Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

By Rob Boston, Church and State. Posted October 4, 2007.


As the school year gets under way, public schools around the nation are under siege from Religious Right pressure groups determined to turn them into instruments of evangelism.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rob Boston

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In mid-August, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed something called the "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" into law. Although the new law has an innocuous-sounding title, it's really a ticking time-bomb, opponents say.

The law requires every public school in the state to adopt a policy guaranteeing students' right to religious expression. It mandates that schools create "limited public forums" for religious and other types of speech. A student could, for example, read the morning announcements over a loudspeaker and then lapse into a prayer or mini-sermon.

Many people think the law is yet another effort to get around the Supreme Court's rulings on separation of church and state in public schools -- and they're expecting a torrent of litigation to result.

"This law is fundamentally at odds with the principle of religious freedom," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based group that opposes the machinations of the Religious Right. "It will force public school students to participate in public events that promote religious views -- through prayer or even proselytizing -- that they and their families may not share or may even find deeply offensive. So rather than protecting religious freedom, this law represents a grave threat to it.

"Rather than providing schools with training and appropriate guidelines for protecting First Amendment freedoms," Miller said, "legislators decided to play politics with our children's faith. So now they have recklessly put local schools and their taxpayers at risk of expensive lawsuits."

The law is of dubious constitutionality, and some school officials in the state are exasperated. Charles Perkins, Abilene Independent School District's assistant superintendent, told the Abilene Reporter-News, "I really do feel like the state law has been very confusing. It's opened some doors that no one thought to go through."

Perkins added, "Really and truly, we're just trying to have school, and I think this is a complicating factor."

The Texas law, which was drafted and promoted by a Religious Right group called the Liberty Legal Institute, is yet another salvo in a long-running battle in America over the proper place of religion in public schools.

The Supreme Court ruled 45 years ago that public schools may not sponsor prayer, Bible reading and other forms of religious worship. Rulings since then have generally extended that principle, while protecting truly voluntary religious activity in the schools.

But some people have never made their peace with the school prayer rulings. After the decisions were handed down in 1962 and '63, numerous constitutional amendments were introduced in Congress to "restore" prayer to schools. They have been a permanent fixture on the political scene since then, although none has passed.

Frustrated, Religious Right advocates are adopting new strategies to bring state-sanctioned fundamentalist outreach into the schools. The Texas law, critics say, is merely a new twist on an old fight.

It's not the only one. As another school year got under way last month, public schools around the nation found themselves under siege by groups obsessed with using the schools as instruments of evangelism.

The Texas law reflects the Religious Right's latest ploy: drafting students as evangelists to preach to a captive audience of their peers. The groups hope that the courts will consider the prayers and sermons offered during the "limited public forum" as a form of free speech that is, technically, not sponsored by the school.

One of the drafters of the law, a Houston attorney named Kelly J. Coghlan, urges students to lead their peers in prayer before the beginning of the school day as well as before football games, graduation ceremonies and other school events.

"For many years, students have been reluctant to stand up and express their faith in public schools for fear of being disciplined," Coghlan writes on his Web site. "Students should no longer have such fear. Schools are not religion-free zones; school officials are not prayer police; and students of faith are not enemies of the state. The new law makes this clear."

Coghlan fails to point out that his gambit is legally suspect. After the high court's school prayer rulings were handed down, some school districts tried to save school prayer by shifting the practice from school officials to student volunteers. One New Jersey school district even convened a daily five-minute assembly during which a student read the daily chaplain's prayer from the Congressional Record. Courts saw through these ruses and struck them down.

Nevertheless, some students seem eager to take matters into their own hands. Graduation ceremonies are sometimes marked by speakers who veer off into fundamentalist tangents. ABC News reported that in Duval County, Fla., earlier this year, valedictorian Shannon Spaulding of Wolfson High School "quoted the Bible and spoke about Jesus Christ, suggesting that those who didn't believe would go to hell."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: public schools, church and state, pressure groups, religious right

Rob Boston is the associate editor for Church and State magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Jackie Speir
Posted by: Slmncty on Oct 4, 2007 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The California legislator knows very well what religion carried to extreme can do. The founding fathers knew what state sponsored religion would do. Preserving separation of church & state insures that each of us are entitled to pursue our own relationship with God on a unique individual basis if we so choose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion benefits...
Posted by: compu on Oct 4, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask those poor souls believing in Islam.
Religion,any of them bring the worst of humankind,Marx put
it well.
"Religion is the yearnings of the oppresed creatures,the reason of a world without reason,the heart of a world without it,the spirit of a world with none of it.
Its people opiate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is a tool
Posted by: chomsky on Oct 4, 2007 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is a tool to control the populations.
And this tool is more efficient on young brains...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion is a tool Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» People will screw you ... Posted by: Cathyc
Satanism should be given equal time
Posted by: drblack on Oct 4, 2007 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know as the teen i was i would be pushing for Black masses in school....this bill is sick as all theistic religions are.
I hope someday humans will give up superstition and begin to embrace reality.
the American public is so far behind other developed countries as far as science is concerned we may never catch up.
science is what has made America great and won WW2.
Rick Perry is a dumb- ass who ,like most republican neoCONS has no respect for the Constitution and knows nothing about American history and the extremely negative view the founding fathers and guys like Lincoln had of religion.
far from being a christian nation most of the important founders thought religion was silly superstition and only gave lip service to it because many of the less intelligent American's needed to be coddled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Right on! Posted by: kiel
» lincoln Posted by: openhouse
The Principle's List
Posted by: COinms on Oct 4, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The principle of my sons middle school in Starkville, Mississippi had his teacher ask each child in the room where they go to church. The answers were written down and turned into the principle yesterday. My son said none, since we 'home church' and do not participate in organized religion. I'm going to have a talk with the principle and remind him that his job is to educate these kids, not to convert them to his particular pentecostal faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Principle's List Posted by: davidg
» RE: The Principle's List Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: The Principle's List Posted by: SoCalLib
» RE: The Principle's List Posted by: COinms
they are trying it in Ontario
Posted by: davidg on Oct 4, 2007 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The current provincial elections have seen the Progressive Conservative Party (in name only) try to push funding of faith schools. They are losing the election because of it. It was naive and ill-considered by a simplistic and arrogant inexperienced leader. However, it's a warning. The barbarians are at the gate on both sides of the border.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Christianity's unspoken purpose
Posted by: LMNOP on Oct 4, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As this article tends to confirm, organized Christianity, like all theistic religions, is intolerant of other religions and secularism, except where it is compelled to be tolerant by an enforceable contravening law, such as was the case in the U.S. until recently. Now that government is helping it, witness it stealth agenda, which is to grab control of the government and impose its values on the rest of us. Does anyone doubt that the church, given the power that it wielded over government in colonial Salem the last time it had complete control of the law and courts, would return to inquisitions and executions for heresy? If you do, I would say that you don’t understand political Christianity in the United States. Christianity, like all acquisitive and power-concentrating entities, never has enough if there is more to be had.

Incidentally, note that when I say “the church”. I am not talking about the church on the corner or the typical believer’s. Just the political, organized church, an abstraction far removed from the typical noncritical believer’s view of his religion each Sunday. To use modern parlance, I’ll call it Big Christianity.

While Jesus, like most pastors, may have preached love, nonviolence, cooperation, and charity, Big (institutionalized) Christianity is, in practice, about none of those things, as history has borne out repeatedly. It was invented (or co-opted) by the privileged classes to help them rule a large, exploited peasant class. Those are the people who want you to mimic Jesus of the beatitudes (be honest, meek, longsuffering, poor, etc.). Think about what Christianity teaches and how well it dovetails into this idea, and then ask yourself who benefits from such behavior:

1. What looks like injustice now will be squared later, after death.
2. Poverty and submission are to be extolled. So are honesty and industry. Abraham was a great man for his obedience to authority being willing to slay his son on command.
3. If somebody wrongs you, turn the other cheek. Love him. Forgive him. If you can't get over it, pray.
4. Remember Job. Don't try to understand God's goodness. God loves you and has a plan.
5. Have lots of children (for labor and soldiering). So, don't use birth control, be gay, single or have abortions. The rhythm method is OK (tee-hee!)
7. Give generously, at least 19%. Never expect an accounting of collections or expenditures.

Christianity, like the corporatocracy itself, is antithetical to democracy and freedom. Christians don’t vote for or against Christian law. Scholars may debate what God’s word is, but nobody debates “God’s decision”. There is no room for individualism or compromise among the faithful, such as preferring not attending a church or not tithing. None of it is open to debate by you. Furthermore, there is no compromise with anything considered the devil’s province, which means all of non-Christendom. Christians don’t compromise.

Remember Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” (see HERE and HERE for summary.

Now, not every American Christian is aware of what kind of an entity it is that they support, what its actual purpose and methods are. Most, in fact, aren't. They see their religion as sweetness and light, and its critics as monsters. We're all used to that.

Here's the take home message: Big Christianity is a political enterprise that, when empowered (politically), is incompatible with freedom, tolerance, compromise, democracy and rights. It's not apparent how antithetical to liberal values it is in a liberal world where tolerant liberals protect it. In a conservative environment, as is true in America today, their true totalitarian nature emerges, unbeknownst to the rank and file.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I meant 5, not 1!! Posted by: COinms
Time to impose fines for knowingly defying the Constitution!
Posted by: Intellect on Oct 4, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is way past time to impose fines for organizations that conspire to knowingly defy the Constitution! In addition, they should lose their tax exemptions.

Church - State separation is a basic tenet of the First Amendment and any organization attempting to subvert it should incur significant fines. The religious right fundie Christian zealots are conspiring to subvert the Constitution!

The Constitution must be taught in our schools with particular emphasis on the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court cases in support of the First Amendment, etc.

I am all for freedom of religion but freedom of religion does not include wacko groups imposing their religion on me or my children. It is up to each individual to choose what if any religion they want practice.

Article VI of the Constitution says:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Truthfully, all the religious pandering going on in the current series of presidential candidates debates should be forbade by law. It seems we do have a religious test going on, and it is deleterious to our freedom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misrepresentation...
Posted by: Iaela on Oct 4, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the same as bearing false witness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there something in the Bible about that being a big no-no? Or is it OK if you are lying for God?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jesus also said NO public prayer. Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» Amen Posted by: kepstein7777
» Simple Answer to your question Posted by: LeaderofMen
LeaveUsAlone
Posted by: LeaveMeAlone on Oct 4, 2007 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in a small town in the south. We had bible readings and prayer every morning in home room, piped in through the school intercom. We yawned, talked, fantasized about the cheerleaders, made faces at each other to get a laugh and conducted fart contests. No one was ever converted by that idiotic drivel coming through the box speaker mounted on the wall. If I were a Christian (which I'm proud to say I'm not) I would be the first to complain about subjecting my religion to such indignities. But then again, when did common sense matter to these fundamentalists?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is closer to the truth Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: LeaveUsAlone Posted by: Lauren
another soloution...
Posted by: ellie on Oct 4, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is a little talked about soloution to the school religion issue... you do not have to be willing to do home school and still be under the control of your local school district... in many states, there is a set of laws for 'private, not for profit' schools like st. holy cow high or snotty rich academy... you have the right to establish your own school and report only to your state dept. of ed... check it out...

additionally, your tax money will not be sent to your local school district, but remain with the state for admininistrative fees to support the mountain of paperwork you need to take care of, but the payoff is;
1. cut off funds to religiously oriented school districts allocated for your kids
2. you set your cirriculum with the help of the state which has to be by federal law unbiased
3. you are the principal, teacher and school superintendant
4. you know that your kids are learning what they need to learn and not bible verses or sermons

been there, did it, got the t shirt... lots of work on your part, but well worth it!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: another soloution... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: another soloution... Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» Your solution is crap. Posted by: Ellie1
» I need to check into this Posted by: paulaH
» RE: another soloution... Posted by: drmeow
Freedom equals freedom
Posted by: Jim on Oct 4, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are basic freedoms. Students freedoms should not be denied because they are in school. This means both that all minority views are permissible to express, and that students will most likely hear the local majority view most frequently. Learning to be respectful to prayers to Jesus, the Goddess, or Allah, or the praise of the amazing power of evolution will help create (pardon the expression) a more tolerant, understanding population.

With a majority not accepting human evolution, to ignore this looks like an act of cowardice to creationists. Encourage the critical examination of evidence for evolution and arguments against it. It will be much more educational and interesting. Let students hear both "there can't be evolution because the Bible teaches 6 day creation" and "there can't be creation, because science doesn't deal with the supernatural." Teaching critical thinking is much more important than convincing students a specific viewpoint.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» False equivalency Posted by: brunowe
» RE: False equivalency Posted by: Knowmad
» I'll clarify Posted by: brunowe
» RE: I'll clarify Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: I'll clarify Posted by: Lauren
» RE: False equivalency Posted by: Jim
» True equivalency Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: True equivalency Posted by: Lauren
» RE: False equivalency Posted by: brunowe
» RE: False equivalency Posted by: mjglow
Texas
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 4, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God save us from Texas . Can we please give those dullards their cherished REPUBLIC . Of course what can you expect from a state that elected Dubya over Ann Richards .
I hope the first student to take advantage of Gov Perry's new law is a Muslim . You can bet your bippy that would get their panties in a bunch . I think that any viewpoint OTHER than the correct kind of Christianity will have the same result .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Texas Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Can we keep Austin? Posted by: brunowe
» It is! Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Can we keep Austin? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Damn Right! Posted by: Tombo
not that easy
Posted by: alby on Oct 4, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Texas, where I live, my neighborhood was littered with Baptist propaganda overnight advertising in particular a group of musclebound proselytizers called Team Impact.

The next day, my daughter, who attends kindergarten, came home to say Team Impact had been smashing concrete and bats at her school (apparently that's what they do when not preaching). Supposedly there was no religious message in the text of their presentation, but the implicit message is obvious.

You can't just yank a schools funding because the Religious Right is getting sneakier and sneakier. Yet could you imagine any kind of equal access: a Muslim or Hindu group doing the same thing without incident?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not that easy Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: not that easy Posted by: alby
» RE: not that easy Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: not that easy Posted by: Lauren
Religious literature
Posted by: lepidopteryx on Oct 4, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're going to teach one religion's scripture as literature in a public school setting, then you have to give equal time to other religions' scriptures as well. And you have to teach them all as mythology, not some as fiction and some as non-fiction.
I don't want my child taught "about" Christianity at school. I don't want her taught "about" any religion, including my own (I'm Pagan) in school. I will handle her religious education myself - it's part of my job as the parent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Religious literature Posted by: COinms
» RE: religious literature Posted by: saltillosuzy
Religious Education has Always Been Open and Legal
Posted by: DrSuess on Oct 4, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was growing up in Idaho in the 60’s, the public schools and the Mormon church had reached an agreement that allowed the Mormon church to teach religious education. Basically, students were given “release” time- or one hour off a day to engage in “external" activities. The Mormon and Catholic churches had properties right next to the high school (but not on high school ground- they were across the street). Students could opt to take these “external” classes instead of one of their regular classes. These classes were one of their “electives” and were not counted in their final grade- or recorded by the school. This has always been legal.
Also, in the small town I grew up in- there is a stone tablet with the “ten commandments” that stands outside the county court house. It obeys the law by having the symbols of all the world’s major religions on the tablets. Again – this has always been legal. It is not legal to have the “ten commandments” if ONLY Christianity is recognized. There needs to be an acknowledgement of other religions.
There has always been a way for religion to accomplish what they want in the current legal system. However, many of the fundamentalist preachers want to use these minor restriction to stir up their followers, and get them on crusades. Many of the current fundamentalists feel that they will go to hell if they don’t force their beliefs on everyone else. This is tragic, and annoying for the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This bothers me
Posted by: Robba29 on Oct 4, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
especially as a teacher. When I first started in public education I was reprimanded by my principal for tellling students I didn't believe in a god (after one of them came running to me tell me he was being pestered by other kids who believed and he didn't--the others followed, a discussion ensued about people having different beliefs, etc, when one kid asked me point blank--I figured why should I hide? He told his parents, the parents called the school...) Last year, I was talked to about teaching evolution (within the context of early humans as part of a unit on pre-history) by my principal who is fundamentalist. The book that we use dedicates over 30 pages to the Hebrews, but most of the time is actualy summarization of the old testament--its proselytizing. There are over 50 pages dedicated to christianity and the new testament and how great it all is--never once qualifying things with a "might" or "some believe". There are 11 pages dedicated to Islam (where kiids can read that Muslims believe in a different god), 4 for Buddhism and Hinduism, and about 1/2 page for others (like Zoroastianism). The teacher two doors down from me uses his room for bible study after school, but still during school hours and blasts Rush Limbaugh so everybody in the parking lot can hear it. I just moved here last year--so what I am experiencing here is quite different from where I was from. It is more rural, but still a university town--and this frightens me, because I know it is going on elsewhere--and to a greater degree. Where's the outrage? There's no support for challenge unless its sought out. And then what? Risk my job? I can't wait for tenure!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This bothers me Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: This bothers me Posted by: Robba29
» RE: This bothers me Posted by: Chloe2005
» My mistakes Posted by: Robba29
» RE: I suggest... Posted by: peacelf
» RE: I suggest... Posted by: Robba29
what the founders intended
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 4, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following excerpts are from Rob Boston's Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State (Prometheus Books, 2003):

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Similarly, in an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson expressed anger at judges who had based rulings on their belief that Christianity is part of the common law. Cartwright had written a book critical of these judges, and Jefferson was glad to see it.

Observed Jefferson, “The proof of the contrary, which you have produced, is controvertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.” Jefferson challenged “the best-read lawyer to produce another script of authority for this judicial forgery” and concluded, “What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!”

As president, Jefferson put his “wall of separation” theory into practice. He refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting, insisting that they violate the First Amendment.

As early as 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill before the Virginia legislature that would have established a series of elementary schools to teach the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Jefferson even suggested that “no religious reading, instruction, or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced, inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” Jefferson did not regard public schools as the proper agent to form children’s religious views.

As president, James Madison also put his separationist philosophy into action. He vetoed two bills he believed violated church-state separation. The first was an act incorporating the Episcopal Church in the District of Columbia that gave the church the authority to care for the poor. The second was a proposed land grant to a Baptist church in Mississippi.

Had Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed that all the First Amendment was intended to do was bar setting up a state church, he would have approved these bills. Instead, he vetoed both, and in his veto messages to Congress explicitly stated that he was rejecting the bills because they violated the First Amendment.

Later in life, James Madison came out against state-paid chaplains, writing, “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” He also concluded that his calling for days of prayer and fasting during his presidency were unconstitutional.

In an 1819 letter to Robert Walsh, Madison wrote, “the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.”

In an essay called the “Detached Memoranda,” written in the early 1800s, Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded...is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great book and Posted by: Robba29
What the founding fathers feared most
Posted by: kewpie on Oct 4, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened to seperation of church and state? This looks like a massive quagmire at first that can get into state controlled religion starting in the schools than it will work it's way through other means. The government will argue that the public schools are tax funded. Orwell saw this happening. It is not new. This is what our Jefferson and the others tried to escape from and why is our society running back to it? Calvinism is right around the corner...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rush Limpdog
Posted by: John Walters on Oct 4, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So a student who wants to express their opinions on marijuana (lets say by holding a banner that says, "Bong hits for Jesus" isn't constitutionally protected to do so because marijuana is illegal and, therefore, not permissible for a minor in school to openly discuss pros and cons of recreational marijuana use. Yet, a student who wants to proselytize in public schools to get that feather in their crown of thorns so Jesus will love them more when they die may do so regardless of the fact that any form of proselytizing has no place in public schools. CAN YOU SAY, “DOUBLE STANDARD!” The people who support this legislation would be angered if Buddhists and Muslims (or even Jews who don’t seek converts) started to educate students on their beliefs in the public school system. We know children are vulnerable, especially to peer pressure. Religion is more of a personal and family matter and it makes sense that talk of Jesus and the beauties of Christianity belong at home were the only pressure placed on kids to practice religion comes from mom and dad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ush Limpdog Posted by: gregs765
» the real person Posted by: Constitutionalist75
The Restriction of Freedom
Posted by: Jim Williams on Oct 4, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are three thing that strive to prevent human beings from being free: Religion, Politics, and STD's. Beware of all three!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rastafarianism
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Oct 4, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
will take over our schools.;)

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh yeah! Posted by: Coleman
66word
Posted by: cyit on Oct 4, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While, I don't think a student reciting prayers or religious text over a school loudspeaker is a good idea (simply from a practical perspective in accomplishing a spiritual objective), neither do I see any great harm.

If the notion of something that sounds religious falling out of a student's mouth is dangerous, than by the same token the current legislative debate that would make any unfavorable public comment (even a minister quoting the Bible) against gays a hate crime is also dangerous.

The bottom line is laws can not and will not change hearts and minds. Politicians on either side of controversial issues should just let people get on each others nerves now and then, and let it go at that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's the Golden Rule Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: 66word Posted by: lepidopteryx
Religion?
Posted by: diarmaid on Oct 4, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone whose life is based on religion or who assigns religion as their hi pri item of their lives, are dangerous. They are close minded and ignorant.

Schools however are where people learn new stuff, so religion must be kicked out of schools.

They can practice their religion in their churchs or mosqueus, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Religion? Posted by: kiel