The debate "We should remove God from schools" was started by
September 16, 2015, 12:49 pm.
By the way, abby1212 is disagreeing with this statement.
46 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 66 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
sloanstar1000 posted 11 arguments, PsychDave posted 6 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument, Alex posted 3 arguments, Safooma1977 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Zeno posted 1 argument, goldfox1987 posted 7 arguments, bigB posted 5 arguments, Hitmenjr posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
sidhant, PsychDave, sloanstar1000, Bodaciouslady16, wayneSPEC, kayla, desght, Skeetc15, Specimen, historybuff, pajrc1234, athinus, WaspToxin, Alex, shawncola, Eechyobooty, jbailee, Robert16, leprechaundances, fuckthehatersss, Gman119, DeadMore, Safooma1977, Concerned_Liberal, Sosocratese, omactivate and 20 visitors agree.
abby1212, jasmine, Zeno, jbrothe4, Yuki_Amayane, Ryan, Thawene, goldfox1987, PowerPikachu, bigB, brokuk20, josejose, kungnangxx, darkthoughts, The_lamp, AstroSpace, Me123, gouthamabi, Hitmenjr, Amu270, asaru, stevenchen, ailasorecarg, confident, shawnster, Anas, action007man, liberalssuck, zoeclare7, jjrocks1738 and 36 visitors disagree.
children can be taught whatever religious beliefs that parents want to while they're at home. Or they're at a church. schools and government funded institutions of learning. The government does not back one religion over another. So no, there should be no religion in schools.
I've never seen God in school or any class room I've ever been in
BigB I think that would arouse some agreements between students of different regions. I say leave religion up to the parents who are responsible for their child's beliefs.
I think schools should at least teach the whole of the three main religion's. I think it's a bad idea to take the idea if God out of school; most religions teach peace and love and that's what a young mind needs to learn. Our country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs, I think you should teach that, but also teach the other religions because it's become ingrained in society
Thus in effect removing God from the school. I'm glad we have reached an agreement.
I see, you are afraid that if a teacher says a prayer, then the students will follow. The teacher should say maybe a silent prayer instead, and try not to, unless required to, speak of their faith.
The teacher should not tell anyone to say a prayer, or even say one aloud unless they have to. If they do say a prayer aloud because their faith requires it. The child's parents should educate their child in the religion the child should according to the parents have. The parents being the primary educator of their kids should instruct their kids on their faith. The kids then would know that saying that prayer is wrong sand not say it.
That is true, but if a teacher jumps in place, the students will be far more likely to do so because an authority figure is doing so and they are impressionable. Schools should not punish anyone for their religious beliefs, but neither should one religion be represented by the staff as being correct, as that will influence the children.
If I jump in place...im not telling or forcing you to jump in place...you may jump in place if you feel like jumping in place...but you are simply observing me jump in place.
Why do you always blame people practicing religion as people forcing it upon others? How is making the sign of the Cross forcing religion on others.
In schools there should be no school religion or prayer, but a student should be allowed to make the sign of the Cross or something like that and not get in trouble. Schools should not force a religion, but let the students say a prayer to themselves if they want.
Also, it's not that of and from mean the same thing, but in the context in which it is used in currently it is. If you get to choose your religion, you can choose to not have one. And Dave's right. If you don't want the freedom of choice taken away from you, don't take it away from someone else.
I will try to break it down a bit more, but I'm honestly not sure where the disconnect is between us.
You feel (and correct me if I have misinterpreted) that you should be free to worship on school as your right to religion is guaranteed and protected.
We feel that, by worshiping in a publicly funded institution, you are forcing those who would not choose to worship your religion to do so. This is often as direct as a guided prayer. By having the authority of the school behind your religion, it influences all of the children. This infringes on their right to worship, or not, whomever they choose.
Dave, the finer points of debate are not lost on me, the point made was your idea that freedom of religion and freedom for religion were the same thing. if this is not what you meant, then the simple definitive assertion of definition and logic was my own way of attempting to reach some sort of definitive understanding. because it seemed to me and I would assume big would agree, our understanding of the terms and yours are quite different
If your religion is embraced by the school, children whose parents want nothing to do with it are being forced to have your religion crammed down their children's throats. You feel that, because you are free to worship whatever religion you choose, you should be able to use taxpayer money to indoctrinate other children at schools. This is not true. They have just as much right to not have your God forced on them as you do to not have someone else's forced on you.
I have not argued that religion should be banned (you definition of freedom from religion), I have simply said that your right to worship stops when you try to bring it into a publicly funded institution that, by law, all children must attend.
It may interest you to know that we are in fact literate and, while I cannot speak for sloanstar1000, I have more than a passing familiarity with a dictionary. It also may interest you to note that logic is often employed in debates. You may want to endeavor to use reason when examining arguments. It will prevent foolish comments that demonstrate that you have failed to grasp the nature of the arguments.
the reason you two keep saying the same thing over and over again is that you falsely believe that from and of mean the same thing. open a dictionary and it becomes clear. and as pointed out much earlier in the discussion it was already established that religion is not forced on anyone in schools, leaving only the optional choice to attend or not. this is freedom of religion, put simply you can choose for yourself what religion, if any, you choose to follow. it also means that the government cannot force its views of religion or anti-religion on the people.
whereas freedom from religion means that there is no religion for any, you have freed yourself feom the "bonds" religion "forced" upon you. obviously the first is codified the second is not.
Psychdave gets it, I don't know how many times it has to be explained for gold or big to comprehend freedom religion and what it means to be free FROM religion as well. We are free from getting religion shoved down our throats in this country. It's not a difficult concept.
That would also mean that you are free from having someone else's religion forced upon you, like through the education of your children.
that was an asinine statement. Freedom of religion means one is allowed to openly worship God or gods of one's own choosing.
First of all the Constitution is the law of the land, what our laws and the values of the founders reflect. The declaration of Independence is not, it's a declaration of our independence from England...
you say there's a big difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion, but you can't seem to give me any reason why that is the case.
Freedom of religion means that no religion can be forced on you, that is freedom from religion. unless you actually think that somewhere in the Constitution it says that we actually have to practice a certain religion. We are not subject to any religious values, we are subject to the laws set out in the Constitution.
the constitution may not mention God, but the declaration does, as well as the founders writings of their inspiration from divine direction. the wall of separation you love to bring up is a beautiful reminder that one does not exert control over the other. it does not mean that divine providence does not influence our writings, to which the founders were very clear on. the idea of individual rights that come from the Almighty and not from government was and still is a revolutionary idea.
and word play to rest, there is a very large difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. the first is enshrined, the latter not so much.
thanks speech to text, I meant "deists believe in God" not ideas...
Big, you seriously just contradicted your own argument that freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion, you only restated my point that it was.
our freedoms are laid out by the Constitution, a document written by men, not God. in fact there is no mention of God in the Constitution. our government is a secular government, in fact we had the first secular constitution.
also understand that ideas believes in God, but not necessarily the Christian God, what was your point.
the whole idea of freedom of religion is that the government or any body can't force anything or idea on you if it goes against your religious beliefs; and on top of that, if my child was forced to pray to Allah then that wouldn't be freedom of religion, or any other God or diety. Remember our country was born in the enlightenment period, thus the idea of individual freedoms and rights given by God not man (government). Our founding fathers believed this; and someone who is a diest still believes in God
pretty much everything you just said is not true big.
First of all, Freedom of religion IS freedom from religion, that's the whole point. If your child was forced to partake in Muslim prayer at school every morning, or there were Muslim shrines on public land you pay for(like the Christians have with the 10 commandments and nativity scenes), That's not religious freedom is it?
This is why Jefferson wrote specifically about a wall of separation between church and state. Because he understood how destructive they were together. It doesn't get much more secular than Jefferson in his time, no matter if he believed in the "watch maker theory"(He was a deist btw).
Jefferson understood that a country could not stand unless it had a moral back bone. Jefferson was a founding father that was more outspoken against secularized religion, and was a supporter of the clock maker theory. He and the other founding fathers understood that a country needs a moral back bone. Judeo-christian teachings have been here since the pilgrims came over to escape religious persecution that's why we have freedom of religion not freed from religion
big, not at all. the Constitution clearly says there should be no law that respects the establishment of religion. If you read the letters or books written by the founders, Jefferson, Paine, Madison etc, you'll understand they were mostly deists that wanted religion completely separate from government. Judeo-Christian values wouldn't allow for any freedom of religion, we would have a state religion if our government was based on that.
Wasn't the country of the United States founded on judeo-christian beliefs. I know the pledge of allegiance was put into public schools in the 50 s during the red scare with McCarthy. However, the pledge sums up what this country was founded on
I was arguing in the context of the first comment on this thread, I realize that that wouldn't be obvious, sorry. I just don't see what other practical context the topic sentence could be about though. never mind
making stuff up, no. the question was removing God from schools. the only place He is in schools, outside of Catholic schools, is in voluntary groups. that seemed to be the point of the question given there is no requirement to participate. if you understood the question differently than I well at least we made the same point...round about
that's right, and that was the point, there is no requirement for children to be included in any religious ceremony in school because it's against the Constitution.
Also I don't know anyone that has a problem with expressing the religious freedom. you're just making stuff up.
as far as memory serves there is no requirement for anyone to participate in any religious activities in any public school. the problem that most libtards have is with people connected with a school choosing to exercise this right freely. it is the right of the people, all people, to be free to exercise their religious beliefs, with the only limitation being that it cannot be forced or involve any sort of violence against another human being (ie human sacrifices)
and they do... fellowship of Christian athletes for instance? But that an elective activity. It's still not forced on anyone
yes, if they choose to hold a prayer before, after, or during school hours (ie recess or lunch) that students can attend if they choose but are not required to attend and is led by a faculty member, then yes, I would fight for their first amendment right. I can disagree all I want, but as long as it is not required, they should have that right.
the faculty and our education system is funded by taxpayer money. Are you making the case that a Muslim, Satanist or any other non-christian. teachers should be able to lead anti-christian prayer? That's exactly what you're saying.
Don't the faculty have the same first amendment rights as the kids? if they can pray, why not the faculty? rights don't stop because you take a government/education job
and God should be taken out of school, as in, it shouldn't be imposed in a public system, its against the Constitution for a reason. Kids are allowed to be religious, and allowed to pray at school, it just can't be led by faculty.
they've kinda done that already.