Religion in Schools

[Jeff]

I read an article in the Louisville Courier-Journal today (I've been reading that paper for obvious reasons!) about a judges ruling to remove the Ten Commandments from several schools and court buildings. This came, of course, after the Supreme Court declared a Kentucky law unconstitutional that ordered the Commandments displayed in state courts.

I was just wondering who else thought the hanging of religious documents, prayer in school and the like is just bizarre. Here's my reasons for not agreeing:

1. It is an obvious endorsement of a particular religious belief - in this case Christianity and Judiasm. If someone wanted to put the laws from Islam, the teachings of Buddha or the wisdom of Hinduism, they wouldn't stand a chance. Freedom of religion is designed to protect those of minority religions from being dominated and subjegated by the majority religion.

2. I wouldn't have a problem with such postings if it weren't for the fact that there is no way another religion's beliefs would be hung in a school or courthouse. There is no question in my mind that someone of another religion would be thrown out and their postings torn down if they made the same attempt.

Same thing for prayer in school. That girl in Santa Fe who was allowed to pray a Christian prayer before a football game is a perfect example. If someone had offered prayers to Mecca or a Buddhist chant, people from the school would have freaked and ripped the mic out of his/her hands. Equality on the issue MUST be called into question.

3. Does it really make a difference? Honestly, do any of us really believe that the simple posting of the Ten Commandments will really solve all of our problems and keep people from committing crimes?

It reminds me of that Simpons episode where Bart wore a "Down With Homework" t-shirt he got from Mad Magazine. The sight of the shirt started a riot with students and the subsequent forcing of students to wear drab uniforms. When they did, they became incapable of being mischievous and even blinked in unison.

My point is that this type of belief is flawed and ridiculous. This is more of an adult argument than a children's argument and, I would wager, no one really cares if they were hung there in the first place. As a result, they have no business being there.

4. The biggest argument people can seem to muster with regards to the constitution and its religious connotation is that, while it may say we need to have religious freedom, it was written by Christians who would have never wanted freedom FROM religion.

The main problem here is that our founding fathers were NOT Christian. They were, for the most part, Deist. Deist beliefs are similar to Wicca with the distinction that they believe in a "God" where Wiccans believe in nature as god. Diests, however, have distinctly different beliefs from Christians. In fact, most Christians believe that Diests are going to hell when they die. I know because I was brought up in Lutheran schools from K through 12!

Our founding fathers came to America to free themselves from the religious oppression of Europe, Catholicism in particular. The point of freedom of religion was to prevent the same problems they faced in Europe at the time.


I spent the better part of my young life as a Christian - even a born again, anti-abortion, ultra-conservative one if you can believe that! As I got older, I didn't value that belief any less so much as I grew to value other beliefs as well. There is nothing wrong with Christianity or any religion for that matter. If you want to make that your belief, that is your right.

However, no one has the right to enforce their beliefs on me and it isn't just unconstitutional to do so - it is rude, discourteous and disrespectful.

Soap box now relinquished...

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[heypartner]

Jenna's farewell
Aggie Bonfire
Religion in Schools

we are testing people's soapboxes aren't we:

btw: I have an Aggie bonfire joke if anyone is interested. Clutch doesn't allow me to use on the bbs anymore.

[heypartner]

btw Jeff, I completely agree. the constitution was all about separating church from state. But I think the argument on the other side is: Why does state get in the way of children being taught religion studies?

let's face it: teaching kids well is all about parents and teachers (ie culture) giving a consistent message and supporting each other's effort. I think many people are worried about brainwashing kids with religion. I think that's overstated. It is more important that parents and teachers work together and allow flexible learning environments that include ALL important messages (religion counts here) than to totally ignore a huge curriculum like religion.

The school argument I can listen to and accept. Religion from the state anywhere else (in our adult lives) is completely and utterly against one of the primary goals of our constitution. I completely agree with that.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 06, 2000).]

[TheFreak]

If you're going to take take religion out of schools, what about the Pledge of Allegiance? Doesn't it say "...One Nation, under GOD"?

In Austin a few years ago, they used to air the "Dennis Prager Show", which I thought was the best show on TV (Prager also has a nationally-syndicated radio show, I believe). This guy was just full of common sense (also check out "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News if you like DP). Anyway, he came up with one of the best quotes I've ever heard anywhere, and it was on this very same topic (separation of Church and State). He said "If I was walking down the street by myself at night, and looked up and saw a group of teenagers walking towards me, I would feel a lot better if I knew that they had just come from BIBLE STUDY".

In my view, there is not much wrong with what Jeff has described. With all the other problems out there right now, why be so concerned that kids may become interested in a certain religion?

Of course many will point out that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state, but when it is pointed out that the Constitution also calls for the right to bear arms, they will look for ways to get around that in order to support their particular agenda.

------------------
"It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors."

-C.C. Deville


[This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited May 06, 2000).]

[BobFinn*]

Agree with you 100% jeff. Is it me or does "Freedom" have a lot of baggage? Is it any wonder these kids join cults and worship the devil?

And whats up with the "in God we trust" on the almighty dollar? Has Hakeem or any other non-christian ever said anything about this?

------------------
You just want to be on the side thats winning.

[Jeff]

Actually, the Pledge of Allegiance has a very shaky past anyway - it was certainly not created by the founders - here's a little history from Dr. John Baer, author of "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centinnial History - from 1892-1992" :

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892.

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

As you can see, the pledge's creator wouldn't even agree with the current pledge. Just a brief history.

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[Jeff]

Hey, Bob. One person did a few years ago at least with regard to the national anthem and he was villified: Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf.

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[BobFinn*]

ahhh yes, aka Chris Jackson http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
You just want to be on the side thats winning.

[DREAMer]

Jeff,

Do you remember me defending Abdul-Rauf?

-------------------------------

Let me start by saying, I am a Christian. I don't know which denomination I consider to be most closely linked with. If I had to choose, I think I would choose "The Assembly of God" church. My father was a minister in that church for a few years when I was a youngster.

Now I have many many opinions when it comes to religion, morality, responsibility, etc. I have an unbelievable amount of resources at my disposal when it comes to religion. One of my uncles used to be a Roman Catholic Priest. My Dad was a minister in the Assembly of God Church, and another of my uncles is a minister in the Episcopalian Church. Not that I choose to believe every single thing they tell me, but man it's such a great asset. I really am greatful for it.

One thing that I've come to believe is that in the Constitution, the "Seperation of Church and State" was meant to block the government from forcing any religion on anyone. It, IMO, did not mean that there could be absolutely NO religion in governmental activities.

Many government officials have religious beliefs, and their decisions are predicated on these beliefs, and therefore you cannot and will not ever take religion completely out of the governmental process.

As already stated the government makes money with the phrase, "In God We Trust" on it. That is made by the government. You cannot deny it, and you cannot argue it. It is done. So, why is that? I don't know. Many Christians that I know find it offensive that the word "God" is put on something that has nothing to do with Him, and something that can be negative in so many ways. I myself, could do without it being on there.

Now about the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance". That to is endorsed by the government. I don't think anyone would argue that. I remember having to say it in school. I don't think many public schools still do that. But, whatever, if it was taken out, I think there would be a HUGE outcry, in fact, I don't think it would ever happen.

What about when the President of the United States is sworn in? Doesn't he swear on a Bible? Why is that?

So you see, religion has not been completely eliminated from government and I don't think, or hope, it ever will.

My main reason for wanting religion to be present in everyday life it because of morals. Where do morals come from? Answer: Religion. Sure, there are people who consider themselves athiests who are moral, but the essence of morals still come from religion and it's rules and guidelines for life. I think that the less a role religion plays in the life of the average person, the lower the morality of a society gets.

-------------------------------

Now, on to the question at hand.

I don't think the Ten Commandments should be placed up on a public school's walls, unless any other religion that cares to be represented is also placed in a similar way.

I personally believe that Christianity is the only way to an eternal life with God. I think every other religion is wrong. But, I also know that God gave humans the freedom to choose, and who would I be to try and take that right away? I'm not God. So, if someone chooses not to follow Him, that is there choice and I should not condemn them, persecute them, or discriminate in any way against them. I have many friends who are not Christians. I have many who are. I have many who are bad Christians.... (man, I must have a lot of friends)

True Christianity is about forgiveness, love, and tolerance. Anyone who teaches anything that is contrary to these, is not teaching true Christian values. I think abortion is wrong, but killing abortion doctors isn't right either, even though emotionally, I want to think it is, spiritually I realize that it isn't. To teach that people who are not Christians are going to hell, is maybe a necesary evil, but to say specific people (Athiests, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, whoever) are going to hell is against Christian principles. We, as Christians, do not have the right to say who is and who isn't going to Heaven or hell. That would be judging them, and we are not allowed to judge others. That is up to God, not us.

I am very saddened at the reputation Christianity gets from people around the world. There are too many people out there teaching that people much choose Christianity or go to hell. Well, the truth is, they don't have to. It's their choice. I am all for missionaries and things like that, but many times they give the wrong impression on what Christianity is all about. While I was in Jamaica last year for my one year anniversary, I was talking to this guy who followed many of the Rastafarian religious principles. We got to talking about religion and he told me all about some of the things he believed in. He did say that he wasn't a true Rastafarian, because he did not believe in their god, who happened to be this man from Africa. Anyways, he told me of his negative experience with Christian missionaries in Jamaica. He told me how they would preach to the poor people and ask for donations. These people, most of whom were living in lean-to shanties would give them their money, what little they had. Then, they would see these same missionaries living in nice brick homes, and driving fancy cars, etc. I told him some of my beliefs and what I thought true Christianity was, and I think I made an impression him. I may not have converted the guy. But, now whenever he thinks of Christians, I sure hope he remembers our conversation and his impression of me, instead of the money grubbing missionaries he is exposed to there in his own country.

One other thing. Here's a (short) list of religions, worldwide, in order of number of people who profess to believe in one.

1. Christians
2. Muslims
3. Hindus (I am almost positive)

So, if you're a Christian, don't get discouraged. There's plenty of us out there. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

[MoonBus]

Jeff, I agree with your assessment 100% and thanks for the little history about the 'Pledge of Allegiance'.

HP,
let's face it: teaching kids well is all about parents and teachers (ie culture) giving a consistent message and supporting each other's effort. I think many people are worried about brainwashing kids with religion. I think that's overstated. It is more important that parents and teachers work together and allow flexible learning
environments that include ALL important messages (religion counts here) than to
totally ignore a huge curriculum like religion.
Who decides what that consistent message is? One would say "Oh, let's teach them Christianity when they are young and then let them decide what religion to believe when they are grown up"? Another would say "Why not teach them the ways of a Muslim first?" And another would say "You know what I don't believe in God or agree with any religions out there, why are you putting ideas in my child's mind that I have to "flush" out later on." Another thing is, how does a Christian parent answer a question such as "Why are you eating that meat, Mommy & Daddy?", if their kid was taught another belief in school?

When it comes to religion, we can NEVER come to a consistent message.

Yes, I worry about brainwashing children with religion. We worry about pornography, violence and such exposure for children, why shouldn't we be concern with religion? After all, isn't religion suppose to be about a way of life? Don't say religion isn't as damaging as pornography & violence, because it is. If you are a Christian and your kid is fed with Buddhism, wouldn't you look at the kid as being emotional damaged?

Freak,
If I was walking down the street by myself at night, and looked up and saw a group of teenagers walking towards me, I would feel a lot better if I knew that they had just come from BIBLE STUDY
Not really, if I was bald and wearing a robe (monk). Seriously, there is so much religious intolerence that what I just said may be true. They may not beat me up, but they may spit at me or make some unkindly remarks.

With all the other problems out there right now, why be so concerned that kids may become interested in a certain religion?
Because if religion is a way of life (which most followers believe it to be), then it is a big deal.

...but when it is pointed out that the Constitution also calls for the right to
bear arms, they will look for ways to get around that in order to support their particular agenda.
I agree, society in general is hypocritical.

DREAMer,
I remember you defending Abdul-Rauf. You were one of the few.
Too bad that I haven't met too many Christians like you. Most of them does leave a bad impression on me with the things that you've described. I know not all Christians are like the ones I know, but it's hard for me to defend them when I am talking to other non-Christians.

My main reason for wanting religion to be present in everyday life it because of morals. Where do morals come from? Answer: Religion. Sure, there are people who consider themselves athiests who are moral, but the essence of morals still come from religion and it's rules and guidelines for life.
Can not agree with you on that totally. The reason why I say that is because of Taoism. I don't really consider Taoism a religion, because it doesn't believe in ONE divine power. (I am not a Taoist, so I may be wrong on this.) Taoism is a teaching of a way of life alongside nature. It also teaches morality. Morality can be taught without a religious reference. "Treat others as you would like to be treated." is an example. I am not advocating that religion has no place in teaching morals, but it is not a necessity. I do think it makes it easier.

[heypartner]

TheFreak

Thanks for pointing out the weakness of my words there. "Consistent Message" needed to be explained more.

What I meant was a Consistent Message from the experience of each individual kid. Meaning that if a family wants their kid to learn religion, the other learning environments the children spends time at should support that. Otherwise, you have a didactic dichotomy where one teacher (the parent) seems to be contradicting the professional teacher from the perpective of the child.

I did not mean for Consistent Message to imply everyone should learn the same thing.

[Azim da Dream]

DREAMer,
I am about 99% sure that Hinduism does not believe in one divine power. I have a few Hindu friends and am certain that they have hundreds, if not thousands of Gods, a lot of whom are statues, etc. Sikhism, on the other hand, does believe in one God. You may be crossing the two religions, because they do tend to be confused quite often, due to their close geographical proximity to each other in India.

Jeff,
I have to agree with you here. How can a country that preaches freedom, equal rights and multiculturalism only preach and advocate one religon out of a countless others? Sure, each faith has its own separate private school system, but why should a Jewish parent or a Buddhist parent be deprived of sending their child to a public mainstream school without worrying they will be influenced my another faith that they did not learn at home?

Azim da Dream

------------------
True champions do not take their failures to heart and never let success go to their heads.

[DREAMer]

"One other thing. Here's a (short) list of religions, worldwide, in order of number of people who profess to believe in one.

1. Christians
2. Muslims
3. Hindus (I am almost positive)"


Sorry for the confusion. By, "people who profess to believe in one.", I meant people who profess to believe in a religion. Because there are people who do not consider themselves part of any religion. My fault for not making that more clear.

----------------------------

Moonbus,

Unfortunatey, I know exactly what you mean. Many people who say they are Christians sure don't act like it much of the time. But, maybe not in defense of them, but in defense of Christianity, whenever someone says that they are a Christian, people try as hard as they can to find something wrong with them. Christians are human too, and allowed to make mistakes.

On Taoism: Just because a religion doesn't have one god doesn't mean that it isn't a religion. A good example are the Native American religions. They believed more in spiritst that inhabited nature, than a true god in the the usual sense, but they were still all religions.

But, hey I never said everyone had to agree with me. If that ever did happen I'd go crazy, because I wouldn't have anyone to argue with! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem.

[Jeff]

Thanks for all the posts everyone.

My main argument with the concept of religious tolerence is that it is nearly impossible to tolerate what you don't clearly understand. There are so many misconceptions about various religions.

As for morality, religion actually is not the sole basis for morality. Voltaire actually cataloged a wide variety of societal culture in some of his work (as did Des Cartes) and they agreed that every culture had particular beliefs that held them together and that there were even things that tied every culture together with regard to spiritual beliefs.

Religion, per se, did not form the basis for morality in culture. That was done through a complex system of spiritual beliefs, cultural ideals and social ideals. If we were to assume that religion was the sole basis of morality, we would also have to assume that those who practiced religion zealously were moral.

As we all know, many atrosities were performed in the name of various religious beliefs. In addition, nearly all religions have a central character that has either furthered of been the basis for practices. For example:

Christianity first had "God" and, to a lesser extent, Abraham as its "founders". That is why Islam, Judiasm and Christianity are considered "Abrahamic" religions because they all had their roots in Abraham and the Old Testement Bible.

Christianity, unlike Judiasm, however, was re-directed and shaped by Jesus and Islam by Mohammed. Each brought their own sense of value and personality to religion.

In Hinduism, Shiva (God in Hindi) was the creator with hundreds of other gods and godesses radiating out from that center. Ghandi then came along and re-directed the path of Hinduism to include more service to mankind and passive resistance.

Buddhism started with Siddhartha, a Hindu prince who learned of suffering and turned his meditative practice into enlightenment. Buddhists are a "non-theistic" religion meaning they do not believe in "God" but in a single unifying force that binds us all. In essense, we are God.

Other notables including Zen (an offshoot of traditional Buddhism, kind of the equivalent of Catholicism's relationship to Protestant Christianity), Taoism, Confusionism, Zoro Astrianism, Mormon and Wicca all have a personalities that come from their founders or practitioners throughout the centuries.

All of these play an important role in the moral development of society, but only society dictates what is tolerable by today's standards. The death penalty by Christ's standards is wrong, but many Christians I know believe strongly in it and find no irony in the fact that the person they worship was put to death.

Wiccans, despite being peaceful and nature-centered, still cause controversy in society today because of religious beliefs about witches and witchcraft.

The fact is that "morality" stands on shaky, ever-changing soil. Religion may be able to lay claim to some of the moral guidelines we have today but it can also be blamed for many of the immoral atrocities we have suffered and continue to suffer.

Bottom line is that all religions including Christianity (which is far from being the earliest religion we know of) find their basis in some things that those religions may find objectionable today. For instance, scholars have shown that the devil as is described in the Bible has his origins in Pan, the mythical god of mischief that predates both the Christian and Jewish religions.

I think that we need a significantly wide base of religious, societal and historical understanding to label any society or religion as "moral" or to give them credit for forming the basis of morality itself.

Man, did I get way off the topic or what? By the way, for info on the wide variety of religions in the world, I highly recommend "The World's Religions" by Huston Smith. It is a CLASSIC. You probably can find an inexpensive paperback version at Half Price Books. That's where I found mine.

Oh, and one other thing on Taoism - there are even arguments among Taoists as to whether or not they are a religion or a "philosophy". I think the difference is more semantic than tangible. Taoism is one of the most peaceful and wonderful "religions" I've encountered despite its belief in "God." In fact, the majority of religions in the world are not centered around a single mono-theistic "God" but around poly-theistic "gods and goddesses" or non-theistic spirituality. Lack of belief in a God-specific tradition does not preclude someone from being religious or spiritual.
------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited May 07, 2000).]

[Pass 1st, shoot 2nd]

Jeff,
To make a rough attempt to explain constitutionality of states and the use of religion, consider safe to assume that the current state of the law is neutrality and not no interference.

The 10 commandments are not Christian and Judaism specific. Their tenant permeate Buddhism, Hiduism and the like. Cults are not religions, so Haire Chrishnas (pardon the spelling) don't qualify for non-taxatiopn under the Internal Revenue Code.

Moreover, consider the imposition of the ten commandments as secular society's "last resort" due to the drastic increase (real or perceived; depends on the survey you read)in violence in school.

Anyway, if you want more info. email me and it's yours.

------------------
Wanna play in the clutchcity.net game? Got some ideas? E-mail me at philip_w_moore_jr@hotmail.com and I'll send a batch e-mail with details as they develop.

[Lynus302]

As for the Ten Commandments, they're much older than Christianity or Judaism.

The ancient Egyptians had nine commandments, which were more or less identical to the traditional 10. I cannot remember why there were only nine...a combination of two commandments in to one, or the omission of "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me."

I used to study mythology many years ago. I'll see if I can't find out more.

------------------
I need a new signature.
302

[BrianKagy]

Note: This remark is not directed at anyone in this thread.

It would be nice if those opponents of posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms weren't also typically so enthusiastic about tapering the sails of contemporary curriculum to meet the winds of modern moral relativism.

We can't have the Ten Commandments posted, but we can certainly make sure that sex education is taught at a progressively younger age.

We can't have the Ten Commandments posted, but we can disregard mentioning abstinence as an option during the aforementioned sex education.

We can't have the Ten Commandments posted, but we can include books like "Heather Has Two Mommies" on elementary-school reading lists.

The Ten Commandments are inappropriate for the classroom. Condoms are not.

Masturbation, per Joycelyn Elders, is a more suitable topic than the Ten Commandments.

I am not particularly in favor of posting the Commandments. I just think the desire to do so is wholly understandable in light of the growing disconnect between the values of the average American household and those of the modern educational system.


------------------
He's a center! He's a guard! He's seven feet of unbridled talent. He slices, dices, and can even cut through a TIN CAN!

He's Kelvin Cato, and he can be yours for a low low price!

[Rocketman95]

Kagy, that's too simple. The fact is that those things that you try to make sound bad, like sex education, condoms (the handing them out, not the use of http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif), masturbation, are all things that occur in this world, but people don't want to deal with.

Kids need to be educated about sex. It can kill you now. When I got my sex education in the 7th grade, I was taught that abstinence is the best option to avoid things like STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I've never heard of anyone not wanting to teach abstinence as an option. On the other hand, the chances are that the majority of kids will not practice abstinence no matter what they are taught, so at least teach and encourage them to be safe when having sex.

I do agree that masturbation should not be "taught" in the schools. However, it is a natural act. Do you know who the two biggest liars are in the world? The 15 year-old who says he's never masturbated, and the 30 year-old who says he's quit.

As for the "Heather has Two Mommies" book, with that type of household becoming more and more common, kids need to be educated on it. I'm not saying it should be endorsed or not, I don't think that any lifestyle should be endorsed, hetero or homosexual, but kids shouldn't be taught that that lifestyle is wrong. They should be told it exists, and that they are not any more different from you than the person sitting next to you.

I agree with Kagy that the Ten Commandments on the surface are a good set of rules by which to live. However, it does represent a certain religious belief or beliefs. That is not allowed, nor should it be, in public schools.

My solution would be for a class, no earlier than 5th grade, that deals with all religions. Not an endorsement of any certain religion, but to highlight the basic fundamental teachings of most religions. Most of which include many of the Ten Commandments.

------------------
Get your proper swirve on...visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com) (coming in late May, for now visit www.eesite.com (http://www.eesite.com))

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited May 08, 2000).]

[DREAMer]

I'm not at all for a class teaching kids about all religions.

But, how about a "MORALS" class?

Is it the job of schools to teach morals? Probably not, but shouldn't students who don't live in a well structured home have the ability to know right from wrong?

.
.
.
.

Wait, nevermind, I disagree with myself. That idea sounds too much like "Big Brother's Morals Class". I don't want the Gov't teaching my kids what's right and what's wrong.

Hmmmm, the answers aren't always so easy.....

------------------
I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem.

[BrianKagy]

Jeff, I think RM95 and I need to arrange a similar agreement. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

How do I think we should handle this issue...?

Read "Teddy". It's a short story by J.D. Salinger, included in his book Nine Stories (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316769509/o/qid=957809799/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-8184870-2767248).

[Neo]

I read this book recently called Understanding the Times It's about these same issues through the different worldviews. First let me tell you this, there are four categories every religion falls under: Secular Humanism, Marxism/Leninism, Cosmic Humanism, and Biblical Christianity. In this book it explains every detail of the beliefs of them from their theology to their history and after reading this book it opened my eyes. I used to think it took a lot of faith to be a Christian, but it seems to take more faith to believe in these other religions. Back to the subject. Like Dreamer said Separation of Church and State is just that the Government can't make you believe in any religion, that is so that America wouldn't become Communist. Religion in schools, this is just something to think about, have you ever heard of any trouble, like kids bringing gun to class or mass shootings in a Christian School, I haven't and do you know why, its because they are being taught good Christian moral ethics. I don't believe they should take down the Ten Commandments from public schools. Actually the schools need more than that they need a spiritual awakening.

------------------
I GOT NEXT
Neo

[Rocketman95]

Kagy, you don't give us enough credit! Despite our differences, I look forward to hearing your opinion, and I respect your convictions.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

BTW, Neo, do you find it odd that one of the school shootings occured right after a prayer session on campus?

------------------
Get your proper swirve on...visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com) (coming in late May, for now visit www.eesite.com (http://www.eesite.com))

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited May 08, 2000).]

[Lynus302]

Neo
Religion in schools, this is just something to think about, have you ever heard of any trouble, like kids bringing gun to class or mass shootings in a Christian School, I haven't and do you know why, its because they are being taught good Christian moral ethics.

I went to a Christian (Baptist) school, a boarding school at that. We had kids caught with guns, and a suicide as well. There were more drugs there than I ever knew of in my old public school. As for being taught "Good Christian Morals," what a joke. One of Jesus' principle teachings was "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (I know I'm quoting the King James version, but I think the archaic language sounds cooler). The people there judged me and others more than any of us had ever been judged. In fact, I had always considered myself Christian until all the "good Baptists http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif" told me otherwise.

What I'm trying to say is that, based on my own personal experience, Christian schools are, if anything, worse than public schools.

------------------
I need a new signature.
302

[BrianKagy]

Interesting. While we're on the subject...

Congress shall make no law mentioning God in any way, shape or form (http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/08/state.motto.ap/index.html).

------------------
He's a center! He's a guard! He's seven feet of unbridled talent. He slices, dices, and can even cut through a TIN CAN!

He's Kelvin Cato, and he can be yours for a low low price!

[Jeff]

I have to agree with Lynus on this one. From K-12 I went to a private Christian school and the things I mainly remember were the racist jokes, the rampant drug and alcohol use and the out and out cruelty and insensitivity of the students.

My parents were both teachers in HISD and those schools certainly have their problems, but my friends that went to public schools didn't want any part of my private school and I can't really blame them.

In fact, recently a good friend of mine and I were discussing our school (he is a grad as well) and the students' "relationships" with God. While on the topic of spirtiuality, we both admitted that we couldn't name one person that we knew at our school that we thought prayed because they wanted to or read the Bible on their own. As part of church, Sunday school, school chapel or religion class, sure, but not of their own accord.

If anything, the kids I knew (and there were only 400 in the whole school!) had very little interest in religion and spirtuality except for getting good grades in religion and going to church on Sunday because the had to.

Which reminds me - we used to be "punished" in religion class when we talked out of turn or whatever by being forced to read a chapter of the Bible and report on it. Punishment? Obviously, no one liked reading it!

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Pass 1st, shoot 2nd:

The 10 commandments are not Christian and Judaism specific. Their tenant permeate Buddhism, Hiduism and the like.



First off, the actual Ten Commandments are of course Judeo-Christian because they come from the Bible, but I recognize your argument. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll agree that the basic tenants of the final 6 commandments are representative of nearly every religion because they deal with the issues of basic humanity: don't kill, don't steal, etc.

However, the first four are Judeo-Christian in nature and do not reflect the values of Buddhism and Hinduism in particular.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.


These obviously are not reflective of non-theistic and poly-theistic belief systems.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

In Buddhism, in particular, this wouldn't even be a concept. It would be like cursing yourself.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

The Sabbath is a traditional Judeo-Christian day of worship. In many other religions, they do no have a specific day of worship but encourage mindfulness at all times.


I agree that the basic concepts of the final 6 are the same in principle, but, if that is the case, then why not just put up 10 "good ideas" instead of something as controversial as a set of religious principles.



Cults are not religions, so Haire Chrishnas (pardon the spelling) don't qualify for non-taxatiopn under the Internal Revenue Code.



This is a similar misconception. Hare Krishnas (correct spelling - I have trouble with it too!) are NOT members of a clut. The Hare Krishna religion is an offshoot of Hinduism - a "sect", not a "cult". Cults are identified by their belief in a single figurehead or leader like David Koresh or Jim Jones.

Hare Krishnas, like Hindus, worship Shiva and other Hindu gods and goddesses. Their practice of wearing robes and shaving their heads is similar to why Buddhist monks do the same or nuns wear habuts. It is part of their belief system.

Hare Krishna (meaning "praise God") is what we consider Hindu mysticism. There are mystic versions of every religion including Christianity. Many Christian monks (sometimes known as ascetics) are considered Christian "mystics" because of their belief and worship of not just God but nature and the surpernatural.

In the same way, Sufis are the Islamic mystics who practice whirling in circles to create a state of religious bliss. Rumi, the famous Sufi poet, composed hundreds of "love" poems to God while in this trance-like state.

Be careful to learn the religions of which you speak before defining them as cults. Their beliefs are what define them, not what they wear or how they appear to behave.

Narrow definitions of religion are what create these problems in the first place. I'm the first to admit that Jim Jones was nuts and his followers were part of a cult. The Reverend Moon, though he follows traditions similar to several eastern religions, is essentially asking to be worshipped, defining his organization as a cult.

Hare Krishnas and other mystical, ascetic religious followers are simply dedicated practitioners of their religion who live it every day instead of every Sunday or while they pray like most of us. They believe that EVERYTHING is spiritual.

As for Brian's arguments, well, he and I have an understanding - we don't always agree but we don't let it bother us. I'll just allow him his opinion and respect him for it even if I disagree and he knows I do.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited May 08, 2000).]

[Lynus302]

This thread got me thinking and brought back some old memories. Let me clarify a few things about myself and make another point.

Some background on me:
I was as bad of a problem kid as you could possibly get (short of killing my classmates, of course). Forgive me for not going into any detail, but that is a period of my life I would just as soon forget. In short, my options were military school or juvenile hall along with probation, fines, community service, etc. I thank God every day that I was a minor when I got into all that sh!t because I'd probably still be in jail today.

So, I went to a military boarding school that was run by the Army and by the Baptist General Convention of Texas. If any of you have had any experience with these two organizations, you can well-imagine the conflicts and head-butting that came from these two groups trying to run the same institution. I graduated from there with a rather sour opinion of religion in general and an even worse taste for the baptist denomination.

What I needed was structure and discipline, and I got it. I had to get my ass kicked once or twice (by my own peers) before I finally got in line. Those few ass-kickings were the best things that ever happened to me. Once I got in line, I reveled and excelled in the structure and discipline that the military lifestyle provided. I was there for three years (sophomore-senior) and I graduated an officer with more rank, awards and decorations than most of the cadets who had been there since middle-school. With all of these awards and accolades came respect, recognition, and special privileges, which to me was a key motivating factor in my success at that school. The fear of being punished for screwing up was secondary to the humiliation of screwing up with the rank and position I had.

In the meantime, I had pastors and religious-types (absolute zealots, IMO) telling me what to believe, how to believe, what not to drink (due to religious reasons, not legal/age ones) how I wasn't going to heaven, and how other religions were not going to heaven. I listened to how my choice of music wasn't good enough for God and a whole slew of other crap and nonsense designed to control my own feelings and free will. Personally, I felt it was nothing less than brain washing.

Slowly but surely getting to the point:

When you tell kids what to believe and what not to do, they will (for the most part) do exactly the opposite of what you told them. Between the ages from old enough to walk and talk to about age 25, a person will do a million 180-degree turns concerning there own beliefs and convictions, all the while testing their own internal and external limits. These necessary rituals of life forge the man/woman you will become for the rest of your life.

Here are my points and opinions (should you choose to accept them):
1. Schools have no business teaching any kind of belief system. The only one they should enforce is the golden one: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

2. Schools need the right to enforce and maintain structure and discipline, and parents should not take away this right. Parents are trusting the schools with their own children and should expect them to maintain order. Schools should also expect this from parents without having to worry about a lawsuit.

3. Parents should teach and enforce belief systems and moral codes until their kid(s) are old enough to make their own. If a parent is "too busy" to be a parent and teach this stuff, then they have no business having kids.

4. Parents should enforce structure and discipline in their kids lives at home, while at the same time realizing that they cannot rule with an iron fist. Parents should realize that kids are kids and will constantly test the limits I mentioned above. The more they try to have absolute control without giving out any respect, the more their kids will rebel. Parents must keep in mind that while kids need structure and discipline, they also need the right balance of freedom: Give the kids too much freedom, and the potential for trouble increases; take away their freedom, and you've got the same problem.

I honestly believe the rash of school violence the last few years is due to the decline of family life. How many kids don't get to see their parents on a regular basis? How many "latch-key" kids are out there? How many kids are lucky enough to even get to sit down to a family meal at dinner time (with the TV off)?

Organized religion does have its pluses, but don't let it get to the extent that someone else is, in essence, raising your kids for you.

BTW, I'm sorry I have such a sour opinion of Baptists and I hope I've not offended anyone too much. While I have met some who I consider to be living (what is in their mind, anyway) Gods will, the majority of the ones I've met were control freaks who would settle for nothing but absolute conformity. Concerning religion: IMO a truly Godly man should live by example, not by throwing a book in someones face and proclaiming all the knowledge of the universe lies within.

The soapbox is now vacant.

------------------
I need a new signature.
302

[JuanValdez]

It took me 45 minutes to read all the posts here. I couldn't just let this thread die out... at least not without saying me piece.

1) I commend RM95 for saying something I agree with. It is not good that children get no religious education in school. I do not mean indoctrination, but simply an academic study of all (major) religions so that people know what other people believe in. Raised as an atheist, I had very little understanding of what Religion and religions were about until I met my wife. She has given me a very, very in depth look at Christian Fundamentalism that has changed my life considerably (though still it hasn't saved me). It has made me wish I had a formal education in religions of all sorts, but with the Church & State rules currently in place, it is next to impossible.

2) There are many small points on which I disagree with probably all posters here. I won't go into all of them. I will single out Jeff, however, as the one I most disagree with. In particular, there are many characterizations of Christianity that I think false. For example, I think there is a legitimate Christian argument for the death penalty; whatever some scholars may say, I don't think you can conclusively prove that Satan is borrowed from Pan; and I wouldn't say morality is on shaky soil -- or even that it was societally determined [a sociological survey on morality found majorities in every country saying the following were wrong: murder, theft, infidelity, and drug use (!), among other things. I think that goes deeper than culture.].

3) RM95: You argue that we need sex education and "Heather Has Two Mommies" because it is something that kids will be confronted with and have to deal with. Isn't God something they should deal with as well. Suppose for a moment that Christians are completely right (and I'm going to Hell), isn't deciding whether or not you are going to accept Jesus Christ as your savior far and away the most important decision anyone ever has to make? I daresay where you spend eternity is a more important decision than having sex without a condom is, if you do indeed get to choose.

4) RM95 again: You mentioned the prayer-meeting shooting. As I understood it, it was an anti-Christian attack which is why the prayer group was targeted. The Columbine shooting also had anti-Christian overtones. How does this help your argument?

5) Back to Jeff and the subject at hand: I don't want the 10 Commandments up. I think it is a violation of the edict of the Constitution. I also think it won't help.

However, the Church and State rule has started a slippery slope that, in the end, enforces precisely what it meant to preclude. Teachers can't lead prayer in school. That's obvious enough. Now students can't lead prayer [decision pending]? What about their freedom of religion? Ohio was recently told its motto ("In God, all things are possible" or something like that) is unconstitutional. It does not endorse any religion, and, if you think about the definition of God, this phrase seems almost self-evident regardless of your religious background. So where are we going to stop? I think we won't stop until Congress has no chaplain, God is removed from our currency, our Pledge, our anthem, and every other gonvernmental agent we can find.

Is this bad? Won't this provide a neutral canvas for the different religions of our society to operate freely? No. It won't.

Atheism is also a religious belief [it is also a Religion in the more proper sense, but I won't take the time to expound on that, so I'll only prove religious belief and argue with that]. It is a belief that God does not exist. And this belief is worming its way though the Separation of Church and State to persecute other religions. The reason abstinence is not taught in sex ed is because atheism sees no reason why sex before marriage is wrong. Likewise, atheism believes in evolution, therefore it is taught in school though it has not been scientifically proven (ever notice how people treat Science like Scripture and scientists as priests?). These are persecutions of Christianity, Islam, and every other monotheistic religion.

Carter was heavily criticized when he delayed a decision, saying he wanted to pray on it more. Editorials were written about Church and State then. In Toronto (I know it isn't in the US), the mayor wanted to pass an ordinance (I forget which) that thousands of Christians wrote in to protest. He said he dismissed them as religious zealots. These latter two examples are examples of how this Church and State rule has permeated society to a point where people get uneasy when it comes to born-again Christians having a political say. Why should someone's opinions be dismissed because they are religiously-based? But it happens a lot; abortion is another good example.

But on the flip side, atheists (and bad Christians) make all sorts of decisions based on their religious convictions (or lack thereof): sex before marriage is fine, homosexuality is fine, if it doesn't hurt anybody there is nothing wrong with it. That is how law is consistently deciding these days. And, I'd like to point out that my wife often feels as uncomfortable about expressing her Christian beliefs as a Muslim would at a Texas highschool football game.

Unfortunately, this system is not appreciably worse than its predecessor. Now and in the future, the US is an atheist nation, before it was a Christian nation. Both were equally coercive in enforcing politico-religious conformity. It so happens that I think Christian conformity makes for a stronger nation (and individual) than atheist conformity, but I suppose that is beside the point.

In short, Jeff, this trend of ridding ourselves of the artifacts of one religious oppressor only serves to replace one with another.

------------------

[sir scarvajal]

I am (in part) in the field of sex education and I have never heard of even the most "liberal" school based program saying choosing not to have sex isn't the safest behavioral choice. No person in the field is against abstinence, nor does a single program encourages kids to have sex. The issue in sex education is whether to tell kids that if they are not going to be abstinent then should they be advised to use a condom because it reduces their chances to get a deadly--or other nondeadly but still serious--diseases.

As for the “banning Heather has two mommies" issue, there is no way to say it isn't bringing religion in the discussion. There are kids with two Heathers as parents as well as kids with Heather and Johny as parents. Since it happens in reality, to favor one over the other clearly shows dogma grounded pre-suppositions. It wasn’t that long ago it was uncool to show a mixed raced set of parents too, and many referred to (and still do) the Bible to justify this view.

I do believe faith is a good thing for society (for individuals to nurture), but also recognize that we have a great diversity of religions and thus government doesn't have a place to favor a particular one over another. To think a student could give a Muslim, Jewish or atheist based saying before a football game in most communities without facing major repercussions I think is unrealistic. Yet there are people with such beliefs in virtually all communities, thus to protect everyone from such infringement it is best government sponsored or sanctioned activities ensure there are no overtones favoring a specific religion. This was the key principle for writing the separation of the church and state in the BoR, and I think the framers were wise on this issue.

As for the Christian School is safer argument, one of the best environments to learn and grow I have seen was in a rural Jesuit-runned grade school. I may even send my children to such a school because of the environment for learning and character development (not that my wife and I have children yet). However, private schools like this one can invite who they want to invite, and kick out those who make trouble with a snap of a principal’s finger. It is not fair to compare them with public schools where this selection can’t or is much less likely to occur.


------------------

[Rocketman95]

Juan, the point I was trying to make was that, people always argue that God has been totally taken away from the public school, when in actuality, God can be brought into the public school, it just can't be sponsored by the school.

Pro-school prayer proponents sometimes argue that if God was allowed in schools, then these school shootings would happen less. However, this particular school shooting (I'm not too sure about his motives, plus, the Columbine motives are also a little sketchy at this point) happened at a prayer meeting on campus.

As I've stated already, I do believe that a religious/philiosophy class should be taught at public schools. Religion is too big a part of this world's history to be ignored.

------------------
Get your proper swirve on...visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com) (coming in mid-June, for now visit www.eesite.com (http://www.eesite.com))

[Jeff]

Juan, you make some well-spoken points but the scientific arguments (evolution vs. creation) are based more on what reasonable rather than what is fact. The concept of a supernatural intervention may not be that hard to accept for many of us, but it belies science upon which educational arguments are based.

As for accepting Jesus Christ being one of the most import decisions you will make, well that is certainly subjective. Wouldn't accepting a Hindu teaching or Islam be just as important?

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[Lynus302]

I've been in Christian schools all my life (I graduated from a Baptst Univ. last Saturday [happy day for me!]) My main problem with them is the close-mindedness that permeates their schools and their families.

Here at Univ, I've met so many Christians that I just feel sorry for. These kids come here mostly from home-schooling or some strict Christian school. They come to college absolutely blind to the rest of world.

They come here and find out that people use foul language, some people aren't as trustworthy as others, some people have sex, some people actually drink beer. They are literally shocked by this stuff, and one of three things usually happens:
1. They break the chains of religion and conformity and discover freedom they have never known. As a result, they go haywire with the partying because they don't know how to handle freedom. Then their parents come and take them away to hide them from the reality of the world. I've seen this happen to several people; its like they have no control over their own lives. I find that to be pretty damn scary.
2. They accept other people for who they are. They are comfortable with their own beliefs because they have not been sheltered their whole lives. They do not have a false perception of reality.
3. Reality strengthens their perception of a false world. These are the Jerry Falwells of the world: Drinking is wrong and you're going to hell. Sex is wrong and you're going to hell. Gays are wrong and you're going to hell. The "Teletubbies" are wrong and you're going to hell. These people can never let go of their sheltered upbringing. I shudder to think that such close-minded people exist in the world today.

------------------
I need a new signature.
302

[dc sports]

My Aunt just sent me this poem. It seems kind of appropriate here:


Subject: School Prayer

THE NEW SCHOOL PRAYER
This was written by a teen in Bagdad, Arizona.
This is incredible!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen


------------------
Stay Cool...

[JuanValdez]

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.

1) I don't really want to go down the road of arguing whether evolution should be taught in school (after all, I think we both agree that it should be). I mentioned it only as an example of where Atheism is supplanting Christianity in the indoctrination of our children. The six days of Creation and Adam & Eve (and, to an extent, Noah) is the Christian explanation of why man is the way he is; evolution is the Atheist explanation. Teaching either version is an indoctrination in the principles of each respective Religion. If Atheism and Science are correct (in general, and concerning evolution) then it is good that children are thus indoctrinated. But that won't keep it from being religious indoctrination.

1a) Not all education is based on Science. None of the humanities are scientifically-based. Half the social-sciences are not scientific (I, for example, studied History). Evolution itself is a rather soft science. Scientific validity (or popularity) is not required to be proper material for education.

2) As for the part about accepting Jesus as your savior, I think you read too quickly. I preceded the phrase, "isn't deciding whether or not you are going to accept Jesus Christ as your savior far and away the most important decision anyone ever has to make?" with the qualifier, "Suppose for a moment that Christians are completely right...."

If you take the Christian God as axiomatic and argue from there, obviously deciding whether to accept salvation is very important -- it will be where you spend eternity. In the hypothetical I constructed there is nothing subjective. In fact, embracing Islam would be the worst thing you could do in such a situation.

Of course, you can take the same axiom and replace the Christian God with Allah. Then, obviously the most important thing for people to do is worship Allah. I think it works less well with some religions like Hinduism.

The point, though was that deciding on your religious convictions is far and away the most important thing anyone ever has to do, considering the risks that might be at hand. I don't want to spend eternity in hell because I didn't even think about what my religious convictions were.

3) RM95: I guess I misunderstood you the first time round. You're suggesting that there was a religious friction between Christians and non-Christians that resulted because the Christians were practicing their religion on campus? And that the shooters were reacting to what they perceived to be religious persecution?

I'm probably not sufficiently intimate with the events to competently discuss them. But, if that is what you are suggesting, I cannot agree. In the case of the prayer meeting shooting, there was obviously religious friction and possibly a feeling of religious persecution, but I can't blame it on the prayer meeting. Nor have I ever heard anything to suggest that the meeting was contraband under the BoR. Perhaps he was reacting to the way Christians treated him, but they would have treated that way whether they prayed in school or not. And, when it comes to religious persecution, nothing really compares with targeting someone for their religious convictions and shooting them.

------------------

[rimbaud]

Juan Valdez:



Evolution is not the atheist's theory, it is a scientific theory (actually, it is a scientific law). Many jews, atheists, christians, etc beleive in evolution. Saying that it is an example of how atheists are determining what is taught is rediculous.



Creationism is the christian (and only christian theory). That is why evolution should (and sometimes does) prevail. It is based on evidence and it is not limited to one religion or lifestyle.



One general note on religion in schools - the poem brought this to mind...



No religion in school does not mean a student canot pray. All it means is that one religious belief cannot dominate - no prayer to be read over the speakers (because it would be christian in basis) in school or at a game, no religious text on the wall (unless it is a comparative religion class), etc. I get tired of people saying children are not allowed to pray. Kids can pray all they want - I knew a lot growing up that did - would pray before lunch or any other time. Teachers would not beat them for this. Jeff is right - it is personal. It does not need to be advertised over the intercom to be real. Especially when, in every case, that advertisement would only be christian.



------------------



rimbaud post-a-thon 2000



[This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited May 11, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited May 11, 2000).]

[Jeff]

Juan: I agree that deciding your religious viewpoit may be the most important decision you make, but I don't believe our education system is qualified to address that.

You are talking about ideology and philosophy that go far beyond the parameters of the classroom. In fact, NO ONE is qualified to address that.

In my belief, religion (or in my view spirituality which is intrinsic to all religion hopefully) is a highly personal matter that has little to do with books, people and ideals. It has much more to do with your own contemplation and understanding of yourself and your relationship to the world and "god". That is not to discount religion or religious instruction, just that the times in between instruction are often far more important and instructional than the brief moments we spend with others in our pursuit of our beliefs.

I guess my point is that the pursuit of spiritual beliefs are far too personal to be debated in halls of law or school. That is something that should be done in the contemplation and solitude of your space. Even Jesus admonished people to pray in silence and without making a show. If your spiritual beliefs are strong enough, you need never feel threatened by the beliefs or teachings of others.

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[JuanValdez]

Rimbaud: I wholeheartedly disagree.

1) Evolution is not a law; it is a theory. A thing must be proven to be a law but evolution has only been illustrated and demonstrated. It has been enough to convince me of its validity but that is not sufficient to make that little jump between theory and law. It seems like a minor problem of semantics, but it is very important. As long as it is a theory, it can still be disproven and should be taken with a grain of salt.

2) I have been loose in my use of words -- this causes confusion but this conversation is a little hard to do on the computer and with work waiting to boot. While some jews and christians do believe in evolution, I want to boil things down to Christian Doctrine, Judaic Doctrine, and Atheist Doctrine, etc. Perhaps it cannot be fairly done. But for the sake of having solid definitions, I'll say Christian Doctrine excludes evolution. The reason I do this is because I was comparing school indoctrination of the past with school indoctrination of the present; and in the past the Christian element resisted evolutionary theory. If you want to use a different definition, give it to me, but please keep it simple enough to use.

3) Evolution is a scientific theory. It is also a theory greatly embraced by atheists as a replacement for God. (Science in general often ends up being treated as Scripture. I have a whole theory that I'm trying desperately not to expound on because it would so difficult to prove, especially here). Just because atheists do not have a monopoly on evolution does not mean it is not central to their religious dogma.

4) You say evolution is not limited to one religion. That may be true. However, it is not compatible with all religions. A jew and a christian can agree that Moses parted the Red Sea, but a Hindu may not. Likewise, an Atheist and a Taoist might (?) agree about Evolution but a Muslim would not. So schools teach something as true (as 'law') that some children think is just wrong. In the sense of confronting people's religious beliefs, how is it different from telling an Atheist that Moses parted the Red Sea?

4a) It is nonsense to think that everyone should include evolution in their theology. If you believe the Bible is the literal Word of God and it says (as it does) that the world was created in 6 days, you cannot possibly make that jell with evolution.

5) I agree that students are not disallowed from praying. Though I would point out that they are not allowed communal prayer or evangelism which are both central practices to many denominations of Christianity.

Jeff:

1) I completely agree that it is not the responsibility or privelege of the school system to educate children in what their religious beliefs should be. I was not arguing that they should. I was trying to point out that some indoctrination is unavoidable. And that you should recognize that Atheism itself is a religion (at least a religious belief) just as much as Christianity is. And that there is a secular (meaning 'over time') trend in this school indoctrination from Christian to Atheist and that one is not better than the other. I'm all for leaving people free to decide for themselves but I don't think it happens, there is always pressure, but sometimes you don't notice when you already agree with that pressure.

2) I think you are misusing Jesus' admonition concerning public prayer. He was responding to a Pharisee practice of being openly devout for the sake of being respected. He was saying that this practice was a hypocrisy and that you should worship for the love of God and not to curry the favor of Man. I think if you look at the whole New Testament, a high premium is put on worshipping in communion.

3) While it is true that if your faith is sufficiently strong, it should not be shaken by anything people say to you. However, you can still be persecuted, discriminated against, and alienated because of your faith. That's why people make such a big deal about it in the first place. I would think that people could sit quietly through a prayer, but obviously they can't. Why should a Christian have to tolerate an evolution class?

------------------

[rimbaud]

Juan Valdez:

I must first commend you on standing your ground and replying to multiple posts. From there, I respond:

1. I have discussed evolution with scientists (biologists) and archaeologists and they have always said that in the scientific world, evolution is considered a law, not a theory. It has just not widely been accepted due to non-scientists not wanting to accept it. That is the reason for my word choice. What solid evidence is there to disprove evolution?

2. I do not fully understand the extent you are saying atheist "doctrine" is taking over schools. First, I do not really beleive there is an atheist doctrine. Second, does anything scientific mean atheist. Was the "theory" that the earth was round atheistic because it was contrary to what the Church and Bible said? Or that it was not the center of the universe? What about the dating of the earth. There is a Christian timetable (earth beginning around 4004 bce) and a scientific timetable (based on carbon dating, etc - placing human origins some 2.5 million bce). What do we do in these situations?

3. Evolution is not atheist dogma. Most atheistic theory is based on issues entirely different. Evolution was not the "great find" that allowed atheism to be legitimate. I just think atheists were more willing to accept it than christians.

4a. I said that evolution was more universal because I have known plenty of christians, muslims, jews, hindus, and atheists that have accepted different degrees of it. It is different than Moses parting the Red Sea - that requires faith. There is no evidence of such an act. There is evidence in fossil records and experiments with short-lived creatures of evolution. That is the reason christians have developed their own form of evolution: god created man and let them evolve as they would - devinely guided evolution.

4b. If you believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, then you must account for all of the errors that history has shown within its text (see those mentioned above).

5. They are allowed communal prayer - they can get together with friends and pray all they want, it just cannot be school sponsored or endorsed. They can evangelize all they want. I remember in 4th grade a Jahova's Witness was trying to convert us all at lunch. The evangelist simply cannot be the school.

response 1 to Jeff: If religion, as you say should not be the responsibility of the school, then of course it must be secular. Are you trying to say secular means religion? Are you implying that there is pressure in the schools to be atheist? I am sorry, but american schools are still being dominated by christianity just for the simple fact that the majority of teachers, students and americans are christian. The US is at the head of the industrialized world in having the most religious population.

In general:

I know what you are trying to say in regards to atheism being its own religion, but, by definition this is false. A religion has hierarchical structure, icons, modes of worship, religious text outlining rules, etc. Atheism, being the lack of all of the above, simply cannot be. I would, however, be interested in hearing your theory that you are so reluctant to bring forth. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

I know, this is not the best venue, but who cares? We are all being civil (so far). There is always time to clarify...



------------------
rimbaud post-a-thon 2000

[Jeff]

Juan: I think my issue is that you discuss discrimination and persecution in the same breath with Christianity and evolution. Do you honestly believe that Christians are persecuted? The last time I checked, it was the largest world religion with just over 1 billion followers.

I've heard the argument about that since I was a kid and I just never got it even when I was Christian. I NEVER felt persecuted when I was in church all the time and worshipping as a born again. Not once!

As for the meaning behind Jesus' words, it is hard for me to get into here my beliefs on him because I've read so much about him and scoured the New Testament so many times, it would be impossible to put all my beliefs down in this forum.

However, there are a few things of which I am certain:

1. Jesus was a rebel. There is no question that what he did was incendiary and radical for his time. He was put to death because he was a threat to society - not physically, but socially. In many ways, he was a political martyr as much as a spiritual one. There is a great book about this called "Jesus As A Rebel".

2. The Bible does not do him justice. A few years ago, a conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland with theologians and scholars from around the world to discuss Jesus and his teachings. The conference set out to determine just how much of the New Testament quotes attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him and what was "journalistic licence."

They determined that only about 10% of the quotes in the New Testament that are attributed to Jesus could actually be traced to him. The determined this through studying a variety of texts, religious and otherwise, from the time of Christ. Of course, as many of you know, the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written nearly 75 years after the death of Jesus.

They also found that a much more accurate account of Jesus and his teachings could be found in the Gnostic gospels, many of which were discovered in this century and were never considered for inclusion in the modern Bible. For those of you who haven't read them (like the Gospel of Thomas - as in doubting Thomas), the gnostic gospels are similar to the traditional gospels but are dated far closer to the time of Jesus and are considered more esoteric texts.

Part of what makes this so incredible is the fact that many of the Gnostic texts refer to "the Kingdom of Heaven" and "Hell" as "states of being" rather than physical locations. Certainly, this is not in keeping with the beliefs of traditional Christianity and I won't debate their merits here, but you can see why this would be shocking to traditional believers and why it was not highly publicized.

3. Jesus had knowledge of Eastern traditions. We all know of the missing 20 years or so when nothing was written about Jesus. Many believe that he traveled during that time. That would be consistent with other spiritualists who took time in their late teens and twenties to go on spiritual quests.

One scholar recently uncovered evidence from Greek texts of the practice of prayer of Jesus. He did not pray in the traditional kneeling stance with hands folded and eyes downward. Instead, he sat in what could best be described as a "lotus" position (legs crossed semi-Indian style), hands pressed together pointing upward and eyes toward the sky. This is indicative of Hindu or Buddhist practices of mediatation and predated Christ by over 500 years. Of course, no Jews at the time prayed in this manner because it was their custom to remain "humble before God" and praying in this manner would have been considered blasphemous.

In addition, much has been made of the similarities between the teachings of Buddha and Jesus. In fact, several of Jesus' parables are near direct quotes from the teachings of Buddha including the Parable of the Talents and the Prodigal Son. You can find more info about this in Tich Nit Hahn's books "Jesus and Buddha as Brothers" and "Jesus and Buddha".


Basically, I have a great love for Jesus but not for the religion that bares his name. In much the same way, I admire and respect all the spiritual teachers who have been a part of the living traditions practiced by religious people today. I just don't particularly care for any one practice.

I think that the principles are basically the same from one to the other but the dogma changes. Unfortuantely, we have too little respect for the beliefs of others in this world and instead of religion bringing us together in love as it should, it seems to tear us apart.

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[rimbaud]

Jeff:



That was a great last post. You included info that I had not heard before.



One small note, though. No one prayed then as christians pray now. It has been illustrated in early Christian manuscripts and stone carvings that people would sit in a very lotus-like position (as you said) with arms up - not completey like the "field goal" sign for football, but with upper arms parallel to the ground. They would then either look up, or straight forward.



IMO, Jesus definitely was more of a political subversive than religious (to the Romans). He caused people to go against what the established government wanted. That is the reason for his death. I must get a copy of the Jesus as Rebel book..thank you for mentioning it. Any other reccommendations?



------------------

rimbaud post-a-thon 2000

[This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited May 12, 2000).]

[rimbaud]

I saw after I replied that you were talking about jewish prayer methods. I apologize, you were right. If Jesus did, indeed, travel in the east and base his prayer method on eastern style, then that certainly would have influenced the early christian prayer I was talking about - and also be the break from jewish modesty.



I had the same results at amazon.



I have read many comparisons of different figures with christ, but not the one compiled by Borg, I will definitely pick it up.



It has been a while since I have immersed myself in religious study - and the last time was centered around the perception of Satan in history (Satan as hideous, as human, as hero), so I have been away from Jesus for some time.



Man, I can already see how people will be reading this, "What, he is a satanist, he hasn't found Jesus?" Ha ha.



Anyway, thanks, Jeff. You have inspired me to move on to a new emphasis.

------------------
rimbaud post-a-thon 2000

[Jeff]

Thanks Sir and rimbaud. Whether we know it or not, we are ALL on a spiritual journey. Someone once said "We are not humans attempting to have a spiritual experience, we are spirits have a human experience."

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[JuanValdez]

I'm going to beg out of this conversation. There are all sorts of retorts I still want to make, but this conversation has been taking too much time out of my work-week. Also, I'm 10 minutes from the weekend so I wouldn't be able to pick it up again until Monday.

Anyway, thanks everyone for a good conversation and I'm proud of us for keeping it civil throughout. There are 5 things I have to say, in parting, though I won't try to argue them:

1) The theory I have been avoiding expounding upon is precisely about the Church of Atheism. It is not built like the Christian Church, but it has a doctrine, a priesthood, a theory of creation, and a theory of the afterlife.

2) Evolution is theory not law.

3) Yes, I do feel that Christians are persecuted. They aren't as persecuted as badly here as in, say, Sudan. But, they do get it worse than atheists.

4) I know all about the Jesus Seminar. And without getting into the details of it, I'll just say I don't have a high regard for it.

5) Jeff, I must say I'm skeptical of many of the things you assert (as is my nature). I can't say if you are right or wrong since I have not done the research you have or addressed myself to the same subjects you have. In true Marxist form, I think you must be a least somewhat right. But knowing everywhere else we disagree, I suspect I'd disagree with you on the conclusions you've come to concerning the history you've studied.

------------------

[rimbaud]

Mr. Valdez:



Aw, come on! Can't you email me the Church of Atheism or something? That is not fair.



Ugh, now who can I disagree with?

------------------
rimbaud post-a-thon 2000

[Jeff]

rimbaud: I got a million of 'em! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

Actually, with regard to prayer, that is true of "Christian" prayer but not of Jewish prayer. Of course, Christianity didn't exist until after Jesus. Jewish prayer was markedly different.

As for other books, I made a mistake on the Thich Nhat Hanh books (not to mention the spelling of his name!!!). The two books he wrote are:

Living Buddha, Living Christ - essentially a comparison of the two living traditions of Christianity and Buddhism and how the two intersect.

Jesus and Buddha as Brothers - a continuation of how Jesus and Buddha shared beliefs and ideals.


The other book I thought of was:

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings by Marcus Borg (editor) - he also wrote a great book called Metting Jesus Again for the First Time.

The Parallel Sayings is a terrific comparison of the sayings of Buddha and Jesus as taken from the Bible and the Dharmapada (the teachings of Buddha). it is set up like a parallel edition Bible with Jesus' sayings on one side and Buddha's on the other.

I could not find "Jesus as A Rebel" anywhere but I am certian that is the title. It is not "Jesus the Rebel" which I found on Amazon.

Another intriguing read I just found but haven't picked up yet is The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus by Earl J. Doherty.

It got great reviews and looks fascinating. This is part of the very popular study of the historical Jesus being done now that includes the study I mentioned.

------------------
"No one gets out ALIVE!"
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[sir scarvajal]

Jeff, I just also have to add that your post (actually that was 2 posts ago) was one of the most interesting and informative sets of text (article??) I have read in a long time. And all within a bastketball dicscussion forum, who says sports can't lead to an education. Thanks for posting on the matter.


[This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited May 12, 2000).]

[sir scarvajal]

Really all science is theory--virtually all philosophers of science now agree there are no "universal laws". If you going to teach science (which I think you should), evolution should be part of it, as should the theory of relativity, the big bang, and many other theories. However, creationism did not derive from the scientific methods (observation, isolation, experimentation, etc.,--depending on the sub-field, that determines what is science, not some pretense in being grounded in truth or some reality), thus it should not be part of science instruction (could be taught in other disciplines though). Of course it would be nice to preface all such scientific instruction that in time today's theories will likely show themselves to be incomplete or limited. Even Newton's "laws", in which there was likely the most overconfidence (or arrogance if you wish) by scientists in it being universal, was shown to be limited by Einstein.

As for atheism being dominant in the culture, I certainly don't see that at all. I seriously doubt we will see an avid "atheist" president or congressman in the 20 years. Also, I don't know the proportion in congress who aren't Protestant or catholic, I would think there is a major under-representation of such persons (e.g., Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Unitarians) in positions of power (including school-boards) throughout the nation. I suppose the majority in proportion and power (Christians) could discriminate against themselves, but the history of in-groups with such power would suggest this is most atypical.


------------------