See You in Bible Class

[CJ Cregg]

[webtaz99]

This will not stand. It is so blantantly unConstitutional that I can't see why it was signed into law. School property, teachers, and custodial personnel are provided by government money, and therefore cannot be used for religious purposes.

I don't get this. Bible classes can be held at churches, which are supported by their congregations and other private sources, or at any other private forum. Why do they need to be held at schools?

[Lord Borg]

After the battles with removing the ten commandments from a court room, christmas trees being called a "Holiday" tree, the Easter bunny being called "Spring BUnny" they do this? pretty stupid...

[Captain Dappet]

Hah. Americans. ^^

[Starbuck]

Seperation of church and state means that they cannot FORCE you to learn about a religion or make laws based upon a religion. The class will most likely be an elective. I have a zero hour bible study class. Its fine. Whats the huge fuss, yes... its a public school... and no one is forcing the students to take it.

and how is it unconsitutional, taz?

[Theresa]

[webtaz99]

Even if no one forces a student to take the class, the class is using government-supplied buildings and personnel who are paid for by taxes. This forces the tax payers to support a religion. Also, I don't remember having any religious questions in any tests I took in school (with the possible exception of history classes).

And as I pointed out, why should these bible classes be in the school, instead of somewhere else?

This is just another facet of the "religious right" trying to make America a Christian state, just like the "Islamic extremists" trying to make an Islamic state.

[CJ Cregg]

Do Americans have ANY kind of religious class in school?

In the UK kids have to take RE (Religious Education) for the first 3 years of secondary (High) School, but it includes all religions

[teya]

Individual districts can have comparative religion classes (including all religions) but not classes geared toward religious education in one religion.

For those who support this, do you really want to go back to the days when Jewish students were forced to recite the Lord's Prayer, or face suspension?

I got suspended my very first day of kindergarten for refusing. I would suppose some of you would cheer the school's choice to do that.

[Theresa]

Teya, we don't tolerate others disrespecting you, when we catch it, so why should we tolerate your disrespect? Your last statement served no purpose except for provocation, making it unnecessary.



BTW, originally, like Kitey was saying, the seperation was to protect the church.

[teya]

No disrespect intended, Theresa. It was a simple question. Which you didn't answer, but scolded me for asking.

That's what we had before, and unlike you, I was around to experience it. I was also around for the taunts: "You killed Jesus!"

It's a different side to the equation--and one that I think *is* important.

If these Bible classes would also include comparative studies--for example how Jews interpret the passages in the OT that Christians say point to Jesus as Messiah--then I would be more supportive. But they don't.

Even if a class is supposedly elective, supporting one religion over others is unconstitutional. And how does the child who opts out feel, when that shows the child to be "different" and therefore ostracized--or when that difference makes him a target for conversion among his peers?

The "separation of church and state" was both to protect the church and to protect the public. It works both ways. The Supreme Court ruled on school prayer to protect the minority. Public school Bible classes favor the majority, and if they're mandatory or even strongly suggested and encouraged, trample the right to free religious expression by kids in the minority.

That doesn't belong in public schools.

[Theresa]

Why would I reply to such a statement? Anyone who answered that they'd "cheer the schools decision" is obviously a bigot. Hence the statement that your statement could only lead to provocation. It served no purpose except that. And now, moving on.

[teya]

[Theresa]

Wow, you totally disregarded lines in my post that would not support what you had to say. Thanks for showing me that you pick and choose, and that there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you,

I got beat up in HS for being Christian. So don't ever tell me there aren't very heavy similarities. And if you continue to make such generalized statements about people, thinking you know more about what they've experienced than they do? Then you, like RM did, will have to do a little refresher in the rules of WN.
And no, you can't "opt out" of a sex ed class. I have the F to prove it.

BTW, your post contradicts itself. If you read it carefully, I'm sure you may find it. And I guess you are including "Sunday Christians". You'd have to be, to say you are using polls. I'm not. I'm talking about real Christians.

[Puck]

I would prefer that they did not have this class actually-the primary reason being that I do not trust the government to properly teach this class. My religion is clearly important to me, and although I do like the idea, I do not have faith that the teaching will constantly be theologically true, and truthfully witness the teachings of Christ and the Christian faith.

[Theresa]

Isn't the focus of school to make you think, and to look into things? If everyone is taking what the teacher says as fact, and not thinking about it, we're screwed.

[teya]

[Theresa]

Quote:

Perhaps not in the same manner as you, which would make sense, since we are all individuals.

But hey, take on the role of the victim instead of the survivor. That's up to you.
BTW, I was giving you the opportunity to find the contradiction yourself, if you found that offensive, sorry.

Anyway, I've made my point, and you keep assuming things about me, and it doesn't seem that's going to stop, so I am.

[teya]

[Theresa]

I do believe the word I used was contradiction?

And I quoted something I said, that you also quoted, that you ignored in your post, Especially since it was rather vital in the context it was in, IMO, at least.
You're focusing on the past, instead of trying to educate those in the future. History repeats itself isn't just a nice little saying, it's a fact. And if we don't learn, we'll just keep doing the same things over and over again. And one of the things we have to learn about is our differences. If schools can teach about sex, sexual orientation, etc..., there is no reason that they can't teach about religion. In most of Britain, RE is mandatory, and apparently they have much less of a problem with hatred and violence than we do. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.

But again, as you so graciously pointed out, I'm too young to really know anything, as apparently you must experience something to learn from it. Or that my experiences were some how lesser than yours. (This would be where I got the "victim" from, btw, the continual "it was worse for me" statements). If I were to go with that, then I could support my grandparents hatred of Jews and blacks, given that they are Irish-American. Because, if you know your history, you'd know their story.

"Mainstream" and "majority" are linked. In one post Christianity (Christians) are the majority. In another, they are the "mainstream of the past". Do you see the implied contradiction? But I'm sure that you didn't mean it as such, and I now regret even bringing it up.

So, to make myself clear, again, on where I stand on this issue.
I believe that only through education can racial/religous and other intolerances be stopped. I think by assuming a child will be persecuted for not taking a class, you are borrowing trouble.

"The Bible and Its Influences" This is the name of the class being taught. There are going to be postives and negatives about nearly every religion mentioned, I'd assume. From the curriculum I've been able to view, it doesn't promote Islam, Christianity, Catholocism or Judiasm.

[IntrepidIsMe]

If the class is taught from a purely non biased standpoint, then I don't think there should be an issue. It's about the Bible, not Christianity or Judaism. Even if you don't follow any faith in particular, you can't deny that the Bible has had an influence on many world events for over a thousand years.

[teya]

[Seven of Nine]

Personally, I don't see a problem with Bible classes in schools. We have to have Christian-based assemblies here in state schools, and RE is semi-compulsory from 3-5 to 14 (parents can withdraw their children, but it rarely happens even with kids from other religions).

I learnt about 6 religions in school- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Sikh and Buddist. In my classes were normally representatives from all of those religions other than Buddist. It definitely helped tolerance to know about how other religions worked.

Ignorance breeds fear. I said the Lord's Prayer in assembly during primary school and sung hymns. Some of my favourite songs are hymns I learnt while 8 or 9 years old. Even my Muslim friends enjoyed the hymns, even though they think of Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God. Education is a good thing, and I think Bible classes are a step in the right direction.

From Danni- living in an officially Christian county

[teya]

[Seven of Nine]

We weren't made to recite it- those of other faiths either said their own prayers, or kept quiet. There were a couple of students who sat out of assembly.