Yes I know, wing nut ...

So far it's only you and Lyle allowing yourselves to get sucked into this manufactured controversy. That's a promising sign, at least.

Rather than jumping from the specific to the general, how about finding out how this all went down? I'm guessing there's a bit more to the story than a 6 year old girl writing something with "God" in it twice, parents catching wind of that, one of them complaining and the administration forbidding her from going forward with it. Anytime we hear about one of these instances of a kid at the center of some political "controversy" of this nature, there's always some adult input, one way or the other, driving it - with the kid playing the part of carrier pigeon.

@Greg....The only place that religion has no place is in government spaces. It is one thing to walk through a school and hear things that offend you, but it is another to walk through school and hear religious expressionism. Why is it that important to feel that rights are being restricted when religious expression is precluded in certain settings?

I guess I see it as the elephant in the room. Religion is a big part of our world and it is not going to go away just because you ban it. You can no more discriminate by religion than you can by race, yet you accept that racial issues are taught and even celebrated in government spaces. I see it as discrimination to stop a girl from using a religious word in a report and you would see it as discrimination if she could not say "gay".

@Greg....Whether one is gay or not is not a religious issue but a physiological phenomenon as is race. Religion is based entirely on non secular beliefs or lack of beliefs. This places religion in a completely different category. No one expects religion to go away and if it did, then the world would be a much sadder place.

For so many, religion is fundamental to making order out of perception and a means to answer the unanswerable.

You just think it should go away in certain places. Would you allow the girl to do a report on how she was affected by the shooting in Oak Creek, or would she have to leave out the S__k word?

@Greg....The shooting at the temple and people's reaction to such is an OK subject. There was no indication that they were singled out because of their religion. More than anything it was probably a racial action.

So you are OK with the religious component there, but the girl stating that her grandfather prayed for peace while serving in Vietnam is not OK? You are probably going to have to write a manual. Having a prayer as a government function is very different than an individual using a religious word. The establishment clause has got to be the most misinterpreted thing in the world.

What should be done if the student is wearing a religious item during the program? Could someone not be just as offended by the sight of a cross or a Kippah in a government venue? Or would you also make an exception for a Turban?

@Greg....Government offices and schools already place limits on overt symbols of religiosity and other symbols worn on clothing. Wearing of a turban, hijab, kippah,or some other head covering is considered a cultural item. The open wearing of a crucifix, magen david, cross or some other religious symbol is fine if concealed. There is a clear difference when something is associated with a cultural identity and a religious statement.

I contend that religion speak is just as if not more cultural. Where would I find these rules about the open wearing of concealed items?

@Greg....Most government agencies have published policies and procedures with regards to allowable and non allowable items and statements. A good many schools already have published rules. Currently each agency or entity is left to develop their own rules. As far as religious words and statements as being simple cultural statements, it depends on use and context. When used in a cultural expression it carries one meaning but when used as a religious expression, it means quite another.

Do you have an example of a rule preventing a student from wearing religious garb in a public school, for religious purposes? Simply seeing an item does not equate to indoctrination.
As for the cultural aspect, many people are born into religion just as much as they are born into a nation of origin.

Greg. No one is saying to cut religion from our culture. It would be illegal and no one (even Freethinkers like me) are even beginning to contest that.

All we are saying is there are times and places for religion. Privately and in a self expression - yes, absolutely. I am all for it.

In gov. buildings run by taxpayer funds- absolutely not. There are plenty and plenty of places to pray, invoke whatever god you choose and place whatever monument you want (tax free by the way). At the end of the day we are supposed to have a secular gov. with a strict separation between church and state. We need to respect that.

The question seems to be 'where do we draw the line?'

Countries like France have taken things to the extreme by banning the wearing of all religious symbols in their public schools. This is not what I want to see in the US, but I fear we are headed in that direction. We cannot promote tolerance by being intolerant...

FTT, We need to clarify the difference between government and citizens when talking about the often confused separation of church and state. Government can not establish or mandate any religion. A citizen has freedom of religion, pretty much without limits, unless it is substantially detrimental to others. Government buildings or taxpayer funds notwithstanding.

CowDung

My opinion is any school sponsored event. Even though it may drive a person with my beliefs (or non-beliefs as it were), the wearing of religious symbols is an individual right protected by the first amendment.

Of course, I know the ACLU would rip me (but I don't care), the implimentation of school uniforms would solve a great deal of this. My older brother is the Dean of Students of a private grade school. One of his first policies when taking the job was school uniforms (khakis and polos - WalMart quality as most of his students are lower income choice kids). When talking to him, a vast majority of bullying complaints instantly stopped.

Greg - I agree completely.

Keep it out of gov. buildings, I will defend the rights of anyone to worship however they like (barring the really extreme - don't need to see human sacrifies and the like - right?)

David, as I'm sure Lyle will explain, spelling G-d that way is a Jewish tradition. It's meant as a means of respect.

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm

@David Tatarowicz....I don't expect people to deny their heritage or to modify their belief systems. BTW, the little girl was a six year old, not a six grader. Never the less, the religious majorities seem to show insensitivity to people who do not share either their religious beliefs or no beliefs at all. As a religious minority, my family's lives are continuously impacted by the culture of the majority, especially when it comes to events that have roots in the Christian traditions. Christmas, Easter, Halloween and St. Valentine's Day are all celebrations rooted in Christianity. Just as when they were in grade school and the exchange of valentines; we had to make a decision whether or not to let them participate. Also when they were in Christian sponsored preschool, they needed to learn Christmas songs and carols. The list goes on and on. When the kids were older, they had to deal with classmates attempting to proselytize them. The nation is so infused with religiosity, that those that want to avoid it, can't. That's why I think it is important to make the schools as secular as possible. Part of the social learning process is to learn when it is OK to include religion and when it is not. One of the ideas of progressivism is to make every attempt to be inclusive and religious expression is exclusive.

As Bob pointed out, it is a Jewish tradition to refer to the Supreme Being in writing is G-d. Just as you will never see us write out the mispronounced YHVH. (continued)

@David Tatarowicz (continued)... The social distress and unrest created by religion is well documented. Although over a billion people claim Christianity as their religion, my observation is that they have little similarity to one another, just as Islam is split into a variety of sects, often at war with one another. Schools should be a place where we respect diversity and concentrate on those things we have in common outside of religious beliefs.

My own personal experience in the business community is that it is poor practice to be overly expressive with religiosity. When I had businesses in Utah and if I was identified as not being a Mormon, I would loose business. I had industrial purchasing agents come right out and tell me that they only bought from Mormons because then they knew that 10% of the profits or wages would go to the Church.

As far as most of the nation's founders being deists, I know that to be true; but that doesn't change the fact that many want to claim we were founded as a Christian nation. As far as I am concerned; when being sworn in to public office, I would just as soon people placed their hand on a copy of the constitution and take the oath.

How is excluding people because they are religious inclusive? I would think it would be progressive to accept and tolerate people regardless of their protected class.

@Greg....I think you need to rethink your statement. Yes, progressivism is about tolerance and inclusion. Religion, by its very nature is exclusionary; either you're in or you're out.

But we have to separate the people from their religion for you to include them. For some that is like separating wet from water. From our discussion, I'd have to say that if you are in, I am out. So one of us is being excluded.

And on the other side (equally as perplexing in terms of being an obsession with religion in the public forum), we have people who bristle at the thought of a 6 year old including two mentions of praying to G-d in a speech.

The irrational reaction that begs explanations that wind their way down convoluted paths to justification for a laundry list of wrongs or an insistence that others are attempting to wipe religion off the face of the earth is what makes something that should have been able to have been handled in a rational manner a major issue.

Again, I'm going to suggest that you search out the details on this. Was the 6 year old given the opportunity to eliminate the mention in her speech? If so, why wasn't that option selected? If not, why not? Do we have a copy of the speech intact to take a look at to see how prominent a part the mentions played? If not, how can one truly judge whether or not the mentions were something a rational person without a predetermined motive would have objected to on face value, or, conversely, a premeditated intention to proselytize rather than just a kid relating a story as related to her by her grandfather? How did the child react to being told her speech could not be given? Or do the details that might lead to a less spectacular evaluation of the incident not matter as much as the need to choose sides in the never-ending, pointless battle over conflicting offended sensibilities?

Once again Lyle takes the extremists position. This is freedom of speech, plain and simple. American entitlement(ism) cries out that others must be limited because I am looking for a reason to be offended.

@Lyle I totally agree that all too many Americans, perhaps most, consider that we are a "God Endorsed" nation ---and that whatever WE do to Anyone is OK --- but never if They do it to US. I won't bore everyone going into examples, we all know what we are talking about.

The USA is not unique in this --- Egypt is now going through the ugly process of deciding just how secular or Islamic they will be --- countries like Iran are run as Religious States, and so is Israel.

I think it is LUDICROUS looking back at wars to envision the British soldier preparing for an attack on the Germans -- and both the British soldier and the German soldier are praying to Christ for help --- or even more sad is during our Civil war when the Union and Confederate soldiers, sometimes from the some town, both praying to the same God to help kill their brother..... very sad.

But eliminating all mention of God from public schools --- does that reinforce these nonsensical beliefs --- I think not.

While you make very good points on holidays that are Christian in basis --- don't forget that those "Christian" holidays were invented by the Catholic Church to suppress the paganist traditions that were at those times of year ........... and now, in the USA they have been secularized.

Hiding our religion (for those who follow one) does not make bigotry go away, it simply puts it in the closet.

War also had the effect of making many soldiers question or reject their faith.

@David Tatarowicz...If you hadn't already figured out, I will take a position or principle to an extreme to ferret out the more complex issues. The casual reference to religion and/or creator is of no real consequence. However, we do have a greater issue that is rooted in the same general principles; the use of public funds to send students to parochial schools. The voucher/school choice program is easily the most contentious issue when it comes to establishment. Whereas public schools are prohibited from all forms of religion and religious expression, parochial schools don't have the same limitations. We have created a classification of public education that is competing within itself. We are, through out taxes, supplementing the continuance of parochial schools that wouldn't continue to stay open except for the public contributions through vouchers. The analysis of this reveals that this process is contrary to the intent of the First Amendment. Prior to vouchers, those who wished to provide their children a parochial education depended on their own funds or funds provided through scholarships. This provided a wall of insulation between the government and the religious institution. That wall no longer exists where vouchers exist. Now this state wants to broaden the voucher system to include all and to place no income limitations on the participants. To me this is clearly a violation of the establishment clause.

Lyle, Can you provide details of the above mentioned analysis?

I see a difference between religious instruction in voucher schools and religious instruction in public schools.

While vouchers use public money to fund the education, a free choice is made to attend the religious school with the voucher. If the child does not want to be 'indoctrinated' at school, the child/parents are free to choose a different school with the voucher, or choose to stay in their local public school.

@Greg....All throughout Europe with established national churches, the government directly supports and subsidizes religious institutions. We rejected that when we adopted our constitution. Granted, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around government support of any kind of religious institutions. This includes not only education but also providing social services through private contracts. The issue of government employee's wages and salaries is a non issue since those monies become the private property of the employee upon transfer.

The bottom line for me is that we cannot expand the voucher program to include all who wish to send their children to private schools, without regard to income limitations. If the current legislature has its way, they will effectively put into motion a program that will eventually privatize education in the state. If and when this happens we will lose all local control over education, allowing for uncontrolled curriculum content.

Maybe what we need to do, rather than go with a voucher system, is insist that the wealthier suburbs like Shorewood and WFB, for instance, take on a greater share of the responsibility for providing a safe, quality education for those in less fortunate communities like Milwaukee. Obviously those schools have exceptional graduation rates and ACT scores. Obviously they're doing something better than the Milwaukee Public School system. I'd be willing to give up the voucher system altogether if the suburbs picked up the slack, since it appears that, no matter what you do, MPS is unable to do the job.

The voucher is just a payment method and really becomes private property upon transfer to the parent/student. The voucher could not "require" the placement of the student in a religious related school.
As to social services, I kind of see your point, but it is also a case exclusion by affiliation. If the service provider fulfills the private contract without any type of indoctrination there should not be a problem. Would you disqualify a bid for a roof replacement, on a government building, because the business stated it was a Christian based company?
I really believe that the people of Wisconsin will require continued local control of education, a new thing by the way.
...

@Bob McBride...I would wholeheartedly support the suburbs picking up the slack. It's not only Shorewood and WFB, but Glendale/Mapledale, Mequon/Thiensville and other suburban schools. Also, if we busted up the MPS District into six separate districts, then that would have a positive impact.

@Greg....I don't agree that the voucher can used for just any private school, they have to be a part of the voucher school system. The voucher schools are disproportionately religious schools and academies. I was talking to some "Westies" this morning that currently have kids in parochial programs that accept vouchers and they are not happy. The voucher kids don't have to participate in religion classes or attend religious services. There general opinion was that the parochial systems were using the vouchers as a cash cow.

I never said any private school.

Anecdotal evidence is far from convincing, maybe you need to talk to a few of the parents that received the vouchers. I have never said that the voucher system is a solution, but I do like the idea of trying new approaches. Many public schools do very well, as do many private schools, I am just confused as to why choice would not be a progressive concept.

@Greg....This whole school voucher and choice program has been sold on false premises. The true story behind the whole issue is that the conservatives want to break the public education system because they don't like the secular and fact based curriculum. Our public schools turn out too many people who can think for themselves and reject the conservative social narrative. Also, the voucher system has not provided any better educated children and youth than the public schools providing for the same population. Therefore, the independent variable is not public school verses private school, but must be something else entirely. Think about this, a kid enters a voucher school and then finds that it is not a good fit. Does the voucher school return the money back to the district; hell no! Not only is the district out the $6500 but now they must come up with the $14k to provide the service, thus inflating the cost of education even more. You's be surprised at how many voucher students don't make it in the voucher schools and return to the public institutions.

Lyle, You are starting to sound like your tin foil hat is too tight. As with every program there is a learning curve and issues will need to be worked out. As I stated above, the voucher system may not be the solution. I think your liberal indoctrination is safe, for now.

Lyle Ruble
5:26 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
@Bob McBride...I would wholeheartedly support the suburbs picking up the slack. It's not only Shorewood and WFB, but Glendale/Mapledale, Mequon/Thiensville and other suburban schools. Also, if we busted up the MPS District into six separate districts, then that would have a positive impact.

**************

I'd like to see this start with Shorewood. As the suburb with, arguably, the largest percentage of population being of a progressive nature (not to mention having more brain power per square mile than any other similarly sized community in the state) and which, recently, became one with the 10th district, I think it would be the perfect test case. Shorewood already has experience partnering with schools outside the district, as it has done with Messmer in order to secure quality players for it's football program. Even more to the point you're addressing here, those involved in Shorewood's school system are ever vigilant in keeping G-d out of the public school system, or even quasi-public school programs such as the afore mentioned football team (see cross on the helmet controversy of earlier this year).

I honestly can't think of a better candidate for testing the theory of wealthy suburbs picking up the slack for public schools in order to eliminate the need for a voucher system than Shorewood. Now that urban farming season is pretty much done for the year, perhaps Sandy Pasch could devote some time to this.

The 'new' Shorewood School District district needs boundaries and a name:

I-43 to Lake Michigan. & Glendale (Capitol Drive) to North Av.

I'm not sure on the name, but 'Cross off' Messwood from the list.

I'm guessing Shorehood is s non-starter...

@Bob McBride & Jay Sykes....I like the idea of turning Shorewood West from the Lake and across the River to I 43, from North to the current Northern Border of Shorewood into one school district. We could call it Milwaukee North East. As a matter of fact if we should do this I would probably volunteer to sit on the committee to set it up and then run for the school board.

@Lyle.... I await your campaign to persuade the Shorewood voter to approve a school district merger with a break-away plot from MPS.

And you could never accuse him of promoting American exceptionalism.

@Steve Maybe those nine legislators who said they wanted any Federal official who works on the health exchange to be arrested would be happy to draw up legislation to that affect :-)

Bout time we jail this faud and his supporters. Plus those that write against free speech. Or who pledge to a blue fist. Got me a good ole hog hunt underway.

@Richard Head....You're mistaken to think that the current situation in Israel is because of some extreme religious notion. Ninety percent of all Israels are secular. The circumstances that have led up to the current conditions in Israel and the occupied territories is much more complex than what you and Bernstein have described. I abhor the conflict and the loss of innocent life on all sides. The other mis. conception is that Israel doesn't need the monetary support from the U.S. and have a thriving economy. The problem is with finally getting all parties to accept Israel's right to exist without fear of attack. Some serious mistakes have been made, especially in the occupation of Gaza. In the Six Day War, Moshe Dyan explicitly ordered the Gaza not to be taken, but the commanders in the field went ahead and did it. I don't know if you're anti-Semitic, anti-Israel or what you base your opinion on, but a deeper analysis is in order.

@Keith Best -- Um . . . bull. I was around for mandatory school prayer, and all it ever taught us was to mouth words with no understanding or belief behind them. This is not the kind of mindless 'religion' we want to teach young human beings.

What changed between my youth and today is families with both parents working, many of them too busy or unable themselves to teach such basic concepts as morality, respect, and self-control. How can you expect the Almighty to enforce discipline in the schools if the parents and staff won't?

I have a close friend who has often said, "We have taken God out of the schools and taught kids they are decendants of apes, and then we wonder why they act like animals."
Makes you think.
FYI: this is not a racist comment, it came from a man who is 50% black.
The schools in my community still have the pledge, but participation is voluntary. About 1/2 of the classroom stands.
Makes you think.

@Keith Best....The general population is much more aware today than back in the day. People understand diversity and sensitivity. Public perception was much different than today. That old perception is not better, just different. Think about being a Jewish kid having to participate in class to make "homemade" Christmas Tree ornaments, when you don't celebrate Christmas or don't have a Christmas tree. Today kids may make craft projects, but non Christian kids are given options now. Cultural sensitivity is a good thing. You want better discipline in the schools, then work on the conditions outside the home and on the family.

@Craig....You friend's comment is not profound, just pithy. Even though we are descended from earlier species doesn't negate the fact that we are animals, but have been habituated into our social strata. Your inclusion of him being 50% black, means exactly what? Because of his racial ethnicity he is automatically some kind of authority within the social sciences and biological evolution. Your attempt to qualify your statement is having the opposite effect, leading you to imply that certain members of our species are animal like than others. Now who are your referring to?

@Lyle -- Or how about being assigned to play a shepherd in the nativity pageant? Although, come to think of it, that would be historically accurate.

@Craig -- What's so awful about comparing ourselves to apes? How about Digit, Diane Fossey's beloved gorilla, who sacrificed himself to hold off a group of poachers while the rest of his band escaped? Or Binti, the female gorilla who cradled an unconscious child who had fallen into the zoo enclosure and protected him? To be an animal is not to be without kindness and decency.

The only way we human beings differ is in our ability to know we should not be doing something.

@Randy 1949...A bit ironic though.

@Lyle: I included race because all too often innocent comments are called racist on here.

@Craig....Nice try, but I'm not buying it. You staked your claim, now own it.

@Lyle: I did and do own it.
What can you expect of kids who are taught they are animals? I don't blame just the schools, a lot of the blame is on the parents. Religion teaches a code of morality, something that has been lacking in the general population. The six o'clock news covers the illegal issues, but rarely covers unethical or immoral issues.
I was just thinking how this has been a very respectful and civil discussion.
But then you replied with a sharp tongue.

@Craig....You are mistaken to think that morality is the purview of religion. All societies have a moral structure. The main teachers of morality are parents and families, as it should be. You are using the term animal to indicate a type of behavior and attitude of the social deviant. As a society we have norms, folkways, morays, morals and ethics. The ability of an individual to conform to these standards are judged. Often we expect schools to inculcate students with these standards and that is not their primary mission. They can and will reinforce such, but the basic understanding of the standards are largely out of their control.

Or the kind and decent 200-pound pet chimpanzee named Travis who attacked and tore up the face of 55-year-old Charla Nash, who was visiting his owner Sandra Herold.

Animals are like people, mau. Some can be kind, while others are vicious. Admitting that we're all mammals does not absolve us of the need to behave ethically.

@Lyle: What do you think the answer is then? We have learned that society can not depend on parents alone to teach decency to their kids. I think we are looking at a multi generational failure when it comes to morality, etc.
I am rather shocked that you do not think teaching kids about other faiths would be beneficial. What is the right way to teach kids that we all should just get along?
@Randy: "The only way we human beings differ is in our ability to know we should not be doing something."
I hope that you also meant we have the ability to chose to do the right thing as well?

@Craig...I do support teaching comparative religion. It should be approached as social science and historical classes.

@Lyle: I think cultural studies should include religious beliefs and be a mandatory course for high school. Many parents are not familiar with other cultures or religions, so we can not expect them to educate their children about the differences. Students who learn this, will be less likely to become prejudicial.
This to me is a start in the right direction. We can not change people overnight, it may take a generation or two.
The first step is understanding.
no?

FYI: When I was a kid, my dad used to say, "Yawah". sp?
I knew what he meant, but I did not understand it was a real word until my thirties.
Studying religions and cultures may have opened my mind a little sooner.

@Craig -- Allow me to recommend Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is a wealth of information about the roots of Christianity in Judaism. It explains about the reluctance to pronounce or write the name of the Almighty. YHWH or JHWH was supposed to be unpronounceable. Note the linguistic similarity between Yahweh and Jehovah. Note also the linguistic similarities between Eli/Elohim (Most High) and Allah. I read that book in my late twenties, and it was my first understanding that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same Deity, albeit with different forms of observance.

@Randy: Do you think that education on the issues would help to eliminate some of the religious hatred? Most people do not understand the same Diety concept. Many people think Allah is evil, it can only come from ignorance.
Our public schools have a fear of offending people. If they taught the kids about all cultures and faiths there would be more understanding and tolerance.

I second Randy's book recommendation. I have a copy in my library. While it is a rather large book, it is very interesting and educational.

I think that along with education, we need to have a continuing dialog. There are plenty of misconceptions about the various religions that are probably caused by people having a bit of education about a religion, but not a complete understanding. We saw this with people picking phrases out of the Quran and coming to their own conclusions about what Muslims 'believe'. It happens with the Bible as well. Unless we can have dialog with the actual believers, those misconceptions can propagate and become accepted as 'the truth' to those outside that belief system.

My copies are two volumes, in paperback. I think I got them from Dover Books (not sure) and they were one of the best purchases I ever made. Isaac Asimov had a genius for explaining things in a clear but interesting way.

I'm all for teaching about the world's religions in school as a part of history and sociology, but only after kids have learned to read, write and do math. And of course we'd run into PC, because no religious group wants its warts exposed, and they all have them.

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America;
and to the republic, for which it stands;
one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing... Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children...

From: NO TREASON - The Constitution of NO AUTHORITY.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

Lysander Spooner - 1870.

@Richard Head....This is nothing but claptrap. No serious scientist takes this stuff seriously. Most of it is OK fantasy, but it is far from factual.

"Personally I think we should honor all faiths by discussing all religious holidays in the public schools. This would teach students acceptance from a very young age. Our current method leaves many feeling oppressed and they hold resentment towards contrary beliefs."

You have no idea of the can of worms that suggestion would lead to.

"Acceptance"? It's what the social engineers want you to do - because then they will fill your head with nonsense.

There should be no religion in public schools - because there should be NO public schools in the first place.

@Richard Head....Where would this nation be if there were never any public schools. I would be interested in hearing your logic behind your statement.

@Richard: I respectfully disagree. I feel if we all were more familiar with different religions, we would understand a whole lot more about their cultures in general. Not knowing anything about a particular faith often leads to ignorant assumptions being propagated by hateful people. In example; there is a good amount of people who believe that Islam is evil. There is confusion about the Sieks, and they are often thought to be Islamists.
It might be a can of worms, but it may also lead to a time when adults accept differences because they understand based on factual information they learned in school.
I have friends who raise their kids in a Christian and Jewish family. They celebrate both Holidays. I am certain that thier kids understand a whole lot more about the two faiths than your average person.

@Rebel -- Perhaps we should tech more about religions -- all of them -- in schools. You seem to be unaware that pious Jews do not write out the full name of the Almighty on paper, in case the paper would come to some blasphemous use. There's a disagreement abut whether this is required for the internet and other cyber-writings, but since they can be printed out, some people abstain on the internet too.

We wouldn't want the full name of the Big Guy being used to line a parrot cage.

@GearHead....How is it that you support the constitution by claiming free speech on the one hand and support non establishment on the other. Doesn't that appear to be contradictory?

I know that conservatives want to dispatch public education because they think that it is a liberal laboratory for corrupting children and youth with endless secular knowledge. It seems that the truly educated reject the conservative message and accept knowledge based on facts and scientific study. Their is a big difference between being intelligent and truly educated.

Actually, what is contradictory is your denying free speech while supporting non establishment. Think about it.

You miss a very important point in your skewed opinion of conservative thought. A natural occurance of looking down your nose, for sure. We want to dispatch public education because it has become collosal failure. We are weary of public trust money being wasted on dubious results. We know what works, and how progressive education has corrupted it. We know that as long as failure keeps getting passed off as "education not fully funded" and "need lower classroom sizes" public education is doomed. What do you have against kids learning at a school that serves their needs better?

Though I respect you opinion, Bren. I would disagree. I don't think schools should be even close to religion. It is up to kids, families, etc. to teach religion. They need to teach fact based issues. If they want to include religious stories with their mythology curriculum, they need to be very clear it is all myth and not fact based in any way

I agree!
Did anyone else feel the ground rumble?
;-)

FTT, What should be done if fact based lessons need to include discussion of a religious element?

No snark here, Greg, I am honestly curious as to what kind of religious element would be involved. Like a history lesson? Literature? I promise you I am not being sarcastic in any way.

I would say if there is a religious element, it should be pointed out as a religious element and not based on rational thought. I don't know, I pretty much pulled that out of the air (or other places... ; ) ). If I knew a context, I could maybe address your question (a good one) better.

Bren, I agree. By completely denying that people around the world and in our own neighborhood worship different gods, worship God in different ways, or recognize none at all does an incredible dis-service to the children attending the school. Public schools should not hold incorporate or encourage any specific religion, but they need to discuss it and educate the children. Just like sex ed, it needs to be tailored to the grade - kindergartners do not need to be discussion the roots of the problems in the Middle East, but high schoolers do. It's a touchy subject, but I think it can be treated similar to sex - kids aren't allowed to wear T-shirts with naked people on them, so they shouldn't be allowed to wear T-shirts that tell people they're going to h-ll if they don't believe in their particular god. By ignoring the topic altogether, you will end up with adults who know nothing about other religions other than their own - those kids are there to be educated about the world and religions are a BIG part of the world.

Free Thought, my view is that religion, in this context, would not be dissimilar from the study of literature, which employs many styles and points of view.

Greg, I believe it is entirely appropriate to study world/specific religions within the realm of world/cultural studies. As Heather points out, religion plays an essential role in many parts of the world. Knowledge of traditions and protocol shows respect. How does one discuss millenia of strife in the Middle East without including an overview of the religions of the region?

Part of the OP was about a girl that stated something like "her grandfather prayed to God for peace, while serving in Vietnam", this caused one parent to poop a brick because the word "God" was included. Yet it is what happened.
There are countless lessons in history that involve religion. It would be rather hard to teach about WWII without mentioning the Jewish religion, but that could very well set-off the parent mentioned above.
Literature, even the calendar, religion has many connections, it is not possible to exclude it entirely.

FFT:

What about a 'Religions of the World' type of class? As religion is a huge part of societies around the world and throughout history, it seems appropriate as a type of social studies class to teach about the various religious beliefs.

I think that something like that can help reduce the religious intolerance, bigotry and general ignorance we often see.

Bren - yes. I agree, also.

CowDung - I can see the benefits of that as well. I would counter it would have to be an elective in H.S. compared to a core corse students need to pass in order to graduate.

I would agree with you there, Troy. A HS level, elective course...

@Greg....The issue with the Nazis and Jews was not a religious issue, it was a racial issue. Jews who had become Christian were not recognized as citizens but as Jews. Hitler believed in a hierarchy of race, with Jews and Slavs at the bottom. He used religion, but religious orientation made no difference. The Poles at the time were actually more anti-Semitic than were the German population.

@Lyle... You might need to explain that Jews are an ethnic group and not simply a religious faith.

Greg, last year in Greendale we had an issue with an international song being pulled from a school holiday program because one ignorant set of parents thought the school was trying to teach a foreign religion. More evidence of why K-12 education needs to be well-rounded. Of course, there will always be some who won't "get it." (They might also be the ones who brake in traffic before putting on their turn indicator lights...; )

Probably don't use turn signals at all, the world revolves around them and their wants.

mau, in Mr. Ruble's faith it is appropriate not to write out the word. Thank you for reinforcing my earlier point that students need to learn the protocols of major world religions!

@mau....It's a Jewish tradition to not spell out the name of G-d. I am not in favor of teaching liberal or conservative values in schools. My concern is to keep public schools secular and that they should teach human values. Religious orientation is a private matter and have no place in the public schools. If you want religious instruction as part of the academic experience, then, by all means, send your children to parochial schools.

I seem to recall explaining this to mau a few months ago, about some Jews putting the hyphen in the name of the Almighty. Someone seems to have forgotten.

@David Tatarowicz...I don't want any public money going to Jewish day schools. If we accept government money, then the government has a say in what and how you teach. Most of the Reform and Conservative Jews enroll their kids in secular public schools and privately purchase their children's religious education. This maintains a complete separation between secular and religious.

What part of the government's requirements for the 'what and how' are found to be objectionable? Shouldn't all schools strive to exceed the minimum requirements that the government sets for the basic level of education?

Then the Jewish day school should opt. out. Problem solved, Lyle is happy.

@J.B. Schmidt....No one is advocating the removal of G-d from our society or culture. The only thing being advocated is to allow our public schools and government to remain secular institutions by taking a neutral position, neither advocating nor denying religion or religious principles.

@Lyle
As I quoted in the Declaration of Independence and since prayer in congress/congressional chaplain has been a part of our country since the beginning; you are in fact attempting to remove God, G-d or god from the a place it once existed. Your neutral position (so you call it) is a distorted view of the 1st amendment. The original document never stated a separation of church and state. It said that the government could not establish religion. However, as our culture has become less dependent on the individual (a principal we were founded on) and more dependent on the government for our daily bread (as liberals want) God, G-d or god flies in the face of that government dependence and thus a threat to liberalism.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you Steve?

@Keith
It was Jamie Fox that made the proclamation that Obama was a Messiah, so in truth, Steve does know what he is talking about.

Bet you would have found the first part hot.

Amen!

I would suggest altuism has been on the decline anyway. I mean, we saw debates booing gay soldiers, cheering un insured people dying rather than helping them.... etc.

The lone bright spot that makes me proud is how we as a collective whole can come together during a national tragedy. Look at Obama & Christie. The community needed major help and they both set aside thier political issues with the other and are working big time to help out. The public, as a whole, really pulls together for stuff like this.

@Free Thought Troy If you can instill the idea in a kid that there is something greater than one's self, greater than one's own needs and wants, then you might end up with a real positive adult who is a real benefit to society.
There are some adults who really don't care about anyone else- see business world.

I agree completely, Michael.
What I wouldn't agree with (not to claim you are doing this at all) is the inferrence that religion is the only way or the key to this. This exact thing can be done through instilling the love of community, the love of country. An imaginary entity/ghost isn't the only means to accomplish this.

@FreeThoughtTroy I read some time ago that Church attendance in my generation has dropped by two-thirds over the years. The rise of ruthless abandon and care-free logic became stronger at the same time. Could this be a form of cause and effect, or is it just coincidence? I wonder.

I don't know what you read, so I can't speak to that. I just heard a report that youth volunteerism at local non-profits (food pantries, coat drives, etc.) are sky rocketing as todays young want to be part of something greater than themselves and these, in thier opinions, are the fastest and most effective way to make a difference.

I don't know about cause, effect or coinsidence. But I can tell you there are many-many positives that don't require church attendance

@Michael McCluskey -- It may be coincidence or it may be the result of people who have been brought up with the idea that 'God is watching therefor we must behave' losing their faith and having nothing to fall back on. Perhaps if we were taught to do the right thing regardless . . .

Well, there must be constant principles. Otherwise, societal problems will multiply and no one will have any answers. Sound familiar?

@Michael McCluskey --That which is hateful to you, do to no other. It is a principle that works with or without the threat of hell.

@Randy
What is hateful and who determines it?

@Randy Do not go on the slippery slope of relativism. I have known people who have and they are a wreck because of it.

Do you prefer religious absolutism then? Who gets to decide which god is correct and what that god wants of us?

@Randy Absolutism, with its' inherent problem because we are all imperfect to begin with, is preferrable on a practical level. A person who has a solid foundation is more trustworthy than one who does not. This person is finite- you can rightly guess this person's actions beforehand. A person who is relative can change without warning- hence his actions are infinite.
Society is based on trust. Without it we are all doomed.

@Randy
Yes. If right and wrong have no absolutes that exist outside mans determination, then wrong does not exist. One may feel wronged, but that is completely subjective and irrelevant to everyone else.

This blog is not about picking a religion, but rather quieting all religions. That I am against.

I wonder how you two would have responded if i had quoted Jesus's example of moral relativism -- "Love ye one another . . ." rather than Hillel's.

@Randy Jesus, I believe, was a practitioner of humility. The powers that be are beyond our grasp. But, because of our limits, we are truly loved.

@Randy
Are you talking about the same passage that within the same quote Jesus says"As I have loved you" and therefore bringing in the commands of God as he had lived his life by?

Weren't you the one speaking earlier in the thread about how the problem is people misunderstanding of religions? Funny how quickly you became that person.

Right on. I'd love to see the outrage if vouchers were used for tuition to a Wahabist madrassa.

America is finally waking up to Islamic charter schools. Federal funding through vouchers has been a lively debate in Louisiana and Florida. It’s a new conservative issue created not by liberals, but by conservative Republicans themselves.
Blind-faith Christian conservatives who sing the siren song of religion based charter schools are shooting themselves in the foot if they believe only Christian based schools are eligible for federal funding. This is the controversy they have backed into.
If we are going to have federally funded charter schools, so be it, there should be no discrimination as to which religion they represent in order to be federally funded, as long as they meet the same federal guidelines..

Dirk:

I am in support of any faith based religious school being eligible to participate in the voucher program. It's not a matter of being 'liberal in a way', it's a matter of being consistent and non-discriminatory. I would hope that most supporters of education voucher programs feel the same way.

@Lyle The true nature of a supreme being is beyond our comprehension. We are like kids who keep getting incomplete scores at school. There are some outlandish people out there who believe we have risen to a godly status. There are fools at every corner.

It appears the supreme being over time and place is not so rigid and narrow as most of us lesser beings.

@Lyle
Either there is a God or not, I won't attempt to argue for whose version of God is the correct version. If we say there is a God then the principles are universal, something is not right while being immoral and that morality has been constant through time.

If there is not God, the morality as we know it is completely subjective and for a man to adhere to the established morality of a culture he must submit his own will to another man. Since no person sees life exactly the say, neither will they see morality the same. More importantly if there is no God, each of our lives and actions are meaningless in the scope of the time. Under a Godless universe, it was born and it will die. No man can change that and no action will ever alter the outcome. Thus living in a moral way that is dictated by your fellow man is absurd.

@Lyle You have heard of the immense mathematical improbability of multi-celled life arising on this planet. Add to that the even more improbable fact that intelligent life would also arise. Countless conditions were required for this to happen. I don't think you can truly believe in chance.

@Michael McClusky....Because of the limited nature of human understanding, we who are Jewish don't even attempt to talk about the nature of G-d. One principle is that we humans have been endowed, by our Creator, with cognition and creativity, amongst other characteristics; thus, becoming, in a sense, limited co-creators and not gods. We, who are so endowed, can make the world a better place, thus healing the world. This is, at its core, the nature of progressivism, making the world a better place.

Only the Mormons hold the belief that man can become a G-d with their article of faith of 'Eternal Progression'.

Intelligence and understanding is clearly a quality endowed by the creator and to deny such is a denial of the process of creation and evolvement. There is absolutely nothing contradictory with the narrative in Genesis between evolution and creation. Evolution is the process of creation. To question that evolution can be the means of complexity of life, discounts the concept and truth of 'long time'.

@J.B. Schmidt....Morality as a universal absolutism is absurd. Show me one moral principle that is universally held absolute by all people.

Morality can exist without it being divinely created and distributed. What makes morality viable is that it is useful to maintain stability and the survival of the species. We are a social species who are dependent on the altruism, cooperation and exchange between one another. This is our primary survival strategy for the species, without which, our species wouldn't survive beyond one or two generations. This is also the basis for the conflict between the sovereign community and individual sovereignty. In context, extreme individualism is actually counterproductive to the survival of the social community and is, thus immoral.

@Lyle
If the theory you are continuing to promote is true, why then does society need to worry about anarchy when the rule the law/government dissolves? Is it not because the imposed morality that is subjectively determined is hindering some in the population because when morality is subjective the underlying truth is that immorality is non-existent? That the majority is demanding a certain level conduct that may or may not be in line with what others feel is appropriate and therefore, those not in the majority must be subordinate to the majority? It would mean that the people in Germany in the 1930's and 40's were acting morally under the determination of their society.

How is that any different then the opposition many non-Christians have against God, that he demands, via punishment, a certain level of conduct? Either you submit to God's rule or you submit to man's rule. The difference is one happens to be an authority on perfection and the other is an authority on imperfection.

(cont)

@Lyle (cont)
As for morality being universal that is easily seen on that fact that we are born with a conscience. You might argue that is an evolutionary adaptation rather than God given; however, it is contrary to evolution as it requires submission. Evolution is the advancement of self via offspring and not others, as an instinct. However, instinct might create strict rules for advancing ones life (eating, sleeping, procreating) it does not account for choice and at times runs counter to choice. If I am hungry or tired; yet, my friend needs my help, I must override my instincts to eat and sleep in order to give assistance. If my instinct is to pass on my genetics to the next generation, the choice of marriage, contraception, homosexuality runs against the instincts we would be born with.

Altruism as act of self preservation is also illogical. My life is made better when I have what I want. Self sacrifice is a submissive act and contrary to instinct. To assume society is better when we are altruistic means that it wouldn't be better if we all had what we wanted. Most would argue that we as people would be happier if we got what we wanted rather than submit with the hope that an altruism will produce an net return on its investment. In a world that has no purpose (everything dies, returns to dust and no action of any being can change that) altruism is an act of wasted energy.

This discussion has veered away from the initial question of whether students should be directed to do or say things of a religious nature _by the school itself_. (The case of the little irl being censored for including the word "God" in a presentation is an example of a parent and a school administration who do not understand the issue.)

Then we veered into theside discussion about how some parents fail to instill proper morality in their children, therefor the schools should teach it, and, according to J.B. Schmidt, only a morality based on the Christian version of things will do.

I'm sorry, but the public schools are for teaching the basic tools of literacy, history, and science that we need to survive and prosper in this society. As far as morality goes, teaching the kids that hitting, stealing, and class disruption should be sufficient.

Schools should teach that 'hitting, stealing, and class disruption should be sufficient'? Glad to hear that they are teaching them the limits and that maiming and killing are over the top...
;-)

@Randy
It has not veered. You are just wrong to think that eliminating God, G-d or god from institutions that teach doesn't leave a void in the explanation of morality. For example, why is hitting wrong? Because of punishment? Isn't that a very religious type of behavior modification? If you wish to then to teach the kids it is wrong because it harms others, why should they care? In science they are being taught they are nothing more then a set random accidents of a universal explosion and cool down. An accident that has zero ability to control the ultimate death of universe it exists in. Moreover, in the scope of human history, harming others has had no bearing on human existence. Harm has been done throughout history and yet, here we are, still moving ever closer to the death of the universe. So please explain to me why hitting, stealing or class disruptions should be of any concern to that student? Because men (of no more importance cosmically then that student) have declared it?

@J.B. Schmidt -- You are wrong to teach the sort of morality that is punishment based. Because I can tell you that most misbehavers don't expect to be caught. A bully can cow the kid he hits into not reporting it. A kid may think s/he can steal money from the teacher's desk if no one is around.

How much better to explain it as, "You don't like being hit, do you? So don't hit other kids. You wouldn't like someone taking your money or property, so don't do it." Trust me, it works on individuals who have been raised with a conscience. For those who haven't, the threat of punishment is not going to work entirely. And neither is some rote prayer containing the name of a non-denominational god.

@CowDung -- Hitting stealing and disruption are sufficient to the school situation, mostly. The larger moral issues are the purview and responsibility of the parents, however they choose to instill them, either through the church or the conscience-based system I used with my son. Society has laws against maiming and killing to enforce J.B.'s punishment-based system for those in whom the good whupping and the fear of hellfire have failed.

@Randy
Are you therefore saying our entire legal system has been wrong in associating crime with punishment?

What if I am the biggest kid in school and the fear of being hit has been eliminated? Or lets pretend that I believe I am invincible (as most adolescence believe) then I am not concerned with getting hit, now what?

@J.B. Schmidft -- The legal system, which offers punishment for infractions, is the last resort after the teaching of morality has failed. You seem to think that morality can't be taught without making reference to God, preferably your Christian version of God, but I disagree. I guess there are people who can control themselves from within because they have empathy and conscience, and there are those who need to be controlled from without by fear of punishment by authorities in life and the Almighty throughout eternity, but I know which kind of child I'd rather raise.

Obviously there are going to be punishments in school as well for those children who hit and steal. But that's closing the barn door after the horse is out. It works a lot better if you explain early on to kids why hitting and stealing are wrong in terms they can understand.

@Randy
Why is hitting and stealing wrong? Good as described by you is simply your interpretation of what you want the world to look like or a group of people want the world to look like. Good is not an evolved objective idea. Without God immorality is subjective based on the whims of a culture. If any portion of morality is subjective, then all of it is baseless. For instance, as a society we used to find disgust in the idea of abortion. However, now most people have no issue with the procedure. Why? Because the science has changed. Not really, while now we can identify different fetal stages, that was never the reason for not allowing abortion. Instead it was the idea of life. As morality has changed it has softened on what life is and turned the objective into subjective. It has done the same for many other moral issues as the progressives have attempted to claim a new authority on morality. Yet, in the wake of this moral hijacking, they fail to see that if man is the origin of morality and man has decided that one segment is subjective by default it is all subjective. Therefore, while you can instruct a child that hitting harms others and that child would not appreciate being hit himself; it begins to fall on deaf ears as the other moral issues the child is exposed to become subjective.

JB: All morality has been made by society throughout time. Religion is a man-made creation to explain what they could not. Science has done wonders in unlocking the mysteries only explained through religion. The Spartans had a sence of morality very similar to the Vikings. It was a violent morality that they used religion to justify. Look at the violence today that is justified by religion. Man utilizes religion to answer any qualm they have. There are socially acceptable issues in religion now that were very frowned upon 50 years ago (women's role in the church - women weren't even allowed to be ushers in my church growing up-they are now). Societal norms evolve much the same way. Science plays a roll in this as well. Homosexuality was historically frowned on as somehow against our instincts (per your post). Science has proven gay people are born gay-thus society is evolving.

@J.B. Schmidt….When law/government collapses it is not the collapse of morality. Law/government is the external governing structure and if it should collapse it does not necessarily lead to anarchy, but it does lead to chaos and unpredictability. In a community when an entire moral system collapses, people withdraw into primal trusted groups for mutual protection against those who become predatory. Therefore, subjective (relative) morality is only functional as long as it still satisfies the basic communal protection and survival. Yes, the majority of the German people did not think they were being immoral because other targeted groups were declared non-humans.

We are not born with a conscious but with the propensity to have a conscious. This is a classic nature verses nurture concept. The conscious and moral capacity must be taught and assimilated. Children don’t know what is moral or immoral and must be taught one from the other. Therefore, there is not such a thing as universal morality, but the morality in which you were born and raised.

Altruism is a tough philosophical concept and requires one to define altruism. In most arguments about altruism; it is generally thought that altruism is a general exchange of benefit. In social communities, altruistic exchanges occur for present or future benefit. In less technical language, I will help you because at some point I may need help. (continued)

@FreeThought
Science cannot explain how the universe began, nor where the initial matter came from. For that let me ask you the following. Is everything that has a beginning created? Since the universe began (as science says) would it not therefore have to have been created? Hence, does God not have to be that creator? If not, who?

As for your assumption of the changes within religion. Please notice they follow the same pattern of subjective reason. Not unlike my example about abortion and the removal of life being an objective ideal; many have taken the objective reading of the Bible and made it subjective. The role of women in the church would take a blog on its own in order to explain it with the dignity it deserves.

@J.B. Schmidt (continued)....Therefore, altruism is far from being wasted energy. The idea, concept and moral principle of mutual benefit reinforces the bond, connection and trust to help survival of the individual and the group.

@ JB - yes. I agree on the role of women thing. I was using it as an example and to keep that door open would stray too far from the point and yes- now give it the dignity it deserves.

I would also humbly point out that science does indeed explain the beginning of the universe. Where did the gases come from? We haven't discovered that, yet (not to my knowledge at any rate). But we are looking. If you believe a supreme being created time, what was the beginning of this being? I don't think one can argue against the origin of the gases that caused the Big Bang and while ignoring the origins of a god.

@J.B. Schmidt....You need to read multiverse theories. It isn't necessary that there is a beginning, although we know that eventually this universe will end. Mathematically they have also proven that there was an existence prior to the birth of the universe. Philosophically speaking, cause and effect can be nothing more than an illusion of perception and brain function

@Lyle
Multiverse Theory is more speculation then science. As science faces the fact that the universe began and thus must have been created, they stretch their own science in order to prevent any idea of a creator being mentioned. It is an attempt to rationalize the mathematically impossible odds of our universe becoming life supporting by shear chance.

@Lyle
I disagree with you assertion that young children are without a moral direction until it is imprinted by their parents. I think that science is not totally in agreement either way.

Considering the current opposition to people paying more taxes, how can you honestly believe that doing things for the good of your fellow man carries any weight?

@Lyle,

If my reading of one of Schmidt's responses to you is correct, I disagree with you. It is not quite accurate to say that morality is not innate.

For example, it is universally true that people will react negatively when something bad happens, even when the person who caused the event did so accidentally. However, if the person accidentally did something that turned out for the good, people will not react proportionately positively. There is something wired in the human brain to cause us to exert more effort into avoiding unintended bad consequences, or at least to enforce mores in that direction.

Also, there are quite a number of studies that demonstrate that morality's foundations are neurological. Of course (and however), society heaps on even more complex expectations through socialization.

http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/human-brain-sizes-up-harmful-acts-instantly/

@J. B. Schmidt.

I don't think you an Lyle are actually as far apart as you think. As some point in Lye's scenario, he has to admit that there was a first human. That human would be morally culpable, and would fit your standards of "original sin." I don't see any way around that.

@Randy,

It's odd that you would reject the concept of a deity that has standards, yet endorse leaders that do.

@Luke....I obviously don't agree with your assessment and statement. What you state is no more a statement of moral foundation than that of some instinctual reaction. Morality requires a cognitive function exercising choice. We are born with the capacity, but it requires development. In short, nature creates the potential and nurture fulfills it.

Concerning the emergence of humanity; Adam metaphorically represents humankind. The very word adam in Hebrew is earth. It is an evolutionary statement that Adam came from the earth and to the earth return. Humankind is made up of the basic elements just as are all living things. The gift of cognition and awareness can not in any sense be seen as an error, for sin means to error; but as a beginning of fulfillment. Yes, our awareness led us to understand our own mortality, but that connects us and separates us from all living things. With awareness and understanding comes responsibility to ourselves, to others and to the world. Living morally facilitates that responsibiliity allowing us ultimately to survive.

Lyle,

I don't think you understood what I said/meant. The ability and to judge whether or not a deed is done intentionally is wired into your brain. That is the basis of moral judgments. Obviously there are more aspects to a broad rage of moral behaviors, which is why I mentioned socialization and mores. If, however, you have something to say against my claim involving neurology and related studies, I am open to what you have to offer. (I DO have more to offer.)

Also, I have some background in Koine Greek and Hebrew, but not too much in Hebrew. If I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew word for Adam means "man" or "mankind," and is only potentially a play on words with the derivation of the word being from the word for "red," and therefore possibly being a mere allusion to earth (meaning dirt, not the planet), but not a direct reference.

Also, I don't have any other objection to what you said, except that Adam was very possibly a real person, given that the text says that there were 4 rivers that came together in that place where there are now two, but we only recently have discovered that 10,000 years ago there actually were 4 rivers there, when we adjust for water levels and compare the satellite imagery. It would seem likely, therefore, that an important name would more easily and accurately be remembered than environmental trivia.

@J.B. Schmidt....It would appear that you are mistaken about time only existing after the emergence of this universe. Theoretically, established mathematically, time preceded. Steven Hawking has some interesting pieces written about the lack of need for a creator to construct this universe. As theoretical physics continues, I am sure that it will become clearer. BTW, Matter, energy, dark matter, and other phenomena that create the universe are all the same thing but just in a different forms. Your approach to this whole subject is more in line with the position of the Roman Catholic Church's position concerning the truth revealed by Copernicus and Galileo in the 16th century.

@Lyle
In the end we are no different. You and the other secularist will retain the faith that science will determine (not speculate) the origin of a universe that is completely random and without purpose. I and the rest of us who believe that God created the universe and therefore imparted purpose onto our lives.

@J.B. Schmidt -- I'm perfectly okay with the idea that some supreme being created the universe. Where we part company is that we must accept the creation story of a band of desert primitives who were trying to explain their origin as best they could, and also that we must accept their code of behavior as divinely inspired to let if affect public policy today.

If the world were not created in six days, as in Genesis, would that change the message of Jesus? Is your faith so easily shaken?

Unfortunately, I must step in and disagree. I have a major problem with the idea of a supreme being creating the universe. Why? Because it is just not true. Just as the idea of orcs and elves are rejected even in the face of Tolkein writing so eloquently, and the rejection of Vampires even though Anne Rice writes so convincingly and there are those who seem to geniune faith in the excistence of Lestat, Louie and the rest, the actual factual facts are there is no evidence of either orcs or vampires. Both writings are complete fiction - exactly like all religious texts.

@FTT -- Orcs persist to this day -- they're just better-looking, is all. (I'm speaking tongue in cheek, obviously.)

I'm quite content to leave the belief in a Creator up to the individual, proof or not. It's no skin off me what someone chooses to believe. But as I said to J.B., we part company when a believer says, "There is a God, and here's what He insists we do . . ."

@FreeThoughtTroy: You may be right, and you may be wrong. Science has proven some of the material found in the Old Test. to be factual. This neither proves or disproves your opinion. Scientific theory of how the universe began really means nothing to people of faith. It is just theory. Lyle mentioned Multiverses, a part of string theory. There is also another theory out there that the universe expands and contracts back down to a new big bang. This kind of makes the universe one giant recycling facility, and is why I do not have any problems with burning our natural resources and creating greenhouse gasses. I believe we are part of the eco system and our actions are part of a master plan for the continuance of the universe.
Regardless of which one if any are true about the creation of our universe, there is no proof or disproof of a Supreme being. There is some thought that our Supreme being was visitors from another solar system, who manipulated our DNA.
The problem is there is too much unsubstantiated information and theory out there to prove anything.
I guess we all will find out in the end, maybe....

@Randy
As a Christian, to replace the 6 days of creation (in the original text the word day represents the 24hr period and not the verbal expression of day as an undertimed amount of time) does in fact have an impact on Christ's message. As Lyle has expressed his beliefs to understand Adam and Eve as representing man's first steps as homosapiens and the fall into sin (as the bible reads) is their awaking to self realization. That removes original sin and the need for Jesus presence on this planet. Secondly, it means the supreme creator has enabled a world to exist in misery and complete irrelevance with no hope. I can't figure for myself which is worse believing my existence is a random accident and my life is irrelevant or that a supreme being created the universe that produced random accidents and then allows us to exist in misery.

@FreeThought
That is a rather simplistic analogy to use as you reasoning to discredit the bible.

The fact that the bible has survived centuries with no change in the original message stands as a reason alone to question its roots. Among works of literature it is seated head and shoulders above any other document in its retention of information over time. I would wager that if you decided to reproduce the same with the Anne Rice collection (that is transcribe each book by hand for centuries as the Bible was) they would not survive as the Bible has.

JB: thought the translations have gone out of their way to stay similiar - save the issue of the name of god, I would argue there are countless contradictions in the messages. I liken the Bible to a quote I heard on an episode of Dexter, "the Bible has the answer to everything - you just need the question (I may not have quoted 100% accurately) but the implication was depending on the book, chapter and verse, one can make the Bible back up any believe one wants.

@J.B. Schmidt....Science means nothing as to morality and how we live our lives. Morality can and does exist outside the realm of religion allowing us to remain moral because it is the right thing to do.

@J.B. Schmidt....A little bible history for you. The Torah was probably first written down sometime the 7th and 6th BCE. The canonized version of the Tanach was finally completed by the Mazorites around 800 CE. Our present Tanach and the Torah contained within are validated by the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls of around 100 BCE. There has been a careful process in place for over 2000 years to replicate the Torah. Much of the corruption of what you would call the 'Old Testament' occurred when the Torah was translated into the Greek, creating the Septuagint around the 3rd century BCE. Early Christians translated from the Greek Septuagint and not the original Hebrew and Aramaic. The continuance of early errors has continued growing ever broader over time. You observe 10 commandments and we must observe 613, yet all 613 are found in the Torah.

Sometime ago I remember reading from the 'New Testament' Jesus saying something like: I have not come to change the law, but to teach you how to live by the law. Much of what the New Testament refers to as Jesus saying were already to be found in the teachings of the great rabbis such as Hillel, such as the 'golden rule'.

Therefore, the authenticity of the scriptural texts have been carefully supervised over the millennia to assure that they would not be corrupted.

@Carol Hudak -- Here is a link to the news story about the incident. http://www.hickoryrecord.com/mcdowell_news/news/article_c671bb96-335e-11e2-9c33-001a4bcf6878.html

What does this incident tell me? That parents and school administrators alike need to understand the Establishment Clause better. School administrators are supposed to be educated people. I'm appalled.

@Carol Hudak...There is no doubt that the school administration and the single parent made something out of a whole lot nothing. However, it does give one pause to consider a slippery slope argument. The majority do not find the reference to G-d, Jesus, Merry Christmas, Christmas tree, etc. as objectionable; but the constitution was written to protect the rights of the minority. For all practical purposes we do have a national religion with values, morality and practices rooted deeply in 15th and 16th century protestantism. For example, if government offices shut down for Christmas Day, Good Friday, etc; doesn't that make it religious establishment?

You bring up the wearing of hijab as making a statement of G-d. This is incorrect, it is a sign of modesty. Just as a Jewish male wearing a kippah or fringes, it is not saying G-d, it is a cultural identification. I would suggest that you do some further reading on religious cultural traditions so that your questions have more relevance.

Carol - I just want to make my point very clear. I don't want to get in the way of anyone's religion. They are welcome to dress and speak however they like. My point is there is a time and a place for all things. When the gov. or in a gov. sponsored event, please just keep religion out of it. There are plenty of religious functions and private events that would love this young student discussing god. But with the seperation of Church and State, it just doesn't belong in gov. buildings and/or schools that receive ANY gov. funding.

@FTT -- This girl wasn't 'discussing' God in any way. She simply mentioned praying to God in two lines of a poem. Students will be exposed to language like that in any number of stories and poems from our classical literature. It's a misunderstanding to insist that the word 'God' can't be said in public schools at all. What can't be done is to insist that students engage in collective prayer or other religious discourse, no matter how inoffensively non-denominational it claims to be.

FFT:

I would agree with you to the extent that the government entity itself should not be promoting any specific religion. This would include employees of the school--teachers, administrators, etc.

If a student has earned the privilege to speak at a school event, and chooses to include references to religion or G-d in their speech, it should be their right to freely do so. They are not acting as representatives of the government, and are not speaking on behalf of the government. They are expressing their own personal beliefs. Remember, the same amendment that is cited for 'separation of church and state' also requires that the government shall not infringe upon the free exercise of ones religion either.

@FreeThought
Isn't the complete removal of all religion from government and public spaces in effect the institution of a non-religious state, which as we have seen in communist countries, the exact opposite of the 1st amendment?

@FreeThought
Isn't the complete removal of all religion from government and public spaces in effect the institution of a non-religious state, which as we have seen in communist countries, the exact opposite of the 1st amendment?

Randy & CowDung - Ok. I can get behind those statements. I struggle with if a student, no matter the level, is speaking at a school sponsored event, they are representatives of that school. Of course, you could argue that guest speakers at graduation events are not considered that, so I won't push it. It's too complicated and has too many gray areas.

JB: The state in this country shouldn't bar anyone from worshiping how they please or express themselves in what ever way outside a gov. sponsored event. I believe the issue in Communist Countries was the expression of religion in any way got one in trouble.

Atheism does not equal communism. Just like religion does not equal chistianity. One can be hard core Capitalist or Libertarian and still reject the notion of a god.

@J.B. Schmidt -- This 'complete removal' would be -- if you knew what you were talking about. What we have now is the policy that the government (and the schools) can't be seen to be playing favorites. So, no Nativity scene on the grounds of City Hall and no group prayer at school events. That doesn't mean that churches can't put up their nativity scenes and that individuals can't go to church and ask God to bless their kid's graduation. It also doesn't mean that a little girl can't say that her Grampa prayed to God in Vietnam.

@FTT -- The girl was reading a poem rather than giving a speech about Jesus being our Lord and Savior. She could just as easily have been singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which is very religious in its content. That kind of thing IS allowed for historical and artistic value. That was decided even to include some of the traditional Christmas carols being sung, even though some of them are also very religious. What she couldn't do is lead the assembly in prayer. I realize it's a fine distinction.

In a poem?

Jeesh - I am sorry guys. Looks like I over reacted without knowing the facts. Bad personality trait. I need to continue to work on that.

@FTT -- Glance up the thread to find my link to the story. I had to do some serious searching to find it. There's just the one news story about the school admins being idiots and a bunch of Conservative outrage over it, which in this case I agree is justified.

@FreeThought
If a the government building are open to all religions, then a church putting a nativity scene in a government building is within the bounds of the 1st amendment. Your argument is foolish, because you are claiming the government would not be allowing equal time by doing so. As only Christians celebrate the birth of Christ; hence, they would be the only ones putting something up during this time of year. That would be like me (a Christian) complaining about not getting equal time during Ramadam.

Since any religion from Atheist to Zoroastrianism should be allowed to celebrate in the public spaces and government buildings of this country which were built partially on religious freedom; the only reason one religion would want to restrict another is either for fear or envy. Which camp are you?

The 1st amendment was designed to prevent the government from forcing the people to affirm a specific religion. Please describe how that is done by a church setting up a nativity in a public/government space during this time of year.

JB: My argument is not foolish. It's constitutional. Gov. building should not be open to any religion - seperation of Church and State. It shouldn't even mention religion.

Any religious organization (or individual) is welcome to put up whatever display promoting their belief systems they wish... IN THIER OWN PROPERTY.

Not on gov. property. No religion. No religion of any kind - period.

Rather than not being open to any religion, government buildings/institutions need to be open to all religions equally (not an easy task). The government should be reflecting the religious diversity of the people rather than oppressing it.

@FreeThought
Please quote from the constitution where it is separation of church and state.

The First Amendment is very clear on this. There should be no religious test. It is not gov. job to perpetuate religion. It is not thier job to infringe on it. But they need to stay very clear on promoting any kind of religion.

They can - and should - be open to any and all religion. Just not on gov. property.

FTT, Please explain your understanding of "Separation of Church and State". From reading most of your posts, I think you are way off on the issue.

FTT Sez "Atheism does not equal communism. Just like religion does not equal chistianity. One can be hard core Capitalist or Libertarian and still reject the notion of a god."
-----------------
@FTT... Is acknowledging the notion of a G-d the endorsement of religion?

@Lyle, "For example, if government offices shut down for Christmas Day, Good Friday, etc; doesn't that make it religious establishment?"
I think that recognizing something is much different than making it a state institution.

@FreeThought
You failed to answer my question and then rambled on with nothing that actually comes from the constitution. Please tell me from the Constitution where it says separation.

After you have done that, please identify for me where in the constitution it makes mention that government property is off limits for all religious statements.

Jay - Isn't the acknowledgement of a god pretty much the first step in religion?

Jay:
http://ffrf.org/uploads/legal/FinalJudgment(8.08.12).pdf
One (of many) legal precedence of the Est. Clause in the 1st Amendment
"Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. sued defendants for alleged violations of the Establishment Clause. The alleged violations were the placement of stand-alone crosses at the Town of Whiteville City Hall"

http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes/item/12362-ffrf-sues-county-of-manitowoc-wis-over-catholic-creches

Acknowledging the notion of a god is different than acknowledging a god.

CowDung. I don't think I agree with that one.

FFT:

Do you not think it is appropriate for the government to recognize that a high percentage of the citizenry are believers?

If the government cannot do that, then how can they adhere to the 'free exercise' clause?

CowDung: I think it's the gov. responsibility to protect/defend the rights of all citizens - not just the majority.

I know what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with it. I promise you I am not trying to be whinney or snarky here with the following statement. With all the private land. There are so many churches and privately owned businesses in this country that have every right to display what ever thier believe system is. I have never argued or disagreed with this point. Why is it such a big deal that religion and its displays have to also include the statehouses and public buildings. Besides, the amount of private land the number of churches must out number gov. buildings significantly.

We have the freedom to believe (or not believe) what ever we chose in this country. It is the best. Just keep the religion out of gov. So many of our laws adhere to religion due to common morality code anyway. Just keep it out and enjoy the religious speech where it belongs.

I honestly don't see why this is such a huge issue

@FreeThought
Again, if you wish to make the statement that their is enough private land for these items that they do not public space for showing; then I can make the same argument for marriage. The are plenty of affiliated groups that conduct ceremonies to join a gay couple, why do we need the government involved?

My point was that government cannot guarantee religious freedoms if it cannot acknowledge religion (AKA 'the notion of a god').

This isn't just about displaying stuff during at city hall during the holidays--it doesn't change my beliefs if the village hall has a religious display out front or not. This has to do with allowing workers to take time off of work for religious reasons without fear of losing their jobs, being free to worship as their beliefs require, and/or being free to express those beliefs without persecution.

@J.B. Schmidt -- To make the marriage legally recognized, that's why. Presumably you and the Missus went to the extra trouble of getting a marriage license? Why? Because simply being married in the eyes of God would not have been enough for you.

CowDung: On that point I will agree with you. If it was always your point, I apologize. I mis understood.

JB:
Marriage equality isn't about religion. It's about discrimination. If a Church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that is their right under the Consitution. That doesn't mean a same sex couple shouldn't have the right to get married. There are plenty of rights given to married couples in this country. From benefits to hospital decision making to tax breaks. To discriminate between one set of consenting adults and another should be un Constitutional.

These same arguments were make decades ago when it came to inter racial marrige. They were as wrong then as they are now.

But where does it end? There are so many religions and demoninations. At what point does the gov. say, "Enough - there aren't enough hours in the day or room in the yard for all of this."

@FreeThought
Another foolish argument. If I can't use the same for marriage (where does it end, why not let anyone now marry any object he or she wishes) then you can't say that this is a subject that could get out of control with unintended consequences. Simply because of your dislike for deity based religion.

@FTT -- You betcha! I want to insist we have a Beltane orgy on the courthouse lawn next spring, because fair is fair, right?

Really, it's much easier to simply remain neutral on all matters of religion than to try to include everybody.

JB: I will concede I cannot use the "where will it end" argument. I concede.

Again, my beliefs in the Seperation between Church and State are not foolish. There is plenty of legal precident that supports my arguments.

Besides, if you want to call our founding fathers foolish for their beliefs in seperation, that's fine. I personally side with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al.

So FTT you are siding with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."?

@J.B. Schmidt...."Where will it end?" You cannot enter into a contract of any kind unless both parties are competent, reasonable and understand the terms of the agreement. That would preclude marriage contracts between non cognitive beings, inanimate objects and those judged unable to represent their own best interests. Your statement is definitely a red herring fallacy.

Weddings performed within religious institutions are only valid if the person performing the ceremony is authorized by the state to represent the interests of the state. A marriage is quite literally a civil contract subject to the laws of the state. As far as religions recognizing certain marriage contracts makes no difference to the civil contract. To prohibit competent adults from marrying because of gender, based on Judeo/Christian/Islamic prohibitions is an act of religious establishment.

According to what I know about Christianity, you are not to be concerned about the secular world but be concerned about personal actions and behaviors.

To consider that government spaces are open to all religions is a specious argument. The government has already taken the position that religious symbols of expression focused on any one religion is a violation of the establishment clause. Therefore, the government should not be in the business of deciding what expression is allowed and what isn't. Therefore, forbidding all religious expression is the only sensible and legal course.

@Greg....The celebration of religious significant holidays should be a private affair. I think it is a serious violation to close down the government functions and offices for holidays. It is blatantly unjust to shut down for Christmas, Good Friday, etc. The government doesn't shut down for other religions' observances. People of non-Christian religions must take time off from work in order to participate in their specific holidays. It is only Christianity that gets these privileges and special considerations.

What about the needs of the workers Lyle? If the vast majority of the employees want to take off of work for their religious holidays, doesn't it make sense to just close for the day rather than deny people their time off? I think the closings for Christian holidays is more for practical reasons than because of religious bias or favoritism.

Maybe, ever progressive Wisconsin should give Lyle's idea a try:"all government workers report to work on Christmas*" or use one of your vacation days.

* Ignore the fact that productivity approaches zero when half of the staff is absent.

Remember Bren, Lyle thunk this one up;not ALEC.

Wow Jay - I thought Conservatives (most-not all) were against any kind of worker rights. This position really surprises me.

@CowDung...Since when do you worry about the needs of the workers. Why should we make some workers take personal time off while others are given holidays and don't have to take off personal time?

'Since when do I worry about the needs of the workers'? What's that supposed to mean, Lyle?

Personally, I believe that religious beliefs should be accommodated by employers when possible, particularly when the employer is the government. Forcing employees to work during their religious holidays can be seen as infringing on their right to free exercise of their religion.

@CowDung....You are missing the point. The government does accommodate Christian holidays but does not accommodate non Christian holidays. Reference Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, etc. Government offices don't close for those holidays or Islamic Ramadan. Majority rules, right?

@Lyle -- Of the legal holidays, only one, Christmas, is specifically Christian religious in nature. The rest are secular and political in nature.

I've worked several jobs where there were no paid holidays. The shop closed on Christmas, New Years, etc. but we weren't paid. I don't believe that a boss is obliged to give an employee those days off either, since many people do have to work on them.

People working in power plants that provide you with electricity, are required by their employer to work weekends and holidays. If there is an issue with your religious beliefs or practices, it is your responsibility to make arrangements with fellow employees to change work schedules or find another job.

@Randy1949.....My point is that by the government shutting down for Christmas is a violation of the establishment clause. They are making special accommodations for one religion above another. Private employers can do what they want.

As I said before Lyle, since we live in a country where the vast majority of the people celebrate the Christian holidays, and there is a lack of workers that are willing to work during those holidays, it makes sense to close down during those holidays.

If the Jewish population were the 80% instead of the 2%, the holidays would be according to the Jewish holy days instead of the Christian holy days. As I said earlier, it's more an issue of finding workers than favoring a religion.

Anyone else find it surreal this conversation has turned into the Conservative Voices coming to the aid and defending workers' rights - esp. in gov. and the Progressive Voices calling for reduced benefits from gov. workers while leaving private business alone?

Where am I? What is going on?

Oh - and considering some of the adventures I have had trying to cool traditional soltice meals the past few years???

I happen to be very comforted there are fire fighters who have to work over Christmas

: )

What had at one time been celebrated as a Christian Holy Day, has been hijacked by the retailers and other commercial enterprises. I don't think much is left that is Christian in Christmas, when people wait in line for hours to fight over stuff, all in the name of giving.

@CowDung....Even if the population was 80% Jewish, I would still object if the government shut down to accommodate the majority. I agree that it is now more of a practical matter. However, it wasn't all that long ago that what the schools now call winter break was called Christmas vacation and spring break was called Easter vacation. Nothing has changed but what it is now called.