Religion in politics/schools

[BasicGreatGuy]

I would like for some of you religious people to explain to me WHY you can't teach your kids about YOUR religion at home/church. Why is it you feel the need to PREACH to people who don't want to be a part of your religion(if I want to I will just look for the closest building with a cross). Why do you think YOUR religion should be in the PUBLIC square?

No such thing as freedom against religious expression. Do you have kids? If so, do you ship them off to the government factory every day school is in session, or do you exercise personal responsibility and accountability, by teaching them yourself?

Most people aren't able to homeschool effectively, and most also cannot afford (or do not have available, if you live in a rural area) the private school of their choice. I hope I'm reading this wrong, but sending kids to public schools isn't a dereliction of personal responsibility as a parent. My kids start tomorrow.

The point is, it is not the government's responsibility to teach your kids or anyone elses. And yet, kids get shipped off to the donut factory, and the parents keep complaining about how the government (and its factory workers) is teaching their kids etc.

I believe my post to be spot on, in addressing the attitude of the OP.

 

[goldcatt]

No such thing as freedom against religious expression. Do you have kids? If so, do you ship them off to the government factory every day school is in session, or do you exercise personal responsibility and accountability, by teaching them yourself?

Most people aren't able to homeschool effectively, and most also cannot afford (or do not have available, if you live in a rural area) the private school of their choice. I hope I'm reading this wrong, but sending kids to public schools isn't a dereliction of personal responsibility as a parent. My kids start tomorrow.

The point is, it is not the government's responsibility to teach your kids or anyone elses. And yet, kids get shipped off to the donut factory, and the parents keep complaining about how the government (and its factory workers) is teaching their kids etc.

I believe my post to be spot on, in addressing the attitude of the OP.

I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't (I don't have time for one thing), but most people have no real alternatives either. To say parents who send their kids to public school are somehow not living up to their responsibility (not to mention the law) is placing far too high a burden on parents who also have to make a living and are in many cases not equipped to provide comprehensive education.
And on that note, I'm outta here. Have a good one!

 

[rdean]

Before the 70's, religion was pretty much a private affair. Occasionally religious leaders would comment about politics, but it was actually quite rare. People had this notion that the religious in this country were "moral" and "trustworthy" and very "patriotic".

That all changed with the involvement of religion into politics and the emergence of "mega evangelical churches".

This continued to build and was finally brought into the light, so to speak, with the first drafting of he 'Wedge Document" around 1998 whose goal was basically to "defeat" scientific inquiry represented by "evolution" and bring Christianity to the forefront. Basically, to turn America into a theocratic Biblical Christian Country.

All of this culminated with the election of George W. Bush, the first president to claim that he actually speaks with God. Bush probably wouldn't have been elected, but the country was embarrassed and ashamed at what Bill Clinton did by getting blowjobs from a young intern while still in the White House. Bush's victory was less an embrace of his "values" than a vote for what he claimed he would bring to the White House, "values".

America refused to listen to any criticism of Bush. His record of AWOL from the military, his criminal record, his bankrupted companies, his questionable business practices, his reliance on his father, his dismal academic record, his abuse with drugs and drink. None of that mattered. He had found "God" and had "values".

What exactly has been the effect of this direct religious involvement into US politics? Former President Bush, in an interview, said the jury was out on the science of evolution and we should teach the controversy. There is no controversy within the scientific community between the "science" of evolution and "mysticism". Now, what this has done is cause a major portion of the population to view science with suspicion. Scientists will say anything to get public grants. Never mind that it takes decades of dedicated study to be a scientist. How many Nobel Prize winners are under 50?

This suspicion of science contaminated the entire science network that exists within the US Government. Take Nuclear Power plants. A kitchen inspector CAN'T inspect a nuclear power plant. It has to be done by a physicist and an engineer. A board reviews findings.

During the Bush administration, pressure was placed on scientists to change their data to match administration policy on everything from the environment to the effects of industrial waste. While not reported in mainstream media, it was reported in every science and engineering publication for the entire length of the Bush presidency. There was an exodus of scientists from the Bush administration. Many actually left to go to other countries. These will be very difficult people to replace. Contrary to the beliefs of some, nuclear power plants are NOT that easy to construct.

Now, what is the impact of all this in schools and politics?

To be continued.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Most people aren't able to homeschool effectively, and most also cannot afford (or do not have available, if you live in a rural area) the private school of their choice. I hope I'm reading this wrong, but sending kids to public schools isn't a dereliction of personal responsibility as a parent. My kids start tomorrow.

The point is, it is not the government's responsibility to teach your kids or anyone elses. And yet, kids get shipped off to the donut factory, and the parents keep complaining about how the government (and its factory workers) is teaching their kids etc.

I believe my post to be spot on, in addressing the attitude of the OP.

I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't (I don't have time for one thing), but most people have no real alternatives either. To say parents who send their kids to public school are somehow not living up to their responsibility (not to mention the law) is placing far too high a burden on parents who also have to make a living and are in many cases not equipped to provide comprehensive education.
And on that note, I'm outta here. Have a good one!

I understand that not every parent is intellectually capable of teaching their kid(s). There are alternatives to the government donut factories.

It appears that the OP would prefer it, if we all shut up about religion in public. If one is not religious, that is fine. I just find it hypocritical of people who complain about such, while shipping their precious kids off to the government, to learn a lot of things that are not fact, while denigrating the religion aspect. For many, government is their religion.

Have a good day gold.

 

[Gudrid]

There's a difference between teaching about religion and indoctrination. I myself could be accused of bringing religion into public school. When I was room mom for my son's class when he was younger (this was prior to to "multiple religions presented" ruling by the Supreme Court), I brought in crafts that could be deemed religious if someone wanted to be pissy. There were 4 religions represented in that classroom - Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Vietnamese Folk Religion (yes really). I had the kids do crafts related to each, despite the fact that I was warned by an education attorney that it could backfire on me if some parent wanted to be pissy, because technically at that time what I was doing was against the rules. Well, I did it anyway, and I'm glad I did. That may well be the only time in that one little girl's life that her culture get addressed in a direct manner in the classroom. That's the one it was important to - the one who's culture was always left out. The rest of the kids didn't notice one way or other, except that they like gluing things. To me, through three kids worth of room-momming, that remains one of my favorite memories. I wish there was a way to share that little girl's excitement directly - I think it would go a long way toward making people understand.

The problem, in my mind, isn't about religion in educational settings when presented from an educational standpoint. The problem is only presenting one. I think that's lacking both from an educational standpoint and a church/state standpoint

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You know I think I just figured where this admittedly confrontational thread came from.......I think I posted it in response to JenT's post about Islamifying of schools.


My OP and my responces to many of you were indeed confrontational and for that I apologise. Let me once again say that if your faith helps you to feel more grounded more a part of your community and more close to your family then I respect that and wish you nothing but happiness.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I think another part of my frustration with religion is the fact that I live in Idaho a VERY religious state so I feel like they have too much power over the rest of us but that is just me trying to justify my earlier posts. Once again I wish you all well even those with whom I disagree.

 

[SWGAFire]

The SAME people want to put the BIBLE in PUBLIC SCHOOL and you don't see that as an ENDORSMENT of Christianity over ALL OTHER RELIGIONS?

Nobody is trying to force biblical teachings.. or force the bible onto anyone in public school... what NORMALLY is being asked is that different beliefs and theories be respected, such as not bashing children for having religious beliefs of intelligent design or whatever else... and since we have THEORIES of evolution, m-theory, etc and not absolute proofs of any of these theories, it is acceptable not to inherently bash opposing theories or beliefs

Now if the bible is looked at as a piece of historic literature, it is no different that having education on that than it is from having teachings on mythology, the old writings of communist leaders, the writings of Shakespeare, etc

And if people want a christian education, there are private schools and home schooling options that people have

Well yes, alot of christians are trying to force biblical teachings in school systems. First off, I believe you have a common misconception of scientific terms. Three of the most common being scientific law, hypothesis, and theory.

Scientific Law is a fact! It is true and universal and absolute.

A 'Theory' is not as you put stated it. A Scientific Theory is 'an explanation of a set of related observations or events...and verified multiple times.' One Scientist cannot create a theory, it has to be tested and the experiments re-conducted with the same results in the end many times for it to be found true. Now we call some findings 'theories' still because we are still learning and discovering mechanisms and intracies for that theory. It's not absolute yet, but ground is being made!

Now a hypothesis is more lax. It is mearly an educated guess based on what is observed. But as I said, it has to be educated, based on a rational string of facts, scientific assumption (b/c it hasn't been tested yet) and expected logical conclusion.

Yes, if the bible was looked at as simply a work of literature that would be exceptable. But, then in the name of equality, we'd have to teach the Qur'an, the Vedas, Confucius and on and on...

And yes, I agree entirely, if people want a christian education there are private schools. Go there to learn intelligent design. Which used to be called creation, which was banned from schools. So they cleaned up the name, made it sound more professional and sent it back out. But I'm not here to rant...

 

[SWGAFire]

Having a nativity scene, or a menorah, or whatever else is not the government pushing any specific religion on anyone... it is done to say to the constituents that they and their beliefs, especially when it is a widely celebrated holiday among those in the community, are respected or acknowledged

Things such as the 10 commandment statues/inscriptions (most of which have been there for well over a century) show that government, in part, recognizes and upholds the concepts in this forefather of modern law...

Stop getting your liberal panties in a wad over 'religious' things in the public eye...

It is separation of church and state... as in no government imposed religion... not that any and all references to anything religious be banned in the public eye

So you don't see the monuments of ONE religion as a sanction of that ONE religion? If they want to put up monuments that cover EVERY RELIGION IN THE WORLD then it would not be supporting ONE religion over ALL others.

You've obviously never heard of one of my all-time personal SCOTUS favorites, the Plastic Reindeer test.

In brief, there's nothing wrong with religious symbols as part of a broader general display. For example, for the holidays a creche alongside a menorah and a display of secular images like Santa Claus or Rudolph (ergo, the Plastic Reindeer) isn't establishing religion. A display of the Ten Commandments in with other representations of legal foundations (representations of the Roman Senate or certain Greek gods, for example) isn't establishment. It's merely a nod to the origin of the holiday or the laws or whatever. It's when religion is pushed, especially to a captive audience, that you run into problems. Or when political figures or groups try to subvert religion for their own agendas, which IMO is far more troubling.

Weelll, if you want to get technical about it...I can't think of a single x-ian (encompassing All major modern religions, but mainly christian. B/c that's the one I'm most familiar with) holiday that didn't get it's origins for older 'pagen' rites.

 

[SWGAFire]

Well I had jury duty and was told we would be sworn in. I asked the lady if I would be able to not say so help you God. She said I would be allowed to but during the swearing in I was NOT given the option of affirming rather then swearing to God. Not a huge big deal but it was anoying. Heck I even join in prayer at my in-laws out of respect for their home I just don't see why people seam to NEED their religion in public places.

What the fuck. Seriously?? If you're going to tell the truth, you're going to tell the truth, regardless of whether or not you preface it with "so help me God". If you're going to lie, you're going to lie. Simple as that.

True, very true.

I assume that you are have a strong faith-based belief structure? If I'm incorrect, I'm sorry. But saying you do, how would you react if you were told to 'swear' in public that you were an atheist? Would you fold your faith or stand up in it?

 

[SWGAFire]

I think another part of my frustration with religion is the fact that I live in Idaho a VERY religious state so I feel like they have too much power over the rest of us but that is just me trying to justify my earlier posts. Once again I wish you all well even those with whom I disagree.

I feel your pain. I live in, as my name promotes, southwest georgia. Where there's more churches per square mile than people...don't know how they pull that one off....but I digress...I don't know how many other states are still this backward and biased, but we can't purchase tasty adult beverages on Sunday's in this state! If I want a freaking beer at 3pm on Sunday afternoon, I SHOULD be able to head to my local watering hole, belly up the bar and exclaim in a proud voice, "Hey Sweet Cheeks!, pass me a stout!" But, alas, the powers that be will not conform to my meager alcoholism

 

[Maple]

Have you watched any of Obama's speeches or commericals on tv lately? He is infusing direct quotes from the bible to sell his obamacare to christians. Now, don't you find that funny?????????????? Especially coming from a President that is pro-late term abortion, and has stated that this country was not founded on Christian Judeo beliefs. That we are not a Christian nation. Maybe he should read the constituion and the declaration of independence.

Now tell me what you think of his infusion of Christianity into politics, because I am quite sure you voted for this guy.

 

[Annie]

So Dave are we going to have EVERY religious text as historic reference? I knida doubt it. How about the teachings of Confusus? How about the Torah? How about the Koran? If we give equal time to EVERY religious text I doubt we would have time for ANYTHING else. Now if it is a PURELY optional course and it gives fair time to EVERY religion then I am o.k. with that.

Dude, you can't even spell Confucius.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Gawd knows I don't want to be the opposite side of the Jet T coin.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Sorry I was typing too fast to really care. Trying to type fast with the hunt and peck method is VERY hard beleive me.

 

[rdean]

Continued:

Probably the first time that religion was brought to the forefront in politics in a manner that really captured America’s attention was when politicians were denied their wafers in mystical ceremonies. Politicians who represented their constituencies were denied this religious “benefit?” because those constituencies views weren’t acceptable to a “supernatural spirit being” the church claims to represent, a being who is not even a naturalized citizen.

History has taught us the effects of rampant religion in politics. If people believe they are doing “it” for God, they will do anything.

Some examples:

President Bush was correct when he labeled his excursion into the Middle East as a “Crusade”. I believed he absolutely believed that he would bring “freedom” and “democracy” to the Middle Easterners. He was convinced he was on a “mission from God” that could not possibly fail. His administration carefully crafted a scenario that would take us into the Middle East with the approval and support of the American People, by any means necessary. After all, this was a “crusade”. He expected the people there to welcome us with parades and flowers for this liberation.

We now know that they hate us for invading and destroying their country. The first two things they did were create a constitution that made “Islam” the national religion and declared that all laws are now based on Islam. The second thing was to destroy their own Christian population. Bush’s choice was to fight the very people he has come to liberate or the genocide of the Iraqi Christians. Which did he choose?

What has been the effect of religion in our educational system?

Most primary and middle schools no longer teach many of the sciences. Only the most basic. Things like, the earth is round and the earth travels around the sun. Very simple concepts.

No “deep” excursions into anything that touches on evolution including, biology, physiology, botany, paleontology, plate tectonics, astronomy, geology, “earth history”; and why not? Schools just don’t have the funds to fight the religious in courts. The pockets of the religious are deep if they believe they are doing “it” for God.

Look at the most recent example. Millions, possibly tens of millions spent to prevent gays from marrying. The vast majority of those that money came from will say they don’t know any gays. Have no gay friends. Those gays don’t impact their lives in any way, yet their marriages were “saved”. In religion, you don’t need things called facts. People will do anything if they believe they are doing it for God.

What is taught in middle school in other countries is only taught in college in this country. And not in every accredited college. In evangelical Christian colleges, only a very basic course in evolution is taught as an “elective”, otherwise they couldn’t get accreditation. Nearly all are rated tier 4, the lowest rating you can get and still be accredited. Tens of thousands of students that would normally be attending college are going to these institutions of lower learning.

Science today is met with skepticisms and suspicion. Many religious believe that scientists are in it only for the government grants. The most obvious and recent was the political football about money to study “fruit flies” and what a waste it is:

""""cientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for..nerve cell connections to form and function correctly.
The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism.""""


What is the benefit of education? When people at political rallies call out for “jobs” or when politicians talk about “jobs”, what jobs are they talking about? Every single “job” in the US can follow a path back to science. Even working on an automobile assembly line, where does the design for that automobile come from?
Many on the right believe there is a divide between technology and science. That somehow they are not connected. Those on the right believe that scientific papers that pass peer review are actually being accepted on the basis of “politics” and that “peer review boards” are made up of liberals with a political agenda. They have no understanding how that works. What’s worse, they refuse to understand.

When people’s lives are built around “belief”, once that “belief” has been established, it is very difficult to change. They live in a world of absolutes, black or white, right or wrong. There is no room for compromise.

Now here comes the obvious question, “Why don’t scientists fight back? After all, aren’t they so intelligent?”

The reason is quite simple. To become a respected scientist takes years. Because our lives are so short, scientists are very dedicated. They may not contribute until they are 50 or 60 years old spending all those years just learning. A 10 year old can earn an Academy Award. A 9 year old can have a number one record, or paint, or play the piano.
The average age is 67 for those that win the Nobel award in economics. The youngest average is for physics where the average age is 52. Then, there is the John Bates Clark medal, passed out to the best researcher 40. You see? No 9 or 10 year olds.

Just to show how little the right understands science, there are those that believe there are pre teen scientists on the level of Nobel Prize winners.

The bottom line is that scientists simply don’t have the time to attempt the change the closed minds of those who believe science itself, is a religion.

To be continued.

 

[Annie]

Have you watched any of Obama's speeches or commericals on tv lately? He is infusing direct quotes from the bible to sell his obamacare to christians. Now, don't you find that funny?????????????? Especially coming from a President that is pro-late term abortion, and has stated that this country was not founded on Christian Judeo beliefs. That we are not a Christian nation. Maybe he should read the constituion and the declaration of independence.

Now tell me what you think of his infusion of Christianity into politics, because I am quite sure you voted for this guy.

Indeed, he's finding religion to attract the 'unwashed masses' who he appears to be a click above rocks. Somehow I think those that are religious had already 'examined their consciences.' The condescension is not wearing well, surprise.

 

[DiamondDave]

The SAME people want to put the BIBLE in PUBLIC SCHOOL and you don't see that as an ENDORSMENT of Christianity over ALL OTHER RELIGIONS?

Nobody is trying to force biblical teachings.. or force the bible onto anyone in public school... what NORMALLY is being asked is that different beliefs and theories be respected, such as not bashing children for having religious beliefs of intelligent design or whatever else... and since we have THEORIES of evolution, m-theory, etc and not absolute proofs of any of these theories, it is acceptable not to inherently bash opposing theories or beliefs

Now if the bible is looked at as a piece of historic literature, it is no different that having education on that than it is from having teachings on mythology, the old writings of communist leaders, the writings of Shakespeare, etc

And if people want a christian education, there are private schools and home schooling options that people have

Well yes, alot of christians are trying to force biblical teachings in school systems. First off, I believe you have a common misconception of scientific terms. Three of the most common being scientific law, hypothesis, and theory.

Scientific Law is a fact! It is true and universal and absolute.

A 'Theory' is not as you put stated it. A Scientific Theory is 'an explanation of a set of related observations or events...and verified multiple times.' One Scientist cannot create a theory, it has to be tested and the experiments re-conducted with the same results in the end many times for it to be found true. Now we call some findings 'theories' still because we are still learning and discovering mechanisms and intracies for that theory. It's not absolute yet, but ground is being made!

Now a hypothesis is more lax. It is mearly an educated guess based on what is observed. But as I said, it has to be educated, based on a rational string of facts, scientific assumption (b/c it hasn't been tested yet) and expected logical conclusion.

Yes, if the bible was looked at as simply a work of literature that would be exceptable. But, then in the name of equality, we'd have to teach the Qur'an, the Vedas, Confucius and on and on...

And yes, I agree entirely, if people want a christian education there are private schools. Go there to learn intelligent design. Which used to be called creation, which was banned from schools. So they cleaned up the name, made it sound more professional and sent it back out. But I'm not here to rant...

Evolution is a scientific theory.. just as the big bang is.. just as the theory of dinosaurs being reptiles was... just as many scientific theories that have since been cast away were....

I am not talking of hypotheses here... I am talking specifically about the scientific theories that are being taught (which I agree they SHOULD be taught)... what I do not agree with is the school and school officials taking it upon themselves to force children to abandon their faith and beliefs for a theory... hell, we don't even force kids to dissect a frog anymore, but we will attack the child's or the family's belief

And no... just because the bible would be used as an example of historic literature, does not mean that it would then be 'equal' to use the Koran or other religious writings... just as we don't force teaching Chaucer out of 'equality' just because we teach Shakespeare... you don't have to 'make up for' omission in the name of equality in such things.. or else you would have an endless list of things that would have to be taught

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you guys TRUELY don't see the OBJECTIVE of Christian extremists that CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE the only church accepted by the state?

no, i truly don't care because they've got no chance.

lighten up, francis.

Thank you, Del, they don't and they won't.

 

[SWGAFire]

Have you watched any of Obama's speeches or commericals on tv lately? He is infusing direct quotes from the bible to sell his obamacare to christians. Now, don't you find that funny?????????????? Especially coming from a President that is pro-late term abortion, and has stated that this country was not founded on Christian Judeo beliefs. That we are not a Christian nation. Maybe he should read the constituion and the declaration of independence.
Now tell me what you think of his infusion of Christianity into politics, because I am quite sure you voted for this guy.

Maybe we all should.

No where in the Constitution does it mention any kind of prefered religion, Supernatural being, Jesus or simply 'God'. There are only two references to religion in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion..." and "...no religion shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our government (the Constitution): - "Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government....the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone."

Yes, I copied and pasted most of this. Hellz, I'm at work and it's Sunday and I need a smoke...I just don't have time to type all this out in my own wording!