Demographics continued to change and are still changing. When I started school in 1985 there were only white kids in my class, by the time I graduated high school in 1997 a good 15% of my class were minorites. And even when it was all just a bunch of white kids, all of our parents had very different ideas about religion.
It seems people were able to work out on their own what they wanted in their school curricula without judges imposing it on them.
The Constitution and Congress mandate equality, judges merely enforce it.
No one suggested requiring schoolchildren to participate in religious activity. That doesn't mean schools are somehow constitutionally obligated to censor their curricula to avoid offending small minorities.
The poster that I originally responded to was indeed suggesting just that. And schools are not required to "censor curricula", just to maintiain neutrality on the subject of religion.
There is quite a large contengent of people out there who keep trying to inject their religious beliefs into public schools. I know that not everyone wants public schools to be avowedly secular, but given the fact that students come from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs it really is the best way to make sure that everyone recieves an equal education.
Judges have come up with their own ideas of "equality" whereby if some tiny minority objects to what's being taught, they're being discriminated against. And it's only rather recently that they've come to this conclusion. It has nothing to do with demographics, and everything to do with agenda.
If government-funded schools didn't exist at all, people would be sending their kids to private schools that would no doubt not be entirely secularized, as is their right. So what government has done is take away the money that these families would be spending on such private education, and, acting on their behalf, set up schools for them. To mandate that the schools be completely secularized is to take away from most people what they would have of right had otherwise, thus imposing an unnatural distortion. Since someone has to lose out when government does this (either the vast majority that is religious in some way, or the small minority that is not), why does it have to be the clear majority?
Yes, it's too bad that the small minority does lose out in some way, but that's price that's paid for a government-run school system. So unless courts are prepared to declare government-run schools unconstitutional on the grounds that they necessarily interfere with somebody's religious liberty, then they have no business favoring one group's sensibilities over another's.
It's one thing if a public school is teaching entire subjects that belong in more of a church setting - there's a colorable argument to say that that's unconstitutional. But to force a school to completely ignore religious principle is to impose a highly artificial restraint on education, and is really no more constitutional than forcing it to include it.
There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to the matter of religion. Everyone has a world view or belief system and removing any mention of God from it is imposing someone's belief system on another. Christianity, Judiaism and Islam all have their foundation in the OT and theoretically, the same God. Why should the vast majority bow to the wishes of a few? Maintaining neutrality is not done by removing all references to God because that is an action in favor of one point of view; it is not neutral when action is taken.
"The poster that I originally responded to was indeed suggesting just that. And schools are not required to "censor curricula", just to maintiain neutrality on the subject of religion."
Er, this judgment censored curricula, and is a blatant example. mandating neutrality on religion DOES censor any curricula about religion that may appear unbalanced. It's a silly rule to insist on 'balance' as opposed to recognizing that the real issue is one of voluntary participation to being with. Besides, since most of this country is Christian, a 'balanced' curricula overemphasizes the obsure other religions that we mostly dont belong to...
Much better options would be avialable if interfering judges would get out of the way and we understood that the constitution demands "free excercise" and non-establishment:
1. Religion can be taught but made voluntary. Parents could decide if their children need to attend.
Local churches, synagogues, etc. could teach RE by coming to schools. This could easily be done as an 'after school' club-type activity. (such
2. School choice and school vouchers, which has been proven to improve educational quality while keeping costs in line.
"The Constitution and Congress mandate equality, "
NO THEY DONT.
BTW - Why is "equality" in education more important than "QUALITY" in education?
"When I started school in 1985 there were only white kids in my class, by the time I graduated high school in 1997 a good 15% of my class were minorites."
Ahem, another point: Most of the minorities you see are also Christian. Many Koreans are Presbytarian, many middle-easterners are Christian minorities coming to Americans, hispanics are mostly catholic, and many immigrants from other lands are christians, such as nigerians. We even know a Christian indian couple. America is a land of many Christian refugees fleeing lands that persecute Christianity or give it short shrift. It would be ironic to 'cater' to them by denying them opportunities of Christian exposure in schools.