State religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pugsly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought it might help to interject a definition
dictionary.com:
sec·u·lar sek-yuh-ler]
adjective

  1. *]of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
    *]not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred ): secular music.
    *](of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
    *](of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular ).
Click to expand...

  1. PietroPaolo said:
    But the question remains, is the fed gov making a theologically neutral space by creating a Godless space? You cannot create a space without God as a neutral ground between atheists and theists - obviously any such space is anything but neutral.
    Click to expand...
    I’m guessing that you are not familiar with when the supreme court looked at Engel v. Vitale (1962). It has a lot of relevance here as many of the arguments brought up in this thread were brought up in that case. The case had to do with a school that had written a pray for every one to recite in the morning.
    "the school prayer:
    Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.
    Click to expand...
    It conflicted with the religious beliefs of some of the students in the school. One of the defense claims was that the pray didn’t reference any specific established religion. That claim was rejected, among others. This case became the basis for many following cases.

    There’s also Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that was started prior to which parents that sent their children to private school could get some of the money they had paid for educational taxes back. If you look into that case you’ll find the answer to the question on why our tax money supports secular schools.

    A couple of other cases worth checking out:
    West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) - students not required to salute USA flag.
    Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963) - ended bible reading in school. This came at the same time as Murray v. Curlett, but the plantif for this one was not an atheist. His complaint was after the state law enforced his children reading from the bible every day. Some of these verses and the other religious practices the school enforced were contrary to the religion of Schempp and his children. From the ruling:
    Supreme Court:
    The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord’s Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the ‘Holy Bible,’ a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth.
    Click to expand...
    See the cases for more.
    PietroPaolo said:
    Which premise? That you have a worldview that children can be indoctrinated into?
    Click to expand...
    See #121
    JamesCaruso said:
    Forbidding even the mention of God in schools, the state has taken an absurd position in a country where 99% of the populace believes in God.
    Click to expand...
    The federal government hasn’t prohibited the mentioning of any gods in schools.
    JamesCaruso said:
    I for one believe that the small faction of atheists who care about this issue should just have to tough it out while the schools set aside a time for prayer and while they allow, even encourage, the mention of God in the classroom curriculum and in addresses to the student body.
    Click to expand...
    Apparently the Supreme court (and according to the cases they’ve seen people of other religions) does not agree.
 
JamesCaruso said:
Nearly everyone believes in God. Some are on the fence. Only a tiny number are atheists. My point is, forbidding the mention of God is an absurd position to take when nearly everyone believes there is a God and most that don’t are not at all offended by the mention of God. It is a very small number of activists who have pushed for the elimination of even the mention of God in our schools. I don’t think the mention of God violates the first amendment anymore than does the mention of God in the DOI or prayer at a session of Congress.
Click to expand...
The number of self proclaimed atheists is small. People have very different concepts of a God. To say that everyone believes in God is misleading because what is being described. A higher power is only broadly a description. Once you get away from that broad concept things diverge quickly. Are you using it in that sense? If you are saying everyone believes in the Christian understanding of God, I’d disagree.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Apparently the Supreme court (and according to the cases they’ve seen people of other religions) does not agree.
Click to expand...
Like that’s supposed to be a test of anything! lol The court also favored the killing of unborn babies in Roe v. Wade, so why would I put any stock in its judgment? Because the court tends to “judge” along ideological lines, the strategy of every President since I can remember, and probably long before, has been to try to stack the court in his party’s favor. Sometimes they get it wrong, but nevertheless, that is their strategy. It does not speak well for our judicial system.
 
JamesCaruso said:
…]so why would I put any stock in its judgment?
Click to expand...
I don’t expect you to agree with their views. It’s not my objective to change your position in any way. But it seems that the arguments you are putting forth were presented to them and explanations for why some of the arguments of this thread have been rejected by the USA are readily available. Looking at the cases helps bring a better understanding for why things are the way they are.
 
Are there any atheists in this thread who find it curious that Congressional chaplains can conduct prayer services in the halls of Congress but school children cannot have a minute of prayer and/or meditation in public schools?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I don’t expect you to agree with their views. It’s not my objective to change your position in any way. But it seems that the arguments you are putting forth were presented to them and explanations for why some of the arguments of this thread have been rejected by the USA are readily available. Looking at the cases helps bring a better understanding for why things are the way they are.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that all these decisions were based on sound judicial reasoning. Actually, with the right people on the SCOTUS, any argument can be reversed. Judges and lawyers seem to have no trouble finding compelling reasons for anything they want to decide. Hence, Obamacare is deemed constitutional. The greatest legal minds cannot predict in advance what the nine justices will decide on any politically sensitive issue.
 
JamesCaruso said:
Nearly everyone believes in God. Some are on the fence. Only a tiny number are atheists. My point is, forbidding the mention of God is an absurd position to take when nearly everyone believes there is a God and most that don’t are not at all offended by the mention of God. It is a very small number of activists who have pushed for the elimination of even the mention of God in our schools. I don’t think the mention of God violates the first amendment anymore than does the mention of God in the DOI or prayer at a session of Congress.
Click to expand...
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. If you claim that God is forbidden from being mentioned in schools, you are a liar. There is simply no such ban. I am sick and tired of Catholics who think they can blatantly lie and get away with it.
 
ngill09 said:
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. If you claim that God is forbidden from being mentioned…]
Click to expand...
That’s something that I have often heard repeated, but I’m not quite sure where it comes from. I tried doing a search on “God not allowed in school” and got some rather interesting results, most of which seem to be centered on a T-shirt some one designed.
 
ngill

**I am sick and tired of Catholics who think they can blatantly lie and get away with it. **

If you’re sick and tired, why not leave the forum? :confused:

As if atheists never lie and think they can get away with it. :rolleyes:
 
Thinking
**
Glad you found that. I guess that means that we can now dismiss the “God not allowed in school” thing. **

But only in Texas! 👍

As you can see, the attempt was to suppress, which makes a lie out of the notion there is never any attempt to suppress the mention of God in public schools.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
As you can see, the attempt was to suppress
Click to expand...
Yes, there are almost always people available that will disagree with some position. That’s part of the reason that we have court systems; to mediate and make decisions when the affected parties cannot come to an agreement.
Charlemagne_II said:
which makes a lie out of the notion there is never any attempt to suppress the mention of God in public schools.
Click to expand...
That seems to be a shifting of the claim(s) that are central to this thread. The claim that there exists people that want to suppress some expression isn’t in question. What was in question is whether or not people in public schools are allowed (under the state or federal law) to make religious expressions of give religious instructions (and a few others).

In student/authority relationships in public schools the authority is not allowed to do so (where that authority may be a teacher, principal, counselled, so on…). Students can make such expressions to each other. A school cannot sponsor/instruct students to make religious expressions to each other. This is constitutionally protected and this seems to be the territory into which the Cheerleader’s case fell.

For related information see Good News Club v. Milford (2001). In this supreme court case protected the right of an after school club sponsored by a third party to use school ground during non-school hours for worship. There were some other arguments in this case that may be of interest to you.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
If you find their reasoning unsound that’s fine by me. I encourage you to look into the cases yourself though.
Click to expand...
How far do I have to look into Roe v. Wade to know that the Supreme Court of the land favored a woman’s choice over that of an unborn baby. Why is it that other courts charge a double homicide in the case of the murder of a pregnant woman? And even if they didn’t, how can a court not know that an unborn baby is a human being deserving of all the dignity and rights of a born human being? And even if there is a question in the fogged up minds of some people as to when a person actually exists, where is the rationale for erring on the side of abortion?

When does a human person exist? Is it 8 months? Is it 5 months? Is it 3 months? Is it the moment of conception? Since these persons profess not to know, how can they err on the side of death? If they are wrong, and if a human person exists from the moment of conception, then the Supreme Court has approved the murder over 50,000,000 human persons since its decision. I would call that criminal negligence. I would call that a serious breach in due diligence. No, I suggest you look into the cases.
 
Something that I addressed and may have been looked over is, Homeschooling. If religious education is the utmost concern and for whatever reason Parochial school isn’t an option, there is always homeschooling, where every aspect can be formed and moderated. It is a choice of education for one’s children.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
Something that I addressed and may have been looked over is, Homeschooling. If religious education is the utmost concern and for whatever reason Parochial school isn’t an option, there is always homeschooling, where every aspect can be formed and moderated. It is a choice of education for one’s children.
Click to expand...
Adding on to that, there have been groups of parents that engage in cooperative home schooling. This solution works out for some because if frees up the parents to do other things during the day whether that be a day job, chores, or something else. Cooperative homeschooling may open the opportunity for home schooling to those that would not otherwise be able to engage in it.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
A school cannot sponsor/instruct students to make religious expressions to each other. This is constitutionally protected and this seems to be the territory into which the Cheerleader’s case fell.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is constitutionally protected by my reading of the Constitution. For teachers or school administration to approve of or even provide a Christmas tree, a menorah, a Thanksgiving celebration, a manger scene, does not in my mind constitute the establishment of a particular religion. Catholicism, Methodism, an Islamic sect, etc. would be particular religions, Christianity is a philosophy, a generalized set of concepts, not a religion.
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

Madalyn Murray O’Hair was the litigant who appealed to the Supreme Court to declare school prayer unconstitutional. She was, of course, an atheist. I’ll ask the question I raised earlier in this thread and that no atheist has bothered to answer yet.

How is it constitutional for Congress to have a chaplain who conducts prayers in the halls of Congress, but unconstitutional to allow prayers in the classroom?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top