Reply #22 By: dabe - 12/27/2004 12:10:50 AM Weren't you one of the people who supported the idea of restricting students from expressing their religious beliefs in schools because they are on public property and it is tantamount to putting religion into government though? Is that what you consider reasonable? I was/am one of the people who am vehemently against a government sponsored advocation of one religion, two religions, or any religions at all. This is why I advocate keeping religion out of public education completely, out of courthouses, and out of police stations, hospitals, etc. That does not mean I would ban a student who wants to pray in the school from doing so. If a student wants to quietly pray, without having their teachers lead the prayer, then that is their right. That is the meaning of separation of church and state. The complete freedom to practice your own individual religion without institutionalizing in in a public place. I don't understand why that is so hard for you people to fathom.

Dabe - I applaud you for the most part, but I take the same approach the original poster did in their question to you.

You want religion out of schools and public places, or at least don't want it to be led by the teachers.

I don't necessarily want it led by teachers, but I have no issue with teachers noting that a period of time during home room has been set aside for prayer or reflection. Unfortunately if they mention "prayer" though, there are those that instantly see "religion" and want it gone.

I don't need teachers leading prayers, but I don't complain or have a problem if a graduation ceremony includes a comment or words of prayer from a cleric. I don't complain or have a problem if military schools -- even if state funded -- have a prayer before meals. I don't complain if K-12 schools have religious music during the holiday season. Much like a TV, I can "tune out" that which offends me (basically any time a liberal's lips are moving - lol ), and move on to the main purpose of what is going on.

Why some people, that just happen to hear God, Jesus, Christ, Buddha, Allah, Muhammad, or any other religious reference have to have that reference instantly removed and cleansed from society is the problem.

It strikes me that back in the 60's and 70's, before we started being so politically correct, things were simpler. Children were given moral values by their parents, friends and neighbors. Even perhaps some through schooling. But, for the most part, we didn't have to worry that some of the moral messages would offend someone, and would cause problems like we now have in having to be concerned about including everyone, and not offending anyone.

I circle back to this - if the purpose is to not offend, then I sir (or madam) am offended, and wish for the political correctness to be taken away in order to rectify the problem.

Reply #29 By: dabe - 12/27/2004 7:43:01 PM

dabe I agree with you on this one post. But I'm still not as hell bent on a complete cleansing of all religion, just limiting it to moments of silence and teaching of their differences in a social studies and Historical settings.

Though it is a little disturbing that you would have been so willing to sue and get someone fired in the third grade.

That's My Two Cents

I was/am one of the people who am vehemently against a government sponsored advocation of one religion, two religions, or any religions at all. This is why I advocate keeping religion out of public education completely, out of courthouses, and out of police stations, hospitals, etc. That does not mean I would ban a student who wants to pray in the school from doing so. If a student wants to quietly pray, without having their teachers lead the prayer, then that is their right. That is the meaning of separation of church and state. The complete freedom to practice your own individual religion without institutionalizing in in a public place. I don't understand why that is so hard for you people to fathom.

Perhaps it's hard for us to fathom because of your words on this thread. Did you change your mind, were you simply trolling on that thread, did you misunderstand that it was about students expressing their religious beliefs and not about government-sponsored religion nor about teacher-led prayers, or do you honestly think that students should not be allowed to openly express their religious freedom. If so, then that proves my point that people have different ideas of separation of church and state, and no, believing that people have the right to express their religion beliefs as long as they aren't doing it as an employee or representative of the government does not contradict the separation of church and state.

To maintain our freedom we must not play favorites.

Exactly. Imagine the confusion, if not strife that we would cause in the classrooms when the teacher announces, "Ok, children, prayer time." The Christian children would do their sign of the crosses, the Muslim children would kneel and prostrate themselves on the floor, etc. (I'm not familiar with other religious rites, though) There would a cacophony of chanting, murmuring and before you know it, giggles and jokes then bad stares then fighttime. Jeez, we'd just be promoting divisions instead of tolerance and harmony among the future citizens of this country.

It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble

drmiller, I certainly hope you're not suggesting a US version of a Taliban or Iranian Theocracy. It's politicizing religion and empowering heads of certain religions to hold sway not only in governmental issues but in national elections as well. That could dangerously move us to the political instability of certain Third World countries where presidential candidates seek the blessings of religious heads to ensure their winning. How would one define "virtue" anyway? How does church influence ensure "virtue" in government when church leaders themselves become involved in "un-virtuous" acts?

could dangerously move us to the political instability of certain Third World countries where presidential candidates seek the blessings of religious heads to ensure their winning

unfortunatley we're already there.  no republican who seeks the nomination from his party is going to succeed without being annointed by mullahs falwell, robertson, wildmon, etc.  should mccain decide to run again, that's the biggest obstacle hell have to overcome.

Jeez, we'd just be promoting divisions instead of tolerance and harmony among the future citizens of this country.

More likely they'd meet after class and have fights because they don't pray alike.

This whole debate is completely rediculous. The quotes set forth here speak to none of the true separation of church and state issue. The real issues tug at whether the government should be legislating morality...not whether a building is burning down and the fire department has to decide whether to put out the flames. My GOD, get back to the real issues and quick bickering about a bunch of irrelevant lines someone spoke or may have spoke that distract us from more important matters.

-Suspeckted

Dabe is usually the one.

... or Kingbee.