 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: School Project Help |
 |
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Would it be wrong for a teacher to stand up in front of his or her class and state, unequivocally that they are a Christian and that they believe that God created the universe and all that is in it.
Thanks in advance. |
Hi T1,
No, that wd not be wrong: that wd be right, even tho not wholly right..
What wd be wrong is if she at the same time dissed any other religion or Evolution or any atheistic ideas or atheists.
What wd be more or wholly correct is for her to make her statement with a statement of Love & Respect for all other religions, and for all other ideas on origins, thus eliminating the prejudice or bias that is at the heart of the 'not prohibit nor establish' clause.
in Love and r,
atoz
Last edited by atoz on Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | No... not at all. It is my contention that your blanket prohibition is a draconian measure that prohibits teachers from expressing some of their core beliefs. |
And why should they express their core beliefs in regard to religion, exactly? |
Please see the well defined aforementioned reason...
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: |
Well, except in court rulings. |
Ana.. that is not what I was asking. For over 150 years we (as a nation) followed a strict, plain understanding, practically applied interpretation of this 1st Amendment Clause(s). We really had no problems or contention prior to that.
No... since the Court went completely off the reservation we have twisted ourselves into knots trying to comply with what is not there.
Again, where, according to the 1st Amendment, does it state that a teacher is not allowed to profess his/her faith in a classroom? How is, or would that be an establishment of religion. Don't give me this authority figure snot as it simply doesn't wash when and where it is applied... if a teacher makes, or any other Government Official for that matter, makes the statement they are a Christian… according to your narrow definition… you are stating they can’t. Sorry… that simply doesn’t jive with “Congress shall make nor law establishing or respecting…” and fly’s straight in the face of "Shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof".
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6901
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The interesting flip side to this discussion is that the school's prevention of a teacher expressing his/her religious belief actually does conflict with the 1st amendment. Since the school by its actions would actually be making rule or law establishing or respecting religion...
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | The interesting flip side to this discussion is that the school's prevention of a teacher expressing his/her religious belief actually does conflict with the 1st amendment. Since the school by its actions would actually be making rule or law establishing or respecting religion... |
Actually, it's explicitly not establishing religion. I think of it as sort of a job requirement. If you have to advertise or promote your religion, then you don't meet the job requirements for any 'state representative' job.
If you don't speak English well in an English-speaking country, then you don't meet the requirements for a phone-answering customer service job. You're not entitled the right to that job if you don't meet the requirements. Likewise, if you are unable to keep your religious tendencies in check, don't be a teacher. It's part of a teacher's duties - prospective teachers should be aware of that when applying for a teaching position. If you don't agree to the conditions, don't apply for the job.
(By the way, this is what I hate about unions too - people get jobs, don't like their jobs, and then try to change the job instead of just changing jobs).
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: |
Well, except in court rulings. |
Ana.. that is not what I was asking. For over 150 years we (as a nation) followed a strict, plain understanding, practically applied interpretation of this 1st Amendment Clause(s). We really had no problems or contention prior to that. |
I read up on that to find out why. Here's what I found:
| The First Amendment Center wrote: | | For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause. |
| Trinity1 wrote: |
No... since the Court went completely off the reservation we have twisted ourselves into knots trying to comply with what is not there. |
Trinity, it is there! It's been spelled out for you. The courts have made rulings based on it. They've done their specialty - interpreting the law.
You've asked a question, and then turned around and given the answer you feel is correct. If you already had an answer, then why waste time asking the question? You're not prepared to digest any answer that doesn't sync up with yours.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Again, where, according to the 1st Amendment, does it state that a teacher is not allowed to profess his/her faith in a classroom? How is, or would that be an establishment of religion. Don't give me this authority figure snot as it simply doesn't wash when and where it is applied... if a teacher makes, or any other Government Official for that matter, makes the statement they are a Christian… according to your narrow definition… you are stating they can’t. Sorry… that simply doesn’t jive with “Congress shall make nor law establishing or respecting…” and fly’s straight in the face of "Shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof". |
Trinity, ask all you want. I've given you my answer, and I'm not going to change it just because you don't like it.
It's pretty plain (you can follow along with the notes provided in gray):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" = a "liberty"
+
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
(state shall not deprive any person of 1st amendment)
(state shall not respect an establishment of religion)
+
"Public school" is a subset of "State"
(State shall not respect an establishment of religion.)
+
"Public school teacher" is a subset of "Public school"
(Public school shall not respect an establishment of religion.)
=
Public school teacher shall not respect an establishment of religion.
QED
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" = a "liberty"
+
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
(state shall not deprive any person of 1st amendment)
(state shall not respect an establishment of religion)
+
"Public school" is a subset of "State"
(State shall not respect an establishment of religion.)
+
"Public school teacher" is a subset of "Public school"
(Public school shall not respect an establishment of religion.)
=
Public school teacher shall respect the establishment of no religion and/or of all religions.....since no religion is also a religion: the Religion of no Religion!"
QED
in The religion of Love for all religions and for the Religion of NO religion,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
