I seem to recall most here weighing in against religion in school, but I have to share this article:

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic.../02art0401.txt


Essentially, the school gave this kid a zero on his art assignment for including a cross in the art. To make matters more interesting the school went on record as saying:

1) The student gave up his first Amendment rights at enrollment
2) The image of the cross was offensive

Now what does this have to do with what a school teaches about the origin of man, or science as opposed to religious teachings? Answer: Nothing. Its the war of the anti-religious against the religious run amok. I have no doubt that had the religious imagery been anti-religious (desecrating the cross in some way), it would have been accepted. The sad part is, tax dollars are being used to defend this indefensible act in court, when a change out of the administration would solve the problem and cost the taxpayers almost nothing. I suppose it will be worth it if this case finds its way to the supreme court and sets a precedent to prevent this kind of idiocy in the future.

Look - the answer here is clearly to privatise all education so that Christians can send their children to Christian-only schools and eventually alienate their community..........</sarcasm>

Republican4Life

I agree with you on "this subject" and your Statement.

Slowly one by one our rights are being taken away by a small group of idiots.

Originally Posted by whym

Look - the answer here is clearly to privatise all education so that Christians can send their children to Christian-only schools and eventually alienate their community..........</sarcasm>

No private schools should only be for people with money, I don't really care what happens to poor people.

I hope the kid wins. If Congress can't estabish a religion or prevent its free exercise, neither can the individual states counties, or school districts. But school districts across the country are doing exactly what this one is. That "policy statement" was invalid and the school knew it, and hoped the students and parents didn't.

tim

As a non-theist I will say there is nothing wrong with a student putting a cross in his art and it doesn't infringe other students rights (as the story reports the teacher as claiming).

There are two sets of extremists involved in public schools: those who want to establish religions through creationism and school sponsored prayer and those who think students shouldn't ever express their personal beliefs at any time (an appropriate time in an appropriate way).

Originally Posted by joder

There are two sets of extremists involved in public schools: those who want to establish religions through creationism and school sponsored prayer and those who think students shouldn't ever express their personal beliefs at any time (an appropriate time in an appropriate way).

Obviously the later of those two extremes seems to be winning the battle so far. The type of sack it takes to say you surrendered your First Amendment rights at the door wasn't created overnight.

For those who don't want their children propagandized by the godless public schools, private schools are clearly the answer. It's just a shame the same people who want atheism taught in public schools, want the religious to pay for it whether or not their child attends a public school.

Originally Posted by cbwm

For those who don't want their children propagandized by the godless public schools, private schools are clearly the answer. It's just a shame the same people who want atheism taught in public schools, want the religious to pay for it whether or not their child attends a public school.

Really? There is atheism taught in the public schools? Never heard of that class.

Originally Posted by joder

Really? There is atheism taught in the public schools? Never heard of that class.

I'll change the phrasing, though I know you got the meaning the first time.
"It's just a shame the same people who want god removed from public schools, want the god fearing to pay for it whether or not their child attends a public school."

Happy?

Ok. So you are for religion in public schools? Or are you a libertarian and don't like public anything? I guess you would be in favor of prayer in public schools including Muslim, Hindu and whatever other religion the parents happened to be?


BTW, a persons tax dollars go for public schools whether they have kids or not. Maybe just the people who can afford to send their kids to private schools should get a break?

The schools should be worrying about teaching the basics. But they can and do teach about religion (so long as it isn't Christian). Teaching about it and endorsing it are two separate things. But this school is interrupting doing its job of actually teaching over a kid expressing himself through his faith. If he was depicting a shooting or something, or putting gang references in his art, then I'd be of a different opinion.

BTW, public schools are available to all who choose to send their kids there; those who choose not to should not get a tax break. That was their choice.

tim

Originally Posted by joder

Ok. So you are for religion in public schools? Or are you a libertarian and don't like public anything? I guess you would be in favor of prayer in public schools including Muslim, Hindu and whatever other religion the parents happened to be?

I thought the point of my message was pretty clear. If you want to take god out of school, at least have the decency to allow people who want their Christian(Or Muslim if you like)god and prayer in school to have some of their school tax dollars applied to a school that doesn't omit including something they want included.

As I understand it, the private school advocates aren't wanting the tax dollars they paid to send to their kids to private school but they want the tax dollars used for their child. Which means everyone else who pays taxes would be paying in part for their childs religious education.

Originally Posted by joder

Which means everyone else who pays taxes would be paying in part for their childs religious education.

And you are opposed to that? Everyone pitches in right now to pay for education that excludes god. So long as the remainder of their education is as good or better, why would you care?

I shouldn't have to pay for someones religious education. Excluding god does not equal including it. And not including some god is not being against religion. It is not promoting religion. Contrary to what you and many religious think, the Constitution is secular.

Explain how the tax breaks actually would work and most of the christians aren't going to want a share of their tax dollars going to muslim schools.

Originally Posted by joder

I shouldn't have to pay for someones religious education. Excluding god does not equal including it. And not including some god is not being against religion. It is not promoting religion. Contrary to what you and many religious think, the Constitution is secular.

Explain how the tax breaks actually would work and most of the christians aren't going to want a share of their tax dollars going to muslim schools.

Like you, many Christians don't want their tax dollars paying for an education that excludes god. Interestingly, if you insisted on your own children attending public school over a private Christian school on the issue of religion, you would be dooming your own children to a lesser education. Sounds counterproductive to me.

How would such a system work? Right now, school tax money comes from where it comes from (Mostly property taxes I believe). Private schools would have to pass and maintain some state certification to be qualified for tax benefits. Those qualifications would probably have something to do with percent of students meeting certain academic levels on standardized tests. Those private schools would then qualify for a tax subsidy from the state for each student enrolled, coming from a family with less than 150k/year combined earnings. Or, the state could provide a voucher to be used as cash at certified schools to each qualifying family. There are lots of ways to skin this cat (no offense Phil).

The desired goal would be to put private education within reach of a larger section of the middle and lower class. It would also reduce the class sizes in public schools, increasing the quality of education therein. The tighter competition between public and private education would likely increase the quality of education in both places, or at least make it more cost effective. I always love the USPS vs. FedEx example. You would be amazed at how much the USPS has improved their quality of service in an effort to be competitive.

Not promoting religion through prayer or teaching what is not factual such as creationism is not making children godless. These religious kids can pray silently, at lunch, in their own meeting on their own time. What fundies object to is that christian prayers aren't promoted by the public schools.

I don't agree with the competition argument. If some areas didn't have a public school and only a private religious one, then parents would be forced to send their kids to a school that promotes religion.

Of course the same argument could be made that you need religious courts, etc. Why not privatize the police? Someone might be offended that they don't lead a prayer when questioning people. That godless justice system. You could have the religious and public law enforcement.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I have no doubt that had the religious imagery been anti-religious

Unfortunately law makers, courts, school boards, and others who carry out and obey the laws, all of these institutions don't have you on staff to tell them whether or not you have doubts.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I thought the point of my message was pretty clear. If you want to take god out of school, at least have the decency to allow people who want their Christian(Or Muslim if you like)god and prayer in school to have some of their school tax dollars applied to a school that doesn't omit including something they want included.

I agree wholeheartedly. And following this extremist Republican logic, I choose not to partake in the Iraq quagmire, so I need my retroactive tax break going back to 2003 to not fund the disaster I knew from the beginning was a colossal mistake.

I predict back peddling, and an explanation of why this extremism is right but only in circumstances that benefit conservative extremists.

Haha, I doubt many others here are going to find your comparison of how you want your child raised vs how the government runs its business a valid comparison. Forget the backpeddling