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.
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.
Then why do prisons supply Bibles? Why does our president swears on one? Why do we swear on one in court? Why does our currency says "in God we trust"?
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.
Nope. You're wrong. Each of those cases were trying to mandate creation in schools.
'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).
The lemon test is for legislation. It's already level to teach the Bible in class. What you can't do is mandate or try to convert students.
Quote:
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.
Again, this was a result of trying to FORCE equal time. Teachers can teach creation if they want to.
Quote:
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, that case was about forcing creation into the class by law.
Gee, what impressive references -- from a special interest group that believes in creationism and the Bible. So if I provided references from an anti-creationism and anti-Bible group you would immediately change your viewpoint?
Then why do prisons supply Bibles? Why does our president swears on one? Why do we swear on one in court? Why does our currency says "in God we trust"?
1. You're confused. Public schools are not the same as prisons.
2. Mere tradition.
3. Again, mere tradition, and in most cases it is no longer required. As a Buddhist, swearing on the bible would have no meaning to me.
4. Again, mere tradition.
If you think these things prove anything, keep in mind that millions of people use Christ's and God's name in vain every day. People lie after swearing to god and on a bible every day.
Please try to separate fact from faith. It is key to a realistic understanding of life.
Actually, teachers can teach what is mandated state and local boards of education, not their personal beliefs. Otherwise they are violating the law and the contracts they signed.
Gee, what impressive references -- from a special interest group that believes in creationism and the Bible. So if I provided references from an anti-creationism and anti-Bible group you would immediately change your viewpoint?
Actually, teachers can teach what is mandated state and local boards of education, not their personal beliefs. Otherwise they are violating the law and the contracts they signed.
And there's no law mandating that you cannot teach creation. Besides, teachers express their own opinion all the time in class.
1. You're confused. Public schools are not the same as prisons.
Both are owned by the state.
Quote:
2. Mere tradition.
So was prayer in schools.
Quote:
3. Again, mere tradition, and in most cases it is no longer required. As a Buddhist, swearing on the bible would have no meaning to me.
4. Again, mere tradition.
And again, so was prayer in schools.
Quote:
If you think these things prove anything, keep in mind that millions of people use Christ's and God's name in vain every day. People lie after swearing to god and on a bible every day.
Please try to separate fact from faith. It is key to a realistic understanding of life.
My point is religion is in our government whether you like it or not.
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.
