Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

[Fervent]

There weren't.

The US Constitution was not written during or after a war. It was written (1787) in a nation at peace with an ineffectual government (the Articles of Confederation). There wasn't a war in 1789 when the First Congress under the new Constitution sent the Bill of Rights to the states for ratification. In fact the only amendments directly tied to a war were the 13th amendment (outlawing slavery) sent by Congress for ratification before Johnston surrendered to Sherman and the 26th amendment (18 year voting age) rapidly drafted by Congress and ratified by the states in 1971 during the Vietnam War under the theory "old enough to be drafted, old enough to vote".

Seems rather arbitrary to start with the Constitution, as if it didn't take the Revolutionary war to start the whole process that led to it.

 

[BCP1928]

You're making this sound far more nefarious than what I'm proposing, because even the coach/teacher going to a separate location and allowing students to join them is not allowed. In fact, I am relatively certain there was even a recent case where a coach was fired for praying by the flag pole with no student involvement before football games.

He won that case, remember?

And when such violations occur, there are the structures in place to deal with them. But that's no reason to relegate the practice.

It just makes too much of a nuisance. And it's always Evangelicals, nobody else makes a fuss about it and some don't even think it's an appropriate place to pray.. Why should your religion be privileged in that way?

 

[Fervent]

He won that case, remember?

I wasn't aware, though even in winning the case the act still has a chilling effect.

It just makes too much of a nuisance. And it's always Evangelicals, nobody else makes a fuss about it and some don't think it's an appropriate place to play.. Why should your religion be privileged in that way?

There you go jumping at shadows again. Where have I asked for a privileged status for any particular religious expression? I'm all for it being open to all, what I am opposed to is the "secular" privilege that is actually nothing more than hostility to religion rather than even handed pluralistic sentiment. I'm even of the opinion that fake religions like Satanism should enjoy the same access.

 

[Bradskii]

So are we just allowed to make little adjustments and that’s allowed?

If I claimed Trump was “grabbing them in their purse”, would that be fine.

I have no idea what this post means...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wasn't aware, though even in winning the case the act still has a chilling effect.

There you go jumping at shadows again. Where have I asked for a privileged status for any particular religious expression? I'm all for it being open to all, what I am opposed to is the "secular" privilege that is actually nothing more than hostility to religion rather than even handed pluralistic sentiment. I'm even of the opinion that fake religions like Satanism should enjoy the same access.

.... however, to be honest, I'm not really 'down' with Baphomet and kiddie statues.

 

[BCP1928]

I wasn't aware, though even in winning the case the act still has a chilling effect.

I should think you would regard him as a bit of a hero for testing the limits like that.

There you go jumping at shadows again. Where have I asked for a privileged status for any particular religious expression?

You have asked for a unique form of religious observance--yours--to be allowed.

I'm all for it being open to all, what I am opposed to is the "secular" privilege that is actually nothing more than hostility to religion rather than even handed pluralistic sentiment. I'm even of the opinion that fake religions like Satanism should enjoy the same access.

Forbidding all is certainly even handed. Allowing all in would waste a lot of time and would be biased against those groups who don't think it is an appropriate thing to do.

 

[Fervent]

I should think you would regard him as a bit of a hero for testing the limits like that.

That something so benign 'tests the limits" is a testament to the problem.

You have asked for a unique form of religious observance--yours--to be allowed.

That's quite the twist, and that you would engage in such tactics makes me question whether you are engaging in bad faith.

Forbidding all is certainly even handed. Allowing all in would waste a lot of time and would be biased against those groups who don't think it is an appropriate thing to do.

How would choosing not to participate be biased? You sure have some twisted logic, and forbidding all isn't "even handed' because it privileges a particular form of religious expression...which at this point I can only presume is yours, despite your self-declaration.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That you have such truth, when all you really have is a paltry substitute that never escapes its ignorant foundation.

I'm not interested in your "truth" assertions. They have nothing to do with this thread.

Ah, it appeared a generalization of some sort.

Odd, that sure sounds like atheists are being privileged in their religious perspective since they face no such censure in making disclosures. And no, I am not saying atheism is a religion.

To be clear, in the 20+ years [I've been a non-believer] the number of people who know my name and my non-belief is quite small. I do not disclose it readily and certainly not in a classroom.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree. Religion served a civil, ceremonial function in government and society, such as congressional chaplains, and from the beginning, none of the Founders were hostile to the civil institution of religion, that wasn't how they thought of the construction of the 1st Ammendment. French style secularism wasn't part of it.

What? Apart from a few minor abominations like the Congressional chaplains praying at the start of each legislative day, there is no "ceremonial function of religion in government". (Society is different. It is not government.)

 

[Fervent]

I'm not interested in your "truth" assertions. They have nothing to do with this thread.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have made your flippant remarks about so-called "evidence"?

To be clear, in the 20+ years the number of people who know my name and my non-belief is quite small. I do not disclose it readily and certainly not in a classroom.

That's neither here nor there, but good for you I suppose.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ah, I misunderstood. What benefit is such a form supposed to produce that isn't already covered by current oversite practices?

What oversight? The churches pay no taxes, and post no information on their finances.

 

[Fervent]

What oversight? The churches pay no taxes, and post no information on their finances.

So what is supposed to be accomplished with the form?

 

[rambot]

It's called building rapport/relationship. Teaching is far more than just conveying academic instruction, and to properly motivate and manage classrooms it requires the ability to engage the students to some degree both in their private lives and our lives. While there is a theoretical amount of tolerance for religious disclosure, even answering student questions can land us in hot water if some parent decides to object.

IT didn't used to be this way. Once upon a time, students could just learn from teachers. It appears that kids are more in need of connections; hence teachers have this extra step of work to do that they are not getting at home.

That said, my students have asked me about it in a public school and I tell them I'm a Christian. But, as you can see, I'm not a Christian that shies away of the brutality that my religion inflicted around the world...cause it was brutal.
As Blaster said, I replied "I'm a Christian. What page have you turned your workbook to Andy?" Also, the conversations have never gotten more specific than that. Going in depth as to what my specific spiritual beliefs are as a teacher is not 'building rapport' in my mind and leads very VERY close to a lot of behaviours parents would not tolerate happenning to their children.
If, on the other hand, those conversations took place outside of classroom time I think there could be a WEEEEEE bit more leeway but you're still playing with fire I think.

 

[rambot]

There's a difference between judging people and ideologies. And belief systems are far more relevant than you give credit for, as they inform character and competence. But then again, your judgment is more or less arbitrary so why should anyone care how you judge them?

Well, his judgement is no more or less arbitrary than your or mine to get down to it.

Belief systems should inform character; but they don't always. Case in point, find me two christians that are the same.

 

[Fervent]

IT didn't used to be this way. Once upon a time, students could just learn from teachers. It appears that kids are more in need of connections; hence teachers have this extra step of work to do that they are not getting at home.

Yeah, though I think a lot of that is because of the breakdown of authority and a shift to more "casual" social dynamics

That said, my students have asked me about it in a public school and I tell them I'm a Christian. But, as you can see, I'm not a Christian that shies away of the brutality that my religion inflicted around the world...cause it was brutal.
As Blaster said, I replied "I'm a Christian. What page have you turned your workbook to Andy?" Also, the conversations have never gotten more specific than that. Going in depth as to what my specific spiritual beliefs are as a teacher is not 'building rapport' in my mind and leads very VERY close to a lot of behaviours parents would not tolerate happenning to their children.
If, on the other hand, those conversations took place outside of classroom time I think there could be a WEEEEEE bit more leeway but you're still playing with fire I think.

In my area even responding in that manner might get you a visit from admin. And while I get there is a need for a certain professional detachment and specifics can understandably create issues given the power dynamic, there's also a need for modeling polite discussion on difficult topics. Though of course this would depend on what age range we're talking about, with my primary frame of reference being upper high school. I'm not suggesting it should just be wide open, but being able to relate with students on a personal level is crucial to classroom management with the way kids today function.

 

[Fervent]

Well, his judgement is no more or less arbitrary than your or mine to get down to it.

In a sense, but the arbitrariness is double for him given that he has no ground whatsoever other than his personal opinion.

Belief systems should inform character; but they don't always. Case in point, find me two christians that are the same.

Yeah, it's a shame. And while disagreements are bound to happen, the commonality between Christians generally allows for more fruitful dialogue and possibility to change when presented with cause. Though of course self-disclosure is not the best identifier for Christians IMO.

 

[BCP1928]

That something so benign 'tests the limits" is a testament to the problem.

He incurred great personal hardship trying to see how much prayer he could get in.

That's quite the twist, and that you would engage in such tactics makes me question whether you are engaging in bad faith.

What tactics are those? I just answered your question.

How would choosing not to participate be biased? You sure have some twisted logic, and forbidding all isn't "even handed' because it privileges a particular form of religious expression...which at this point I can only presume is yours, despite your self-declaration.

What form is that? I can't see how forbidding all is anything other than even handed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Seems rather arbitrary to start with the Constitution, as if it didn't take the Revolutionary war to start the whole process that led to it.

It is not arbitrary. @Bradskii specifically was speaking of the Bill of Rights. (I thought he'd also directly mentioned the Constitution itself, but my point is not weakened by just the Bill of Rights.) The Bill of Rights was not imposed by force. Writing and approving it did not require violence. As @Bradskii stated, it was voted on by the Congress and the states. No violence. (The same is true of the Constitution, but it was not actually mentioned.) Even the other Amendments I mentioned (13th and 26th) were not imposed by force, but by Congress and the votes of the states. The same is true of even the Articles of Confederation. It was not imposed on the states or the people by force, but created by the Continental Congress and ratified by the states willingly.

 

[rambot]

In a sense, but the arbitrariness is double for him given that he has no ground whatsoever other than his personal opinion.

He 'has no ground whatsoever"? How so?
Just because you disagree with the appropriateness of the SOURCE of that grounding, it doesn't mean he doesn't have grounding.

Yeah, it's a shame. And while disagreements are bound to happen, the commonality between Christians generally allows for more fruitful dialogue and possibility to change when presented with cause.

hmmm.....
There isn't really a very long history of that either. It tends to just make a new denomination.

Though of course self-disclosure is not the best identifier for Christians IMO.

Pretty fair point. But I'm not sure we'd agree with what the rubric is best to use.

 

[rambot]

Yeah, though I think a lot of that is because of the breakdown of authority and a shift to more "casual" social dynamics

Hmm.. I've never thought of that; Interesting.
I would not say that's hte case in my class personally. I teach a behaviour class so having a good connection with individual students makes a HUUUUUGE difference.
When you hear about their homelife, you don't get the impression their parents spend a lot of time doing stuff with them (in my class of nine, for example, 1 had a DINNER made specifically for them but none of them ate as a family).
I would say my version of authority is not nearly as threatenning intimidating or punitive as past teachers used to utilize..

And my kids are pretty brilliant in my class considering their struggles; Our government SUDDENLY (like 1 working day ago) asked for a complete list of ALL classroom violence or behaviours that threaten safety. From the day we were informed till the day it is collected, there is 3 days.
They won't simply take our log notes. Teachers are responsible for refilling out all their paperwork. The behaviour teacher for gr.1-3 has one boy so challenging that she will just end up writing a date, a list of behaviours and (x16, x20) and then do that every day he's been here. That's pedantic.
Anyways, I'm happy to say that I only had 3 incidents (same girl; all within a week; it was a struggle week for her for sure). My kids are calm, assurred and willing yo try for me.

In my area even responding in that manner might get you a visit from admin. And while I get there is a need for a certain professional detachment and specifics can understandably create issues given the power dynamic, there's also a need for modeling polite discussion on difficult topics.

I agree. ESP. at the high school level. At that point (like gr.12) I would have ZERO patience for parents complaints about those issues....so that probably wouldn't work for me.

Though of course this would depend on what age range we're talking about, with my primary frame of reference being upper high school. I'm not suggesting it should just be wide open, but being able to relate with students on a personal level is crucial to classroom management with the way kids today function.

I teacher junior high. The kids just arent that interested in the minutae of that part of my life. They tend to ask about my chickens, my music, my kids, and my free time a LOT more.