Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson - Bible in Public School

[Meriweather]

for me the potential for abuse (i.e. becoming an indoctrination class) far outweighs the benefits of a well taught class

While I cannot say for sure how every school district acts, the ones I have worked for set the guidelines and curriculum, as well as approve the teaching materials. They hire the teachers. Further, it is pretty difficult to brainwash a high school student as they tend to want to think for themselves.

Finally, one of my daughters, while in high school, had a Wiccan English teacher. This teacher was a fine English teacher, but she was also throwing in Wiccan doctrine whenever she could. So what? My daughter had her beliefs and we had many interesting dinner conversations of why we believe as we do--and why she probably believes as she does. I cannot imagine panicking over a high school student being taught/exposed to Wiccan doctrine. High school students do not live in a vacuum--and for the most part they also have good heads on their shoulders.

I think the greater majority of school districts and teachers would do well with presenting the material. Of course, we would never hear about them, as the news media is more interested in finding the few that will mess up. Besides, I have doubts that there is enough student interest to support such electives in many places. All I am saying is where there is such interest, have at it.

I am a risk manager and I deal with a large school district. I can tell you from experience that if a class as you propose was placed in the curriculum, we would find ourselves in litigation over it. Win or lose, the money I had to spend for litigation would be money not going into the classroom. There is one school district I know of which dealt with litigation because they were teaching yoga in gym, and a parent saw that as religious indoctrination. If you skirt the line of legality you are going to end up in court and that takes both time and money away from the students.

Would this apply to electives as well? As far as yoga in gym class...One school I work for teaches both yoga and dance--and anyone can opt out for religious reasons--just as people can opt out of football and soccer due to allergies to grass. I agree though, that frivolous lawsuits can be a menace to any agency.

 

[PratchettFan]

for me the potential for abuse (i.e. becoming an indoctrination class) far outweighs the benefits of a well taught class

While I cannot say for sure how every school district acts, the ones I have worked for set the guidelines and curriculum, as well as approve the teaching materials. They hire the teachers. Further, it is pretty difficult to brainwash a high school student as they tend to want to think for themselves.

Finally, one of my daughters, while in high school, had a Wiccan English teacher. This teacher was a fine English teacher, but she was also throwing in Wiccan doctrine whenever she could. So what? My daughter had her beliefs and we had many interesting dinner conversations of why we believe as we do--and why she probably believes as she does. I cannot imagine panicking over a high school student being taught/exposed to Wiccan doctrine. High school students do not live in a vacuum--and for the most part they also have good heads on their shoulders.

I think the greater majority of school districts and teachers would do well with presenting the material. Of course, we would never hear about them, as the news media is more interested in finding the few that will mess up. Besides, I have doubts that there is enough student interest to support such electives in many places. All I am saying is where there is such interest, have at it.

I am a risk manager and I deal with a large school district. I can tell you from experience that if a class as you propose was placed in the curriculum, we would find ourselves in litigation over it. Win or lose, the money I had to spend for litigation would be money not going into the classroom. There is one school district I know of which dealt with litigation because they were teaching yoga in gym, and a parent saw that as religious indoctrination. If you skirt the line of legality you are going to end up in court and that takes both time and money away from the students.

Would this apply to electives as well? As far as yoga in gym class...One school I work for teaches both yoga and dance--and anyone can opt out for religious reasons--just as people can opt out of football and soccer due to allergies to grass. I agree though, that frivolous lawsuits can be a menace to any agency.

Whether or not a court would look at an elective as different is really up to the court, and then the appeals court, and then the state supreme court, and then the US Supreme Court. The point really is that it doesn't matter if you win, the cost of winning is still a cost. I don't know if yoga was an elective for that district or not, but I do know they eventually dropped it because it just was not worth the hassle.

You can't teach a religion. Not in a public school. You can deal with it on a comparative basis. You can approach a religious text on the basis of history or literature, so long as it is a history or literature class and not a Bible class. I think any school district which ignores this does so at the peril of their students.

 

[DriftingSand]

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

You'd be cool with the Quran too?

Sure ... as a separate elective.

I doubt Robertson would be

Probably not. He's actually drawing his opinions from those of the Founding Fathers who taught the Bible in early American schools. Even institutions of higher learning read the Bible and learned from it. One of the reasons America became a literally GREAT nation at one time. Even the first Congress sponsored the printing of America's first, locally printed edition.

 

[DriftingSand]

for me the potential for abuse (i.e. becoming an indoctrination class) far outweighs the benefits of a well taught class

While I cannot say for sure how every school district acts, the ones I have worked for set the guidelines and curriculum, as well as approve the teaching materials. They hire the teachers. Further, it is pretty difficult to brainwash a high school student as they tend to want to think for themselves.

Finally, one of my daughters, while in high school, had a Wiccan English teacher. This teacher was a fine English teacher, but she was also throwing in Wiccan doctrine whenever she could. So what? My daughter had her beliefs and we had many interesting dinner conversations of why we believe as we do--and why she probably believes as she does. I cannot imagine panicking over a high school student being taught/exposed to Wiccan doctrine. High school students do not live in a vacuum--and for the most part they also have good heads on their shoulders.

I think the greater majority of school districts and teachers would do well with presenting the material. Of course, we would never hear about them, as the news media is more interested in finding the few that will mess up. Besides, I have doubts that there is enough student interest to support such electives in many places. All I am saying is where there is such interest, have at it.

I am a risk manager and I deal with a large school district. I can tell you from experience that if a class as you propose was placed in the curriculum, we would find ourselves in litigation over it. Win or lose, the money I had to spend for litigation would be money not going into the classroom. There is one school district I know of which dealt with litigation because they were teaching yoga in gym, and a parent saw that as religious indoctrination. If you skirt the line of legality you are going to end up in court and that takes both time and money away from the students.

Would this apply to electives as well? As far as yoga in gym class...One school I work for teaches both yoga and dance--and anyone can opt out for religious reasons--just as people can opt out of football and soccer due to allergies to grass. I agree though, that frivolous lawsuits can be a menace to any agency.

Stop making sense. You might upset some folks.

 

[DriftingSand]

I suppose that depends on how the classes is presented. If people want to use this class as an excuse to extol the virtues of one Holy Book over another them no, I am opposed to such a class. Do we really want the government teaching children faith? That is best left to the parents and members of the clergy that the parents wish.

On the other side of the coin, do we want the government prohibiting children from learning about anything that touches on faith? The Bible (or any religious book) as History, Culture, and Literature--or, comparative religion classes isn't anything the government should prohibit as an elective course.

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

 

[Hollie]

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

You'd be cool with the Quran too?

Sure ... as a separate elective. I wouldn't mind taking a class on the Quran just to know what it has to say and how it came to exist and how it's effected the world. I like learning new things. You?

You will have to look somewhere other than the public schools for your Koran studies. They will not become an elective as part of the public school syllabus.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

sure, but you'd have to toss in the rest. I'm cool with that.

My step-daughter to 'Mysticism', it was a class that taught them what all the different myths were (monsters as well)

 

[Hollie]

I suppose that depends on how the classes is presented. If people want to use this class as an excuse to extol the virtues of one Holy Book over another them no, I am opposed to such a class. Do we really want the government teaching children faith? That is best left to the parents and members of the clergy that the parents wish.

On the other side of the coin, do we want the government prohibiting children from learning about anything that touches on faith? The Bible (or any religious book) as History, Culture, and Literature--or, comparative religion classes isn't anything the government should prohibit as an elective course.

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

I think you're just incensed that anyone should be allowed to challenge your religious beliefs and the imposition of those beliefs into the public schools. While you may presume your religious beliefs require a status of privileged involubility, you need to accept the fact that the world doesn't revolve around your religious beliefs.

 

[DriftingSand]

I suppose that depends on how the classes is presented. If people want to use this class as an excuse to extol the virtues of one Holy Book over another them no, I am opposed to such a class. Do we really want the government teaching children faith? That is best left to the parents and members of the clergy that the parents wish.

On the other side of the coin, do we want the government prohibiting children from learning about anything that touches on faith? The Bible (or any religious book) as History, Culture, and Literature--or, comparative religion classes isn't anything the government should prohibit as an elective course.

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

I think you're just incensed that anyone should be allowed to challenge your religious beliefs and the imposition of those beliefs into the public schools. While you may presume your religious beliefs require a status of privileged involubility, you need to accept the fact that the world doesn't revolve around your religious beliefs.

I'm not the one being challenged ... you are. I'm not fearful of books I don't like making their way into schools if the end goal is learning something previously unknown. You, on the other hand, are wetting your knickers at the very thought of the Bible finding itself in a classroom. You're literally petrified of the idea. Kinda proves just how powerful the Bible really is -- wouldn't ya say?

 

[Hollie]

I suppose that depends on how the classes is presented. If people want to use this class as an excuse to extol the virtues of one Holy Book over another them no, I am opposed to such a class. Do we really want the government teaching children faith? That is best left to the parents and members of the clergy that the parents wish.

On the other side of the coin, do we want the government prohibiting children from learning about anything that touches on faith? The Bible (or any religious book) as History, Culture, and Literature--or, comparative religion classes isn't anything the government should prohibit as an elective course.

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

I think you're just incensed that anyone should be allowed to challenge your religious beliefs and the imposition of those beliefs into the public schools. While you may presume your religious beliefs require a status of privileged involubility, you need to accept the fact that the world doesn't revolve around your religious beliefs.

I'm not the one being challenged ... you are. I'm not fearful of books I don't like making their way into schools if the end goal is learning something previously unknown. You, on the other hand, are wetting your knickers at the very thought of the Bible finding itself in a classroom. You're literally petrified of the idea. Kinda proves just how powerful the Bible really is -- wouldn't ya say?

I'd say otherwise. I'd say the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was genius in their establishment of separation of church and state. I see your bibles as less a danger than the attitudes of you christian extremists who wield your bibles as bloody truncheons.

As to your bibles finding their way into the public schools, you extremists have suffered humiliating defeats in the courts. It's a shame you believe your religious views are above the law.

Learn to cope.

 

[Ravi]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Sure, why not. We all know teachers are liberals and they would have a great time pointing out that the bible is a fairy tale.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Sure, why not. We all know teachers are liberals and they would have a great time pointing out that the bible is a fairy tale.

That wouldn't be proper teaching methodology. Millions don't believe it's a fairy tale so a good teacher would approach the subject in a neutral manner.

 

[Ravi]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Sure, why not. We all know teachers are liberals and they would have a great time pointing out that the bible is a fairy tale.

That wouldn't be proper teaching methodology. Millions don't believe it's a fairy tale so a good teacher would approach the subject in a neutral manner.

I took bible as literature in high school. A good teacher wouldn't claim it is truth, which is what duck boy seems to be aiming for.

 

[Hollie]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Sure, why not. We all know teachers are liberals and they would have a great time pointing out that the bible is a fairy tale.

That wouldn't be proper teaching methodology. Millions don't believe it's a fairy tale so a good teacher would approach the subject in a neutral manner.

Only in the alternate reality you dwell in.

 

[DriftingSand]

On the other side of the coin, do we want the government prohibiting children from learning about anything that touches on faith? The Bible (or any religious book) as History, Culture, and Literature--or, comparative religion classes isn't anything the government should prohibit as an elective course.

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

I think you're just incensed that anyone should be allowed to challenge your religious beliefs and the imposition of those beliefs into the public schools. While you may presume your religious beliefs require a status of privileged involubility, you need to accept the fact that the world doesn't revolve around your religious beliefs.

I'm not the one being challenged ... you are. I'm not fearful of books I don't like making their way into schools if the end goal is learning something previously unknown. You, on the other hand, are wetting your knickers at the very thought of the Bible finding itself in a classroom. You're literally petrified of the idea. Kinda proves just how powerful the Bible really is -- wouldn't ya say?

I'd say otherwise. I'd say the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was genius in their establishment of separation of church and state. I see your bibles as less a danger than the attitudes of you christian extremists who wield your bibles as bloody truncheons.

As to your bibles finding their way into the public schools, you extremists have suffered humiliating defeats in the courts. It's a shame you believe your religious views are above the law.

Learn to cope.

The Founders sought to protect the various Christian churches from a Government controlled, State religion. You should brush up on true American history. On another note, I feel badly that you're so afraid of the Bible. I assume you had a bad childhood and are simply angry at God for something. Perhaps you can reconcile your resentment and anger before you pass on to the next life.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Sure, why not. We all know teachers are liberals and they would have a great time pointing out that the bible is a fairy tale.

That wouldn't be proper teaching methodology. Millions don't believe it's a fairy tale so a good teacher would approach the subject in a neutral manner.

I took bible as literature in high school. A good teacher wouldn't claim it is truth, which is what duck boy seems to be aiming for.

Well ... it is the truth but if I were a teacher I wouldn't approach it from that perspective in a high school atmosphere. I would simply present it in a purely neutral manner and let the kids decide for themselves. I believe we owe the next generation every opportunity to decide things for themselves without the biased influence of haters.

 

[Hollie]

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

I think you're just incensed that anyone should be allowed to challenge your religious beliefs and the imposition of those beliefs into the public schools. While you may presume your religious beliefs require a status of privileged involubility, you need to accept the fact that the world doesn't revolve around your religious beliefs.

I'm not the one being challenged ... you are. I'm not fearful of books I don't like making their way into schools if the end goal is learning something previously unknown. You, on the other hand, are wetting your knickers at the very thought of the Bible finding itself in a classroom. You're literally petrified of the idea. Kinda proves just how powerful the Bible really is -- wouldn't ya say?

I'd say otherwise. I'd say the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was genius in their establishment of separation of church and state. I see your bibles as less a danger than the attitudes of you christian extremists who wield your bibles as bloody truncheons.

As to your bibles finding their way into the public schools, you extremists have suffered humiliating defeats in the courts. It's a shame you believe your religious views are above the law.

Learn to cope.

The Founders sought to protect the various Christian churches from a Government controlled, State religion. You should brush up on true American history. On another note, I feel badly that you're so afraid of the Bible. I assume you had a bad childhood and are simply angry at God for something. Perhaps you can reconcile your resentment and anger before you pass on to the next life.

Your understanding of history is tragically naive.

The entire constitution has rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.

On the other hand, what a shame that you have this need to press your extremist beliefs on others. Going unsaid here is what is the good of a religion that is so weak it needs a government to force it on people?

 

[Hollie]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Sure, why not. We all know teachers are liberals and they would have a great time pointing out that the bible is a fairy tale.

That wouldn't be proper teaching methodology. Millions don't believe it's a fairy tale so a good teacher would approach the subject in a neutral manner.

I took bible as literature in high school. A good teacher wouldn't claim it is truth, which is what duck boy seems to be aiming for.

Well ... it is the truth but if I were a teacher I wouldn't approach it from that perspective in a high school atmosphere. I would simply present it in a purely neutral manner and let the kids decide for themselves. I believe we owe the next generation every opportunity to decide things for themselves without the biased influence of haters.

Why is it so difficult for you to be honest? You are clearly not capable of being neutral about your religious beliefs. You're something of the prototypical angry, self-hating fundamentalist.

 

[Steven_R]

I have no problem with the Bible being in the classroom provided it is just used for literature and provided in the proper historical context. I have no problem with any other religious text if used for the same. It's when people want it in the classroom because it is the Way and the Truth and God's Word and needs to be presented as such when it becomes an issue. For all their claims to the contrary (equal time, teach the controversy, the Founding Fathers), when I look at the hyper-religious nature of the groups demanding the Bible end up in a classroom because it will fix all of society's ills and can't help but wonder if they think normal folks don't really see their true intentions. Do they think people just don't get what they are after?

 

[PratchettFan]

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

I think you're just incensed that anyone should be allowed to challenge your religious beliefs and the imposition of those beliefs into the public schools. While you may presume your religious beliefs require a status of privileged involubility, you need to accept the fact that the world doesn't revolve around your religious beliefs.

I'm not the one being challenged ... you are. I'm not fearful of books I don't like making their way into schools if the end goal is learning something previously unknown. You, on the other hand, are wetting your knickers at the very thought of the Bible finding itself in a classroom. You're literally petrified of the idea. Kinda proves just how powerful the Bible really is -- wouldn't ya say?

I'd say otherwise. I'd say the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was genius in their establishment of separation of church and state. I see your bibles as less a danger than the attitudes of you christian extremists who wield your bibles as bloody truncheons.

As to your bibles finding their way into the public schools, you extremists have suffered humiliating defeats in the courts. It's a shame you believe your religious views are above the law.

Learn to cope.

The Founders sought to protect the various Christian churches from a Government controlled, State religion. You should brush up on true American history. On another note, I feel badly that you're so afraid of the Bible. I assume you had a bad childhood and are simply angry at God for something. Perhaps you can reconcile your resentment and anger before you pass on to the next life.

Not quite. They intended to protect the people from state religion. Not churches.