Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.

No, not all.

I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.

And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.

Well trumps all in your country...

Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.

Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.

No, not all.

I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.

And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.

Well trumps all in your country...

Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.

Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.

So if a Muslim kid went to a school in your country and they had a form that let them do their prayer in a room while other kids are still in class would this be against the law too? After all they are allowing the Muslim children to practice their religion?

Ultimately I find it hard to believe a school can force religion upon others. it simply makes sense a religion will be more supported due to popularity over another (or none).

 Swastakowey wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Swas... It was in the 60s that official prayer was decided to be unconstitutional. Before that, there was official Christian school prayer in some public schools, which is a clear state endorsement of a particular religion.

Could you simply choose not to prayer though? I know Jehovahs witnesses could opt out even back then, surely this means anybody can simply chose not to follow it. In that case it is not really enforced, it is simply there for the majority of people being christian yes?

I'm sure it was a mixed bag, with some schools allowing their students to opt out, and others punishing students who did not comply. If you care about the feelings of children in the minority, then there's an additional point to be made about the fact that they can be ostracized for not participating. And then on top of that, the point which I made earlier about the guardians' freedom of religion.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.

No, not all.

I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.

And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.

Well trumps all in your country...

Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.

Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.

So if a Muslim kid went to a school in your country and they had a form that let them do their prayer in a room while other kids are still in class would this be against the law too? After all they are allowing the Muslim children to practice their religion?

Is the religion being promoted, besides allowing for them to do their daily prayer requirement? I am pretty sure jewish kids are allowed to wear kippahs, and christians are allowed to wear crucifixes.

I think this sums it up:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Swas... It was in the 60s that official prayer was decided to be unconstitutional. Before that, there was official Christian school prayer in some public schools, which is a clear state endorsement of a particular religion.

Could you simply choose not to prayer though? I know Jehovahs witnesses could opt out even back then, surely this means anybody can simply chose not to follow it. In that case it is not really enforced, it is simply there for the majority of people being christian yes?

I'm sure it was a mixed bag, with some schools allowing their students to opty out, and others punishing students who did not comply. If you care about the feelings of children in the minority, then there's an additional point to be made about the fact that they can be ostracized for not participating. And then on top of that, the point which I made earlier about the guardians' freedom of religion.

See the punishment part is wrong. Punishing someone for religion is like punishing them fro not speaking English. Obviously that there is a problem, but having prayer is in no way a problem until they actually force people to do it. But I have a hard time believing this is common outside of special situations like the one above. Other than that, removing religion from school just sounds like a huge waste of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.

No, not all.

I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.

And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.

Well trumps all in your country...

Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.

Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.

So if a Muslim kid went to a school in your country and they had a form that let them do their prayer in a room while other kids are still in class would this be against the law too? After all they are allowing the Muslim children to practice their religion?

Is the religion being promoted, besides allowing for them to do their daily prayer requirement? I am pretty sure jewish kids are allowed to wear kippahs, and christians are allowed to wear crucifixes.

Technically it is yes, it is saying being Muslim is ok (endorsment) and allows the kids to progress in their religion (without the schools support they would not be allowed to leave class and pray at their allocated times) so yes it kind of is promotion them.

Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)

 Swastakowey wrote:

See the punishment part is wrong. Punishing someone for religion is like punishing them fro not speaking English. Obviously that there is a problem, but having prayer is in no way a problem until they actually force people to do it. But I have a hard time believing this is common outside of special situations like the one above. Other than that, removing religion from school just sounds like a huge waste of time.

Having official religious prayer in the United States public school system is a problem, because its unconstitutional, meaning its illegal.

I don't know how common it is. I do not recall any school prayer in my public school education, but that has been a while ago now.

I don't think religion should be removed from schools, it should be taught as an important academic subject.

 Ustrello wrote:
Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)

it is, check out the meaning of promote.

 Ustrello wrote:
I am pretty sure jewish kids are allowed to wear kippahs, and christians are allowed to wear crucifixes.

Last i remember i though that was actually a no.

though i think it had mostly to do with jewelry distractions at school or something.

it could be wrong though.

I did not know letting someone do their religious requirements is actively helping them. That is more of a passive which is not active if my vernacular is correct.

 Ustrello wrote:
I did not know letting someone do their religious requirements is actively helping them. That is more of a passive which is not active if my vernacular is correct.

Some people consider enabling as supporting.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)

it is, check out the meaning of promote.

It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.

If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

See the punishment part is wrong. Punishing someone for religion is like punishing them fro not speaking English. Obviously that there is a problem, but having prayer is in no way a problem until they actually force people to do it. But I have a hard time believing this is common outside of special situations like the one above. Other than that, removing religion from school just sounds like a huge waste of time.

Having official religious prayer in the United States public school system is a problem, because its unconstitutional, meaning its illegal.

I don't know how common it is. I do not recall any school prayer in my public school education, but that has been a while ago now.

I don't think religion should be removed from schools, it should be taught as an important academic subject.

Yes it may be illegal but that doesn't stop me thinking it's incredibly silly. It should be illegal when they punish people for not partaking. Not when they have the option to do so. I grew up in a school that had the option not to partake (growing up Jehovahs witness I was not allowed to partake anyway). Once a week the nice old church ladies would come down and answer questions about god and sometimes they would have games etc. The surrounding camps here are run by religious charities but I was allowed to not go to them and if I went I did not have to partake in anything against my beliefs.

To me, that system is perfectly fine. The Korean students also did not partake and we simply went to another room and did our own thing.

The solution is incredibly simple and does not have to involve the law at all. Simply allow the minorities an opt out choice.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Technically it is yes, it is saying being Muslim is ok (endorsment) and allows the kids to progress in their religion (without the schools support they would not be allowed to leave class and pray at their allocated times) so yes it kind of is promotion them.

But other kids aren't forced to join so they aren't affected.

I'm probably biased, having some beef with organized religion, but IMO as long as no one is forced it's OK. Even witnessing a religious event isn't really forcing you to take part - but if the music teacher asks you to sing the baritone for a Christmas Mass and docks you points if you don't it's surely religious discrimination. I had a Baptist pastor as music teacher in grades 7-9 and we did that X-mas thing, but I just saw it as a thing to do. The old man wasn't preaching or anything, just doing his job and letting us give a good show to the rest of the school. Aye, I think Baptists are cool. They won't baptise you until you're old enough to have some idea of what you're doing. That's both fair and decent.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
I am pretty sure jewish kids are allowed to wear kippahs, and christians are allowed to wear crucifixes.

Last i remember i though that was actually a no.

though i think it had mostly to do with jewelry distractions at school or something.

it could be wrong though.

If crucifixes were banned, believe you and me we would have heard the screams of christians already. I did find one article about a maryland school principal requiring jewish students to bring letters from their rabbis saying they were jewish to wear the kippah. But it seems like the public went for the most part against him.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)

it is, check out the meaning of promote.

It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.

If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.

It is, because promoting involves support. Unless you want to ignore the support bit.

support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Technically it is yes, it is saying being Muslim is ok (endorsment) and allows the kids to progress in their religion (without the schools support they would not be allowed to leave class and pray at their allocated times) so yes it kind of is promotion them.

But other kids aren't forced to join so they aren't affected.

I'm probably biased, having some beef with organized religion, but IMO as long as no one is forced it's OK. Even witnessing a religious event isn't really forcing you to take part - but if the music teacher asks you to sing the baritone for a Christmas Mass and docks you points if you don't it's surely religious discrimination. I had a Baptist pastor as music teacher in grades 7-9 and we did that X-mas thing, but I just saw it as a thing to do. The old man wasn't preaching or anything, just doing his job and letting us give a good show to the rest of the school. Aye, I think Baptists are cool. They won't baptise you until you're old enough to have some idea of what you're doing. That's both fair and decent.

It was the same in my families religion. Despite growing up Jehovahs Witness I never chose to baptize (and I was encouraged to wait until I am sure).

I agree with you, if nobody is forced what is the harm? Seems more like beef with religion than simply letting parents and kids decide what is bets for their kids individually and having the school allow the options. Plus the children may learn some things they would otherwise be shut off from learning (even if it is kids becoming atheist, or kids becoming religious).

With a simple opt out option no one needs to be offended.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)

it is, check out the meaning of promote.

It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.

If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.

It is, because promoting involves support. Unless you want to ignore the support bit.

support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

And when you can prove that supporting someone's right to do something automatically means you support them doing that thing, then you may have a point.

The theoretical teacher is supporting the muslim students right to freely practice their religion. That does not mean that they are supporting the religion.

And with no official school prayer in school, not only does no one need to be offended, but there is no offense in the first place.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)

it is, check out the meaning of promote.

It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.

If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.

It is, because promoting involves support. Unless you want to ignore the support bit.

support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

And when you can prove that supporting someone's right to do something automatically means you support them doing that thing, then you may have a point.

The theoretical teacher is supporting the muslim students right to freely practice their religion. That does not mean that they are supporting the religion.

Fair enough, but then a school offering a prayer for a majority of Christians but allowing atheist children to opt out is not supporting a religion, it is giving all the kids the option to freely practice their religion.

Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.

 Ustrello wrote:
Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.

It is required. A Christian is meant to pray before every meal and whenever they feel the need to pray for help. They also pray before every service and after every service (which is not related). I know, I was raised one.

So if a school did a prayer before eating lunch (as required) then had an opt out feature it is simply allowing children to practice their religion.

In the US, children are not restricted from praying in public schools. Only official religious endorsements, such as official prayers, are restricted.

In case the difference between the two is not apparent.

I'm fairly certain that the bible says that prayer should be a personal and private experience. You do it in your own time.


But what do I know, I'm an atheist.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.

It is required. A Christian is meant to pray before every meal and whenever they feel the need to pray for help. They also pray before every service and after every service (which is not related). I know, I was raised one.

So if a school did a prayer before eating lunch (as required) then had an opt out feature it is simply allowing children to practice their religion.

Can you quote me some scripture on that? Because I have check and its not there.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the bible says that prayer should be a personal and private experience. You do it in your own time.


But what do I know, I'm an atheist.

.

That's what Jesus had to say about it. And I think he's the head honcho in Christianity.

But what do I know, I'm an atheist, too.

 jasper76 wrote:
In the US, children are not restricted from praying in public schools. Only official religious endorsements, such as official prayers, are restricted.

In case the difference between the two is not apparent.

That is fair enough I suppose.

How do schools treat Easter and Christmas then?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.

It is required. A Christian is meant to pray before every meal and whenever they feel the need to pray for help. They also pray before every service and after every service (which is not related). I know, I was raised one.

So if a school did a prayer before eating lunch (as required) then had an opt out feature it is simply allowing children to practice their religion.

I was raised a christian and that is not true with how I was raised. Maybe it is for your particular type of Christianity but it is not universal. Rather than the school do the prayer, couldn't the Christian students just do it themselves if they felt the need to?

Seems everybody wins there.

Things are simple as long as people are civil and don't act like tools towards each other over differing beliefs. When people stop being civil is when lawsuits start and, in the US, they might eventually make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Establishment Clause is a touchy subject for a number of people for varying reasons and it was inevitable that several, high profile cases would make it all the way up the chain.

Engel v Vitale found that any government-directed prayer is counter to the Constitution and an opt-out is not valid. The way around this is the "moment of silence" that is pervasive these days. Mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to create an issue.

Student sponsored religious expression is legal but schools but not during class (clubs and the like) as long as all religions have equal access.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
In the US, children are not restricted from praying in public schools. Only official religious endorsements, such as official prayers, are restricted.

In case the difference between the two is not apparent.

That is fair enough I suppose.

How do schools treat Easter and Christmas then?

You'll have to ask someone else. I dont have kids and haven't been a student in years.

When I was a kid, we got time off for Easter and Christmas, but the schools did have secular decorations for both (Easter Bunny, Snowmen, etc.)