BS: Separation of church & state lessened

Subject: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 03:31 PM

On today's Talk of the Nation on NPR, they discussed the new ruling by the US Supreme Court which says schools have to allow evangelical groups, and by inference virtually any group, to hold meetings in schools. The ruling, which you can read about HERE was a case in upstate New York.

I am trying to comment in an even-handed way, as I would like to hear your opinions in an equal tone, however it is difficult. I feel this is one more erosion of the wall between church and state. The group which sued the school for access, specifically invites the youngest children of school to their meetings immediately after school for the purpose of "saving" them.

Because of the ruling, all schools in the U.S. will have to open the doors to any type of group which wishes to use their facilities.

One American, who has lived in Germany for twenty years and whose son is in a German school, phoned into the show. He said all children, there, from kindergarten through 4th grade, have to attend religious instruction classes during their school day. According to him, they have a choice of Roman Catholic or Lutheran. His son was prepared, in school, for his first communion by the local priest. When asked what a person was supposed to do if they were Jewish, he had no answer, except that a better question might be what to do if one is Muslim, as they have so many immigrants.

I would like to hear from some of you who live in Germany, if this is true, please.

The extremist Christians in America have had a steady agenda, mapped out and brilliantly executed, in which they've inveigled their way onto nearly every type of board, committee, political position etc. in our country. They have made no mystery of this and their intentions to "return" our country to what they percieve to be what is morally right, that is extremely conservative Christian.

This feels to me as though they've just taken away another bit of our freedom from religion and it troubles me a great deal.

Comments sans bashing, please?

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: jeffp
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 03:47 PM

kat, the ruling, as I understand it, simply prevents the schools from discriminating against religious groups. If a school allows secular groups to use the schools for meetings, then they must give the same privileges to religious groups. A school can simply refuse to let any non-school groups use the facilities and therefore legally thumb their noses at the religious groups.

jeffp

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 03:49 PM

seperation of church and state was suppossed to prevent the state from persecuting the religious - it was not meant to PREVENT

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 03:49 PM

Maybe this is a good thing in disguise. Maybe it will also open the doors for members of other, less established religions, like Pagans and Buddists, to meet in schools as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: jeffp
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 03:54 PM

CarolC, I like the way you think. The group that won this ruling appears rather scary to me. Perhaps the answer to them is not prohibition, but competition. Show the kids that there are many paths to choose among.

jeffp

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:00 PM

If a school refuses to let any non-school group use the facilities, they would be excluding the cub scouts, little league, brownies and even the PTA. In some school districts in California, at least, the PTA is considered a non-school group. Also, in some districts in California, after school religous training has been occurring for some years using school facilities. In other places, a religous group maintains a trailer parked in the street right in front of the school and students are given time during the school day to get religous instruction there. We have seen all of these things ourselves.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:06 PM

The question from my POV is, why should the chess club be allowed to use school facilities to meet, but not the bible club? As Mmario tried to say, the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent the state endorsing one religion over another; it's not supposed to be the state impeding any and all religions.

This particular "club" requires parental permission before kids can join. It's not like there's a bunch of wild-eyed fundamentalists luring people's kids away from them.

Kat, I think (respectfully of course) you're overreacting.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:14 PM

Can someone please clarify -is there no religious education in American schools?

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:17 PM

No, there is not, Ickle D.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:23 PM

Various denominations have their own schools where they may teach religion. But in the normal day to day schools at most you get an sketchy overview of the greek, roman, norse - presented as "mythology" - and the historical development of the major judeo-christian-islamic branches. A few schools might give an overview as well of various other belief systems - but no depth to any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: lady penelope
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:24 PM

I'm with the French on this one. Schools and religion should not be mixed ( except as a subject for academic study ). In England cubs and brownies do not meet in schools but in church or community halls. Can you imagine a christian evangelical group being happy about sharing school premises with a pagan group? Or even, in some cases, a jewish group? Kids have enough to contend with while they are growing up, why lump this onto them?

I may be quite wrong about this, but I get the picture that outside groups can have a large influence on what goes on in school in the states, whereas in england it is quite hard for this to occur. All schools need money, but unfortunately this can be used as a lever to serve a minority's purpose.

I'm not against religious groups bringing their message to the young. I'm a pagan and for about three years ( from when I was about seven ) I attended a "friday night club" at the church at the end of my street. My parents are catholic and the church was protestant, but as far as they were concerned the people who ran it were good people. We played games, made stuff, did some cooking and at then end of the evening we had a teaching sermon and sang some hymns. But this was Church of England type christianty, gentle and encouraging and non- judgmental ( even the hindu kids from the bottom end of my street came) , we were not there to be "saved" or harried or worried about commiting sin.

Unfortunately, how do you make sure that that is how ALL the groups that take up this privilage of being able to use scholl premises, treat it this way? I worry that this may give children another reason to be afraid of going to school.

TTFN M'Lady P.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:27 PM

Ickle Dorritt, there can be religious education in schools that are not run by the government. In the U.S. such school are called 'private' schools. Schools that are run by the government are called 'public' schools.

Private schools can provide religious education because to do so would not violate the 'Separation of Church and State' provision in our constitution.

Public schools, being run by the government, cannot provide religious education because that would be in violation of our constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:27 PM

One woman called in from Texas. She volunteers in a school district which is very poor with a lot of immigrants. Her concern was that permission slips written in English and brought home to parents who may not be able to read English will have no idea of what they are signing. That was just one of the interesting points which came up. They will have the show archived, tomorrow, if anyone cares to listen to it at www.npr.org.

I am not saying there should be prevention of religion, but I am saying we have to be sure we maintain freedom FROM religion, if that is our choice for our children.

As far as minority groups getting a boost, in most places they are so outnumbered, it is unrealistic to think they'd have the wo/manpower to reach all children and their parents who might be interested. It's a matter of sheer numbers, IMO.

I'd like to think it might be good in some way.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:29 PM

Mmario, not sure where you went to school. We covered a tiny bit of religion in "Humanities" class in high school, an elective taken by very few students in 11th and 12th grades. It was about as even-handed as these things can be, and we were nearly shut down by the local Baptist churches for teaching about other religions besides Xianity. Other than that one class, you might have thought religion had completely faded from American life. "Pilgrim" was defined as "one who takes a long trip" for example in our history texts. We're so religionophobic in this country we're distorting history all out of countenance.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:34 PM

I'm with JeffP in my interpretation of the issue, and I also think it bodes well for the "faith based charity" initiatives.

As I read the ruling, it stated that to allow outside organizations to use your facilities (as a school) meant letting any group have the same chance at using them. Hopefully, this will be held to cover any state property or programs.

As it is, I'd also like to point out that the BSA and other similar groups already have a 'religious' leaning. I can quite clearly remember the section on "god and my country" in the various pledges, and I remember friends in other 'packs' and 'troupes' with more evangelically minded scoutmasters where religion was a big part of the routine.

But, on the whole, I'll agree with Alex as well - Kat, you may be overreacting slightly on this one. After all, the court DID just rule that the 'ten commandments' were inappropriate and unconstitutional for display on school grounds. And, if it helps, think of it this way - while the group in question is a religious one of dubious nature, it has opened the way for ALL groups in need of a place to hold meetings - christian, green, NRA, scouts, Klan, what have you. At the very least, it could be really funny (in a sad, "let's see how big the explosion is" kinda way)

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:34 PM

Well the language thing is a problem, Kat, as you say. I may have to backpedal; living here in Atheist Country, where even the social conservatives don't go to church, it's hard for me to imagine the harm of an after-school church group for kids that want it. We had one court case (not taken up by the ACLU; I wonder why they never defend the rights of ordinary Christians?) in which every religious group, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, whatever, was allowed to meet on campus except the evangelical Christians. The Christians sued and won the right to meet with all the others.

So it seems to me the danger goes more the other way in these parts. But in Texas things are presumably different, I'll admit.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:45 PM

granted it's been mumblety years - but we got the greek roman and norse stuff in grammer school - as I said - covered under "mythology"

development of the catholic and orthodox churches, the islamic branches and the protestant denominations in Jr. high as part of European/world history

a brief overview of various eastern religions as part of world geography in HS.

as most of my nieces and nephews have seen about the same progression and coverage - and they are in 4 different states - I figgered that to be about normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM

My kids have only seen stuff on religion in honors classes; not in regular classes. It's mostly wrong (from a historical pov), alas.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 05:18 PM

I too find this decision a bit worrisome, but I can't think of any easy way to draw the line between private groups that ought to be let in vs. those that ought to be kept out of public schools.

It's interesting that the guy on MPR who represented the Good News Club said he wasn't against pagans, Muslims, etc. also using the public schools. I predict that elsewhere most fundamentalist groups will be outraged if Scientologists, Wiccans, Nation of Islam, etc. try to hold meetings in public schools. I just hope they don't use violence or intimidation to keep them out, since they obviously won't be able to use legal means any more to keep them out.

Unless, of course, we ban ALL private groups from public schools -- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, whatever -- which, now that I think about it, is probably not such a bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 05:20 PM

Mousethief, am I wrong in thinking that 'ordinary' Christians hold the ACLU in such disregard, they wouldn't think of appealing to them to take their case?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 05:21 PM

Kat, I'm with Alex on this one. I don't think the sky is gonna fall because some church group of any religion has a meeting at the school house. Those folks probably pay taxes too, and the school is supported by taxes, so I don't see a basis for barring them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 05:50 PM

Probably no one will give a crap what I have to say, being one of those 'ordinary' Christians (or is it extreme fundamentalists?)...

But the separation of church and state is defined (very succinctly and eloquently) in the Constitution:

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION (and here's the part the liberals always forget) OR PREVENTING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF.

Once again, the 'new tolerance' dictates that the pagans and everybody else are being 'pushed around' by the Bible-toting militia of the 21st century church, but who cares if the OTHER religions bash us? The people with their other belief systems seem to have no problem calling us extremists and using the phrase 'in my opinion' to justify calling Christians everything short of Nazis... but if I offer MY OPINION, I get called a religious bigot with no sense of respect for others' beliefs.

Whatever. Let 'em all use the damned school... just shut up about it, already.

May The Road Rise To Meet You,

Stevangelist

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 06:11 PM

Stevangelist, does your 'opinion' allow for the possibility of the existence of beliefs other than your own? If the answer is 'no', I think that might be the answer to your queston.

If the answer is 'yes', then maybe you need to look at the tone you use in delivering your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 06:26 PM

Ebbie, I think you're right there. However, the ACLU doesn't just take cases that are referred to it. They scour the caseloads looking for things that need supporting, or at least that THEY think need supporting.

If I had endless time and money I would join the ACLU just so there was a "religious conservative" among their ranks, and go to all the meetings and try to make the point that Christians have civil rights too, and sometimes the state tries to infringe thereupon.

Mark, you need to tone it down a bit, son. One catches more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 06:27 PM

Stevangelist has a very good point--I have often noticed that there is a strong prejudice among many self-proclaimed enlightened people against Christians--I have often thought that Christians ought to declare themselves a religious minority in order to get their rights protected--

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 06:30 PM

And if my rights were being infringed due to my religion, I would definitely go to the ACLU, just to have the pleasure of having them turn me down (or take my case -- either would be a pleasure!).

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 06:47 PM

As of right now, Christians still have more rights than Pagans. It can and does happen that in parental custody disputes, being a Pagan can be used as a reason to grant the non-Pagan parent custody of the child. I'm not a Pagan myself, but a Christian attorney tried to use the possibility that I might be a Pagan as a big part of his case against me in a custody battle.

Had I actually been a Pagan, and had I admitted it, I could very well have lost custody of my child. It has happened to some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 06:49 PM

That sounds like an ideal case for the ACLU to take up the ladder of the courts. Someday they shall. Eventually we will have real freedom of religion in this country. But we will (alas!) have to fight for it every step along the way.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 06:54 PM

I agree, Alex, but believe it or not, the ACLU wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 07:02 PM

the interesting part to me, was that some of the literature and permission slips for the 'meetings' was being offered IN the school classes....thus making it an issue for the kids who could NOT go to these meetings.

If all it was was using the rooms for meetings, I'd have no particular problem, but the point of 'separation', I thought, was to avoid the kids having to be confronted with 'issues' about religion, rather that simple 'facts' about comparative religion.

there are plenty of school rooms open.,..let 'em meet...but do NOT make attending these meetings part of the school discussion and do NOT allow posters and literature favoring any particular religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 07:04 PM

Sounds right, BillD. I didn't realize they were passing out stuff in class; that is wrong.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 07:31 PM

hey! mark this down...a genuine agreement without any missles being thrown...there IS hope! *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 07:55 PM

*hefts slightly limp carrot across room*

There, Bill... one missle for you.

Hadn't heard that they were using school resources or time either - it's been very clearly stated by a few commentators that I've heard (and not naysaid by the news media) that it was a simple matter of using the classrooms for afterschool meetings.

I also don't think that's what the case brought before the court was, or did I miss that part? It's definitely worthwhile to look into. By just having the meetings on the grounds, I don't feel that there is any way to claim that the group is pressuring kids to join (at least with the appearance of sanction by the school). However, using school time and classroom time to push the club... THAT is (I'm reasonably certain) against the 'separation of church and state' issue. I'd no more expect a child to have to be proselytized in class than I would a child be taught geography during the midst of whatever religious service they opted for.

Unless they were Flat Earthers...

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 08:04 PM

being from Kansas, flat earth used to seem perfectly reasonable to me!

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Gary T
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 08:07 PM

Stevangelist pointed out "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION (and here's the part the liberals always forget) OR PREVENTING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF."

This issue is a matter of the first part. Anytime a government entity is involved with religious practices, it is, to some degree, establishing religion.

As far as the free exercise of religion, anyone can do so on his own time and with his own resources. We have free speech, but you can't commandeer MY printing press to further YOUR speech. Likewise, OUR school is not suitable to practice YOUR religion. Do it in church and at home and no one will be complaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: sophocleese
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 08:13 PM

Well a timely thread this one as our local city council decided on Monday night to reinstall the reading of the Lord's Prayer before council meetings. The next stage is to see if it will stand up under law. Sometimes I love this place and think it's great. Sometimes I wonder what I'm doing surrounded by such hicks that think Walmart means progress and that saying the Lord's Prayer before meetings either isn't discriminatory to non-christians or don't think the discrimination matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 08:13 PM

Stevangelist, I am sorry you feel that way. I had specifically tried to not paint all Christians with a broad brush and also asked that we keep a civil tone in this thread, i.e. no bashing.

Last time I checked, Christianity was still in the majority and not really suffering from any inquisitions, etc. Eever stop to think that maybe the reason all of us in the minority might be being so vocal is because it is the first time in a couple of thousand years, give or take a few, that it has been even a little bit safe for us to do so?

Alex, I believe that is the same reason the ACLU may seem biased to you. They've been speaking out for and advocating the minorities which have had no concerted voice as Christians have for so long. It is important for us all to remember that it has not been that long, in the manner of history, that minorities of all kinds, have had any kind freedom approaching that of what the majority have had for much longer.

BillD, thanks. I had not heard that. I totally agree with what you've stated.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 08:59 PM

In another life I would have been an ACLU lawyer. The very fact that they seem to anger people on all sides proves they do their job.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 09:31 PM

Here in the western part of Canada I live in, there are separate school systems for Catholic and non-Catholic children, supported by the taxpayer (you specify to which system your tax goes to). This means that Catholic and non-Catholic children often have separate groups of friends, and mixing mostly takes place at off-school ground events. Now, other groups- Muslim, Etc., also have schools and are seeking to come under the umbrella of the public system. I may be wrong (writing here out of ignorance), but the Jewish community seems to be split between the public system, private schools, and some Jewish-sponsored schools. This province (Alberta) also contributes to private schools, both secular (public) and religious ("separate"). All of these schools require physical plants, teachers and administrators, diluting taxpayers money. In one smaller community, it was actually proposed and discussed that a wall be built down the middle of the school to separate Catholic and non-Catholic- separate physical plants cost too much. Now well-to-do parents are more and more sending their children to private schools ("shared costs with the government") I find the system is divisive and emphasizes racial, religious and ethnic stereotypes, since each group will end up seeking their own kind in the name of "multiculturalism." There are differences from province to province, so I cannot speak for eastern Canada or the "nation" of Quebec.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 10:54 PM

I wish I could be as supportive of the ACLU as so many of you are, but I think they are biased too. I've never seen them take up the cause of a conservative. Perhaps they have, and I'd be happy to hear about it if someone knows of such a case.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Bert
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 11:14 PM

Kat, I'm with you all the way on this. It appears to me to be another attack on our freedom. Unfortunately I expect to see a lot more of this in the next four years.
It's a sore point with me how the Christian religion is allowed to affect those of us who are not Christian.

I'll say no more on this subject until I'm allowed to buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 11:27 PM

The separation of church & state just received another hit below the waterline here in Oz. Our Governor General designate ( our unelected head of state and the commander in chief of the armed forces ) is an anglican minister. He says he is going to wear a business suit Monday to Saturday but will don the religious attire for Sundays. Yes, I did say Oz, and not Nigeria.

JG/FME.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jun 01 - 11:39 PM

uh, Doug, I'd have to figure the American Nazi Party and the Klan to be pretty conservative.................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 12:00 AM

Thanks, Bert and Spaw.

From www.aclu.org:

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, August 31, 2000

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

A legal brief filed in the case can be read online at http://www.aclu.org/court/nambla.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 12:22 AM

Oh that one was a winner for them publicity wise! EVERYBODY hated them!

The ACLU has only one client, the Constitution and it's amendments.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 12:29 AM

I have a hard time seeing how a bunch of little kids praying in a school building either (a) establishes a religion as a state religion (that's what "establishing a religion" means), or (b) infringes on anybody else's rights, as long as they're allowed to use the building too.

I fear y'all have been silenced so long that now that you are allowed to speak, you have lost the ability to discriminate between true infringement, and something that is fun to bitch about but isn't really infringement at all.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 12:43 AM

Uh, not me, Spaw. I consider them extremist. Should I assume that you consider all conservatives extermists?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 12:52 AM

Doug;

Like 'em or not, extremist or not, they still espouse a predominantely 'conservative' agenda. They're out on the far fringe (as some of the radical ecoterrorists are out on the 'liberal' fringe), but they're still there.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 12:54 AM

Alex, I do not go around looking for things that are "fun to bitch about." The extremist agenda would have it much worse if they had their way. I consider it a duty to speak up when I feel there is an injustice.

As has been said before, religion should be taught at home. Have their meetings at home, or better yet in their own chuches and stay out of the schools.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:00 AM

Alex, I think there are a lot of aspects of this issue that are difficult to distill into any kind of simple terms.

As an example...

I was raised in a Protestent denomination. My school allowed the local Catholic Church to use the school for catechism classes after school hours. On my way home, I used to have to walk past the children who were waiting for catechism to start, as they taunted me and shouted to me that I was going to go to hell.

Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them and wasn't too troubled by what they said. And I considered myself lucky that I didn't have to go to catechism. Still, I think it can be safely said that I was infringed upon in some way by that scenario. And not all children in such a scenario come away from that kind experience unscarred.

So how do we insure that these kinds of things don't happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Peg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:36 AM

Religion does not belong in the schools!!!!

It just doesn't.

What the fuck is happening to this country???

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:36 AM

I suppose this could be considered an aside: Wasn't there also something about the Christian Group had always been allowed the building about 7 PM but not immediately after school hours (i.e. 3:15 or so)?

Didn't they sue to get the building immediately after school so they could "snag" more kids? (That's what's scary..)

What a conundrum........it's tempting to start a Pagan/Bhuddist/Muslim/Whatever instruction or prayer group here in Small Town, Wyoming just to see what would happen, and insist that it be held at 3:15 PM (school is out at 3:10).

I had Darwin from primary school through college, and only had Comparitive Religion in college/university. Never ANY religion in primary/secondary school; not even prayers at school events,(not even gospel songs in music class) except the Baccalaureate Service which was on a Sunday morning and optional. I didn't go.

I was educated in Kansas.............

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:36 AM

I suppose to be fair I should say this may be a rant, so, wearily I say, "Rant On." I suppose even so, some of you may choose to take my coments personally. (I don't mean them that way, but that's up to you!)

Perhaps taxpayers simply desire to use what their tax money has helped to build and maintain, like everyone else in the community.

What is the alternative? Separation of school and community. This is not about church and state, IMO, it is about what a community chooses to do with tax dollars and how people decide to work with or against one another. And about whether a school belongs to the community. The WHOLE community, warts and all.

I worked very hard to get a difficult referendum passed that raised taxes significantly in support of an excellent and diverse school system. The decisions that were made as it passed meant that taxes for other public works could not then be raised higher. The pockets had been tapped to the max. The Park District found that it had to "make do" when it had hoped to increase community buildings for public use. So it was hard, in that community, to find places to meet. In fact at Village Hall the staff often had to yield business meetings to community groups so groups could meet in the Village Hall's various conference rooms.

But everyone cooperated, and that was what made it work. There was a recognition that a healthy community generates all kinds of groupings and activities. We are after all a social species.

We express ourselves in community, in all our diversity. That was true in nearby Skokie, where Nazis were free to march in the midst of Holocaust survivors... it's the same old debate, "where do you draw the line on rights?" We have a good Constitution, not a perfect one. Certainly not an EASY one.

Some of you might also be surprised to know that at a lot of churches, there is little or no meeting space. Ours makes it facilities open to a wide variety of groups, many of which we might not agree with doctrinally. New church committees, etc. wanting meeting space often find that everything in the heated main buliding, which is quite small, is booked. (We do not charge groups for use unless they are charging a fee, either... it's part of our ministry in the community to make the space available, so in this case, we are paying for non-church use of our building. Including-- gasp-- town committees if they wanted, or-- gasp-- school groups! *G*) The Sunday school is in a separate wing which costs a fortune to heat-- so you do not heat a whole wing to get one room warm enough in the winter. That wing stays a cozy 50 degrees, weekdays, so the pipes don't freeze. So you meet in someone's home. Or you meet in another location. Sometimes in schools.

I also have worked with a tiny church that had no meeting space other than an unfinished basement full of mold, and no toilet anywhere in the building. And a fortune to heat the worship space. Meetings in school would have made sense-- especially with no parents at home in that dead mining town after school. It would have been nice for the kids club to have a clean place to meet, with supervision and activities. Unfortunately in that town, there no longer was a school-- eddication had been moved to the Big School in Town where the mining kids were treated like scum, by the teachers themselvs, segregated into classes in the lunchroom because those kids were "unteachable," it was said, being so poor and so untaught and so DIRTY. Yes. In our nice, NICE town. Well, the kids had to go home to their cold empty houses on the bus, so even if they had wanted to spend another minute in that school, it would not have been possible to run a late bus for the sever or eight kids left in that town by the time we moved here.

I am not commenting about this particular court case because the little I have heard about it differs enough from all the things said here that now I do not pretend to know enough to comment. And a lot of the comments are about RELIGION, not this case. But a lot of assumptions about churches are being made by people who do not know what the workings of a church actually ARE. And I think people ought to know what they are railing against, if only to rail (or work) against them accurately. To do otherwise is just sloppy.

I would also like to comment about the lack of discrimination against Christians. It does exist, and it is as invisible to those perpetrating and condoning it as most discrimination is to peple not affected by it personally. Here in our town if you express certain forms of Christianity you can get your kids taken away, and I am not talking about discipline or medical treatment. People's valid and personal spiritual expreinces are being evaluated by a secular system that labels it delusion.

I would just observe though that I can't recall ever coming to the Mudcat and finding a thread titled, "Pagans of any stripe, yucch." And if I did I would post in it the same as I did in the one running now that ends in that word.

Is it "discrimination" that I sit here with unexpected tears rolling because "my" Mudcat suddenly feels cold and unsafe for me, despite a good effort to bring about rational discussion? No, not legal discrimination. Is it the same unaware but hurtful pattern of our society as racism and sexism? Only the fear I have about pointing it out gives a clue that indeed, it may be.

I just want to know why we debate politics here, at a distance, when we all have our own communities to get involved in, our own neighbors to know and be concerned about, our own local allies and struggles where reality might actually present a check against our fears and biases.

What I would really enjoy would be a vacation from attacks on religion.... for Mudcat to be a break from that as much as some of you find it provides a break from the other cares of our world. The whole time I have been a Mudcatter it has not let up. How about freedom from attacks on religion, too. Yes, I know, religion has done horrible awful icky violent things. But we never apply a whine fee to people whining about THAT. It is PC here to go on and on about it... how about if we expected people to get over that and do something IRL to make a difference?

Rant Off.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 02:10 AM

WYSIWYG, I going to assume that you are not intending to sweep any of the legitimate concerns of the people who have posted here under the carpet with your post.

There are legitimate concerns and complaints. And if they are not addressed, that's when hatred toward religious groups begins to fester. And sometimes it helps for them to be addressed in a forum like this. Sometimes it's the only place some of us have. I hope you can find some good in any attempts people make to try to find common ground on difficult issues, either here in the Mudcat or elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Amergin
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 02:12 AM

the church of nathan tompkins and latter day nymphs is the only church that should be allowed in public buildings.....

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Ringer
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:51 AM

I can't resist a smile. Here in England, the C of E is the established church: it can't even change its form of worship without sanction of an Act of Parliament. And it doesn't make a bit of difference. A more secular country than mine you couldn't wish to find. Separation of church and state, it seems to me, offers little, guarantees nothing, and serves only to stir up arguments like the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Peg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 10:39 AM

WYSIWYG: of course your concerns are legitimate, but it is also true that some (not all) Christian evengelical groups are very AGGRESSIVELY trying to infiltrate schools and recruit children to their way of thinking (some as young as 5). If Jewish or Muslim or (gasp!) Pagan groups tried to do what this group in question has done, I think the response (and resulting legislative deciison) would have been quite different.

Pagan and other groups who see this as a warcry to start their own prayer or study groups are approaching this in a wrongheaded way, I believe. This violates our separation of church and state and is therefore unacceptable, and THAT is what our response should be.

I am thinking of the 12 year old girl who committed suicide earlier this year because, as a pagan and aspiring witch, she was teased by her classmates, soem of whom sang Christian hymns to her in the hallways at school until she cried.

12 years old. Hung herself because she was teased because of her wacky, fringe religion.

If prayer is allowed in schools, all the religious diversity our communities have embraced will be destroyed, because in some areas, the dominant faith is Christianity, and allowing these religious activities to take place on school grounds sanctions and gives tacit approval to these parctices, and this will irrevocably alter the social fabric of those schools, such that kids who practice other, less mainstream, religions will feel left out, ashamed, threatened, or worse.

Peg

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Gary T
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 11:18 AM

In reading these comments, and reflecting on past experiences, I think that what really worries people is proselytizing. I doubt anyone really begrudges allowing a church group or religious organization to use the school's physical facilities. The problem is that this all too often incorporates exploiting the overall set-up to foist a religious point of view on everyone.

When teachers and other school officials participate, even to the small degree of handing out permission slips in class, there is an implied endorsement of and a subtle (sometimes not so subtle) pressure to join with the group. In many cases, the peer pressure among the kids to join is intense. Most people don't want some church that they haven't selected trying to teach religious views to their kids. They particularly don't want to have to guard against that in a public school, which the great majority of folks are legally and economically compelled to send their kids to.

If a group would just have their meeting and leave others alone, I bet there would be no opposition. When they try to recruit kids to their beliefs and essentially shove those beliefs down their throats--and believe me, that happens a lot--people are going to squawk.

People feel they have a right to be free from religious proselytizing in government sponsored institutions. Too many religious groups seem all to willing to trample on that right and then moan about their rights being violated when they are denied access to such places as a public school. When the government facilitates their activities, say by allowing them to use schools to hold their meetings, it becomes a partner in establishing (partially) a religion.

"Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose." These folks don't seem to care about anyone else's nose. If they did, I don't think there be any uproar.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 11:21 AM

Hmmm, I can remember getting slapped in school for having the wrong type of bible. The only reason I had any bible was that my mum had given me her old King James version as we were told we HAD to have bibles at school. It was noticed and frowned upon that my sister and I did not attend Sunday School. This was only about 17 years ago, in a state (i.e. government-run) primary school in Northern Ireland. Oh, and I got slapped again for writing my name and address in the bible. Apparently that was some form of desecration. We seemed to spend a fair amount of time every day on bible studies. Some of them were good fun. I remember doing an excellent project on Moses!
When I attended a state run grammar school (i.e. secondary level education) it was compulsory to take Religious Education. It did me no harm at all, but annoyed me that there was no alternative. We had to sing hymns and pray in assembly. I do remember organised visits from other religious groups. These were more of the "don't join them" type though (e.g. ex-Jehovah's Witnesses bewailing stories of horror). A lot of my co-pupils didn't take too well to a local priest visiting and I got a slagging then too. By then I'd been labelled the "token Catholic" (because my parents are a mixed religion marriage) when I was quite sure by that stage that I was an atheist.
Perhaps I'm lucky - my Other Half went to a Christian Brothers run school. That put him right off education and religion being mixed.
I know when I have children that I want them to learn about different religions, but I don't want it forced upon them. It's a personal choice. I am happy for a school to teach religion objectively, but I've never seen it happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 11:26 AM

In the long run I think we should ENCOURAGE religious teachings - of ALL faiths - in our schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 11:28 AM

Great post, Sophocles.

Alex, you seemed to be saying there was little religious influence in your education (a long way back up the thread - sorry if I've got it wrong). But in that case how could the school nearly be closed down by the baptists, for teaching non-Cristian religions? How could the baptists have any say at all in what a school teaches? Also this doesn't square with another thread we had, where it was fairly widely agreed that some US schools teach creation rather than evolution under pressure from religious factions.

John Gray in Australia, when are all you like-minded people finally going to get your act together, bury the minor differences, and finally sort out that wretched constitution?

The UK's (unwritten) constitution isn't great either. Contrary to what Bald Eagle said, the continuing "established" status of the C of E does still exert a baleful influence. For instance, why the hell should bishops be able to vote in parliament on issues like the age of consent, or anything else? The UK is nothing like as secular as he thinks. France and Sweden are far ahead of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Mark Clark
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 11:40 AM

The first ammendment to the U.S. Constitution actually begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

You can read the U.S. Senate's annotated document on the First Ammendment and see what was intended by the framers and how it has been interpreted.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 11:42 AM

That girl killed herself because she was treated badly and didn't have tools to deal with it, not because she was any particular faith and others were a different one. The problem there is the awfulness people can indulge in, not the mask it wore. How about some accountability for her parents? The teachers? The girl herself?

There are lengthy debates at www.beliefnet about proselytizing and what it it, and is not. At least the people engaged in those debates are trying to understand something. They hang in and get into it. I have learned a lot there. Some of you have indicated privately that this has made me a "better" Christian to be around. (A better token?) I sure haven't learned much fom the threads here that have attacked religion.

I don't see anyone here trying to understand. I see people trying to express rigid opinions about things they find rigid.

A faith that is based on service to others sometimes is proselytizing and sometimes is not. I think some of you feel that Christians sit around in a smoky back room like old-fashioned Chicago Democrats, plotting how to make numbers, and that is not at all what is in the hearts of even the most rigid people you are referring to. I don't agree with a lot of the things you also don't agree with, but at least I know the people I am dealing with. Hating them, whatever your estimation of them, is not going to move you very far toward any goal of improving anything.

Try getting to actually know, as a friend, just one of the people you write about. Come from your own belief system to do it. Or does your belief system endorse attacking what you do not know and stirring up upsets?

And it's so ironic. Is anyone else doing anything for those kids after school? If there are language barriers clouding the situation, is anyone working with the parents to raise their language skills and awareness of what their kids are doing? Are these the same families we will all be complaining about when one of the lonely kids in pain takes a gun to school, "Where were the parents?" "Why didn't anyone DO something?" "Where were the churches?" "How come there is so much drug activity?"

THERE IS STILL NO SUBSTITUTE FOR GETTING TO KNOW ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 11:44 AM

well - because it is a state religion - and the head of the government is also the head of the church? (I'm not saying this is right - but it is logical given a state supported denomination.)

Subject: ADD: There's a Hero
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:15 PM

OK. I've spotted what it was that got my knickers so twisted that I entered into negativity. (Thanks, God, and thanks, Bert.)

It's that fear tends to beget fear. And I fell in too.

I am hearing a lot of fear in this thread. Concern can become action, but fear can become hatred. Fear makes us pull in to the safe spots, alone if necessary.

People forget how much power is in their positivity. I know I do.

Here is how I prefer to see people, especially fearful ones. Especially Mudcatters.

THERE'S A HERO
(by ???)

There's a flower in the smallest garden
Reaching for the light
There's a candle in the darkest corner
Conquering the night
There is amazing strength
In a willing hand
There are victories
That you've never planned
There's a hero
In everybody's heart

There's a fire inside of everybody
Burning clear & bright
There's a power in the faintest heartbeat
That cannot be denied
Go on and trust yourself
You can ride the wind
You're gonna take your dreams
Where's they've never been
There's a hero
In everybody's heart

Go on and trust yourself
You can ride the wind
You're gonna take your dreams
Where they've never been
There's a hero
In everybody's heart
There's a hero
In everybody's heart

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:20 PM

yup - fear causes a lot of problems - so do ignorance and misinformation. all the more reason to TEACH. And as much variety as possible.

When I was young - when we went camping - sundays Mom would take us to whatever church was closest. This usually meant a different denomination each week throughout the summer.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:41 PM

Okay, all you pagans: moment of honesty. If this were a Wiccan group instead of a Christian group which was allowed to use the school after suing, what would your response be? Be honest. Brutally honest. You'd be dancing in the streets, right?

Throughout my time in public school in this country I had atheism and agnosticism preached at me by teacher after teacher after teacher. A Christian girl was attacked by an english teacher for her "stupid" beliefs right before my eyes; she was in tears. (This is before I became "religious" in any sense, so I was (to my shame) one of her tormentors.) I never saw non-christians attacked by Christian teachers. If I didn't ask my teachers about their beliefs, I would never have known they were Christians. But, even though an obnoxious atheist, at least I was open-minded enough to want to hear what other people had to say, so I asked my teachers (when it was safe to do so) what they believed. They would only speak about it unofficially and off-hours, so to speak. The Christian ones said if they were to mention anything related to religion in their classes, they could risk being fired, so they didn't. Yet the atheist teachers spewed their hatred for religion with impunity. Oh yes, separation of church and state.

So now there are groups of Christian kids who want to do something on school grounds, immediately after school, like every other extracurricular group on campus. It's okay if you're anything else; chess club, D&D club, mythology club, African American Students, Asian American Students, whatever. Just not a Bible club. Not those nasty, evil, rude, crude, unsophisticated kids who just want to meet around the flagpole and pray. Are they intimidating their schoolmates? Hardly. They get yelled at and cursed at and people throw things at them. (My daughter is one, that's how I know.) Oh yeah, they're going to take over the whole school with their unfriendly and xenophobic religion. Sure.

I'm sorry I'm not as sensitive as I could be. But from my experience, you people are talking through your hats.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:42 PM

Rigidity? On the Mudcat? Surely you jest, Susan. :>)

SeanM: If in your post you are referring to conservatives as extremists, I think you are dead wrong. I do believe there are extreme conservatives, just as there are extreme liberals. IMOH, of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 01:53 PM

On the 12yo pagan:

Some of you may not remember being in junior high school. At that time of life, anybody who is different is considered bad, and ostracised (or worse). Remember? The fat kid in a school of skinny kids. The black kid in a school of white kids. The white kid in a school of black kids. The kid with glasses. The kid with funny clothes. The girl who is too late a bloomer. The girl who is too early a bloomer. The boy who is too tall and skinny. Anybody who is at all different is the object of scorn, or worse opprobrium, or worse harrassment, or worse assault. (With me it was assault; although I didn't know the word at the time.)

The example of a 12yo pagan being picked on isn't about religion. It's about adolescents and their values rigidity -- that is, the difficulty that kids have at that age in coping with people who are different. This shows nothing about "religion in this country" (except that pagans are a minority religion, which we already knew). I'm willing to bet that less than 20% of the kids at that girl's school even go to church on anything like a regular basis. Few of them, I'm sure, self-identify as "Christian." IT'S NOT ABOUT RELIGION.

Now, if you can come up with a way to teach adolescents to accept people who are different, I'm all ears. It's an uphill battle, though. Good luck.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 02:34 PM

What I notice here is that just about everyone (with the possible exception of Kat) is using the word "Christian" as if it denotes one monolithic group with one belief system. In the real world, that is not the case.

I belong to Central Lutheran Church on Capitol Hill in Seattle. This church does a lot of social service: provides free meals, seeks out housing for the homeless, visits prisoners at the Monroe State Reformatory (not to proselytize, but to conduct Alternatives to Violence workshops), headquarters for the Pacific Northwest chapter of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship. Lots of activism. Our pastors (a young woman and a very large black man with an ear-ring) have been known to get themselves arrested at demonstrations. One of our former pastors (now retired) did six months in the slammer for picketing at the Bangor Trident Submarine Base. There are some passages in Matthew 25 (about "the least of these") that these folks take pretty seriously. Evangelize? Button-hole people, drag them in, and try to save their souls? No. The best form of evangelism is by example. The congregation is burgeoning — lots of young people who join because they figure "these people are not full of hot air, they're actually doing something." Also, a few years ago, Central incorporated the "Affirmation of Welcome" (look it up "Advanced Search" on google.com). Boy did we get flak about that! From several other Christian denominations.

One the other hand, the Seattle area often has to put up with people like "the Redmond Rednecks." Same general stuff as the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference folks: trying to infiltrate the school system, demanding that certain books be removed from school and other libraries, the usual Fundamentalist blather. A few years back, they sued the University of Washington because the English Department offered a course called "The Bible as Literature." I took the course. The Prof treated the Bible as a collection of short stories, novellas, poems . . . in general, as literature. He made a point of saying that any religious interpretation was strictly up to the individual student, and we would not be discussing that part of it. That was the problem. The Redmond bunch objected because it was not being taught as the "revealed Word of God."

There are some huge gaps between various people who call themselves "Christians" As I mentioned in another thread, Fundamentalists give Christians a bad name.

For myself, I may actually be a Pagan. I'm still working that out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 02:37 PM

Alex and Susan, the majority of my family and friends are Christians; that's just the way the Western world is made up. Many Mudcatters are Christian and do not seem to feel the way you do. Also, I seriously doubt that you would ever hear of any Mudcatter, Christian or not, who would be as nasty as you think they would be or as you have seen others be.

Those of us who have different experiences or feelings will not be silenced by stridency and blanket accusations. I do not hold rigid beliefs and I had tried to ask that the tone of this thread be civil. Please everyone remember that.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Amergin
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 02:46 PM

well katdarling, you can be one of the Latter Day Nymphs in my church.....

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 02:51 PM

"I sure haven't learned much fom the threads here that have attacked religion."

--WYSIWYG

I would just like to point out that most of the people who have expressed concern about this issue are not attacking religion. Most of them have religions of their own. What they are voicing concerns about is not being able to practice their own religion without interference.

When you say that someone who has a religion and is concerned about members of other religious groups prosletyzing, is attacking or protesting religion, what people hear you are saying is that your religion is the only religion.

I am not a member of any organized religion. But I do have strong spiritual beliefs. I have spent a lifetime being told that my beliefs are wrong, that they will land me in hell, and any number of other horrible things. Some of this has come from my own family. All of it has come from people who call themselves Christians. Maybe Christians have experienced the same kind of thing from non-Christians.

The hard truth is that what these experiences have taught me is to keep my spiritual beliefs to myself, and to not talk about them with anyone who is not of like mind. Works pretty well for me.

P.S. Alex, I suggested that Pagans might look at this thing in a positive light and see it as an opportunity to use the schools themselves. The Pagans who have posted to this thread don't seem to think it's a good thing even when seen in that light. So I think your premise that they would be dancing in the streets is probably faulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:13 PM

I really hate these threads. Under normal conditions, we are all caring and compassionate individuals here and as a group we often display that same kindness. Yet we often cannot see past the obvious. Those old farts who wrote the and adopted the Constitution were reaonably bright men. Over 200 years later, this is one of the most religious countries on earth and it is because they were smart enough to deal us a two-edged sword.

Rights for all means rights for one. With almost 200 various "religions" the beauty inherent in the First amendment and it's two parts insures that though we can argue to our wit's end, the simple line still holds the key:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There are two parts here........The "establishment" part requires a strict separation of church and state and the "free exercise" part mandates that we are all free to practice any form of religion without government interference. In combination they protect our religious freedom. Period. Dot. End.

No, it's not of course as we all seem to have to personalize it to mean whatever we think will support OUR religion or belief system. Why? If you take it at face value, that right to belief is already protected without additional interpretation. It can only assure the rights of all by insuring the rights of one.

Yeah, I don't like the Klan erecting a cross on Fountain Square in Cincy at Christmas, but unless I allow them their belief and their particular icon, I cannot allow a nativity scene, a menorrah, a Christmas tree, or anything else. It's very simple............but nothing eats into us more does it?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:17 PM

CarolC , OK , instead lets discuss the weather. Nice weather weve been having ?

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:17 PM

Two things.....

Good post Carol.

and

That's 2000 religions, not 200.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:21 PM

*wondering what I am...am I a pagan?...an atheist?...a scoffer?...never really bothered to work out a label..*

in any case, I would NOT be dancing if a wiccan group were refused meeting space...same rules apply to all as long as the Wiccans weren't trying to recruit.

I think the awkwardness for me, and some others, is that many Christian denominations are EXHORTED to recruit. IF you truly believe, then saving other souls is a high calling. Some people take literally the idea that those without a certain experience are going to hell for eternity, and that anything they can do to reduce the number of those doomed ones is *good*.....They use pschology, peer pressure, appeals to guilt, low-key inducements, (yes, even wonderful music) to get the 'message' out.

It is a fine line where fairness ends and pressure begins in tactics, and we all have different tolerances and sensitivity to it. I have not been a member of an organized religious group for 35 years, but I still am VERY aware of the many levels of pressure to believe, conform, recruit and 'witness'.

I do NOT go out and stop people on the street ot knock on their doors to get them to STOP believing anything, but I get MY door knocked on, and I preached at from street corners, and when a group of admitted evangelicals wants to hold meetings, I ***KNOW*** that they are always looking for new members, and that they have GREAT difficulty understanding why there must be limits put on what they are SURE is a good and holy mission.

It is not easy being a country that both allows freedom of worship, and still limits how & when that worship can take place. I will fight for YOUR right to meet and worship as you please, but I will fight YOU if you seem to be imposing and/or pushing your beliefs on those who did not seek them.

*end of rant*

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:25 PM

(Thanks Spaw)

A bit hot an muggy here, Donuel. What's it like where you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:33 PM

Even though I sense a troll...I'll bite...

As Gary T said, I think the thought of proselytizing is the real fear here.

As Susan said, it's about taxpayers and community and how people choose to work with or against each other. In my community there are three school systems: city, county, parochial. There are constantly questions about school buses serving the parochial schools, etc. These are not always easy issues, and there can be subtle discriminations concerning scheduling, etc., but cooperation makes it all work.

Concerning the issue of separation of church and state...I theoretically and idealistically come down on the side of as much separation as possible. (translated: I don't want anyone to influence my children in any ideas that I don't hold) But as a classroom teacher I usually saw a complete and total void of any influence at all. The real problem in my experience is APATHY. (and peer pressure)

Let's remember the children, look at what's really happening in the schoolyard and community, get involved. School (like life) ain't what it was when we were there. (no comments, Amergin, about how long ago that was!) Kids and schools need lots of help. So all of us with grand idealistic ideas about how things should be, get in there. Your presence is needed.

whew, all kinds of posts come in while I'm trying to write.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:39 PM

Nymph it is then, Amergin! Thanks!

Gosh, BillD, I should just follow along and post "what he said!"

Spaw, I am sorry. Bad timing and a thick head.. they both got in the way.:-)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:48 PM

For what it's worth in this discussion, the religious persecutions that have occurred down through the ages. at least in Western "Civilization" have been mostly perpetrated by the religious majority onto some religious minority--Kat's point that "Last time I checked, Christianity was still in the majority and not really suffering from any inquisitions", is well taken, but overlooks the fact that Christians have periodically cast out and even exterminated groups of other christians, often in a dispute that revolves around the meaning of a few words in text--

Many religious groups have a deeply ingrained thread of contempt and dislike for certain other religious groups, and often enough, in reality the people and their beliefs are not that different--when push comes to shove, however, this doesn't matter, and the blood is spilled--and blood is blood--

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:56 PM

Doug;

Actually, you did get my point - not all conservatives are extremeists, nor are all liberals, but both 'wings' have got a significant number of assholes parading around in costumes of various designs, all carrying the banner of intolerance.

I tried making a point earlier, but I believe it may have been lost in my stating - but others have come close to it as well.

I'll say it again. I'm not christian. I am probably just plain ol' agnostic. BUT, I also think that FOR THE ISSUE AS I HAVE SEEN IT PRESENTED IN THE COURT BRIEFS, the Supreme Court made the correct decision.

AS I HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE, the question asked was NOT whether the club should be allowed to proselytize, flyer, sacrifice, martyr or do anything else. The question that the court decided on was whether it was correct for the school to exclude this club from meeting on campus by virtue of the faith they profess. If this is in fact the question (and it is, as I understand the briefs I've read), then the court made the VERY right decision. As has been said before, by defending the rights of the unpopular and minority groups to do the same as other more 'mainstream' organizations do, you empower ALL groups.

Now... It DOES appear that there are satellite issues attendant on this case that while related to the main question, are not integral to the central issue that was decided. I consider this quite similar to the brouhaha over the 'medicinal marijuana' decision - which I also feel was correct GIVEN THE QUESTION ASKED (Not 'should marijuana be legalized' or any variant - the question asked was 'should state legislation take precedence over directly conflicting federal legislation', and their answer was 'no').

Now...

For anyone getting emotional over this, PLEASE try to take a step back and breathe. Then consider...

This decision did NOT legalize prayer in classroom, establish a religion, condone the dissemination of religious materials - or even permission slips - in class or any of the like. The decision simply said it's wrong to discriminate against a group holding meetings in a public facility that is used by other groups for meetings as well. This isn't even a groundbreaking decision. It's a fight that groups like the various gay/lesbian support clubs, the various ethnic support groups, and a host of other 'clubs' have fought over the years.

If you STILL think the court made the wrong choice... strip religion out of the equation entirely (after all, at no point was the Supreme Court asked to rule on religion). Replace Christian with "NAACP"... or "Young Republicans"... or "Red Cross"... or any of a number of other organizations. Pick one that you personally identify with. Now, tell me. Is it still wrong that the court would defend their using the school after hours for meeting purposes?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:11 PM

Thank you, SeanM.

Kat, I'm not sure what you mean about Mudcatters being mean; that was Sue's bailiwick, not mine. The majority of my family and friends are agnostic or atheist. THIS is the America I know. At my high school when I was there, and at my daughter's junior high school now, Christians are a persecuted minority. I know because I persecuted them; she knows because she is one.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:33 PM

Sorry, Alex.

SeanM, FWIW, it is my understanding that children had been given permission slips to take home to their parents, in order to attend this particular club which was in this case, that is the Good News Club.

MTed, thanks for pointing that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: chip a
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:36 PM

Well said Sean M.

:)

Chip A.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:40 PM

Kat: um, I forgive you. What are you apologizing for?

Oh by the way, Kat, a sincere "thanks" for your efforts to keep this thread on a civil keel. *I* noticed, and I'm glad you have done what you have.

Turning back to the court case in question: It seems to me that people are looking at this not as a court case abuot a group meeting on school grounds, but as a symbol of something large and sinister: pushy prosetylization by conservative Christians. Which is, no doubt, obnoxious.

I have mused about affixing a big icon on my front door (of Mary of course!), and when the prosetylizers come to the door, listening to them a bit, then looking at my watch and excitedly chirping "Excuse me! It's 4:17!" (or whatever the actual time is) -- then kneeling and prostrating before the icon, and kissing it, then standing up, brushing off my knees, and saying, "Now, where were we?"

I forget who said it, but it's true: How come nobody who wants to "share their faith" with me, wants me to "share my faith" with them in return?

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:55 PM

Hearts are not political. They're soft and fuzzy. To communicate with one is to leave agreeing or disagreeing behind as a goal or a way of communicating.

A heart is something you hold gently in your hand when someone gives it to you to hold for a bit. It's usually a trade... one hopes the other holds one's heart as gently. Precious things. Good to hold. Good to have held.

Hearts usually turn out to be much the same, regardless of what the tongue spouts when connected. When you hold one, and yours is held, that becomes quite clear, and simple. It causes a sort of awe-filled feeling of curiosity and privilege. And gratitude.

Hearts hide when politics hold sway, and shouting is the communication in force.

Miss the heart and you miss the human being living beside you. Look around yourself... I know there are a lot of them to see. When you do, tell me what you see.

Hearts can be open even when minds slam shut. They are much, MUCH harder to close.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:59 PM

...but Alex, why would you want a picture of me on your front door? ;-)

My hubby tells those door-to-door types that they are welcome to come back anytime, just don't bring their religion with them. No takers so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:19 PM

Hell Mary, you can be on my front door. I have a few doors open for icons as I only worship either at the "Shrine of the Immaculate Emmylou" or the "Church of No Redeeming Social Value." All we need is a name for your church and you're on your way to pin-up land!

I haven't had any dash statuary either, but since acquiring Cleigh's nemesis, "The Little Pissant," I've seriously thought of putting him on the dashboard of my Astro.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:41 PM

In an earlier post, someone made the statement that all Xtianity is not monolithic.

To which I can only answer: bullshit.

All of Xtianity's agenda, which is blatantly exposed in the court case that led to this thread, is SALVATION. Deno

That is to say, it sees its job as promulgating itself in order to gain as many adherents as possible

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:46 PM

What's "Deno"?

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:52 PM

Little dinosaur, 'bout yea tall.....kinda' spotted.............

Or maybe it's Enzo Ferrari's kid....or Dean Martin's................

Maybe he meant DEVO and in that case, I've never had any idea what they were.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:56 PM

Well they're certainly not Men. Says so in that song.

ALex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST,Guest (again)
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:56 PM

In an earlier post, someone made the statement that all Xtianity is not monolithic.

To which I can only answer: bullshit.

All of Xtianity's agenda, which is blatantly exposed in the court case that led to this thread, is salvation (a rather nebulous concept, IMHO). Denomination be damned, Xtianity sees itself as having a divine mandate to promulgate itself in order to gain as many adherents as possible.

Now, work with me on this. If you're going to claim that: 1. you have legal rights and standing based on those rights that stem from your belief in an entity that has absolutely no observable, overt, physical manifestation, and 2. you demand that other folks accept the validity of your belief structure simply because it is a matter of longstanding tradition,

3. Then I would respectfully submit that you have to accept the church of bonky the clown (just made that up) -- or the ravings of a clearly psychotic individual -- as deserving of the same rights as yourself.

The problem with Xtianity is that it wants points 1 and 2 and doesn't want to grant point 3 to others.

The widespread existence of Xtianity is a testament to its own internally-consistent memes that preach promulgation at any cost rather than any sort of altruism or actual peace or love. That's what the Xtian group that won the ruling has won -- ultimately, it's the right to promulgate itself through a captive audience.

Consequently, I don't see this ruling as at all correct. In like fashion, I wouldn't see ANY numinous-focused group as having legitimate standing in this sort of a case. If fewer people subsumed solving problems now for pie in the sky later, we'd all be better off. Religions, IMHO, provide nothing more than a rather limited range of solutions to the complex problems of existence. They do provide some good ethics; the ten commandments, at least those that don't demand that [Gg]od be worshiped, are a fairly useful code. But so are the teachings of the Buddha (when not nattering about nirvana), Shinto, and other religions. But on the whole, they provide ways for folks to avoid looking squarely at problems and having to think their way through to a good solution.

end of rant. Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:58 PM

I do think that passing out permission slips IN class to something (anything) OUTSIDE of class is wrong. The school should not be doing that, and probably is violating some rule when they do.

There IS a rule about having to have a slip, in most schools, to skip taking the bus, or to take a bus other than one;s usual to go home with a pal, but the slip is for the contracted bus company to deal with risk management, I believe.

A note like that is supposed to come from the parent, directly, not via an activity that requires staying.

In other words, part of what sounds messed up here, as far as boundaries and separation go, is that the school has been "helping" with Good News Club publicity.

The "draw" to join it should happen outside of school entirely, via community publicity, just like other activities, unless the club is motivated by students starting it on their own, which I think unlikely. Students should have freedom of speech to invite friends to come, and use print materials to do it if they wish, but the teachers should not be involved in xeroxing and distributing the flyers or slips.

I know Girl Scouts and Cub Scouts, etc. usually get "school dispensation" to distribute stuff in class, but in that case they supply their own paper and teachers as a rule hate doing it, from what teaching friends have shared with me, because it is ONE MORE THING. But it is really supposed to be school biz only.

And that, IMO, is an entirely winnable fight that should be undertaken-- but only if people at the local level want to fight it, and if it's OK with them, then it should not be our biz.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:59 PM

You know what's really, really funny, GUEST? You don't seem to know ANY real Christians. You seem to know the narrow-minded assholes who can't smile at a person that refuses to listen to their rantings. I am a Christian minister. A PREACHER. A LOUD, JUMP-UP-AND-DOWN, HOLY GHOST, BIBLETHUMPNG preacher. And yet, it's strange... I never seem to find time in my day to PUT DOWN other beliefs. I simply respond to anything anyone says to me in a way that is in accordance with my beliefs. Yet when the word Christian is mentioned, everyone feels perfectly OK about generalizing and making fun. Christianity as the majority? Hardly. Christianity as a 'monolith with a salvation agenda'? Friend, you don't know the first thing about Christians. We don't seek adherents. We ourselves seek to adhere. Ask any REAL Christian and they will tell you that people don't save anything. Most people can't even save coupons.

You want to know about salvation? try this: save your breath.

Stevangelist

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:00 PM

The problem with Xtianity is that it wants points 1 and 2 and doesn't want to grant point 3 to others.

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and I'm willing to grant point 3 to others. Maybe we're not as monolithic as you would have us be.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:04 PM

PS "Xtianity" would stand for Christtianity, since "X" stands for "Christ." I wonder if Guest has a stuttering problem?

Stevangelist: simmer down, boy! Illegitimi non carborundum. Don't lower yourself to Anonyguest's level. Anger breeds only anger.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:10 PM

Alex, GOD (I said it) bless you.

Just because I don't believe someone else is correct in their beliefs doesn't mean I can't allow them to have and promote those beliefs. I concede point 3 on a daily basis. If someone wants to believe they can reach relationship with God by hitting themsleves in the head with a frying pan 100 times a day, I say let 'em. Ain't my job to point out their faults...

May The Road Rise To Meet You,

Stevangelist

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:13 PM

Steve and Alex,

I'm glad you're willing to grant point three to others. In general, that's not been my experience. It's been my experience that Xtianity, particularly fundamental Xtianity, resolutely demands rights for itself, and demands the right to insert itself into public life in this country, and demands that it be allowed use of public facilities to further its own message because "we're taxpayers."

Great argument. I'm also a taxpayer and I don't want to either see my money go to an organization which has no raison d'etre other than self-perpetuation and no basis other than faith. When people tell me to have faith, I tell them I'll wait until the check clears, and then I'll ship....not bloody well before. I also don't want my taxes coming back at me in the form of some publicly-subsidized religious exercise which someone in gov't has decided is sufficiently of merit to be allowed to attempt to instruct me on the error of my ways.

I don't like ANY religion in the public sphere. My take is that if you want to believe something, that's fine. But if the belief is based on faith rather than objective reality, it doesn't belong in public policy at any level. There's too much room for abuse in the name of faith....as witness the Crusades, the Inquisition, a variety of Islamic jihads, and certainly a great many others that I can't list. Social policy should be based on close observation of human nature, which I submit is basically as Hobbes described it -- I'm not an optimist -- understanding that we need to adapt to minimize the harm caused by our basic primate urges.

Steve, what did you mean by this: "You want to know about salvation? try this: save your breath. "

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:18 PM

I think we're closer, GuestGuest, than you might believe. I'm also very uncomfortable with religion in the public sphere -- because there is no such thing as generic religion; anything religious excludes or denies somebody else's religious beliefs, and that's pushing towards establishment. BUT not letting a bunch of little kids use a classroom for whatever religious club they may have, when every other club in the school is allowed to, is just as much religious discrimination as anything else that's been mentioned here.

I'm also uncomfortable with having prayer opening the Senate and stuff like that.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "based on objective reality" -- do you mean something that has been scientifically verified? If two people see a flash in the sky but nobody else does, is that "objective reality"? What if the others weren't looking in the same direction? This could be an interesting topic to take up, maybe in a different thread. I don't think "objective reality" is nearly so objectively definable as you apparently do.

Alex the philosopher

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:19 PM

What I mean is that there is such a dearth of knowledge in the general public's mind about authentic Christianity that it would be wise to save one's breath in order to not try to typify or pigeon-hole the members of that faith. I would never say that ALL Buddhists wear orange robes and are bald-headed Orientals... so why is every 'fundamentalist' Christian a narrow-minded bigot bent on zombie-izing the world with faith and fairy tales?

Stevangelist

P.S. There are so-called 'fundamentalist Christians' who are as full of shit as anyone else... they don't know thw truth, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:23 PM

Is "thw truth" Welsh? :-P

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:36 PM

Kat & Susan;

You're both making a point that while I heartily agree with it, it's not the issue at hand (the Supreme Court decision).

The meetings themselves - which is what the decision covered - don't really seem to be the point of disagreement.

What the disagreement seems to be is the use or appearance that the school (and there from extension the local government) approves and uses public funds to support the organization. I think I said it earlier - THAT part (if it is indeed the case) is very likely against the 'separation clause'.

In related news, this article covers the Senate's passing of an amendment that would

"withhold federal funds from school districts that deny use of their facilities to the Boy Scouts because of the organization's exclusion of homosexuals."

This DOES raise a few interesting points. The BSA, normally worthy organization that it is, DOES bar the admission of homosexuals, which puts it athwart anti-discrimination laws regarding usage of public facilities in several states.

I see two issues: First, the BSA would apply under the recent Supreme Court decision excepting the anti-discrimination statutes.

Second, by willfully discriminating (and having been ruled that their discrimination IS legal), do they still have a right to the public facilities, given state law? I'm not sure if this is a conflict between state and other regulatory bodies, beyond the fact that schools in affected areas would now be facing a wonderful catch-22 - violate local laws by giving a group classified as 'discriminatory' public facilities to operate in, or lose federal funding by following said laws.

Interesting, indeed. Without the rhetoric, it becomes a sticky legal point. Anyone care to place bets on THIS one making it to the Supremes?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:50 PM

Alex,

You are correct; we are, in part, on the same page. And I'm only GUESTGUEST because at this point I haven't set up a login. I shall set to and do that and then log in as myself....have to find an appropriate nom de debate.

"I'm also very uncomfortable with religion in the public sphere -- because there is no such thing as generic religion; anything religious excludes or denies somebody else's religious beliefs, and that's pushing towards establishment"

Exactly. Where we differ is in the expression. I do believe that having a club meet in a school, especially when their expressed motivation is to gather adherents, is wrong. The goal is not really instruction but increase. Chess club, math club, sports, etc, are based around relatively agreed-upon criteria -- the rules of chess and improvement thereby, math and its assorted and messy permutations, and so forth. A religious club for children exists less for the children than because some adult wishes an excuse to proselytize.

"I'm also uncomfortable with having prayer opening the Senate and stuff like that. "

Ditto. The most recent rampage (the spat over who the chaplain would be) was particularly repugnant, and, I think, instructive. The then-governing party, itself allied with certain extremist religious groups, basically attempted to supplant a perfectly good chaplain of the "wrong" religion (RC) with one of their own fold (SB). Now, chaplain, per se, s/b nondenominational and the one who had been in office for a bit had been (by all accounts) doing a perfectly good job. Why was he suddenly assailed? I'd suggest that it's due to a latent intolerance, and one unbefitting people at that level of government.

"I'm not at all sure what you mean by "based on objective reality"

I suppose a better term might be common sense. If a tree's leaves are green, they're green irrespective of who is looking at it (all other things being equal, assuming daytime and sunlight and people with vision and no colorblindness, etc). If a tree has no leaves, then it has no leaves, and saying it has leaves won't make it so.

I find no direct link between physical manifestations and any numinous object (a god or other such being/force/what-have-you). Consequently, when I find someone speaking for their god, I am compelled to ask how they know their god's position on the issue at hand. If they cite historical texts, I can ask that they clarify the ethics expressed in said texts, but I fail to see the text as evidence of a numinous hand.

Given the inability of the religious I've dealt with to establish a clear causal relationship that leaves no doubt as to:

- any demonstrable existence of their numinous entity; - the positions allegedly taken and statements allegedly made by that numinous entity; - the correctness of their interpretations of the alleged statments and positions

... then I am loath to accept that their reasoning be established as public policy. If I suddenly told everyone that I had a vision in which everyone did something -- I don't know, wore white on alternate Thursdays -- and attempted to say it was of divine inspiration and cited a millinia-old text supporting my position, you'd tell me I was crazy. But that's what many religions ask us to do. I see it as a means by which to exert (often abusive) social control much more than as any sort of tool for peace and justice.

Personally, I believe that if I treat other people well, that I've done all I can do, and have (hopefully) left the world a more civil place. Demanding that other people adopt my view of proper living is pointless and time-consuming. I find it offensive and demeaning when someone who is religious who knows my antipathy towards religion assumes that my lack of religion is congruent to a lack of basic ethics....and it happens all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:14 PM

At last! A music tie-in:

A U.S. public high school, French class, circa 1964. The teacher was born in France and presumably Catholic. It was December, and we were translating French Christmas carols into English. One student stumbled over the phrase, "pour effacer la tache originelle" ("to erase original sin").

The carol was "Minuit Chrétiens", which is commonly known in English as "O Holy Night." As is common with verse translations, the familiar English version is quite different from the original. In fact, "O Holy Night" doesn't mention original sin at all.

With some prompting, the student finally arrived at the "correct" translation, but she was still confused and doubtful. She had never heard the term "original sin" before, and asked what it meant. The teacher's response was "What's the matter with you? Don't they teach you anything in that church of yours?"

Naturally the student felt humiliated, and so did anyone else who was unclear on the concept of original sin. (Original sin is the guilt that you inherit from Adam and Eve, and has nothing to do with your own behavior. How many knew that?)

I don't know whether this teacher was scornful of Protestantism in general, or whether she was merely ignorant of the fact that most Protestant churches either deny the existence of original sin, or de-emphasize it to the point that they don't bother to teach their kids about it. Perhaps she was merely scornful of what she assumed to be this particular student's failure to study her catechism carefully. But scornful she was, and she showed it.

The doctrine of separation of church and state may not prevent incidents like this, but it goes a long way toward minimizing them. And as such, I'm in favor of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:22 PM

Jim Dixon, I don't see how separation of church and state helps prevent such incidents at all. There are always asshole teachers willing to humiliate kids; if they don't humiliate them about religion, they'll humiliate them about something else.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:26 PM

Sean, I don't think even this Court will accept a case like that and I doubt it ever gets there. "Discriminatory Groups" have a long history of access to public facilities and on that basis alone I don't think it will ever be heard. Once again, no matter how repugnant or even mild a group or individual is, they have the same "rights."

I think the more interesting response will come from the schools. Will funding be withheld if they restrict ALL outside usage? By doing so, the school is showing no discrimination and the state would be hard pressed to show cause.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:56 PM

Stevangelist, I heartily support your right to believe whatever suits you as long as you don't attempt to infringe upon my right to believe what suits me.

Where I begin to have problems with your words is when you make broad sweeping generalizatons like this one...

"I simply respond to anything anyone says to me in a way that is in accordance with my beliefs. Yet when the word Christian is mentioned, everyone feels perfectly OK about generalizing and making fun."

I submit that your use of the word 'everyone' is hardly fair, and is far from correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 08:53 PM

Jim - I think your example just poiints out that a) the teacher was either ignorant or deliberatly baiting the child

and b) that a good broad based culteral course in various faithsa and denominations would DECREASE such incidents as people would be aware of differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Peg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 09:14 PM

Alex wrote:

"Okay, all you pagans: moment of honesty. If this were a Wiccan group instead of a Christian group which was allowed to use the school after suing, what would your response be? Be honest. Brutally honest. You'd be dancing in the streets, right?"

NO I would not. Because this is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Why even bother to ask questions if you are just going to provide your own answers?

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 12:16 AM

Sorry Peg. I'll try not to do that next time.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:29 AM

From what I've seen, nobody has responded to this question yet:

He said all children, there [in Germany], from kindergarten through 4th grade, have to attend religious instruction classes during their school day. According to him, they have a choice of Roman Catholic or Lutheran. His son was prepared, in school, for his first communion by the local priest. When asked what a person was supposed to do if they were Jewish, he had no answer, except that a better question might be what to do if one is Muslim, as they have so many immigrants.

I would like to hear from some of you who live in Germany, if this is true, please.

That's a mixture of true and false and a central assertion (have to) is false.

There is religious instruction in the curriculum of all German schools (after kindergarten) but it is the only part of the curriculum that is not compulsory (for a qualification see below). Until a kid is 14 years old it is her parents choice whether she has to attend or not, from 14 on it is her choice.

Due to the relative proportion of catholics/protestants the usual classes offerend will come from these two faiths. With a strong enough minority from another religion there can be classes for other religions as well.

In some lands (parts) of Germany, pupils that do not go to religious instruction have to attend a class on 'general ethics' (or some other fancy name) in which thry are e.g. taught about ethical questions from different point of views, among them religious.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:36 AM

I still don't see, based on the constitution, how the use of the school by a religious group of any affiliation defys seperation of church and state.

basically the constitution says no rights shall be denied based on religion (or lack therof)

if any other non-school group has the right to use the school - then so does a religious one.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:43 AM

kat, Wolfgang - there is a similar set up in N.Ireland:

"Religious Education
All schools, except nursery and special schools, must provide religious education for all pupils as part of the curriculum, and must also give then the opportunity to take part in daily collective worship.

As a parent you have, however, the right to ask that your child should be excused from attending classes in religious education, or from collective worship, or both.

In special schools, religious education and collective worship will be provided insofar as this is practicable.

From September 1993 a core syllabus for religious education must be used in all grant- aided schools."

(from The Parents' Charter for Northern Ireland)

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:56 AM

Thanks, Wolfgang and Fibula. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 03:45 PM

Mmario -

There's a case of that right now in California. I can't find a link to it, so I'll copy the blurb from the local paper: "

School District Bans Student Clubs

An Orange County high school district banned noncurriculum clubs from its campuses rather than allow the establishment of a Christian club.

The action resulted from a lawsuit settlement by Saddleback Valley Unified School District, which agreed to exclude student clubs rather than allow a chapter of Fellowship of Christian Athletes on one of its campuses.

The clubs will have to meet before or after school, and can no longer use campus bulletin boards or other school outlets to solicit members or publicize meetings, Bill Manahan, the school district superintendent, said Thursday.
FROM NEWS SERVICES"

What I find interesting is that this is two pages after the article wherein the 'Boy Scout' funding restriction that I mentioned above has been broadened (By Barbara Boxer - a Democrat, no less) to now state that a school refusing to allow a group that discriminates on the basis of the organization's "position concerning sexual orientation" to use their facilities risks losing federal funds.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 03:52 PM

I am enjoying GUEST/GUEST's rantings in particular, since (and I am sorry to say this,Guest) he crusades for "objective reality" with a pouch full of totally subjective blathering--this statement is a good example:

"I find no direct link between physical manifestations and any numinous object (a god or other such being/force/what-have-you)"

One imagines that someone who refutes (or seems to refute, depending on what a "Numinous object" is) Aristotle, St. Thomas, DesCartes, among others, would give us a little more to go on than the extremely subjective assertion that that *he* has seen nothing--

The business about 'If a tree has no leaves, then it has no leaves, and saying it has leaves won't make it so." demonstrates that he is neither a student of logic nor a student of natural science--a tree could have no leaves because it's leaves were on the ground, in which case it simultanously has leaves and has no leaves- (and even a kindergartener can verify that this is often the case)--

My point really is that GUEST/GUEST really doesn't seem to have made any sort of objective or oritical inquiry into any of the ideas or philosophies that he is lambasting--

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:42 PM

Mousethief, I've been pondering your assertion that separation of church and state wouldn't prevent the incident I described above.

If you think of separation of church and state as being purely a legal principle, where the only means of enforcing it is to sue someone, then I suppose you're right. But I think of it as more than that. For me it's also an ethical principle, a moral ideal, and I wish more people accepted it as such, too.

Here's an analogy: Assault and battery is a crime, punishable by a jail term. But that's not why we teach our children not to fight. Most adults feel that unnecessary violence is morally wrong. (Interestingly, I don't see anything in the Ten Commandments that prohibits punching your neighbor in the nose, so I wonder why so many people consider them the paragon of moral guidance.)

When kids fight, most adults will intervene to stop them. We usually don't find it necessary to call the police or sue the other kid's parents. That's because there is a consensus among adults that fighting is a bad thing. If we did not have this consensus - if, say, one kid's parents encouraged him to assault other kids - then perhaps we would be forced to have the police or the courts intervene.

Now I believe that needlessly flouting your religious beliefs, practices, or lack of them, in front of people whose beliefs are different, is morally wrong. I wouldn't invite a Muslim to my house for dinner and then serve him pork. I wouldn't hide the fact that I sometimes eat pork, but I probably wouldn't cook it or eat it in front of him, either. I would do this because (1) I want to be polite and respectful and make him feel comfortable, and (2) I don't feel that going without pork for a short time is much of a hardship for me.

Separation of church and state is simply politeness extended to the public sphere. Or at least it COULD be thought of that way, if we could count on people to be polite. But I'm afraid we can't. Unlike fighting, we don't have a consensus in America about whether religious practice in public is good or bad, offensive or honorable, uplifting or degrading. It's because of this lack of consensus that we end up fighting it out in court.

I wish religious people all felt that they could refrain from vocally praying in public schools as easily as I refrain from eating pork while my Muslim friend is visiting. That just seems like the polite thing to do. And that's what the majority of religious people actually do. It's only a minority (but possibly a majority in some areas) who claim that NOT vocally praying is a hardship and an injustice. I can't help but feel they are a bit disingenuous (to put it mildly) when they claim to be an OPPRESSED minority.

To get back to my original point - if there were a consensus that separation of church and state is more than a legal principle, but also a moral ideal, then I would have some basis for approaching that teacher who insulted her student's religion. I could say, "Look, this is a public school. You are paid by tax money. You have no business commenting on other people's religion." And I might have some chance persuading her to stop. But without that consensus, the teacher could equally claim, "Hey, you're trying to restrict MY freedom of speech!" And if I had to appeal to the administration, I wonder whose side they would come down on?

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:46 PM

Jim, you missed my point. The teacher used religion to club the student. If you take away that club, the teacher would find a different club.

As for "separation" as a function of politeness, I agree with all you say.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM

that wasn't a case of freedom of speech - that was a case of a teacher verbally abusing a student in his/her care - and showed (primarily) a lack of judgement on the teacher's part - plus a pretty good dose of disregard for his/her students.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM

My point exactly, MMario.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:54 PM

This thread is getting very long; as many of you know, we have been asked to try to keep threads down to the 100 post range. Thus I've started a CONTINUATION THREAD. Please continue discussion there.

Thanks,
Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:12 PM

Mousethief, if that's your point, I don't agree with that either.

In general, it's a weak argument, although I hear it often. "There's no point in trying to keep people from doing X, because if they can't do X, they'll do Y, which is just as bad."

"There's no point in trying to keep people from robbing convenience stores, because if they can't rob convenience stores, they'll rob houses, which is just as bad."

To make it a strong argument, first, you have to prove it's true. THEN you have to answer the argument, "OK, then, let's stop people from doing X AND Y."

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:12 PM

Jim, I'll respond to this in the new thread.