When schools silence God talk

Yahoo News ^ | Mon Aug 28, 7:14 AM ET | Nat Hentoff

[fgoodwin]

USA Today articles are to be posted as links only

[xzins]

the Establishment Clause - which can be violated, for example, if a principal asks a priest, rabbi or minister to speak at commencement exercises, thereby officially favoring that form of religion, or any specific form of religion.

Inviting someone to speak at a school is not establishing a religion. It is inviting someone to speak at the school.

Let's take the worst case: Let's say a principle invited Billy Graham to the school, held an assembly, and Billy had a "Come to Jesus" invitation.

Is that establishing a religion? Nope.

It is exercising poor judgment on the part of the principal, and he should probably have to pay a price for his poor judgment from the school board, and if they don't, then the school board will have to pay from the voters.

And if the voters don't care because they all have no problem with it, has a religion been established?

Nope. Methodists can still get up and go to methodist church, and baptists baptist churches, and hindus airports, and JWs door-to-door.

When all of us are required to go to the same place, then a religion has been established.

[TexasJackFlash]

Fgoodwin wrote:

Inviting someone to speak at a school is not establishing a religion. It is inviting someone to speak at the school. Let's take the worst case: Let's say a principle invited Billy Graham to the school, held an assembly, and Billy had a "Come to Jesus" invitation. Is that establishing a religion? Nope.

I write:

What method(s)and what rule(s)of constitutional interpretation were applied to arrive at your conclusion?

[xzins]

The rule of common sense and of the dictionary.

"Established religion" has a definition.

[TexasJackFlash]

xzins wrote:

The rule of common sense and of the dictionary. "Established religion" has a definition.

I write:

The phrase is actually "an establishment of religion." Why would you use a modern dictionary to interpret a constitution written in the late 1780's?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Once again, my favorite Jewish atheist, Nat Hentoff, hits the ball out of the park.

There is no reason why the public square, or the public school, has to be cleansed of religious voices or sanitized of religious references. In the cases cited by Hentoff, the student could not possibly be violating the "establishment" clause, since only a public official or organ of government can "establish" a religion ("Congress shall make no law"); and a student is not a public official.

So Merry Christmas, everybody!

(Hee hee. I just said that because I can.)

[walden]

"The phrase is actually "an establishment of religion." Why would you use a modern dictionary to interpret a constitution written in the late 1780's?"

Actually, at the time the US constitution was written, several states HAD established religions-- established by the state, that is (established in the state constitution, partially funded by the state, etc.) The constitution merely prohibits the Federal government from doing the same thing. And, not only was the bible routinely taught in schools, but each day typically started with a prayer.

I think an awareness of contemporaneous historical facts on the ground is far more useful to interpret the meaning of an historical document than any dictionary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "[The public square] should be cleansed of all human authority over the duty which we owe to our Creator."

I agree with you... I think. I'd have to look into the definition, and how it would be applied.

Just off the top of my head: both presidents Washington and Lincoln called for national days of fasting and repentance. No enforcement of course: just a proclamation. Should that be permitted?

[walden]

Here, from the American Bar Association website is what I found:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/churchstate/colonial.html

From the above link:

"When the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1791, the First Amendment guaranteed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This provision ensured that no one religion would be favored over another and protected religious groups from unfair treatment by the federal government. Still it did not protect against unfair treatment by state governments. Indeed, the amendment was thought by many to protect against congressional interference with state governments' involvement with religion-that is, it was thought to prohibit the U.S. Congress from “disestablishing” churches established by state governments. "

Another site indicated that "several" states had an established religion, up until 1833 when the last of them passed "dis-establishment" laws, but it did not list the states.

Regardless, it is a clear historical fact that at the time of the founding of the U.S., religion was very much a part of public life, including political life (some states granted voting rights only to members of a particular church), and life in the schools. It was wrapped up in many different kinds of laws.

Whether one thinks that is the best way or not (I don't happen to think it is), to claim that the kind of mindless nit-picking we have on the subject today is "founder's intent" is absurd. I consider it a symptom of fear-- the desperate fear of some people that there might actually BE a God. ;)

[walden]

Interestingly enough, it is only the God of the bible, the Christian/Jewish God that people seem to be afraid might exist. Nobody gives a rat's butt if Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims pray in school-- I'm a devout Christian, and I certainly don't anyway. The reason is that the God of the bible is plausible and the others are not. I don't believe that any contemporary educated American truly believes all the Hindu fables or the Buddhist stuff-- they just subscribe to it out of family tradition, a belief in the moral teachings, a comfort level with the philosophy or fashion (or some combination of the above.) As for the Muslims-- well, given what is going on in the world today, the odds of any well-adjusted American young person turning to Islam are close to zero.

But the God of the bible-- well, that's a different story. I have some atheist friends who were going on and on at dinner one night about some Hindu friends of theirs, and the wonderful Hindu festivals or celebrations or whatever, and how nice a religion Hinduism is. But, Christianity? Forget it-- they REALLY dislike that. Odd, huh? That's when I realized the difference-- that the one was plausible and the other just wasn't.

[xzins]

What is an established religion?

[little jeremiah]

List?

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[little jeremiah]

Just an aside to the discussion here - I will be writing an article about Hinduism and posting it as a vanity in the next few weeks. As a student of the Vedas and of the Bible, I respectfully disagree that God as described in the Vedas is not plausible. Hinduism is in essence monotheistic, which many people do not realize.

[little jeremiah]

YES!

[xzins]

whatever the author intended it to mean.

See Jane run. See Spot run. Run Jane. Run Spot.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you.

[little jeremiah]

;-]

[RKBA Democrat]

Looks like another good reason to homeschool to me.

[RobbyS]

In England "The Establishment" meant the Church of England. Several states had "established churches" when the Constitution was established. That meant that a certain religious body enjoyed certain legal privilges amounting to a monopoly. Thus disestablishment meant the repeal of such privileges. The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not disestablish anyone.

[walden]

Look, I quoted the American Bar Association's page on this issue-- an organization that's not exactly a bastion of either conservatism or Christianity. You keep telling me what you know, but where it is in opposition to what the ABA has to say, I'm going to just have to consider them the greater authority, ok?

[rzeznikj at stout]

Simple. The meaning remains the same. Established church and "an establishment of religion" means the same thing--a state religion.

When the Constitution was written, it was a crime in England not to belong to the Church of England, with the brunt of the laws being anti-Catholic in nature.

The Founding Fathers did not want any of this in the new nation; by making it crystal clear that there cannot be a state religion or a state Church. Nor can the government create and mandate its own religion upon its citizens.

In short, they didn't want the United States to have a government that was able to punish or possibly execute somebody based solely on their religion--or for that matter allowing the gov't the power of defining adherence to a specific religion or denomination to be treasonous in nature.

Thus effectively guaranteeing freedom of religion.

[GrandEagle]

The "establishment clause" begins "Congress shall pass no law..."
Interestingly enough simply posting the 10 commandments on the wall, according to the so called "court", amounts to passing a law.
Lobby groups sure waste a LOT of money....

[xzins]

No one's passed any law, no one's established any religion, but a whole lot of folks are denied free exercise.

[walden]

Yeah, it's clear to any logical, thinking person that the Supreme Court has just been making up the law on this issue to suit their personal preferences, and whenever that happens, the issue will just be litigated FOREVER. After all, personalities on the court change, preferences change, and that means that you can get a new and different law anytime. It's a crap shoot.

Plus, it keeps money flowing into the pockets of lawyers. I'm convinced that lawyers just LOVE it when the court plays with an issue like this.

[tmbrrr]

Here's the real problem of schools silencing God talk; they don't silence it! They silence only the "God talk" they don't like. How many hours have we had to sit in class pondering Emerson and Thoreau? They were presenting a religious point of view in the Romantic movement. Extreme environmentalism, a result of the Romantic ideas, is presented as a religion. Evolution, an explanation of what we are and how we got here, is largely a religious point of view. Socialism, which to a large degree, is accepted as morally superior to capitalism, is preached in schools much like a religious dogma. Morality and ethics are discussed in context of the teachings of secular humanism, which is a religious philosophy in that it claims to be the truth about who we are and where we came from. I could go on and on. The problem is that the schools are teaching a consistent religious point of view which cannot be compared to others because those others are forbidden. If this practice doesn't constitute of violation of the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a religion, nothing does.

[MuddyWaters2006]

GrandEagle wrote:

The "establishment clause" begins "Congress shall pass no law..." Interestingly enough simply posting the 10 commandments on the wall, according to the so called "court", amounts to passing a law.

I say:

The Ten Commandments contain four or five laws pertaining to religion or the duty we owe to our Creator; and five or six civil laws pertaining to the duty we owe to our fellow man. There is no objection to laws establishing our duties to our fellow man including the duties not to kill him, steal from him, bear false witness against him, etc.

Where does the U. S. Constitution grant the national government authority over our religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator? Where among the powers enumerated in the U. S Constitution is the federal government granted authority over which God we shall have no other God before; or what graven images we worship, or don't worship; or whether we remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

[wintertime]

The fundamental problem is that compulsory government schools are absolutely incapatable with the First Amendment.

Those children who are compelled to attend government schools are told to shut up for most of the day. Government workers direct what they print or don't print. These same government workers forbid free association. The child absolutely can not freely exercise his religion. Instead he is marched about in same-aged herds to the sound of Pavlov's bell. If the child rebels, he will be punished. If sufficiently rebellious he will be sent to reform school ( kiddie prison).

Our First Amendment does not say, that we have these rights "except during school hours 30 to 35 hours a week".

Then to add insult to injury the government WILL establish the religious worldview of some and WILL actively and possibly even maliciously undermine the religious worldview of others. The continual school civil wars over the curriculum, homosexuality, abortion, sex education, evolution, Christmas carols, holidays celebrated or ignored, the Pledge, literature assigned, dress codes, music chosen for school programs,,,etc...ALL of this issues have profound religious consequences. Is it any wonder that the arguments continue? The prize is the hearts and minds of the next generation of voters.

Then there are issues that are religious in nature but are more subtle. For instance:

Is the Senior prom or talent show on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday? No matter what day is chosen, all the children are taught that the government favors the religion of some and is willing to tempt the others with a highly attractive activity that violates their religious traditions.

Foods? It is child abuse to tempt children with cafeteria or classroom celebration foods that are against their religion.

Coed education? Oops! The government has just established the religious belief of some and trashed that of others.

What are the students wearing? Lots of religious dog pooh to step in there, and, remember, it is abusive to tempt very young children with highly fashionable styles that are contrary to their religious traditions.

The literature chosen? Lots of religious scruples to scramble there.

These are only a few of the hundreds of ways that government favors the religion of some while trashing the religious traditions of others.


Government schools **are ** compulsory for all children who do not have and alternative. Taxes to support these secular government schools is compulsory as well. Compulsory means that armed police action can and will be taken against any citizen who is sufficiently resistant.

To escape the government secular schools ( Secular is NOT a religiously neutral position) the parent must pay twice, once to support the establishment of secularism, and then again to a private school that will not actively destroy family religious traditions.

The solution: Complete separation of SCHOOL and state. We must begin the process of privatizing our government schools. If our Founding Fathers could have foreseen the government school monstrosity that we have today, they would have prohibited them in our federal and state constitutions.

The following is an excellent essay explaining why government schools are unconstitutional on a state and federal level:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter9.htm

[wintertime]

The problem is that the schools are teaching a consistent religious point of view which cannot be compared to others because those others are forbidden. If this practice doesn't constitute of violation of the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a religion, nothing does.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Please read message # 43.

The education of children is fundamentally the transfer of culture and its morals and ethics. It is absolutely impossible for the education of the young to be religiously neutral. Impossible! It is axiomatic!

Therefore: Once government flops its big fat foot over the First Amendment line and compels children to attend its government schools, the government WILL and IS establishing the religion of some and actively and even maliciously destroying the religious traditions of others.

[MuddyWaters2006]

xzins wrote:

No one's passed any law, no one's established any religion, but a whole lot of folks are denied free exercise.

I say:

It is true that no law was passed by the U. S. congress. It is false to say that no duty to God is established by the government posting the first half of what are known as the Ten Commandments.

The natural right of every man to freely exercise his religious sentiments is the freedom to exercise one's religious sentiments according to the dictates of one's conscience and convictions; not the suggestions, advice or recommendations of the government. God claims the authority to influence a man's religious sentiments with reason and persuasion. That means no government may assume the authority to employ the use of reason and persuasion to influence a man's religion.

[wintertime]

No one's passed any law, no one's established any religion, but a whole lot of folks are denied free exercise.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You bet they are! Government does this every minute of every school day.

But,,,what are the consequences of allowing children complete free exercise? The problem is that there are children who are compelled by law to be in the school. So, these children then are forbidden by the government to exercise their right to free association. These children do NOT want to associate with children who are actively practicing or proclaiming their religion.

Do you see?

It is **impossible*** for any government school to respect BOTH free speech and free expression of religion, and, at the same time respect all the children's right to freely associate with those who will support and uphold their beliefs and not associate with those who are undermining them.

Government schools are a First Amendment abomination! The government, in its schools, is continually violating the rights of someone because it can not uphold all parts of the First Amendment at the same time.

[jwalsh07]

There are a lot of myths circulating in Supreme Court opinions written by Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and others.

You mean myths like a high school valedictorian witnessing during her speech is government sponsorship of a specific religion or the myth that James Madison authored the establishment clause. Or maybe you mean the myth whereby a Presidents personal correspondence to a Baptist minister has the force of precedent in the Supreme Court. Or better yet, the myth that you know the "truth" about establishment clause jurisprudence while Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas are just the class clowns?

A lot of myths flying around this thread and most are coming from you.

[Tired of Taxes]

ANOTHER REASON TO HOMESCHOOL PING!

Interestingly, the ACLU is backing a student in one case and a school in another.

This ping list is for the "other" articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. If you want on/off this list, please freepmail me. The main Homeschool Ping List by DaveLoneRanger handles the homeschool-specific articles.

[wmfights]

"The facts of the case would have to be considered? What was the occasion? Why was the speaker selected? Who selected the speaker? What was the subject of the speech?"
________________________________

IOW, let the people who are afraid to make decisions decide.

[xzins]

I agree.

Yet it is not an establishment of religion any more than letting a pastor speak at a school is an establishment of religion.