I have heart countless arguments over the past couple years about why we should or should not allow prayer in schools. The most common against it is that we are not all Christians, and we have a foundation of separation of church and state, of which public schools are include. The most common for it is that prayer doesn't hurt anyone, and if you don't want to pray, you don't have to.
Of course, one of the most common complaints I hear for it is something along the lines of 'we've taken God out of our classrooms, and our lives, and now we wonder why the nation is going to hell.' And I have to admit, a few years ago, I would've agreed with them. I have since changed my mind.
You may say that there is no harm in making children say a prayer every morning, but I disagree. Schools are designed to teach children, and if children are made to say prayers every morning, then the school is teaching them that it is appropriate to pray to a god. Sure, this isn't a problem when the children are already being raised to know this is appropriate. But what about children who are being raised as, say, Buddhists? Is it fair to these children to confuse them by making them do something that is against their beliefs?
Ok, so the next argument is 'these kids don't HAVE to do anything, they can just opt out'. Sure, this is great when it comes to high schoolers, or even middle schoolers, but what about elementary schoolers? If one kid in the entire class opts out, how do you think the other kids will treat them? Is it fair to essentially force these children to participate in something against their beliefs, or force them to be excluded from their peers?
There's also the minor fact that if prayer isn't sanctioned in schools, children who want to pray still can. What's more is that you aren't alienating anyone in the process. And that's something that's beneficial to everyone. Go for a moment of silence, so that students can pray, or reflect on their day, or whatever they wish.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
It never should have been the schools' responsibility to make sure children pray, regardless of religious creed.
In my mind,I would think the parents would be rejoicing in the fact that they can teach their children their religious beliefs and morals without interference from any school... of course, that would mean accepting the responsibility of teaching your children those religious practices...
And apparently parents don't want that responsibility.
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
Parents don't want ANY responsibility these days. It's a problem across the spectrum; rich, poor, conservative, liberal. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their children. There needs to be a test before people are allowed to have children.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
"There needs to be a test before people are allowed to have children."
Agreed!
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
I never realized that any school forced children to pray, other than religous based schools which aren't subject to public school standards... The issue seems a bit misrepresented to me as I don't see how you can force someone to pray...
Prayer is highly personal, it shouldn't be in the limelight, but I think schools and parents tend to make it that way. I think sometimes we are tempted to use 'separation of church and state' as an excuse to defile something we don't agree with.
But the issue is like any other, no matter what we feel if we don't at least respect the oppostite opinion, the issue will never be successfully resolved... -sigh, oh America...
thought provoking blog, thanks for sharing. :D
-S
I use 'force' in a very general meaning. There is not, as far as I know, people going around and pushing kids' heads into the desks during 'prayer time' for not praying, so they are not being physically forced to pray.
However, when an authority figure says something along the lines of 'let us pray', how many young children are going to go against what the teacher says, whether they are punished or not? This, of course, isn't a problem once the children are old enough to know their beliefs and know whether or not they want to pray, but what about children that simply do as they're told, because they trust people in authority?
I think the point is moot, though, since I don't know any public schools that still have 'prayer time', but rather opt for a moment of silence first thing in the morning. Of course, this is just based on my experience, and I could be wrong.
~C
Visit my blog.
"There is not, as far as I know, people going around and pushing kids' heads into the desks during 'prayer time' for not praying, so they are not being physically forced to pray."
It should be kept that way too. The sad fact is, that if you give a religion an inch, they will take a mile. I went to school in Ireland as a child in the 80s, so it was common place to force kids to close their eyes, bow their heads and place their hands together correctly, aswell as say the prayer out loud and correctly. We were also forced to sing prayers in Gaeilge, and to sit through 'religion class' three times a week. Religion class translated to Catholic class, where we studied the Bible, and lamented the fact that Protestants had gotten it all wrong, and all the other religions I cared to ask about were dismissed as crazy superstition, before I would be told to focus on whatever psalm were were being forced to transcibe in correct joined writing into our religion books.
That is what happens when you allow religion into schools and it doesn't just stop there either. When I moved on to highschool I found myself subject once again to morning prayer, the laughably titled 'religion class', compulsory attendance to school masses, and religious Brothers finding their way onto the staff. I can even remember being accused of something I didn't actually do by the principal and holding my ground, refusing to accept blame, whereupon I was told 'You can lie to me all you want, come judgement day you're lies will do you no good'. Needless to say the rage that followed earned me a weeks suspension. Suspended for disagreeing with the theological narrowmindedness of an authority figure high on God.
I requested exemption from 'religion class' stating that I was Agnostic, and said that my time would be better served in the library. I was not allowed. My parents were told that the majority in the school were Catholic, and that I just had a problem with authority. I did have a problem with authority, but how could I not; I'd been force fed Catholicism since I was three by said authority. My problem with their authority baffled them for some reason, they acted as if my disdain for authority came from out of the blue, or from some kind of genetic factor, as opposed to a perfectly rational reaction to a group of people who had cosistently fucked with my head since I was a toddler.
So it continued that I was ejected from pretty much every religion class weekly to stand in the corridor and amuse myself with daydreams of toasted heretics. I rocked the boat by asking relevant questions about Christian beliefs, throwing in the odd paradox, and demanding we discuss another religion for a change. This was deemed unacceptable behaviour and rather than having the balls to meet me head on, they just kicked me out for being 'disruptive'.
If religion is allowed into schools with any bias toward a majority it will be abused and it will be forced upon others. It will start with pray if you want to, it will quickly evolve into peoples' right to pray out loud, to people being allowed to wear costumes to school, to "Hey why aren't you praying? you can stand out there if you don't want to bow down".
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
We have one of the most diverse nations in the world. There are definitely thousands who would like to have schools that teach their spiritual values, and encourage them to be practiced. There are obviously many who don't share that view, and one's spiritual values differ from person to person. As individuals in a free society, parents should have every right to seek a school that does teach, practice and encourage their values. The fact that our system forces children into schools that either impose values on them, or refuse to teach them against the will of their parents is wrong. Children are individuals, and our school system shakes its head in defiance, continuing to impose a uniform set of solutions, methods, and values on a chilren being prepared to function in a diverse and complex society. If we had a market-based education system school prayer wouldn't be a contentious issue, in fact it wouldn't be an issue at all. Parents would be given the liberty and the dignity of being able to choose a school that best fits the needs of their child.
"parents should have every right to seek a school that does teach, practice and encourage their values."
They do have that right; parents are more than welcome to choose a private or parochial school that would help to uphold those beliefs and practices.
But why shouldn't the parents be taking on that responsibility themselves?
I, personally, would absolutely hate it if a school, or a teacher, whom I didn't know very well and were not members of my own church were teaching my kids their prayer habits.
That's my job, not theirs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
Unfortunately though, parents already pay for public schools through taxes and that leaves little left to opt out and go to a private school, especially for low income families. In a free educational market, schools of all kinds could compete for students, and private schools would become affordable to all parents, and they would truly have a choice as to how their kid was educated.
I'm all for vouchers, but I still agree with Fanaile. It shouldn't be the school's responsibility to teach religious practices, it should be the parent's. It would likely be a good thing to encourage THAT now, since we're in an age where parents spend less and less time with their parents.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
Vouchers don't really solve the issue because there are some church/state entanglement issues with using government money for religious education. Many state constitutions prohibit the use of public funds for that purpose. I agree with you about religious education being the responsibility of parents. But that's our personal view. In a public system, one person's view must be imposed on everyone else. In a market system everyone chooses what best suits their individual needs.
Not to mention, children are allowed to pray at school. They just aren't allowed to lead others in prayer. But no child has ever or ever will be punished for sitting down to lunch and saying a little prayer before eating; if that's how the parents taught the child.
Schools are there to educate children; teach them to read write and add a couple numbers together, and despite the fact that we use schools to socialize children, they aren't very effective at teaching morals or right from wrong (especially since no one really agrees on those things); so the parents should do that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
All citizens are responsible for funding the public trust, and having a specific objection to the constitutionally defined use of that trust does not exempt a citizen from that responsibility.
I do think that there is some value in the idea of vouchers, but I also think that experience has taught us that programs of that sort tend to lead us right back to the divided, discriminatory systems which the extant systems were designed (in part) to supplant.
Its certainly a difficult question.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
Vouchers. Vouchers for all, I say!
"Children are individuals"
Well said, even if you are advocating their parents right to condition them into sheep and a religious order's right to brainwash children. It seems to me that you are not thinking about the child as an individual at all here, but rather as some kind of unit of property that parent's can do as they please with, without the slightest regard for the child's individuality.
My parents respected my right to form my own opinions and to speak my mind regarding religion. Unfortunately the school they sent me to didn't. I was sent there because my parents are Christian, they assumed that teachers would entertain theological questioning in the same manner they would. Wrong. Those teachers ranged from crazy assed religious nutters, to actual Brothers, to teachers who didn't want to upset the rabid Christian sentiments of conformist parents who wanted their children moulded assembly line style into blind faith Christians high on moral outrage and low on tolerance.
Which is why I find it so hilarious these days when I hear Christians spouting out about 'religious intolerance'; that's called projection. After 15 years of Catholic schooling, I can say with some authority that a Catholic school is the last place I would look for any kind of religious tolerance, you'd find more blood in a stone. As for individuality, well, unless your child is prepared to fight for it, and I mean fight physically and mentally, kiss it good bye, you'll end up with a plaster cast replica of the individual you sent in there with one or two individual traits allowed to remain so the teachers can tell one from the other.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
That's one heap of loaded languange my liberal friend...I'm not sure where to begin. Of course, if there were more of your argument that actually contained dispassionate, rational thinking, I might not have such a hard time. But I'll give it a shot. I would challenge you to actually make a rational case against religious education that took into consideration more schools than the one the you had a bad experience with. I don't know much about religious schools myself. I just want an education system that offers choices...lots of choices. And if religious education is what some parents want, then more power to 'em.
I can cite several Catholic schools:
De La Salle Brothers, that is where my father had the living shit beaten out of him as a child by men of the cloth for the slightest infraction. My principal in elementary school also attended De La Salle and I actually remember crying one day when he told us about how he was beaten there.
The Christian Brothers, famed for their beatings and child abuse. Several friends of mine attended schools run by the Christian Brothers. Basically they were the same pile of shit as the Presentation Brothers where I attended.
I am more than familiar with Catholic schools. I have first hand experience. I am not a Liberal, I like Liberals in general but I could not safely call my self one. My language is loaded because there is genuine passion running through it. That is not to say it is irational. I think back to the Catholic schools I attended and I feel rage. The type of rage you feel when a group of holymen allow a known child molester to continue teaching in a school even after he's been charged and brought to court, simply because he settled out of court and the child's parents dropped the charge. The type of rage you feel when you realise that protecting the good name of Catholicism comes above the safety of the children who trust these predators. This is one example of the Catholic churches litany of abuse coverups which eminated from my school while I was there, they attempted to expell me for taking a stand telling one of the brothers exactly what I thought about what they were doing in front of my entire class. My father threatened legal action, so they backed down.
If the choice you are speaking of means placing children into the arms of religious orders then I say choice is something which will be abused. I say that because I've seen it abused.
I'll sum up my issue with religion and why I believe no single one should have sway over the education of children with this quote from howstuffworks.com. I think this is particularly choice as it is a summary of how con-artistry works:
"Con artists make money through deception. They lie, cheat and fool people into thinking they've happened onto a great deal or some easy money, when they're the ones who'll be making money. If that doesn't work, they'll take advantage of our weaknesses -- loneliness, insecurity, poor health or simple ignorance. "
http://money.howstuffworks.com/con-artist.htm
Sound familiar?
You say more power to the parents, does that extend to parents who want to send their children to schools run by racist organisations too?
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
I'm sorry you've had such bad experience. Really. I can only cite one Catholic school that is not like yours, simply because it is the only one I remember. In 3rd grade, I was moved from private (Catholic) school to public school, since my mom couldn't afford to pay the tuition anymore.
Holy Family Elementary School in Olympia, Washington is the school I remember. I had no bad experiences with it that I wouldn't have had at a public school. But then again, I don't remember much of the religious education, just that I got separated from the class during math because I was ahead of them.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
Having experienced 15 years of Catholic schooling, with intermittant stints in school in Germany, in schools where there was no religious bias, I would conclude that the was a far greater religious tolerance exhibited in the non-religious school. This was largely because they were multidenominatioal schools where the students religion or lack there of was of private concern not a public nuisance.
I would advocate the introduction of religious understanding into schools, where there is an open platform for the critical evaluation of range of religions and the beliefs. I would advocate the introduction of religious awareness into schools. But I would stand completely against any religion being allowed to secure exclusive rights to a school. That is yesterdays brainwashing camp and we are not living in the dark ages any more.
I'm all for a few minutes silence at the start of a class for students to do as they wish in silence. But I would not endorse any kind of direct religious involvement in schools. I think children these days need to be afforded an unhindered theological head-start, that maybe their parents were denied. Let them laern about religion in as unbiased a fashion as possible in schools and make up their own minds. Give them freedom of mind and stop trying to mould them through persuasion, propaganda and scare tactics.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
Obviously in a truly free market educational system, schools that abuse children in any way would be shut down. That's why we have governments, to prevent infringements on life, liberty and property. Honestly, I would be inclined to agree with you. I'm not a fan of "religion" per se, or even religious schools, though I have personally seen enormous good come about from true faith in God, take for example Mother Teresa. In fact, most major social reform movements like slavery abolition, the civil rights movement, and the early movement for woman's rights, were spearheaded by people of faith. As far as the choice issue is concerned, I'll say this. I think parents should be given choices as to put educational freedom on the same level with political and religious freedom. My views on school prayer, and schooling in general could be summed up in a sentence:
1. Congress (or the state legislature) shall make no law respecting an establishment of education or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
A radical idea? Sure, but free speech, constitutional goverment and religious freedom were equally radical ideas in their time and they have benefited society enormously.
"Obviously in a truly free market educational system, schools that abuse children in any way would be shut down."
That all depends on how you define abuse. The molestation of a kid at my school is one glaringly obvious form of abuse, one which most people view as heinous to a degree where it is intolerable. But I would view the religious segregation of children into single religion schools as abuse. I've spent enough time in Belfast to witness the type of mind this produces.
Single religion schools breed religious intolerance, foster a poor understanding of other religions, and attempt to limit external stimuli beyond those which directly serve the religions agenda. Only seriously proactive students will seek to learn about and question various religions critically under such controlled and contrived conditions. Query is generally not only discouraged in such schools, but is often a punishable offence, usually labelled blasphemy, or some such self-serving title, in order to justify punishment.
If we can justify this kind of singleminded agenda being introduced to young children as a form of education simply because it is religiously based, then why can't we extend it to secular madness also. How about White Power schools, or Black Power schools?
"I have personally seen enormous good come about from true faith in God"
I have seen enormous good come from genuinely good deeds done by good people who would have done so with or without a faith in God. The trick that too many religions like to pull is convincing people that they can't be good without religion. These religions like to pretend that they invented morality and that without them there would be no goodness left in the world. As I pointed out in the qoute on con-artistry:
"they exploit they'll take advantage of our weaknesses -- loneliness, insecurity, poor health or simple ignorance. "
This is why people who are in desperate circumstances find such comfort in religion, it a confidence trick; loneliness, insecurity, poor health.
But why wait for that when you can exploit 'simple ignorance', and why waste time searching for the ignorant, when they can manufacture them on a religious school assembly line. That is what is done in most Catholic schools, they condition children from a young age to willfully ignore competing trains of thought and conflicting ideas. They breed spiritual ignorance. They even have the nerve to use terms like enlightenment in regard to what they do, and unfortunately this simple trick of mislabelling something is enough to trick the confidence of most of their dupes. Their use of the word enlightenment should bear a TM after it, because it has little to do with the actual meaning of the word.
"In fact, most major social reform movements like slavery abolition, the civil rights movement, and the early movement for woman's rights, were spearheaded by people of faith."
Slavery was most fervently practiced by who exactly? The Christian British. It was supported most heavily by? Christians. But some of those Christians then fought to abolish it. That had nothing to do with their Christian beliefs, that came down to human decency.
The civil rights movement wouldn't have been necessary to begin with if it hadn't been for Christians. So what, they managed to strip African slaves of their own spiritual beliefs and condition them into God fearing Christians, who then fought for the civil rights movement under the banner of Christianity, c'mmon now.
The early movement for woman's rights was necessary because according to the Bible women are mans slave and had no need for rights to begin with. Just because some women managed to con themselves into believing that, that's not really what the Bible meant, willfully suspending their disbelief, because to accept it would be to admitt that the faith they'd been conditioned into was inherently wrong, that doesn't mean that Christianity was the driving force behind the movement, it just means that some women were comfortable living a contradiction.
"I think parents should be given choices as to put educational freedom on the same level with political and religious freedom."
I believe that people should be allowed freedom to practice whatever religion they choose. But that does not extend to mind control, and I don't give a shit if it's part of their religious doctrine. This 'oh but we must spread the word and protect all from the wickedness of devilish thought by segregating our flock and poisoning their relationship with truth and reason' bullshit doesn't amp with me. A person in the midst of a con believes that they are making a decision themselves freely, that's why it's called a confidence trick.
We can all surely agree that research and objective analysis of our findings is a normal and accepted method of education, as opposed to 'believe this, ignore that, and that, and...look just ignore it all except this, this is the one truth'.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
These are straw man arguments. I am also against abuse, intolerance, brainwashing and racism in education. We all are. There's no empirical evidence that giving parents freedom to choose will lead to an increase in the abuses that you are talking about. At least you have yet to present any. I am also not interested in discussing the abuses of the Christian church, or of Christians in general, because again, we are all aware that they have ocurred and that they are wrong. Your characterizations of Christian education are so hyperbolic, subjective and exagerated that they are impossible to debate. I can discuss ideas, logic, and evidence, but I am at a loss as to how to grapple with your emotional and unsupported accusations against religious institutions. Equating religious instruction with "mind control" is a hyperbolic, unwarranted leap and deep down, you know it. I am sorry that you have been hurt by religious people. Remember Jesus Christ himself also harshly opposed the religious establishment of his day. There is a distinction you have to make between faith and religion, the former a matter of the heart, the latter a matter of rules, dogma, and institutionalism. You have obviously seen the bad side of religion, but that does not diminish the value of genuine faith in God and the idea that people have a right to see that their child is educated in a manner consistent with that faith.
> freedom to choose will lead to an increase in the
> abuses that you are talking about.
Faith Schools and Social Segregation
Disadvantages of Divisive Religious Behavior
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/faithschools.html
Religious Differentials in Reproduction: The Effects of Sectarian Education
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370(198211)19%3A4%3C495%3ARDIRTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P
I don't think that the extant research is conclusive, but there is strong evidence that sectarian education promotes social division, and inflames the problems that we see in places like North Ireland, etc....
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
hmm...interesting. That is definitely some food for thought. As I said before, I'm not necessarily a fan of religious education. However, I would argue that parents should still be given the freedom to send their kids to a faith school even if values, or systems are imposed upon them before they can think or reason. Value systems are always given to children arbitrarily, religious or secular. Children cannot think on their own, and they depend on adults in their early years to develop values and ideas. No doubt, some children are given more freedom to think than others, depending on the family, church, or school that they're sent to. But for the state to interfere in any way with the teaching of values, even if they may lead to divisive attitudes and behaviors, would ultimately put a system in place that infringes on the freedom of religion, and conscience to a greater extent than would have been possible if parents were given the freedom to choose schools. Unless religious education constitutes a direct threat to the person or property of others, the state has no moral authority to interfere with it.
I also found it interesting that these religious schools were run by the state. I've read some about UK school systems, but don't know much about them. I'd be curious to find out just how much choice parents are given in the types of religious education their children recieve, and what the differences might be if those faith schools existed within the context of an open, competitive marketplace. Just a thought.
"I am also against abuse, intolerance, brainwashing and racism in education. We all are."
That is naieve. You really think 'we' are all against these things? I wish I went to school where you did. It sounds like the land of milk and honey if you have such a rosy view of people's intentions, especially with regard to religious schools and their agendas. You've bought the spin by the sounds of it.
"There's no empirical evidence that giving parents freedom to choose will lead to an increase in the abuses that you are talking about."
As I already mentioned, Belfast. Are you actually familiar with Northern Ireland and the religious segregation there. This may be 'subjective' on my part, since I have family and friends who lived through the troubles there, and since I've actually spent time there, and since I've lived in Ireland and have witnessed and experienced the religious hatred bred in the schools there, but a simple google will turn up the evidence you claim not to exist.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/ire-j07.shtml
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1005(197310)21%3A3%3C307%3ARSITSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q
"I am also not interested in discussing the abuses of the Christian church, or of Christians in general, because again, we are all aware that they have ocurred and that they are wrong. "
What?! Surely you would not consider their abuses relevant when you are discussing the establishment of single denomination religious schools. What are you trying to say? That we should look on the bright side of what these schools offer and ignore the bad? I was afforded an excellent academic education at the Catholic school I attended, but there is more to education than good grades.
"Your characterizations of Christian education are so hyperbolic, subjective and exagerated that they are impossible to debate."
May assertions may seem like hyperbole to you, I would cite lack of experience and of a frame of reference as contributing factors in this. Subjective maybe, but hyperbole, no. If you think I'm exagerating, then I would have to say that you are naieve. You seem to be comming at this from an economics point of view with a leaning towards free market obsession, where you feel it can be applied across the board to anything. It can't. I wrote my thesis on the aggressive use of persuasive technique in childrens advertising, so I'm comming at this from a persuasion and child conditioning angle, with first hand experience of the methods and third level understanding of persuasion. The title of my thesis was 'Manufacturing the Consumer', it can just as easily be applied to manufacturing the devout.
"Equating religious instruction with "mind control" is a hyperbolic, unwarranted leap and deep down, you know it."
Do you really understand what mind control is? Do you understand why cult reclamation groups use terms like freedom of mind when refering to the manner in which destructive cults lock in their members, like Jim Jones did , The Moonies, Branch Davidians, The Family etc. When you subject children to intangible ideas and theories from infancy as fact, you are shaping their minds around and agenda, you are trying to control the way they think, you are trying to control their mind. Religious orders do this to propagate willful ignorance. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this mind control, all you have to do is ask a kid in a single denomination school if what they are taught about God is true and factual. Then ask them why they think this. They will go into rainman mode and start spitting scripture, largely because they are conditioned to follow, not to think. Mind Control.
"I am sorry that you have been hurt by religious people."
It's not so much that I was hurt, I came through unmolested in both body and mind, it's the others who were around me you should feel sorry for. The ones with the Christian boogeyman so embedded in their child psyches that they can't move beyond it even as adults. You mentioned logic and evidence, well does it not unsettle you that neither of these things matter a damn to so many kids who come out of a single denomination religious school? especially when they have no problem applying them to other facets in life? Mind Control anybody?
For the record, a faith in God is a perfectly healthy thing. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about men who highjack this faith and use it to their own ends. You are endorsing their freedom to exploit people's faith in God in order to further their own human agendas. You mentioned debate here, well what I am arguing for is debate in schools, yet you are saying that the removal of opposing views and opinion from a school is a good thing and actually applauding parents for sending their children there. And all this while attempting to belittle arguments by insinuating that they're just beneath you, before condescendingly having a fairly poor swing at the them.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
We have both clearly had very different experiences with religious institutions. I attended a church and a post-secondary missionary school that did allow me to question my faith, and never punished me for my honest questioning. They encouraged me to be a better person, to be tolerant of others, and surrounded me with some of the most loyal and kind people I have ever met in my life. You had a very different experience, so I think it's natural that we would have such a difficult time understanding eachother's point of view. That's fine. You may be right. I might be naive. I can only speak from what I have experienced and the information that I have been exposed to.
Children are handed all beliefs arbitrarily, and kids aren't necessarily encouraged to question their religious beliefs any more than they are encouraged to question their beliefs about politics or morality. Younger children aren't even capable of understanding these things on their own and they are wholly dependent on adults to form any kind of value system. That is why I think you're making a huge leap in equating any kind of religious instruction with mind control. Should we end all types of value-based education simply because it involves handing down beliefs from teacher to student without debate? I don't know much about UK religious schools, so I can't add much more to the debate. But I still think you are making generalizations. Not all religious schools breed violence and intolerance. America is chalk full of sunday schools, churches and religious universities, yet we are not out in the streets killing eachother over our beliefs (though I'm sure you can find instances of religious violence). My argument from the beginning has been that religious instruction, with its befefits and downsides, should be offered in the private sector as one choice among many. That may mean that some kids are trained to hold to doctrines which they were never given permission to question or debate. I don't agree with is. I think it's wrong. But I think that it's much more dangerous to use the power of the state to interfere with parental freedom, unless there is some direct threat to the health of the child. It's been my observation, that in the long run, parents will make the best choices for their child, even if their choices are often mistaken. Leaving them free to make those choices will, at least in the long run, work to the overall benefit of the child. As a future parent, I would feel much more comfortable with my child at a religious school - where I could remove him/her at any time and being a paying consumer, actually have influence over subject matter and pedagodgy - than at a state-run institution where curriculum is decided by those in power, and my child may be taught ideas that run contrary to my value system.
"I can only speak from what I have experienced and the information that I have been exposed to."
Which is why I took exception to you claiming my view on the matter was subjective hyperbole. Your subjective view is relevant, your experience in a single denomination school differs considerabley from that of mine, and of that of plenty of my friends who attended other single denomination schools. I have friends who attended a school run by the Jesuits who experienced an open platform for spiritual understanding.They happened to be Christians who ran a school, as opposed to Christians trying to condition children into Christians. Unfortunately they are exceptions as opposed to rule. A few good apples do not unspoil the barrel.
"...kids aren't necessarily encouraged to question their religious beliefs any more than they are encouraged to question their beliefs about politics or morality."
But they should be, which is the point of education; to enlighten. If you never question, you learn nothing. This is applied in every facet of life, but when you suggest applying reason to religion, people freak out, they don't want you asking about the man behind the curtain.
"Younger children aren't even capable of understanding these things on their own and they are wholly dependent on adults to form any kind of value system."
Which is why adults enmass need to respect children enough to afford them a rounded education. Value systems do not need to be served up drenched in irrational dogma and meta-physical scare-mongering. A child can be afforded a value system which helps them function within a society, without singleminded faith being thrust upon them.
"That is why I think you're making a huge leap in equating any kind of religious instruction with mind control."
This is where you are dead wrong. Laws are being made around the world in countries like Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland amongst others, which heavily regulate advertising to children. The reason for this lies in the fact that childrens minds are not fully developed and advertisers have realised that they can impregnate child minds with brand recognition, and through various persuasive techniques condition them into consumers.
They drew their inspiration from religion, where there is a direct parallel and a lesson to be learned. If conditioning through "religious instruction" results in adults who ignore reason in favour of belief, then surely they can be conditioned into buying more product. Of course plenty of people would find the concept of advertisers exploiting childrens minds like this distasteful, but they have no problem with religious advertisers doing exactly that. But, you see religions have been doing this for thousands of years, so they already have generation upon generation of conditioned mind to do their bidding.
Ask yourself why Christians believe one thing as deadly serious, and would write another off as silly, when neither offers any tangible evidence. Mind control is not something people like to think of as happening to them. It is not a comfortable feeling suspecting that your mind has be blinkered as a result of childhood conditioning. You can call it religious instruction if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that when you do as you are instructed against all reason, you must ask why? I don't believe in the Devil, but a nagging feeling at the back of my mind fears it. I don't know if I'll ever shake that, even though it's ridiculous.
"Should we end all types of value-based education simply because it involves handing down beliefs from teacher to student without debate?"
No, we should end the handing down of meta-physically dependent value-based education. You make it sound like people can't have values without religion. How about we treat people like shephards instead of sheep; ie like individual human beings with minds, as opposed to mindless animals that will follow each other off a cliff without the slightest question.
"Not all religious schools breed violence and intolerance."
If these schools truely tolerated other religions and had the courage of their convictions they would allow competing religions and non-religious ideas an equal platform in their schools. Religious tolerance as advocated by the religious is just a gagging order abused to make people feel bad about questioning regressive and irrational beliefs.
When I say it breeds violence, I mean that indirectly more than directly, although it does the latter to a lesser varying degrees depending on the region. The indirect violence comes from silent or vocal endorsement of acts of war based on religious beliefs. In other words holy wars. Christian versus Muslim for instance. Religion has been used right throughout history to facilitate unjust economic trade wars. There is a book called 'The Worlds Wasted Wealth', it covers this very well. People have always been much quicker to support killing in God's name than to support killing for a cause that they can rationalize and reason against as unjust.
"America is chalk full of sunday schools, churches and religious universities, yet we are not out in the streets killing eachother over our beliefs"
Religion has motivated countless millions to war.
"My argument from the beginning has been that religious instruction, with its befefits and downsides, should be offered in the private sector as one choice among many."
My counter to that has been to entertain irrational secular instruction as a choice also as a choice against many. White Power schools. There's choice, and there is regressive options.
"I think that it's much more dangerous to use the power of the state to interfere with parental freedom, unless there is some direct threat to the health of the child."
Let them home-school their kids if the want to instill them with religious fervour. I don't really think superstition based teaching has a place in a school, beyond understanding it's mechanics. For example I believe it is beneficial for people to be taught about Charlie Manson, but I don't think it is beneficial to be taught in the manner Charlie would teach in his private single denomination school.
"It's been my observation, that in the long run, parents will make the best choices for their child,"
You have clearly not been all that observant. There are millions of people who were completely fucked up by their parents' cluelessness and terrible parenting, in the long run.
"leaving them free to make those choices will, at least in the long run, work to the overall benefit of the child."
Presenting them with all the information they need to make a decision is what I am talking about, not just letting them fend for themselves. I am advocating the presentation of all the facts to kids, not just a single religion's agenda masquerading as the one truth in front of developing young minds which will be conditioned to believe it because they never knew anything else until it was ingrained in their psyche.
"I would feel much more comfortable with my child at a religious school - where I could remove him/her at any time and being a paying consumer,...."
I would feel more comfortable with having the option of a private school also, but I still think that religion should be kept out of it. I can understand why religious people want these schools, if I was running my own cult, something which I'm seriously considering as a business model these days, I would want these schools also, and I'd want you to want to send you kid there. But it doesn't really give the kids a fighting chance to make up their own mind about their spirituality in the long run.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
The Founding Fathers opened every session of the Constitutional Convention with prayers to Jesus. If that was lawful then I think praying in schools is OK too.
Even if this myth was true, it wouldn't really mean very much since these alleged acts would have pre-dated the adoption of the Bill of Rights (and thus the First Amendment).
But, the fact is that your claim is simply untrue, and no such prayers ever took place. Fortunately, our founders were quite fastidious record keepers, and thus we can turn to the Library of Congress to see the facts...
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
No chaplain was chosen for the convention at any period of its session, although Dr. Franklin proposed one, as has been reported, after the convention had been some time sitting. ...
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_wKRM::
You have fallen prey to one of the more common myths circulated in christian fundamentalist circles by those who would like to see our history re-written to be more sympathetic to their cause. Here is an in-depth examination of the The Franklin Prayer Myth and its origins...
http://candst.tripod.com/franklin.htm
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
I'm not a supporter of teacher-directed prayer myself (at least not in public schools), and I do believe in the importance of a certain amount church/state separation. But I don't see the relevance of the 1st ammendment in the school prayer debate. The ammendment merely states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (US Constitution, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti) The bill of rights merely limits the power of the legislature, not the actions of schools, teachers, or even the prayer habits of congressmen during sessions.
You are absolutely correct, and anyone who disagrees with your statements does not understand the First Amendment, or the purposes of it.
Thank you for pointing that out.
...that have reached the Supreme Court? Let's just pick one and see what it says...
ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited.
...
We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity.
...
It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America.
...
Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment...When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain...The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs.
It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421
What many people seem to forget, is that the public schools represent a government agency, and its employees are government officials. As such, the appropriate actions of these employees are designated by the direct act of their employer--the government--as defined by its legislative body, The Congress.
Honestly, one has to be rather monumentally uninformed to suggest that the First Amendment isn't relevant to the question of prayer is schools.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
I was under the impression that this blog (and the sub-post to which I was responding) was about when a specific teacher or principal "forced" kids to have a moment of silence, with which they could do what they wanted within certain guidelines. The 1962 case you quoted (ever so long-windedly) had to do with a STATE'S education department forcing a specific prayer upon citizens. The State's education department was, yes, acting on behalf of "the Congress." That does NOT mean that ANY government employee represents Congress. When the STATE's dept of education enacts a state-wide prayer to be forced on everyone, that can be construed as "congress [making a] law respecting an establishment of religion" But when a school or teacher sets a policy of a moment of silence, that is not in any way "Congress" making a law. School employees are NOT Government officials. They are government employees. LOCAL government employees. They do not represent the U.S. Congress, and their local policies do not count as "Congress" making a "LAW."
"Honestly, one has to be rather monumentally uninformed to suggest that the First Amendment isn't relevant to the question of prayer is schools."
I'm not uninformed. I simply have a different opinion. And not by much, either. You were just confused as to what we were talking about. Of course the Government can't force a specific prayer upon school students. That wasn't the argument I was against. But when a school teacher wants her students to use a moment of silence for silence, it has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.
...but not all opinions are based on a solid understanding of the legal history of the issue at hand. It is also incredibly banal to try to narrowly construe your argument to avoid the principle being discussed. But, since you went there, here is a more specific address of the "moment of silence" issue...
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
The proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does Congress is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress' power to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States' power to legislate. The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
...
The record here not only establishes that 16-1-20.1's purpose was to endorse religion, it also reveals that the enactment of the statute was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose. In particular, the statements of 16-1-20.1's sponsor in the legislative record and in his [472 U.S. 38, 39] testimony before the District Court indicate that the legislation was solely an "effort to return voluntary prayer" to the public schools. Moreover, such unrebutted evidence of legislative intent is confirmed by a consideration of the relationship between 16-1-20.1 and two other Alabama statutes - one of which, enacted in 1982 as a sequel to 16-1-20.1, authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer, and the other of which, enacted in 1978 as 16-1-20.1's predecessor, authorized a period of silence "for meditation" only. The State's endorsement, by enactment of 16-1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each schoolday is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=472&invol=38
These are firmly established Constitutional principles.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
I think mark has a point. Agreed that teacher-directed prayer violates the spirit of the first amendment. But the actions of a school or teacher in no way constitute the passing of a law, which is the only action specifically mentioned, and therefore the only action actually prohibited by the consitution. This distinction is important because school prayer, and other religious activity may exist in the classroom without the legislative action of a congress or state assembly.
As a side note, I find it interesting that first amendment is interpreted so broadly as to include even the non-legislative actions of government employees, yet the 10th amendment, for instance, is virtually ignored as to give the federal government powers that are specifically reserved to the states and the people, and the 2nd amendment is also contrued in favor of state power, not to mention the rights secured by the ninth amendment are hardly ever taken into consideration.
> constitute the passing of a law, which is the only
> action specifically mentioned, and therefore the
> only action actually prohibited by the consitution.
Every action taken by a public school employee in the completion of his or her job is done so directly as the result of a Congressional action. The Congress creates, funds, and defines the responsibilities of the educational system and its employees.
I think that the reason that the First Amendment seems more broadly applied that the other Amendments is due to its applicability to the individual. Both the Second and the Tenth amendments were primarily drafted to address state level issues (though the Second can be interpreted individually).
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
I was kind of wondering if you would bring up the fourteenth amendment. I was aware that the bill of rights has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply also to state legislatures, but I didn't see how that applied to government employees specifically. This bit "When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.." made me think differently. I stand corrected.
i dont think thst anyone should make a child prayer in school ints not their place to do so.Now if the parents want to prayer and things like that well then do that stuff at home.we dont need all the debates about prayer when people are dying and there are bigger causes going on.
The problem with people who want "prayer in shcools" is that they aren't arguing for the right of their children to pray while at school. Their kids already have that right. A kid who wants to pray can do so whenever, and wherever they want on a public shcool's grounds so long as they are not disruptive and don't try to include anyone who isn't interested.
But, that's not what these people want. Instead, they want to make sure that everyone else's kids are praying, too, all while under the direction of a government employee. And that, of course, isn't constitutional. One would think that after enough bloody noses delivered to them in the chambers of the Supreme Court, eventually the "prayer in schools" crowd would get a clue.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
I believe that there is nothing wrong with a simple moment of silence. That is what they do at the school my kids' go to. Kindergarten and 2nd grade and no one feels "weird" or whatever. You do what you want with your moment. Pray, meditate, think. Sometimes, it's the only time these kids slow down a little...
If it works, but I saw in my school as most students used this time, instead, to quickly finish homework they didn't do, pass notes, talk, etc. More students in my high school got into trouble during those two minutes than throughout the rest of the day for being loud, not paying attention, etc. No one used the moments to pray or mediate at all.
That tells me right there that parents aren't teaching these kids those values.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
I think that students should be allowed to use that two minutes in whatever way they deem fit, as long as they obey the rule of silence. If you are a kid who doesn't believe in anything that requires prayer, then pass a note, finish your homework, obviously don't talk, but it should be their right to use the two minutes to meet their own religious needs as they see fit.
If a Christian kid wants to spend his two minutes doodling pictures of his biology teachers phenomenal breasts, instead of praying, it's his call, he's been given the opportunity to pray, and exercised his right to decline.
"No one used the moments to pray or mediate at all.
That tells me right there that parents aren't teaching these kids those values."
Or maybe it's telling you that plenty of kid's don't actually respect the values they are being passed when they are allowed to think for themselves as opposed to being rigourously conditioned into blindly accepting something. The parents of these kids are probably just not forcing their beliefs down their children's throats properly. Some parents need to employ professional brainwashers, because they themselves lack the persuasive abilities to condition their own child.
I've engaged in debate with religious parents of friends of mine, and more often than not, it's like beating a child. Half of them don't even know why they believe what they do, they just do. That is not the best basis for convincing your child that what you believe is infallible. When an 8 year old asks a parent 'why?' and the best the parent can offer up is a 5 year old's answer of 'just because..' it's time to pack em off to the professional persuaders before you have a free thinker on your hands.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
i think if anything it should be that moment of silence llike said earlier.No one should have to prayer but if you want to or whatever it is that you say then go ahead and say it to yourself.
I also agree a moment of silence is a great gesture. Like most arguements it is a 2 way street so you have to please the people on the left and right. This is a great compromise where no one gets hurt w/ little interuption. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs.
I learned from an early age that "Compromise" doesn't work. It doesn't mean both sides win, it means neither side gets what they really want.
What they need to do is collaborate more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
i forgot which part of the bible, but wasn't there this part in the bible that said it is better to pray quietly in the closet instead of loudly on the street. if these children want to pray in school, go right ahead, just don't want to make it manditory for other students to fellow, and than said that if you don't want to pray in school you can opt out, why must you make it manditory, you can pray as much as you want as school by yourself, without making it manditory for the school. i just don't get what is up with making it manditory in school for children to do it. do making it manditory makes you feel that you are accepted as a child in school, that you are included, that your religion is respected? if respect, and inclusiveness is what you want, than try to be a better and nicer person to other people, and who knows, you might be the most populest person at school, and yourself esteem will be better.
watch the greatest speech ever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAwOu5x4TIU
your right neither side may get what they want but at the same time by neither one getting what the really want then no one can say well you let them have prayer or whatever.This way its a happy medium.well i dont know about the happy part but you know what i mean.
Since I think you were replying to Fanaile, I'm going to make a suggestion. When you are responding to a comment that is not the blog itself, hit the 'reply' button at the bottom of the comment. It makes tracking comments so much easier and less confusing.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
Oh ok thanks i never really paid attention to that.I'll remember to do that in the future.
You just did it again.
I would just like to point out that in your orginal blog you said...
Schools are designed to teach children, and if children are made to say prayers every morning, then the school is teaching them that it is appropriate to pray to a god. Sure, this isn't a problem when the children are already being raised to know this is appropriate. But what about children who are being raised as, say, HINDUS? Is it fair to these children to confuse them by making them do something that is against their beliefs?
Hindus do pray to a god, in fact, some pray to many gods.(Some say there are many gods and some say there is one god and then just variations, depends on what their faith is.) I think you are confusing them with buddhist who do not pray to any god.
I am not trying to be mean or anything but just pointing out the common misunderstood difference between buddhist and hindus.
Have a nice day
T
I'm aware that Hindus pray to gods. Perhaps my intent wasn't caught. When people generally pray to 'god', they are praying to the Christian (perhaps the Judeo-Christian, but I'm not sure how many would agree with that) God. This excludes the gods that the Hindus pray to, the goddess that many pagans worship, the god of Muslim beliefs (again, perhaps), and the countless people that do not pray to any god at all. If prayer was implemented in schools, it would most certainly be Christian prayer, which would seclude even those who follow other religions. But I will update my blog to make that point more clear.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
How would you feel if your child was led in a hindu prayer? How about an islamic prayer? How about chanting buddhist sutras?
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
People tend to be angry, irrational, defensive and hypocritical until they have the tables turned on them......and with most Christians (at least the ones I know of) then their anger, irrationalism, defense and hypocrisy simply magnifies :)
oh those Christians...sigh..... if they want to be like Jesus, theyre doing an awful job....
As a senior in a public high school, I have long been familiar with the moment of silence. In Virginia, we have a moment of silence every morning to "reflect upon our day". Although it is called a moment of "silence" it rarely is. I have found that there are 2 extremes and rarely any middle ground regarding the moment of silence. Some teachers either don't care if you talk or not, or teachers take it to the opposite end of the spectrum and won't even let you move during the moment of silence. I think that this whole thing is more for the parents benefit that the students. I can't say that I know what goes on in everyone's head during the moment of silence, but I can say that when teachers let us talk during it, even the most religious students talk. However, if some parents feel the need to force us to sit there, doing nothing, then thats fine with me. It just saves me a minute of listening to my physics teacher. However, if it came to us actually being made to participate in teacher led prayer, then I would have a problem. Everyone has a right to their own religion and belief, but school isn't the place to practice it. It is better served at home. As for the parents blaming school for their children's, and the world's for that matter, lack of morality, I think they need to look more at the example they are setting for their children and other children. School is not designed as a baby sitting facility. Teach YOUR kids wrong from right and don't rely on others to do it for you because nobody forced you to have kids. If you really have a problem with it then home school, but then I guess they really wouldn't have anyone other than themselves to blame their kids problems on would they?
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-
i think that your correct, many parents use the public school as a system to teach their children morals because they are too tired, or lazy, and they felt that they must do that to everyone else children, i.e. prayer in school?
in it was quoted:
"Religion of any kind should remain home where it belongs, and never talked about in public."
Now while I hold true that religious/spiritual practice should be free to expressed wherever pleased, I still don't see WHY its NECESSARY in school. I'm sure no child is going to be harmed for doing what they choose to do throughout the day, so long as it does not interfere with their studies. Children should be free to do as they please with their religious practice, personal reflection...anything along those lines....and if it is something that the parents believe is NECESSARY to be done at school, then they need to bestow that belief upon the child....not the school.
I think its also time for parents to simply accept the fact that children don't want or have a need for personal reflection or prayer or spirituality. If they'd rather use theyre free time to run around on the playground for recess, then stay back an extra five-ten minutes to have their moment of silence, then LET THEM BE KIDS. plus there is no reason to be taking more minutes out of the day that could be spent learning something from a book....the way schools are SUPPOSED to be teaching.
I think the true problem is, is that parents are not finding enough minutes in the day to brain wash their children....or simply do not trust their children to make their own decisions about their spiritual/religious practices. So they want to make sure that the school is telling their children that it needs to be done.....when its simply NOT NECESSARY. I mean honestly....if you pray or even meditate right before s