It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ETHICS: Separation of Church and State

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 05:38 PM
The "Faith-Based" Initiative, Prayer in Public Schools, Religious Education Vouchers and the notion that the United States is a "Christian" nation are parts of an all-out assault by Fundamentalist Christians to direct this Nation in it's own very narrow perspective.

"Charitable Choice" is the mechanism by which tax dollars are channeled to religious institutions without safegards in place to assure against religious coersion, discrimination, and other abuse. It amounts to taxpayer funded religious discrimination.

The move to reinstate organized prayer in Public Schools is unconstitutional and should be abandoned. Public schools have no right to usurp parental authority.

Financial support of religious schools by taxpayers must not be allowed. Voucher programs force all taxpayers to underwrite religious education.

The most offensive declaration of the religious right is that America is a "Christian" nation. Too many people actually believe this contrived notion. This is an example of Orwellian manipulation at it's most virulent.

Where do the various parties stand on seperation issues? We already know where Bush stands, hardly an all encompassing or tolerant view.

(edits to upgrade to Campaign 2004 Issues Forum)

[edit on 7-8-2004 by RANT]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 06:48 PM
Although many people think separation of church and state are in the constitution and namely in the 1st amendment. However, the words “church”, “Separation”, or “state” don’t even appear in the 1st amendment. The first amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

The founding fathers included this in the constitution namely because of what happened in England and the Church of England. The English government under the Conventicle Act of 1665 barred all other churches and made attendance of the Church of England mandatory. The punishment for not agreeing to the Conventicle was torture and imprisonment. The founding fathers did not want any laws similar to this to ever be passed in the United States thus the 1st amendment.

Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802 to calm fears that the government was going to name a national religion namely the Congressionalist’s. Of Course this was nothing but a rumor yet a very disturbing one because the people knew of how England handled a national religion. It was this letter were the term “Separation of Church and State” was drawn not from anywhere in the constitution. The constitution only states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..” It doesn’t say you can’t pray in schools. Below is a complete copy of Jefferson’s Letter.[2]

Mr. President

To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson

The bottom line is that the 1st amendment was freedom of religion not freedom from religion. This is what needs to be addressed.


[edit on 7-8-2004 by BlackJackal]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:06 PM

If proposals to force taxpayers to fund religious ministries are implemented...

I don't understand how you can say this is not an establishment of religion. If people are forced to pay taxes that go to a specific religion, than the US is making the support of such religion compulsory. Any way you wish to define "establish," the US is making it compulsory to support this religion.

If prayers in school was compulsory, it would be an establishment too.

But if taxpayers can volunteer support, or a student can volunteer to pray, than it is not an establishment.

And I think the original scottsquared opinion is very valid in that if millions of taxpayers are FORCED to support a religion, then it can be seen as the religious views of government leaders being used to increase the influence and grip of that religion on the people.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:06 PM
I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the 1st ammendment was intended to promote the freedom "of" rather than "from" religion. In effect, they are one and the same.

It is not my intention to ban a students right to free expression, nor am I trying to ban religious discussion from the school curiculae. Students have a right to pray or organize religious activity on thier own time. School is a place for education and discourse, not indoctrination and coersion.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:26 PM
Please tell me where in

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

do you see seperation of Church and State. This country was founded on religion, specifically Christianity and the Bible. The founders were God Fearing men who practiced their religion and opened up all forms of government with a prayer Congress, Meetings, etc.... So you tell me why it was the intention of these men to eliminate prayer and Christianity from America anywhere, be it a school, restaurant of congressional building.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by BlackJackal]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:41 PM
But the US is establishing a religion, thats the whole point. Making it compulsory to support a religion is establishment. Show me where in the constitution it says establishment means saying "Our national religion is so-and-so.."

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:54 PM
"Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of seperation between church and state."
"Washington's administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of north Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not founded on Christianity. The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. To assuage fears that the new nation would be hostile to Islam, Article 11 of the treaty states, "[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....""

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:55 PM
Sir the wall of seperation you refer to appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association as I pointed out earlier. This appears no where in the US constitution.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:05 PM
The government has no place in religion or religion in government.

The middle east is a perfect example of what happens when you mix the two

The Libertarians are for complete religious freedom,

Freedom of and Freedom from religion

Here is the link

To us christians, hindus, jews,muslims, wiccans, buddists, athiests, etc are equally valid veiws

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Jamuhn
But the US is establishing a religion, thats the whole point. Making it compulsory to support a religion is establishment. Show me where in the constitution it says establishment means saying "Our national religion is so-and-so.."

No one is asking for a national religion. But the government is passing laws saying that prayer is not permisable in schools is that not a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof?

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:09 PM
I can't say that I ever intended to convey that the words, "seperation of church and state" ever appear in the Constitution. I said: "The move to reinstate organized prayer in Public Schools is unconstitutional and should be abandoned."

It is my contention, that it was the founding fathers explicit intent to be Non-denominationalin thier writing of the Constitution. Last I checked, Christianity was a very specific religion, hence not singled out in the Constitution.

As stated earlier, it is every individual's right to free excersise of religion, as provided under the first amendment. That is a far cry from a sponsored or mandatory moment of prayer, a coersive ceremony by it's very nature.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:10 PM
It is true that the U.S. Constitution does not expressly use the term "separation of church and state". However, Jefferson's letter is used as a precedent to establish original intent. The Federalist Papers of Hamilton and Madison are used in the same context. If something in the Constitution seems ambiguous to the Courts, they refer to other writings of the Founding Fathers that elaborate, thus establishing intent.

Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association mentions that the Constitution was ratified with the understanding that the First Amendment establishes a "wall of separation" between church and state. Thus the term may properly be used as a precedent when deciding First Amendment cases.

I must object to the gentleman who claims that the First Amendment guarantees "freedom of religion", but not "freedom from religion". If we are free, then we have the right to be from religion if we so choose. This subject was brought up by Benjamin Franklin, who said it neither scars his body nor robs him of property if his neighbor does not believe in God, and our forefathers unanimously agreed that the sphere of religion was outside that of the secular state.

While considering original intent, it's also important to remember that a large number of our forefathers were "heretics". Although many on the right claim the US is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles, the reality of the situation is much different. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc. were self-professed Deists and Unitarians. Jefferson and Paine went as far as to issue strong intellectual arguments against the theories of Christianity, and their criticism of the Bible is notorious among historians.

The principles upon which our nation was founded were not rooted in religion, but rather in the 18th century Enlightenment, which gave birth to classical liberalism through John Locke and Adam Smith, neo-Stoic rationalism through Voltaire and the French philosophes, and scientific discovery via Galileo and Newton. Thomas Paine went to great trouble to point out that religion was the crown of the dark ages, while science and philosophy gave birth to the Enlightenment.

However, it should not be construed that because our forefathers were heathens, that they were hostile to religion. On the contrary, after centuries of religious persecution, the thinkers of the Enlightenment adopted the position of universal religious tolerance, declaring that each individual had the natural right to worship, or refrain from worshiping, according to the dictates of his or her own conscience. This principle was finally galvanized into the First Amendment, which secures religious freedom, and must be defended against the historical revisionists who would attempt to alter the principle of separation in order to support their own sectarian beliefs.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by BlackJackal

No one is asking for a national religion. But the government is passing laws saying that prayer is not permisable in schools is that not a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof?

To me this is a tough one.

I have no problem with anyone prying in school myself but when it becomes school sponsered then you will ALWAYS have people that are offended.

What if the public school your child attended sponsered satanism?

would you want your child praying to satan every morning?

If you have freedom of religion this is possible under the law.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by Jamuhn
But the US is establishing a religion, thats the whole point. Making it compulsory to support a religion is establishment. Show me where in the constitution it says establishment means saying "Our national religion is so-and-so.."

No one is asking for a national religion. But the government is passing laws saying that prayer is not permisable in schools is that not a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof?

I am not against that though! If you read my posts you will see I am not against any form of voluntary practice of religion.

What I am talking about is the compulsory support of religion. That is what the US is doing when they force someone to pay taxes that go to support a religion of their choice.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
If we are free, then we have the right to be from religion if we so choose. This subject was brought up by Benjamin Franklin, who said it neither scars his body nor robs him of property if his neighbor does not believe in God, and our forefathers unanimously agreed that the sphere of religion was outside that of the secular state.

You also have to remember that during the time of our forefathers, the state has a great amount of freedom. The State he speaks of is the United States of America government not the Alabama Republic. A state should be free to put prayers in their school. A government though should not be able to pass any mandatory laws. When you think about original intent keep in mind that state's rights superceded that of the federal government in many ways.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:59 PM
When the US was originally founded, most everyone was white and protestant, so even though there was a healthy seperation of church and state, no one seemed to mind when a public prayer was given while the few that did mind just kept quite because they'd be labled as witches (and subsequently burned).

But now the nation is so diverse, with so many races, religions, backgrounds, and belief systems it is kind of hard to do anything without offending anyone. While the constitution just says that we can't establish a national church, it also says that we have the freedom to hold or believe in whatever we want to. When we force out beliefs on those around us, we are violating other people's rights to freedom and violating our own right to liberty.

Personally, I'm a Christian myself and wouldn't mind having the Ten Commandments displayed. But if I was Agnostic would I feel the same way? Probably not. (Althought I don't see why most people get offended so easily...)

It may be hard to accept but when the country was originally founded it WAS a Christian nation... is it now? No, whether we want the US to be or not. We must uphold all our laws or we will begin to disentegrate into lawlessness. Still though, without a few Supreme Court cases, like Engle v Vitale, this would mainly be an issue for the states.

[edit on 8/7/2004 by lockheed]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:52 PM
Black Jackal states:

Please tell me where in

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

do you see seperation of Church and State.

You don't and that fact is irrelevant. You also don't see the phrases "right to privacy" or "right to a fair trial" - you certainly expect those rights.

(While true that) the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution, there is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

The intent of the founding fathers is clear - worship who or what you want, but keeping a wall between the church and the state is necessary to ensure a free society.

Also with regard to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists - it was not the only time he used this wording. In a letter to Virginia Baptists in 1808 he wrote:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

Another example of Jefferson's belief in "separation of church and state"

Jefferson worked to eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that: man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...

Another interesting point is that Jefferson's personal writings are considered the best source material to use in interpreting the intent of the founding fathers.

In the 1879 decision Reynolds v. U.S., for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

Because our country is not merely a home to Christians - but home to Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Seikh, and Pagan - it more important now than ever to draw upon the words of Jefferson and continue to keep this wall intact.

Source: Austin Cline

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:55 PM

Originally posted by BlackJackalNo one is asking for a national religion. But the government is passing laws saying that prayer is not permisable in schools is that not a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof?

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, because I know that by "religion" you mean Christianity.

I have friends who belong to the Santaria faith. Part of their faith involves sacrifices, including sacrificing the occasional chicken. Once you allow Christian worship/principles/teachings in school, then you MUST let in the Santaria practices, the Wiccan circles, the Druidic Groves, the Satanic Clavens, the OTO, the Hindus, the Muslims, and anyone else who wants to lead a prayer or conduct prayer services in the school.

If that's your stance, then I agree that we should proceed.

Ditto if the Wiccans want to have prison ministries... and we should support the Islamic prison ministries with equal funding, and the Hindu ones and Buddhist ones and so forth.

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 08:45 AM
Thanks to all the contributors thus far. We have certainly exposed all sides of the school prayer issue. I wish to now shift our focus to the issue of school vouchers. I would contend that such vouchers or tax credits are nothing more than taxpayer support for parochial or religious schools. This violation of the Constitution has gained support by the Catholic church and the Christian coalition. Since 1967 there have been some twenty-two referenda in various states. All have been defeated soundly. Yet the religious right keeps pushing. There are some very powerful backers today including Senator Orin Hatch and President George W. Bush. It appears that this bad idea just will not go
Allow me to simplify my stance. As a married, childless homeowner who pays some fifty percent of my property taxes to the local school district, I am greatly offended by people who expect a tax credit for sending thier progeny to private or religious schools and hence deny the local school district of necessary funding. By any scense of fairness, if one subgroup is allowed to opt-out of some portion of thier tax burden because it is felt that they are not benefiting from the system(vouchers for religious schools)than I, without children, am deserving of the same break.

I happily support our public schools and realize the benefits of an educated society. Education has always been exhaulted in my family of poor immigrants and I see it as the primary driving force in the success of each and every one of my family members. Our public schools are in trouble. The answer lies not in transfering support to other types of schools but in full support of our public schools. This should be our highest priority as a Nation.

What say you?

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:08 PM
Alright, I agree with everyone that by allowing prayer in school you would also have to allow other religious practices within reason. What I mean is some religious practices violate other laws and that cannot be allowed even though it is religious. But anyways back to the point at hand.

My point is this country has gone from being founded on Christianity to anti-Christian. Allow me to explain.


2003-JAN-8: NJ: Freedom of speech issue: Students prohibited from giving gifts: Daniel Walz was told by the principal of his public elementary school in New Jersey that he could not give out pencils inscribed with the message "Jesus loves the little children." during Easter season in 1998-APR. In 1998-DEC, he was prohibited from distributing candy canes with a Bible message during a party. His classmates were permitted to hand out non-religious gifts. He was told that he would have to distribute the canes outside of the school building before or after classes. Stephen Aden, spokesperson for the Fundamentalist Christian group, the Rutherford Institute, said that: "He was told he couldn't pass those [items] out because school officials were afraid that parents would get wind of it and think that the school was promoting Christianity. So it's clearly a case of discriminatory treatment on the basis of Daniel's Christian faith." On Jan-8, oral arguments were heard by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in Philadelphia on behalf of Daniel Walz and his mother Dana. A ruling is expected in the spring.[1]

2003-JAN-14: MA: Freedom of speech issue: Six students suspended: Six high school students attending Westfield High School are members of the school's L.I.F.E. Bible club. Both school Principal Thomas Daley and Superintendent Thomas McDowell refused the club's request to distribute candy canes during non-class time. The reason given is that other students might find the Bible verses on the canes "offensive." They handed out the canes anyway, and were each suspended for a day. Liberty Counsel, a Fundamentalist Christian legal defense agency has filed a lawsuit with a federal court to declare the school's literature-distribution policy unconstitutional. Spokesperson Mat Staver said: "One of our clients is a National Honor Society student. She's a senior seeking scholarship and entry to universities and colleges this year. A suspension of this nature would devastate her future career opportunities." Another student has applied to the U.S. Air Force Academy; a suspension would probably block him as well. Staver called the actions of the school officials "blatantly hostile and anti-Christian.... "It is very evident that instead of applauding the fine students who are academic achievers, they instead have sought to suspend them solely for distributing a candy cane that contains Bible verses and Christian messages. That is horrendous -- [and] it's unthinkable that in today's society these kinds of students would face suspension. But that's in fact what these school officials have done." There is no indication in the media reports that this is an anti-Christian response by the school administration. It appears to be a simple refusal to recognize the free speech rights of students in the area of religion [2]

2003-FEB-7: USA: Federal government threatens public school funding: The federal Department of Education issued a policy statement similar to those published by the previous Clinton administration. It emphasizes that public schools must allow student-led and student-initiated prayers if done outside of regular class hours. But they cannot implement compulsory school prayers in the classroom. Education Secretary Rod Paige wrote: "Public schools should not be hostile to the religious rights of their students and their families. At the same time, school officials may not compel students to participate in prayer or other activities." The statement mentioned that teachers may "take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities." They may meet with each other "before school or during lunch" for prayer and Bible study, and "may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies." The guidelines also require that students at assemblies and graduation ceremonies may not be restricted in expressing religion as long as they were chosen as speakers through "neutral, evenhanded criteria." The statement notes that to avoid controversy, schools may issue disclaimers clarifying that such speech does not represent the school's official position.

  • Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel -- a Fundamentalist Christian legal defense group -- said: "I'm very excited about the clarity, and very optimistic that these guidelines will go a long way in solving issues related to students' religious speech. We will use these actively in dealing with schools, and we'll use them in cases we're litigating as well."
  • Reggie Felton, spokesperson for the National School Boards Association said that the guidelines may generate additional confusion. He said that allowing teachers to openly pray outside of classroom time may cause problems, particularly if it is not clear that they are doing it unofficially, as individuals, outside their teaching roles.
  • Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, wrote: "The emphasis here, as usual, is on 'religious rights.' Althought the DOE guidelines claim that government is not endorsing or promoting religion, vague and misleading language is sure to result in the types of abuses we've been seeing in public schools against those who do not wish to engage in religious activities." She asked: "Will students believe that their grades may be affected by joining activities where a teacher is present, such as 'See You At The Pole' or a Bible study group? And what about indirect pressure from teachers who reward religious students, and even penalize those who don't participate?"[3]

2003-OCT-1: TN: Student suspended over creationism: A grade eight student at the Colonial Heights Middle School in Kingsport TN was suspended because she failed to follow an order to stop discussing religion in class. The problem began in science class when the teacher was discussing the big-bang theory about the origin of the universe. Some students objected, saying that it conflicted with their religious beliefs. The teacher told them that she could not lead a religious discussion in science class. Principle William Cline is reported as saying that this led to a rumor mill concerning the teacher's religious beliefs that was harmful to the teacher and disrupted learning. Cline is reported as saying that when a student allegedly encouraged another pupil to put a religious pamphlet on the teacher's desk, the teacher "felt like it was a form of harassment." The student was suspended.[4]

2004-APR-7: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear case: Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist Christian group, reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to not hear a case involving mealtime prayers at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), an institution that is funded by the government. By doing this, the court let stand a prior appeals court ruling which found the prayers to be unconstitutional. A number of cadets had challenged the tradition of mealtime prayers which had its origins with the founding of the school in 1839. Prayers have been discontinued since 2001. Carrie Cantrell, a spokeswoman for Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, defended the prayer tradition. She said that the court's "...inaction on this issue creates a tear in the fabric of our country." She described the prayer which ends "Now, O God, we receive this food and share this meal together with thanksgiving. Amen," as nonsectarian -- i.e. acceptable to all faith groups and specific to none. However, she appears to be in error. There are many religious groups (e.g. Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Humanists) who have no concept of deity. There are other groups who recognize multiple deities, not a single God. There are those, like Deists, who believe in a God but who believe in one that is not necessarily open to communication with humans. This prayer would probably be unsatisfactory to these groups. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the fundamentalist Christian American Center for Law and Justice, was disappointed. He said: "Here you've got a voluntary prayer at a military institution; everyone there is over the age of majority, so they're adults. And yet the Supreme Court lets stand a decision which says the prayer is unconstitutional. They've missed a big opportunity, and it's really disappointing."

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a dissent critical of the justices who gave the majority decision.[5]

You see this country is going to extremes. The extreme meaning the barring of Christianity in the name of political correctness. This post only includes government involvement in religion practiced in schools but I have many more links to every part of our lives.

This country is heading down a very rocky path. Anyone remember Harrison Bergeron?

[5]" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 07:29 PM
To me either ALL or NONE should be allowed.

Of course disallowing human sacrfice, etc.

As long as the child handing out "Satan Rules" pencils is allowed too, I have no problem with it.

I think it would be good for kids to be exposed to ALL the religions and cultures in school maybe take a week to study each or something along those lines. It would help us to understand each other. Isnt that part of what school is all about is to broaden our childrens outlook on life?

But I highly suspect that the Christians would be screaming the loudest when little Johnny brings home the Satanic Bible to study

I just use the Satanist as an extreme because once you open the door you would pretty much have to allow them all.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in