[JerryLove]

Strangely, none of those things violate the first amendment.

Caselaw disagrees. This ammendmet has been interpreted to protect the populus from any governmental encumberance in religion.

Schools displaying the 10 commandments and teachers leading prayers are far from making laws respecting the establishment of a religion. They are also not acts of Congress.

And, from the "end user" point of view. What's the fundamental differrence betewen Congress passing a law that you must avow Islam as the one true religion at the beginning of school, and the National Board of Education mandating the same?

Because religion is so personal, it's better for all involved to restrict public discourse on such matters because a failure to do so can, and often does, cause divisiveness.

I disagree that it's an issue of public discourse. The clear stance is "keep government away from religion" and vice versa.

Certainly, the reformation would seem to reenforce the belief that religion is personal; wy replace the church government with the federal government?

It seems as if our nation is indeed suppressing one's expression and practice of their faith, whether if it is by denying the leading of prayers in schools, or by any such thing as that.

You are allowed to lead prayer in school; the repressentitve of tegovernment isn't.

Similarly, you are allowed to not permit black people to enter your house; but the mayor is not allowed to prohiit black people from entering the city. There are different rights in public and private life.

This means that Congress cannot make a law that establishes a religion or make a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof. (Thereof referring to religion.)

Actually, this right (like any) is not absolute. If your religion sacrifices children, you could argure that murder being illegal interferes with freedom of religion... but that's not realy the point.

The bill of rights protects the personal rights of private citizens. Your teacher may pray all he wants. Your teacher may put a huge crucific in front of his house and lead block prayers. Neither of those is done in his capacity as a teacher.

As a state employee, when the the garb of teacher, he *is* the government. The governement shall not endorse or prohibit religious freedom.

They do ok in not making a law for a state religion, but they inhibit one's open, public expression and practice of their faith.

No, they don't. A person performing their duty in the capacity of governemental representitive is not protected as a private citizen, but is rather restricted as a governemental representitive.

1. It is Congress that is forbidden from establishing a religion. A Bible college is certainly allowed to require admittants to be Christian.

A private one is. One which recieves public funding would not be allowed to require a religion as it violates both the constitutional protection and the ERA.

2. The teaching of evolution, the general consensus of the educators and modern psychology all work together to promote humanism, which can certainly be considered a religion. It is really impossible to avoid promoting any religion in any way.

We also teach that the world is round regardless of the religions that believe it to be flat. The issue here comes as to wheather they are teaching it on religions grounds or not.

[goldenchild]

The Amendment prohibits any one, established religion for all. Whatever a public official does to express his own faith and give others the opportunity to do as well(both of which are protected by the second part of the amendment) is not in any way establishing a religion mandatory by all. They are practicing their faith. Nothing more, nothing less.

[JakeW]

The crux of the argument is that as a leader of the group (namely teachers as leaders of students) you are put into a role model situation when children may do what you do assuming you're right (as a teacher) or alternately be afriad not to do as you do for their grades.

If it's easier, imagine a Wiccan teacher teaching your 6 y/o child about the wonders of the Earth Mother spirit. Even if the teacher didn't make participating in the prayers madatory I still wouldn't want my kids around it.

Student lead prayers are still allowed though. At least we ALWAYS have them at football/b-ball games in south Tx.

Jake

[Lyle]

Originally Posted by Bryan

but the supreme court has interpreted it to mean that there should be no government institution supporting any specific religion. Basically the supreme court has created a "wall of separation between church and state". Thus teachers can't lead prayers in school, you can't have prayers before the football game, and you can't have the 10 commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.

Sounds fishy, eh? Since I've seen many schools that show the star of david, the cresent moon of Islam... They teach tolerance for everything and everyone but Christ and His followers...

[Lyle]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Caselaw disagrees. This ammendmet has been interpreted to protect the populus from any governmental encumberance in religion.

Then you mess up the lines. People have been permitted to do many things because they have religious backgorund, when really there is no root of the governemt supporting them.. They have deemed it illegal to pray in school, when it is the act of an individual and not a governing body...


Though shouldn't humanism be counted as a religion? Liberals seem bent on showing that...

[JerryLove]

Sounds fishy, eh? Since I've seen many schools that show the star of david, the cresent moon of Islam... They teach tolerance for everything and everyone but Christ and His followers...

Sounds fishy. Can you support? Can you point me to an American school with a star of david, a symbol of Islam, and no cross?

They have deemed it illegal to pray in school, when it is the act of an individual and not a governing body...

No they have not. Please give me one single example of successful legal action taken against non-faculty for prayer or against faculty for private prayer. None exist. It has never been illegal to pray in school anywhere in the US, such a law would be unconstitutional.

Please stop making stuff up.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sounds fishy. Can you support? Can you point me to an American school with a star of david, a symbol of Islam, and no cross?

actually there was a school in New York that would not allow the nativity scene to be put on school property last Christmas, even though there awas already the Crescent Moon & Star of David displayed elsewhere. I'll try to find an article for you.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Bryan

actually there was a school in New York that would not allow the nativity scene to be put on school property last Christmas, even though there awas already the Crescent Moon & Star of David displayed elsewhere. I'll try to find an article for you.

here's an article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35544

[JerryLove]

actually there was a school in New York that would not allow the nativity scene to be put on school property last Christmas, even though there awas already the Crescent Moon & Star of David displayed elsewhere. I'll try to find an article for you.

You are not comparing apples to apples. A cross was not disallowed, a nativity was. In the actual ruling, the Judge stated that "purely religious" stuff (and excripts from the Quran or Torah were explicitly included in that group) would violate policy, but that the symbols *of* the religion did not.

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=178