Hey, look, Bible classes.

[Nienna]

The Constitution says nothing about "mandating" religion. It says "respecting" religion...which means there is a line between Church and State. The First Amendment says:

"respecting" as in "pertaining to." Therefore the government cannot restrict the practice of religion or mandate a national religion.

As for it being in the State's interest to "endorse" religion, there is simply no Constitutional basis for it, much as you may wish otherwise.

Religion can accomplish what a multitude of laws cannot: the practice of self-control in a population. This is why it is in the best interest of a government to encourage the practice of peaceful religion.

So the minorities should be ostracized when attention is drawn to their "opting out".

Sorry...that's EXACTLY what government isn't allowed to do to people.

No, the minorities' choice to opt out should be respected. The government should not restrict the ability of a group of people to learn about a subject simply bc of the POSSIBILITY that it might hurt someone's feelings.

 

[jillian]

"respecting" as in "pertaining to." Therefore the government cannot restrict the practice of religion or mandate a national religion.

Yes..."pertaining to", which means government can't do anything either encouraging or restricting ANY religion.

Religion can accomplish what a multitude of laws cannot: the practice of self-control in a population. This is why it is in the best interest of a government to encourage the practice of peaceful religion.

Whether your comment is accurate or not, it's irrelevant to the Constitutional analysis.

No, the minorities' choice to opt out should be respected. The government should not restrict the ability of a group of people to learn about a subject simply bc of the POSSIBILITY that it might hurt someone's feelings.

Let them "learn about" the subject matter of their own religion in their own Churches and keep it out of the schools like the Constitution mandates UNLESS it's part of a comparative religion class that embraces all beliefs.

If you want your children to go to parochial school, that's certainly fair, but public schools aren't parochial schools.

 

[jillian]

Easily--how can the government ban religion from schools and then proceed to turn right around and begin to preach another brand of "morality"? Religions aren't asking for special priviledges. They just want to be included in the teaching of morals--not excluded.

Is there a Constitutional ban on teaching morals? There IS a Constitutional ban on government involvement with religion.

Gotta run...

Laterz!

 

[Annie]

So it'd be acceptable to you to have an elective class on the bible, an elective class on homosexuality, and en elective class on safe sex?

How about equality? Mind you, this is from 2002, there are way more now.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

Claim: Seventh graders in California are subjected to an intense three-week course in Islam in which they are required to pray to Allah and memorize Koran verses.

Status: Not quite.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]


Course has 7th-graders memorizing Koran verses, praying to Allah In the wake of Sept. 11, an increasing number of California public school students must attend an intensive three-week course on Islam, reports ASSIST News Service.

The course mandates that seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad. Adding to this apparent hypocrisy, reports ANS, students must memorize many verses in the Koran, are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."

"We could never teach Christianity like this," one outraged parent told ANS. Elizabeth Christina Lemings, a teacher in the Byron, Calif., Union School District, was unaware of the course until her seventh-grade son brought home the handouts. Obtained by ANS, the handouts include a history of Islam and the life of Muhammad, its founder. There are 25 Islamic terms that must be memorized, six Islamic (Arabic) phrases, 20 Islamic proverbs to learn along with the Five Pillars of Faith and 10 key Islamic prophets and disciples to be studied.

(The rest of the e-mailed article can be found here.)

Origins: Sometimes
a clear yes or no answer is impossible to provide, given the quality of the information available and the complexity of the underlying issues. And this is one of those times.

The World Net Daily article quoted above was drawn from information provided by Assist Ministries in its January 9, 2002 article "Public Schools Embrace Islam." What World Net Daily refers to as "ASSIST News Service" is the public relations arm of Assist Ministries — despite the use of the term "news service," ANS should not be mistaken for one of the legitimate wire services, such as Associated Press or Reuters. The contents of its article should thus be taken with a large grain of salt.

Even so, there is something to what it said. Granted, that "something" is distorted and overstated, but the core element is present.

As part of their social studies curriculum, Grade 7 pupils throughout California do study ancient Muslim cultures and the impact of Islam on world history, but only as one of eleven units that comprise that year's social studies course, not as a special indoctrination into a particular religion as the ASN article presents it. The intent is to teach the position of this belief system in history, not the religion itself — the dividing line is not always clearly drawn, however, not even in the "standards" handed down by the State of California to its districts and individual schools. ("Standards" are education jargon for what the state insists be taught in a particular grade year in a particular area of study.)

According to California's Grade 7 social studies standard for this particular unit: "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the civilizations of Islam in the Middle Ages." In and of itself that would be fine, but the breakdown of how that goal is to be achieved opens the door to potential blurring. One item from the 6-point list on how that standard is to be reached is especially troubling: "Trace the origins of Islam and the life and teachings of Muhammad, including Islamic teachings on the connection with Judaism and Christianity."

(You can view for yourself California's Grade Seven History-Social Science Content Standards.)

Many parents would be up in arms if schoolkids were learning about the life and teachings of Jesus in public school classrooms, even if the information were presented only as background for a unit on the impact of Christianity on world history. That it's a different religion on the hot seat shouldn't matter — it's a "separation of church and state" issue, specifically, that religion must not be taught in schools. Whether the belief system is Islam or Christianity, the core issue doesn't change.

For the most part, the California standards were relatively clear on the intent of the unit (which was to teach about a people central to the course of world history). Ambiguity was certainly present in whether the religion or the people influenced by it would be the subject of all parts of this unit, and it was here that the trip wire was set for unwary educators.

How each school and district chose to meet the California-mandated standards was up to them, leaving the door open to any number of ways of presenting the same material. The Excelsior School in Byron chose a more unusual mode of imparting this knowledge to those schooled there, and its Grade 7 students do indeed participate in dress-up, role-playing, and simulation games as part of the Islamic history unit. The school district says such activities are common teaching practices and appears unconcerned that student-involvement techniques successfully used in other areas of study might be out of place in units where maintaining separation of church and state might be at issue.

The Grade 7 textbook central to the controversy, Across the Centuries, is a broad-based social studies textbook which examines the impact of a variety of cultures on events as they unfolded over the course of two thousand years. A look at the list of Houghton-Mifflin's "lessons at a glance" for this work shows that it's anything but a "how to" for the Muslim religion — the book provides information about a number of cultures, including Japanese, Chinese, European, African, South American, and Muslim. More than anything else, it's an overview of world history meant to acquaint 7th graders with the concept of other lands and cultures through exposure to the timeline of events from Roman days until now and the variety of peoples that took part in those events.

Does it present Muslims in a positive light and Christians in a negative one? Some argue that it does — by happenstance or otherwise, the information about Islam's place in world history is presented within the context of that belief system's glory days of scholarship and expansion of trade, while the information about Christianity generally only appears against a backdrop of Christians harming their neighbors and attempting to quash science.

The ambiguity of the standard as well as the possible cant of the textbook have contributed to the current controversy. Peggy Green, Superintendent of the Byron Union School District, said in a press statement issued on 11 January 11 2002:

We are sorry for the misinformation that has been picked up by the media and the distress it has caused to parents and members of the public. The Byron School District is not 'teaching religion'; we are teaching the California state-mandated standards with state adopted textbooks. The public school system was established to educate all children. In light of the events of this past year, it is imperative that our instruction includes an understanding of and insight into all cultures and a tolerance for the diversity found in the world. As such, public schools do not "indoctrinate" children on various religions, but they do expose them to the belief systems that have impacted the formation of our world.

The flaw in that statement should by now be evident: If the belief system had been Christianity rather than Islam, there'd have been hell to pay.

We think the Byron School District erred badly on the side of liberalism in how it chose to teach this segment and that it displayed an appalling lack of sensitivity to the fears that even more will be drawn to the fundamentalist Islamic faiths that spawned the terrorist attacks on America if Islam is made attractive enough, but that's a judgement call, not a matter of fact. What can be argued is whether the line separating teaching about a religion and teaching the religion itself was blurred by how the district chose to fulfill the Islamic history element of the Grade 7 social studies curriculum. Whether that line was actually crossed remains a matter of debate (the district is not at this time addressing charges that it had students memorize Koran verses), but it must be said if the shoe were on the other foot — had the portions of world history centering on the spread of Christianity been taught in similar manner — the outcry would have been thunderous.

Also erring in this drama, however, was Assist Ministries, which used this incident as a platform for publicizing its agenda. World Net Daily left out many of the more extreme statements from the Assist Ministries press release, ones that would have made the intent of the ANS piece clear from the beginning:

The faulty textbook, Across the Centuries, has more than its share of deceit. It is stated as fact that Islam, Judaism and Christianity share in common the belief in one god. This is a half-truth, which is the worst kind of lie. Christianity and Judaism worship one God, the God of Abraham. Islam worships one god named Allah. This hook is misleading on the part of Houghton-Mifflin. The publisher apparently is attempting to legitimize Islam.

And . . .

So why would the American Public School System and the politicians want to further the Islamic faith, push to have it become the One World Religion and nix Christianity?

Simple. Christians cannot be enslaved. Islam, an oppressive religion of control, cruelty and fear does enslave, which can keep people subdued. This is precisely what the future leaders of the One World Order want to achieve. And the misinformed, make nice, politically correct crowd seem eager to help them accomplish it.

But the greatest driving factor in all of this is money. There are the profiteers and politicians who stand to grow in unspeakable wealth and power by cooperating with the Arabs and finding favor by helping them and their pagan religion take control. They have no compunction in selling us out, and our freedom, to accomplish their goals. These greedy, self-serving investors stand salivating on both sides of the oil pump.

Assist Ministries is addressing the wrong issue: This controversy shouldn't be about Islam vs. Christianity or "our religion" vs. "their religion," but rather about the appropriateness of any religious teachings in public schools. Their hand-wringing over the evils of Islam, dark hints about conspiracies among politicians and profiteers to appease oil-rich Arabs, and presentation of Christianity as the one true religion miss the point.

Reporter Nich Schou of the OC Weekly made a telling statement in October 2001: "Since Sept. 11, there have been two kinds of Americans: those who think the U.S. is out of touch with the rest of the world, and those who think the rest of the world can take a hike." It's this split which lies at the heart of the subject at hand: Some want American students exposed to other cultures and ways of thinking so as to better prepare them for dealing with the world at large, and others would rather American students learn only about matters pertaining to the USA and view the teaching of anything else as an attempt to indoctrinate impressionable children.

Is it possible to teach about a people and their place in history without also teaching the belief system that influenced them? We don't know. But we do know every effort has to be made in that direction if the one is to be attempted.

Barbara "the churchmouse that roared" Mikkelson

 

[Annie]

Is there a Constitutional ban on teaching morals? There IS a Constitutional ban on government involvement with religion.

Gotta run...

Laterz!

Not trying to be snarky, but the 'laterz' is getting old for an excuse for your running away...

 

[Nienna]

Yes..."pertaining to", which means government can't do anything either encouraging or restricting ANY religion.

Congress shall make no law pertaining to the establishment of a national religion. Don't know what the GA state constitution has to say about this; likely it is similar. Offering ELECTIVE classes is not establishing a nationwide or even a statewide religion. It is simply offering a choice to students.

Whether your comment is accurate or not, it's irrelevant to the Constitutional analysis.

The US Constitution does not prohibit the encouragement of religion. It prohibits the DIScouragement of peaceful religion. Exactly the opposite.

Let them "learn about" the subject matter of their own religion in their own Churches and keep it out of the schools like the Constitution mandates UNLESS it's part of a comparative religion class that embraces all beliefs.

The US Constitution certainly does not mandate keeping religion out of public schools. If it did, it probably wouldn't have taken a century and a half for the courts to "find" fault with the Bible reading and prayer that took place in almost every school in the country until that point.

If you want your children to go to parochial school, that's certainly fair, but public schools aren't parochial schools.

Would LOVE for my children to go to a parochial school, but we can't afford it. I think it would be wonderful if they had the choice whether or not to study the Bible as an elective course. It's the same argument used for television indecency: If some parents don't like it, change the channel, or don't put their kids in the class.

 

[5stringJeff]

Is there a Constitutional ban on teaching morals? There IS a Constitutional ban on government involvement with religion.

Gotta run...

Laterz!

Jillian, there is a Constitutional ban on the state establishing an official religion. There is not a ban on the Bible being taught in public schools. While I was wary of this law at first, here's why I think it's OK:

1. It's up to local school districts to decide whether they want to teach the class.

2. It's up to the individual students to sign up for the class.

3. It's a class on the Bible, not a class on "How to Be a Christian."

4. There's nothing stopping the GA legislature from passing a law allowing schools to offer a class on the Talmud, the Koran, etc.

 

[Nienna]

Jillian, there is a Constitutional ban on the state establishing an official religion. There is not a ban on the Bible being taught in public schools. While I was wary of this law at first, here's why I think it's OK:

1. It's up to local school districts to decide whether they want to teach the class.

2. It's up to the individual students to sign up for the class.

3. It's a class on the Bible, not a class on "How to Be a Christian."

4. There's nothing stopping the GA legislature from passing a law allowing schools to offer a class on the Talmud, the Koran, etc.

Cool logic, as usual, Jeff.

 

[Hobbit]

Jillian, there is a Constitutional ban on the state establishing an official religion. There is not a ban on the Bible being taught in public schools. While I was wary of this law at first, here's why I think it's OK:

1. It's up to local school districts to decide whether they want to teach the class.

2. It's up to the individual students to sign up for the class.

3. It's a class on the Bible, not a class on "How to Be a Christian."

4. There's nothing stopping the GA legislature from passing a law allowing schools to offer a class on the Talmud, the Koran, etc.

I'll stand in for Jillian.

No, you're wrong. Logic is stupid. I learned in skrewl that anything resembling Christia...I mean religion in any public setting is slightly worse than cooking a baby alive and then eating it, and you don't hate babies, do you?

Well, I gotta puss out.

Laterz!

 

[jillian]

I'll stand in for Jillian.

No, you're wrong. Logic is stupid. I learned in skrewl that anything resembling Christia...I mean religion in any public setting is slightly worse than cooking a baby alive and then eating it, and you don't hate babies, do you?

Laterz!

I can speak for myself, thanks. :spank3:

What's a "skrewl"? I never went to one. Are they fun?

Well, I gotta puss out.

You do know people have lives, right.... work, family, kids, and all that other stuff?

Well...maybe you don't...

 

[jillian]

Jillian, there is a Constitutional ban on the state establishing an official religion. There is not a ban on the Bible being taught in public schools. While I was wary of this law at first, here's why I think it's OK:

1. It's up to local school districts to decide whether they want to teach the class.

2. It's up to the individual students to sign up for the class.

3. It's a class on the Bible, not a class on "How to Be a Christian."

4. There's nothing stopping the GA legislature from passing a law allowing schools to offer a class on the Talmud, the Koran, etc.

I understand all of what you're saying, Jeff. Really. The thing that I think is being forgotten is that the bible class being made available is going to be a Christian bible class. That raises questions about what type of Christianity is being taught? Is it fundamentalist/evangelical? lutheran? catholic? The choice made is always going to favor the majority. That creates an environment where a choice is being made *for* people.

And it may be a class "on the bible"... but don't you think that encompasses "how to be a Christian"?

If the Constitution simply didn't want government to "establish" a religion, it would have said so. Rather, the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom said "no law respecting" religion. That kind of took government out of the religion game, which is exactly where these wise men wanted it.

Yes, the Georgia legislature can offer classes on Talmud, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., but they aren't, are they?

I think comparative religion classes could be a great way to impart knowledge, understanding and tolerance. Making public schools into parochial schools has the opposite effect and is squarly in opposition to the Constitution.

You know there are ways to balance these things. In NYC, which is close to 70% Catholic, Catholic kids are allowed to leave school early one day a week to go for religious instruction. I'm not sure how payment for these programs is accomplished or what the logistics are, but I know that the accommodation is worked out somehow.

In that way, the State respects the parents' desire to have their kids educated in their religion, but leaves the teaching job up to the Church where it belongs. I don't know if that practice has ever been challenged, but its been going on for a very long time and no one seems to have complained.

 

[dilloduck]

I understand all of what you're saying, Jeff. Really. The thing that I think is being forgotten is that the bible class being made available is going to be a Christian bible class. That raises questions about what type of Christianity is being taught? Is it fundamentalist/evangelical? lutheran? catholic? The choice made is always going to favor the majority. That creates an environment where a choice is being made *for* people.

And it may be a class "on the bible"... but don't you think that encompasses "how to be a Christian"?

If the Constitution simply didn't want government to "establish" a religion, it would have said so. Rather, the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom said "no law respecting" religion. That kind of took government out of the religion game, which is exactly where these wise men wanted it.

Yes, the Georgia legislature can offer classes on Talmud, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., but they aren't, are they?

I think comparative religion classes could be a great way to impart knowledge, understanding and tolerance. Making public schools into parochial schools has the opposite effect and is squarly in opposition to the Constitution.

You know there are ways to balance these things. In NYC, which is close to 70% Catholic, Catholic kids are allowed to leave school early one day a week to go for religious instruction. I'm not sure how payment for these programs is accomplished or what the logistics are, but I know that the accommodation is worked out somehow.

In that way, the State respects the parents' desire to have their kids educated in their religion, but leaves the teaching job up to the Church where it belongs. I don't know if that practice has ever been challenged, but its been going on for a very long time and no one seems to have complained.

Honestly Jillian, would you object to classes in ANY other religion? It's VOLUNTARY-----like the TV--if they dont want to hear it they can turn it off.

 

[jillian]

Honestly Jillian, would you object to classes in ANY other religion? It's VOLUNTARY-----like the TV--if they dont want to hear it they can turn it off.

I would object to any religion class that isn't a comparative religion class, which would be the only one given for educational, and not religious, purposes. And that's the line the Constitution doesn't allow government to cross.

Not such a hot analogy...... government sponsored religion is still government sponsored religion, no matter how you might prefer to call it "bible classes".

I love how all the "literal" interpreters of the Constitution are the ones who twist themselves into pretzels to foster a theocracy.

 

[dilloduck]

I would object to any religion class that isn't a comparative religion class, which would be the only one given for educational, and not religious, purposes.

Not such a hot analogy...... government sponsored religion is still government sponsored religion, no matter how you might prefer to call it "bible classes".

Maybe the local school board isnt getting a lot of demand for Zoroastrianism. There are religious classes taught in goverment schools all over the country. If they teach Buddhism as it compares to scientology--thats ok?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If they're teaching a comparative religion class encompassing many beliefs, then nothing is wrong with it. If they're teaching Christianity, or some brand of it, it's clearly not Constitutional.

And, a question, if I may: why is it the same people who say they have enormous trouble with the concept of schools teaching "morals", have no problem with them teaching "religion"? I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I'm trying to ascertain how those two views are reconciled.

Knowing the bible is a part of being culturally literate. It is an important historical document as well. It clearly IS constitutional, especially if it's elective.

Do you mind socialism being taught in all other classes all day long? O right, that's not a religion, though it IS a moral system.

 

[dilloduck]

I would object to any religion class that isn't a comparative religion class, which would be the only one given for educational, and not religious, purposes. And that's the line the Constitution doesn't allow government to cross.

Not such a hot analogy...... government sponsored religion is still government sponsored religion, no matter how you might prefer to call it "bible classes".

I love how all the "literal" interpreters of the Constitution are the ones who twist themselves into pretzels to foster a theocracy.

One can certainly teach a class on religion without requiring students to convert. The theocracy argument is crap--no Christian wants one--strawman