State religion

[RobbyS]

We live in a pluralistic society. Between that and the first amendment I wouldn’t expect any public education classroom to tell you that any religion is correct. Now if you go to a Christian of Muslim private school they may tell you that a specific religion is the correct one, or that even a specific scent or denomination is the correct one .But when you have a classroom of students that are composed of various Christian philosophies, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, and other backgrounds how do you say that any one is right without implicitly saying the others are wrong?

The body of claims that are made by various religions cover a broad set of subject areas. Without trying one can easily say something that is not in line with one of the many religions out there. If you say something about the estimated age of the earth, about the linage of the native Americans, and so on you’ve contradicted the claims of some sects/denominations of some religions even if that is not your attempt.

Society is not as pluralistic as you seem to believe. The number of Muslims, Jews , Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and the non-religious are quite low compared with the number of Church-going Christians, which leaves out of account the number of nominal ones. Yet, paradoxically, the world view of the non-believers dominates the academic world and the public schools. This is owing to the pervasive influence of the philosophy of John Dewey, an atheist, which has been incorporated into the law by decisions of the Supreme Court. There are more than 10,000 school districts in the United States, many of whose student populations are made up almost entirely of Christians, but who are not allowed to acknowledge the existence of God in any meaningful way. Often the implementation of this policy goes far beyond neutrality to active suppression. The leading teacher’s union, the NEA, is hostile to any effort to instill traditional Christian sexual morality. Its attitude toward contraception, abortion, and homosexuality follows the template of Planned Parenthood and its political allies in the Democratic Party. Educational expenditures are so high and school taxes so high that private education is now limited to the well-to-do, so schools where a religious worldview might be inculcated are becoming rarer than ever. Dewey’s naturalism may not be a “religion,” in the usual sense, but is does institutionalize irreligion. Furthermore, it goes beyond the public school domain. Students in religious schools are subject to testing norms that apply to the public schools. Students ignorant of the Bible, the of the most formative world of literature in western society, are not penalized in any way. Teachers in many school district cannot even appear to have religious view, not because parents protest but because administration has an absolutist view of separation of church and state that is more in conformity with French secularism than the formal neutrality of the US Supreme Court.

 

[RobbyS]

It was an answer maybe one you didn’t like. I don’t know. The ones I quoted were very clear in their views. I thought that I was being so as well.

Franklin’s views were not universal nor did the topic of religion take up much of their time. There is one mention of Religion on the constitution - no religious test for office. The next in the bill of rights ratified later. I don’t think it concerned them much except where stated - keep them separate.

It was considered a personal matter. I agree.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:5-6[/BIBLEDRB]

The Constitution’s purpose is to organize the central government of a Union. The prohibition of a religious test for office applied only to national office, which did include members of Congress, since these were chosen by the States and the peoples of the states. The First Amendment aimed not only to guard personal conscience but the several state churches which existed. The States were free to bar Catholics and Jews from public office, and to establish state-supported churches. If these rights were not acted upon, it was owing to public opinion in the states and the diversity of protestant churches. The state church in Massachusetts was finally abolished because it had been taken over by the overrepresentation of liberal Unitarian pastors.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Society is not as pluralistic as you seem to believe.

I think this depends on where you live. It is pluralistic in major cities and not in rural areas. It’s a matter of perspective.

At my kids’ bus stop we have Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Bahai. I know in the school there are also Hindus and secularists as well.

If we lived in a rural area accommodating other faiths would seem an empty gensture since the population seems homogenous but for some of us it is a reality. Also faith being personal things that seem homogenous may not be.

 

[RobbyS]

You are making the argument that Prayer should be a requirement in Public Schools by trying to link it to the founding fathers. I’m pointing out that yes some were Christians, others held other views. It wasn’t universal.

As Adams States in the Treaty of Tripoli -

I like Jefferson’s thoughts in Notes on the State of Virginia * 1787

I feel it shows a lack of faith, if you the need the Government to prop it up.

The views of these men were not typical even of the founders, and partly as a result of the French Revolution, a second “Great Awakening” swept across the United States from the 1790s onward. In 1800, a minority of Americans belonged to a church congregation, by the 1860s, a great majority. But even their views of religion were much more “conservative” than those of the modern Supreme Court. Joseph Story, a colleague and friend of John Marshall, and a New England Unitarian, presents a very different interpretation of the First Amendment than that of the majority of recent courts in is “A familiar Exposition of the United States Constiutution,” (1840) I suggest you read it. His views on religion are very like those of John and John Quincy Adams and of course, Jefferson’s.

 

[RobbyS]

I think this depends on where you live. It is pluralistic in major cities and not in rural areas. It’s a matter of perspective.

At my kids’ bus stop we have Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Bahai. I know in the school there are also Hindus and secularists as well.

If we lived in a rural area accommodating other faiths would seem an empty gensture since the population seems homogenous but for some of us it is a reality. Also faith being personal things that seem homogenous may not be.

Which points out the folly of a uniform law that treats a school in such an area as yours the same as a school in rural Mississippi. Yet this is the mindset of the Courts, which has imposed the views of a single family on a whole district. Which leads to uproars if the Valedictorian of a senior class dares mention the name of Jesus Christ. Unbelief has its own purists who oppose any real diversity in our public institutions.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Which points out the folly of a uniform law that treats a school in such an area as yours the same as a school in rural Mississippi. Yet this is the mindset of the Courts, which has imposed the views of a single family on a whole district. Which leads to uproars if the Valedictorian of a senior class dares mention the name of Jesus Christ. Unbelief has its own purists who oppose any real diversity in our public institutions.

I do see at face value it does seem silly. If you have a homogenous culture why bend for a few or even one.

I look at it as being charitable, like manners. Manners aren’t just arbitrary rules but rather an attempt to make everyone comfortable.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Interesting conversation and one that makes a great case for privatizing **all **schools, which would allow parents, not the courts, to decide the religious air (whether Christian, atheist, or otherwise) their children breath at school. If all schools were forced to compete with one another over gaining pupils, parents (and not just those parents who can afford private education, but all parents) would be able to choose to send their kids to a school which represented the values they want to instill in their children. An atheist school (whether one which actively attacks religion or simply one where God is banned - there really is little difference) would exist if, and only if, it could attract enough parents. The same would be true for schools where teachers lead the students in prayer (whether Catholic, Buddhist, or other). This would even resolve the tensions revolving around whether or not to promote homosexual “normalization” in schools or any number of other contentious issues. The individual schools could choose which path they wanted to pursue and would survive if enough parents want that type of environment for their children. All parents could afford such a thing simply by freeing the tax dollars that are already paying for the kids to go to school from being tied to local district, tying the money instead to the child (i.e. allowing the money to follow the child to whichever school the parents chose for the child).

 

[ngill09]

I don’t think privatizing is going to really help you much. Just look at the business world. How many workplaces start each day with Bible verses?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Interesting conversation and one that makes a great case for privatizing **all **schools, which would allow parents, not the courts, to decide the religious air (whether Christian, atheist, or otherwise) their children breath at school. If all schools were forced to compete with one another over gaining pupils, parents (and not just those parents who can afford private education, but all parents) would be able to choose to send their kids to a school which represented the values they want to instill in their children. An atheist school (whether one which actively attacks religion or simply one where God is banned - there really is little difference) would exist if, and only if, it could attract enough parents. The same would be true for schools where teachers lead the students in prayer (whether Catholic, Buddhist, or other). This would even resolve the tensions revolving around whether or not to promote homosexual “normalization” in schools or any number of other contentious issues. The individual schools could choose which path they wanted to pursue and would survive if enough parents want that type of environment for their children. All parents could afford such a thing simply by freeing the tax dollars that are already paying for the kids to go to school from being tied to local district, tying the money instead to the child (i.e. allowing the money to follow the child to whichever school the parents chose for the child).

I don’t know what % of my taxes go towards public education but my local parochial schools run about 7-10k per year. At first glance those numbers don’t seem to coincide. Also what about the poor?

Also I’m curious about your statement “whether one which actively attacks religion or simply one where God is banned - there really is little difference”

If you apply it other things it doesn’t seem to be accurate. I don’t feel because gum chewing is banned at school they are attacking gum chewing.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I don’t know what % of my taxes go towards public education but my local parochial schools run about 7-10k per year. At first glance those numbers don’t seem to coincide. Also what about the poor?

Also I’m curious about your statement “whether one which actively attacks religion or simply one where God is banned - there really is little difference”

If you apply it other things it doesn’t seem to be accurate. I don’t feel because gum chewing is banned at school they are attacking gum chewing.

Whatever % of tax dollars are currently able to provide enough $ to pay for the education of all children would still be able to. The pie doesn’t suddenly shrink b/c the $ isn’t going, of necessity, to the local school district. If the money isn’t there, how are those same children (even of the poor) being educated today?

My statement is beside the main point here. We can debate whether actively attacking religion or simply regulating it to a private matter is the same or not, but it isn’t really germane to the current topic.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I don’t think privatizing is going to really help you much. Just look at the business world. How many workplaces start each day with Bible verses?

The goal wouldn’t be to force schools to start the day with Bible verses, simply to allow them to do so (or not to do so). To pretend that forcing every public school in America to be a fully atheistic space is somehow a good compromise between theism and atheism is ridiculous in the extreme (I’m not suggesting you have that opinion).

But I wonder how apt the analogy is. How many workplaces seek primarily to instill values and education in their employees? How many have employees recite the pledge each morning? How many are chosen by parents to help raise their children?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Whatever % of tax dollars are currently able to provide enough $ to pay for the education of all children would still be able to. The pie doesn’t suddenly shrink b/c the $ isn’t going, of necessity, to the local school district. If the money isn’t there, how are those same children (even of the poor) being educated today?

My statement is beside the main point here. We can debate whether actively attacking religion or simply regulating it to a private matter is the same or not, but it isn’t really germane to the current topic.

The pie does shrink if it is across 5 different schools as opposed to 1. 5 different staffs, 5 different Buildings, 5 Different operating costs, etc.

They are being educated because the burdon is spread across the whole community. An educated populace is beneficial to the whole society, so it’s not just people with school aged children paying for it. Even with parochial schools some of the burdon is taken on by the parish. The actual cost of educating the student exceeds the tuition.

 

[ngill09]

The goal wouldn’t be to force schools to start the day with Bible verses, simply to allow them to do so (or not to do so). To pretend that forcing every public school in America to be a fully atheistic space is somehow a good compromise between theism and atheism is ridiculous in the extreme (I’m not suggesting you have that opinion).

But I wonder how apt the analogy is. How many workplaces seek primarily to instill values and education in their employees? How many have employees recite the pledge each morning? How many are chosen by parents to help raise their children?

I really don’t see the point in wanting to force people to recite passages from your holy book, or have teachers pontificate on religious topics.

Secular schools are not atheistic, at least they weren’t when I attended. A large portion gathered every morning in the gymnasium to pray, that is allowed by most schools. I knew students who held Bible studies during lunch, who were able to advertise religious youth groups, etc. The only thing that’s banned is administrative religious policy. And why would you want that? A lot of the Protestants I know despise Catholics, and they outnumber Catholics in most of the U.S.

If you’re going to call anything that doesn’t have an explicitly religious teaching “atheistic”, then most of society is atheistic. You have atheistic banks, atheistic restaurants, atheistic apartment buildings, atheistic factories, and so on.

 

[PietroPaolo]

The pie does shrink if it is across 5 different schools as opposed to 1. 5 different staffs, 5 different Buildings, 5 Different operating costs, etc.

They are being educated because the burdon is spread across the whole community. An educated populace is beneficial to the whole society, so it’s not just people with school aged children paying for it. Even with parochial schools some of the burdon is taken on by the parish. The actual cost of educating the student exceeds the tuition.

The burden would still be spread out across the whole community, as the same taxes would still be collected. I did not suggest that all taxes for education be suspended for people without school age children. Just like in other industries those schools that couldn’t attract enough students to remain open would be forced to close their doors, that is the benefit of competition.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I really don’t see the point in wanting to force people to recite passages from your holy book, or have teachers pontificate on religious topics…

Which is why you wouldn’t send your child to such a school, but it hardly follows that b/c you don’t see the point of prayer by the admin in schools that no parent should have such a choice. You are making my point perfectly.

Further, I fail to see how people will be “forced” to do anything as attending a school with mandatory prayer would be a choice. I have not argued that the current public school system should be forced to have mandatory prayer, but that the current system should be replaced by one with parent choice - i.e. one where parents are not forced to send their children to an atheistic school.

Lastly, your comparisons of schools to business are still not apt. See above.

 

[ngill09]

Which is why you wouldn’t send your child to such a school, but it hardly follows that b/c you don’t see the point of prayer by the admin in schools that no parent should have such a choice. You are making my point perfectly.

Further, I fail to see how people will be “forced” to do anything as attending a school with mandatory prayer would be a choice. I have not argued that the current public school system should be forced to have mandatory prayer, but that the current system should be replaced by one with parent choice - i.e. one where parents are not forced to send their children to an atheistic school.

Lastly, your comparisons of schools to business are still not apt. See above.

Last I checked, there were plenty of private religious schools in the country, so I don’t see what your complaint is.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The burden would still be spread out across the whole community, as the same taxes would still be collected. I did not suggest that all taxes for education be suspended for people without school age children. Just like in other industries those schools that couldn’t attract enough students to remain open would be forced to close their doors, that is the benefit of competition.

You are saying two different things.

One: let people use their tax money that went to public education be used to privately educate their children. All education is private.

Two: Allow multiple schools be created using tax dollars. All schools are the “charter” variety.

The numbers in both cases don’t add up. The costs are more than you are accounting for. In the first case your taxes don’t come close to being equal.

In the second you are trying to operate multiple schools and all that entails for the price of one.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Last I checked, there were plenty of private religious schools in the country, so I don’t see what your complaint is.

My complaint is that parents must pay out of their own pockets for their children to attend those schools while secular /atheist schools are supported by tax dollars. Why are you so opposed to allowing parents of whatever income to choose what type of schools to educate their children in? Why should schools with one theory of education (secular/atheist) be supported by the State and all other schools be privately funded? Why are you against choice?

 

[PietroPaolo]

You are saying two different things.

One: let people use their tax money that went to public education be used to privately educate their children. All education is private.

Two: Allow multiple schools be created using tax dollars. All schools are the “charter” variety.

The numbers in both cases don’t add up. The costs are more than you are accounting for. In the first case your taxes don’t come close to being equal.

In the second you are trying to operate multiple schools and all that entails for the price of one.

No, I’m saying one thing - let the money that is currently collected to educated child ‘x’ go to whatever school the parents of child ‘x’ choose instead of tying said money to a geographically determined school district. Multiple schools could be created as various schools compete for pupils. If a particular area cannot sustain a large number of schools then the ones that cannot compete successfully enough to remain open will close, naturally reducing the number of schools to the amount that can be operated successfully with the funds available. That is how the market works. Such a system would remove the decision to allow prayer in school (or any number of other decisions) from the hands of judges and return the power to the parents where we can agree it belongs.

 

[ngill09]

My complaint is that parents must pay out of their own pockets for their children to attend those schools while secular /atheist schools are supported by tax dollars. Why are you so opposed to allowing parents of whatever income to choose what type of schools to educate their children in? Why should schools with one theory of education (secular/atheist) be supported by the State and all other schools be privately funded? Why are you against choice?

I’m not against choice, I’m against using tax dollars for sectarian religious purposes.