Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, they don't. The Constitution and the law are what prevail. Gays can marry in the Bible Belt and you can't teach kids creationism. In Joplin, it was the AHA, but lawyers working with the ACLU and FFRF on are the alert everywhere as well.
I'm talking about getting away with things like having prayer before everyone starts their shift or before we have a special event etc. Some places don't want people to wear jewelry not even a wedding band to do to safety concerns. Same with shirt can't wear anything that might offend someone. Yet, I see people who call themselves Christian wear crosses & wear shirts saying things like " He is risen" As a Pagan myself these don't offend me BUT if it did I'd likely be told to mind my own business. And be shunned by said person if not the entire staff.
This what I meant by here in the South they tend to rule & get away with more.
I think your missing their point. They're not saying it's legal or constitutional to have Bible study in school. They're simply pointing out that in the South this happens more often because their concentration of Christians is so high few people complain or protest. That doesn't make it right, but it is a reality of the American South.
I grew up in the Jim Crow south from the early 50s to the early 60s, so I'm quite familiar with the retrograde mindset of those times in that region. While traces of it do still linger in the Jesus-loving guns-and-NASCAR culture of the bayous and backwaters, there has thankfully been a great deal of change over the years in the south. Nearly every little burg and hamlet has its own progressive smattering of atheists and free-thinkers these days, and as the result, religious disrespect of the law is a much harder thing to get away with than it used to be. In most cases, a simple form letter to local officials outlining an offense and the looming nature of litigation against it will be enough to whip the miscreants back into line. The law itself after all is quite clear, and it applies equally everywhere.
There is no law barring teachers from teaching the Bible as historical a cultural review. In fact you can have Bible study as a opted in class either during or after school.
After school is one thing. Then it can become a free exercise matter. During school would be problematic in light of the fact that no agent of the state (such as a teacher, administrator, counselor, or football coach) may in the course of his or her regular duties endorse any religion over any other religion or religion in general over non-religion. The ruse of "opting in" to illegal activity does not anywhere bless or excuse such illegal activity.
Actually you can teach creation in the class. What you CAN'T do is mandate it.
What you can't do is teach it. Every flavor of creationist nonsense has been bounced by the courts for being a patent attempt to sneak religion into the classroom. Where it is of course prohibited.
I'm talking about getting away with things like having prayer before everyone starts their shift or before we have a special event etc.
Again the independent free exercise rights of both students and staff must be respected. Involvement by school officials in any of this praying would likely push it over onto the wrong side of the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
Some places don't want people to wear jewelry not even a wedding band to do to safety concerns. Same with shirt can't wear anything that might offend someone. Yet, I see people who call themselves Christian wear crosses & wear shirts saying things like " He is risen" As a Pagan myself these don't offend me BUT if it did I'd likely be told to mind my own business. And be shunned by said person if not the entire staff. This what I meant by here in the South they tend to rule & get away with more.
Are we still talking about schools here? Religious people anywhere cannot simply be told to shut up.
There is no law barring teachers from teaching the Bible as historical a cultural review. In fact you can have Bible study as a opted in class either during or after school.
'Bible study' is not a 'cultural review'. And, no, a student cannot 'opt' for Bible study during school hours. Period. Bible study is perfectly constitutional on school property after hours, so long as it is not led by a teacher or school official (ie, by the state). This would violate the Lemon Test.
By the way, if you are unaware of the Lemon Test (and you clearly don't) then you have no business even pretending to understand the constitutional issues herein (so you clearly don't).
Quote:
Lemon test
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon), which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:
*The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
*The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
*The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
Factors
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Actually you can teach creation in the class. What you CAN'T do is mandate it.
Again, complete nonsense.
This sort of dodge was employed by creationists after the United States Supreme Court declared in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) that teaching creationism but not evolution was unconstitutional. So states started offering both (which, by the way, makes about as much sense as allowing students to choose to take either chemistry or alchemy). The result was that the United States Supreme Court had to again address the issue in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). And therein, the court explicitly stated that the teaching of creationism is advancers a religious doctrine in opposition to the science of evolution, that this constitutes financial and state support for a religious purpose, and therefore fails the Lemon Test.
Oh, and if you're wondering, the usual suspects tried dressing creationism up as 'intelligent design' and their disingenuous nonsense fooled no one, including Judge Junes (a George W. Bush appointee, by the way) who again pointed out their chronic violation of the constitution in Dover v. Kitzmiller (2005). It is telling that Dover was such a disaster for creationists/IDers that they didn't even waste their (and our) time appealing the decision (an uncharacteristic display of common sense by that crowd).
Again the independent free exercise rights of both students and staff must be respected. Involvement by school officials in any of this praying would likely push it over onto the wrong side of the line.
Are we still talking about schools here? Religious people anywhere cannot simply be told to shut up.
I was just pointing out in general people get away with more in schools & in the work place.
It's very hard to deal with people who are "on a mission".
We had a teacher who was warned REPEATEDLY about bringing his personal religion into the classroom. He kept on doing it even after it got to if you do it again you're going to be fired. You know the outcome. He was on a mission in life, so he didn't give a shyte about the law or the contract that he had signed or the pay he was receiving.
No, I don't think so. You can study the history of religion in Europe & the Americas - which, @ the official level, will often mean the history of Christianity specifically. That is understandable & to some degree even necessary.
Bible study as such is fraught with problems in a state, secular school. First of all, you have to pick a specific Bible to study: The King James, the Vulgate, any of the various reform or new or new standard revised, & on & on. Then there are the Mormon Bible, the Jehovah's Witness Bible, & so on. Nope, it won't do. Just picking a Bible already favors one denomination over another, & there's no compelling state nor educational reason to do that.
Unless specifically authorized in statute, I don't think you can realistically have Bible study during class time in class. As a practical matter, all the public schools K-12 (TMK) have adopted high-stakes academic testing along the way from K to 12th grade, & most of the public schools are concerned to teach to the test - or @ least impart a good grounding in the basic materials that the tests will cover, to their students.
Bible study after school in the school is still objectionable, I think. Holding such class in the public school building is troublesome - it implies some approval by the state (which largely funds public education, approves school district budgets, sets curriculum, sets minimum qualifications for teachers & administrators, selects textbooks, & on & on). I don't think the state should be endorsing any given denomination - it's bad practice. & Constitutionally, if the school building is available to Christians for teaching religious doctrine (& why aren't the children of the various churches involved studying this material in their church, with their church's choice of teaching personnel?), then if the public school's buildings are treated as more-or-less public resources, then they also have to made available to any other religious group that asks to borrow or rent the premises on the same terms as the Bible study class.
That's the law. There is no getting around that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
No. Not surprisingly, in the US, the creation taught is always going to be some version of the Christian creation. It's never Aztec, or Maya, or Inca. It's always Christian - which is the first indication that the people calling for teaching creation in public classrooms are not in the least interested in free inquiry nor in freedom of speech.
Every time this has come up, it looks to me like the people in favor of teaching creation in public schools mean Christianity's take on creation - which fails the Supreme Court's test of possibly allowable Church/State interactions in the public schools K-12 - such teaching would only have a sectarian purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Reference?
Nope. In fact you can teach both creation and the Bible in class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
