Seperation of Church and State?

First off, I too am a Christian. I would like to first point out that the original idea of separation of church and state was meant to keep the state out of the church. This of course allows for religious freedom. I do not think that government should be a certain religion, but government will always be affected by religion because the people who run the government act according to their religious beliefs.
As for school, I do not think that religion in school is a good thing at all anymore. There are just too many people who would be offended. The schools could not teach about one religion and not of them, and it would just be impossible to teach all religions. But schools take it too far when they do not allow prayer. It is not hurting anyone. I mean, the teacher should not lead the class in prayer unless everyone agrees, but there is nothing wrong with students praying. Parents need to teach thier kids about religion, not the schools.
And I do not believe that evolution or creation or spontaneous generation, or anything else like that should be taught in school at all. The origin of life cannot be proved, therefore it is based on faith alone, and the school should leave that for the family to teach. Schools should not be responsible to teach kids everything they need to know.

The bible tells the Christian that they should "go into their closet and pray to GOD secretly, and they will be openly rewarded." Jesus was constantly rebuking the Pharisees who went around with long faces and praying on street corners to be seen of men....of whom refused to stop and their temple was destroyed. Jesus said they already had their reward...Keep your prayers in the closet, like GOD instructed.

"But my dilemma is what about prayer in schools is so horrible. Why can't pastors come in and talk to kids about Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish values that have been around for thousands of years?"

The reason that this shouldn't be allowed is because there are far more religious practices out there than those three you mentioned above that fall under the faiths of Abraham. I'm Wiccan. Would you be ok with a Wiccan coming to your child's school and teaching them about Witchcraft? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but first of all, Wiccans don't believe in "spreading" the word and second, we believe strongly in the separation of Church and State.

I do wish that schools would teach a comparative religion course. This course would briefly touch on as many different religions (to include the philosophy of Atheism) as possible. This would be a course that would be taught in high school. A course like this would open up the minds of our youth to what's really going on in the world. I barely even knew that there was anything other than Christianity before I left home for the military.

"I don't understand why it's okay for them to have assemblies on why you shouldn't drink drugs cause it will ruin your life, but they can't have a pastor come in and say the same thing and give his or her reasoning on why drugs are bad."

I love my path (Wicca), but you assume that religion is necessary for one to have morals and be a good person. I know a lot of Atheist who are great people and you wouldn't even know that they were Atheist unless they told you.

Also, religion should be "taught and practiced" at home, but not forced upon. My son (who is 4 right now) will be exposed to Wicca and other paths under the umbrella of Paganism, but I will do everything in my power to ensure that I'm not forcing anything upon him. I watched the "Jesus Camp" movie and I was disgusted! Those kids are being brainwashed and my kid will have to put up with their crap in school one day. It is truly sad.

"And I think that if someone wants to stand up in their cafeteria and talk about what they believe in, I think that the people that don't want to hear it should leave"

So, you're saying that if my child is sitting next to a Christian child at school and the Christian child wants to spread the word of Jesus, that my child should have to get up and leave? That is ridiculous! You had a pretty good post up until now. School is supposed to be a place where our children can go to "learn" in peace. And when I say learn, I mean learn reading, math, etc...not about religion (unless it is the comparative religious course mentioned above). This is the problem with most Christians. They believe that they should have the right to spread the word of Jesus anytime they want, but God forbid if there was a very good point made in a Harry Potter movie and a teacher wants to share it with the class.

"88% of them said they didn't drink, smoke or do drugs at all and that the reason they didn't was "religious values and beliefs".
If such a HUGE number of students in high school will avoid such destructive behaviors than shouldn't it be acceptable to allow religious speakers into the school to help them?"

First of all, morals pre-date organized religion. The 10 commandments were not responsible for bringing order to the world. Second, no. Religious speakers should not be allowed to speak at public schools. Again, you assume that everyone is religious. Believe me, not everyone is. And all those numbers and stats that you threw out there are garbage. Nothing against you, but they are. All the popular kids in my high school class were freaking Saints on Sunday morning, but any other time they were doing what high school kids do (drink, smoke, have sex, etc...) I would have to say that you can't trust teenagers when it comes to surveys like that.

Blessed Be,
Tabias-

But my dilemma is what about prayer in schools is so horrible. Why can't pastors come in and talk to kids about Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish values that have been around for thousands of years?

The first thing I want to point out is that "prayer in schools" and "talking to kids about christian, muslim or jewish values" are two different things. Contrary to popular beleif, "prayer" is not forbidden in schools. Your kids can pray pertty much whenever and wherever they want, so long as by doing so they don't disrupt the educational process or involve other students against their will in their prayers. What IS forbidden is to use the state as a platform from which to advance any particular religious belief (or non-belief) over any other.

The problem is that there really isn't a way for the government to pick and choose between what is or is not an "acceptable" religious belief without overstepping the Constitutions prohibition against religious establishments. "Prayer" is a form of religious worship, and really has no objective educational value to a religious non-adherent. And, when a teacher (a government employee) uses his or her state-funded position as a platform to advance the worship of a particular religion, they are quite plainly violating one of our most important Constitutional protections.

It would be nice if we could have a class in which the sundry beliefs of various religions could be objectively explored, but our own history has taught us that the kind of objectivity that such an endeavor would require is virtually impossible to acheive. Any "class" about religion would logically require that the kids in the class be tested on their knowledge of the covered material, and to do that the teacher would have to be able to make a judgement about whether or not a student's answers on such a test are right or wrong. In doing so, the teacher would acting as an agent of the state to establish the validity of one religious opinion over another.

Let's take an example that is commonly discussed on this very site. Is Mormonism a legitimate christian denomination? Many mormons would say "yes, of course Mormonism is a christian denomination." But, many Evangelicals would reject that statement and answer, "no, Mormonism is a cult." Now, the teacher is in the position of having to mark one of these answers "correct," and one of these answers "incorrect," and doing so would represent a government sponosored establishment of one of set of religious beliefs over another, which it cannot do.

Also, there is the more practical reality of the fact that when most people in this country espouse the idea that "prayer in schools" should be allowed, they are almost always referring to christianity. What would you say to the possibility of your child being led by a Wiccan teacher in reciting prayers to the God and Goddess of her faith? What about a Buddhist teacher, leading your child in a recetation of the Sutras? Would you be alright if your kid came home and told you about an Asatru teacher leading the class in an ivocation to Thor? And, what about Satanism? Would you really be okay if a Satanist (a perfectly legal religion in this country) led your child to in a recitation of the Nine Satanic Sins?

I don't understand why it's okay for them to have assemblies on why you shouldn't drink drugs cause it will ruin your life, but they can't have a pastor come in and say the same thing and give his or her reasoning on why drugs are bad.

Shouldn't education be UNBIASED?

If a pastors reasons for not using drugs are inherently religious, you have a problem. After all, some religions promote the use of certain drugs in their religious practices, while some religions proscribe all mind-altering substances (even caffeine and nicotine). Are you prepared to have your child taught about the use of hallucinogens as a tool to expand consciousness? Are you really okay with your kids being told that a strong enough religious belief will make him immune to snake venom? What about the people who would tell your kids that giving blood for use in transfusions is a sin? There are some pretty bizzare religous beliefs out there, and unless you are really ready for your child to be exposed to ALL of them, without any bias or judgement as to the effectiveness or appropriateness of even the most extreme examples, then I hope you can see why religious instruction in a school is a bad idea.

Not everyone can afford to send their children to private schools with religious affiliations...wouldn't it be okay for some information on religion to be taught in school?

If you can't afford to raise your kids the way you want, then maybe you shouldn't be having kids. Public education is funded by the public trust, and has such has an obligation to remain neutral regarding religion, just like any other government funded agency.

I'm not saying it should be required. It shouldn't be required, especially if the parent/child would be upset by it. But I think that it should be offered, because it's important for people to be informed.

Since public education is funded by public money, any use of that money to fund a religous practice--any religious practice--violates one of the founding principles of American philosophy.

It's not fair to a christian going to a public school and who never learns what the creationists say about evolution, and therefore abandons their faith.

Sure it is, and for two reasons. For one, creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, and as such simply has no place in a science classroom. We don't teach that the world is flat, either, or that our universe hatched from a great cosmic egg, or that the intergalactic dictatorship of Helatrobus is responsible for setting negative spritual "implants" in our spiritual beigns, even though these are perfectly valid religious opinion, that are prevalent in some religous sects today. Sciece class if for teaching science, not religious beliefs, though there is a place for those kinds of beliefs to be taught. Its called a church. Christian students in a public school are not prevented from learning about creationism in their church, which is the appropriate place to teach that kind of opinion, and which our Constitution protects, specifically for that purpose.

I don't think that religion should be a requirement in schools, but I feel it should be optional, based on the parents and the students feelings.

Public education should not be based on the "feelings" of anyone. Public education should teach necessary objectively defined subjects that a citizen needs to function in our society.

And I think that if someone wants to stand up in their cafeteria and talk about what they believe in, I think that the people that don't want to hear it should leave, and that person shouldn't be dragged out by the principal. (not that the person should really do that, but if so, if you don't want to hear it go away or just don't listen...)

The problem with this is that public school attendence is more or less compulsory by default. Students do not have the option of simply leaving when they don't want to hear some religious nutcase preaching at them while they are trying to enjoy their lunch. Preaching in schools is a deliberate attempt to take advantage of the captive nature of students in your audience. It is disruptive, and it is unconstitutional. One of the reasons that many folks are so unforgiving when it comes to dealing with religious folks who insist on attempting to prosyletize in our schools is that these people don't seem to understand the word's "no thank you," or "please leave me alone." Kids are allowed to discuss religion in schools amongst themselves, but just like any other extra-cirricular activity, that discussion must not be disruptive to the learning environment.

Lastly, I just want to say this.
At the public school that I would attend if I went to public school, they took a survey of this years juniors. The survey showed that more than 65% of the class drank socially and got drunk atleast once a week, of the 35% left, 25% said that they didn't drink at all. Of those students who didn't drink at all, 88% of them said they didn't drink, smoke or do drugs at all and that the reason they didn't was "religious values and beliefs".
If such a HUGE number of students in high school will avoid such destructive behaviors than shouldn't it be acceptable to allow religious speakers into the school to help them?

Again, the problem is that not all religion's have the same attitude about drinking, and when you allow only some religions access to the schools in order to provide religious instruction on just how much drinking (if any) is acceptable, you are once again putting the government in the position of having to establish one religious opinion over another. And that is, of course, not Constitutionally acceptable. Something that many people forget is that the flip-side of freedom is personal responsibility, and the simple fact is that students and their parents have to take responsiblity for their own actions and make these kinds of decisions for themselves. You might not agree with the religious "values" that some parents teach their kids, but the fact remains that they have to right to make their own decisions in that regard and the responsibility to live with the consequences.

The real problem with the opinion of those who think that religious instruction in the schools is acceptable, is that when pressed, those almost invariably tend to prefer the beliefs of their own religion over the beliefs of all others. That's fine on a personal level, but when you co-opt the police power of government as a tool to advance your religious opinions, you are engaging in an act that undermines one of our most fundamental freedoms as American citizens.

percivale

-------------------------

"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)