Why is it wrong to allow the Bible in schools?

Exactly. Make sure that the Koran, the Upanishads, and all other religious books are given exactly the same amount of exposure. In other words, if the Bible is required reading at a government funded school, then all of the other texts of the world's religions must be as well.

Furthermore, if students are allowed to critique those books, then equal time must be given to critiquing the Bible.

Nothing wrong at all as long as you include and give equal time to all other religions.

There is something deeply wrong with it, when presented as a matter of religion. Children are legally required to attend school. To prostelatize at them while they are there would be requiring them, by law, to participate in a religion that may not be their own, and would be a very clear violation of the first amendment.

Want to teach it as an optional history class, as in "this is a book written so-and-so many years ago, here are the stories in it, and here is the history of the institution of this religion?" Fine by me. I took, and enjoyed, many such classes (albeit at a college level). However, if you begin teaching it as a historical record, or as anything other than literature, you immediately violate the student's freedom of, and from, religion.

Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

I could see, for example, a high-school level comparative religion class where multiple faiths were objectively compared, but it doesn't belong being taught as "this is truth."

ALL religions should be given EQUAL time.

Does that include Satanism? This book would have to be in the mix as well right The Satanic Bible.

Don't forget Wicca. You can have dancing-naked-in-the-moonlight practice in gym.

Don't forget Wicca. You can have dancing-naked-in-the-moonlight practice in gym.

It would be the most popular class in school or at the very least the most peeked at (wood shop boys would be learning how to drill holes in the gym wall at a record pace).

No. If you want religion in the curriculum, send them to a parochial school. What they need is a class teaching these kids tolerance.

I agree.

ALL religions should be given EQUAL time.

I used the Bible as the example because it seems to anger people more than other religions and I wonder why the Bible angers many people so much?

amgordon: Reading various studies, and the Bible, it points to man's rebellious nature. The ego is the perfect place to nurture all sorts of rather unhealthy characteristics.

Life lived thinking only of you and yours is a selfish one. It doesn't take much thought and is knee jerk easy. (Our current sea of political corruption is a good example.)

The bond of brotherhood (which I believe the Bible is mostly about) is dying today.

Apparently we are not able to replace it judging from the condition of the world.

"Why is it wrong to allow the Bible in schools?"

I have no problem with the Bible being in schools...library, with all the other books.

The bond of brotherhood (which I believe the Bible is mostly about) is dying today.

You might want to try reading the bible, then. Certainly, that plays a large role in the gospels, but the gospels are a tiny fraction of the bible. The majority of it deals with laws, customs and oral history, as practiced by a bunch of people living in the desert a few thousand years ago.

I found a list that indicates 22 specific major religions in the world. If we were to allow equal time to each of those (not to mention the "non-major" ones), does anyone have any idea how long a school day would last? And what of the other things that schools are supposed to be teaching (math, history, science, art, language, etc)? Do we just throw everything else out so we can make room for equal time for all faiths? No - the most practical way to ensure the government's non-preference of any faith is to keep them all out and let the families decide for themselves which faith (or lack of) will be taught at their home. It is not the role of schools to teach morals and values, anyway. That's the parents' jobs.

amgordon...jus for the sake of clarity, I don't have a problem with the Bible being in the school's library along side of books about dis-belief. I DO however, have a problem with the Bible's precepts being taught in public schools.

There are private parochial schools available to enroll kids if parents want their children to be taught particular religious precepts along with their academics. I also believe that property owners who have their children enrolled in an accredited private parochial school, should be exempt from having to pay school levied property taxes that go to support public schools.

Requiring public schools to teach the Bible is no less intrusive to our civil-liberties then passing a law that mandates all faiths are required to provide equal time for the religious instruction of other faiths to their congregation...including atheism. Like thas gonna happen!

What business does a public school have in teaching a Bible course? How would they? There are so many different interpretations that it is impossible to teach it without using one sect's interpretations over another.

What's the matter with your church? What's the matter with your home? Why can't you teach your own child your religion? Why should the government teach it to her?

IF your child chooses NOT to take a Bible or other related class then how does it harm your child IF it is offered?

Because a public school teacher is a representative of the state. To teach a course, a curriculum must be agreed upon for it.

Tell me: if the curriculum is agreed upon, and includes religious beliefs that you do not share, how will you feel about a representative of your government telling your children that your beliefs are not Christian beliefs, because Christian beliefs are the ones being taught in the Christianity class?

What's wrong with it is that it violates the First Amendment to have representatives of our government telling school children how to practice religion.

my child still suffers because the thousand of dollars the school pays for that teacher to teach a class could pay easily for a new computer lab, or better history teacher or whatever.

Because, after kindergarten or 1st grade, most schools stop teaching fairy tales.

Nothing wrong at all as long as you include and give equal time to all other religions.

While I don't have a problem with love they neighbor and all that but I do have a problem with the rape and murder that is condoned within the pages of the Bible? Are we going to teach our children that a woman must marry her rapist or that during war, it's ok to take sex slaves? Maybe we could just allow the Jefferson Bible.

I can't speak for Koran because I have never read it but Buddhist texts have all that compassion stuff and a philosophy of non-violence. This seems like a better choice.

amgordon---

ALL religions should be given EQUAL time.

AND--this would NOT be in a science class !!! A class in comparative religion would do nicely.

amgordon...you ask...

"IF your child chooses NOT to take a Bible or other related class then how does it harm your child IF it is offered?"

Different ones have offered plenty of reasons and examples of negative consequences if religion is offered. Question...what "harm" does it do when religion is NOT taught in our public schools? Do you think it's the government's responsibility to expose and teach our children the precepts of religious values?

I disagree with that statement entirely. This entire argument is based upon a ridiculous fallacy, and it defies the wishes of the people who wrote our constitution.

I don't care whether or not any specific student minds. They aren't supposed to be making these sorts of decisions yet, and I'm not talking about what religion they choose to respect. They are all free to read the bible elsewhere.

The entire point of bringing religion to a school is so that you can bring peer pressure into the matter. If you allow one group or another to teach their religion, then you make any child from another religion feel separate. This desire tends to force them into the will of the majority. And whatever you may think, frequently it gets uglier then that. The very first thing every child should learn is tolerance, but when you insist on bringing this type of socialization to school your making it clear that you yourself don't believe in it.

Why is it that many parents fear a religion that would teach children values. Even if you are not a Christian what is wrong in teaching today's youth the basics...from the Bible!

Why? It's not because of fear, it's because those are really really REALLY basic morals that should be taught at home. It's a parent's responsibility, no matter what religion, to teach their kids these basic morals. But some people don't and so that responsibility falls upon the state. And the schools do teach basic moral values and societal norms, that is actually part of elementary education, it's not necessary to teach them these values in the context of the bible/torah/qu'ran/etc.

amg - there is no way to do this - you get down to what is fair. For example - while antitheism (the belief that there is no god) might be considered a religion what do you do about atheism (the non-belief in a god) - do you have to give time equal to ALL the individual beliefs in god(s)? Does Satanism get as much time as all the abrahamic religions? Which sects do you choose, Sunni or Shia or ... Islam? Which form of Judaism, which sect of Christianity? Mormons claim to be a version of Christianity; if you only cover Methodists does that cover Mormons?

Then how about just the order you cover religions; If you covered Zoroastrianism first is that the preferred position? If you cover Rosacrucianism last, is that the preferred position - the ones students remember best?

If you cover versions of Christianity without all the violence and rape is that valid or flse? How abour Islam, do you cover it from the Jihadi's viewpoint (and is that sedition?)

There would seem no practical way

As for why we don't teach it in public schools, there have been many court cases on this; the issue gets to is this the school officially condoning religion? And even a comparative religion class may contradict this; teaching the books as literature (without any beliefs attached) is legitimate; teaching their historic place is legitimate; teaching anything related to religion is not legitimate; you are crossing a line.

More important is the question why anyone would consider teaching this to children in the first place - you are teaching a set of fairy tales (parables) as if (there is the key phrase - as if) they were real and not fairy tales.

There are church after schools, sunday schools if you want to indoctrinate those too young to understand into your religion; frankly I think this should be considered child abuse. Wait until they are 18 and let them choose for themselves what they want to choose to read / research / believe.

Forcing religion down the throats of those too young to understand or fight back is the Hitler-youth approach, is that who you really want to be?

I love this bumper sticker:

If you teach religion in my school can I come teach science in your church?

Do you want me to teach your kids about the bible, or your pastor?

Actually if you investigate court precedents from 1923 to the present, Federal court and The U. S. Supreme Court you will discover that the Establishment Clause provides for what is called "viewpoint neutrality". This prohibits public schools from teaching just one side of any moral argument without allowing the opposing viewpoint from being offered with equal time.

Most Americans do not even realize they have these rights and seldom exercise them.

One example of a gross violation of "viewpoint neutrality" is public school curriculum that discusses lifestyle choices under the guise of "pro-tolerance education". This is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution if only the favored side or view is offered.

State Laws related to Parent's Rights which has been considered an intrinsic right of individual freedom from the time of the Magna Carta, written about in treatises of John locke on Natural Law and understood to be a basic right since the founding of our Republic are being violated currently. I cite Estabrook Elementary School of Lexington, Massachusettes. The State Law there prohibits public schools from teaching contraversial subjects that are not proper without parental consent without notification and ability to opt-out. The State Law is being broken and a Mass. Supreme court judge Mark D. Wolf is allowing the school to violate the parent's rights, but he is not without compassion. He notified them that they can feel free to send their children to private school or homeschool them.

Perhaps a better question is why this is even an issue at all? How many public schools were there back in 1800? If one is to argue individual freedom and Constitutional Law then perhaps we should ask why it is that we fund public schools. Would this be an issue if all schools were private? Would this be an issue if there was no "government" funding? So, for those of you who argue that all religions should be represented and choose to use the Consititution as your guide I look forward to your posts against the public school system. Shouldn't we all have the freedom to attend the private school of our choice?

!

One example of a gross violation of "viewpoint neutrality" is public school curriculum that discusses lifestyle choices under the guise of "pro-tolerance education".

Your opinion. You are basically claiming that any curriculum that mentions the existence of alternative lifestyles must be controversial at face value. No court in Massachusetts has yet to rule against this.

This is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution if only the favored side or view is offered.

The Scope and Purpose of this course is to promote tolerance. Are you saying there should be a counter-course promoting intolerance?

State Laws related to Parent's Rights which has been considered an intrinsic right of individual freedom from the time of the Magna Carta, written about in treatises of John locke on Natural Law and understood to be a basic right since the founding of our Republic are being violated currently. I cite Estabrook Elementary School of Lexington, Massachusettes.

If you're going to cite a case, cite it properly, especially since it involves more than one hearing. This case was found to NOT be in violation of the U.S. Constitution and was dismissed in Parker v. Hurley, 1st Circuit No. 07-1528 (Jan 31, 2008).

The State Law there prohibits public schools from teaching contraversial subjects that are not proper without parental consent without notification and ability to opt-out.

Again, please elaborate on why tolerance is controversial.

The State Law is being broken and a Mass. Supreme court judge Mark D. Wolf is allowing the school to violate the parent's rights,

Again, this is your opinion. The U.S. Court of Appeals has already ruled that the parent's rights were not violated.

...but he is not without compassion. He notified them that they can feel free to send their children to private school or homeschool them.

As is the right of any parent.

Regards

Freedom of Religion is, as we all seem to agree, in the Constitution. The Public Schools are not. Yes you can take your Bible to school, but one has to go to the very beginning and understand the intent of the Constitution. I say this because the intent of the Constitution seems to be the question.

During the early years each community was responsible for its own schooling and as such could teach the belief system of its patrons. End of story. Therefore to be Constitutional the elimination of Federal participation is certainly in order. These questions of freedom, etc. rarely come up when one follows the intent, individual liberty, of the Constitution. Bottom line. Eliminate the Public School System. Allow each community to build its own school.

ALL religions should be given EQUAL time.

yes they should all get equal time on sunday in the church of ones choice.

religion has no place in school.

I would support a class that was an objective study of a religious text and belief system.

I would strongly oppose a class that used a religious text to manipulate children into thinking or behaving a certain way.

Socrates1,

If you really knew your American history, you would know that President Thomas Jefferson was the person who first proposed a public school system to educate the masses. He called it the engine of the people. He understood that if schools were private then only those who could afford it would get it and then we would be to societies, those who had money and an education and those who were poor and didn't. Really, does that seem right to you? If you don't like public schools, put your kid in private school, that fits your ideology.

Didn't mr.bho swear in as president with his hand on a "CHRISTIAN BIBLE" ???

Don't all Supreme court justices, senators, congressman, and even witness's in court swear on a "CHRISTIAN BIBLE".........just asking is all............

Don't all Supreme court justices, senators, congressman, and even witness's in court swear on a "CHRISTIAN BIBLE".........just asking is all............

Obama? Yes. All? No. There is no legal requirement that it be a Christian bible. The oath can be taken over anything the oath taker chooses. You could use a copy of Playboy, legally.

And no, most courts do not use a bible to swear in a witness. That's a myth that is mostly the result of bad television.

OK, Playboy it is...."prefer Penthouse though would that be alright?"...... :)

John Adams was sworn into office using a lawbook with a copy of the Constitution.

John Adams was sworn into office using a lawbook with a copy of the Constitution.

Huh. Didn't know that. Good move, Johnny boy.

It would be nice if the Bible could be used in history or Literature classes, but it's hard to use it in a secular way. It is a religious text and has not place in public schools.

If you really knew your American history, you would know that President Thomas Jefferson was the person who first proposed a public school system to educate the masses.

Jefferson was indeed a strong proponent of public education, but he wasn't the only one by any means. Several of the states already had public education systems, particularly in New England, even before the Revolution. Additionally, we know that the earliest American leaders supported public education. How? Well, in the first post-Revolution territorial expansion, into the Northwest Territory (most or parts of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), Congress passed the Land Ordinance of 1785 which specifically provided for public schools. It's a bit disingenuous by some to claim the founders never supported public schools when the very first generation of American legislators so clearly did.

Thanks for the additional information!

believer,

That was really an interesting fact. I have got to remember it.

As many have said earlier - Teach the Bible in Sunday School and church.

Or for that matter, why not at home around the dinner table?

Why put that responsibility on the school system, when they have a hard enough time just teaching the basics?

As far as studying it as literature or comparing Christianity to other religions, leave that to the college level, like it is now.

Don't all Supreme court justices, senators, congressman, and even witness's in court swear on a "CHRISTIAN BIBLE".........just asking is all............

No. Not all. Muslims have used the Koran. Jews have used the Torah. Witnesses in court are even allowed to "affirm" that they will tell the truth rather than swear on anything, for those who have (unlike most Christians) actually read the Biblical prohibition against taking any oaths at all. The presidential oath in the Constitution also allows use of "affirm".

The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787. In addition the Land Act had to do with Federal property which reverted to the State as each State was formed.

Article 1....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.....

Seems pretty clear.

EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES,. (2009). History.com. Retrieved 02:19, Nov 25, 2009, from http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=208260

Unlike the educational systems of other countries, which are usually directed and financed by the national government, American education in practice has been mainly, although not exclusively, the responsibility of the state and local governments; the word education does not even appear in the U.S. Constitution

American education at first was not a system at all; instead, it was a collection of local, often private traditions. The extent and kind of schooling available depended on the resources and ambitions of particular towns and cities, on the activities of religious denominations seeking to further their sectarian ends through schools and colleges, and on a great variety of private groups (both nonprofit and profit making) that established many kinds of schools for many different reasons

Not everyone, however, accepted public schools as the single best way to provide schooling. The most significant opposition came from American Roman Catholics, who believed that the moral values taught in public schools were biased toward Protestant beliefs. Arguing that sound education could not sever intellectual development from moral development, Roman Catholics created their own separate school system. Its position was strengthened in 1925 by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Pierce v. Society of Sisters) that states could not compel children to attend public schools. By 1990 about 14 percent of American youth attended nonpublic schools. See also

American higher education also expanded during the 19th century, but unlike elementary schooling, no public system developed that quickly overwhelmed private and religious institutions,

So, we have a situation where a right is specifically included in the Constitution vs a public school system that is not.

Like Thou shall not kill....kill and go to jail

Then why do some places have the death penalty and or why are some people so zealous about the death penalty?

Love one another....hate one another and create strife!

Why does the bible say that LGBT persons are an abomination?

Also, why does Christianity constantly neglect and or omit and or deny that God gave humans "free will" and "freedom of choice"?

The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787.

Okay. And what? We were fully independent by 1783.

In addition the Land Act had to do with Federal property which reverted to the State as each State was formed.

Uh, no. The Land Ordinance had to do with how to apportion land under the Public Land Survey System for the purpose of setting up townships and deeding lands in federal territories (you may be thinking of some other Land Act, of which there were several from later times). Whether un-apportioned federal lands reverted to the states then formed out of those territories depended entirely on the acts admitting each state to the Union. Many western states, for instance, did not receive ownership of the federal lands contained within their borders, for instance.

I haven't read every post, Scorates, so I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone on the seed has said you don't have the right to choose private, faith-sponsored schooling over public for your kids. We've only argued that those schools which are state-sponsored should not have religion (of any faith) as a base for, or a part of, its curriculum.
If someone has argued that point, I apologize, and that person is wrong.

Not to throw a monkeywrench into your argument or anything, Amgrodon, but the kids do have a say. They can't ask the school to expose their fellow students to the Bible or to prayer of any kind because they are all a captive audience to the school administration. What they can do is bring their Bible to school, read it whenever they have free time. They can pray, silently alone, or quietly together as long as they don't disrupt classes. They can talk to their fellow students about what they believe, including passing out literature. They can form Bible or religious clubs that meet after school and are sponsored by a school faculty member (which only means the faculty member volunteers to supervise the group on campus after hours for insurance reasons, not that the school is activiley endorsing the club). There are plenty of outlets for religious expression by the individual on school campuses, there just is no outlet for the school to engage in religious activities as a whole, and to which students would be captive audiences because to do so would violate separation of church and state. So why did you think that students didn't have a voice to express their religious views in public schools?

I believe that religiosity should be addressed in public schools. The trouble arises when one sect or another takes umbrage and attempts to influence curriculum to favor their particular religion. That's why we have so many court cases. But as an intellectual subject, religiosity is just great to teach. It covers so much about human interaction and history.

There are churches on every other corner in my little town. A better question might be to ask what goal does teaching the Bible accomplish for public education?

If we include every religion in school, which would seem to be required if you include even one in a government funded school, I'm wondering when they'll find the time to teach trivial things like how to read, write and add.

Religion is the opposite of education. Education gives one the tools to learn and think for themselves. Religion forbids independant thinking and action.

Religion has no place in our public schools.

CM... Sorry to disagree. Most of our early schools and certainly our universities were chartered by various religious organizations. As discussed above Freedom of Religion is in the Constitution--public schools are not. To avoid this debate one simply needs to abolish the public school system and allow private schools to take their place. Certainly all schools would need to agree to ban such things as the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government and to allow their students to be tested at the end of each year on secular subjects. Secular schools would, of course, be welcome.

As an aside, because I trust your logic, if, as some are suggesting and I don't remember if you are one, that atheism is not a religion are atheist than not protected under the Constitution?

Dennis, post whatever :) What is the purpose of the public school system and where is it mentioned in the Constitution?

Re: 1.50 Prior to the Constitution obviously things might have been done that were "unconstitutional"

Land acts, as you mention, referred to Federal Land, not State land.

Re: 1.50 Prior to the Constitution obviously things might have been done that were "unconstitutional"

The Land Ordinance was in effect until replaced by the Homestead Act of the early 1860s. Does it seem likely that the early fathers of the country were so dumb they passed a law in 1785, debated and ratified a Constitution barely two years later, and then let an unconstitutional law sit on the books for 70 some odd years? Regardless, I never made an argument about whether it was constitutional or not. I said it was disingenuous to claim that the founders of the country didn't support public education (in some form).

Regarding the constitutionality of public schools, first, even allowing for the sake of argument that federal support for public education is so (itself fairly ludicrous), it does not then follow that such support is forbidden to the states given the 10th Amendment. The states are no where forbidden in the US Constitution setting up and running public schools (if we want to use the "no where in the Constitution" argument). At best, such an argument can get rid of the federal Dept. of Education; but since virtually all public schools in this country are run and administered by the states or by state-chartered subdivisions (typically school districts), getting the federal government out of education would not eliminate public schooling.

The Bible cannot be part of the curriculum because then we will have to allow all religions. Freedom of religion means that no religion will be forced by the government.

You want your kid to be instructed on the Bible? Put him on a private school. I was raised by the Jesuits. Can't afford it? Take him to Bible study on Saturdays at your local church, it's free.

There is Freedom of Religion. There is also Freedom From Religion, contrary to what some like to proclaim.

To use public school funds for, basically, promoting religion is unconstitutional. Do our laws not teach "do not kill" and "do not steal?" Do we not teach our students to honor and respect others in our everyday teachings? Laws before the bible taught these lessons. A bible is not needed.

Like tony1234 above, you want religious education? There are private schools for that. There are churches that teach it many times a week. Teach it at home. Keep it out of public schools.

If a child wants to bring their bible to school and read it silently on their own time, if allowed by the teacher (it is their classroom), I have no objection. But do not start pushing your religious beliefs onto others. THAT is what freedom of religion is about.

1.56 The Homestead Act also had to do with Federal Territories.

Still looking in the Consitution for public schools, but I do find Freedom of Religion.

So we agree that, at the very least, it is a State, not the Federal Government that should be involved.

Regarding the ludicrousness of the position...Frankly I am examining the position due to the article. It certainly seems that with Freedom of Religion expressly guaranteed in the Constitution and public education not, that an argument can be made for Freedom of Religion and community schools, which actually seems the norm in the early days, which reflect the values of that community.

Further, this approach would negate the problem of whether the Bible should be allowed in schools. It also seem to reflect the intent of the Constitution for smaller government and true individual freedom.

As suggested in another post, each community, not neccesarily physical,ie. athiest, Christians, Jews, etc. would be allowed to teach the tenets of their faith while meeting certain basic secular academic standards. This was certainly the general practice at the level of our higher institutions of learning.

Regarding your suggestion that the schools are presently run at the local level, ludicrous?

Each and every post suggesting that no one should be forced to pay for someone else's religious instruction can be turned around to ask why should someone be forced to pay for a school which does not reflect their beliefs.

1.56 The Homestead Act also had to do with Federal Territories.

What's your point? I never tried to claim otherwise. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've been talking about federal territories this entire time, starting with the Northwest Territory somewhere way up above. Welcome to the conversation.

That doesn't answer the question under debate: Did the founders support public education? The answer, at least with respect to the US Territories, seems to have been yes. Do try to stop throwing red herrings around as if they mean something.

Still looking in the Consitution for public schools, but I do find Freedom of Religion.

Hey, keep looking. While you're doing that, perhaps you can find for me public schools run by the federal government in any of the 50 states. You might actually have a point then.

So we agree that, at the very least, it is a State, not the Federal Government that should be involved.

And in every state of the union, it is the state who charters and runs every public school. You appear to be arguing against a straw man.

that an argument can be made for Freedom of Religion and community schools, which actually seems the norm in the early days, which reflect the values of that community.

Go ahead and found a community school to your liking. There's nothing stopping you. Every private school in existence today is essentially a "community school" (typically serving some existing community of Americans, whether sectarian or not).

Further, this approach would negate the problem of whether the Bible should be allowed in schools.

Many, if not most, of the existing "community" schools in existence explicitly allow the Bible to be taught. (Of course, many public schools allow the Bible to be taught to, with the caveat that the course has to be a scholarly, non-doctrinal and non-sectarian program.) I'm not sure what problem you think you've solved with "community" schools other than now we don't have to call them "private" schools.

As suggested in another post, each community, not neccesarily physical,ie. athiest, Christians, Jews, etc. would be allowed to teach the tenets of their faith while meeting certain basic secular academic standards. This was certainly the general practice at the level of our higher institutions of learning.

I'm sorry, but what's the value-added proposition here? We already do this. Private schools already have to meet basic standards of education, and are available either for physical or non-physical communities. What's different about what you're proposing and private schools (other than that you want to abolish the institution of public schools that has existed since before the Revolution)?

Regarding your suggestion that the schools are presently run at the local level, ludicrous?

Question mark? Schools are run by school boards in most states, or by equivalent locally-organized bodies in the remaining. Such boards are charted by the states themselves, and typically there is a state-level body organizing state-wide education policy. Sometimes this is a department and sometimes it's a state-level elected board. (In Texas, my home state, it's both, which has amusing consequences from time-to-time.) Do you disagree with this description? How do you think schools are run in this country?

Each and every post suggesting that no one should be forced to pay for someone else's religious instruction can be turned around to ask why should someone be forced to pay for a school which does not reflect their beliefs.

Sure, and it can also be turned around to ask why we should be forced to support any tax-supported "boondoggle" we don't like. Don't support the Iraq War? Withhold that portion of your tax. Don't support the Coast Guard? Withhold that portion of your tax. Don't support building a border fence? Withhold that portion of your tax.

In the end it becomes a silly exercise. Tax information isn't really broken out that way, in the first place, so the economics becomes impossibly muddled. (For those not in the know, economics only works when there's reliable information for decisions). In the second, down that road lies anarchy.

If you like our society, at some point being a member of this society necessarily involves recognizing that some level of taxation is allowed the government to support itself and its initiatives and duties. If don't like our taxes, and you're not willing to try to change the taxation level using the system the founders gave us, then you implicitly don't like our society. That's your human right; you don't have to like our society. But maybe stop being a crank about, go find a little corner of untrammeled wilderness to go Galt in, and leave those of us who like living in a modern sophisticated Western-style liberal democratic society to it.

Why these taxes, though, and not taxes for religious instruction? The answer is simple: the federal government cannot endorse religion. As you're fond of referring to the Constitution, you should recognize the part I'm talking about. Funneling tax money necessarily involves deciding which organizations "qualify" for that money and which do not, yes? In other words, the federal government would positively have to decide, "This organization's religious instruction meets our standards for religious instruction, and this organization's does not." In other other words, the government would be in the position of endorsing one (or several, more likely) religious positions over others. That's a constitutional foul.

This is a rhetorical question, right?

I read your entire post.

Ok, so we've established that the various acts by the Federal Government pertained to Federal territories.

On to the States. Frankly there's nothing in the Constitution regarding State supported schools either. You will respond its silly, etc. and yet you use the Constitution to buttress your point regarding Religion is schools and neglect to use it in regards to the schools themselves. Dismiss the argument or show me its justification. In my opinion you will dismiss it because you will be unable to find Constitutional standing for it.

Secondly, You honestly feel that the Federal Government has no input on how the public school system is run?

Third. Taxes. What's your point? First you need to prove that the schools are constitutional in the first place. Second, you need to prove that it doesn't interfere with the free expression of my religion. Your perspective is that other's should not force their beliefs on you. Agreed, but why then should you force your beliefs on another?

Ok, so we've established that the various acts by the Federal Government pertained to Federal territories.

If you mean by "we've established" that "you've finally caught up to a point I made in my very first comment", then yes. *Golf clap*

On to the States. Frankly there's nothing in the Constitution regarding State supported schools either.

The Constitution is not a document that establishes the powers of the state, only the powers of the federal government. The document, in fact, explicitly notes that extra-Constitutional powers are reserved for the states (and the people; Tenth Amendment). When you attempt to look to the Constitution for powers granted the states, you're essentially referring to bird-watching reference book in an attempt to find a recipe for meatloaf.

You will respond its silly, etc. and yet you use the Constitution to buttress your point regarding Religion is schools and neglect to use it in regards to the schools themselves.

As you are fond of noting, religion is covered in the Constitution, but public schooling is not. If you want to argue against the doctrine of incorporation, feel free to do so. Since you haven't brought it up, though, it seems you are perhaps unaware of the very basics of the subject you're wanting to argue against.

Dismiss the argument or show me its justification. In my opinion you will dismiss it because you will be unable to find Constitutional standing for it.

The Tenth Amendment: extra-Constitutional, unenumerated powers are explicitly granted to the states (and the people). It's really amazing that people like you feel the need to scream "Constitution! Constitution!" all the while attempting to ignore vast swaths of it to suit your purposes. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not merely "ink blot[s] on the pages of history" to be ignored when it's convenient to you.

Secondly, You honestly feel that the Federal Government has no input on how the public school system is run?

I honestly feel that attempting to put words in someone's mouth is craven. Schools are chartered and administered by states and their subordinate units (usually school districts). States may choose to accept federal government financial assistance for their schools, with a quid pro quo exchange of voluntarily surrendering some autonomy in the form of federal standards. This is similarly done with federal transportation bloc grants to the states. States always have the option to refuse such funding and thereby refuse the strings that come with it (a recent example would be Texas's refusal for additional unemployment benefits funding so as to avoid changing eligibility requirements).

Third. Taxes. What's your point? First you need to prove that the schools are constitutional in the first place.

No, I really don't. The reality of public schools is in situ. Public schools predate the Constitution and the Revolution, and have existed continuously in the country since those times. You are making the positive argument that only now are such institutions extralegal. It therefore falls to you to prove that public schooling is actually so, something you've so far failed spectacularly to do.

Second, you need to prove that it doesn't interfere with the free expression of my religion. Your perspective is that other's should not force their beliefs on you. Agreed, but why then should you force your beliefs on another?

You aren't forced. There's an active homeschooling community in this country, in addition to the many thousands of private schooling options. You want to assert the right of a veto over any public expenditure you don't agree with, and I've already covered why that's not only not feasible, it's insane. You do not have an unlimited right to interfere with the rights of others to participate in public institutions.

The Constitution is not the only document that make the laws in the US. It is the guide for the making of all other laws and Supreme Court decisions. In spite of that, we have current laws that are unconstitutional like the "Federal Reserve Act of 1913".

Public-school education is the most common form of education in the United States and is provided mainly by local governments, with control and funding coming from three levels: federal, state, and local.

Since they have Federal funding, no religion is allowed. If a state decides to notaccept federal funding, they could opt to teach a religion. This is not happening even in Utah in which 60% of the population is Mormon.

The governemt disallows imposing on religion in schools..... did I use the right words here? Basically I'm trying to say that the governemt won't allow schools to teach or force students to learn about a certain religion more than the basic stuff. It's technically breaking the law to debate about something in the bible in a school. Public schools aren't even supposed to have a cross in them or a bible in them. Private schools are permitted if they carry a chapel but they're banned from the main academic building.

So what is the bible doing in the school anyway if it's supposedly a public school in America?

This isn't an act against Christianity. Most schools have more than 1 religion within their student body, some are probably not one of the major religions in the world. I'm sure it would make everyone uncomfortable if a bible appeared in every single classroom.

Private schools are permitted if they carry a chapel but they're banned from the main academic building.

I don't think that is correct, I went to Catholic schools all my life. We had a weekly theology class that was either to study the Bible and Dogmas or went to mass on the church. Also all classrooms had some painting of a Saint and a cross. In grade school we had to go everyday to mass. We had some secular and other religions students in the school, because it was a very good school, and those were excused from mass and theology.

Catholic schools are different. My bad :)

I go to a private school, non catholic, so this is where my information comes from. The teachers are banned from talking about religion in any class outside Theology, even there he only teaches the concepts and histories of religion. This isn't a school policy, it's the governments.

They are independent, true, however they still have to follow certain guidelines established by the government. It's the same thing with the hazing law, private schools need to follow same procedures even though it occurs on their grounds.

Public schools are actually not allowed to have bibles or any religious texts on display without a permit. That one comes from an experience at my old school :)

Oh, and students should never be allowed to choose what is in their schools. And I'm thinking of things outside of religion ;)

This isn't a school policy, it's the governments.

Cite the law or regulation, as I'm unfamiliar with such a requirement (at least, at the federal level). It sounds to me that it might be particular to the institution you attended.

This isn't a school policy, it's the governments.

I'm going along with spiffie; other than health codes, building codes, etc., private schools are not typically subject to federal or state legislation. They operate in the realm of contract law. Perhaps your state is an exception, but I tend to doubt it.

Regards

This isn't a school policy, it's the governments

There are some minimum requirements in the curriculum, such as the numbers of class days per year that they (private or not) have to give. Also the subjects such as math, English, science, etc. are regulated, but private schools usually have no problem with that as they go beyond the requirements. I remember my school gave calculus 1 at senior year, which was usually given in college.

I had this explained by my history teacher when our class started getting very close to questioning something about the quoran so this is how I know.

I had this explained by my history teacher when our class started...

I suppose I'd be more assured if this teacher was a law teacher. And unfortunately, teachers are not exempt from the bad habit of giving students an easy answer rather than an honest answer to avoid conflicts.

I can assure you, however, that if it is truly a private school, there is no Federal regulation whatsoever which prohibits a teacher from talking about religion.

Regards

likely she goes to a magnet type school Those are actually public schools, but not quite the same. They get more money then the real private schools, but not full funding. They are actuallly allowed to have a theology class exactly how you discribed. They cant favor one version, just teach the basics about all.

uh, no. This is a private school. I can assure you as much.

uh, no. This is a private school. I can assure you as much.

Yes, well, please be assured, we are not disputing you, only seeking better understanding. :) I, for one, thank you for your patience.

Kind regards

oh, my bad, just trying to help them understand, but i guess i was wrong.

ah, no. It was a nice try. :)

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

The problem with kids these days and days past isn't that they are lacking in religion, they are lacking in discipline and a familiarity with the consequences of bad behavior.

Its interesting that so many here have taken this as a religious discussion when its really about discipline. I think taking the power of discipline away from parents is where the real problem lay.

If I must continue with the religious theme... I think that a child, adolescent should be able to take a Bible (or other) to school and read it on their own time. When being taught by the teacher and working on school work they should concentrate on that. Proselytizing and prayer should be exercised in the same fashion without fear of repercussions.

parks, this discussion is specifically about having the Bible taught in schools, therefore it is about religion from the beginning. Whether the Bible is allowed in school or not has very little to do with parental discipline. The Bible is allowed at home no matter what is decided for public schools. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, students are free to bring Bibles to school and read them whenever they choose, so long as they do not do so during instructional time. This is no different than any other reading material.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying about proselytizing and prayer here. Do you mean they should be treated the same as reading the Bible on your own time? If so, I agree and that is how it is done in public schools now. Children are permitted to discuss anything they choose with one another, including their religious beliefs, so long as they do not bully or torment one another. They are also allowed to pray whenever they choose again so long as they do not disrupt class to do so.

I think that a child, adolescent should be able to take a Bible (or other) to school and read it on their own time.

As it's been repeatedly mentioned, kids are allowed to bring their bibles to school for their own benefit on their own time.

Proselytizing and prayer should be exercised in the same fashion without fear of repercussions.

Not in a public school, as that would be unconstitutional (assuming it was done by a faculty member). If the child does it, that would be disruptive to the education process and they would be disciplined accordingly. Best to just leave your religion at home or in your church.

Here is a quote taken from my post:

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

I wasn't able to read all the posts but wanted to add my own thoughts, sorry.

gordy327

Do you think kids should be able to argue a point? Should they be able to think for themselves and be able to talk about their own opinions or beliefs? Should kids be open-minded?

Do you think kids should be able to argue a point?

Outside of class, they can argue whatever they want. In class, though, what/how they can argue is determined by the teacher and school policies.

Should they be able to think for themselves and be able to talk about their own opinions or beliefs?

Again, within limitations. Don't expect "I want my kid to be able to think for himself" to be a valid justification for your kid preaching the Gospel in US History class or defending the Yankees in British Literature class.

Should kids be open-minded?

Sure.

Merry Christmas to ALL . Lets just respect all .

Do you think kids should be able to argue a point?

I think Jack said it best.

Everything Jack stated agrees with what I've posted.

So gordy, you're backing down from your previous comment?

Private schools are better, they allow the young minds to see all that is out there not a narrow view of what these teachers call facts, when these so called facts are ever changing...

Private schools are better, they allow the young minds to see all that is out there not a narrow view of what these teachers call facts, when these so called facts are ever changing...

No, the narrow view is not accepting new explanations and facts as we gain information due to improved scientific technology and methods. The open-minded view is NOT clinging to old facts when newer data is presented to you.

thats just what I said, these so called teachers believe so deeply that what they teach is fact and could never change or have a opposing view. Why limit your child's mind? why not expose them to new and different ideas, make them think for themselves. push the boundaries find new things theories, but not cling to theories that are changing

Private schools are better, they allow the young minds to see all that is out there not a narrow view of what these teachers call facts, when these so called facts are ever changing...

I am a Public school teacher. I have teens in Public School. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but my children have learned about all of the holy books of all faiths. The difference it that they are not indoctrinated in these faiths. Knowledge leads to a better understanding that we have more in common than not.

Private schools teach the narrow scope of what the parents want. I wouldn't call it widening their child's world perspective.

Why limit your child's mind? why not expose them to new and different ideas, make them think for themselves. push the boundaries find new things theories, but not cling to theories that are changing

You're right; public schools are much better than private schools.

but not cling to theories that are changing

That is code for evolution, right? Yeah, wouldn't want them exposed to that.

You're right; public schools are much better than private schools.

Having been attended both public and private schools, I can say from experience that such a pronouncement entirely depends on the specific school in question. There are excellent private school and craptastic public schools, just as there are s---ty private schools and amazing public schools.

thats just what I said, these so called teachers believe so deeply that what they teach is fact and could never change or have a opposing view. Why limit your child's mind? why not expose them to new and different ideas, make them think for themselves. push the boundaries find new things theories, but not cling to theories that are changing

Assuming you're not merely implying your personal lack of understanding of evolution, my younger sister once had a middle school history teacher who taught that China did diddly-s--- in WWII. That was rather maddening, though the teacher soon got fired for generally being a whackjob.

You're right; public schools are much better than private schools.

only if you are going to cheap out your child education, then sure. you get what you pay for 4000 per year is not going to get a great education, but 15000 you will start to get a great education. I know not everyone can afford that but you have choices that you make that put yourselves in that place. spending habits that could put you into a place to be able to afford it. When it come to things like safety for your family do you get the cheapest damn thing out there? No so why do that to your child's mind?

That is code for evolution, right? Yeah, wouldn't want them exposed to that.

Sure tell them its a fact without all the facts, i said narrow and that is narrow, introduce all ideas and help them learn decide and grow with knowledge not hiding your head in a book that will have typo's incorrect "facts" theories that are not facts but taught as "facts".

Sure tell them its a fact without all the facts, i said narrow and that is narrow, introduce all ideas and help them learn decide and grow with knowledge not hiding your head in a book that will have typo's incorrect "facts" theories that are not facts but taught as "facts".

Wrong! I am a science teacher and we never teach evolution as a fact, we teach the scientific method, and based on that method, and what we know, this is where the body of evidence points. As for that, verses the bible....I will ask you the same question that I have asked many of my students of faith. How long is a day on Venus? It's 225 earth days. And on Jupiter it's 12 earth years. So knowing just that...How long is a day for god? You can't answer that. Your only presuming it's 24 hours. And to my other friends out there, no I don't teach intelligent design. That is up to my student's family and their ministers. I just try to point out that there are other ways to look at a subject.

3.9 you need to look at one of my articles i wrote then see what you think. i ask that question at seminary years ago

Hi Proud American,

I read your article and I found it very interesting. I think that it was an exchange that shows a person of faith need not be afraid of science. I could explain away some of the hiccups that the 6 days of creation has, but that is another conversation.

This whole dialog should be about mutual respect. Religion does not belong in a public school, but if a teacher in a public school is teaching a child of faith, they should be able to address that child's concerns. At the very least, if the teacher can't, then they should recommend that they take it up with their religious instructor.

Hey! This is a newsvine article, no facts or common sense is allowed (end sarcasm)

I think that any religious groups should be held after school hours, and the associated expenses for books and supplies should be paid by the students or their parents. I do not think that public funding should be used for that purpose. Especially when you consider the fact that there are so many students in high school who can barely read or write.

I do not think that public funding should be used for that purpose

Including the expense of keeping the lights and the heat on: if the meeting is held at the school, charge them rent.

I wish I could vote for your post more than once phoenix. I responded before I read your reply, but I could have saved my fingers from all that typing if I had.

Many other beliefs with the exception of Christian Worship are currently allowed in thousands of public schools. How is this right?

1.- That is a lie. 2.- Students are allowed to pray by themselves without having a teacher lead them.

Hey Pheonix, perhaps you havnt heard about:

At George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., Muslim students using a "meditation space" laid out Muslim prayer rugs and separated men and women in accordance with their Islamic beliefs.

At George Mason University, non-Muslim students were asked to observe Muslim rules in the prayer area, such as keeping men on one side and women on the other and removing their shoes, according to Broadside, the school newspaper. Alissa Karton, assistant to the vice president for student life, said the article prompted the school to order students to roll up prayer rugs when not in use and move the dividers.

The University of Michigan agreed to install foot baths after talks with the MSA, said Terry Gallagher, director of public relations at the campus. Some Muslims ritually wash their feet before praying five times a day.

There are others... I can go on. Is that not concidered giving special religious rights in schools to a certain religion?

Is that not concidered giving special religious rights in schools to a certain religion?

Depends. Were students of other faiths denied the means to follow their own faiths?

So some universities made reasonable accomodations to allow Muslims to practice their religion. Have Christians made some similar accomodation requests that have been denied?

Among other student organizations at GWU are the Christian (Students) Association, the Christian Fellowship, the Asian Baptist Student Koinonia, GWU Chinese Bible Study, Holy Land Christian, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Intervarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship, Jewish Student Association, Latter-day Saint Student Association, and Word Up! Bible Study. That's without even bothering to check if any of the fraternal/sororal organizations had sectarian affiliations. It sounds like there's equal access to me.

Phoenix, unlike Lizliz, I did read the posts before attempting to place my own input (saved me a ton of typing, heh heh). And I wholeheartedly agree with her here. Sweet post, is all I can say. Kinda like the way you diced up the article into nice bite-sized tidbits.

Yummy!

Er, my mistake. You were referring to George Mason. Even then, there are plenty of ministry programs there, too.

MMISMO

This is an apples to oranges comparison and not relevant to the discussion. Public schools, K-12, completely funded by taxation, is what the article is about. Universities, colleges and post-graduate education are not part of the constitution and are handled in a very different manner legally, mainly because no one forces you to attend those institutions.

Private institutions that children and their parents choose can do that. Public institutions funded by tax dollars and where the children generally go to the particular school in the district, usually without a choice, are a completely different thing.

Great points guys. Thanks for the info.

MyMindisMyOwn, UMichigan also gives quite a bit of leeway to its massive Jewish community (the campus Hillel is huge), as well as religious student organizations like Crusade for Christ.

In my time there, I honestly saw far more Jewish school accommodation than Muslim -- I didn't even notice any of the latter.

Besides... who would parents find acceptable to teach from these texts? And who would determine the proper method of instruction?

Best to keep education in the schools and religious education in the home and houses of worship.

I don't know, I always thought it would be nice if they would teach Ambrose Bearce's "Devil's Dictionary" at least as a capstone course to graduating seniors.

;-)~

Capn,

I'm afraid there are already too many people who take Bierce's work seriously. They're called 'political spin doctors'.

;-)

You are probably right and I need a spell checker for names...

No harm no foul.

You get points for knowledge of the book and author.

Spellin' is jest fir Inglish mayjers...

"I pity the man who can only think of one way to spell a word"

I think was Mark Twain.

My daughter is home from school and I asked, "Would you be okay if the bible was taught in school?" She said, "No. Unless they want to put me to sleep. Plus then they wouldn't be able to teach science. Some of my friends are Buddhist and Samir is a Muslim." Eleven years old! Out of the mouths of babes!

She's stuffing her mouth with apple slices now, which means shes finished talking, but I thought that was worth sharing.

LizLiz.--

It was worth sharing. Thanks

Give that kid a hug from a total stranger, she made me smile.

I wonder if the author would let his/her child chose what she ate for every meal...if no, than how can a child be trusted on matters of educational nourishment?

Snot, I had the same thought about the poll question.

!

As far as what you call "the basics".....those were instilled in me by my parents....at home

yes but now in this world of fast-paced living, the parents depend more and more on the teachers to raise their kids for then, SICKto me. we have chosen to have me to stay home with our children to teach values and beliefs and honor and a code that is not taught in schools.

You do not need religion to teach values; to teach our children how to treat one another. Too many people who claim to be religious teach their children intolerance of people with different belief systems. It is so easy to be intolerant when you think God is on your side.

we have chosen to have me to stay home with our children to teach values and beliefs and honor and a code that is not taught in schools.

Again, I am not sure what kind of public schools you have, but ours teaches our children ethics, and morality and values. What they also teach is tolerance, which perhaps is missing from your home schooling.

Can I get an AMEN?!

Well said PJ. Whatever happened to just teaching the Bible in church?

Churches are for teaching religion. Schools are for teaching the three R's.

We teach the "four r's in our classical Christian church school: reading, writing, 'rithmetic, and religion (the Christian Religion, that is, as the foundation for all truth and knowledge).

Hear, hear, evilgenius. Truer words were never spoken.

Let's stop all taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and other insidious organizations.

Let's strip all religious institutions of their tax exempt status while we're at it.

Go ahead.

The local church of which I am a member is unincorporated and has no IRS 501(c)3 status. We value our independence more than some "tax exempt status."

I'm willing to forego tax-exempt status if Congress will stop funding Planned Parenthood and the IRS will levy taxes on them.

Gunshark--

Which bits do we follow and which do we throw out?

That's the whole issue in a nutshell, isn't it?

Along with what bits do be make up.

gunshark, thanks...

It isn't like they were banned from school grounds. It is ( and should be ) a personal thing. They read it during their free time.

Exactly! They have the right to do that.

There's another article related to religion in schools titled: "New Church/State Lawsuit in Tennessee" (I can't post the link) which deals with similar issues, that you might find interesting.

wow... then the kids would learn right from wrong!!!!! Finally!!!!

like when your old they will finally help you accross the street! They will finally understand the difference between good and evil and for the non-muslim they will finally understand the difference between right and wrong!!!!

Woow!!! great idea!!

I mean that, beginning next week, your kids will be taught religion exclusively from the Qur'an. Religious education will be Islamic education...exclusively. None of that Bible stuff, or anything else. Just Islam.

And the only holidays the school will recognize are Islamic. School will be held on Christmas Day if it falls during the week, no more winter break for your holiday travels.

I find it sad that people become ANGRY over the thought of CHRISTIANS...GASP possibly taking over the schools!!

It might not be such a concern if it weren't for the constant attempts by some Christians to inject faith into science class. If such activists try to redifine scientific method and terminology to fit their non-scientific views, what basis can anyone claim that it will stop there?

School is not a choice.

Exactly. So it should be used for the education appropriate to all children, not just the ones of a particular religion.

Good point BUT Church is a choice School is not a choice.

There is always a choice......I think what you mean is that you do not like the consequences of the choice you would prefer to make. It is perfectly within your rights to take your kids out of public school and teach them at home. Many people across the country have done this already; however, the education provided by these parents vary greatly in quality. Regardless......public school is a choice, and you can opt out at any time you desire.

I look forward to the day when tax-supported government schools have been abolished and when compulsory-education laws have been repealed.

I look forward to the day when tax-supported government schools have been abolished and when compulsory-education laws have been repealed.

And that's when the intelligence of the average American will plummet even further than it has.

Good point BUT Church is a choice School is not a choice.

as school is not a choice allowing religion in schools would force people to learn religion

is that the goal? ya know it is.

I will sue the bejabbers out of any institution that brings up god around my children.

We Americans had higher intelligence and greater literacy when there were no public schools or compulsory education laws on the books.

My point is freedom, not tax-coerced compulsion.

We Americans had higher intelligence and greater literacy when there were no public schools or compulsory education laws on the books.

Greater literacy? Ha, right.

My point is freedom, not tax-coerced compulsion.

No one is forcing your children to go to public school, or any school, actually. Homeschooling is always an option.

Schooling is fine. I just don't want to be compelled by coercive taxation to fund other children's education. Their own parents ought to be doing so.

You're welcome to check the statistics on literacy in America. We achieved our greatest levels of literacy during colonial times and in the early years of the Republic when there was no compulsory "public education" (a transplant from Statist, Militarist Prussia).

We achieved our greatest levels of literacy during colonial times and in the early years of the Republic when there was no compulsory "public education" (a transplant from Statist, Militarist Prussia).

That's quite literally impossible, considering how relatively rare it was for slaves to be taught to read, and certainly not taught to read at a fully functional level.

Also, your assertion, you get to bring your statistics. We're not here to do your research for you.

I have no problem doing his research for him. Unfortunately, the site only records back to the late 1800's, but I think the visible trend speaks enough to get an idea of previous years' levels.

http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/lit_history.asp

Chart showing rates of illiteracy located about 3/4 down the linked page.

There ya go, bringing those ugly facts into a perfectly reasonable conversation. ;D

I'm sorry, I'll try to return to unsubstantiated opinion disguised as relevant fact.

You're supposed to be clutching the religious text of your choice to your breast, wailing and moaning about how it's the one, truly true truth, and how can the heathens not recognize it and indoctrinate their kiddies while teaching yours (because you're too lazy to do it at home).

Would a class like this be allowed in todays intolerant educational institutions?

Yes. I know of one school. personally.

It only gets forbidden when people try to sneak religious preference into it: Here's a comparative religion course, but 90% of it is devoted to Protestant Christianity. That one's been tried a few times.

It only gets forbidden when people try to sneak religious preference into it

Exactly. The trick is making sure the class is truly in the realm of "social studies" and geared toward the understanding of various religions and their influence on the world's cultures and not crossing the line into indoctrination. Of course, the objectivity needed could also ruffle some feathers when it comes to mentioning religion's influence on some of the more shameful aspects of our own history ( like the "Manifest Destiny" concept used to rationalize genocidal attitudes against Native Americans ).

Of course, you can include the sacred book called "Spectacular Arab" which is Respectfully the most holiest of all. But costs money to buy one. Smile. Salam.

Would a class like this be allowed in todays intolerant educational institutions?

I haven't seen that in any high school I've attended, but there are plenty of those at the college level.

We studied the history of Christianity, Buddahism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, and a couple of other smaller religions. It was an interesting class, I enjoyed it, I learned a lot, and I think gave me a tolerance and understanding of different views. There was no prejudice, all were treated equally, one never touted over another.

My children's school and the school I teach in, teaches about all faiths. It is part of the social studies program. There is no intolerance in either school districts.