Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]

The Education system in the US is actually pretty messy. First off, it is driven at the local level, not even state level.In most areas, the local school board is a political position. Generally folk run for office just as they would for a position on the City Council, but they can also be appointed or hired. There is NO uniform method across the whole US. See WikiYes, that can and does happen. Often it requires little support but enthusiastic supporters. The Christian Right has made a concerted effort to have people elected to the school boards and to influence the curriculum that way.Remember, of the three controls, two are after the fact. The state simply tests and it is the results from the standardized tests that counts. And accrediting agencies can also be manipulated. For example, when no agencies would accept Biblical Creationism, the Morris simply created a new Accrediting Agency to get their colleges certified.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Something of an understatement looking at the Wiki description. So it's fairly safe to say that unless a law is passed making the centralized American goverment in control of American education, then the Creationism V Evolution issue in America's education will never be resolved.There is no obtainable &/or substantial means of resolving this issue with the education system as it currently stands.So is the education system to blame for this entire issue (in education) even occuring?Edited by MadaManga, : Added (in education).

And it is not clear that such a law could even be passed in the US without changing the Constitution. There is the same tactics used to support Biblical Creationism. Those who support as one example, the teaching of the Theory of Evolution can also run for those school board positions.But again, even that only covers one segment of education, although admittedly the largest segment. That is the Public Education schools.There are additional education systems in the US. There are private schools, often associated with a single denomination or even a single church. What is taught in those schools is totally under the control of the school and even the local school boards have no say.Then there is the growing trend of "Home Schooling" where there really are no standards or oversight. Yes and no.As with so many things, the issue goes back to one of efficiency vs freedom. In the US the emphasis has always been on minimizing the power of a central government at the expense of efficiency.The result is, as in our education system, often messy, but for the most part, it works. Just as those supporting Evolution (as just one example) cannot enforce such a position, those supporting Biblical Creationism cannot enforce their position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Only the beliefs of that particular Church or denomination.This only covers the Church Schools that I am familiar with.

Our fore fathers put in our constitution a phrase "freedom of religion". Which I always thought meant that people could believe as they pleased without interference from the government.But our court systems in the past 55 years have interpreted that to mean freedom from religion, that the government could not sponsor any program or teaching that refereed to God or Religion. Because of that no prayer, no bible, no religion classes in school. Remember this is my opinion.Just because I believe it does not make it true.

That of course is only true in those church schools that are part of the mechanism of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.You need to remember that almost, not quite all but almost all religious schools in the US that were started in the last 50 years are simply avoidance schools. There sole purpose is to avoid the student being exposed to some knowledge.As I said, that is not true of all the religious schools in the US but it is common enough that you can call it near fact.The few religious schools that do NOT fall in the category of avoidance schools will teach sacred studies and teach other religions on an equal footing with the affiliated religion. See this discussion on whether or not Sacred Studies should be part of a curriculum.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That may well be your opinion, may even be what you were taught, but it is not even close to being true.Of course religion classes can be held in a school, even a public school. So far I know of no cases where a comparative religion course itself has been a problem. What is a problem is HOW some such courses have been taught. Too often the teachers were ignorant of the subject matter and approached the subject in a biased manner instead of a neutral one.What is unconstitutional is for the government to aid or establish one religion over another.For example, a course that taught the Bible as historical fact would be illegal. If the course taught that the Flood happened or that the burning bush was fact, that would and should be illegal.On the other hand, if the same material was covered by saying "Some Christians believe the story of Noah's Flood actually happened." it would be acceptable.A comparative religion course, one that simply taught the history and tenets of different religions and treated all equally would also be acceptable.In addition, Bible Study Clubs and organizations have been found to be Constitutional many times and it is only when they try to impose their beliefs on others that any issues arise.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe in some places. But I am speaking from my experience in school, in the 50's.

It was CERTAINLY true in the 50s. In fact during the 50s they could even have taught the Bible as FACT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar I went to high school in Greenville Fla. in 1954-1957. We were not allowed to read the Bible, or pray openly. We did not have any religious classes. We did not study evolution as my teachers were all Christians and refused to teach it.That is why at age 67 I am on the Internet trying to learn things that I should have known all my life.So please bear with me when I sound so ignorant and unlearned as I am trying to learn and there is so little time.

Well, that may well have been the case in Greenville, Fla back in 1954-1957 but if so, it was just a local incident.It is certainly not an issue of Christians vs Evolution, and if your teachers refused to teach evolution it was not because they were Christians but rather that they were simply ignorant.At about the same period I went from a public school setting where Bible studies were taught in a public school, to a Christian School where evolution and Sacred Studies were taught.The differences were that in the public school the Bible was taught as fact, while in the Christian School Sacred studies involved learning the actual tenets of other religions from a neutral perspective.Granted there is today a Christian Cult of Ignorance and most of the Christian schools created in the last fifty years are dedicated to promoting and codifying ignorance.The fact that you can say "We did not study evolution as my teachers were all Christians and refused to teach it.", is an indication that religion was allowed to control content during the period. The problem with that is that it is not a religious issue but rather of people teaching falsehoods and using religion as a justification for their behavior.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Freedom of religion = Freedom from interference?
Freedom of religion = Freedom from religion?I'm sorry, but neither of those views could work.For either of the above statements to be true you would have to live in a bubble, never having interacted with other people. And while I've heard the USA referred to as "the country in a bubble", I think they meant it metaphorically.The Goverment's stance of never having religion(s) mentioned in school is interference. They interfered with people's right to information about religions not from their local area. They are aiding the local religion dispite jar's claim that If they taught religions it would of course still be interferance. The introduction of new religious concepts could possibly interfer with the student's current belief. (Though I've never met anyone whom that's ever happened to. If you're firm in your religion, just learning about other religions won't magically convert you to that religion or atheism).No matter what action the goverment take, it will interfer. That's the nature of politics - it gets everywhere, interfers with everyone and you can never be free of it.And religion is like politics in that respect, its impossible to offer freedom from it. You could be a staunch atheist & religions would still have an impact on your lifeNeither interpretation is possible in the real world, the bubble bursts and the outside world gets in.Letting the local religion take power is like promoting Fundamentalism. And if you look at fundamentalist societies, hatred of those who are "different" is a common social problem. Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

Were you replying to me?You said: Actually, the 1^st. Amendment had as one of its purposes, protecting regional religions. Several of the Colonies here had been established based around differing religions. For example, Maryland was nominally a refuge for Roman Catholics, Pennsylvania had been founded as a refuge for Quakers, Massachusetts was Puritan while Virginia was mostly COE and Presbyterian.The people who founded and initially inhabited those colonies had seen and known of the religious persecutions that had happened in England and Europe and were set on protecting their particular faith.The 1^st. Amendment was a necessary compromise to persuade the various colonies to unite. It was an assurance that the Central Government would not impose some other regions religious bias on all of the colonies. Without that assurance, it is unlikely that many of the States would have ratified the initial Constitution.ICANT claimed: That is often claimed from the pulpits of the Christian Cult of Ignorance, but in fact is simply untrue.Back for a moment to the messy way that we run education here in the US.For the most part, public schools in the US are funded locally. They are NOT paid for at the Federal level although there are supplemental Federal funds directed to particular programs. The basic funding for public schools is a local tax system, most often a property tax.This leads to great disparity in the funds available for a school from district to district. Schools in more affluent areas have more funds for teachers and infrastructure than schools in less affluent districts.Again, in the US, the public schools are very much local schools, and as such, they reflect the population of the school district.The courts do not and have not interpreted the 1^st. Amendment to Freedom From Religion.Sorry but need to step back into history mode for a moment to hopefully show more of how the somewhat messy US system works.The 1^st. Amendment was related to the establishment of a National Religion only. It said that the Federal Government could not impose a Federal, a National religion on the States. The 14^th. Amendment extended protection beyond the State level to the individual.Section 1 of the 14^th. Amendment says: It is the highlighted portions of the 14^th. Amendment that are actually key.What the courts have said is that favoring the locally dominate religion over the minority religions in an area denies people equal protection under the law. The reasoning is that public schools are part of the State Government since they are funded by local taxes and overall administration is through State and local governments.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, did I miss you out? Though, I think you may have missed something out. How does that mean local religions are allowed "immunity" from having the facts of other religions taught at school. I realise "immunity" was a key word in the 14th Amentment, but if you take to mean the goverment has to enforce having no other religion mentioned then, the 14th amendment would contradict the 1st - not aiding a religion. I'm clearly missing something here.

---

And if you ran it from a goverment fund you would have to make or increase a goverment imposed tax for it. And if you had goverment funded education, peolpe might then ask for National Heathcare - so another tax would be required. From there, people could even ask for, gulp, Welfare. A critical mass of taxation, one spark & a chain reaction occurs! OK, if you take that seriously, it isn't funny at all. It kind of means people are comfortable with great chucks of the population having a bad education, less future prospects, less means of optaining healthcare, and hence, earlier death - just so they don't have to pay more tax. Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

It doesn't. Immunity is mentioned in the 14^th. Amendment as something which cannot be abridged. If you will read the whole US Constitution you will find that there are some basic immunities established, such as search and seizure and quartering of troops, confiscation of property without due recourse.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion