|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
That's the closest I had seen to an endorsement of religion in my entire public school career, so I don’t know how that would compare to Europe, Mexico, or Canada for example. |
Seems like you were less exposed to religion than I was at school then. At kindergarten here we were forced (yes forced - bloody Lutherans!) to say prayers pretty much before we did anything. Neither of my parents are religious, so I didn't even know what this "God" was meant to be when they asked me to lead in prayer. :-/
At primary school here they'd always let proselytisers from the local church in to speak to us. There's something very wrong about taking a couple hours out of the weekly syllabus to let idiots indoctrinate 5 and 6 year olds with their very particular fire and brimstone religion (and that's how it was - none of this liberal Christian crap - it was fear and threats all the way. One of my friends in another class was traumatised when this weird, weird woman told him that he was going to burn in hell because he didn't pray at night. His parents understandably complained though, and she never came back).
When I lived in England we'd have to pray at the start and the end of every school day and sing hymns at assembly at the primary school there. Same deal as with Australia as well: they had no problem with letting protestant nut-jobs in to indoctrinate the children on school time (wonder if they'd let an atheist - or a Muslim - go in to do the same thing?). These are all state-schools I'm talking about as well, btw. So much for separation between church and state, huh? :rolleyes:
And well, I went to an Anglican high-school so lots of hymns and prayers there as well understandably. Anglicanism is a pretty liberal facet of Christianity, so I never had any specific problems there (except when the esteemed reverend dragged me up during Religious Education class - more accurately described as Christian Apologetics class - and tried to prove that atheists don't exist after I raised an objection to something he said). No-one I knew at the school was in any way religious though, so no-one took any of it particularly seriously.
So from the sounds of it, there's a bigger overlap between religion and state schools in Australia and England (from my experiences anyway) than Texas from what you've described. That's a little disconcerting... :-/ |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by djsubsonik
they believed in God... and so did every single on of the founding fathers... |
No they didn't. Not only were most of the founding fathers indifferent to religion (lots of deists, pantheists and agnostics in there - true products of the emerging European enlightenment) some - like Thomas Jefferson - were openly hostile to Christian beliefs. Hence, the doctrine of separating church and state.
| quote: | | so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state, and now are trying to modify our pledge of allegiance... |
Er, the pledge has already been modified - by the McCarthyites in the 50s. They were the ones that added words "under God" to the pledge to distinguish the US from the godless commies. Striking "under God" from the pledge would just be restoring it to its original form. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
I totally agree with you. Why change the customs of something that this country was basically built upon.. is like changing the whole white house structure, because it does not fit modern times structures.. and it bothers the people that walk outside to watch such an old greek like structure..... I know the analogy is not quite the same, really.. but I hope you people know where Im getting at. Jeezz.. leave history and those customs by itself, just respect it, learn and live to respect... you can say the whole pledge and not say the word god.. how can it bother you much? |
Why change customs like Monarchy, then? If a custom is beneficial, then it could be justified with something a little stronger than "why change [it]," and if it isn't beneficial then it is useless and ought to be replaced.
Break, break the old tablets! |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by djsubsonik
i find it amazing how some1 can try to take out something our country was founded on.. |
Looks like someone doesn't know their history. Under god was added in the 1950s, the original pledge didn't have any religions references in it, period.
| quote: | | when the pilgrims came here in the 1600s they came for religious freedom and guess what, they were Christians .. they believed in God... and so did every single on of the founding fathers... |
Yes, they believed in god, but there were numerous deists. Thomas Paine is a prime example of this, he was vehemently opposed to Christianity, hell - he even wrote a book on it.
Further to that - if you'd ever read your own constitution you'd realizer that there is strict separation of church and state enforced. I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean I yearn for the day when every school will coerce students into saying a pledge that affirms the non-existence of god. Government should remain neutral on all matters religious.
| quote: | | so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state |
They're doing that because the founding fathers wrote it into the constitution.
| quote: | | and now are trying to modify our pledge of allegiance... |
Once again, the original pledge did not contain 'under god'. It was added in the 1950s.
| quote: | | the nation was founded by people who believed in God.. suck it up |
Again, utterly irrelevant. The founding fathers believed in god (although not the same gods as each other), but unfortunately for you - they realized that the government and religion should be kept strictly separate. They didn't try and push their 'god belief' onto others.
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
I totally agree with you. Why change the customs of something that this country was basically built upon.. |
Because the country wasn't built on something added in the 1950s? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Seems like you were less exposed to religion than I was at school then. At kindergarten here we were forced (yes forced - bloody Lutherans!) to say prayers pretty much before we did anything. Neither of my parents are religious, so I didn't even know what this "God" was meant to be when they asked me to lead in prayer. :-/
At primary school here they'd always let proselytisers from the local church in to speak to us. There's something very wrong about taking a couple hours out of the weekly syllabus to let idiots indoctrinate 5 and 6 year olds with their very particular fire and brimstone religion (and that's how it was - none of this liberal Christian crap - it was fear and threats all the way. One of my friends in another class was traumatised when this weird, weird woman told him that he was going to burn in hell because he didn't pray at night. His parents understandably complained though, and she never came back).
When I lived in England we'd have to pray at the start and the end of every school day and sing hymns at assembly at the primary school there. Same deal as with Australia as well: they had no problem with letting protestant nut-jobs in to indoctrinate the children on school time (wonder if they'd let an atheist - or a Muslim - go in to do the same thing?). These are all state-schools I'm talking about as well, btw. So much for separation between church and state, huh? :rolleyes:
And well, I went to an Anglican high-school so lots of hymns and prayers there as well understandably. Anglicanism is a pretty liberal facet of Christianity, so I never had any specific problems there (except when the esteemed reverend dragged me up during Religious Education class - more accurately described as Christian Apologetics class - and tried to prove that atheists don't exist after I raised an objection to something he said). No-one I knew at the school was in any way religious though, so no-one took any of it particularly seriously.
So from the sounds of it, there's a bigger overlap between religion and state schools in Australia and England (from my experiences anyway) than Texas from what you've described. That's a little disconcerting... :-/ |
Hehe, I find that rather amusing since most foreigners seem to think we are all radical Fundies or something, though Bush is trying his best to return creationism, abstinence only sex ed, forced prayer, etc. to the public schools.
The main problem with this, of course, is that not all of us share the same belief systems.
Yes, the only time I can remember that I was more or less indoctrinated by an instructor was when we were asked to pray in kindergarten. That was during the Gulf War, so it must have been around 1991.
I went to public school in a more pluralistic, open city, and I often wonder how it would have been different had I gone to public school in a smaller town. :)
There are Christian and other faith organizations on campus in public schools, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but students lead them and attendance is completely voluntary. This is how it should be.
I forgot to mention, after the high school graduation ceremony there was a student-led prayer service, of which the name escapes me at this time.
It's completely voluntary though, and one is not forced to attend.
Voluntary, student-led faith organizations and events are vastly superior to indoctrination by an instructor.
Religious indoctrination by public school instructors has been unconstitutional in the US since at least the 1960s, though I'm not sure about the legality of handing out Bibles on school grounds (outside the schools).
It doesn't really harm anyone, so I see no problem with it.
Overall, everything is as it should be, and as long as Bush does not appoint, and the Senate confirms, two more like-minded judges beyond the Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist minority to the SC, freedom of religion will be protected.
Thomas' dissent in the pledge case seems to indicate to me he'd be fine with individual states adopting their own state religion(s). Then again, he’s also fine with trashing the Voting Rights Act (granting people of color the right to vote), despite the fact that he grew up Black in the South during the time of Jim Crow. My father, a lawyer, calls Thomas the “first anti-Black, Black justice.”
I'd bet the farm he and Scalia will also rule that the Bush Administration has the right to lock up American citizens without right to trial and attorney in the Padilla case:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/sit...k/site/newsweek
Here is some case history for church/state separation:
| quote: |
"The [First] Amendment's purpose... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." " U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States (1879)
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
1954: The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling, Tudor v. Board of Education against the distribution of Bibles by outside groups like the Gideons.
1960: Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
1962: The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, disallowed a government-composed, nondenominational "Regents" prayer which was recited by students .
1963: In a number of major decisions (Murray v. Curlett; Abington Township School district v. Schempp) mandatory Bible verse recitation was ruled unconstitutional.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. , Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City’s ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion. |
|
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
