Questioning the implementation of Separation of Church and State

@Latrivia (2878)
United States
July 8, 2009 5:06pm CST
I've been toying with this idea for a while, and I think I've come to a conclusion that we're overdoing the whole "separation of church and state" thing, especially in public schools. I've been a long time believer that no such thing exists, and I cite the first amendment for that. My question to American Mylotter's is this: Exactly how did we manage to pull "teachers can't display their religious leanings in front of students" from a phrase that states "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."? Where exactly did we manage to get the idea that an authority figure, but not congressional body, shouldn't be allowed to do anything that might influence a student towards any religion? Don't get me wrong - I'm against mandatory prayer and involvement in religious things in school, but why should that mean that a teacher can't lead a prayer with willing students? Give me some opinions while I'm still impressionable, folks - this is your chance to solidify or change my opinion on this issue.
4 people like this
10 responses
• United States
8 Jul 09
All I have to say is the country went to hell in a hand basket when people became obssesed with seperating church and state.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jul 09
That would be during the Second Continental Congress, then?
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Jul 09
Folks, folks, folks, this country was founded on christian principles which our founders practiced and based laws on, If you go back and read their responses to the issue it was put in to keep muslims, saintinists, from protruding into our government philosiphy. If you all wanna get real technical about the years we are discussing then we can say the progressive era took hold soon after. Thats my interpertation of the founder's views, but the issue really took off in the late 40's to the 60's and somehow if i remember right the rest is history.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
9 Jul 09
"Folks, folks, folks, this country was founded on christian principles which our founders practiced and based laws on, If you go back and read their responses to the issue it was put in to keep muslims, saintinists, from protruding into our government philosiphy" If that were the case, the highest laws of our country would reflect that. If you read the original copy of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was approved by many of the same men who wrote the constitution, they state clearly that the United States was in no way found on Christian principles. Since it is legal to practice non-christian religions, legal to not observe the sabbath, legal to worship idols, and legal to blaspheme the Christian God, I think it's quite clear our government was in no way founded on Christian principles.
@heathcliff (1415)
• United States
8 Jul 09
Here is how this works: Our school system is "public". Government, at one level or another, controls the whole she-bang. Therefore, any teacher working in a public school IS an authority figure with government-type clout. To display his/her religious preferences openly would force the children to question what their parents want them to believe religiously. This is contrary to the concept of religious freedom. People just don't like it anymore that we have evolved religious freedom to mean more than just freedom of choices within Christianity. The same parents who might object to not having "under God" uttered in school, would cry havok if a teacher displayed his/her pagan or even Muslim affiliations. The rules work both ways. "Leading a prayer with willing students" can only be done by complete agreement between teacher, school and all parents, hence, privately owned schools.
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
9 Jul 09
"Government, at one level or another, controls the whole she-bang. Therefore, any teacher working in a public school IS an authority figure with government-type clout. " Yes, but they are not congressional members, which is why I am asking where we managed to get that idea from two simple clauses which clearly state that it is CONGRESS that has no business promoting religion. I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it states that government employees can't show preference to any religion. " This is contrary to the concept of religious freedom." No, it isn't. Religious freedom mean to be able to practice one's religion freely. In our case, it means that we don't have to worry about congress showing preferential treatment to a particular religion or set of religions. It does not mean that you are instantly exempt from outside sources which may make you question your beliefs. "The rules work both ways. "Leading a prayer with willing students" can only be done by complete agreement between teacher, school and all parents, hence, privately owned schools. " I believe I covered this in another post. Some schools still allow students to have religious clubs. If a teacher decides to join in and pray, or lead the prayer in a group of students who are there willingly, there should be no problem. Athiests need not apply. Muslims can have their own group, as can pagans, Shintoists, Satanists, Pastafarians, and any other religious group in the school.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
13 Jul 09
As long as any and all religious groups are allowed to have well... a group or club at a school, then I think that's fine. If ANY are not allowed to be or meet, then I believe ALL of them should be abolished. Also - religious freedom means you are free to believe and practice your own religion. It does not mean you are free to impose your beliefs on others, harrass other people, make people feel threatened, coerced, shamed, or otherwise put upon to accept YOUR religion or views. I think that people are forgetting that when they are all gung ho about their own religion or beliefs. Therein lies the problem. People cannot seem to not beat others over the head if others believe/think/feel differently than them. I think we all have a major control problem. lol!
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
9 Jul 09
As long as the children are doing so out of their own free will, I do not see any problem with a public school teacher leading a voluntary school prayer like the Meet You At The Poll, or even a student religious club that would need a teacher sponsor. The issue would be that all parties would have to be in agreement. If the teacher was to use his or her time that was to be spent teach math for instance, instead the teacher spent time trying to evangelize, there would be a problem.
@emmanola (482)
9 Jul 09
I think the implementation of the policy of separating the church and state should be better done in America. I, personally, do not consider the US as a christian nation as at the present moment. A number of laws that have have been passed are just not in agreement with the bible. Moreover, the actions and inactions of many can't just compare with what a christian should do. Please note that a christian is not just one by name or mere profession, a christian is a person who is Christ-like.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
13 Jul 09
LOL! Not a single politician that I have EVER heard of is the least bit 'christ like' in any way, shape or form. I can hardly say anybody could argue that the US is a 'Christian' nation.... I just want to laugh now.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
10 Jul 09
Terrific discussion! You've opened the proverbial can of worms and are taking us down the proverbial slippery slope which are often parts of the best discussions. Personally, I agree with others here who have said there should be nothing wrong with a prayer group being held by willing students outside of classroom time. However, since this IS public schools we're talking about, shouldn't that be dependent upon the approval of the students' parents? If enough parents objected, wouldn't the right thing to do be to not allow these meetings or do you disagree with me on this? I don't mean to sound "anti-Christian" because I'm not but I have a feeling some of the strongest objections may come if it were a group choosing to have a prayer of a religion other than Christianity. I feel the "slippery slope" comes in if first a "teacher led" prayer is allowed and then it turns into a teacher reading bible passages to "willing students" and so on. I CAN understand how this could be upsetting to parents who don't want their impressionable youngsters exposed to faiths other than their own. It would depend on the ages of the students, of course, but even a teen still needs a parent's permission for many things so religious "training", or something that could be perceived as such, seems like something that should fit that category. Or does it? As you can see, this is something I have mixed feelings about. The schools my daughter attended had a pretty much 100% Christian population so the odds of her becoming "indoctrinated" in any "strange" faith were slim to none and it just never came up. Annie
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
11 Jul 09
If I recall correctly, students are already allowed by federal law to hold prayer groups at school during non-learning hours. However, my biggest beef, as I've already said, is that teachers who may want to join in with such groups, can not. I don't see the "slippery slope" as a slippery slope because the conditions are quite understandable and would be there to prevent a teacher led prayer or a teacher reading bible passages to a group of students who might not want to hear it. Prayer groups would have to be held outside of the classroom during hours students wouldn't be learning. The groups would be made up of voluntary participants, which would mean no one of a different faith would have to worry about being forced to pray or listen to a prayer to a god that isn't theirs. Teachers could attend these groups and pray with the students, or lead the prayers themselves (which they can't do at the moment). No harm, no foul, and everyone wins. Of course a parent's permission would be necessary to join any extracurricular activity, and these groups are no exception. As for those parents who would find fault with a set up like what I've described, I would simply brush their condemnations off. As long as students aren't forced to do anything against their will, and the opportunity for such groups would be open to all faiths, I see no reason to complain.
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
13 Jul 09
Parents are right to be concerned about something like this, whether they are in favor of a prayer group or not. Nothing became as serious to me as the idea that people I may not like who have beliefs which are in direct opposition to my own may somehow find a way to influence or affect my daughter after she was born lol. Granted, some parents never think that far ahead, and some of them don't care, and I have learned that I do not have to worry as much as I did as when my daughter was younger and could not voice her own opinion, her own approval or disapproval, or walk away or terminate a discussion with another person. However, I still feel that one of the roles as a parent is to at least minimize influences that you may feel could be harmful to your children as they learn about the world and grow up. More than anything, I want her to have a good grasp of people's motivations and ideas and ultimately what drives them when they try to get her to accept something, as well as the knowledge that she NEVER has to accept ANYTHING another person tells her if she doesn't want to lol.
1 person likes this
@tundeemma (894)
• South Africa
9 Jul 09
i don't think it will be possible to remove the state from the church, even some part of the constitution of the state were coined from the bible hence it will be quite difficult for separation except some part of the state's constitution will have to be removed entirely
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
13 Jul 09
I think this is backwards. Religion has nothing to do with 'the state' or politics in general, religion is a personal faith based belief system which is private - an individual matter. It shouldn't interfere with broad things that affect everybody because not everybody believes the same thing, in fact not everybody believes at all. It becomes discriminatory if you use it as a baseline for rules, laws, or anything that governs an area, a group of people, etc.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
9 Jul 09
I think they figure that freedom of religion means freedom from religion, so instead of teaching that God is above all, they teach the religion of humanism. So even if the students want to have bible studies, or in the case of Muslim students, Koran studies, the public school says no religion, the teacher cannot say that she believes in the Trinity because she is Catholic and a student is forbidden or given demerit if she gives credit to Jesus Christ for her high marks. Yet it seems that the only religion not allowed in public schools is Christianity. Any other religion is allowed. Girls can wear head scarves, boys can wear turbans and have ceremonial knives, children can have menorahs. So this idea of separation of church and state is hypocritical. I am Canadian by the way. And we are supposed to be humanists in public schools up here. God is not allowed. Seems rather unfair since it was God that created the World, not man.
@katran (585)
• United States
9 Jul 09
I don't know if the Separation of Church and State is being implemented incorrectly, but I DO know that it is being implemented unfairly. I don't know what schools some of the respondents above me went to that seemed to favor "fundies" and Christians over other religions, but it must have been some azz-backwards little school, because my high school and lots of high schools I know of held EVERY OTHER RELIGION above Christianity. My school even allowed a Muslim group to come and talk to the kids when they would not allow Christian groups or any other religious groups to come. The education system is extremely liberal, and it seems lately that it is the policy of the liberals to promote other religions while making sure Christians shut up. When I read the first amendment, it seems to me that it means that we cannot establish a state sanctioned religion. Allowing children to have religious clubs after school is not sanctioning religion. Allowing children to bring their Bibles to school to read at lunch or in study hall is not sanctioning religion. Not only have they been too strict with their interpretation of the first amendment, but they have also been too selective in what religions they try to shut up.
@wkylady (48)
• United States
8 Jul 09
Well, I agree with you - I think we are overdoing the separation of church and state thing a whole lot.
• China
9 Jul 09
lead a prayer with willing student, i agreement. I think teacher has the right to display his/her religion before student, because the believe the most important part of people, display his/her religion is christian's duty according to the Bible "you are the light of the world". of courst, student has the right to refuse or obey the religion.