I'm so glad to see so many Farkers are experts on constitutional law and the precedents set by the federal supreme court.

untrustworthy: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution"

How, exactly, is someone being compelled to frequent or maintain a religious institution?

The intent of our founders is irrelevant? Wow.

The supremes have often ruled upon the wording of the constitution when it is directly against the intent of the founding fathers. That is what makes it irrelevant in reality. I personally hold that it is very relevant, but that's just not reality.

How is the intent of the 2nd amendment suddenly irrelevant?

Because the supremes have ruled against the intent of the second amendment repeatedly.

And the Supreme Court has upheld the interpretation to mean separation of church and state.

Which is a case of the supremes using the "intent" of the founding fathers in one case to further their own agenda when they have ruled against that "intent" in other cases and used simply the wording of the amendment.

smeegle:

The special right to set up shop during public school time.

Are you saying that other religions are prohibited from doing the same? You know that's not true. Don't you?

joe stranger:

Thanks, Cheeseburger. I phrased the headline like I did because I knew there'd be people complaining about this kid's "sensitivity", and you didn't disappoint.

No thanks necessary, joe. I wasn't complaining about the kid's sensitivity. I only used it as a set up to my remark about certain farkers being crybabies. Crybabies like you, joe. And you're being much too egotistical. Your headline had absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Sorry. Don't cry, OK?

Scooby "Access of Religious Groups to Public Property.--Although government may not promote religion through its educational facilities, it may not bar student religious groups from meeting on public school property if it makes those facilities available to nonreligious student groups"

Exactly the case here.

Not the case here. This is not a "student religious group". A "student religious group", by definition, is assembled, run, and maintained by students. This is a case of outsiders renting school property to set up a group and maintain it outside of student approval or oversight -- similar to the anti-drug classes of the 90's, assembled and maintained by local law enforcement agencies.

You have demonstrated yourself to be far too intelligent not to grasp this concept, so I can only believe that you are pushing this misinformation on purpose. Please, stop...

Catracks

Bummer. Can't teach much about History or Government or Law without mentioning religion. It's funny that people pretent that this country and western civilization in based on the Judeo-Christian heritage.

There's a big difference between teaching religion, and mentioning it.

You sound smart enough to know this without being told. Why do you deliberately misunderstand?

Schools do this all the time, my school had a huge mormon population and every third period they went to the church down the street for some bible class, so as long as they don't make it into a hostile and forceful evironment for the other students (which in this case i don't think there is one) then it really is not that big of a deal. Right now the left and the right are so polarized that they will fight over spilt milk, and i think this is just one of those cases.

Sunny Ray, that's a pretty ballsy thing to think. Some people don't appreciate others praying for them. Physically, it's not bodily harm, it's even worse: it's incredibly egotistical to think that YOU (poly purebright christian) have to pray for ME (sinner.

the lord shall not giveth the holy reach around.

Well I don't think anyone is that easy, even "technical virgins".

untrustworthy: If the school offered a class in Satan worship, would you be fine with that?

let me be the first to say

"Please? Can we worship the dark lord at recess?"

smeegle I am with on most of what you say. I just disagree with the ACLU's bullying tactics they use to try to "even" everything out.

But the concept of learn *insert religious document here* or just sit there quietly and learn nothing has worked so well for the Madrasa System, surely it can benefit us as much as it works for Pakistan!

wylkn
Christians do not do nice things to get an eternal reward, nor do they do nice things to avoid eternal suffering.

Cheeseburger

The concept here is seperation of church and state. It's a simple concept really and it's what keeps our streets from running with blood from religious wars.

Leonard Washington: Well I don't think anyone is that easy, even "technical virgins".


yeah, but its for jesus!

I'm so glad to see so many Farkers are experts on constitutional law and the precedents set by the federal supreme court.

I think it's a side effect of not getting accepted to law school.

Slappy Kincaid: Sunny Ray, that's a pretty ballsy thing to think. Some people don't appreciate others praying for them. Physically, it's not bodily harm, it's even worse: it's incredibly egotistical to think that YOU (poly purebright christian) have to pray for ME (sinner.

Told ya.

Pro Zack: Christians do not do nice things to get an eternal reward, nor do they do nice things to avoid eternal suffering.

I always wondered why they don't do nice things.

Catracks: Quietly aying grace before a meal at school is not the establishment of a state religion.

I don't think anyone in this thread has asserted otherwise...likely because the article doesn't mention anything about Grace being banned.

heap: sort of a thin line there, tho...if you don't believe your religious path as superior morally than others...why walk it? i jive on the aversion to the phrase, tho.

I agree that there is a bit of a thin line. However, I think that you have to decide on what you believe religiously not based upon which you believe is "superior morally," but based upon what you believe is superior factually. I believe in Christianity not because I think that it is a better moral framework than others, but because I think it is correct. Now, part of the reason that I think it is correct is because of the existence of things such as morality, but that is a different argument for a different day.

FlashLV

I don't see how a civil suit to course correct is a bullying tactic but that's just me.

Bible classes in a trailer on school property

I wonder how many of the so called Christians in here would be against this if they turned the trailer into a mosque and taught the Koran instead of the bible...

wmoonfox

Actually you are wrong on this. If the school allows other groups access to their property they must also allow christians. They cannot discriminate on the content. It can create real problems when unsavory groups (such as the KKK...or according to the more immature farkers, christians) want to be allowed access.

Sunny Ray

Thanks for taking the time to rationally explain your take on my posts. It is appreciated. However, saying something like, "I will pray you", is not like gettin' all up in somebody's grill and threatening them bodily harm. Seriously.

You misunderstood again. I said it's passive aggressive. Passive aggressive doesn't get all up in somebody's grill and threaten bodily harm. They say things like "I will pray for you" in an attempt to make someone feel bad so that they convert later.

I just disagree with the ACLU's bullying tactics they use to try to "even" everything out.

Would you rather they take the track of the UN?

we hates

LOL!

untrustworthy: How so?

They don't defend the constitution at all.

Bush has packed the Supreme Court, but I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

No he hasn't. He has appointed judges just like every other president. I'm talking about really packing the court like FDR tried to do: adding judges until your previous programs that were unconstitution become constitutional. My point is that something that is unconstitutional by some judges can be constitutional by others. They don't actually care if it is really constitutional or not, they just want to push their agenda.

Gecko Gingrich: So you're saying that the school can also have (and you'd be OK with) a Buddhist hour, and a Wicca hour, and an Islam hour, and a worship ancient Grecian gods hour, and Egyptian, and Aboriginal, and Roman, and Lakota, and every other religion no matter how small or new? Jeez, that's a lot of extra hours.

No, I'd be okay with the school having those additional "classes" during the one hour that they already set aside for free time. As long as they weren't compulsory.

Chameleon I damn well believe that the teacher put pressure on this kid to attend Bible study.

First no one said anything about pressuring the kid. The mom said the teacher supposedly asked why he wasn't attending.

I grew up in Michigan where they had the same kind of pressure to go to church and I was asked also and forced by my parents to go.

FTFA: The mother also said a teacher asked her son on the first day of school why he was not attending the classes

Headso: I wonder how many of the so called Christians in here would be against this if they turned the trailer into a mosque and taught the Koran instead of the bible...

probably less children being molested in the trailer that way.

Easy solution. Set up 2 trailers. One set of kids read the Bible, the other set reads "Why Mommy Is A Democrat".

/Choose your childs indoctrination

smeegle:

The concept here is seperation of church and state. It's a simple concept really and it's what keeps our streets from running with blood from religious wars.

You're flipping the script. You said that Christians had special rights, and now you're wrapping yourself in the Bill of Rights. Pick one, will ya?

untrustworthy,
My classes on religious studies included reading bible passages as well as reading qu'ran and texts on Buddhism. How in the hell can you comparatively study about religion and not know the first thing about any of them?

I would have to agree that a full-scale bible study is odd during public school time. It's just that the idea goes overboard into areas like a crucifix being banned or a kid reading her bible in the corner being suspended or a kid saying grace called into the principal's office.

Why don't they just have it after class? I recall when all my buddies went to CCD after school, I certainly felt left out because for about an hour I'd have no one to play with and at that young age, didn't understand why. But that is AFTER SCHOOL and it was held at a Catholic school across the street from the public school, which I think is absolutely fine.

Having a class like this during school hours is both waste of the child's as well as the public school's time, IMHO.

Cheeseburger

No, I am saying the Christians are seeking special rights.

You left part of the question out. Will the person you steal from be directly hurt by your theft?

Regardless your question is flawed because you are equating emotion with morality. Doing the right thing is an act of will, not emotion. Making a moral decision on how you feel about something is an irrational way to decide.

Emotions by there very nature are irrational and an insufficient reason to do good or bad.

And the hair-splitters win!

This thread is USELESS without pics!

Headso I wonder how many of the so called Christians in here would be against this if they turned the trailer into a mosque and taught the Koran instead of the bible...

Yeah good point. I have a feeling they would be up in arms.

Catracks

"It's just that the idea goes overboard into areas like a crucifix being banned or a kid reading her bible in the corner being suspended or a kid saying grace called into the principal's office."

A crucifix being hung in a public school IS wrong. Private religion (saying grace before a meal/a religious necklace/reading the Bible/etc) is not against the law.

Pro Zack

I'm sorry if you think that, but Christians typically do nice things out of love for God and our neighbor. While I'm sure there are some who are trying to work their way to heaven, this is specifically taught as wrong by orthodox Christianity.

Specifically who needs our good works? God certainly doesn't since He God. We don't need them to earn our way to heaven since Christ Jesus has secured our heavenly home. Our neighbors need good works. God commands us to do good to one another out of love not obligation.

What greater power in the world is there than love? God is love and He commands people to love one another.

Furthermore heaven is a gift, not a reward. It will be rewarding no doubt, but it isn't a carrot placed before the believer as a tool of manipulation. I'm sure some pastor has preached that in so many words, but it is wrong.

Catracks: I really don't understand why a lot of people in this and similar threads call anyone with a religious belief a "fundie."

Because christians, in general, have allowed fundamentalists to define the public image of their religion.

It's a little more than ignorant.

Is it? When the rank and file of the christian religion won't stand up and support the separation clause of the constitution they are giving their tacit approval to the fundamentalist god warriors and their actions. You may not be on the vanguard of the crusade but we can see you back there managing the supply wagons.

wmoonfox: A "student religious group", by definition, is assembled, run, and maintained by students.

What definition is that? I'd define it as a group comprised primarily of students.

Arnold T Pants: They don't actually care if it is really constitutional or not, they just want to push their agenda.

The same as is done by pro-abortion activists and presidents? The same as was done by every other president in history? That's the downside to electing a president. He gets to appoint people who believe as he does to the courts. Sure, I'd like to see only judges that would strictly adhere to the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, but most other people don't see it that way. They want things interpreted their way.

Cheeseburger

No thanks necessary, joe. I wasn't complaining about the kid's sensitivity. I only used it as a set up to my remark about certain farkers being crybabies. Crybabies like you, joe. And you're being much too egotistical. Your headline had absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Sorry. Don't cry, OK?

Wow, this cheeseburger's got some extra snark on it. Kinda makes it all yucky. And yeah, you were complaining that this kid seemed too sensitive, even if it was just to set up another complaint. Wait, who's the crybaby again?

As far as my headline goes, just sayin' I called it. Why does that make you so mad? Does it sound like you walked right into it? Maybe it's because you did.

/how'd that plank get there, anyway?

smeegle:

No, I am saying the Christians are seeking special rights.

And I ask you AGAIN - which ones? Justify your remark.

FlashLV

First no one said anything about pressuring the kid. The mom said the teacher supposedly asked why he wasn't attending.

I grew up in Michigan where they had the same kind of pressure to go to church and I was asked also and forced by my parents to go.

An authorative figure asking a child why he/she isn't attending a bible study is ANOTHER form of passive aggressiveness that will make the child feel bad because he isn't conforming. (run-on sentence?) This is a HUGE pressure for a kid growing up, and peer pressure still works on adults as well. This is pretty easy to understand here man! come on.

I_C_Weener

The school isn't running the class....it is the equvilent of skipping study hall. The school evidently had a free space available...rented it to a group that wanted to use it once a week...and had kids get permission from parents before attending the groups presentaion during a non-instructional time period. If you don't have a problem with this scenario, adding christianity to it shouldn't be an issue.