It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by leftystrat
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
It's not against the 1st amendment to teach religion in private schools that do not receive public funds. It only applies to the government and that which is funded by government.
Sorry, I missed the private part.
We agree.
Originally posted by theflamingswan92
reply to post by autowrench
I just feel that teachers should teach both instead of one over the other, not go into full detail, but just give students a taste, and let the students sit with their families and decide what they will choose to believe. When I have kids, me and my wife will sit with them and show them both sides of the coin, not just one, what they choose is their buisness
Originally posted by zaiger
well if they teach creationalisim they should teach athiest eugenics and genocide. Kids should learn about christ AND Stalin they should learn about the crusades and the soviet mass graves made by their athiest leader
Originally posted by Clearskies
Anti-religious is STILL RELIGION!
Why is it that they teach evalution and not creationism?
Originally posted by theflamingswan92
Why is it that you can not ask a student or a student ask a teacher thier religious beliefs? Why is it that they teach evalution and not creationism?
Why is it that some teachers were suspended and fired for even saying God in a classroom? I will tell you why. They don't want you to think outside the box.
Briefly, state-supported prayer amounts to the establishment of a religious practice. This is true whether the state actually prescribes the prayer to be said, or allows teachers and students to compose the prayer as they see fit. Let's use the famous Engle v. Vitale case to illustrate our argument.
Engle v. Vitale revolved around a New York law that required school officials to publically recite each school day the following prayer, composed by the New York Board of Regents:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.
The Court ruled, correctly in our opinion, that the New York law violated the First Amendment. Indeed it's difficult to image how the Court could have ruled otherwise. Prayer is, without question, a religious exercise, and when the state requires that a prayer be recited, it is establishing a religious practice. Additionally, it violates free exercise for the state to expose students to prayer against their will, or to force students to absent themselves from the classroom to avoid a prayer they do not want to hear. Finally, we note that, despite the fact that this prayer was written to be as general and non-sectarian as possible, it still establishes religious beliefs, beliefs that surely do not reflect the religious sensibilities of many students. Christians, for example, might justifiably complain that the prayer is not offered in the name of Christ, while polytheists and adherents to new-age religions might have problems with the implied assertion that there is a single God, or that this God is almighty. And non-theists would certainly object to repeating words that imply that they are "dependent" on a God in which they do not believe. No matter how charitably one views the facts of Engle v. Vitale, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Regents' prayer would not be acceptable to many students.
Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those
capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.
Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
Its because the bibles explination of reality is moronic.
Children should not be taught stupid useless LIES...... Well only if its an example of what NOT to be when you grow up. Pat robertson is a perfect example of the STUPIDITY religion creates.
[edit on 9-2-2010 by Wertdagf]