| Author |
Message |
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
 Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:40 pm |
|
I see a big problem with this. We're using taxes to pay for a religious class, doesn't that violate the separation thing?
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:39 pm |
|
No, the seperation of church and state was to protect the church. And if they aren't forcing the kids to take it, they aren't in violation.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:31 pm |
|
Well, not quite. Here's what the Separation of Church and State (a myth) was, and truly is:
| Quote: | | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof |
Essentially it is two-pronged. The intent of the Founding Fathers was, yes, to protect the church and the religious exercise rights of the American people, but it was also to prevent the establishment of a state religion, like was and still is in England, and prevent the forcing of religion upon any group of American people.
Separation of Church and State is simply a myth derived from Jefferson's letter to the Danburry Baptists, which has been taken out of context by secularist numerous times.
However, this does not mean that this rule for a class violates the Constitution. I do not believe it to be unconstitutional, as it is only teaching the faith of, yes, 85% of America. Whether they're "Sunday Christians," as Theresa put it, or not, they're still Christians.
My point is, the majority of Americans have adopted Christianity as their faith, with 95% of Americans even celebrating Christmas. In that respect there's nothing wrong with teaching a Bible class. Plus, if it's an elective, I really don't see anything wrong with it. I don't see it as a violation, so long as they're careful how they teach it.
My only concern is that it may be taught either in an unwelcome way by more secularist liberal people (though Georgia has few) or that only one view of the Bible, when there are a number of interpretations, will be taught to all those kids who want to take the class. That's my only concern.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:12 am |
|
The Constitution is (and was meant to be) a "living document", subject to debate, review and revision.
Since the original verbiage was written, court decisions have clarified this and many other issues.
The issue here is that public funds are being used in a religious way. If any private school wants to have bible classes, fine and dandy. That would be perfectly within their rights.
What this boils down to is: the State has made an arrangement with Religion.
The State does not tax or regulate Religion, and Religion does not use State money (or property or personnel), or make laws based on religious beliefs.
Once again I must point out that the parents have every right to send their kids to private school or teach them at home. They have no right to make the public pay for their kids' religious training.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:34 am |
|
This will be fought tooth and nail by a large amount of people all the way to the supreme court. Why? Because by allowing only one religion to be taught in schools, you open the door for everything that was once banned to protect the minority to come rushing right back in.
If you're going to teach religion, teach them all on equal footing. They are all alike in some way, shape or form anyway.
| Republican_Man wrote: |
My only concern is that it may be taught either in an unwelcome way by more secularist liberal people (though Georgia has few) or that only one view of the Bible, when there are a number of interpretations, will be taught to all those kids who want to take the class. That's my only concern. |
And what happens if some Pat Robertson-esqe person teaches it? Last thing we need is religious backed violence in schools.
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:02 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Well, not quite. Here's what the Separation of Church and State (a myth) was, and truly is:
| Quote: | | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof |
Essentially it is two-pronged. The intent of the Founding Fathers was, yes, to protect the church and the religious exercise rights of the American people, but it was also to prevent the establishment of a state religion, like was and still is in England, and prevent the forcing of religion upon any group of American people.
Separation of Church and State is simply a myth derived from Jefferson's letter to the Danburry Baptists, which has been taken out of context by secularist numerous times.
However, this does not mean that this rule for a class violates the Constitution. I do not believe it to be unconstitutional, as it is only teaching the faith of, yes, 85% of America. Whether they're "Sunday Christians," as Theresa put it, or not, they're still Christians.
My point is, the majority of Americans have adopted Christianity as their faith, with 95% of Americans even celebrating Christmas. In that respect there's nothing wrong with teaching a Bible class. Plus, if it's an elective, I really don't see anything wrong with it. I don't see it as a violation, so long as they're careful how they teach it.
My only concern is that it may be taught either in an unwelcome way by more secularist liberal people (though Georgia has few) or that only one view of the Bible, when there are a number of interpretations, will be taught to all those kids who want to take the class. That's my only concern. |
gross...... I agree with RM...... gross......
lol I'm just messin with you.
I actually do agree with him on this one, I mean..... its an elective, and yes they're using government money to teach a religious class..... but this is a BIBLE class.... not a CATHOLIC class or a CHRISTIAN class or a PROTESTANT class.... its a BIBLE class the bible covers several religions. And we really have no details on what the class is... it could be analysis of the verses, it could be discussing its importance to different religions, it could be "lets shread and burn the bible" or "lets make oragami out of deuteronomy". The point is none of us knows what this class is yet, and until we do, we really have no right to shoot it down unless we know what its all about. Thats like me saying "I hate RM he's so gross..... he makes me want to vomit". I've never met him, I have no right to say that.....
GAH!
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:51 am |
|
| Starbuck wrote: |
I actually do agree with him on this one, I mean..... its an elective, and yes they're using government money to teach a religious class..... but this is a BIBLE class.... not a CATHOLIC class or a CHRISTIAN class or a PROTESTANT class.... its a BIBLE class the bible covers several religions. And we really have no details on what the class is... it could be analysis of the verses, it could be discussing its importance to different religions, it could be "lets shread and burn the bible" or "lets make oragami out of deuteronomy". The point is none of us knows what this class is yet, and until we do, we really have no right to shoot it down unless we know what its all about. |
We all know this is not going to be a literary class, a "social studies" class, or anything else. This is religion being taught using govenment resources, and it's clearly un-Constitutional.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:13 am |
|
if you're so on about this being unconstitutional, why don't you show me EXACTLY where in the constitution?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:52 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Starbuck wrote: |
I actually do agree with him on this one, I mean..... its an elective, and yes they're using government money to teach a religious class..... but this is a BIBLE class.... not a CATHOLIC class or a CHRISTIAN class or a PROTESTANT class.... its a BIBLE class the bible covers several religions. And we really have no details on what the class is... it could be analysis of the verses, it could be discussing its importance to different religions, it could be "lets shread and burn the bible" or "lets make oragami out of deuteronomy". The point is none of us knows what this class is yet, and until we do, we really have no right to shoot it down unless we know what its all about. |
We all know this is not going to be a literary class, a "social studies" class, or anything else. This is religion being taught using govenment resources, and it's clearly un-Constitutional. |
"we all know"? We know nothing of the sort.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:11 pm |
|
 In australia there are NO religious,'bible class',or any reference to religion being taught in public schools!If the government tried to 'enforce' such a class there would be many parents protesting it!
What ever it is called the taxpayers should not have to fund it in any way shape or form!
Another desperate attempt by religion to keep itself afloat in an ever changing 'SCIENTIFIC' world.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:17 pm |
|
I wish people were actually reading articles before posting, 
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:36 pm |
|
| magenta wrote: | | Another desperate attempt by religion to keep itself afloat in an ever changing 'SCIENTIFIC' world. |
This statement is a gross generalization that I feel many people make out of ignorance. If one were to actually ask, they would find (as they believe) that for some religions, including some Christian denominations, this statement is true. However, perhaps more surprisingly to them, they may find that many religions, also including some Christian denominations peacefully coincide next to science in the world. I realize that this is not pertaining specifically to the topic at hand, but seeing how people generalize like this, I felt it important to point this out.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:01 am |
|
| magenta wrote: | In australia there are NO religious,'bible class',or any reference to religion being taught in public schools!If the government tried to 'enforce' such a class there would be many parents protesting it!
What ever it is called the taxpayers should not have to fund it in any way shape or form!
Another desperate attempt by religion to keep itself afloat in an ever changing 'SCIENTIFIC' world. |
I agree with you and webtaz. In high school we never had religious classes either, well except for the whachos that would hold elective christian classes at lunch time 
I wouldn't want tax money (which I get A LOT of tax taken out of my pay), going towards religion education in public schools. In addition, I also would not want my children being taught any compulsary religion classes. If you want your children being taught this, then fine enroll them in a private school or take them to church (their loaded with funds anyway just look at those priests with the new series 7 bmw's), or something but don't use government funds for religion education.
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:06 am |
|
Why would the government fund with tax payers money such a thing if not to try to 'get' to the kids in the public schools?
If there are people who dont believe in a god or 'gods',why have a class to teach it?There is no academic reason to teach it in a public school!
By doing this you are taking away our right to choose to believe or not!If we choose to believe we would be putting our kids into a school that is religous!
I have several friends who are putting their kids into catholic private school with the false hope that it will give their kids a better education.Even thou they are not religous in any way!
My two step kids have gone to a catholic school from 5yrs old through to high school.They are barely able to write properly,or spell,and were not anywhere near ready to move up to high school!
Keep religous studies in religous schools!
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:17 am |
|
We're all forgetting one VERY important detail......... Its up to the government to interpret the Constitution... Therefore it makes no difference whether any of us feels its unconstitutional or not.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:28 am |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | magenta wrote: | In australia there are NO religious,'bible class',or any reference to religion being taught in public schools!If the government tried to 'enforce' such a class there would be many parents protesting it!
What ever it is called the taxpayers should not have to fund it in any way shape or form!
Another desperate attempt by religion to keep itself afloat in an ever changing 'SCIENTIFIC' world. |
I agree with you and webtaz. In high school we never had religious classes either, well except for the whachos that would hold elective christian classes at lunch time
I wouldn't want tax money (which I get A LOT of tax taken out of my pay), going towards religion education in public schools. In addition, I also would not want my children being taught any compulsary religion classes. If you want your children being taught this, then fine enroll them in a private school or take them to church (their loaded with funds anyway just look at those priests with the new series 7 bmw's), or something but don't use government funds for religion education. |
And therein lies the reason for the need of education.
BTW, I like how you all keep calling it "religious education". If you're an athiest, etc..., then the Bible is just a book to you, so why be worried that it's being taught as such?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:49 am |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | We're all forgetting one VERY important detail......... Its up to the government to interpret the Constitution... Therefore it makes no difference whether any of us feels its unconstitutional or not. |
Aren't we supposed to be the government (in the very long, convoluted way that representative democracy makes it)? If the people feel that there is an unconstitutional part to this action, it is their democratic obligation to bring it before that third tier--the justice system. Otherwise they are no better than the government.
The article doesn't really specify a lot about the format of the class. I don't have any problem with the academic study of religion, although I agree that the primary motivators behind this curriculum change are of religious background and probably have ulterior agendas.
If you want to talk about Constitution, here's a gem for you: Canada's Catholic school system is constitutionally guaranteed government funding.  They have religious classes and such (although one can, of course, choose to go through the public system). Talk about crazy little interesting twists to one's rights.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:10 pm |
|
Grant maintained religious schools are all state funded here, too.
There are C of E, RC, Jewish and Islamic ones (as far as I'm aware).
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:12 pm |
|
Theresa the bible is a 'book' that is about religion.I am not religous and do not want my kids taught it!Simple as that!Why do you wish it taught in a non religous school when it has no academic reason to be taught! thats why there are religous and non religous schools!
I will answer any question asked me by my kids about what religion is.It is my right to do that not the government forcing it on kids in public schools!
YES it is being forced even if it is an optional class or not!Tax payers are being forced to fund something that they should not have to!
If it happens in OZ,I personally would fight my taxes funding it to the end!
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 4:00 am |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | PrankishSmart wrote: | | magenta wrote: | In australia there are NO religious,'bible class',or any reference to religion being taught in public schools!If the government tried to 'enforce' such a class there would be many parents protesting it!
What ever it is called the taxpayers should not have to fund it in any way shape or form!
Another desperate attempt by religion to keep itself afloat in an ever changing 'SCIENTIFIC' world. |
I agree with you and webtaz. In high school we never had religious classes either, well except for the whachos that would hold elective christian classes at lunch time
I wouldn't want tax money (which I get A LOT of tax taken out of my pay), going towards religion education in public schools. In addition, I also would not want my children being taught any compulsary religion classes. If you want your children being taught this, then fine enroll them in a private school or take them to church (their loaded with funds anyway just look at those priests with the new series 7 bmw's), or something but don't use government funds for religion education. |
And therein lies the reason for the need of education.
BTW, I like how you all keep calling it "religious education". If you're an athiest, etc..., then the Bible is just a book to you, so why be worried that it's being taught as such? |
What do you mean by your first sentence?
I am not athiest, I am religion-less. I think the thing here that is important is that the bible is not really a academic study except for maybe a part of history class. Therefore I think if anyone believes otherwise they should explain to me why they think our hard earned tax money should go towards such purposes.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 9:15 pm |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: |
I agree with you and webtaz. In high school we never had religious classes either, well except for the whachos that would hold elective christian classes at lunch time
|
That's what I mean. What purpose did it serve to belittle those people who chose to take part of that class, simply because it wasn't something you were interested in?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 9:24 pm |
|
| magenta wrote: | Theresa the bible is a 'book' that is about religion.I am not religous and do not want my kids taught it!Simple as that!Why do you wish it taught in a non religous school when it has no academic reason to be taught! thats why there are religous and non religous schools!
I will answer any question asked me by my kids about what religion is.It is my right to do that not the government forcing it on kids in public schools!
YES it is being forced even if it is an optional class or not!Tax payers are being forced to fund something that they should not have to!
If it happens in OZ,I personally would fight my taxes funding it to the end! |
Yes the bible is a book. A book about Religion. And there is EVERY reason for it to be taught as an ELECTIVE in schools. Its called enlightenment and perhaps if more people were enlightened about other peoples ways, there would be fewer problems. And NOTHING is being forced on them if the class is an elective, as for your tax dollars..... they have an "elective fund" its just a ton of money they throw in for elective classes. Personally I would rather see my money going towards a class rather than a new windscreen on the tennis courts or new turf on the football field.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 9:47 pm |
|
This might be challanged by Muslim and Jewish groups, because only the Bible is being offered, and not the Koran/Torah...
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 11:48 pm |
|
If there is a 'tonne' of money put up for elective classes,it should be used to fund tuition for the kids that cant afford it and need extra help!
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 4:13 am |
|
I see no problem with a school OFFERING a bible class.
If it's elective that's fine. It's a MAJOR historical area of study.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
