Buffman

xianseeker

Pleased to see you getting your feet wet in this forum. I hope a review of these URLs will provide you with some of the answers you seek. I tend to post lots of URLs in order to help the discussions advance from a common point of general/specific knowledge. Hopefully it helps to reduce redundancy.

Here are some of the guidelines.

<a href="http://www.au.org/godsch.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/godsch.htm</a>

Here are a few amplifications.

<a href="http://www.adl.org/religion_ps/prayer.asp" target="_blank">http://www.adl.org/religion_ps/prayer.asp</a>

Here one source of the problem as viewed by those who do not accept beliefs in the supernatural as appropriate for governmental support.

<a href="http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topolitics.html" target="_blank">http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topolitics.html</a>

lisarea

There's the problem with atheists. You can't really make too many generalizations, as they don't share a common belief system or set of goals. In my limited experience, the answer is "probably not."

I'm certainly not opposed to student-run, voluntary religious activities at school, and I don't personally know any other atheists who are.

I'm actually baffled that there aren't more Christians like you, who believe that the separation of church and state is beneficial to the church as well as the state.

In theory, study of the Bible and other religious works would be fine. However, I don't think it can work in practice.

I took a comparative religion class in college, which I thought was excellent. It covered commonalities among various religions and the history and evolution of religion. But, even in college, even among those students who chose to take a comparative religions class, people walked out because they found the information presented to be offensive. Many of the things covered in the class challenged their beliefs, and this made them angry and uncomfortable.

Religion is such a fundamental part of people's sense of who they are that I don't think it's possible to present these issues without bias, and even if it were, that presentation would end up offending the kids and their parents.

So, unfortunately, I'm afraid that it would be far too dangerous to introduce these issues into the classroom.

Would your pastor be interested in introducing, say, the Golden Bough as study material in the class? Could this course include a study of the early, non-Christian precursors to the creation story, the flood story, etc? Would the Bible be studied critically, complete with its inconsistencies, its scientific errors, and all the weird and violent stories that don't always jibe with the Christian image that so many churches choose to project? If the course were to have any real academic value, these things would have to be included.

I expect that, all too often, people who promote ideas like this don't think them through very thoroughly.

Besides, the school day, as you said, is limited. Why can't people just let the schools address science, math, literature, etc., and leave religion and morality instruction to the parents?

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: lisarea ]</p>

ex-xian

I was bitching to my wife about how frustrated I was at the church last night, and this is almost verbatim what I said!

Does this mean that great minds think alike or that fools run in the same channel?

(I love this little faces!)

dk

dk: That’s what secularists believe and teach for many contrary reasons better termed a rationalization. People can’t distinguish a secular from a sectarian policy absent an opinion from a constitutional lawyer I’d like to here DigitalChicken explain the differences?
dk: DigitalChicken asserts there are practical reasons, then goes on to explain the real reason (is the US Constitution). I’m not sure if DigitalChicken believes practical reasons are unreal, or that the Constitution is impractical. In either case its clear DigitalChicken fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the Constitution, Federal Government and Education. A comment not meant to reflect poorly upon DigitalChicken, but the secular public education system that education him.
. . Obviously the US Constitution is a practical document based upon principles, some broad and explicit, others implicit. As a republic the Constitution literally organizes the business of union under the central authority of Law, the Rule of Law administered by a Federal Government bound by a ‘Bill of Right’. The specifics are practically accomplished by a division of power configured in a tripod of checks and balances that define the powers and jurisdiction of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. The Bill of rights explicitly limits the broad powers of the Federal Government to those explicitly stated in the Constitution Personally, I think the US today walks on a steep cliff balanced precariously upon two fundamental questions:
1. Are we a nation of laws, by the people, for the people, and of the people founded upon principles of liberty, life and property; or
2. Are we a people dependent upon a supreme government from conception to grave.
.
. . The idea (plan) of the constitutional republic founded by the Founding Fathers articulates a tripod, each side being a branch connected to the other two by a series of checks and balances. Each branch was granted the lawful exercise of power within matters under their jurisdiction, unless the exercise of that power violated the other two branches, state governments or the rights of the people. For example the Executive Branch was granted the power of “Commander and Chief” over the military, but is dependent upon the Congress (legislative branch) for funding the military and the Judicial Branch to adjudicate any disputes that might arise. Were the Congress to pass a law to usurp the Executive’s authority of the Executive (or visa versa), the courts would strike down the law as unconstitutional. The concept is simple, each branch of Government has autonomy and the power to act lawfully within their explicitly stated jurisdictions, but without the support of the other two branches the tripod collapses, and the power evaporates. Further, to secure liberty, the Constitution explicitly states in Amendment X, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
. . A careful reading of the US Constitution reveals the document is silent on the matter of public education, so it would seem logical to assume that Education falls entirely to the States, or to the people. In fact for approximately the 1st 157years the US Federal Government stayed out of education altogether, except in new territories claimed by the Federal Government as a result of the Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny. Obviously we have a simple question that entails a complex argument:
a. How did the Federal Government get jurisdiction over Public Education? then
b. What part did sectarian institutions play? and
c. What part did secular institutions play?
d. When did the Federal Government take jurisdiction from the states governments, and the people?
e. Why didn’t the states object?
. . A more skeptical view was expressed by Alexis de Tocqueville (1835) "...the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase amongst democratic nations ... in the same proportion as their ignorance." (--, ibid: Democracy in America, Part II, Book IV . Tocquerville was a renowned but cynical French author of the early 19th Century. An extended tour of the early United States left an indelibly impression with him about the character of the American experiment in democracy and liberty. The bloody French Revolution, and Napoleonic Wars served to grind a cynical intellect sharp. His writings painted for Europe the face of America with quotes like, “"America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." I’m afraid the meaning of such quotes is lost upon modern secular people that struggle with liberty as an entailment of a “selfish gene” kept in check by the positivist ideals of Marxist government. .
.
xianseeker: Similarly, the atheist would state religion has no place in a public school. This raises a question. Are most atheists here opposed to voluntary private prayer or voluntary Bible/religious clubs meeting outside academic learning times. Many fundamentalists would assert that this is exactly what atheists want.
DigitalChicken: The atheist would NOT state "Similarly, the atheist would state religion has no place in a public school." If a Christian/Muslim/etc wishes to pray on his or her free time then so be it. If the Christian wishes to discuss religion with the non-Christian at lunchtime for example then so be it. Most atheists have no problem with comparative religion classes being taught.
Atheists will differ on answers but it boils down to the dangers associated with having the state sponsor religious activity. The state, its citizens and the religious are better off having church and state separate.
Thus, anything that is truly voluntary and not coercive is OK by most atheist's standards.

dk: If schools are better off with an “impenetrable wall between church and state” it is indeed ironic to see so many school campuses policed by armed guards, drug sniffing dogs, no tolerance policies and security cameras. Before the Federal Government annexed public schools under the guise of ‘religious tolerance’ schools were policed by the good will of local commuities, . Today, schools spend more money and resources on litigation, liability insurance, security measures and bureaucracy than buildings, teachers and books.
..
.
xianseeker: The church I attend has more than its share of fundamentalists. The youth pastor recently presented a petition calling for "Bible Instruction" to be part of the school curriculum. I'm assuming this goes beyond the ridiculous creationism promoted by some.
DigitalChicken: The only petition that would make that legal would be one that would lead to a Constitutional amendment.
.
dk: DigitalChicken is under the misperception that moral order can be restored by simply enacting/repealing a few statutes, or amending the Constitution. The truth is that the United States that once stood united under the law, is now divided by the law. Government apart from God lacks the power to soften a hard heart, right a misinformed conscience or mend broken promises.
[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Sushi X

Former Xian here, so I can relate.

By the way, where is Wise, Va? North or South?

Splat

Welcome, xianseeker.

Try this on: I'm an atheist. I'm your child's favorite teacher.

Your child comes to me with personal questions of a spiritual nature. What do you trust me to say or do? What do you not trust me to say or do?

Answer those, and you're probably a long way towards your answers.

ybnormal

Maybe so, but only because the overwhelming majority continues to ignore Constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness, insisting that every ideology, that every lifestyle, that every student, even that every knee shall bow to their rude and oppressive demands.

Even in that short sentence, you hint at the root cause of the entire problem, and the cause of your own distress, insisting that we should all be united for your own selfish desires... well, we ain't. And we ain't gonna be united, so long as that majority claims absolute supremacy over all US coequals. In other words, if you folks want some harmony, cease and desist.

Ours is an adversarial system, and it's working just fine, as it has done for a couple of centuries. In the whole scheme of things, us commoners shouldn't have too much to worry about until your "united" period comes along and all the fighting stops... only then, could those Washington folks get really scary.

That said, exactly when was it that you consider we once stood united under the law?

Peace!

dk

dk: The truth is that the United States that once stood united under the law, is now divided by the law.
Responses to Ybnormal
<ol type="1">[*]Maybe so, but only because the overwhelming majority continues to ignore Constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness, insisting that every ideology, that every lifestyle, that every student, even that every knee shall bow to their rude and oppressive demands.
dk: Quite frankly I have no idea what the Constitution guarantees from one day to the next. Whatever the constitution appears to guarantee, in reality all guarantees are ‘subject to change’ by a simple majority of the Supreme Court. The personality of the Supreme Court subsumes the concepts of equality and fairness. The only check on the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court, with the power of judicial review they interpret the constitution to suit there fancy. Today the knees of elected school boards, bureaucrats, administrators, principles, teachers and parents are bent to the rule of law, and when someone stands tall they are demonized, disenfranchised, sued and fired. Do the Federal Courts have the power to educate the masses? Answer: Obviously not, the intrusion of constitutional courts into education transforms education and the courts into political agents. Its a hard lesson but that’s where we are at.[*]Even in that short sentence, you hint at the root cause of the entire problem, and the cause of your own distress, insisting that we should all be united for your own selfish desires... well, we ain't. And we ain't gonna be united, so long as that majority claims absolute supremacy over all US coequals. In other words, if you folks want some harmony, cease and desist.
dk: My viewpoint finds tolerance a practical necessity, any other course throws the baby out with the bathwater. Its fallacious (fallacy of bifurcation) to propose the only available options to be (i) “Erecting an impenetrable wall between Church and State” (ii) “An Establishment of Religion”.[*]Ours is an adversarial system, and it's working just fine, as it has done for a couple of centuries. In the whole scheme of things, us commoners shouldn't have too much to worry about until your "united" period comes along and all the fighting stops... only then, could those Washington folks get really scary.
dk: Really, is that tripe in the Constitution? In fact lawyers designed our judicial system to be adversarial, and lawyers that profit, sometimes at the expense of justice. Our government is based on a system of checks and balances from which grievances sometimes arise when good will and cooperation fail. Its absurd to suggest our government constitutes an adversarial republic.[*]That said, exactly when was it that you consider we once stood united under the law?
dk: The constitution was first interpreted as a purely secular document in 1948 by the Supreme Court. But the nation didn’t physically start to unravel until the late 1965-70. I’d say the Democratic Convention of 1968 held in Chicago was the divide line. The Convention was besieged by rioters set on disrupting the proceedings to force delegates to retract their votes. That summer the whole nation was racked by race riots, Vietnam Tet Offensive, anti-war protests and the recent assassinations of MLK and Bobby Kennedy (Democratic party presidential front runner). I think the convention rocked the core of the US Government with fear. Not since the end of the Civil War had the nation been thus divided. It was the Supreme Court that struck down the Missouri Compromise (Dred Scott Decision 1857) as unconstitutional to polarize the North and South. It was the Supreme Court that made dejure segregation the law of the land in Plessy v. Ferguson. Not a very good record, hey.[/list=a]

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

No. False Dichotomy. My brevity led you to believe I was suggesting a dichotomy but I was not. I was simply saying that the principles of the First Amendment are primary as opposed to what appears practical at the time.

Your comment, "DigitalChicken believes practical reasons are unreal" in unfounded as nothing in my comment should lead one to such a conclusion and further its just a subtle attack on me and thus an abdication of reason.

Constitutional priniples are not necessarily practical. The first amendment allows hate speech, it allows people to hide behind the veil of religion for heinous reasons and allows people to engage in destructive religion if they choose. These are not practical. However, the principle that freedom and liberty are paramount even when someone is not acting in his/her best interests or is working against the interests of others trumps that immediate practical consideration. That is essentially what I meant by that brief comment.

DC

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

Where do you come up with these fantasies?

Incorrect again. When I say, "The only petition that would make that legal would be one that would lead to a Constitutional amendment," I mean that a petition, regardless of how popular or how persuasive it might be, doesn't amount to a hill of !@#$ if its not constitutional. The "that" I refer to is Biblical instruction in schools.

So my statement is correct. A petition demanding biblical instruction in schools doesn't mean squat if end result is unconstitutional. However, a petition which eventually led to states and the congress into amending the Constitutional *would* amount to much more that "squat."

DC