This is a valid point that you are making. Religiously neutral does not mean atheistic necessarily. For instance a song can be religious neutral. A painting can be religiously neutral. Neither are atheistic or anti-God or anti-religion.
However...The term "religiously neutral" can never be applied to the education of children. Why? Answer: It is impossible to have a religiously neutral overall education. This is axiomatic.
The two are different- a school taking a religion-neutral position means it does not discuss religion during school-hours.
I must disagree with you here. Not discussing religion during class hours teaches a powerful anti-religious and anti-God lesson.
For example, let's compare and contrast my Catholic school education with a government education in which God or religion is not discussed.
Yes, there was the daily half hour spent learning about Catholic doctrine, but the religious influence permeated every minute of every day. We prayed every hour for God's blessing on the next subject to be taught. When an ambulance or fire truck passed the school we stopped the class and ask God to please help the people involved. As we grew older, when we studied literature and social studies we looked for which Commandments had been broken and the consequences of sin. Often the teachings of Church leaders were used to illustrate points and emphasize moral and ethical values found in the topic.
Throughout my Catholic education we were explicitly an implicitly taught that God ( our Creator) was a **rational** God. It was possible and even a duty to learn as much as possible about the inner workings of God's creations.
Obviously, the above is **NOT** religiously neutral in content or consequences.
Ok...So let's compare the above to a "god-free" compulsory government education.
When the child does not have formal religious instruction in his government school, he is taught by the example of powerful role models ( his government teachers and principal)that the government and society in general does value his religious traditions or consider them important enough to mention in class. If his parents take time at home to teach these religious lessons the child pays in the form of lost playtime and time for relaxation. ( The "god-less" government school is teaching a powerful non-neutral religious lesson to this child by its action.)
If the teachers in the "god-less" government school fail to bless each hour and ask God's blessing on the next topic, the government teaches the child that looking to God for help and guidance in his daily tasks is utterly unimportant. ( This is **not** a religiously neutral lesson.)
If the teachers fail to pray when the ambulance passes the school, the children are taught by the government that it is not important to ask for God's blessings on others in their time of need. The government also misses an important opportunity to teach the children to feel compassion for others.
If the government teachers fail to identify and point out the consequences of sin and the outcome of breaking the Ten Commandments within the context of its curriculum, the children are not given the opportunity to identify and recognize sin or its consequences. If his scriptures, religious teachings, and the words of his churches leaders are ignored when evaluating literature and the social sciences, he is taught by the government that society does not value his religious beliefs and considers them unimportant. ( This is **not** a religiously neutral lesson.)
This is the only proper and Constitutional approach.
A "god-less" approach to education is **not** religiously neutral and is **not** constitutional. ( Please see above examples.) Also, it is impossible to have religiously neutral education.
The **only** proper and religiously neutral approach it to begin the process of getting government out of the education business. It is **impossible** to have a religiously neutral education. This is axiomatic.
An atheistic approach would mean the school actively taking the position that no gods exist, which would be unconstitutional.
I **agree** with you! An atheistic education teaches children that no god or gods exist. It is evident! This is **NOT** religiously neutral. This indeed would be unconstitutional.
But...A "god-less" education that ignores God and the child's **specific** religion teaches the child that God is unimportant and irrelevant in evaluating his many daily concerns. This is not religiously neutral either!
Please remember: It is impossible to have a religious neutral education! It is axiomatic!
So, unless people are constantly mentioning God in every context imaginable, that equals being anti-God? Nonsense. You want the public schools to affirm your religious choices for you- that's not their job, that's your job as a parent.
If the teachers fail to pray when the ambulance passes the school, the children are taught by the government that it is not important to ask for God's blessings on others in their time of need.
This is even more loopy. You want teachers to drop what they're doing in order to make some religious point for you? What if the teachers are members of some other faith, or atheists? Should they be forced to pray in order to make your religious point for you?
If the government teachers fail to identify and point out the consequences of sin and the outcome of breaking the Ten Commandments within the context of its curriculum, the children are not given the opportunity to identify and recognize sin or its consequences.
Why the Ten Commandments? Why not the rules of some other religion? Why do you need the public schools to do your religious instruction for you?
A "god-less" approach to education is **not** religiously neutral and is **not** constitutional. ( Please see above examples.)
So, a religiously-neutral approach to education is unconstitutional while constantly advancing one religion in schools is? That's certainly a novel view of 1st Amendment law (which is 180 degrees from decades of SCOTUS decisions).
But...A "god-less" education that ignores God and the child's **specific** religion teaches the child that God is unimportant and irrelevant in evaluating his many daily concerns. This is not religiously neutral either!
Basically, you want the schools to teach your religion for you.
It is axiomatic!
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
But where does this stop? If you get on public transit and the bus driver fails to ask God's protection on your journey, is that the government teaching your child that it's not important to ask God to watch over you? When you register your car and the DMV doesn't bless your stickers, is that a lesson that God is unimportant? Our government should not be in the teaching-about-God business, in school or anywhere else.