Freedom Of Religion, Or Freedom From Religion?

[royhobie]

The Constitution says we should have freedom of religion. However some U.S. Supreme Court decision have changed this to freedom FROM religion in our schools. Here are some of them:

In Engel vs. Vitale, a 1962 case, the Court ruled that any kind of prayer composed by public school districts , even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

In McCollum vs. Board of Education, a 1948 case, the Court ruled that religious instruction in public schools is a violation of the establishment cause and therefore unconstitutional.

And in Lee vs. Weisman, a 1992 case, the Court ruled it is unconstitutional for a school to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at a school graduation. The thought is it involves government sponsorship of religion. The Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion of children being subjected to prayers that may violate their beliefs which a religious leader may recite during graduation ceremonies. There are several other cases, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, but you have the point.

The "Establishment Clause" is a wide ranging clause within the Constitution used by the Court to reason their decision as Freedom FROM religion as opposed to freedom OF religion.

Due to the recent financial problems the St. Mary's County Board of Education appears to have a new policy. I can't believe a recent article by Dr. Martirano in the newspaper which appeared to invite religious leaders in to schools to help the school system. Is there a start of a crack in the armor long held AGAINST Freedom of Religion by the Courts? For example, if a Priest went in to a school, and said absolutely nothing about religion, I 100% guarantee you curious children are certain to ask about religion that the Courts over the years have tried so hard to keep from our citizens. Maybe I misunderstood the article. Could be. But, right now, I think I see a crack in the armor.

 

[Gilligan]

I can't believe a recent article by Dr. Martirano in the newspaper which appeared to invite religious leaders in to schools to help the school system. .

And I can't simply take your interpretation of a source for which you have provided no link..at face value.

 

[awpitt]

The Constitution says we should have freedom of religion. However some U.S. Supreme Court decision have changed this to freedom FROM religion in our schools. Here are some of them:

In Engel vs. Vitale, a 1962 case, the Court ruled that any kind of prayer composed by public school districts , even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

In McCollum vs. Board of Education, a 1948 case, the Court ruled that religious instruction in public schools is a violation of the establishment cause and therefore unconstitutional.

And in Lee vs. Weisman, a 1992 case, the Court ruled it is unconstitutional for a school to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at a school graduation. The thought is it involves government sponsorship of religion. The Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion of children being subjected to prayers that may violate their beliefs which a religious leader may recite during graduation ceremonies. There are several other cases, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, but you have the point.

The "Establishment Clause" is a wide ranging clause within the Constitution used by the Court to reason their decision as Freedom FROM religion as opposed to freedom OF religion.

Due to the recent financial problems the St. Mary's County Board of Education appears to have a new policy. I can't believe a recent article by Dr. Martirano in the newspaper which appeared to invite religious leaders in to schools to help the school system. Is there a start of a crack in the armor long held AGAINST Freedom of Religion by the Courts? For example, if a Priest went in to a school, and said absolutely nothing about religion, I 100% guarantee you curious children are certain to ask about religion that the Courts over the years have tried so hard to keep from our citizens. Maybe I misunderstood the article. Could be. But, right now, I think I see a crack in the armor.

This thread is useless without a link to said article.

 

[illfindu2]

BOTH Please, that is, freedom to choose and freedom from being pushed to believe. It is not the Government's job to push religion upon our children. This should be up to their families and the children themselves choose if they so wish. TYVM

 

[UNA]

BOTH Please, that is, freedom to choose and freedom from being pushed to believe. It is not the Government's job to push religion upon our children. This should be up to their families and the children themselves choose if they so wish. TYVM

Well said. A link from the OP would be helpful though

 

[Ken King]

The Constitution says we should have freedom of religion. However some U.S. Supreme Court decision have changed this to freedom FROM religion in our schools. Here are some of them:

In Engel vs. Vitale, a 1962 case, the Court ruled that any kind of prayer composed by public school districts , even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

In McCollum vs. Board of Education, a 1948 case, the Court ruled that religious instruction in public schools is a violation of the establishment cause and therefore unconstitutional.

And in Lee vs. Weisman, a 1992 case, the Court ruled it is unconstitutional for a school to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at a school graduation. The thought is it involves government sponsorship of religion. The Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion of children being subjected to prayers that may violate their beliefs which a religious leader may recite during graduation ceremonies. There are several other cases, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, but you have the point.

The "Establishment Clause" is a wide ranging clause within the Constitution used by the Court to reason their decision as Freedom FROM religion as opposed to freedom OF religion.

Due to the recent financial problems the St. Mary's County Board of Education appears to have a new policy. I can't believe a recent article by Dr. Martirano in the newspaper which appeared to invite religious leaders in to schools to help the school system. Is there a start of a crack in the armor long held AGAINST Freedom of Religion by the Courts? For example, if a Priest went in to a school, and said absolutely nothing about religion, I 100% guarantee you curious children are certain to ask about religion that the Courts over the years have tried so hard to keep from our citizens. Maybe I misunderstood the article. Could be. But, right now, I think I see a crack in the armor.

This is the article about the doctor's comments and not by him Martirano: Churches and schools can work together. I think you misunderstood, unless you have a differing article. I see it as no more then saying that all are welcome to volunteer, not that they should come in and project their religous beliefs.

 

[bcp]

I have to think that the original intent was that the government would not dictate your religion as had been done by European countries prior to the founding of this country.
If you lived in England, you would be catholic, and you would contribute to the church.
The idea was that people would be free to be catholic, or Lutheran or God forbid Muslim without government interference.

I dont think that it was originally set up to take religion out of government and the public completely.

 

[Tech]

I have to think that the original intent was that the government would not dictate your religion as had been done by European countries prior to the founding of this country.
If you lived in England, you would be catholic, and you would contribute to the church.
The idea was that people would be free to be catholic, or Lutheran or God forbid Muslim without government interference.

I dont think that it was originally set up to take religion out of government and the public completely.

Catholic in England, not since Henry VIII where he persecuted Catholics and this bias transferred to the colonies. Just look at the history of St. Mary's County. The 1st amendment's purpose was to keep the state out of the business of the church and not to promote one over the other nor ban any. The federal government already acknowledges a higher being by stating in the Declaration that all men are endow by their Creator and again mentioned in the national motto and verses of the national anthem.

 

[TPD]

BOTH Please, that is, freedom to choose and freedom from being pushed to believe. It is not the Government's job to push religion upon our children. This should be up to their families and the children themselves choose if they so wish. TYVM

It is not the government's job to do a lot of things, but they seem to do them anyhow, so why not add religion to the list...

 

[royhobie]

This thread is useless without a link to said article.

That's no problem. Just Google Supreme Court decisions. Their decisions are there to read. And quite a few of them; which is why you should type in some of the cases I mentioned. I provided the legal definition of each from the Court.

 

[royhobie]

BOTH Please, that is, freedom to choose and freedom from being pushed to believe. It is not the Government's job to push religion upon our children. This should be up to their families and the children themselves choose if they so wish. TYVM

That's true. But, you should have the right to choose. And the right to practice it "as you choose". After all, this is the law. For those of you that want a link to this one... Google U.S. Constitution.

 

[royhobie]

This is the article about the doctor's comments and not by him Martirano: Churches and schools can work together. I think you misunderstood, unless you have a differing article. I see it as no more then saying that all are welcome to volunteer, not that they should come in and project their religous beliefs.

If you read what "I" wrote, I never said project their religious beliefs. I did say that it is highly likely for CHILDREN to question the religious leader. Remember, in what I wrote, I said the religious person would never have to say a word about religion until asked? So, how could you still get what I said wrong?

 

[Ken King]

If you read what "I" wrote, I never said project their religious beliefs. I did say that it is highly likely for CHILDREN to question the religious leader. Remember, in what I wrote, I said the religious person would never have to say a word about religion until asked? So, how could you still get what I said wrong?

I read what you wrote, then referenced the article I found and if that was the same article you were speaking of then you totally misunderstood what appears to be the intent of Dr. Matirano's comments concerning volunteering or helping out a child in need. If it isn't the same article then provide a link so that we all might see the words that stirred your fears.

 

[royhobie]

I have to think that the original intent was that the government would not dictate your religion as had been done by European countries prior to the founding of this country.
If you lived in England, you would be catholic, and you would contribute to the church.
The idea was that people would be free to be catholic, or Lutheran or God forbid Muslim without government interference.

I dont think that it was originally set up to take religion out of government and the public completely.

You bring up some good points. And you are right. The original intend was not to dictate that religion be withheld from our schools. I think that McCollum vs. Board of Education, a 1948 case is the oldest which addresses Freedom FROM religion in schools.

Here is a Google finding of this case:



Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 8, 1947
Decided March 8, 1948
Full case name People of State of Illinois ex rel. Vashti McCollum v. Board of Education of School District № 71, Champaign County, Illinois, et al.
Holding

The use of public school facilities by religious organizations to give religious instruction to school children violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), was a landmark case ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court in 1948, and related to the power of a state to use its tax-supported public school system in aid of religious instruction. The case was an early test of the separation of church and state with respect to education.

The case tested the principle of "released time", where public schools set aside class time for religious instruction. The Court's ruling struck down the Champaign, Illinois program as unconstitutional, using as a basis for its judgment the involvement of the public school system in the administration, organization and support of the religious instruction classes. The Court's ruling noted that some 2,000 communities nationwide offered similar "released time" programs affecting 1.5 million students

One could argue, whether some people like it or not, with religion there is a substantial increase in morals and values. As we look at our schools today, this issue is certainly in question. It looks like McCollum v. Board of Education is the oldest case. I didn't see any Court decision older than this would which would apply.