The Louisiana Public School Cramming Christianity Down Students’ Throats

reply to post by flammadraco

Its on page 15 and very much ON topic. He or she made several good points in that post, but instead of addressing those points, you resorted to "Ooooohh!!!! You hate gays!!!!" and totally disregarded everything else that was said.

reply to post by Bone75


I'm not going off topic about this again but you have your views and I have mine.

flammadraco
reply to post by Bone75

 

I'm not going off topic about this again but you have your views and I have mine.

Fair enough. I think I'm gonna wait for the rest of the facts to come out before I comment any further on this one.

reply to post by flammadraco


Calling something a perversion might be inflammatory, but is not in and of itself "bashing". This country, we could argue about what it was founded on, but it wasn't founded with an open acceptance of homosexuality. We have deviated from what we started with. (And I state this while calmly accepting that at least as early as Abraham Lincoln, there were men in power who liked men.) Frankly, any "deviancy" is a "perversion" by the most simple of standards. I guess we could call for a more neutral word to be used, but homosexual practice in this country does fit the word.

So, Christian Voice:

What about the many schools teaching homosexuality is a normal perfectly acceptable lifestyle ?

Thing is that yes, you can 100% believe this, and may even be right, and not be BASHING another ideology. We should be allowed to disagree without being accused of bashing.

Evolution and homosexuality are two "religious" topics.

Sadly, this is a fact. Can either of them be discussed without religion at all? Not very easily. The first often stomps all over the groundwork of "we don't need religion at all", which gives the religious urge to defend themselves by it's very nature. And the second has a lot of history intertwined with religions, period.

"Separation of Church and State" shouldn't be to the point where we refuse all mention of a religion, but that we don't allow it dominance. Allowing NO say is allowing something else dominance--and we'd better be careful of what that something else is. Because we really shouldn't be into the "religion replacement" game.

Which makes this stance understandable, even if I can't 100% agree with it:

Think for a moment that homosexuality was discussed in the Bible long before our public schools were thought of. Creationism was in the Bible long before our public schools were thought of. They are religious topics and should be left out of schools as well.

Here's the first time I really see any problem with the TONE used:

The number of perverted homosexuals was very small. Remove God from schools and everything goes awry like little kids whose parents are not at home.

Now, has there been an increase of trying homosexual practices at the same time as we've been harder pushing for "seperation of church and state"? Yes. Correlation does not equal causation, automatically, but anything I've ever seen in the religious field pretty much points to most deviancy from the faith is the produce of a lack of belief in the originator. This is a fairly Biblical stance, really. And it shouldn't hurt people so much to hear it.

What I'm seeing missing, though is the idea that the focus is too much on what homosexuality is and does, and not what a lack of God does, in general. I've never saw the need to focus on the perversion than who it deviated from. That simple.

But if their personal data backs a less unruly population without such things, then their personal data does. That simple, too.

And the only other thing I can think of is this: if ALL that is ever seen out of this person is 100% dislike of people who are homosexuals, and not a general dislike of the practice, then we'd have a better case for bashing. That is, since we're stretching it to mean more than merely a physical beating.

For instance, there's a lot of things I like about Abraham Lincoln. I have a problem with a few things he did and said. Since his homosexual (bisexual) tendencies were mostly private, THOSE hold little to no sway over my reaction to him as a leader of this country.

Now, again, this is one of the reasons that it's a good idea to have a wider range of people from any given faith in your life. It forces you to question ideology.

But even more to the point: I've seen Christians who word things this way and stronger 100% get along with gays, and Christians who defend gays.

If we label everything as bashing without looking for more interaction/nuances, we're not going to be able to relate to one another really well.

______________________

Now, all that said, I can see getting tired of hearing this if this is all you ever hear out of 1 person, all the time, every time. Is this the case? I don't know. I haven't come across this guy's writing, too often.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


The fact is the OP was relating to a Christian Teacher who ridiculed a Buddhist student in front of his whole class and called his religion stupid. Further posts provided showed that in the same school it has been claimed that the science teacher told the class that evolution was a stupid idea and taught that the earth was made in seven days.

This is not acceptable in 2014, the school has showed a total lack of tolerance and is not something you expect in the US. I'm more likely to accept this kind of education in a middle eastern country, but not from a country that put a man on the moon.

With that all said, homosexuality was not even required to be commented on during this thread, this thread was about intolerance that other Christian members also found abhorrent, but ChristianVoice used it to further his "Agenda" against gays. Every post I have seen he speaks of homosexuality, this is a conspiracy site and not a place for members of any faith to bash anyone because of their beliefs.

This seems all new to me and was a major reason I decided to register as a member after 6 years of lurking as I was dismayed how this once a great site has now been overcome with intolerance due to religious beliefs.

I'm not being rude, but I'm not going to make further comments on homosexuality in this thread as it's completely of topic.

reply to post by fractal2


I just noticed your post.

I don't believe in rights that end, and don't get the metaphor of drawing up rights on some sort of map with boundaries. You simply have free speech or you don't. It doesn't end anywhere and doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

Well that kid didn't believe in Jesus and that is his right the school does not have the right to force him to proclaim faith to a Christian god.

Do you think this issue is just about free speech? Do you know any other parts of the Constitution this could be about?

Religions are a branch of philosophy. It isn't right to ban an expression just because it happens to be a religious one. Should teachers not be allowed to teach the golden rule just because it is found in the Christian Bible as "Do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you"? Banning religion from schools is banning expression.

Does that golden rule have to be attached to a Christian GOD? You do know Buddha teaches the same but the child is being told that is stupid.

Once again, taxpayers should be able to decide how to waste their own money, whether that be teaching Buddhism or anything else. And then parents should have the option of sending their money to any other school of their choice if they are unhappy with it.

So you say it is up to the taxpayers and not a constitutional issue. (IT IS) But even by your own twisted rational his family are also taxpayers so your point is moot.

Who gave the school the right to teach your kid that Christ is a lord? The people who discovered free speech. See how I directly answered your question?

Who exactly in your mind discovered free speech? Would you answer be attached to the Constitution. The DEISTS? Or even this guy. Can you name that president?

flammadracoThe fact is the OP was relating to a Christian Teacher who ridiculed a Buddhist student in front of his whole class and called his religion stupid.

Still at only the ALLEGED level. Seriously. Only started in court. I thought we went with "Innocent until proven guilty" in this country?

Further posts provided showed that in the same school it has been claimed that the science teacher told the class that evolution was a stupid idea and taught that the earth was made in seven days.

Actually, this state's laws on it allow for creationism. And most Creationists are against it being taught in school because "it's going to be taught piss-poor.

Answers in Genesis is often misrepresented as trying to get creationist teaching into the public schools.8 AiG does not lobby any government agencies to include the teaching of biblical creation in the public schools. As we have stated many times, we do not believe that creation should be mandated in public school science classrooms. If teaching creation were mandated, it would likely be taught poorly (and possibly mockingly) by a teacher who does not understand what the Bible teaches and who believes in evolution.

This is not acceptable in 2014, the school has showed a total lack of tolerance and is not something you expect in the US. I'm more likely to accept this kind of education in a middle eastern country, but not from a country that put a man on the moon.

Again, allegedly. I can understand being impassioned over things. After all, the person you accused of bashing is impassioned against things, too. Just simmer it down until we see what comes out of this mess.

With that all said, homosexuality was not even required to be commented on during this thread, this thread was about intolerance that other Christian members also found abhorrent, but ChristianVoice used it to further his "Agenda" against gays.

It really wasn't 100% necessary, sure. Mostly because it would cause the reaction that followed, so it wasn't the best thought-out example to give. But it was used as an example of another hot-button topic about Christianity coming anywhere near schools. And as an example, it does fit.

Every post I have seen he speaks of homosexuality, this is a conspiracy site and not a place for members of any faith to bash anyone because of their beliefs.

Does this include not bashing HIS beliefs? But yes, if all you see out of the dude is this, make a formal complaint. Seriously, we have an alert button at the bottom of the page. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to constantly post everything about that one opinion.

This seems all new to me and was a major reason I decided to register as a member after 6 years of lurking as I was dismayed how this once a great site has now been overcome with intolerance due to religious beliefs.

It's new to me, too. Problem is that intolerance cuts both ways. Seriously. At the allegation stage and we rant? Someone mentions their views on homosexuality as an example, and we become intolerant of their own intolerance? Generally speaking, the actions of others that we despise the most are our own natural inclinations--irrelevant of if we act on it. And no, not talking about homosexuality. I'm talking about "intolerance bashing".

I'm not being rude, but I'm not going to make further comments on homosexuality in this thread as it's completely of topic.

No, you're not quite rude. I'll give that. Impassioned? Sure. Not willing to see similar behaviors? Maybe.

Think about this: this thing is only at the allegation stage by the ACLU: you know, a group that only maybe 50% of the time is NOT tromping around on agenda and looking for any excuse to pick a fight? I don't trust the ACLU as far as I can throw them! And every once in a while they manage to stand up for someone's rights, for all of my lack of trust.

So, again, we really should wait-and-see, instead of bash a school we're not at.

It would be a totally different situation if this stuff was allegated, and then it was covered up. That's not what we're seeing here. It's going to court and the school board is claiming to be clueless. Let's give it it's time in court, first. And I'm stating this KNOWING what a screw-up a school system can be.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Still at only the ALLEGED level. Seriously. Only started in court. I thought we went with "Innocent until proven guilty" in this country?.

So are we not allowed to discuss anything until proven guilty in a court of law from now on? My word ATS will be a boring place. The fact is there was an allegation against the school and this thread has been discussing this allegation and how abhorrent it is. If its proven wrong, then so be it, but I doubt that's going to be the case.

Again, allegedly. I can understand being impassioned over things. After all, the person you accused of bashing is impassioned against things, too. Just simmer it down until we see what comes out of this mess.

Nothing wrong with him being passionate about his beliefs, but when he constantly states that Homosexuality is wrong then that's bashing and I believe the scripture "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Perhaps if he lived by his own belief system, you and I would not be discussing this.

It really wasn't 100% necessary, sure. Mostly because it would cause the reaction that followed, so it wasn't the best thought-out example to give. But it was used as an example of another hot-button topic about Christianity coming anywhere near schools. And as an example, it does fit.

From an outside point of view and the fact you have probably not seen his previous threads and posts would lead to you having this opinion, the fact is though it is constant. His ramblings about Homosexuality have closed more than one thread down in the last month.

Does this include not bashing HIS beliefs? But yes, if all you see out of the dude is this, make a formal complaint. Seriously, we have an alert button at the bottom of the page. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to constantly post everything about that one opinion.

No need to make a complaint about the chap, the fact is other ATS members make him more than aware of what they think of his views and his constant bashing of the LGBT community.

It's new to me, too. Problem is that intolerance cuts both ways. Seriously. At the allegation stage and we rant? Someone mentions their views on homosexuality as an example, and we become intolerant of their own intolerance? Generally speaking, the actions of others that we despise the most are our own natural inclinations--irrelevant of if we act on it. And no, not talking about homosexuality. I'm talking about "intolerance bashing".

Why should I and other LGBT members on ATS have to tolerate his homophobic ramblings?

Definition of Homophobia;

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs

With that in mind, i find him offensive and whilst he is entitled to his beliefs, I to am entitled to mine. I find this chap Abhorrent as well as the School in the OP.

If you wish to discuss this issue on homosexuality, lets start another thread as this subject is totally off topic from the OP and I am starting to see a pattern emerging with threads like these and how they are derailed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I just wanted to say that I have never seen anything like this, or heard of this ever.. I believe this is just a rare incident. I have attended Louisiana public schools since kindergarten, as do my children. Anytime the subject of God came up, which it does from time to time, the teachers have always said to us that they are not allowed to talk on the subject and that they could be fired.

Before I reply, my question was: Who was harmed by the poster of Jesus on the school wall and how much were they harmed?

Also, let me make my beliefs clear. Everything is connected. Church and state are connected. You cannot separate church and state, because everything has always been connected and always will be connected. For example, teachers may be Christians. They may base their teaching practices on Christian concepts. If you were to completely separate church and state, you could not allow Christian teachers. They would all have to be non-religious, or atheists. Most likely they would have to be robots of some sort. The general statement "church and state must be separate" is simply unreasonable at face value. What the US constitution does say is not a mandate separating church and state but rather it is a ban on the establishment of a religion by the US government. The reason for the wall between church and state is simple. They want all power to them self and they don't want to share it. It isn't for your protection. It is for their protection.


I don't see the Irony. Here is a Thomas Jefferson quote:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."

That was from Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

Grimpachi
reply to post by fractal2

 

Does that golden rule have to be attached to a Christian GOD? You do know Buddha teaches the same but the child is being told that is stupid.

Right, that is my point. The golden rule does not have to be attached to a Christian God. Neither does the vast majority of what can be found in the Christian Bible. The vast majority of what is in the Christian Bible does not necessarily have to be attached to a Christian God or Christianity, which is why at the very least those parts should definitely be allowed in schools. Jesus is a person who lived in the past as part of history, so its okay to teach about him in schools. At the moment they do this in religion classes, which by your reasoning should be banned, isn't that right? You advocate for total separation of church and state (taking a step beyond just government not establishing a religion)?

That kid didn't believe in Jesus and that is his right the school does not have the right to force him to proclaim faith to a Christian god.

Of course. The specific topic I was writing about was the religious symbolism on the school walls. Some of what happened was acceptable and some of it was unacceptable at the school. I chose to write about what was acceptable, which is the posters on the wall. The freedom of speech allows us to reject the order to proclaim support for any religion without any retribution from government.

Do you think this issue is just about free speech? Do you know any other parts of the Constitution this could be about?

This is about freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and the part of the constitution that says the federal government may not establish a religion.

It isn't right for the constitution to be picking and choosing what philosophies to ban. If it may not establish a religion, then it should also not be allowed to support other lifestyles as being the best lifestyle. That part of the constitution should either be eliminated or expanded for the sake of consistency. I'd prefer elimination but expansion would be better than what we have now. A traditional moderate secular lifestyle is the one heavily promoted by government. Personally I'd rather have a Christian lifestyle being promoted over the traditional moderate secular lifestyle currently being actively promoted.

So, that is where it comes back to the taxpayers. Let the taxpayers decide how to waste their money as they chose. If the parent does not like the school then support a transfer to another one that respects the different lifestyle. When I see government-paid ads telling me not to do drugs (when the government has them self approved of thousands of drugs) I think of how its no different than an advertisement for a religion. Some drugs are good for you, and others are bad for you. Some religion-based ideas are good for you. Other religion-based ideas are bad for you. If taxpayers want to promote the religion-based ideas that are good for you with their money, like the golden rule, fine. If taxpayers want to promote Jesus, then okay, because Christians don't have a monopoly on Jesus and he is someone who can be evaluated outside the context of religion.

Who was harmed by the poster of Jesus on the school wall and how much were they harmed?

reply to post by fractal2


Well allegedly in this case the Buddhist Student was harmed by this Christian Dogma being taught in this School. He was ridiculed in front of his class mates for his beliefs and was belittled by the teacher when she called his religion "Stupid". He failed tests in the class as he never entered the religious dogma at the end of the test required by the teacher and so she failed him.

Possibly also affected are all those students in the science class being taught that the world was made in 7 days and that evolution was a stupid idea made up by stupid people.

If these allegations are substantiated then I am sure you will agree that we are talking more about the actions of these teachers rather than the posters on the wall. With that being said I would hope you and fellow Christians would find this wrong and has no place in civilised society. If however you think this is OK, then we have even more reason to separate religion and state.

Regarding the way tax is being spent, I think you will find someone on the previous pages of this thread gave a good reason why that should not be the case.

I do believe religion should be taught in a schools as part of religious education but it should encompass all religious beliefs and not just Christian Dogma. School is a place for a child to learn to read and write and to gain skills to obtain employment. Unless these students were all training to join the priesthood, then this school had no right to show such a lack of tolerance to this child's belief systems.

Its very concerning that the bolts of this story are ignored as I have aforementioned and that some members in this thread have instead decided that this whole debate is regarding a poster. This makes a mockery of the actual issues here whereby a school has allegedly showed intolerance to a students beliefs and in my mind the teachers involved should never be allowed to teach again. If this was a school and Islam or any other religious dogma was being taught, I can imagine that some members who have commented here would have a completely different opinion. I myself would find it abhorrent if it was any religion not just Christianity.

Before I address your post, the question you didn't answer is: What person was harmed by a Jesus poster on the wall? In your attempted answer, you described people being harmed by a non-Jesus poster. Okay, well, my question was (and is) about a Jesus poster on a wall at a public school.

flammadraco
reply to post by fractal2

 

Well allegedly in this case the Buddhist Student was harmed by this Christian Dogma being taught in this School. He was ridiculed in front of his class mates for his beliefs and was belittled by the teacher when she called his religion "Stupid". He failed tests in the class as he never entered the religious dogma at the end of the test required by the teacher and so she failed him.

That well summarizes most of the OP, but does not answer my question.

If these allegations are substantiated then I am sure you will agree that we are talking more about the actions of these teachers rather than the posters on the wall.

No. We are talking about the OP. You are talking about the parts of the story that interest you. I am talking about the parts of the story that interest me. There is nothing wrong with that except for the fact you are talking past me rather than to me. I can go around to any ATS thread and comment on the most trivial point made every time. I don't see a problem with that, and while I don't think I've done that here I won't argue about how important the various nuts and bolts of the OP are. If you think what I'm saying is irrelevant, fine, but its not wrong to talk about it just because you don't find it relevant or "the bolts".

With that being said I would hope you and fellow Christians would find this wrong and has no place in civilised society. If however you think this is OK, then we have even more reason to separate religion and state.

Please don't stereotype. Me and my fellow atheists and fellow Christians find some of what happened in the topic wrong, but other parts of what happened right.

Regarding the way tax is being spent, I think you will find someone on the previous pages of this thread gave a good reason why that should not be the case.

I doubt it was a good reason, which is why I won't look for it. If you can offer a one sentence summary and if the summary has potential then I'll look for it.

I do believe religion should be taught in a schools as part of religious education but it should encompass all religious beliefs and not just Christian Dogma. School is a place for a child to learn to read and write and to gain skills to obtain employment. Unless these students were all training to join the priesthood, then this school had no right to show such a lack of tolerance to this child's belief systems.

Its very concerning that the bolts of this story are ignored as I have aforementioned and that some members in this thread have instead decided that this whole debate is regarding a poster. This makes a mockery of the actual issues here whereby a school has allegedly showed intolerance to a students beliefs and in my mind the teachers involved should never be allowed to teach again. If this was a school and Islam or any other religious dogma was being taught, I can imagine that some members who have commented here would have a completely different opinion. I myself would find it abhorrent if it was any religion not just Christianity.

The Buddhist was harmed in class because the teacher ridiculed him. I know someone who was ridiculed in class by the teacher for allegedly farting loudly. He was also harmed. Both are equally wrong and should be addressed on equal grounds, not unequal grounds as you advocate by addressing religious ridicule in one law and then other ridicule on other laws. Making a rule specifically for religion-based ridicule or any other specific type of ridicule is ridicul-ous.

The Buddhist was harmed in class when his grades were docked for his religious positions. I know that people in classes are docked for their political positions, especially in college. Why deal with these identical issues separately? There is no sense in addressing only religious philosophies but not political philosophies with the same rule.

Religion is merely a branch of philosophy and the only reason there is a wall of separation between church and state is because the state would prefer all the power in their hands and not have to share it. If the power were with the people, which it isn't, there could be no walls. The people would be establishments of religion and the people would be establishments of state, and the same people establishing religious functions could establish state functions as well.

Who was harmed by a poster of Jesus on the wall at the school? Was someone harmed by the poster? Was nobody harmed by the poster?

Christianity wouldn't be so controversial if there was just an "About the Authors" page.

reply to post by fractal2


It isn't so much to worry about a single poster in a school but what is the purpose of it. Does it encourage exclusion of other religions within the student body which in turn alienates children of different faith. Well maybe not by itself and if it was by itself I doubt there would be any issue nor would the posters be brought to our attention in this case.

The thing is it wasn't by itself. From links I have already provided. And here again.

The environment created by the school was hostile to the student based on religion. So if you want to look at the case look at the entire case the hostility is a result of the sum of all it's parts.

Religio can be classified as a philosophy but not all philosophies are a religion. Worship is a mainstay of religion and if you have paid attention or looked into this you know worship is not only encouraged but very well be mandatory in that school. Yes there is photographic evidence which I have already provided links to.

This isn't a case of atheists vs christians it is Buddhists vs christians because the Buddhists rights were trampled.

The goverment should not endorse any religion and public school is a government entity.

ColoradoJens
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Wow. That's a humdinger of an article. Although outrageous and totally inappropriate I imagine this thread will soon be hit up with those claiming this is what America needs more of. This school is the opposite side example of why the US ranks nearly last in all education categories.

CJ

Apparently ....it worked for Finland. They came in at first place for public education and they teach Christianity in their public schools.

Grimpachi
reply to post by fractal2

 

It isn't so much to worry about a single poster in a school but what is the purpose of it. Does it encourage exclusion of other religions within the student body which in turn alienates children of different faith. Well maybe not by itself and if it was by itself I doubt there would be any issue nor would the posters be brought to our attention in this case.

The thing is it wasn't by itself. From links I have already provided. And here again.

The environment created by the school was hostile to the student based on religion. So if you want to look at the case look at the entire case the hostility is a result of the sum of all it's parts.

Religio can be classified as a philosophy but not all philosophies are a religion. Worship is a mainstay of religion and if you have paid attention or looked into this you know worship is not only encouraged but very well be mandatory in that school. Yes there is photographic evidence which I have already provided links to.

This isn't a case of atheists vs christians it is Buddhists vs christians because the Buddhists rights were trampled.

The goverment should not endorse any religion and public school is a government entity.

In response to fractal2, I concur with Grimpachi’s comments above.

The Buddhist was harmed in class because the teacher ridiculed him. I know someone who was ridiculed in class by the teacher for allegedly farting loudly. He was also harmed. Both are equally wrong and should be addressed on equal grounds, not unequal grounds as you advocate by addressing religious ridicule in one law and then other ridicule on other laws. Making a rule specifically for religion-based ridicule or any other specific type of ridicule is ridicul-ous.

What’s ridiculous is that the fact that you find discrimination against a persons theological beliefs the same as someone “farting” if that’s the case I have nothing more to say to you. At no point was I asking for different laws to address this schools discrimination as you already have laws in place for this. Not sure what the law on Farting is though!

flammadraco

The Buddhist was harmed in class because the teacher ridiculed him. I know someone who was ridiculed in class by the teacher for allegedly farting loudly. He was also harmed. Both are equally wrong and should be addressed on equal grounds, not unequal grounds as you advocate by addressing religious ridicule in one law and then other ridicule on other laws. Making a rule specifically for religion-based ridicule or any other specific type of ridicule is ridicul-ous.

What’s ridiculous is that the fact that you find discrimination against a persons theological beliefs the same as someone “farting” if that’s the case I have nothing more to say to you. At no point was I asking for different laws to address this schools discrimination as you already have laws in place for this. Not sure what the law on Farting is though!

Actually a teacher picking on a student for farting is worse in a way because they have less control over farting than their own religion. I'm sure there are plenty of people, especially female, who would rather a teacher pick on them for their religion than farting. Ultimately how bad the religious OR flatulescent discrimination is depends on the level of emotional harm suffered by the person being ridiculed.

Someone who does not care when someone picks on them for their religion but gets emotionally devastated when picked on for making a bad smell is better off being ridiculed by their teacher in front of the whole class over their fart than their religion? It is biased to argue that its worse to be ridiculed over religion than any other topic that the victim finds equally offensive.

It is quite the same thing to be discriminated against for farting than discriminated against for having a specific religion, because both cases may result in the same level of emotional harm to the child. The issue of the OP is religion but the underlying issue is harm. The person I'm thiking of was emotionally scarred for life after being ridiculed by the teacher, but that doesn't matter as much as if had been equally emotionally scarred for life after being ridiculed by the teacher for choice of religion?

I'll take your lack of response to my other points as meaning you are generally agreeing with what I've said. Also, how was the child harmed by the poster of Jesus? Taxpayers have the right to waste their tax money how they want, whether that be on religious expression in public schools or other other things they would like to teach. So yes, teachers may pray in school that is fine. That is why I continue to ask the question was the child harmed by the poster of Jesus?

GeisterFahrer

ColoradoJens
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Wow. That's a humdinger of an article. Although outrageous and totally inappropriate I imagine this thread will soon be hit up with those claiming this is what America needs more of. This school is the opposite side example of why the US ranks nearly last in all education categories.

CJ

Apparently ....it worked for Finland. They came in at first place for public education and they teach Christianity in their public schools.

Ah, no. They do have a religion class that teaches about religion..in one class. That is not anywhere near telling someone their religion is the wrong one. I wonder how the multitudes of non Christians would feel if they did considering their immigrant makeup, if they did, but they don't.

finland childhood education curriculum

CJ

reply to post by fractal2


Are you really trying to justify this by saying farting is worse? What does farting even have to do with this?

That's honestly the strangest and most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Good job.