Forums | MacLife

charon · 2005-02-23 5:13 pm

This is something I've brought up a couple times here and my interest has been reignited by a class on the Religion Clauses of the 1st Amendment.

To my mind, public education--that is, taxpayer financed schools that are run by the government--potentially runs into three problems with respect to church & state. The first is that kids may get taught religious doctrines or, alternatively, doctrines that negate religious beliefs (I'll call them "anti-religious" although that's not quite accurate). The second and third problems are that taxpayers may be forced to support doctrines that violate their religious or anti-religious beliefs which are then taught by the government.

The problem is that any meaningful education in a public school is going to run into these problems. That's pretty obvious with respect to questions like the origins of life, the universe, and sex education.

I don't think it's enough to say that there is no problem as long as the state tries to be neutral, i.e., sticks to scientific truth. The whole point is that people who feel their religious beliefs are being trampled on dispute what the truth is. It would negate the 1st Amendment to say that its limitations may be ignored as long as what the government is dictating is "true."

So it seems to me that the answer is, "no," that public education does breach the wall and is quite likely unconstitutional for this reason (yes, I'm quite aware that the Supreme Court disagrees, although I do think it's what logically follows from much of the case law on the Religion Clauses). Whether that's a price worth paying is another question.

StaticAge · 2005-02-23 5:23 pm

Look, sooner or later no matter what the ciriculum is, someone is going to teach something subjective to children, and depending on your point of view, you will either like it or not. It could be that the color theory they are using in art class isnt to your liking, or the perspective history is filtered through isnt to your taste. But if it gets boiled odwn to 'only teach kids stuff that is not subjective" eventually there will be no ciriculum.

Solution? Keep public schools going, let the trained and educated teachers choose the ciriculum, and any parents who complain that the school isnt teaching this or that has to get off their butts and stop expecting everyone else to indoctrinate their kids for them. Its the parents job to raise their own stupid kids with the values they'd like them to grow up with.

Mr. McPhee · 2005-02-23 5:49 pm

To me, as long as the school tries to stay as neutral as possible that is good enough. No matter what you do someone will always be offended, but that does not mean that we should change everything just to meet their sensibilities.

otter · 2005-02-23 6:23 pm

So long as publicly funded education institutions continue to refrain from teaching religious doctrine, then yes, they can and do co-exist with said separation. See, it's not a matter of something being subjective, like a particular color theory in an art class, or the undisputedly biased reporting of historical events. The real issue regarding the separation of church and state, particularly in public schools, is that when religious doctrine is taught as fact, then a decision has to be made as to which religious doctrines are "true" and which are "false". Even within the Bible, there are a multitude of interpretations, each of which is "true" to their believers, and each, to some degree abnegates those other interpretations. This abnegation is even stronger across religious doctrines, with each belief system denying central important tenets of each of the others.

The government, in any form, is in no position to make these decisions, nor should it be. It's the reason the founders of this country put in the principles of respect for the freedom of religious expression that they did. The fact that they did not specifically use the phrase "separation of church and state" does not make this any less of a founding principle of American society. One has to realize that the thing that makes religion so strong in the US, especially religious sects with small followings, is this gulf that separates the government from making decisions about the belief systems of it's citizenry.

And to deride the teaching of valid science in public education, on the grounds that it is "anti-religious" or "derisive" of a particular, or even all, religious beliefs is disingenuous and tendencious. Science belongs in public schools, and religion does not. Period.

Also, to those parents who blame the lack of religious instruction in school for the declining morality of America's youth, I say, do your smurfing job as parents and teach them to be moral. It's what parents do, when they don't SUCK!

Camp David · 2005-02-23 6:34 pm

otter wrote:
So long as publicly funded education institutions continue to refrain from teaching religious doctrine, then yes, they can and do co-exist with said separation.

I just see things different otter! I don't see a problem teaching religious education in public schools; indeed such instruction can only help children!

What is the harm in teaching religious education in public schools? Kids benefit. Is teaching religious subjects wrong or illegal? No. The 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause forbids the "establishment" of a religion by the State; it says nothing about the instructing of a religion to students.

We teach Anthropology in schools, so too we should teach Religion. All Religion. To do less is to handicap students.

Why?

Religion is the core of society today. We are not a secular society.

How can kids understand what's going on in the Mideast without understanding the Koran? How can kids understand what's going on in Israel without understanding the Talmud? How can kids understand what's going on in America without understanding the Bible?

Public schools should offer religious instruction, and tailor courses to adjust to all religions, as history. Specialized religious courses tailored to student's religious belief should be offered; after school if teachers are not qualified to teach them.

I disagree with most folks who want to separate Church and State; I am smart enough to know there is no such separation in real life.

Camp David

bratboy · 2005-02-23 6:42 pm

Camp David wrote:
I disagree with most folks who want to separate Church and State; I am smart enough to know there is no such separation in real life.

Yes, no "real separation" except in the law of this country.

Amend it if you don't like it.

Camp David · 2005-02-23 6:44 pm

bratboy wrote:
Camp David wrote:
I disagree with most folks who want to separate Church and State; I am smart enough to know there is no such separation in real life.
Yes, no "real separation" except in the law of this country.

Amend it if you don't like it.

Don't have to bratboy...the words "separation of Church and State" don't seem to exist on any law that I am aware of. Prove me wrong?

Phydeaux · 2005-02-23 6:46 pm

Close the schools and give the citizens of our country one hell of a tax break.

StaticAge · 2005-02-23 6:46 pm

Camp David wrote:
otter wrote:
So long as publicly funded education institutions continue to refrain from teaching religious doctrine, then yes, they can and do co-exist with said separation.
I just see things different otter! I don't see a problem teaching religious education in public schools; indeed such instruction can only help children!

What is the harm in teaching religious education in public schools? Kids benefit. Is teaching religious subjects wrong or illegal? No. The 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause forbids the "establishment" of a religion by the State; it says nothing about the instructing of a religion to students.

We teach Anthropology in schools, so too we should teach Religion. All Religion. To do less is to handicap students.

Why?

Religion is the core of society today. We are not a secular society.

How can kids understand what's going on in the Mideast without understanding the Koran? How can kids understand what's going on in Israel without understanding the Talmud? How can kids understand what's going on in America without understanding the Bible?

Public schools should offer religious instruction, and tailor courses to adjust to all religions, as history. Specialized religious courses tailored to student's religious belief should be offered; after school if teachers are not qualified to teach them.

I disagree with most folks who want to separate Church and State; I am smart enough to know there is no such separation in real life.

Camp David

Oddly enough I find a lot in your post I'd agree with, except that I dont agree that we are a religious society, I think we are a society made up from a lot of different people with many beliefs about religion, and I would tend to think that a class would only serve to promote the more popular threads of religion by glossing them over and generalizing them a lot, so I would really question the value of such an education. I also only think it would make things even more difficult for people who belong to a minority view or religion. Religion wasnt taught in my school and I got in fights all the time because I didnt salute the flag or celebrate christmas; I can only see the environment getting even more hostile from promoting homogenized cursory religious education that could only basically endorse popular religion.

bratboy · 2005-02-23 6:59 pm

Camp David wrote:
bratboy wrote:
Camp David wrote:
I disagree with most folks who want to separate Church and State; I am smart enough to know there is no such separation in real life.
Yes, no "real separation" except in the law of this country.

Amend it if you don't like it.
Don't have to bratboy...the words "separation of Church and State" don't seem to exist on any law that I am aware of. Prove me wrong?

Courts interpret laws.

Courts say that the establishment clause calls for a "separation of church and state."

Prove me wrong?

Last edited by bratboy (2005-02-23 6:59 pm)

The New Guy · 2005-02-23 7:23 pm

Sure it can. Just don't go teaching religion in science class.

the W'rkncacnter · 2005-02-23 7:53 pm

StaticAge wrote:
Look, sooner or later no matter what the ciriculum is, someone is going to teach something subjective to children, and depending on your point of view, you will either like it or not. It could be that the color theory they are using in art class isnt to your liking, or the perspective history is filtered through isnt to your taste. But if it gets boiled odwn to 'only teach kids stuff that is not subjective" eventually there will be no ciriculum.

Solution? Keep public schools going, let the trained and educated teachers choose the ciriculum, and any parents who complain that the school isnt teaching this or that has to get off their butts and stop expecting everyone else to indoctrinate their kids for them. Its the parents job to raise their own stupid kids with the values they'd like them to grow up with.

Wow. That is quite possibly the most intelligent thing I have ever read in MiniThink.

--;

the W'rkncacnter · 2005-02-23 7:55 pm

bratboy wrote:
Camp David wrote:
bratboy wrote:

Yes, no "real separation" except in the law of this country.

Amend it if you don't like it.
Don't have to bratboy...the words "separation of Church and State" don't seem to exist on any law that I am aware of. Prove me wrong?
Courts interpret laws.

Courts say that the establishment clause calls for a "separation of church and state."

Prove me wrong?

Just as the 1st amendment doesn't specifically say anything about freedom of expression, the courts have ruled that it is implicit to the amendment.

Phydeaux · 2005-02-23 8:02 pm

The New Guy wrote:
Sure it can. Just don't go teaching religion in science class.

Phrased that way, you're making it pretty damn hard for everyone. Everyone.

shapoopy · 2005-02-23 8:27 pm

I don't mind the teaching of religion if all religions are taught.

In fact, I think it would be beneficial.

But god dammit, not in smurfing science class!

If you're going to present Intelligent Design in the same manner as Evolution, you may as well start teaching spontaneous generation.

Jesus, give the beliefs their own class.

shapoopy · 2005-02-23 8:36 pm

Dammit, I don't want to start another one of these threads, but...

ID is not scientifically viable as presented!

Give me observations supporting it, and give me things that ID has predicted. Then we'll talk.

bratboy · 2005-02-23 8:44 pm

the W'rkncacnter wrote:
Just as the 1st amendment doesn't specifically say anything about freedom of expression, the courts have ruled that it is implicit to the amendment.

Yep.

shapoopy · 2005-02-23 8:46 pm

Which is of course why we have the courts in the first place.

shapoopy · 2005-02-23 8:55 pm

I'll agree to disagree for the sake of keeping this on topic.

But, aside, I've been a participant in a few of those threads of which you speak and never seen anything to convince me.

But let's make a deal to both be there when the inevitable next big thread hits. smile

Rozzlapeed · 2005-02-23 9:00 pm

I don't understand why anyone needs to taught about evolution or the big bang or anything like that. Why don't we leave those subjects alone until college?

Get rid of that useless smurf before high school graduation, and replace it with a mandatory second language and civics lessons.

Any science education beyond the scientific method and some lab experience is unnecessary before college. Our students are stupid as smurf when it comes to actively participating in national and world societies and cultures. Let's worry about that instead.

locutus_of_borg · 2005-02-23 9:14 pm

Camp David wrote:
How can kids understand what's going on in the Mideast without understanding the Koran? How can kids understand what's going on in Israel without understanding the Talmud? How can kids understand what's going on in America without understanding the Bible?

Ok, that is MUCH better learned through the study of history and human behavior among other things. In this case, religion is just a catalyst for war and an excuse to fight. Studying the Koran will lead to nothing as far as understanding the current situation in the Middle East. Religion is based on FAITH, not facts. Faith cannot be taught, although some people insist it can be, it cannot. You want to teach ABOUT religion in public schools? Teach the history of a religion, it's impact on different groups of people, the interactions it creates etc. fine.

Sunday school (or whatever group) is the place to learn about your prefered religion and it's practices; that is a choice you can make on your own.

Phydeaux · 2005-02-23 11:19 pm

Rozzlapeed wrote:
I don't understand why anyone needs to taught about evolution or the big bang or anything like that. Why don't we leave those subjects alone until college?

Get rid of that useless smurf before high school graduation, and replace it with a mandatory second language and civics lessons.

Any science education beyond the scientific method and some lab experience is unnecessary before college. Our students are stupid as smurf when it comes to actively participating in national and world societies and cultures. Let's worry about that instead.

I agree with this fellow.

Tigress DEM · 2005-02-23 11:33 pm

There is an awesome post on this thought stream on the Democratic Underground. The main thread really speaks to specifics about how the Constitution was formed, the fact that it doesn't mention God and that even the pledge of Alliegence didn't have God in it until much later on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di … id=1616821

The best I thought was brought up by NAO Founding Fathers wanted secular government, but IF we were a Christian....

He has a lot of quotes from the Bible and I agree with his points on most because the approach is fundamentally backwards these days trying to legislate things individuals and God should work out and leaving up to the Church or individuals what we as society should do as Christians.

NAO's closing statements:

<snip>
Adherence to the Laws of Moses SHOULD be left to private individuals and at most, the churches. We have been commanded by Jesus NOT to engage in the moral condemnation of others. Conversely, we have been commanded to feed, clothe and shelter those in need.

If Christians REALLY want a Christian nation, they should vote for a ban on condemning of sinners (unless of course you are 100% sin free, in which case feel free to blast them) AND they should provide a MANDATE for social programs.

[MA] Flying_Meat · 2005-02-23 11:42 pm

charon wrote:
(I'll call them "anti-religious" although that's not quite accurate).

I think that you will find that this applies (or should) across the religious board and plays no favorites. This is the crux of your argument, it seems to me, and can be easily remedied. if you think any "one" religious content should be allowed in the face of separation of church and state as it applies to public education, then "all" religious content must therefore be allowed.

that won't sit well with the board of education (time), nor the more ludicrously radical sects of any given religion. it's not up to the public schools to provide religious grounding. that is up to the parents and the respective religious institutions.

public schools teach english, math, science, and history. if you're smurfing lucky, they teach phys. ed., and luckier still, the arts.

my .0025 cents.

charon · 2005-02-23 11:49 pm

StaticAge wrote:
Look, sooner or later no matter what the ciriculum is, someone is going to teach something subjective to children, and depending on your point of view, you will either like it or not. It could be that the color theory they are using in art class isnt to your liking, or the perspective history is filtered through isnt to your taste. But if it gets boiled odwn to 'only teach kids stuff that is not subjective" eventually there will be no ciriculum.

Solution? Keep public schools going, let the trained and educated teachers choose the ciriculum, and any parents who complain that the school isnt teaching this or that has to get off their butts and stop expecting everyone else to indoctrinate their kids for them. Its the parents job to raise their own stupid kids with the values they'd like them to grow up with.

Based on what you've written, it sounds like you don't believe in any constitutional limits at all upon what's taught in a public school. Maybe that's not what you meant; if not, then my question is why the constitution only limits the explicit affirmation of certain religious doctrines and not the explicit negation of religious doctrines--which is what a lot of public school education is.

Now, I am very sympathetic to the idea that parents should take more responsibility in how their kids are raised. On the other hand, how can we ask them to do that when money they might otherwise spend on education is taxed away and they are told that there's basically one public school to choose from? Nor does this address the fact that people are being forced to support the propagation of doctrines that violate their religious beliefs, nor that the government is putting its muscle behind such doctrines.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2005-02-23 5:13 pm

can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#2 2005-02-23 5:23 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#3 2005-02-23 5:49 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#4 2005-02-23 6:23 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#5 2005-02-23 6:34 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

otter wrote:

#6 2005-02-23 6:42 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

Camp David wrote:

#7 2005-02-23 6:44 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

bratboy wrote:

Camp David wrote:

#8 2005-02-23 6:46 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#9 2005-02-23 6:46 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

Camp David wrote:

otter wrote:

#10 2005-02-23 6:59 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

Camp David wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Camp David wrote:

#11 2005-02-23 7:23 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#12 2005-02-23 7:53 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

StaticAge wrote:

#13 2005-02-23 7:55 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

bratboy wrote:

Camp David wrote:

bratboy wrote:

#14 2005-02-23 8:02 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

The New Guy wrote:

#15 2005-02-23 8:27 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#16 2005-02-23 8:36 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#17 2005-02-23 8:44 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

the W'rkncacnter wrote:

#18 2005-02-23 8:46 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#19 2005-02-23 8:55 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#20 2005-02-23 9:00 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#21 2005-02-23 9:14 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

Camp David wrote:

#22 2005-02-23 11:19 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

Rozzlapeed wrote:

#23 2005-02-23 11:33 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

#24 2005-02-23 11:42 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

charon wrote:

#25 2005-02-23 11:49 pm

Re: can public education co-exist with the separation of church and state?

StaticAge wrote:

Board footer