First things first, if you flame, bash, and or yell your post will be deleted and I'll request you to be punished in some other way as well. Okay, seperation of church and state is used in so many arguements. Surprisingly that statement is not found ANYWHERE in an amendment, the constitution or any other important document. The only place that it was found, was a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church in Oklahoma. (I think it was Oklahoma) Yet it is used in so many arguments against the Bible and other religous arguments. For instance, they say it is un-constitutional to teach the Bible in public schools, yet no where in the constitution does it say this. Discuss. NO FLAMING!
I think it refers to the First Amendment: Therefore, if they taught the Bible in a public school, it would alienate all of the Muslims, Jews, Athiests, etc. You're free to express yourself, but the Constitution prohibits any state establishment from pointing you in a specific direction.
The thing is, the Quaran is taught in the public school system, or at leaste CAN be taught. The jews, the beginning of our Bible is their book...and the rest, well, sorry. How do I know the Quaran can be taught? My friend complained when his teacher pulled out the Quaran, and taught from one of the verses, and his principle said, "That's racist to make them stop."
Well, then I am at a loss. I wasn't aware that religion is being taught in public schools. It's not even supposed to be addressed, so I don't know how to respond to what you said. I do know that merging church and state is wrong. The day that religious edict becomes fundamental law of this country is the day I jump in the Atlantic and swim to Ireland.
I would have walked out, I don't care if I would be considered racist by the whole school. I stand firm in my religious beliefs. I would never sit through it. Lol you bring Wiki into this? I agree some articles can be true, but half of the stuff in it are based on opinion. For how true can something be if one can alter it at the click of a button?
well here's the thing, the quaran was "taught"/read to the student by the teacher in class, but he wasn't teachin the class,therefore it was more of a 1on1 thing, but it was on school grounds so iunno..lol
No, it was in the morning, to the class. Someone said something that contridicted the Quaran so he pulled it out and said, "No, this IS true because it's in the Quaran." I don't know the full details, as to what he was "proving".
Hmm, sounds like a 'grey area'. It wasn't part of the lesson, but used as a tool to prove/disprove somehting. Hmm....
That would be wrong for our laws though. A kid can be taken out in handcuff if he prays during lunch, in some schools.
So your basing all this of one teacher who pulled a Quran out and said this is right. The Iron Justice of America will deal with that acordingly. You can sya now its right for blockedistians and other religions to do that. And your argument cant be held because the contitution clearly states at seperation of church and state. And if you dont find it clearly they also provide enough BG info that it is not to be. I could rant more, but I dont feel like discussing a matter that most Americans should know.
THAT sounds like oppression. Teaching and preventing someone from praying are two different things. Any school who arrests someone for praying could be brought up on charges, or should be, in my opinion.
if the other people there, present at that time with the student were fine with it and let it slide then it's a done deal, as long as its koo with others is "ok,"--that supreme court judge, who ruled on that "god" court case, said somethin like that..
It happened, I read about it, where a child protested to the principal because another kid was praying.
That statement, "Seperation of church and state" is not found ANYWHERE in the constitution, nor in any important document. It is found in a letter. From President Jefferson to some church in the south. That teacher cannot use a religious book to "prove" anything, number one because the Quaran doesn't prove anything, just because it's in it, and two it's hypocritical. Kind of like, Evolution cannot be proven, because no one was there, and there is no written account of hit, just as Creation can't be proven, both should be taught as theories, because that's what they are.