Florida + School + Bibles = Stoopid

GreatTeacherMacRoss

Have fun picking out the enormous logical jumps and fallacies in this little bit o' news.

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5487295

See, they need to make it legal for me to kill stupid people. Just me. You better believe I'd enjoy the job and be damn good at it too. Think of all the problems I could solve.

HMTKSteve

As long as you start with the stupid person in the mirror.

trogdor9

(Obligatory FSM reference)

Pilitus

You, I think it's people like this who set so many of us religiously neutral people against religion, when they start trying to force it down people's throats. I have the common courtesy to not force schools to teach about the implausibility of God, so they should have the common courtesy to stick with brainwashing their own children.

Jason

You, I think it's people like this who set so many of us religiously neutral people against religion, when they start trying to force it down people's throats. I have the common courtesy to not force schools to teach about the implausibility of God, so they should have the common courtesy to stick with brainwashing their own children.

I don't see anybody forcing anything. Because this is a local issue and not part of a state-mandated curriculum, it can only be offered as an elective. That means only students who want to be in the class will be "forced." I don't see why anyone would want to blacklist the Bible or other religious teachings anyway. A public classroom certainly won't be a pulpit to preach from, but it might be a place where religion can be analyzed from a more intellectual perspective. It seems like the perfect place to let kids draw their own conclusions.

That being said, I don't understand why we aren't inclusive of ideologies. We claim that America is the land of the free and rail against banned books, but then we fight tooth and nail to keep certain ones WE don't like out of the classroom. Why shouldn't kids be studying Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism, and Budhism in class? Having an understanding of world religions might even help educate us about the reason why certain events are happening today.

Rym

That being said, I don't understand why we aren't inclusive of ideologies.

Public, tax-funded schools shouldn't be teaching ideology. They should be teaching facts, theories, sciences, history, etc... Teaching religion at face value has no place.

A public classroom certainly won't be a pulpit to preach from, but it might be a place where religion can be analyzed from a more intellectual perspective. It seems like the perfect place to let kids draw their own conclusions.

Yes, if that were the intent. The problem is that none of these people pushing the Christian bible in schools have that intent. They're pushing their own religion. They have an agenda. They're not looking for a class critical of their book: they're looking for a class that promotes their book. They'd protest the inclusion of any non-Christian religious classes just as fast as they'd protest the lack of Christian ones.

It's just like the issue with "Intelligent Design." No one has ever promoted the idea in a school without the ulterior motive of discrediting the Theory of Evolution and promoting religious values. There is no "Intelligent Design Theory:" it's a fabrication and a smokescreen. The idea of even bringing it up in a science class is laughable.

We claim that America is the land of the free and rail against banned books, but then we fight tooth and nail to keep certain ones WE don't like out of the classroom.

These people don't want to study religious texts in an objective manner. They don't want to study world religion. They want to study the Christian bible from the perspective of the Christian bible. It's just another attempt to slip Christianity into public schools. If this were a literature class that used the Christian bible as a text, there would be no problem.

Now, if the Christians were fighting to put comparative religion classes in, or for Islamic, Shintoist, and Satanic studies as well, then I'd be all right with them. The fact that they're pushing only their own religion speaks volumes of their intent.

Jason

Still, the ones pushing for the class wouldn't be teaching it, nor would they be in the class. So they lose. It's irrelevant what they would want the class to be. They would have no bearing on the curriculum, which would be compiled by teachers and administrators in compliance with state law and state board of education regulations.

There is a huge difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion. I think you are getting confused about where the line is.

Remember, I'm not arguing for putting religion in school here. But as much as you and Scott defend so many freedoms, slam Chinese Internet censorship, and rail against DRM, is it very strange to hear you effectively argue against teaching the valid facts, figures, and history surrounding the religion to which 83 percent of Americans say they belong. There should be a fundamental freedom of information there, not a blatant censorship of it in the name of anti-religious sentiment.

In the case of Christianity, the bible is the source material. It's relevant to our national history and identity, as well as ongoing developments in news around the world. And while they're at it, I would encourage the school to teach other religious texts and histories as well. They are valuable resources.

I understand where you're coming from, Rym, but we're just going to get into the old seperation of church and state argument, and I don't have the energy for that. Just because the government doesn't endorse a religion doesn't mean it has to sever all ties to religious documents. We could go back and forth about having the 10 commandments on court property, or making students say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's old news.

Apreche

I have no problem with public schools teaching about religion as long as it is complete and honest.

The following are examples of things that may be taught in public schools:

Jews believe that there was a man named Moses who freed their people from slavery in Egypt. Thanks to archeological evidence we know pretty much for certain that jews were never slaves in Egypt, nor was anyone else.

Every major religion in the world can be traced back to a secular origin. Here are the secular origins of all the major religions.

The problem is that most teachers, let alone non-teachers, don't know these things. Most people in this country, believing in god, would have trouble teaching kids scientific facts that directly contradict commonly held religious beliefs. I'm not even taking into account how much parents would complain when their kids learned the actual secular origins of the old testament, new testament and the Koran. These people are going crazy enough when we try to teach their kids evolution. If we tried to teach them about religion in a constitutional fashion it would only make things crazier.

I would love it if schools taught about religion properly. I recognize it will likely never happen, and it's probably a bad idea. We're much better off just not talking about religion at all. The best way to deal with crazy people is to ignore them, not to poke them.

Andrew

Just because the government doesn't endorse a religion doesn't mean it has to sever all ties to religious documents.

Yes it does. The right to believe AND practice religion is an individual liberty. Religion has NEVER mixed with politics well. If you can show me one case in which state ties with religion have not resulted in oppression, violence or ignorance, I MIGHT be willing to consider otherwise.

Jason

Just because the government doesn't endorse a religion doesn't mean it has to sever all ties to religious documents.

Yes it does. The right to believe AND practice religion is anindividualliberty. Religion has NEVER mixed with politics well. If you can show me one case in which state ties with religion have not resulted in oppression, violence or ignorance, I MIGHT be willing to consider otherwise.

There are so many red herrings there I don't know where to begin.

Andrew

There are so many red herrings there I don't know where to begin.

Meh, words spoken with emotion. Aristotle can spite me on my rhetoric if he wishes. I still think it is a valid point though.

BTW, here is an interesting video loosely related.

Jason

LOL Water. Not spoken with emotion - but your post contradicted all the basic ground rules this thread has already established. You assumed that we were talking state-sponsored religion instead of state-sponsored education. Practice and analysis are different. Apples and bananas, my friend.

I think Scott got the gist of what I was trying to say.

As for the video, it addresses the question "what" and not "why."

Andrew

LOL Water. Not spoken with emotion - but your post contradicted all the basic ground rules this thread has already established. You assumed that we were talking state-sponsored religion instead of state-sponsored education. Practice and analysis are different. Apples and bananas, my friend.

As for the video, it addresses the question "what" and not "why."

I am not going to lie...I sorta skimmed the first umm...all posts above the one I commented on. :P

Kilarney

If you can show me one case in which state ties with religion have not resulted in oppression, violence or ignorance, I MIGHT be willing to consider otherwise.

Many public universities offer comparative religion classes. There is no "pushing" of any religion. It is merely a class that compares religions and discusses their place in the geo-political landscape.

How about the government prosecuting a "shaman" who molested children, and believed that this was a necessary part of his "religion?"

How about zoning laws that permit a church to be built in a specified area?

How about tax laws that allow religous institutions to be considered non-profit? (Note that religious organizations that claim tax exempt status are prohibited from engaging in political activity.)

How about contract law that allows a church to enter into contracts?

How about hate-crime laws that enhance penalties for assaulting someone because of their religous belief?

How about a Holocaust memorial on government property?

Now are you re-considering your statement?

Trust me, if the ACLU hasn't sued and won, chances are it is legal! Remember, the founding fathers, were concerned with the government mandating the practice of a particular religion. They had no problem with laws that addressed religion, but were neutral on their face - as long as those laws did not impinge on anybody's right to exercise their religion. It sounds like a minor distinction, but it is not.

While the government may not promote a particular religion, the constitution also requires the government to protect one's right to practice their religion. This must often be done with law. (e.g.: Bill Clinton signing a law that protected churches from onerous zoning regulations.)

I think where you are missing the boat is that it is often necessary to have state "ties" with religion to protect that very freedom.

GreatTeacherMacRoss

How about tax laws that allow religious institutions to be considered non-profit? (Note that religious organizations that claim tax exempt status are prohibited from engaging in political activity.)

And how about when they turn around make large donations to candidates anyhow? You know, like they do already through either enormous legal loopholes or simply ignoring the laws? What then, smart guy?

My beef with this article and the Floridiots involved is that they are AGAIN trying to find a way to sneak a religion into PUBLIC schools under the guise of 'education'.
You want to teach your faith and about your faith? Fine. Do it at home, in a private school, or a place of worship. But I'll be damned (ba-doom, ching!) if I'll ignore someone trying to foist a religion into a public school's curriculum. Did you RFTA? The guy said children need to learn about the religion the country was built on! If that doesn't reek of lamely covered proselytization, I don't know what does.

Cremlian

It's one thing to teach the historical background of religion. Like a course called "the influence of Christianity on the history of Europe" would be fine as long as it wasn't making statements about the truthfulness of said religion that was influencing the history of Europe. That's perfectly responsible. The second however a religion is taught outside of this context like a "this is why Christianity is true and all others are heretics" in a public school all is over!

I wish we could get rid of the non-profit status for religions. I mean, look at the catholic church. How much money do they have? Especially because well, Churches do engage in political activity.

How about a Holocaust memorial on government property?

While I agree with your point. that's not exactly an example of a religious institution on government property. I mean the Holocaust also killed lots of Gypsies, Socialists and "deviates". Not like the Holocaust memorial is spouting that the Jews are the best!

Kilarney

And how about when they turn around make large donations to candidates anyhow? You know, like they do already through either enormous legal loopholes or simply ignoring the laws? What then, smart guy?

Please cite an example of this. If you can, the answer is that you fix the loophole. If an individual member of a church decides to make a donation, that is well within their constitutional right. You cite a "loophole" or ignoring the law. It's not too hard to figure out that you should fix the loophole or prosecute whomever ignores the law. How tough a concept is that?

You have to think this through. Requiring churches to pay taxes is an improper infringement on their constitutional right to association free from government intervention. I'm surprised you've adopted a position that is the polar opposite to your original argument. In any event, if they pay taxes then they can engage in the political speech that you want to protect against.

The guy said children need to learn about the religion the country was built on!

Actually, any history teacher that ignores lessons on the Pilgrims, Puritans, the Inquisition etc ought to be fired for malpractice. I understand that your point is somewhat different, but you have to be careful lest you throw too wide a net.

I wish we could get rid of the non-profit status for religions. I mean, look at the catholic church. How much money do they have? Especially because well, Churches do engage in political activity.

Once again, you do not throw out the constitution to fix a problem that can be fixed through other means.

I have no problem with an optional course that teaches the literary aspects of the bible. Let's face it - very few, if any, works of literature have had such a profound impact on world history and society. To study this effect is an absolutely appropriate academic endeavor. However, the course must not advocate religion and/or the contents of the bible.

Frankly, I doubt this is appropriate for a High School level course, but I have no problem with the concept. While government ought not to endorse a particular religion, the same government ought not to make stupid citizens.

Kilarney

How about a Holocaust memorial on government property?

While I agree with your point. that's not exactly an example of a religious institution on government property. I mean the Holocaust also killed lots of Gypsies, Socialists and "deviates". Not like the Holocaust memorial is spouting that the Jews are the best!

If you've seen the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC, you will see that it is chock full of items that are part and parcel to the Jewish religion. That was my point. I certainly don't advocate removing the Star of David from a concentration camp uniform just because it is on display in a government funded museum.

Cremlian

Once again, you do not throw out the constitution to fix a problem that can be fixed through other means.

I don't see how non-profit status for religious organizations is against the constitution! As long as you give all religions an equal reasonable treatment. (not like how Pennsylvania treats it's third party candidates!)

Kiey

I took a course in high school where we read parts of the Bible. It was a classic lit. course I think, so we also read like Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the Oresteia. So when we read it, it was specifically as a piece of literature, not as a religious book. Although, of course, religion crept into discussions of certain parts, but it was never "ZOMG everyone should be Christian!" from the teacher in anyway.

I should mention I live in NJ, not in the south at all. So I was a little surprised to see us reading it, but I think it was handled really well.

Rym

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of [Islam]..."

Add in the largely agnostic, atheistic, and/or deistic views of the majority of our founding fathers, not to mention the first amendment, and it's hard to make a real argument that this nation was founded on "Christian principles."

Anyway, I'm of the mind that churches should be treated no differently from any other organizations, secular or otherwise. If a church wants to form, it should form as a non-profit (or for-profit if they so desire) and follow all of the rules everyone else has to follow. There's really no reason for religous institutions to be treated specially.

This is compounded by the fact that, if we're going to treat religion specially, we're obligated to treat ANY religion that way. If a Christian church can have tax-exempt status, then a church of the FSM or Satan must be given the same status. (Note to self: form the Universal Church of GeekNights). The moment the government gets to say what is and is not a valid religion is the moment it's overstepped its bounds. We have to either regulate/protect ALL religion or NONE of it.

Moreover, in this specific case, the group in question wants to use the Christian bible as the primary text in the class. This is an absolutely ludicrous idea. Studying religious literature or comparative religion is one thing, but studying the theology of a specific religion has no place in public schools. If they're truly interested in studying the text or culture around it in an objective manner, then the primary texts should be academic evaluations and treatments of the book: not the book itself.

I again stress that it is highly doubtful that these people have honest intentions. It is very likely that their true goal is nothing more than to introduce their religion into public schools.

Kilarney

I don't see how non-profit status for religious organizations is against the constitution! As long as you give all religions an equal reasonable treatment. (not like how Pennsylvania treats it's third party candidates!)

That's not what I said. I said that taxing them as you would a for-profit company ought to be unconstitutional since it is government intervention in their right to assemble.

Obviously, if a church wants to engage in for-profit activities, then they should be taxed.

As to determining which churches are tax-exempt, it's just a fact of life that there has to be some mechanism to address fraud. We can argue the parameters, but there has to be something. Without going into details, I am familar with a "church" (most argue that it is a cult) that actively attempts to shield for-profit activities as non-profit activities. Needless to say, something ought to be done about this.

I don't care if you are the "Church of Elvis," I just care about what you are doing. If you are engaging in for-profit activity, you should be treated accordingly.

Jason

I belong to the church of the Fonze. Everybody rise. "Eeehhhhhh!" Now sit on it. May the Fonze be praised.

GreatTeacherMacRoss

And how about when they turn around make large donations to candidates anyhow? You know, like they do already through either enormous legal loopholes or simply ignoring the laws? What then, smart guy?

Please cite an example of this. If you can, the answer is that you fix the loophole. If an individual member of a church decides to make a donation, that is well within their constitutional right. You cite a "loophole" or ignoring the law. It's not too hard to figure out that you should fix the loophole or prosecute whomever ignores the law. How tough a concept is that?

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/15/State/IRS_warns_churches__n.shtml

Across the nation, people are turning to the IRS to keep pastors from promoting political agendas. It is happening in a year when both presidential campaigns are increasingly using churches as a way to reach voters.

The Bush campaign has courted evangelical Christians, including asking for church mailing lists in some states. Democrat John Kerry has campaigned at black churches and invoked his faith in speeches. In July, Kerry's running mate stumped at a black church in Orlando.

And there's this one also:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id;=8373&news;_iv_ctrl=0&abbr;=pr

This stuff isn't hard to find. And these are just REPORTED. Think about what else is going on behind the scenes. What about the money-laundering scam that popped up last year?

/can't format

Kilarney

And how about when they turn around make large donations to candidates anyhow? You know, like they do already through either enormous legal loopholes or simply ignoring the laws? What then, smart guy?

Please cite an example of this. If you can, the answer is that you fix the loophole. If an individual member of a church decides to make a donation, that is well within their constitutional right. You cite a "loophole" or ignoring the law. It's not too hard to figure out that you should fix the loophole or prosecute whomever ignores the law. How tough a concept is that?

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/15/State/IRS_warns_churches__n.shtml

Odd. Your example has nothing to do with your original statement. You talked about large cash donations, and this example has nothing to do with that. Even more interesting, your example shows how the system worked!

As for the other story you cite, it is offered by a group with an agenda. I would have preferred something from a neutral source. Assuming it's true, it's yet another example of how we have laws to deal with this. An analogy: Just because some people will commit murder, you don't throw everyone in jail. Use the laws that you have, and use them vigorously.

Are you seriously advocating that we do away with church's non-exempt status? You want churches to be more involved in the political landscape? You want government to impinge on the freedom of religious assembly? Sometimes I just don't get you. With all due respect, your arguments are very inconsistent.

Jason

I've converted. I now belong to the church of kilarney.

Kilarney

The Master Plan is working!

GreatTeacherMacRoss

No, what I want is for the religious groups who put up a facade to stop trying to find bullshit ways to affect our society because they know their real adgendas would fall dead in a second.

No one is going to let Christians (or any religious group)teach their dogma in the guise of a class in a public school, elective or otherwise, because it goes against our country's policies. They KNOW this and still try to pull this underhanded bull with false statements about the formation of the country.

Kilarney

No, what I want is for the religious groups who put up a facade to stop trying to find bullshit ways to affect our society because they know their real adgendas would fall dead in a second.

Actually, in many (if not most) jurisdictions, Christians are the majority. Trust me, their adgendas would not fall dead in a second. You should thank your lucky stars that we have a constitution (or "policies" as you call them).

No one is going to let Christians (or any religious group)teach their dogma in the guise of a class in a public school, elective or otherwise, because it goes against our country's policies. They KNOW this and still try to pull this underhanded bull with false statements about the formation of the country.

I have no interest in arguing this point. I was just surprised that you were advocating a position that would make it easier for Christians to do this.

GreatTeacherMacRoss

I was in no way advocating the opposite and you know it.

Stop trying to play semantics games with me.

Kilarney

I cited the tax-exmept laws as an appropriate use of legislation to allow the constitutional freedom of religous association. You called this into question using the words:

What then, smart guy?

I'll admit that your response was confusing, as it did not directly address my original point. Nonetheless, I'm just trying to pin down your position. It seems to be all over the board.

To make things clear, do you agree with me that offering tax-exempt status to churches and forbiding them from interfering with the political process if they enjoy that status is a good thing? If yes, I'm glad you agree with me. If no, see my prior posts.