School Prayer

[seashale76]

What I will say is that you are incorrect about Virginia, at the time the First Amendment was written Virginia had religious freedom -- and it is ironic that you used Virginia as your example. In fact, from reading the Federalist Papers and other writings from the framers of the Constitution, it was actually the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson, that was the blueprint for religious freedoms in the First Amendment. This is one of the primary reasons other writings of Thomas Jefferson, such as the Danbury Baptist letter that gives us the phrase "separation of Church and State", are used as evidence of what the Founding Fathers intended.

I was quite correct about my statement regarding Virginia, as I specifically stated that it had a state church when it was a colony. I am well aware of Thomas Jefferson' Act (and I have even written about it on numerous occasions in discussions here at CF).

Regardless of what the Framer's intended, what we do know is how the US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment through the years -- and the fact is that it is not (and hasn't ever really been interpreted) as only the laws Congress passes but rather that the government may not appear to encourage any religion. With later amendments that give citizens the same Constitutional protections from state and local government, this has grown to include any governmental official including school teachers.

Their intrepretation is so off base as to make the document itself pointless. They should make a new amendment and leave the very clear wording of the First Amendment alone.

Now, strictly speaking it appears that the appeals court would have agreed with you -- if the teacher was merely reading a Bible during silent reading time they would not have found a problem -- or so I see from reading the decision. Instead, because he also had a Christian poster in the room, along with Christian books (but not other religious books) in his classroom library, they found that he was promoting his religion. As such they determined that he was in violation of the First Amendment.

As for having the right to practice religion, you are correct that teachers and other government workers are free to practice their religion. What they are restricted from, like most other people in their jobs, is promoting (and openly practicing) their religion while working.

What I read also stated that he did have a variety of books for students as well. Regardless, I don't believe that he was in violation at all. Promoting one's religion is not the same as openly practicing. Promoting involves telling others they should convert and attempting to get them to believe the way you do. Openly practicing involves doing whatever one's religion requires at all times. And, what about government workers who, for various reasons, insist on saying their daily prayers at set times, wearing hijab, baptismal crosses, other forms of specific religious dress, eating or not eating certain foods, putting a small icon on their desk/workspace area- that is openly practicing a religion. As long as they do their jobs, I personally, don't care and don't see it as Congress establishing a religion. As long as I'm not taxed to support their various religions, philosophies, and new age whatever, then they can do as they like as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

In Britain you can go to RC, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim schools. Or you can send your kids to non-religious schools.

In religious schools, prayer is part of the child's day. In non-religious schools, it isn't.

Isn't that how it works in America?

 

[Belk]

In Britain you can go to RC, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim schools. Or you can send your kids to non-religious schools.

In religious schools, prayer is part of the child's day. In non-religious schools, it isn't.

Isn't that how it works in America?

In America all public schools are secular. There are a large number of religious private institutions.

 

[b&wpac4]

In America all public schools are secular. There are a large number of religious private institutions.

This is why such a big deal is made out of prayer in school. I would not want to send my child to a school where they will be taught religious elements I don't accept.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

This is why such a big deal is made out of prayer in school. I would not want to send my child to a school where they will be taught religious elements I don't accept.

Ahhh, thanks for all this.

Wouldn't it therefore be better and make the problem go away if there were state funded religious schools so people could send there kids there.

Presumably, they pay their taxes too?

 

[b&wpac4]

Ahhh, thanks for all this.

Wouldn't it therefore be better and make the problem go away if there were state funded religious schools so people could send there kids there.

Presumably, they pay their taxes too?

We can't even get ONE type of school correct, how would we be able to get others going?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

It's funny that in this forum I have read an awful lot of what seems mostly paranoia about Christian persecution/discrimination in the US, yet no-one has ever mentioned the fact that, apparently, the State won't fund Christian education.

This is odd.

 

[b&wpac4]

It's funny that in this forum I have read an awful lot of what seems mostly paranoia about Christian persecution/discrimination in the US, yet no-one has ever mentioned the fact that, apparently, the State won't fund Christian education.

This is odd.

The State won't fund Jewish or Muslim education, yet I would not consider them to be persecuted or discriminated against for it.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

The State won't fund Jewish or Muslim education, yet I would not consider them to be persecuted or discriminated against for it.

I would.

So let me get this straight ... the only state funded education on offer is secular education??
Why?

Don't muslims and Jews and Christians etc pay taxes or something?

 

[b&wpac4]

I would.

So let me get this straight ... the only state funded education on offer is secular education??
Why?

Don't muslims and Jews and Christians etc pay taxes or something?

You run into a problem. What do you do when you deal with states and counties that are huge but only have a few Jewish students. Would you setup a whole school just for them or force them to go to the secular school if their parents don't want them to? Then they are really discriminated against. The conclusion was to just provide the same education for all.

 

[Belk]

It's funny that in this forum I have read an awful lot of what seems mostly paranoia about Christian persecution/discrimination in the US, yet no-one has ever mentioned the fact that, apparently, the State won't fund Christian education.

This is odd.

Mostly because we do not see a need for education targeted at one sub group. The idea is to have the same education for everyone and leave the specifics of religion up to the parents for instruction.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

You run into a problem. What do you do when you deal with states and counties that are huge but only have a few Jewish students. Would you setup a whole school just for them or force them to go to the secular school if their parents don't want them to? Then they are really discriminated against. The conclusion was to just provide the same education for all.

If there weren't sufficient numbers and they were serious enough in their desire to have a religious education for their kids, they could move.

At the moment, if I'm understanding this correctly, if their parents want them to go to a religious school then they are already discriminated against if their parents are too poor.
Nice.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Mostly because we do not see a need for education targeted at one sub group. The idea is to have the same education for everyone and leave the specifics of religion up to the parents for instruction.

Do you have a high rate of homeschooling in the US then?

My guess is it must be particularly high.

 

[b&wpac4]

If there weren't sufficient numbers and they were serious enough in their desire to have a religious education for their kids, they could move.

At the moment, if I'm understanding this correctly, if their parents want them to go to a religious school then they are already discriminated against if their parents are too poor.
Nice.

One cannot be discriminated against if they have to go with everybody else. I want to live in a mansion with a pool, I am too poor. I am discriminated against?

 

[Belk]

Do you have a high rate of homeschooling in the US then?

My guess is it must be particularly high.

I believe it is fairly significant but I am not sure what the percentages are. I know a large percentage of those who are home schooled are fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

One cannot be discriminated against if they have to go with everybody else. I want to live in a mansion with a pool, I am too poor. I am discriminated against?

I think you miss my point.
If I understand the situation correctly, the state provides schools that are paid for by the taxpayer.
Let's now say you have two families who both pay taxes to fund the schools. One is a Jewish family who want their child to receive education in the Jewish faith in an environment that adheres to the Kosher laws. The other is an atheist family who wish their child to receive a completely secular education.
Neither can afford to educate their children privately.

The state is willing to provide the education that the atheist family wants for their child, but the Jewish family, despite paying the same taxes, are denied.

It strikes me as odd that secularism in education is the default position.
How did this occur?

 

[wanderingone]

It strikes me as odd that secularism in education is the default position.
How did this occur?

Why is it odd? The secular school does not teach atheism either.

 

[Maren]

I think you miss my point.
If I understand the situation correctly, the state provides schools that are paid for by the taxpayer.
Let's now say you have two families who both pay taxes to fund the schools. One is a Jewish family who want their child to receive education in the Jewish faith in an environment that adheres to the Kosher laws. The other is an atheist family who wish their child to receive a completely secular education.
Neither can afford to educate their children privately.

The state is willing to provide the education that the atheist family wants for their child, but the Jewish family, despite paying the same taxes, are denied.

It strikes me as odd that secularism in education is the default position.
How did this occur?

I think the problem the problem some have here is that secular has come to have two rather different definitions and people get confused as to which is meant. In the US, when it is said that education is secular, what is meant is the definition "Not specifically relating to religion". What it doesn't mean is that some type of secular religion is taught or that some type of agnosticism/atheism is taught.

Much of the reason for this is that the US is a multicultural society. Do you really want the government deciding what religious education your children receive? I mean, even if they find a Catholic teacher, how do you know the government wouldn't hire a liberal Catholic who teaches kids that the Vatican is wrong on its positions on Birth Control and other issues? Yet the government would be doing exactly what you are asking for here, providing Catholic instruction.

Even worse, suppose you live somewhere like Texas and the majority are Fundamentalist Christians and as such their version of Christianity is taught. Would you not have a problem when the teachers teach Fundamentalist Christianity -- particularly when the teach that Catholics aren't really Christians and why? When they try to "save" your child (both save in the Baptist tradition of declaring oneself to Christ and save from Catholocism)? And it would happen in some areas of Texas, you can't expect them to have a school simply for the handful of Catholics that exist in some towns, can you?

In fact, this was the basis for the lawsuit Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Granted, this lawsuit was simply over the prayer offered prior to football games but, because of the evangelical nature of the prayers typically offered, it compelled a Catholic and Mormon family to sue.

And this is why education in the US is secular, it isn't to teach against religion -- in fact it is to try to ensure religion is not taught against. The idea is that parents will teach their children religion in the home and will do it much better than the government would be capable of doing.

 

[MinorityofOne]

And this is why education in the US is secular, it isn't to teach against religion -- in fact it is to try to ensure religion is not taught against. The idea is that parents will teach their children religion in the home and will do it much better than the government would be capable of doing.

Nailed it!

 

[BigBadWlf]

I was quite correct about my statement regarding Virginia, as I specifically stated that it had a state church when it was a colony. I am well aware of Thomas Jefferson' Act (and I have even written about it on numerous occasions in discussions here at CF).



Their intrepretation is so off base as to make the document itself pointless. They should make a new amendment and leave the very clear wording of the First Amendment alone.

Why? The amendment is abundantly clear: The people of this country have the right to engage in what ever religion they choose. The people have the right to be free from coercion to practice a particular religion. The Government will not enact laws prohibiting people from enjoying the religion of their choice. The Government will not endorse any particular religion and treat all religions equally

What I read also stated that he did have a variety of books for students as well. Regardless, I don't believe that he was in violation at all. Promoting one's religion is not the same as openly practicing. Promoting involves telling others they should convert and attempting to get them to believe the way you do.

Promoting also includes pressuring individuals to practice a particular religion as well as rewarding individuals who practice a particular religion and punishing those who do not practice a specific religion.

When one speak of schools one is looking at a particularly vulnerable population (children) who often cannot advocate for their own rights and cannot defend themselves when their rights – such as the right to not be forced to participate in the religion of their teacher – is violated.