Georgia bypasses the constitution !!!

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060420/ap_on_re_us/bible_bills

 

What kind of bullshit is this that they be allowed to offer religion courses sanctioned by the government !!!

 

Holy shit does our constitution REALLY mean NOTHING any more ??

.

.

 

Phreak, I fail to see where this is in violation of the constitution. The first ammendment is the only place in our constitution that mentions religion at all...

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

It simply says that congress can not pass a law that effectively establishes a religion, nor can congress pass a law that prohibits the free exersize of a religion.

 

How is offering an optional bible course "respecting an establishment of religion" or how is it "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...

 

1) the course is elective which would certainly bypass the "establishment" part.

 

2) The constitution does expressly say that "congress shall not", the states seem exempt, exept that the supreame court interprets congress to be all of government.

 

3) The course doesn't really prohibit the exercize of religion.

 

I don't get your take on this being a violation of the constitution, I wouldn't let my child take the course anyway, because it's probably being taugt by some liberal educator that doesn't believe in it anyway.

[Lethalfind]

What the course does is force on people in a public school setting a certain idea of religion...You don't honestly think they are going to teach other ideas of religion then the accepted bible belt diatribe do you?

The refrain of freedom of religion is a frequent song held on to by Christians as long as it benefits them and the religion that gets the freedom is theirs...They spring from the womb with the NEED to shove their bullshit down anyone and everyone's throat...

[manicmonday]

What the course does is force on people in a public school setting a certain idea of religion...You don't honestly think they are going to teach other ideas of religion then the accepted bible belt diatribe do you?

The refrain of freedom of religion is a frequent song held on to by Christians as long as it benefits them and the religion that gets the freedom is theirs...They spring from the womb with the NEED to shove their bullshit down anyone and everyone's throat...

 

The verb force:

 

Inflected Form(s): forced; forc

[ImWithStupid]

You have a funny way of looking at an elective class that you just don't happen to agree with. It's elective. Meaning instead of taking underwater basket weaving, the students could take a religion class. You yourself have admitted that this isn't against the Constition, it's not just not something you approve of. Well, home school. I want my schools to have the freedom to have different elective classes, not just classes someone else has chosen appropriate.

 

This is a choice the students can make. Not a neccessity for graduation. If it was madea requirement, then I would be on the band wagon of dispute, but since it's a choice that could be discarded of desired, then it's not a big deal.

 

Exactly, and as long as the state and local school district doesn't prevent an elective class that teaches another religion/philosophy, if it were in demand, in my opinion, they are doing nothing wrong, immoral,unethical, or illegal. I too would be against this if that were the case, but it's not.

 

The local population just chooses at this time to teach the Bible which if they include the Old Testament, they are also including teachings of the Jewish faith.

[builder]

I think the timing is unusual.

 

Australian schools have just introduced the same agenda, including all beliefs, even atheism. The gov says it's only correct that all religions are represented.

 

How this will be achieved is beyond me, but we'll wait and see how it pans out.

[Hamza123]

I think the timing is unusual.

 

Australian schools have just introduced the same agenda, including all beliefs, even atheism. The gov says it's only correct that all religions are represented.

 

How this will be achieved is beyond me, but we'll wait and see how it pans out.

 

"ALL" Religions ????????????????????

 

If you include Christianity, Judiaism will want in, than Islam, than Hinduism, than Catholics will want their own course, than Athiests will complain that their text books are all wrong... Scientology will want in too. The list can go forever, as It can be considered a violation if you don't include all religions or recognize one at all... If people want to learn about religion, just direct them to a Church, Mosque or Synagogue.

 

BTW!! A World Religions class was JUST introduced in my high school this year...

 

I go to school to learn about Math, Science, English etc... So if I wanted to learn about religion, than I would go to a Church etc...

[ImWithStupid]

"ALL" Religions ????????????????????

 

If you include Christianity, Judiaism will want in, than Islam, than Hinduism, than Catholics will want their own course, than Athiests will complain that their text books are all wrong... Scientology will want in too. The list can go forever, as It can be considered a violation if you don't include all religions or recognize one at all...

 

Catholics are Christians. Oh yea, don't forget about the other major religions...

 

Chinese traditional religion, Buddhism, African Traditional & Diasporic, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Baha'I, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism and so on and so on.

 

If people want to learn about religion, just direct them to a Church, Mosque or Synagogue.

 

BTW!! A World Religions class was JUST introduced in my high school this year...

 

I go to school to learn about Math, Science, English etc... So if I wanted to learn about religion, than I would go to a Church etc...

 

Many churches don't actually teach "religion" they show people how and allow them to practice the religion. Most don't actually get into the theological, philosophical or historical study of religion. For that you need schools.

 

Is this World Religions Class a required class?

[phreakwars]

The new law allows elective classes on the Bible to be taught to high school students.

So THIS is not interfering with religion ??? It's OK because most people are Christian ??

 

Now I wonder how many of you would be singing the same tune about it not being unconstitutional if the headline read:

 

The new law allows elective classes on the Qur'an to be taught to high school students.

I mean after all, the classes would be ELECTIVE not forced. How many "Christians would be popping a gasket knowing their child could , for shits and giggles, and maybe an easy credit, take a course on Islam in a public school, all thanks to the government signing a law saying its OK..

 

If I am not mistaken, almost every state in the union has a parochial school system as an alternative to public schools in which religion plays the key in entry in to having your child educated there... Usually these are mainly Catholic schools, but there are other ones as well.

 

So to me, it's pretty damn simple... if you want to teach your kids about the bible, send them to a parochial school, if you do not.. send them to public school.

 

Now you tell me, what is it any of fucking Georgia's, or the governments business anyway to decide whether religion ... namely, the bible, should/can be taught in a public school ??

 

So lets look at that constitution again a little more closer... shall we ??

 

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

Now let's take it, and remove another sentence and shorten it down a bit.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

And, lets follow our sentence structure lessons and narrow down the action here a bit more...

 

Congress shall make no law respecting

 

Now, IN SHORT... to me, this means decreeing ANY law that pertains to religion, even if it will BENEFIT said religion.

 

I have not seen a rebutal yet that will convince me that Georgia is not violating the constitution.

.

.

[manicmonday]

I have plainly stated that I wouldn't have a problem with an elective class of any other religion class being taught. I also have not been convinced that this violates Church and State.

 

I think it's the masses who are SO against Christianity that don't want this in place. That's not a rebuttal, that's a personal value.

[ImWithStupid]

This is going to look longer then it actually is, because it's full of quotes. (or maybe it is long, guess that would all be relative)

 

So THIS is not interfering with religion ??? It's OK because most people are Christian ??

 

I don't think it interferes with religion as the referred to in the US Constitution, no. I think the law doesn't conflict with the First Amendment because so far they have not denied the same benefit, to be allowed for another religion or belief, if requested. As yet no other group, to my knowledge, other then Christians, have requested it.

 

Now I wonder how many of you would be singing the same tune about it not being unconstitutional if the headline read:

 

The new law allows elective classes on the Qur'an to be taught to high school students.

 

I mean after all, the classes would be ELECTIVE not forced. How many "Christians would be popping a gasket knowing their child could , for shits and giggles, and maybe an easy credit, take a course on Islam in a public school, all thanks to the government signing a law saying its OK..

 

I wouldn't have a problem with Islam, Hebrew, Buddhism, or any other religion being a subject, offered in my kids' public schools at all. I would love for my kids to be able to learn about world religions in their school. I don't think that you can fully learn about a society or country/land and it's people, without including the effects of the teachings and philosophies of that society, which definitely includes religion.

 

I think we can all agree that, good or bad, most of the world has been shaped by religious beliefs of the occupants of that land, no matter what place in civilized time you talk about.

 

If I am not mistaken, almost every state in the union has a parochial school system as an alternative to public schools in which religion plays the key in entry in to having your child educated there... Usually these are mainly Catholic schools, but there are other ones as well.

 

So to me, it's pretty damn simple... if you want to teach your kids about the bible, send them to a parochial school, if you do not.. send them to public school.

 

First of all, I believe that denying children knowledge of the world and it's history in any form (religious, political, economical, etc...) is doing them an injustice. Wouldn't it be better for them to be able to be exposed to as much as possible, and trust that their parents lead them in their preferred beliefs, ideas, morals and values (as any good parent should be doing anyway). As an elective if the parents don't want their kids to be exposed to this at all, that option is definitely available to them. I know I monitor what classes my child signs up for. That way I can prevent them from taking a class that I don't agree with, for "shits and giggles", just to get an "easy credit" or any other reason.

 

Secondly, I know that just in our area, it costs more then $2,000 for tuition to the local Catholic high school. I couldn't find the stats, but based on the economic demographic of Columbus, NE, I'm pretty sure that is on the low side for private education. I also know that I sure as shit couldn't afford to send my kids their whether I wanted to or not.

 

Now you tell me, what is it any of fucking Georgia's, or the governments business anyway to decide whether religion ... namely, the bible, should/can be taught in a public school ??

 

So lets look at that constitution again a little more closer... shall we ??

 

Quote:

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

 

Now let's take it, and remove another sentence and shorten it down a bit.

 

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

And, lets follow our sentence structure lessons and narrow down the action here a bit more...

 

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting

 

Now, IN SHORT... to me, this means decreeing ANY law that pertains to religion, even if it will BENEFIT said religion.

 

Let's take it even shorter...

 

Quote:

Congress shall make no law. (at all?)

 

Shortening the words of the Constitution to fit our own purpose is the same as what religious fanatics do to their texts to manipulate the meaning.

 

I have not seen a rebutal yet that will convince me that Georgia is not violating the constitution.

.

.

 

Ok, lets do look at the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, as it is the only place in the entire document that we talk about religion.

 

 

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion

, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This says, "respecting an (not "the") establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

In my opinion if the wording would have been "the establishment of religion" not "an establishment of religion" the meaning would more clearly

 

 

First thing we should agree on is that the Georgia law obviously doesn't prohibit the free exercise of religion, so the second part of the First Amendment, relating to religion, is not being violated

 

Now for the first part of that section, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" lets look at the Establishment Clause...

 

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what is commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress (Not violated so far) and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. (Now here's where we may disagree) The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. (I personally, don't agree with the previous "separationist" approach) The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and the colonies, during the colonial era.(in my opinion, this is what the founding fathers were concerned with and what the actual interpretation of the wording in the first part of the text that refers to religion in the First Amendment.)

 

At least that's my opinion of the situation.

[manicmonday]

This is going to look longer then it actually is, because it's full of quotes. (or maybe it is long, guess that would all be relative)

 

Are you taking the focus of the debate and distracting us with the size of your uhmmm, "post"???

 

 

First of all, I believe that denying children knowledge of the world and it's history in any form (religious, political, economical, etc...) is doing them an injustice. Wouldn't it be better for them to be able to be exposed to as much as possible, and trust that their parents lead them in their preferred beliefs, ideas, morals and values (as any good parent should be doing anyway). As an elective if the parents don't want their kids to be exposed to this at all, that option is definitely available to them. I know I monitor what classes my child signs up for. That way I can prevent them from taking a class that I don't agree with, for "shits and giggles", just to get an "easy credit" or any other reason.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. Denying learning about anything in the world is a form of sensorship and I for will always stand against sensorship.

 

 

Secondly, I know that just in our area, it costs more then $2,000 for tuition to the local Catholic high school. I couldn't find the stats, but based on the economic demographic of Columbus, NE, I'm pretty sure that is on the low side for private education. I also know that I sure as shit couldn't afford to send my kids their whether I wanted to or not.

 

 

Where I live, currently the tution of Parochial school is $8,000. And also, my taxes are paying for the public schools. So if and when I decide to go that route, I will be miffed that I am paying for both schools to survive. All because someone might not want Billy Bob Jr. to learn something that isn't in the perimeter of where he scratches his hind leg.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Are you taking the focus of the debate and distracting us with the size of your uhmmm, "post"???

 

Maybe, maybe not, I guess you'll never know.

 

Where I live, currently the tution of Parochial school is $8,000. And also, my taxes are paying for the public schools. So if and when I decide to go that route, I will be miffed that I am paying for both schools to survive. All because someone might not want Billy Bob Jr. to learn something that isn't in the perimeter of where he scratches his hind leg.

 

I don't know how it is in Kansas, but in Nebraska the Parochial Schools also get funding from the state for books, supplies and resource materials (like videos and such). So here you would pay for your child to attend public and private school, but actually only attend one. Here the private school kids could also, come over to the public school to take classes not offered at the public school. The state also has some vouchers avialble, provided by state funds, to pay the tuition of children of low-income families to attend private schools.

[hugo]

The answer is school vouchers.

[ImWithStupid]

The answer is school vouchers.

 

Why should tax money pay the tuition for students to attend private school?

 

Wouldn't it be better to just use the money that would have been used for vouchers to better the public school?

[Hamza123]

ImStupidWith, the course is not manditory, however many students have taken it, and their parent's are quite pleased.

 

Like you said how you wouldn't mind your children learning about Islam and other religions, my parents actually encouraged me to take World Religions, and see if I could learn anything about any other religions, particularly Judiasm and Christianity.