Indoctrination into Islam?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
So for introducing religion into a school, I do believe the teacher should be held accountable, since schools are supposed to be free of religion. Of all forms.
They are? Not in the US they are not. The US has very clear first amendment guaranteeing the state's freedom to choose and push religion. Schools have no mandate to be free of religion, there is no suggestion of that in the US. Very much the opposite. They are free to be arms of religious groups until the first amendment is repealed.
-
@coliver said:
From my reading this class was all about teaching religion in schools. It was a world religion class (or a social studies class on world religions). I had a very similar one to it when I was in high school.
Pretty much every school I've ever known includes religious education. You really can't talk about history, politics, have a daily indoctrinal statement, learn about social studies or study art without understanding religion. You can do math and science without it, but not the history of either.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
So for introducing religion into a school, I do believe the teacher should be held accountable, since schools are supposed to be free of religion. Of all forms.
They are? Not in the US they are not. The US has very clear first amendment guaranteeing the state's freedom to choose and push religion. Schools have no mandate to be free of religion, there is no suggestion of that in the US. Very much the opposite. They are free to be arms of religious groups until the first amendment is repealed.
My understanding, and several court cases back it up, of the establishment clause prevents this from happening.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
So for introducing religion into a school, I do believe the teacher should be held accountable, since schools are supposed to be free of religion. Of all forms.
They are? Not in the US they are not. The US has very clear first amendment guaranteeing the state's freedom to choose and push religion. Schools have no mandate to be free of religion, there is no suggestion of that in the US. Very much the opposite. They are free to be arms of religious groups until the first amendment is repealed.
My understanding, and several court cases back it up, of the establishment clause prevents this from happening.
No, it has happened, for many years a few states had official religions. The states have every right, and have exercised it, to do this. The constitution guarantees it. That's what the first amendment IS. The federal government has no right to step in to the establishment of religion in the states.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
From my reading this class was all about teaching religion in schools. It was a world religion class (or a social studies class on world religions). I had a very similar one to it when I was in high school.
Pretty much every school I've ever known includes religious education. You really can't talk about history, politics, have a daily indoctrinal statement, learn about social studies or study art without understanding religion. You can do math and science without it, but not the history of either.
Religion is such a huge part of everything we talk about in history and literature it would be hard to teach anything without it being brought up. Our English class is highschool regularly talked about the catholic and christian influences on British and enlightenment literature.
-
Remember that the Constitution only gives the government the right to do things stated explicitly. It expressly forbids the federal government from overseeing religious matters. The separation of church and state (state being the fed) guarantees that the fed cannot step in should individual states have official religions.
The "separation of church and state" is the poorly named idea that makes the US a country without any guarantee of being non-religious. It was put in because several states were formed by religious groups and would not join the union without it. Now we are left in the dark ages worried that a religious group will gain control of a state or states and make them officially religious places without any way for the federal government to do anything about it without repealing the amendment first.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
So for introducing religion into a school, I do believe the teacher should be held accountable, since schools are supposed to be free of religion. Of all forms.
They are? Not in the US they are not. The US has very clear first amendment guaranteeing the state's freedom to choose and push religion. Schools have no mandate to be free of religion, there is no suggestion of that in the US. Very much the opposite. They are free to be arms of religious groups until the first amendment is repealed.
My understanding, and several court cases back it up, of the establishment clause prevents this from happening.
No, it has happened, for many years a few states had official religions. The states have every right, and have exercised it, to do this. The constitution guarantees it. That's what the first amendment IS. The federal government has no right to step in to the establishment of religion in the states.
I'm not arguing that it has happened but the interpretation seems to have changed to reflect the establishment clause covers all US entities, including state and local governments, there have been quite a few court cases in recent times that reflect that interpretation.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
So for introducing religion into a school, I do believe the teacher should be held accountable, since schools are supposed to be free of religion. Of all forms.
They are? Not in the US they are not. The US has very clear first amendment guaranteeing the state's freedom to choose and push religion. Schools have no mandate to be free of religion, there is no suggestion of that in the US. Very much the opposite. They are free to be arms of religious groups until the first amendment is repealed.
My understanding, and several court cases back it up, of the establishment clause prevents this from happening.
Interesting, I'm unaware of the courts actively choosing to alter law. That would mean that the SC is now making law instead of reading it and is a very, very bad thing. Not that that is not how the law would hopefully be used, but there is no question about what the law was written as. It means the government has broken down and there is no further need for Congress and we are not really acting as a Republic with the law makers being appointed rather than elected.
-
Do you have any sources on those cases? Would be interesting to see how they used constitutional law to apply to non-federal entities.
-
Look at the incorporation amendment (14th I think?) that basically say the bill of rights would be applied to both federal, state, and local governments. I'll get you a link to one of the cases. I think it had to do with a New York town saying a prayer before every town meeting.
-
Here is one directly related to what we are talking about:
-
Interesting, I'm just starting to read it, but several Rabbi and Rabbinical organizations complained because they didn't believe in God as a tenant of their religious.
-
Here is where we get the Lemon test from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
-
@coliver said:
Here is one directly related to what we are talking about:
Interesting that they didn't fight it based on the constitution. They fought it on other grounds, when it was the constitution that said that Congress specifically could make no law respecting religion... which would mean that any subsequent law or interpretation would be unconstitutional if it was believed to have any respect to religion.
-
@coliver said:
Here is where we get the Lemon test from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
Lemon Law would not apply here because it was giving Federal money to religious organizations.
That might be where much of the public school stuff comes from... that Federal funds are involved. But you can run a public school without them and I believe that the court would have no say there in that case. Obviously if the school is being used to funnel federal funds to religious groups, that's a different issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Here is where we get the Lemon test from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
Lemon Law would not apply here because it was giving Federal money to religious organizations.
That might be where much of the public school stuff comes from... that Federal funds are involved. But you can run a public school without them and I believe that the court would have no say there in that case. Obviously if the school is being used to funnel federal funds to religious groups, that's a different issue.
That was my understanding as well. Let me see if I can't find the most recent SC case where a town in Upstate NY was reciting prayers before every meeting. The SC ruled that the prayers could continue providing they gave equal time to all people requesting that spot.
-
Texas is doing the prayer "moment of silence" in schools currently.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Texas is doing the prayer "moment of silence" in schools currently.
There was a case about that too. Moments of silence are ok as long as a school official isn't directing it toward anything... you're really testing my recall here.
-
I read both the Lemon law and the Engel wiki pages.
Both are summarizing that by supporting any religion in a Public office (school or otherwise) in any capacity with public money that it's against the constitution and therefor illegal.
Now, using school time and assigning an assignment like this one, might light a firestorm under some parent's asses, but will the government step in to reprimand the school and teach?
Or was/is next weeks assignment calligraphy of the old testament?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Both are summarizing that by supporting any religion in a Public office (school or otherwise) in any capacity with public money that it's against the constitution and therefor illegal.
Public money? Or Federal money? I think in both cases it was federal involved and only because of that was the SC even in a position to hear the case.
