Student Was So Offended by How Her School Pushed ‘Christian Beliefs’ That She’s Suing Them

[brewmama]

So you'd have no problem with a state enforcing a state religion? You realize how hypocritical that sounds?

I don't care how it sounds, that's how it was in the early US. Post Constitution.

 

[brewmama]

As the prophet Betty Bowers once said, "If I discriminate against or criticize you, it's called religious freedom. If you return the favor, it's called persecution."

Except that there was no discrimination or criticizing going on.

 

[Hank77]

I don't care how it sounds, that's how it was in the early US. Post Constitution.

This is true, it was the way the colonies had been established by individual denominations of Christianity. Mass. the Puritans, RI was written like the Constitution, no state religion, everyone welcome [in fact George Washington had read RI's constitution and liked the idea for the US Constitution], I think it was Maryland where the RCC was welcome, maybe the Jews, too, CT were Congregation Churches, etc.
The Supreme Court, 1947, ruled against the states, saying that the Establishment Clause does include the state governments.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't care how it sounds, that's how it was in the early US. Post Constitution.

That was pre U.S. constitution, the constitution negated anything in the state constitutions that required a religious test, and by association any official state religion. The fact that they didn't explicitly forbid the states from doing it didn't mean they could just flagrantly ignore the constitutional principles made clear.

 

[brewmama]

That was pre U.S. constitution, the constitution negated anything in the state constitutions that required a religious test, and by association any official state religion. The fact that they didn't explicitly forbid the states from doing it didn't mean they could just flagrantly ignore the constitutional principles made clear.

Did you miss the post right before yours?

 

[muichimotsu]

They don't auto update, strictly speaking. I contributed a bit extra: the whole "no religious test" clause, for example.

The point remains that taking the constitution purely at face value is poor jurisprudence.

 

[Armoured]

That is the meme, but it isn't what liberals think. Liberals have and continue to attempt to extend special rights to certain groups at the expense of the religious freedoms of others, particularly Christians.

"Special rights" like being allowed to go to the library instead of being compelled to attend religious indoctrination?

 

[Vylo]

I don't care how it sounds, that's how it was in the early US. Post Constitution.

While true, it was shortly after that, that the constitution was used as grounds to disallow those state churches.

 

[loveofourlord]

And clearly, you need to go back to school and learn the basics on evolution. No scientist worth his degree has ever claimed that we evolved from monkeys.

Actually by definition we evolved from monkey's this is a stupid argument, because the animal at the split between human and monkey lineages would be by definition a monkey since old world and new world monkey's split off before we did.

 

[The Cadet]

Easy. The states most definitely had established churches, as it was Congress that was forbidden to do it.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


That's from the 14th amendment to the constitution. Incorporation seems an absolutely logical conclusion based on that text. But even if it weren't a foregone conclusion:

I don't care how it sounds, that's how it was in the early US. Post Constitution.

Does that make any sense? Congress cannot abridge your right to free speech and free exercise of religion, but your state can? That's nonsensical, and quite frankly a really stupid way to run a country.

 

[KCfromNC]

You'd be surprised. Granted, surgery gains very little from evolution.

It does explain why we can transplant non-human body parts into people and have them work surprisingly well, for one thing.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

The children are our future. Scary isn't it.

 

[Red Fox]

The difference is that merely telling kids about religion is not impressing it on them, especially not in a primary definition, which entails affecting the mind or emotions. If all you're doing is explaining the general beliefs and qualifying that this isn't a comprehensive education, it's a better start than throwing them into the world and not even giving them a grasp on critical thinking or research and then expect them to not react like jibbering monkeys with "teh Muslims".

I can see your point and can somewhat agree. I have personal experience with Christian indoctrination and I know the history of "Christianizing" the Indians, so I'm very leery and cautious when it comes to (forced) assimilation and indoctrination of any kind of religion, particularly Christianity, especially on young children and young adults.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't care how it sounds, that's how it was in the early US. Post Constitution.

And pre-14th Amendment.

Times change; get with the program.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for pointing out my grammatical error.
There have been different theories over time, so yeah, theories.

Not sure how well you understand scientific theories, but it appears to be not much from the context of your posts.

And by the way, whether you realize it or not, you rely on scientific theories everyday of your life, in a multitude of ways.

 

[pat34lee]

So, they violate the establishment clause, get a court to beat them down on it, and then violate it again.

The title of this article could hardly be more disingenuous. The first amendment and the modern interpretation thereof are pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You can't do this in a public school. You just can't.

Who writes the laws, schools or Congress? Tell me exactly how the schools are able to violate something that only Congress can do.

No matter. The government has no place in the schools anyway. They should be turned over to the states who can teach religion in them or not as they see fit.

 

[bhsmte]

Who writes the laws, schools or Congress? Tell me exactly how the schools are able to violate something that only Congress can do.

No matter. The government has no place in the schools anyway. They should be turned over to the states who can teach religion in them or not as they see fit.

And what if the state you live in decides to teach a religion in the public schools that you don't agree with?

 

[pat34lee]

This is true, it was the way the colonies had been established by individual denominations of Christianity. Mass. the Puritans, RI was written like the Constitution, no state religion, everyone welcome [in fact George Washington had read RI's constitution and liked the idea for the US Constitution], I think it was Maryland where the RCC was welcome, maybe the Jews, too, CT were Congregation Churches, etc.
The Supreme Court, 1947, ruled against the states, saying that the Establishment Clause does include the state governments.

The Supreme Court, like the President and Congress, has overstepped its authority many times.

 

[pat34lee]

And what if the state you live in decides to teach a religion in the public schools that you don't agree with?

Move to another state or change the laws by changing the politicians. That was why the states were to have the power, not the feds. So you would have real choices in how the states were run. Under the Constitution, California can be Communist if they want, as long as they pay for it themselves. Every state should be sovereign in its own territory.

 

[bhsmte]

Move to another state or change the laws by changing the politicians. That was why the states were to have the power, not the feds. So you would have real choices in how the states were run. Under the Constitution, California can be Communist if they want, as long as they pay for it themselves. Every state should be sovereign in its own territory.

Each state could be it's own theocracy then, according to you and that would pass muster, with the constitution?