Bible Study in Public School

[sea star]

(Maybe this belongs in PA&SA)

I work at a middle school. The daily announcement (which is read in every class) lists a bible study group weekly during the lunch period. A local youth minister leads it, and pizza is provided. At the school’s office a flyer is available that asks for parent signatures for students to attend the meetings.

I looked into the Equal Access Act, and had a letter composed pointing out that the meetings as conducted seem illegal, when I mentioned it to another staff member who said that she heard that the school is collecting rent for the room being used.

I can’t find any info regarding the difference between student-led meetings during “non-instructional time�, and outside groups meeting during “non-school hours�. The equal Access Act doesn’t seem to address the latter. Can anyone direct me to more information?

Thanks,

Starsage

[comradeBillyboy]

the policy at my school (and albuquerque public schools in general) is that student bible clubs are ok, so long as any student can join. a teacher needs to sponsor the group, mainly to provide a classroom at lunch time or during non instructional time.

[sea star]

Thanks for the info - that is my understanding too, about student led groups during non-instructional time.

This one is led by the minister (I heard him preaching, basically, one day) and from what the other staff member told me they are trying to get around this by paying rent to the school.

I just wonder if that is okay during school hours, or should take place after school.

I know of a school where a church group meets there Sunday evenings, and pays something.

I just don't know if this makes a difference.

[Godless Wonder]

student bible clubs are ok, so long as any student can join.. Man, if I were at such a school, knowing what I know now, I would be one disruptive "anyone." :D

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I work at a middle school. The daily announcement (which is read in every class) lists a bible study group weekly during the lunch period. A local youth minister leads it, and pizza is provided. At the school’s office a flyer is available that asks for parent signatures for students to attend the meetings. ... Can anyone direct me to more information?
Take your OP, copy and paste it into an email to Americans United for Separation of Church and State at madison@au.org or use their online form to report a violation (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=legal_reportaviolation).

-Janice

[DougP]

I dont think it is illegal for them to have their meetings as long as they arent forcing anyone to go.

-Doug

[sea star]

Take your OP, copy and paste it into an email to Americans United for Separation of Church and State at madison@au.org or use their online form to report a violation (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=legal_reportaviolation).

-Janice

Thanks - I'll do that. I have an email into my local ACLU chapter, too.

Godless Wonder, I probably would too, but not in a bad way, of course, just asking questions...

[MrDarwin]

If membership and attendance are voluntary, they are not using official class time, and most of all if they are paying rent to use the room, I'm afraid I don't see what the problem is. The only problem I could see is if the school did not permit similar use by another group, e.g., a group to study Buddhism (or atheism).

[someotherguy]

If membership and attendance are voluntary, they are not using official class time, and most of all if they are paying rent to use the room, I'm afraid I don't see what the problem is. The only problem I could see is if the school did not permit similar use by another group, e.g., a group to study Buddhism (or atheism).

I agree with this.

[sea star]

What I don't know if is there is a difference between non-curriculum (non-instructional) hours, ie lunchtime; and non school hours, such as evenings or weekends (when the school is not full of students).

As I understand the Equal Acesss Act, a group can meet during non-curriculum time if it is student run, and no community member attends regularly or runs the meeting.

This meeting is during school, but run by a minister.

I will update if/when I hear from AU or ACLU.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this.

If nothing else, I'll try to find someone to run a Freethinkers group - I'd do it myself but I'm on duty during lunch.

[comradeBillyboy]

i think the minister doing religious activity on campus during regular school hours is a big no no. sounds like the school admin is all fucked up

[Kaervek]

Of course this entire scenario is dependant upon the school's particular guidelines (which, of course, can always be changed ;) ), but I personally think that any such religion-driven activities at school should be reserved for times when school is not in session. :huh:

[sea star]

Right - "not in session". that's the difference, as far as I'm concerned. If it was a group of students sitting around discussing the bible, that would be one thing; having a minister preaching at them at lunch seems not right to me.

But whatever the school's guidelines, if it is illegal, it should not be happening.

I have not heard back from the ACLU or AU, but I know they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

It just irritates me that it is mentioned every day in the announcements. It makes it seem school-sponsored.

I'm hoping for a chance to discuss it further with the woman that told me about the rent, see if she knows more details, or if it has been brought up to the administration.

[Richard1366]

Article in the Washington Post about a public elementary school in Stanton Va. that walks the children across the playground to a church for half-hour bible classes, then walks them back again. They must have their parents permission and those tha don't go basically sit around and do meaningless coloring, etc. The ACLU is currently involved in this at the urginf of some of the parents.

[SLD]

Starsage, have you considered petitioning the principal for "equal time?" Start a school non-religious instruction time and Freethinker's Club. Watch them go ballistic. At least it will be fun until they then fire you for being part of the EAC. But actually even if made somewhat in Jest it drives the point home. If they don't accomodate you, then there is clearly no secular purpose to what they are already doing and the Supreme Court's Lemon test is violated.

SLD

[sea star]

Thanks, Richard, for that info - I will check out the article and follow it. Maybe ACLU has something on their site.

SLD, yes, I have seriously considered starting a Freethought group (see my previous post) but I am on duty during the lunch break. I am now thinking of doing it right as school lets out ( I could "advertise" at the adjacent high school, too), and am trying to find someone who is available and willing to do it during school - I'm kinda new in town and don't know many people. What is our secret sign, again?

As for being fired for being part of the EAC, would that substitute for eating a kitten as my membership qualification? "I hate when the hair sticks to my tongue".

Unfortunately, I'm the type who would make no secret as to why I was let go. I work in a different district from where my kids attend school so the backlash against them would not be direct.

Thanks for the support!

[sea star]

I got a reply from AU.

Their feeling is that the school is trying to get around having the meetings during school hours, with an outside person, by paying rent in order to comply with the ruling in Good News Club v. Milford Central School District, 533 U.S. 98 (2001).

The AU person that emailed me offered to write a letter to the school. I think I will write a letter, and if the meetings don’t stop or are restructured (after school or lose the preacher), I will ask AU to write a letter.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Thaanks for keeping us posted, I'm glad you got a reply.

[Worldtraveller]

I heard something similar that is going on here in Kansas (big surprise, eh?).

Apparently, in some nearby school district, they let kids out of school, twice a week, for 2 hours, to attend the church next door.

The news cast blithely stated it's not against the law because no taxpayer dollars are being spent, but I think there is more to it than that. I wonder what the students who aren't catholic do during those 2 hours?

I'll be interested to hear what happens with your situation.

Cheers,
Lane

[iamitis]

I wonder if the "freethinkers" group would actually be an "athiest" group. Food for thought.

The AU person that emailed me offered to write a letter to the school. I think I will write a letter, and if the meetings don’t stop or are restructured (after school or lose the preacher), I will ask AU to write a letter.

Are you really this vain? it seems an awful lot of work for so little power to wield. Just leave them alone. Really, just leave them alone. Live your life, let others be, and let them express themselves in the manner they see fit, without cause for your "restructuring". Obviously, no one is being hurt or subjected to tryanny, not even by the ridiculous standards set by all who visit the IIDB can we assume that there is a crisis of CSS at your school. You could at least wait until they attempt a prayer at a football game before you froth at the mouth.

Iamitis

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I wonder if the "freethinkers" group would actually be an "athiest" group. Food for thought.
Slight derail: Generally speaking, "freethinker" is used as a synonym for "atheist" in group names. One might also find secular, humanist, rationalist, skeptic, and other synonyms used, all implying the same meaning: naturalist or godless.

[g-21-lto]

Thanks for the info - that is my understanding too, about student led groups during non-instructional time.

This one is led by the minister (I heard him preaching, basically, one day) and from what the other staff member told me they are trying to get around this by paying rent to the school.

I just wonder if that is okay during school hours, or should take place after school.

I know of a school where a church group meets there Sunday evenings, and pays something.

I just don't know if this makes a difference.
Well, my old high school had a church group which used the school building on Sundays. There was also a Christian club of some type, I seem to recall, in my senior year. We had "club days" every month where school clubs would meet during the day, and I assume they had their time like everyone else. :huh: I personally don't have a problem with religious groups meeting on campus, whether or not it's involved with the school. The only way it crosses the line for me is if the taught curriculum attempts to persuade students for or against certain religions.

[sea star]

ELGS - Thanks for covering the "freethinker = atheist" bit for me. :)


Iamitis –

(It’s spelled “atheist�) I am not frothing at the mouth, thank you, nor am I vain. I am certainly not doing it out of a desire for power – as was mentioned earlier, I could very well lose my job if it was known I was involved in having the group discontinued. I am trying to find out whether the school is operating within legal guidelines.

I have not stated, nor implied, that there is a “crisis of CSS� at my school. I am concerned that some students may feel threatened by the apparent endorsement by the school of a particular, majority, religion. I consider that circumstance to be tyranny of a sort.

If I could believe that students of non-biblical beliefs would be left alone to express themselves in a manner that they see fit, on school grounds during school hours led by an adult member of the community, I would not have as much of a problem as I do. If there was a freethinkers group at your local school, would you “just leave them alone�?

It is not obvious to me that no one is being hurt by some people wanting to have their religious beliefs represented in schools to the exclusion of other viewpoints. If the school receives the message that illegal religious activity will not be tolerated, hopefully no one will ever attempt a prayer at a football game.

As an American, I consider it not just my right and privilege, but my responsibility, to contribute to the wellbeing of my fellow citizens. As an educator, it is my responsibility to teach and protect the children I work with. I must assume that some of the students in my school do not follow the Bible, and might be uncomfortable with the daily mention of the bible study group, as am I.

Finally, I am living my life – and it includes standing up for what I believe is right. I am expressing myself in the manner I see fit.

If you think the standards set here at IIDB are ridiculous, you are welcome to leave.

[Toto]

Let's all tone down the sniping. Our ridiculous standards call for more polite discussion.

Thanks.

Toto

[LP675]

If membership and attendance are voluntary, they are not using official class time, and most of all if they are paying rent to use the room, I'm afraid I don't see what the problem is. I agree with this. I personally don't have a problem with religious groups meeting on campus, whether or not it's involved with the school.
:down: No, no, no! :mad:

Don’t you see how dangerous these illegal religious meetings are? Don’t you know what damage it might do to the students if they were to discuss religious ideas under the guidance of one of those Christian propagandist, or even get preached at!? Or what if other students who held other views were exposed to a different point of view! Maybe they will be intimidated or confused by people holding a different opinion to theirs!!

We should crush this sort of sick tyrannical activity before it gets further out of control, perhaps someone might even be emboldened make an illegal prayer at a football game, and what a disastrous thing that would indeed be! My fellow true and upright citizens, religious delusions such as these are a disease we must all work together to eradicate.

[Toto]

LP675 is being sarcastic, but in fact dangerous cult leaders have the right under the First Amendment to preach their mind-controlling philosophies from every street corner using all the techniques of modern persuasion, and it seems highly unlikely that any citizen of this country will escape being exposed to either Christianity or Scientology.

The question here is whether they are hijacking public facilities to either use taxpayer funded resources or create the impression that their beliefs are somehow approved or standard.

[itsamysteryhuh]

I am concerned that some students may feel threatened by the apparent endorsement by the school of a particular, majority, religion. I consider that circumstance to be tyranny of a sort.

As an American, I consider it not just my right and privilege, but my responsibility, to contribute to the wellbeing of my fellow citizens. As an educator, it is my responsibility to teach and protect the children I work with. I must assume that some of the students in my school do not follow the Bible, and might be uncomfortable with the daily mention of the bible study group, as am I.


Sounds like it is more your problems and concerns than anyone else's. Just a thought.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, is the Constitutional right of all Americans. The government must remain neutral on matters of religion. Safeguarding the First Amendment is a matter that concerns all of us, regardless of belief or disbelief. The government may not create statutes which advance or inhibit religion. However, since some people in government want to use their positions of power to entangle government and religion, all citizens must be vigilant, to ensure that our fundamental rights are protected.

[sea star]

The thoughts and opinions of some who have posted here have changed my mind - I am not going to write a letter to the school.

I have contacted AU and asked them to write to the school directly.

[itsamysteryhuh]

Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, is the Constitutional right of all Americans. The government must remain neutral on matters of religion. Safeguarding the First Amendment is a matter that concerns all of us, regardless of belief or disbelief. The government may not create statutes which advance or inhibit religion. However, since some people in government want to use their positions of power to entangle government and religion, all citizens must be vigilant, to ensure that our fundamental rights are protected.


In other words, non-religious citizens must vigilantly thwart Christianity in their attempt to destroy it? Is that what I'm seeing above?

[improbablecause]

The thoughts and opinions of some who have posted here have changed my mind - I am not going to write a letter to the school.

I have contacted AU and asked them to write to the school directly.

Keep us updated. This entire situation is quite intriguing.

[Toto]

In other words, non-religious citizens must vigilantly thwart Christianity in their attempt to destroy it? Is that what I'm seeing above?

That's not what you are seeing above, and there is no reasonable way you can get that meaning out of that text. There is nothing there about any attempt to destroy anything.

If Christianity is going to survive, it will have to do so without government assistance, that's all.

Non-religious citizens must vigilantly thwart the desires of some Christians to impose their religion on the rest of us.

[meega]

Originally Posted by starsage
I am concerned that some students may feel threatened by the apparent endorsement by the school of a particular, majority, religion. I consider that circumstance to be tyranny of a sort.

As an American, I consider it not just my right and privilege, but my responsibility, to contribute to the wellbeing of my fellow citizens. As an educator, it is my responsibility to teach and protect the children I work with. I must assume that some of the students in my school do not follow the Bible, and might be uncomfortable with the daily mention of the bible study group, as am I.

operative word in your post: majority

I don't take issue with not "teaching" the Bible in any way in government-controlled institutions, but there is certainly a moral double standard when it comes to being afraid to mention anything about Christianity in our schools, whilst asking 7th graders to spend a week on the "theme" of Islaam, in which they must take a Muslim name, write a sketch of a figure in Islaam, etc. This isn't just a bald assertion, but can be backed up with numerous examples, if you like. I have seen numerous newspaper clippings of "outraged" fundamentalists who (though a bit overzealous for my tastes) are actually responding (though overly so) to a real (versus imaginary) double standard

It should be ALL religion one way or the other...in truth, paganism and witchcraft are espoused as religions, and yet there is no problem with placing "Harry Potter" books in school libraries (no violation, so long as Christian literature, Muslim lit, etc. there too) and then asking kids to read and write reports on it (this step crosses line).

Can we remove all religious "themes"? Can we, as starsage said, not make people "uncomfortable"? Of course not, and the sad truth is that people might as well realize that so long as 50% of the USA belongs to the Christian faith, there will be some "discomfort" just because faith induces culture which inspires lifestyle which makes many uncomortable.

(BTW, I am a Christian, but I love my 1st amend. too)

[Toto]

operative word in your post: majority

I don't take issue with not "teaching" the Bible in any way in government-controlled institutions, but there is certainly a moral double standard when it comes to being afraid to mention anything about Christianity in our schools, whilst asking 7th graders to spend a week on the "theme" of Islaam, in which they must take a Muslim name, write a sketch of a figure in Islaam, etc. This isn't just a bald assertion, but can be backed up with numerous examples, if you like.

I think there was one case in the news like that. Where are your numerous examples?

I have seen numerous newspaper clippings of "outraged" fundamentalists who (though a bit overzealous for my tastes) are actually responding (though overly so) to a real (versus imaginary) double standard

You don't think that some of these controversies might be manufactured?

It should be ALL religion one way or the other...in truth, paganism and witchcraft are espoused as religions, and yet there is no problem with placing "Harry Potter" books in school libraries (no violation, so long as Christian literature, Muslim lit, etc. there too) and then asking kids to read and write reports on it (this step crosses line).

Harry Potter is a fantasy, not a religious document. Do you object to Shakespeare? Greek and Roman myths?

Can we remove all religious "themes"? Can we, as starsage said, not make people "uncomfortable"? Of course not, and the sad truth is that people might as well realize that so long as 50% of the USA belongs to the Christian faith, there will be some "discomfort" just because faith induces culture which inspires lifestyle which makes many uncomortable.

(BTW, I am a Christian, but I love my 1st amend. too)

It's more like 86% Christian, and it's one thing for your fellow citizens to make you uncomfortable, but quite another when your government makes you uncomfortable.

But I thought that Christians were opposed to modern culture and lifestyle, since they think it reflects either paganism or the "secular Jews" who run Hollywood?

[capsaicin67]

meega: It should be ALL religion one way or the other...in truth, paganism and witchcraft are espoused as religions, and yet there is no problem with placing "Harry Potter" books in school libraries

There is an important difference. Harry Potter is not purported by anyone, including Pagans to the best of my knowledge, to be a religious text. It is universally regarded as fantasy/fiction, like Dorrie the Good Witch or Winnie the Pooh. I don't think that anyone uses it in school to instruct as to conjuring and spellcasting, nor do they treat it as authoritative in any way let alone metaphysically or scientifically. It is not regarded as a guide to reality, though at best, it may have some cute "lessons" embedded. The author is known to still exist, be mortal, and neither does she make any metaphysical claims about her books.

The Bible is regarded as nonfiction, religious, and a guide to ethical/moral behavior---magically and authoritatively. I think there is a huge difference.

If they made them read The Satanic Bible or Dianetics you might have something.

[capsaicin67]

meega: there will be some "discomfort" just because faith induces culture which inspires lifestyle which makes many uncomortable.

I think that is true. But I think these days more often the problem is that many religious find any idea which they oppose to be an infringement on their rights, while nontheists and others find some Xians' outright insertion of religious ceremony and teachings into the govt setting to clearly be inappropriate.

Xians have a point about a lot of the poor values and boundaries that are rampant in the public schools. Secularists have a point about the importance of keeping the govt sector as neutral as possible with respect to overt indoctrination and proselytization.

I'm not sure how the headbutting between mutually exclusive ideas of superstition vs science can be resolved. Except to say that society should protect the notion that science is a priority over the supernatural, and that will remain so. In that setting at least. But yes that is a problem, as many evangelicals willfully obfuscate the issue and will not be satisfied until the public schools allow them to insert "inspired knowledge" over scientific/testable knowledge.

[itsamysteryhuh]

That's not what you are seeing above, and there is no reasonable way you can get that meaning out of that text. There is nothing there about any attempt to destroy anything.

If Christianity is going to survive, it will have to do so without government assistance, that's all.

Non-religious citizens must vigilantly thwart the desires of some Christians to impose their religion on the rest of us.


I'm not so sure based on some of the fanatical postings that are akin to saying "Christianity should be destroyed" throughout these forums. I would think you have seen such postings here also?

Anyway, I don't feel that I desire to 'impose' my religion on anyone. I do feel that I can freely express my views regarding it and then let whomever I express those views to decide for themselves. I don't ever intend to 'impose' it onto anyone, as it must be and will always ultimately betheir own choice whether or not to believe.....as one can not be forced to believe or not believe (ie, they will believe whatever they wish regardless).

Edited to add this: What is it that starsage is attempting to impose?

[meega]

meega:

I think that is true...I'm not sure how the headbutting between mutually exclusive ideas of superstition vs science can be resolved. Except to say that society should protect the notion that science is a priority over the supernatural, and that will remain so. In that setting at least. But yes that is a problem, as many evangelicals willfully obfuscate the issue and will not be satisfied until the public schools allow them to insert "inspired knowledge" over scientific/testable knowledge.

I'm not sure where you got that notion, if you mean that one supercedes the other. Stephen Jay Gould (SJG) once wrote that these two, seemingly mutually exclusive, arenas of life for all peoples--faith and reason, could be treated as "non-overlapping magisteria" NOLM. For more on that idea, read his own words, here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

In truth, people are all searching for certainty--both in their everyday exps. and in supernatural/metaphysical arenas. Obviously the former could be tackled quite nicely by reason, while the latter requires some of both. Science still has "gaps" and always likely will. People must choose where to place their "faith" within those gaps. NOLM shows you that the two are not mutually exclusive here, and that one should NOT be preferred over the other where science fails to answer, WHY questions (science is descriptive, so things we cannot observe [yet] will almost always fall prey to metaphysical/religious precedence).

[meega]

I think there was one case in the news like that. Where are your numerous examples?

The best are the fundie legal firms' collections of violations of the Federal Equal Access deal...here are a few links if you really want to know:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/equ_acce1.htm
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=386
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/st-rts.html

The point is, violations of the FEA act can occur on either side, and I'm simply saying that with the ACLU (and others) exerting more and more influence, it seems that most are erring on the side of caution towards the "majority" religions, while favoring the "minority" ones by simply allowing violations to occur.

You don't think that some of these controversies might be manufactured?

Some are.

Harry Potter is a fantasy, not a religious document. Do you object to Shakespeare? Greek and Roman myths?

I actually didn't say I objected to Harry Potter, or any other mention of religious "themes"...I was simply pointing out that it is possible to offend people quite easily, and that, for example, displays of the 10 Commandments aren't exactly "propoganda" so much as a public display of the "theme" of Jewish/Christian law.

It's more like 86% Christian, and it's one thing for your fellow citizens to make you uncomfortable, but quite another when your government makes you uncomfortable.

I agree...but the government is in fact, "of the people, by the people, for the people" is it not? And doesn't this whole big deal boil down to a majority rules versus minority rights issue? I mean that's the underlying fundamental issue--that 86% believe something and aren't offended by it (nativity scenes, town parades of Xmas), but b/c half the remaining 14% may be, we respect them and don't do those things...b/c they feel the "government" making them uncomfortable.

But I thought that Christians were opposed to modern culture and lifestyle, since they think it reflects either paganism or the "secular Jews" who run Hollywood?

This is kind of, well not even kind of, just is...a low blow. :down:

1. Modern culture and lifestyle are the products of numerous GOOD things: the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women and minorities, science and medicine, etc. etc. They also include the same elements that all cultures have for all time: other religions, other morals (or lack thereof), and people, who are notoriously mean at times. I am no more opposed to our times than the times of Jesus or Ezekiel. Like them, I address the issues of my day. You insult, but also reveal your biases and prejudices.

2. I believe the Jews are God's people (the original olive tree of the Bible) according to my religion. Any scholar will tell you the Bible makes it clear that they will still go to heaven due to the Abrahamic covenant (OT). Any Christian who impugns a Jew is an idiot to his own religion's Scriptural basis. Jesus picked Jews first. Paul et al picked the Gentiles (us). Insulting the Jews (or anyone else) based on one's religion (at least Christianity) exposes ignorance of its precepts.

[sea star]

Edited to add this: What is it that starsage is attempting to impose?

I am not trying to impose anything.

I am trying to assure that the school is operating within the law, and that the school's apparent sponsorship of a group that is lead by a community member, in violation of the Equal Access Act, is not occurring.

[MonCapitan2002]

:down: No, no, no! :mad:

Don’t you see how dangerous these illegal religious meetings are? Don’t you know what damage it might do to the students if they were to discuss religious ideas under the guidance of one of those Christian propagandist, or even get preached at!? Or what if other students who held other views were exposed to a different point of view! Maybe they will be intimidated or confused by people holding a different opinion to theirs!!

We should crush this sort of sick tyrannical activity before it gets further out of control, perhaps someone might even be emboldened make an illegal prayer at a football game, and what a disastrous thing that would indeed be! My fellow true and upright citizens, religious delusions such as these are a disease we must all work together to eradicate.
I know you are being sarcastic. However, in spite of the sarcasm, those comments are spot on. Religion is a cancer and preaching should not be allowed in public schools under any circumstances or conditions. If parents want their children brainwashed with religious propaganda, they should send their children to parochial schools.

[MonCapitan2002]

In other words, non-religious citizens must vigilantly thwart Christianity in their attempt to destroy it? Is that what I'm seeing above?
No. That is what your puppet masters in the church have deceived you into believing. That does not mean that Christianity should be destroyed. Like all religions, Christianity is a cancer that must be cured by raising future generations to be skeptical of such garbage.

[Toto]

I'm not so sure based on some of the fanatical postings that are akin to saying "Christianity should be destroyed" throughout these forums. I would think you have seen such postings here also?

...

Many people on these boards think that Christianity should just wither up and go away, or be actively destroyed (through debate and evidence, not guns).

But this forum is devoted to church state separation, part of the constitution of the United States. The basis of CSS is that the government should keep its greasy fingers out of religion, and neither endorse it or try to destroy it.

[itsamysteryhuh]

I am not trying to impose anything.

I am trying to assure that the school is operating within the law, and that the school's apparent sponsorship of a group that is lead by a community member, in violation of the Equal Access Act, is not occurring.

Whatever you say. :rolleyes:


No. That is what your puppet masters in the church have deceived you into believing. That does not mean that Christianity should be destroyed. Like all religions, Christianity is a cancer that must be cured by raising future generations to be skeptical of such garbage.


I rest my case. :sneaky:

Edited to add: Oh yeah.....what church?

[Space Chef]

I'm not so sure based on some of the fanatical postings that are akin to saying "Christianity should be destroyed" throughout these forums. I would think you have seen such postings here also?

Anyway, I don't feel that I desire to 'impose' my religion on anyone. I do feel that I can freely express my views regarding it and then let whomever I express those views to decide for themselves. I don't ever intend to 'impose' it onto anyone, as it must be and will always ultimately betheir own choice whether or not to believe.....as one can not be forced to believe or not believe (ie, they will believe whatever they wish regardless).

What is your opinion on the gay marriage issue?

[capsaicin67]

meega: I'm not sure where you got that notion, if you mean that one supercedes the other.

From inside my melon and personal experience.

I do think that science and naturalism supercede supernaturalism. They do not supercede philosophy and ethics and metaphysical inquiry or discussion.

But authoritative claims of the supernatural are not uncommon and from my experience represent poor thinking and/or ulterior motives. And it does not please me to say that because I do think that we all have to live together on a planet filled with different opinions, personalities, cognitive abilities, resources etc etc. And that was my point: it is not just educated, ethical, nuanced, reasonable people at the table. The magisteria do overlap frequently in my opinion. And the "magisterium of religion" is basically "philosophy/ethics founded in magical thinking". Rather than just focusing on philosophy/ethics period. I think that validating the foundations of such a magisterium is troubling and unethical in and of itself.

Many devout supernaturalists feel that they must save our souls as much as reason-ists feel we must save our collective sanity. Therein lies the rub. When supernaturalists disagree with secularists on some facet of everyday life because it conflicts with their doctrine. IRL, I see these 2 positions at odds frequently.

m:Stephen Jay Gould (SJG) once wrote that these two, seemingly mutually exclusive, arenas of life for all peoples--faith and reason, could be treated as "non-overlapping magisteria" NOLM.

Interesting. I like Gould generally and think him a decent fellow. But I disagree with him in that interesting article. It is written from the rarefied perspective of one living on campuses and hanging out with Sagans. If everyone were like Gould we would have few problems. But they aren't. And I disagree with him that the overlap is uncommon. The beauty of non-supernaturalism is that it leaves me free to disagree as neither he nor I believe[ed] in infallibility or magic. And Gould was cool but not the Pope of secularity. I agree that he had some points, I'm just saying that the article betrayed some of his generosity of spirit leading him to conclusions he hoped were true more than the evidence demonstrating their truth. A lot of opinion from a cool person. But that's ok.

Again,the rub is that reason-able people in the middle, leaning both directions, want to appear tolerant in order to avoid the risk of very real conflict and bloodshed. So they jettison orthodoxy/dogma/inerrancy.

Extreme secularists are certainly closer to being "correct", but if that is acknowledged it makes extreme supernaturalists "wrong"....and um, they aren't reason-able by definition, in many cases, and inevitably cry foul. Thus conservatives hoist liberals by their own tolerant petard as they do in other arenas. Etc. It's a tough problem.

m:I actually didn't say I objected to Harry Potter, or any other mention of religious "themes"...I was simply pointing out that it is possible to offend people quite easily, and that, for example, displays of the 10 Commandments aren't exactly "propoganda" so much as a public display of the "theme" of Jewish/Christian law.

But again. Harry Potter is not a parallel to the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments are displayed by people pushing a religious agenda, not by people "educating about history" though they foist that excuse on all of us. The people encouraging the use of HP for reading do not believe it is supernatural nor nonfiction. It's the religious fanatics that believe in sorcery etc. In the case of the Commandments, they are clearly associated directly with contemporary religions, and those pushing their display believe that they are supernaturally inspired and mandates from their god.

Would you say the commandments are displayed to teach about the history of lawmaking? Truthfully?

Would you say that Harry Potter is encouraged generally to try and get kids interested in fun, fantasy so they'll practice reading? Or to lead them to sorcery?

******

I should add that I think that Gould articulated a progressive step toward where all reasonable people should meet to begin weaning civilization off of superstition though. I understand the strategic desire [necessity?] for incremental change though I think we are long overdue for a secular surge via some culturally progressive punctuated equilibrium!

[itsamysteryhuh]

Like you care?

Anyway, I don't see any need to start the new subject of gay marriage here. But since you asked for some reason, I will say that although I disagree with gay anything, to each his or her own. For that matter, I don't agree with telling lies or killing either, but there are people who tell lies and kill living things.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

IIDB rules state: "The Internet Infidels discussion forum tries to be an intellectually-stimulating environment in which users exchange ideas in the spirit of discovery. Poisoning that environment with acrimony is highly discouraged. Please exercise tact and refrain from insulting others or disrupting ongoing discussions with inflammatory speech."

"Off-topic posting or hijacking of threads is inappropriate.

Calling a fellow poster "delusional", "deceitful", or a similarly inflammatory accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that the accusation is true."

Please adhere to the IIDB rules, and stay on the topic of the OP. The topic is Starsage's situation and action taken in response to it, and church-state issues pertaining to it.

-ELGS

[sbaii]

:down: No, no, no! :mad:

Don’t you see how dangerous these illegal religious meetings are? Don’t you know what damage it might do to the students if they were to discuss religious ideas under the guidance of one of those Christian propagandist, or even get preached at!? Or what if other students who held other views were exposed to a different point of view! Maybe they will be intimidated or confused by people holding a different opinion to theirs!!

We should crush this sort of sick tyrannical activity before it gets further out of control, perhaps someone might even be emboldened make an illegal prayer at a football game, and what a disastrous thing that would indeed be! My fellow true and upright citizens, religious delusions such as these are a disease we must all work together to eradicate.

If the minister in charge is preaching during this Bible study, then this does not pass the smell test of being objective study. At my high school we had a comparative religions club where every week for a semester we heard from different representatives of various religions.

I agree that the announcement of this group everyday during the school day makes it seem like a school sponsored event. That is probably what the minister intended. Why does this have to be in the public school and why not after the school day? This group must be really paranoid about the evil world if Bible study once or twice a week isn't enough for them.

As for prayers before a football game: Do both sides get to invoke the deity or only the home team? If they are only asking for some deity to "bless" the game rather than asking for victory, what does to bless the game mean? It sounds like a rather trivial cause for prayer. It is just an attempt to flex their political muscle by showing everyone that they must be permitted to do their religious thing wherever they please. Otherwise they whine discrimination and abuse.

[sea star]

I promised updates, so here is a little one.

The kind person at AU who is taking care of this for me emailed last week to ask how much rent the church pays to the school, so I had my undercover agent make enquiries at the office. Turns out there is no rent paid. The church or minister does provide the pizza, though.

I got this information back to AU late last week, and I don't know what their time frame for mailing the letter is, but in today's announcement, the bible study group was not listed at all. I don't think there has been enough time for a letter to get from DC to OR, but who knows?

I will ask my coworker tomorrow what she knows about why the meeting was dropped from the daily announcement.