Georgia OKs Bible Classes, Commandments

[FredFlash]

Way to dodge the question

It was not a dodge....The U. S. Constitution grants the government limited enumerated powers....Separation of Church and State is no government power over religion.....

Thus, unless it can be shown that the Constitution gives the government authority over religion we must assume that it has no such power.. and that my fine freedom loving friend is what we refer to as the "Separation of Church and State".....

 

[Ken King]

Huh? What do you think the rights of conscience are; and how does a provision that was intended to protect the rights of conscience get twisted into government authority over those natual rights?

What do you think the “rights of conscience” are?

Considering that no such phraseology was in the final amendment, as ratified, how does it hold any relevance to the fact that the government is only limited to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

And where is the reference to this wall of separation within the Constitution that you keep jabbering about?

 

[Kerad]

This thing again.....ok. (I'm not re-reading the whole thing...just picking it up here.)


My only question (at this point) is who is funding this elective class? Is it coming out of the normal public school taxes...or are the student (parents) paying a fee...or is it all "free"?

If it's like some after school "clubs"...where you have to pay-to-play...no worries. But if it comes out of general public taxes, then it is BS, as churches don't pay taxes...and that is where (in my mind) this should be taught to begin with.

 

[Ken King]

This thing again.....ok. (I'm not re-reading the whole thing...just picking it up here.)


My only question (at this point) is who is funding this elective class? Is it coming out of the normal public school taxes...or are the student (parents) paying a fee...or is it all "free"?

If it's like some after school "clubs"...where you have to pay-to-play...no worries. But if it comes out of general public taxes, then it is BS, as churches don't pay taxes...and that is where (in my mind) this should be taught to begin with.

There are many "elective" classes in schools, why should we teach foreign languages, electronics, shop, home economics, physical education, music, and art on the tax payer’s dollar and not teach about the Bible?

 

[Kain99]

I'm loving my Sociology class! How many times a week, would you say you stress over issues that will not effect you in any way shape or form?

 

[Kerad]

There are many "elective" classes in schools, why should we teach foreign languages, electronics, shop, home economics, physical education, music, and art on the tax payer’s dollar and not teach about the Bible?

Because the Bible has plenty of other (tax exempt) places that it is taught. I have no problem with people learning about the writings of The Bible. I do have a problem with it being in public schools, if funded with general tax payer funds. Churches, and (to my understanding, though I am not sure...) religious schools don't pay taxes. Okay...that's cool with me. However..why is there a need to teach bible studies in non-religious (public tax-funded) venues...when there are plenty of religious venues to choose from? It's not as if Johnny Student can't sign up for CCD, or any other religious study course through the church of his parents' choosing.

Again...if these elective classes are not funded by my taxes, then go for it. If they are funded by my taxes...then be prepared for all sorts of "religious" classes to ask for placement in our public schools.

How does "Muslum Extremeism 101" sound?

 

[Kain99]

I'm loving my Sociology class! How many times a week, would you say you stress over issues that will not effect you in any way shape or form?

 

[Kerad]

I'm loving my Sociology class! How many times a week, would you say you stress over issues that will not effect you in any way shape or form?

Sociology was one of my favourite courses...along with history. It is amazing how worked up we (people in general) get over things we have no control. But what can ya do? Not care???

 

[FredFlash]

What do you think the “rights of conscience” are?

That depends on whose concept you're talking about...James Madison's or Oliver Ellsworth's or Thomas Jefferson's or Saint George Tucker's or John Leland's or Isaac Backus's...

 

[Kain99]

Sociology was one of my favourite courses...along with history. It is amazing how worked up we (people in general) get over things we have no control. But what can ya do? Not care???

Well.. From a personal health perspective, I find it wise to choose your battles. If you find a religious elective class being offered in Georgia an evil worth sparing over have at it!

 

[Ken King]

Because the Bible has plenty of other (tax exempt) places that it is taught. I have no problem with people learning about the writings of The Bible. I do have a problem with it being in public schools, if funded with general tax payer funds. Churches, and (to my understanding, though I am not sure...) religious schools don't pay taxes. Okay...that's cool with me. However..why is there a need to teach bible studies in non-religious (public tax-funded) venues...when there are plenty of religious venues to choose from? It's not as if Johnny Student can't sign up for CCD, or any other religious study course through the church of his parents' choosing.

Again...if these elective classes are not funded by my taxes, then go for it. If they are funded by my taxes...then be prepared for all sorts of "religious" classes to ask for placement in our public schools.

How does "Muslum Extremeism 101" sound?

Why is it a problem? If it is the study of the Bible (the many that there are and probably including the Torah and Quran as well as other religious writings) is it any different then teaching any other human event?

As to taxes, how much do public schools pay?

How do you equate having a class about the Bible to teaching "Muslum Extremeism 101"?

 

[Ken King]

That depends on whose concept you're talking about...James Madison's or Oliver Ellsworth's or Thomas Jefferson's or Saint George Tucker's or John Leland's or Isaac Backus's...

What is your concept?

 

[FredFlash]

Neither I nor James Madison ever said the the total separation of church and state means that the government must be totally silent on matters of religion. Madison said that Total Separation of Church and state means that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the coginzance of the government.

James Madison and the other founders made a statement about religion, by granting the federal government no power whatsoever over religion, when they adopted a Federal Constitution that established a system of civil government upon the Christian principle that religion (the duty which we owe to our Creator) is exempt from the cognizance of the civil magistrate.

 

[Kerad]

Why is it a problem? If it is the study of the Bible (the many that there are and probably including the Torah and Quran as well as other religious writings) is it any different then teaching any other human event?

As to taxes, how much do public schools pay?

How do you equate having a class about the Bible to teaching "Muslum Extremeism 101"?

The teachings of "any of the above" books of religion should be equally banned from public schools. Once again...(how many times do I have to say this???)...there are outlets there for the teachings of these religious beliefs. Public schools should be "religion free zones", unless one chooses to take an elective course that is funded by the participants or sponsors.

Public school is for the teachings of fact and human history. Science, math, language, etc...

And it's not about "how much do public schools pay" in taxes. It's about that my taxes pay for public schools. Religious schools are funded seperately.

Organized religion is nothing more than "my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale" banter. There are plenty of outlets for that.

The person who re-started this thread hinted that religious studies could make the world more peaceful. I would say that history is on my side when I say organized religion is the source of most of this world's conflicts.

 

[Kerad]

Well, I guess this means, Kerad you will not be moving to the state of Georgia?

For many reasons I hope to never live in Georgia. The again, in 1992 I swore to never drive the beltway in D.C.ever again.

Ooops.

 

[Ken King]

The teachings of "any of the above" books of religion should be equally banned from public schools. Once again...(how many times do I have to say this???)...there are outlets there for the teachings of these religious beliefs. Public schools should be "religion free zones", unless one chooses to take an elective course that is funded by the participants or sponsors.

Public school is for the teachings of fact and human history. Science, math, language, etc...

And it's not about "how much do public schools pay" in taxes. It's about that my taxes pay for public schools. Religious schools are funded seperately.

Organized religion is nothing more than "my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale" banter. There are plenty of outlets for that.

The person who re-started this thread hinted that religious studies could make the world more peaceful. I would say that history is on my side when I say organized religion is the source of most of this world's conflicts.

But you seem to equate teaching the Bible and religious writings as teaching religion, can't you teach the books used by religion without teaching religion? Are not these writings a part of human history? To me it seems to pretend that they don't exist is a disservice to education.

 

[Kerad]

But you seem to equate teaching the Bible and religious writings as teaching religion, can't you teach the books used by religion without teaching religion? Are not these writings a part of human history? To me it seems to pretend that they don't exist is a disservice to education.

C'mon Ken...you know better than this, surely.

If one teaches a book of religion, one is teaching the religion itself. Now...if a Philosophy teacher decided to include it in during a week of Religious Studies...and spent a different day discussing a different religious theory...then that would be cool in my book. But if you have one (publicly tax-funded) course dedicated to teaching one philosophy of one religion...then there is a problem.

All sorts of religious groups could ##### about not getting equal time/funding ...and this is the problem. Are you cool with funding the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's followers on your tax dime? How about my "Elle Macpherson is a god" religion?

No?

Well...your (or anyone's) religion has not been proven/dis-proven to be correct...so where do we draw the line?

 

[FredFlash]

Considering that no such phraseology was in the final amendment, as ratified, how does it hold any relevance to the fact that the government is only limited to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

Founding Fathers James Madison, James Wilson, Edmund Randolph, Charles Dobbs Speight and Charles Pinckney would disagree with you. At their respective State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution they all indicated that they understood that, under the U. S. Constitution, the Federal Government would have no power over religion...

 

[Ken King]

C'mon Ken...you know better than this, surely.

If one teaches a book of religion, one is teaching the religion itself. Now...if a Philosophy teacher decided to include it in during a week of Religious Studies...and spent a different day discussing a different religious theory...then that would be cool in my book. But if you have one (publicly tax-funded) course dedicated to teaching one philosophy of one religion...then there is a problem.

All sorts of religious groups could ##### about not getting equal time/funding ...and this is the problem. Are you cool with funding the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's followers on your tax dime? How about my "Elle Macpherson is a god" religion?

No?

Well...your (or anyone's) religion has not been proven/dis-proven to be correct...so where do we draw the line?

Religion is in fact a part of human and world history, to ignore it provides an incomplete view of our world. Personally, I see no harm to included it in our public education system as long as dictating or preaching a specific religion isn't allowed.

 

[Ken King]

Founding Fathers James Madison, James Wilson, Edmund Randolph, Charles Dobbs Speight and Charles Pinckney would disagree with you. At their respective State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution they all indicated that they understood that, under the U. S. Constitution, the Federal Government would have no power over religion...

Well bring them on. As I understand the facts of the amendment it came about this way;

The text of the First Amendment:

Some early draft amendments to the religion section were:

James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."

House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"

Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."

House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames)

Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The final wording of the Conference Committee was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.