Random Politics & Religion #00

So school and government are the same thing?

Public schools are, yes.

I really don't mean to be rude, but how is that even a question?

Not trying to start anything here but yes that sounds exactly like atheist pushing their agenda. We do not believe in your god so we do not wish to see the symbols of his faith in schools, around town, in peoples yards.

So you are saying that Muslim children should not be allowed to interrupt class with their prayer in public schools?

It's a public school, why would they get to <_< Go nuts in private schools instead

Then move somewhere that doesn't have an establishment clause. Freedom of religion comes with freedom from religion. You cannot have it both ways.




And satanists can't hold seances in the cafeteria.... where exactly are you going with this?

Why is it atheist love to call out Christianity but never call out Islam? Kind of afraid you'd get blown up? I just see them protesting Jesus but never Muhammad.

It's all religions, not just Christianity. Christianity is just the biggest one in the US.

In my sons school there are 2 Muslim students in his class. They have to stop class and excuse them right around noon so that they can do some afternoon prayer I guess it is. Technically that could be seen as a disruption of class because the teacher has to stop the lesson and wait for them to leave and come back and the fancy thing is no one cares. It does not bother me or my son and we are both catholic but it does happen and it is allowed and that is a public school.

Just because it happens doesn't mean it should, at least not in a public school

Thing is this is a free country.
Public schools are not government funded.
Who do you thing the government got the money from?
We have freedom of choice.
You are free to worship flying spaghetti monster or whatever you choose to in any place you want to.
Regardless of if you are a politician or a student or a teacher.
We are all free to speak to whoever we want.
You are free to not listen.
You are not free to silence anyone.
You have the right to tolerate this.
You have the right to be angry and tolerate it.
You do have the right to teach your intolerance.
You do not have to right to enforce intolerance with the law.

Yes they are

ftfy

Yes, yes they are.


But religious people do?

Seriously, you aren't even trying to understand the freedoms you keep preaching about.

Do I support those people just because I believe Christ is Lord?
This kind of broad assumption is as bad as racism.

ftfy

Enough cherry picking tidbits out of my(and others) comments out of their context.
If you want to quote me then quote my entire post because the entire post is the context and removing any of it will change the meaning.

You're arguing that the establishment clause shouldn't apply to schools, the one place almost every american will spend YEARS of their life.

And yes, public schools are government funded. It doesn't matter where the government gets the money, it comes from the government, to an government agency. The buildings are owned by the government, the teachers are government employees, etc, etc, etc.

There is no context, public schools are government funded, period.

And the government is funded by the American citizens.
The government got all of their money from us.
So tell me how does the government fund anything at all?

I'm going to check out of this conversation before I get a nosebleed.

Children are allowed to pray in school. My high school had a prayer group that met every morning in front of the main flag pole.


Teachers and administrators are not allowed to lead all children in a prayer.

Jehovah's witnesses can opt out of certain non-essential extra activities (f.x. Valentines day activities) and the Amish can stop school education after the 8th grade.

At people talking about the legal aspect:

Many of these court cases that codified how much religion is allowed in schools were initiated by minority religions (Jehovah's witnesses, Amish, etc) and not atheists.

Saying that the government funds anything at all is a misnomer.
It is the people who fund the government to allocate that funded money back to the people.

Here is one of my terribly written examples trying to explain this another way:
Does the bank pay your rent?
Or do you pay your rent?
You write a check to pay your rent and the bank uses your money to make that check go through.
This is no different than us paying money to the government to allocate throughout these systems of order.
But it is not their money.
They get to keep their own wages for providing support of this system of order. But those wages are not relevant. Those wages they make are not the same money that pays for our schools.
That money was taken from the citizen and does not belong to the government any more than the money you put into the bank belongs to the bank. That money is yours. The bank allocates that money to where you direct it to go. The bank collects a small fee to pay for this service, but that money they allocate from your bank account to the places you choose (such as rent) does not becomes the banks money just because it is passing through their hands. And It obviously doesn't mean the bank funds your rent.

(anyways.. I suck at analogies)

And to clear up some more confusion about schools and taxes:

State money is the taxes we pay to live in the state. The federal government has no business getting involved in a state run public school. It can go down as far as the county level I think. Many schools answer to no one, except the parents.
But federal government funding basically gives the school money to implement certain programs, and in order for the school to receive the money they have to submit to any rules the federal government throws at them. If a school takes federal money the federal government basically takes over the school and can implement w/e it wants. (This is how common core has crept into our schools.)
This is why the whole conversation is confusing to people. Once the federal government gets involved in a state run school, while the money is nice, freedom is lost.

How's leaving my classroom to pray (prayers are timed, we have to pray each prayer during its window under normal circumstances) akin to forcing the whole school to sing a religious song?

And if the teacher and students wait for someone to pray and come back, that's probably out of kindness. They're not supposed to.

I agree that no school should force the entire student body to preform in any religious ceremony.
However if the students want to participate they should not be hindered by anyone. but there should be a designated time for any such gatherings.
(preferably at a time that does not interrupt school)
I may not believe in your god. but if I try to go to the law and hinder you then that same law will backfire on me hindering me as well.
This going to law over these matters will always be unfruitful.

You are considering the establishment clause in the constitution to only be apart of the federal government?

Just within your argument (which somehow rules out people of different faiths paying taxes) the schools are still funded and supported by the state. And State funded programs are still subject to adhering to the constitution

Kids can pray in school.

Religious social clubs are allowed at school. They are allowed to advertise their organization

Important part: No religion can be endorsed and ordered by teachers or adminstrators.

http://www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/briefer_religion_in_public_schools.pdf

Schools are not a government office.
So separation of church/state should not apply to schools.
Many people make it sound as if the schools are teaching religion by allowing students/teachers to be religious.
This is simply not the case.

Establishment clause actually protects schools right to have religion because they are not a government office. Schools do not call the shots in our government like a government office does.
Just because the government funds something does not make it part of the government.
I and my household have been funded by the government in the past.
Does this funding take away my right to religion in my house?

That's a dubious analogy at best, I'd think.

When taxes are levied and accumulated, the money is no longer the taxpayer's (as an individual or as a group.) No single taxpayer can indicate that they wish the funds go to what they desire (a new stop-sign or traffic light, or a subsidy on furre-pr0n, etc.) The money is spent by institutions with various levels of public oversight, with (hopefully) some elected representative overseeing or directing that expenditure, but either way it's not "my money" anymore except only in the most obtuse "well I pay your salary as a taxpayer so you have to do whatever I tell you to" sort of logic.

You desire to 'pay the rent' (specific purpose) with your taxes, and you write your virtual cheque to the government expecting that result, but instead your taxes are spent on a bridge project in upstate New York (purpose determined by a elected-representative bureaucracy.) LOL That's kind of where the analogy of "beholden unto the taxpayer's interests" fails.

Furthermore, the whole point of banks as financial institutions is that they actually *do* play with your money (and everyone's money)...that is how they grow their business. They take all capital entrusted to them and withhold enough to cover daily transactions, but actually invest the rest into various projects (yes, as if it actually belonged to them, which in effect is does at that point) with varying degrees of return-on-investment. That is why banks are so keen on getting new clients with huge amounts of residual capital, and are also keen on avoiding "runs" on the bank (i.e. periods of client panicking where many clients withdraw capital savings simultaneously) not simply out of altruistic virtue to hold people's money in a safe location for them. :p

In the US, the "FDIC" ensures that clients are protected to a degree (a flat amount) if a bank fails...if the money still conceptually belonged entirely to the client then the client would be entitled to the full amount instead, but they are not no?

So in that same sort of "pooled money" logic, the bank does actually fund your rent, as your money might be off in some investment scheme on the other side of the world. :p

Well what the hell's it doing in Tom's house or Fred's house--let's go over there and get it back! ^_-