Teach Religion in Public Schools?

I would be against it all the way. It would breed bigotry and it would begin the slippery slope of government sanctioning religions and myths.

Why can't you be satisfied with religion in your church? Why do you have to parade it around and promote it in such a worldly, carnal, non-spiritual venue?

 

How do you prevent religious teachers from proselytizing students?

 

Indeed!

 

I think you're making a fairly obvious false equivalence with the Holocaust example.

Separation of Church and State.

Holocaust is not a Church-related issue.

 

Common sense says he is correct. It is not a "personal opinion". Any forcing would be coming from you and others who want to force religion into the schools and anywhere else but the churches. All those who want religion taught in schools are fanatics of the order of the Taliban. And I will fight it all the way.

I'm frankly surprised that anyone who would call themselves "religious" would want to drag their religion out of the spiritual environment of a good church and push it into the worldly, carnal, non-spiritual environment of schools and society in general. Apparently spirituality is less important than dogma to some.

 

Did you mean are NOT used to proselytize, ? That seems more likely, from the rest of what's there.

 

You can send your children to religious school or Sunday school..

 

A survey of religions would be ok, but nothing proselytizing at all.

 

Why have institutions of learning teaching mythology when students are very poorly prepared for college when they graduate?

I'm not paying taxes so the schools can teach fantasies.

 

In Florida, we have state vouchers (the money for them comes from tax deductible donations) that are available to students up to a certain % over the poverty line that pay for private schools, even religious ones. We haven't had the above happen. It takes an awful lot of work to start a school, and the atheist trolls in the Church of Satan (locally known as the Satanic Temple) and the Flying Spaghetti monster just don't have that much energy.

 

Do you think it wouldn't be a good thing for people to know the basics of other people's faiths, in order to understand the other people? I'm not talking about teaching how to be, for example, a Buddhist, but teaching about what Buddhists believe, the history of Buddhism, etc.

 

Laws can be unjust/illegitimate, too. You should consider this issue independently without bringing legality into it.

Details might need to be worked out.

Besides, I just want to say that I am actually not part of the religious crowd. I would be against teaching my child religion in schools, too. I just think that the anti-crowd is imposing their value on the religious crowd.

Public schools are not the government.

How would you define a "personal opinion", then? I am pretty sure all sentences that contain the word "should" are all more or less some form of opinion.

"I think animal welfare concerns should be taught in public schools"---is this a personal opinion, or not?

I am sure the religious crowd can turn this argument on its head and say that you guys are trying to impose atheism on school children.

 

So do you think environmentalists should be the same way--they should be only allowed to talk about it in nature? Part of freedom of speech (and religion) is the right to parade around and promote whatever I want (as long as I'm not advocating hurting anybody). Freedom of religion is not just the freedom to attend church (or mosque or temple or synagogue or colander (whatever the FSM folks call their place of worship)), it's the freedom to practice the religion openly and in public.

 

Yah. I figure you're being funny. But all the public school systems in the US are under financial & ideological pressure as it is. There is only so much money, & all the states are cutting back their budgets, sometimes for essential services. So there' s the practical, budget issue.

There's also a question of utility. While I'm as interested as the next person in comparative religion - there is no outcry - to my knowledge - asking for this kind of comprehensive look @ the tenets of the major religions in the US, let alone the World. There aren't enough trained teachers for the academic approach that would be required - in order for the class to pass Constitutional muster.

In short, this whole notion of doing a survey course of what the major religions believe, doctrine, practices, etc. - simply won't fly. There's no call for it, it doesn't fulfil any particular need, it's Constitutionally iffy. It would be more reasonable to talk about Christianity's role in the formation of the US, or even the New World - without going into doctrine & theology as such - more about the effects of belief than discussing the belief itself.

But I think the topic is too divisive - the religions not included would have a case to claim they were being excluded from the public forum. I don't think the game would be worth the candle.

 

My problem is not that public schools do not teach religion.
It is that they encourage sin. Their ideas of sex education, and telling us Gay is Ok and transgenderism is normal and should be protected and even encouraged when the child is confused, and similar moral matters ---- all that is taking a moral and religious stand. So is a number of schools secretly shuttling some young girl off for a secret abortion unbeknownst to her parents. That one kills me.

 

Bunk. Neutrality cannot be logically construed to be bias. In addition, imposing atheism would mean advocating atheism. It would mean indoctrination. Omission of religious studies, then, cannot be construed as "imposing atheism".

 

Privatize schools. Return education back to the parents, families, and local communities to educate children as they choose.

Successful schools will prosper. Unsuccessful schools won't survive.

When government imposes the religion of leftist-thought on our school system it drags our country into the gutter.

Time to end government involvement picking and choosing winners and losers in education.

Boot government to the curb on education.

 

The US Constitution contains no religious test for office. The Founding Fathers deliberately created a secular state - as they had seen the problems caused by state religions in Europe. So what's proper to teach in schools - specifically public schools, funded by taxes upon property owners, of various faiths or no faith @ all - is meant to be non-sectarian. When the Roman Catholic community in the US objected to the theological/ideological content of public schools, they set up their own system - which is still the largest private school system in the US, TMK.

Churches are free to do the same, if they want their theology taught alongside the secular curriculum. Or people can choose to homeschool their children, another option.

 

???
You're going to need to explain your semantics there.
A public school system is a government-run school system.

 

Yes but it is run by the government but it itself is not the government/the State.

The government governs...but a public school doesn't.

 

I think you're being very loose semantically. If it is government-funded, paid with taxes, is it not a part of the government? The government explicitly deciding as part of its governance the title will provide education. Just because they hire contractors to do the work doesn't mean a government is not executive producing it.

Your argument would disable many complaints of tax usage.

 

On religious teachers proselytizing in the public school classroom. Once identified, the administration counsels the teacher (this should have been covered in orientation, upon hire, & in the employee manual). Teachers are contracted to teach a specific curriculum. Classroom time is precious, most schools still have high-value academic tests that the students must pass in order to advance.

If the teacher can't or won't adhere to his/her employment contract, after repeated counseling, the administration terminates the teacher. End of problem - from the school's POV, @ least.

Public schools in the US are, in fact, examples of special government. They are created by the state, usually under the supervision of a state Department of Education, which sets curriculum, textbook choices, staffing requirements, degrees/experience necessary @ grade level, nutrition, transportation, college track, minimum building codes, Special Education, athletics, PE, art, music, STEM, & a thousand other details. A school board is set for each local school district (SD). The SD's finances - budget, tax rate, bonds, etc. must pass state muster.

Public schools in the US are not allowed to impose atheism, nor any other set of religious beliefs nor disbelief. SDs are deliberately secular, they are forbidden to proselytize.

 

Correct.

 

My point is that, it is a value (of the anti-crowd) that public schools should not teach religion, and it is also a value (of the religious group) that public schools should do so. Why do you support the former imposing their value on the latter, but not the other way around?

Are you able to provide evidence that this was the intent of the Founding Fathers? Note that it is difficult enough to prove the intent of present-day people; it is even more difficult to prove such for people that have been dead for a long time.

Being funded by the government does not make said entity the State. Let's say there is an abortion clinic that is funded and run by the government. Are you going to call said clinic the government?

I guess it comes down to how one defines "government".

 

Exactly; like I said, your argument makes criticizing government spending impossible. And yes, abortion critics do petition the government to not spend tax dollars on clinics!

Semantically, I don't think you can separate government-spending from government itself, by definition.