


Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing.
BTW, if you happen to be reading this, no offense, kilted

[kingoflombards]

I think that there should be prayer in public school, it would balance things out a bit as we get older.

For instance, where I used to go to school, there was a student who got suspended for drawing a religious icon for an art project. But other people's art(which I've seen)included Satanic images and clear references to evil. They got off scott-free. We should not punish people for practicing religion in school.

[BienvenuJDC]

It seems to me that there are certain people in this thread that are continually disrespectful of the Christian religion. Christianity is my faith, my beliefs, and whether or not people agree with those beliefs, I think that those beliefs should be better respected.

[Stargazer86]

I think that there should be prayer in public school, it would balance things out a bit as we get older.

For instance, where I used to go to school, there was a student who got suspended for drawing a religious icon for an art project. But other people's art(which I've seen)included Satanic images and clear references to evil. They got off scott-free. We should not punish people for practicing religion in school.


I agree with you and feel that's wrong. It should be all or nothing. Either don't allow ANY religious iconography (which includes anything non christain i.e. satanism etc) or allow all students to put forth thier own representation.

As I stated in an earlier post, I don't think prayer should be mandated in a public school nor thrown in anyone's face. The same goes for the opposite. Student run Christain (or any religious affiliation) clubs and a moment of silence in lieu of a group prayer would be most appropriate in this situation. Moderation and compromise in all things.

I really don't like when people make a big show of religion in a public place that is not associated with a religious institution. I don't think that needs to be done to connect and talk with your own God. I do understand the idea of power in numbers and prayer groups and church, which is why *points up* student run Christain clubs in a classroom at lunch time is a good solution.

[JBI]

It seems to me that there are certain people in this thread that are continually disrespectful of the Christian religion. Christianity is my faith, my beliefs, and whether or not people agree with those beliefs, I think that those beliefs should be better respected.

Good, and had you been living in a Muslim country, for instance, and not that any would do this but, if they made you kneel and submit to Allah during school hours, how would you feel as a Christian. Your beliefs are respected, just as long as they stay your beliefs. As for not criticizing religion, what is the point of discussing things if one cannot criticize? Keep in mind, the early Christians were persecuted for holding a different set of views than the pagan Romans, I find it hard to keep with the history, and venerate those people, meanwhile accusing any form of descent or difference of opinion.

I urge you - go to Rome, take the tour of the Catacombs (a word which etymologically comes from the word for "tunnel) - hundreds of thousands of a martyred bodies piled row on row in a vast maze - unlit and endless - the kind where, if you get lost, you are lost forever, within the countless rows - wherein the largest of which, 4 floors, spanning tens of miles - in the dark too I may add, with bodies stacked one on top of the other - and you tell me, how can one faith, who had that done to them in the name of some other Gods not respect the freedoms of other religions?

I see nothing Unchristian, or Christian mind you, about my argument. In truth, if Christian morality is worth anything, let us hope it is perhaps a little more tolerant than its ancestor. After all, what were all those bodies piled up for, if not for the same freedoms and rights that these antagonistic militants wish to steal from those who do not practice Christianity.

That being said, I am not equating Christians with murderers (though I acknowledge such an argument can be made on many levels, especially in historical times) but for a group who had suffered so much when it was in a subordinate position to a major dominant power, and outsiders in a dominant culture, it would seem rather hypocritical to continue the streak. Is not the centre of Christianity humility and hospitality, and a goodness toward a fellow man? Is that not what the Parable of the Good Samaritan teaches? How then, can one turn and say, "We are Christian, they aren't. This is a Christian country, and they are attacking us by not letting us impose our ideas onto them."

Quite frankly, I don't care what faith people believe, be that Zoroastrianism or Scientology - but the second someone tries to impose those beliefs, and keep in mind the nature of them, beliefs, meaning built on a sense of faith - a faith in a higher being, a higher revelation - one which someone in a position of power, such as a church, or a teacher would have no problem imposing on a child who trusts them as an authority and guide - as soon as someone, such as a schoolboard, or another person tries to push those forward for everybody - well then, I have a serious problem. I don't hate Christians, I don't like Militant Christians, as I don't like Militant Atheists - I personally don't care if people worship Christ, just as long as they keep that to them self.


As for Christian values - I'm still waiting for one that is idiosyncratic to Christianity - meaning backed by scripture and apparent in practice, and not apparent in any other culture - and when someone can come up with one, that would be worth imposing on everyone, and would require prayer in school to carry forward. I'm still waiting. I challenge anyone to come up with one, and keep in mind - don't even bother going to the ten commandments - the Jews got there first.

[BienvenuJDC]

**sigh**
That's my point. I don't want to live in a Muslim dominated country. I don't want to change them.

[JBI]

**sigh**
That's my point. I don't want to live in a Muslim dominated country. I don't want to change them.

Yes, but Christianity, historically, had no problem doing so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(of_Native_Americans)#Native_Ameri can_Education_and_Boarding_Schools

Quite simply, the history of America, and of the colonization of the New World in general, is bloodied by the imposition of Christianity upon the indigenous people's of the Americas. The Bible was, and still is used as a tool of colonization. Just read some early travel logs and accounts written by explorers and settlers to get the feel for it. Christianity did this, and yet, when people merely just want to be accepted for who they are, you suggest they are in the wrong? The Christian church has a long history of imposition upon weaker (militarily speaking) groups. I find it difficult to justify any of this - how many slaves were shackled, taken from their homes, and shipped off on boats - mind you, most didn't make it to the destination - to build this so called Christianity moral country? Don't want to impose on anyone? The country was stolen and built on this principle.

That being said, I don't deny that other faiths and countries have not done the same thing, but since we are looking at the U.S. specifically now, I find that such a perspective is necessary.

It seems a little late for your statement - about 1700 years too late, give or take.

The phrase, "We just want to be left alone" cannot be justified under the circumstances leading up to the present situation.

That being said also, I don't think minorities are colonists, or trying to break down or convert people - I just think they merely want to determine who they are for themselves, without having bigots dictate - bigots, which I might add, who have caused unbelievable damage on the international scale, and caused many of these people to seek refuge away from their native lands and culture. For a culture that presents itself as a champion of freedom and globilization, this is the least globalized, and most unfree system I can think of.

If I said anything that offends, I am sorry for that - though I meant no attacks to be personal.

[papayahed]

This thread makes my head hurt, I know some of the statement I've read in this thread come directly from All in the Family episodes. :(

[Stargazer86]

This thread makes my head hurt, I know some of the statement I've read in this thread come directly from All in the Family episodes. :(


:lol: I <3 Archie Bunker...ah man..that's a great show

[West]

That being said also, I don't think minorities are colonists, or trying to break down or convert people - I just think they merely want to determine who they are for themselves. If I said anything that offends, I am sorry for that - though I meant no attacks to be personal.



The truth offends people sometimes and you said nothing but the truth. Wise words and very truthful. You made a lot of sense. I think changes do have an impact on people and america is a changing country. I can tell that from my neighbourhood. For those who like to keep to themselves and are not open to the reality or possibilities of other cultures having as much value as theirs have, their normal reaction is to become extremists and fight what they see as different or encroaching on their turf. That is what I sense this debate has turned into. Notice how the suggestion of christian kids praying in public schools privately without other kids being there didn't satisfy some quarters, they want an imposition on all because they think America is theirs Only.

[Lynne Fees]

Good, and had you been living in a Muslim country, for instance, and not that any would do this but, if they made you kneel and submit to Allah during school hours, how would you feel as a Christian. Your beliefs are respected, just as long as they stay your beliefs. As for not criticizing religion, what is the point of discussing things if one cannot criticize? Keep in mind, the early Christians were persecuted for holding a different set of views than the pagan Romans, I find it hard to keep with the history, and venerate those people, meanwhile accusing any form of descent or difference of opinion.

I urge you - go to Rome, take the tour of the Catacombs (a word which etymologically comes from the word for "tunnel) - hundreds of thousands of a martyred bodies piled row on row in a vast maze - unlit and endless - the kind where, if you get lost, you are lost forever, within the countless rows - wherein the largest of which, 4 floors, spanning tens of miles - in the dark too I may add, with bodies stacked one on top of the other - and you tell me, how can one faith, who had that done to them in the name of some other Gods not respect the freedoms of other religions?

I see nothing Unchristian, or Christian mind you, about my argument. In truth, if Christian morality is worth anything, let us hope it is perhaps a little more tolerant than its ancestor. After all, what were all those bodies piled up for, if not for the same freedoms and rights that these antagonistic militants wish to steal from those who do not practice Christianity.

That being said, I am not equating Christians with murderers (though I acknowledge such an argument can be made on many levels, especially in historical times) but for a group who had suffered so much when it was in a subordinate position to a major dominant power, and outsiders in a dominant culture, it would seem rather hypocritical to continue the streak. Is not the centre of Christianity humility and hospitality, and a goodness toward a fellow man? Is that not what the Parable of the Good Samaritan teaches? How then, can one turn and say, "We are Christian, they aren't. This is a Christian country, and they are attacking us by not letting us impose our ideas onto them."

Quite frankly, I don't care what faith people believe, be that Zoroastrianism or Scientology - but the second someone tries to impose those beliefs, and keep in mind the nature of them, beliefs, meaning built on a sense of faith - a faith in a higher being, a higher revelation - one which someone in a position of power, such as a church, or a teacher would have no problem imposing on a child who trusts them as an authority and guide - as soon as someone, such as a schoolboard, or another person tries to push those forward for everybody - well then, I have a serious problem. I don't hate Christians, I don't like Militant Christians, as I don't like Militant Atheists - I personally don't care if people worship Christ, just as long as they keep that to them self.


As for Christian values - I'm still waiting for one that is idiosyncratic to Christianity - meaning backed by scripture and apparent in practice, and not apparent in any other culture - and when someone can come up with one, that would be worth imposing on everyone, and would require prayer in school to carry forward. I'm still waiting. I challenge anyone to come up with one, and keep in mind - don't even bother going to the ten commandments - the Jews got there first.

You want me to separate out Christian values, yet, when I used the term "Judeo-Christian," I believe that offended someone in this thread. Think of the 10 Commandments, which, by the way are carved into the inside of our Supreme Court's main courtroom. Think of the Pilgrims coming to America to worship God freely. Think of the thousands of universities and hospitals started by Christians. Think of the charitable work the Christian church has done for the poor and the enslaved. Our children should realize this is part and parcel of our history, and it's not just fairy tales like Santa Claus!
At any rate, the purpose of this thread is to help with pros and cons for teacher-led prayer in the school. If I went to live in a Muslim country with my small children, and the teacher led a prayer to Allah at the beginning of the day, I would tell my children to use the time to pray to God. If a child in a US public school did not believe in God, that child could certainly use the time for private reflection - I would not want to force any child to worship in a way contrary to what their parents teach.
I agree with the idea expressed earlier that Christians should not be maligned because the Bible teaches certains things are true/not true or wrong/not wrong. This does not mean we look down upon those who disagree with us. We are trying to have open, civil discussions on these issues. Once it gets personal, it gets off track.

[Scheherazade]

I don't know what jobs you guys do but if I stopped in the middle of working and demanded time off to pray, I would probably get fired.

If we don't do it at work, why is it a must while children are at school?

[Nightshade]

I don't know what jobs you guys do but if I stopped in the middle of working and demanded time off to pray, I would probably get fired.

If we don't do it at work, why is it a must while children are at school?

It is also annoying, if people want to pray,then that is what break time is for isnt it? And if it is the case that kids are too small to pray alone, then the question is should they be praying at all, or conversley you could have someone to lead I dont know voluentary prayer sessions in break times. or before school starts, which is generally what used to happen in the schools I was in in Muslim countries.

Forcing people to pray is just as bad as stopping them from praying itys just a different kind of oppresion, and does it really count at all if someone doesnt belive in what they are doing? and it just ends up making them hate the religion.

and on a side note Allah means God, God and Allah ( barring the Jesus element) are the same entity. :D

EDIT: Im not taking my previous comment out but having reread the whole thread I am going to whats it called expand .I should have said that in teh Islamic point of view the Jewish God ( uh JBI further to earlier comment about Jewish god being different god please explain pm me!) , Chjristian God and Allah are all interchangble ( with a few major points of exception) as God the Creator, Sustainer, merciful etc ( there are 99 names and not going through them all )

Now like I said I think people should be allowed to pray but not forced to pray. In my last year of school, I was asked to give a talk and demostration of muslim prayer to a class in the lower school. It came after I stumbled on the drivle the books were saying went to the head of RE and went uh you those posters you have up they are abslaoute rubbish. Anyway, the teacher wanted us yto do a simulation of a prayer. -lets just say it was abit wierd- but the point, is the small village the school in has over 7 very active churches and one of the girls wasnt happy participating and the teacher got bad with her becasue she thought I was offened but I told the girl fine its all good I understand I mean there is absloutly NO way I would sit through one of the EAster services when the Priest blesses everyone in the name of the Fther, son and holy ghost. I did a runner the first time I realised what was going on, but it shouldnt have offened anyone I shouldnt have been asked to sit through it. religion should be a persoinal thing people should be intiled to pray and belive anyway they want. Unless you are n a religion where they have structured prayers and even then worship is indivdual people should just be llowed to get on with it.

[tailor STATELY]

Many have heard this maxim: "Spare the rod, spoil the child".

I believe the 'rod' to be the "iron rod"... The Word of God... (not some

whuppin' nonsense).

If you desire children to become upright citizens... Allow them the proper

foundation from which to grow upon... That foundation found in faith.

[Nightshade]

But shouldnt that be the parents job and not the school's place to interfere?

[tailor STATELY]

Sigh...

One would hope that the classroom would be an extension

of family values... Not an end.

[Taliesin]

You want me to separate out Christian values, yet, when I used the term "Judeo-Christian," I believe that offended someone in this thread. Think of the 10 Commandments, which, by the way are carved into the inside of our Supreme Court's main courtroom. Think of the Pilgrims coming to America to worship God freely. Think of the thousands of universities and hospitals started by Christians. Think of the charitable work the Christian church has done for the poor and the enslaved. Our children should realize this is part and parcel of our history, and it's not just fairy tales like Santa Claus!
At any rate, the purpose of this thread is to help with pros and cons for teacher-led prayer in the school. If I went to live in a Muslim country with my small children, and the teacher led a prayer to Allah at the beginning of the day, I would tell my children to use the time to pray to God. If a child in a US public school did not believe in God, that child could certainly use the time for private reflection - I would not want to force any child to worship in a way contrary to what their parents teach.
I agree with the idea expressed earlier that Christians should not be maligned because the Bible teaches certains things are true/not true or wrong/not wrong. This does not mean we look down upon those who disagree with us. We are trying to have open, civil discussions on these issues. Once it gets personal, it gets off track.

What do you mean, fairy tales like Santa Claus?
Are you trying to imply that Santa doesn't exist?
That he is made up? And that I have been a good boy for nothing?
But, but then, I mean, then it would be that...
*runs away, sobbing*

[Nightshade]

Sigh...

One would hope that the classroom would be an extension

of family values... Not an end.

But you have multiple family values represented in a classroom aside form the teachers own, and ther isnt a universal 'family value'. Ive never even understood that phrase. But can I jujst say if family values mean telling a six tyear old God will send her to burn in Hell if she doesnt hurry up and get to the prayer hall for group prayer, can I just say as that six year old that is a) completly couterproductive and B) such a load of rubbish.
Now I dont know how christian led prayer works, but in the muslim equivelnt I guess, the person leading the prayer more or less ends up choosing the main things we pray for. ( its complicated the way these prayers work basically its special prayers that this happens in where the extra prays get added in) I am not comfortable saying Amen and praying for everything someone else want to say.
And shouldnt prayer be about thinking for yourself abut what God wants from you and what you want from God?
So surley children should be yes allowed to do it whenever they want but not forced in school.

:)

[grotto]

Think of the Pilgrims coming to America to worship God freely. Think of the thousands of universities and hospitals started by Christians. Think of the charitable work the Christian church has done for the poor and the enslaved. Our children should realize this is part and parcel of our history, and it's not just fairy tales like Santa Claus!

At any rate, the purpose of this thread is to help with pros and cons for teacher-led prayer in the school. If I went to live in a Muslim country with my small children, and the teacher led a prayer to Allah at the beginning of the day, I would tell my children to use the time to pray to God.

Lynne, No one is arguing about what the Christians have done right in the world, (leave that for another debate), the topic is prayer in school. The original poster asked the question if there should be “prayer in school”. You have now added “teacher-led prayer” to the equation. So, not only do children have to be forced, so do the teachers if it’s goes against their beliefs.

The argument about whether you live in a Muslim country and have to deal with prayer is irrelevant to this debate. Our country has set religious freedom as a standard; this countries establishment, rights and constitution have clearly stated this, while the majority were of Christian faith or influence, they also knew the perils of combining church and state, yet the info given above was clearly ignored and now we head all the way back to the pilgrims. While this country was originally settled by persecuted Christian sects, this does not imply a valid reason for prayer in school. Using the argument that if they don’t like it, they can go else where holds no water. It was also settled by white men, woman who had no rights, slaves and witch hunters. If you want to use that argument, well, you see where this can go.


If a child in a US public school did not believe in God, that child could certainly use the time for private reflection - I would not want to force any child to worship in a way contrary to what their parents teach. Your statement above; Well, think about that for a moment, you are forcing my child to worship in contrary way to what I teach my children. I teach silence, meditation and individual rights, that we are all different and that your inner peace is for you to find. They shouldn't have their quiet moment of reflection interupted by, "Our father, who art in heaven", that is contrary to what I teach.

My personal thinking is that all scripture, be it the Bible, Koran, Hindu or Buddhist scriptures are stories with valid morals, no different than fables or mythology, all have valid points to make, yes, even Santa Clause.


I agree with the idea expressed earlier that Christians should not be maligned because the Bible teaches certains things are true/not true or wrong/not wrong. This does not mean we look down upon those who disagree with us. We are trying to have open, civil discussions on these issues. Once it gets personal, it gets off track.

I would debate the above statement; Some of us have already had a bit of pious fire and brimstone thrown down on us for disagreeing. Due to the fact that there is no give from the side that wants prayer at all cost, this will be my last comment on this thread. An open discussion is far from possible and compromise is not even an option, for some, it’s all or nothing and debating from that position is pointless. There have been many suggestions for ways to appease both sides only to have them be completely ignored. The idea of a moment or five for private reflection, the idea of segregated prayer rooms or meeting and even teaching religious history isn’t even an option to some, it’s an ego debate only about how your rights are infringed on with no consideration for any one else’s. Hmmm, what would Jesus have done? Aren’t we all one? Well, some are more the one than others it seems, hence why I follow no ism.

Best of luck, argue on.

[tailor STATELY]

As far as 'teachings' might go, forgive me, the devil's

in the details (as he is wont).

Doctrine should be taught in the family or in a

denominational school setting, not a public school,

in my humble opinion.

My feeling is that core values could be taught which

have their basis in faith: 'Do unto others as you would

wish others to do unto you'... which allows for sharing,

being kind to one another, respectful for those of other

faiths... or no faith, etc.

Later, as minds mature, the histories and backgrounds

of various faiths might be taught in a spirit of kinship

to those of other faiths... Somehow not alienating those

who have not a faith, perhaps as an elective course.

A time for personal prayer, not compulsory on anyone

who would wish not to participate (agency is a vital

characteristic in my faith), would not be difficult.

If I knew as a child what I now know of faith I would have had

a prayer or hymn on my mind at all times, as I strive to do daily

now as an adult.

Oh to be a child again with the knowledge I now possess.

My faith prays from the heart, be it silently or vocally, to a

Heavenly Father... allowing for a dialog of spirit, we in the

knowledge of our faith that we are His spirit children.

We end each prayer in the name of our Savior, the head of

our church.

I respect those of other faiths, and those of no faith;

and but ask for the same in return.


May as well add one of my poems since this IS a literary group:

On Bended Knees

Peace be
with thee
who whispers
their prayers
softly
on bended
knees

12-8-2006

Sincerely,
tailor STATELY

[JuniperWoolf]

I get this information from the Colbert Report, but doesn't it say in the bible that if you want to pray outside of church, you're supposed to go to your room and close the door and do it alone? Wouldn't forcing people to pray together cheapen the experience? I think I would feel that way, if I were a christian.

Because I'm not a christian, I know that I would be annoyed as hell if I were forced to pray in public school. I would definately react in an unpleasant way that would cause problems for everybody. I have a lot of friends who would do the same. Making people do something that they don't want to do and that has no apparent benefit to them is a bad idea, and bad situations will result.

Also, god(s) have nothing to do with education. I don't need to learn about god to understand how fungus reproduces, or to calculate the surface area of a cube. I don't know why anyone whould think that religion and formal education belong together at all. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Teach religion and morality in the home. School is for facts, and I'm sorry but religion is not factually based.

[billyjack]

School is for facts, and I'm sorry but religion is not factually based.

no need to apologize for telling it like it is

[NikolaiI]

I get this information from the Colbert Report, but doesn't it say in the bible that if you want to pray outside of church, you're supposed to go to your room and close the door and do it alone?

I think I read something like that in Jaspers... not sure.

[JBI]

Sigh...

One would hope that the classroom would be an extension

of family values... Not an end.

Whose families values? One would hope that those who value family values wouldn't have theirs violated by the likes of others, now would they.

Either way, spare the rod and spoil the child is a barbaric maxim, perhaps its other uses are a tad out of whack. Seriously, if spanking a kid is one's only means to get them "controlled", then surely those so called family values aren't working to begin with, and one would really need to stop and go back to square one, and ask, what seems to be the problem.

People like to project an image of children as two things (often simultaneously); one, as pure innocent angels who can be corrupted, and also as little pests who are part of a rotten generation. This concept of children is ages old (probably starting when our modern concept of childhood and adolescence was founded, somewhere in the 19th century). But this idea of corruptibility perhaps goes back further.

Socrates, for instance, was made to drink hemlock because he was convincing children to question what their parents told them. Western thought, as we know it, started from there. These so called Western, traditional values, can all be attributed to this one man's struggle to teach people that they need to question what their parents teach them. These core values, as you call them, fundamental Christian values, are all caught up within that scheme of disobedience. Wasn't Jesus disobedient to Roman law? Didn't he refuse to accept the evils of his day, and wasn't he punished for it? Has the history of this religion, which you adamantly enforce taught nothing? It seems almost ridiculous, when you think about it.


I'm thinking, many of these people on this thread (I won't name names so as to not invite an accusation of a personal attack) would have been those same people who are said to have been chanting "crucify him" to Pontius Pilate. I'm sure many of you would have been in the front rows, stones ready for the throwing.


Quite simply, all this intolerance and hypocrisy kind of makes me a little disgusted. But what do you expect from the spreaders of freedom and democracy in the world, right?


But lets get off the topic of America, because quite frankly, I think people from outside the U.S. are getting sick and tired (if they aren't already) with this American nonsense already (not accusing all Americans here, just a large portion of them), with this sense of self superiority, meanwhile backhanding everyone else who doesn't conform, or follow them, and bend over and grease. Quite simply, it's come to the point where certain people, some of which have posted on this thread, but won't be named, as I don't wish to personalize any attacks, or offend anyone specific, feel that freedom essentially means following us, and becoming us. Keep in mind, it was this same country who first criticized the Eastern Bloc, with Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and anyone else in between for not allowing freedom, and at the same time, clamped down on those who supposedly "Threaten" this freedom, and this "fundamental right."

As far as I'm concerned, this is all a bunch of self-superior colonial rhetoric, and this thread about praying in schools just shows that it's only "freedom" when one agrees with a certain party, and it's only "freedom to pray when and to who you want" when it is praying to Jesus Christ, and only freedom to dissent and oppose when it is insignificant.

What is this problem then? Some say, we want freedom to pray in school. That isn't too bad, but they also want the freedom to make everyone else's kid do it too, and make them feel uncomfortable if they refuse. I say, that is the cheapest, most hypocritical load of rubbish I've ever heard, and quite frankly, it's almost appalling reading this, knowing that people here would have, had they had their way, sat me down in a classroom, and forced me to pray to their god, and then, if I tried to fight for the right not to, accused me of destroying their culture, their fundamental values, and their freedom. I'm disgusted, offended, and quite frankly, I hope some day people here can know what it is like to be a minority in a new culture, and feel this hypocritical rubbish. Maybe then they'll change their minds.


Sorry if my argument seems a little loopy, or my grammar is choppy - I'm all drugged up on pain killers, so my thoughts aren't all quite there right now.

[papayahed]

The funny part is that I went to a parochial school and we didn't even pray during class.:lol::lol: Not even at the beginning of religion class. :lol:

[BienvenuJDC]

After giving some thought to it in reading of the Politics Revisited thread. Isn't the subject of 'prayer in school' a topic of political nature? This thread violates the forum rules. Speaking of the 'separation of church and state' is much more of a political stance than a religious stance.

[jakobmuller]

After giving some thought to it in reading of the Politics Revisited thread. Isn't the subject of 'prayer in school' a topic of political nature? This thread violates the forum rules. Speaking of the 'separation of church and state' is much more of a political stance than a religious stance.

ok...

So delete the thread then lol

What is the point of saying that though? If you really do have some sort of issue with a thread, please take it up with someone who either cares or can actually do something about it, because there are obviously dozens of interested people contributing to the thread who are not too interested in some obscure technicality putting an end to it.

The thread started on a paper(text) on the religious issue, which justifies its placement anyways. religious texts forum

Anyways, I think JBI made some great points. I know that around where I live, which is a very Christian area, many Christians say that they still feel like they are the minority and that they are the ones being oppressed. Being from the opposite side of their viewpoint, i can't agree at all. The majority of my friends and acquaintances or just people i know go to church or are involved with religion in some way, so I can't see how they feel like the minority. In school, it is the same way, and I can definitely agree with JBI's point about religious people getting extremely offended and threatened when people try to fight for the right not to practice the majority religion. It seems like to many people it is an all-or-nothing sort of deal, either you're for us or you're against us. The problem is that that mentality doesn't fit in with the stances, since wanting no teacher-led or school-sanctioned prayer in school is not the same as saying no prayer at all.

[Scheherazade]

After giving some thought to it in reading of the Politics Revisited thread. Isn't the subject of 'prayer in school' a topic of political nature? This thread violates the forum rules. Speaking of the 'separation of church and state' is much more of a political stance than a religious stance.The issue can be discussed without making it political and so far we have managed to do so.

Unless someone determines to make it all about politics, the thread will remain open for discussion.

As always, anyone who does not find the topic agreeable can ignore it.

For future reference:

E: This area was initially created for discussing specific religious texts. Any other general topic threads posted relating to religion or spirituality will be subject to Admin's or the Moderator's approval.
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

[JuniperWoolf]

After giving some thought to it in reading of the Politics Revisited thread. Isn't the subject of 'prayer in school' a topic of political nature? This thread violates the forum rules. Speaking of the 'separation of church and state' is much more of a political stance than a religious stance.

I've noticed that a lot of threads here violate forum rules. Not many are about religious texts at all.



What is the point of saying that though? If you really do have some sort of issue with a thread, please take it up with someone who either cares or can actually do something about it, because there are obviously dozens of interested people contributing to the thread who are not too interested in some obscure technicality putting an end to it.

: / That sounded unnecissarily mean.

[Lynne Fees]

As far as 'teachings' might go, forgive me, the devil's

in the details (as he is wont).

Doctrine should be taught in the family or in a

denominational school setting, not a public school,

in my humble opinion.

My feeling is that core values could be taught which

have their basis in faith: 'Do unto others as you would

wish others to do unto you'... which allows for sharing,

being kind to one another, respectful for those of other

faiths... or no faith, etc.

Later, as minds mature, the histories and backgrounds

of various faiths might be taught in a spirit of kinship

to those of other faiths... Somehow not alienating those

who have not a faith, perhaps as an elective course.

A time for personal prayer, not compulsory on anyone

who would wish not to participate (agency is a vital

characteristic in my faith), would not be difficult.

If I knew as a child what I now know of faith I would have had

a prayer or hymn on my mind at all times, as I strive to do daily

now as an adult.

Oh to be a child again with the knowledge I now possess.

My faith prays from the heart, be it silently or vocally, to a

Heavenly Father... allowing for a dialog of spirit, we in the

knowledge of our faith that we are His spirit children.

We end each prayer in the name of our Savior, the head of

our church.

I respect those of other faiths, and those of no faith;

and but ask for the same in return.


May as well add one of my poems since this IS a literary group:

On Bended Knees

Peace be
with thee
who whispers
their prayers
softly
on bended
knees

12-8-2006

Sincerely,
tailor STATELY

These ideas are good and I believe them to be untarnished by all of the "politically correct" talk we are required to use these days.

[Homers_child]

Well from the point of view of someone who is still in a public high school (I graduate in 3 weeks), I would NOT be happy if a group prayer was required in the morning. I consider myself a very spiritual person and I always read up on different religions but I am not 'religious' or part of a religion in any way and I wouldn't want a religion that is forced on the group. I wouldn't feel comfortable at all if kids around me were talking about God and Jesus. I would feel out of place and probably rather self-conscious of the fact that I know very little about their religion and I wouldn't want it surrounding me like that. I went to a church one time because my step-family wanted me to come along and it was the most uncomfortable and cult-like experience and I never want to go near it again.

Some of you had mentioned just a moment of silence but.. what? That just seems like a waste of time. Before my school starts, kids are usually at school a half an hour before. That's plenty of time for anyone that wants to pray. Don't waste class time for something that kids can do at home or in between classes. I go to school to learn and I don't want that wasting my time. If there's going to be a period of a couple free minutes, I'd rather just turn around and continue a conversation with my friend. ;)

I don't think that came out right, but what I'm saying is I don't think there's a place for it in public school. There's a lot of Christians in my school, but there is also a lot of Atheists who I know would be making fun of a 'moment of silence' and it might cause fights when before, people kept their thoughts to themselves and no one got hurt.

[VenusInFurs]

No, not in public school. Obviously a private school with a religious denomination is a different story.

Public school is supposed to be an open place of relatively non-biased learning. I also think that there are so many different religions around, that it's hard to accomodate all of them in the 'prayer' umbrella. Also, just because a child's parents follow one faith, doesn't mean that the child will end up choosing the same path.