Prayer in Schools

Remove all ads!

To follow up on Drew's comments -- the greatest scientists I've met were all very religious. Understanding science does not require an abandonment of faith.

Oh yes, while I think you should follow the path that makes you happiest, it should not be done in a way to influence my children. I will raise my children as I see fit (and I even encouraged my kids to go to church) and will oppose someone trying to impose their beliefs on my children.

 

It doesn't work like this. The burden of proof is on claiming that God exists, not on dismissing that claim because it cannot be proven. By extrapolating your definition of belief then there are no facts, everything is belief, one way or the other (either because you can't prove it works this way, or can't disprove that it works that way as well). In this case, what's the point of even distinguishing between fact and belief?

Syntaxically atheism is non-theism (hence the "a" prefix) so it's impossible to say it's part of theism (the very word represents everything that is outside theism). As for the definition of theism the correct one is the first (typical) one, no doubt about that - just consult any dictionary. I'm not sure if there's a word for the field of belief, but it's certainly not theism. By the way, if we're going to be picky about terminology we should also clearly differentiate deism and theism (deism being the more "active" God than the one in theism).

You're muddling the issue. You typing at your computer isn't "just" a belief, it's something that is actually going on, whether you believe it or not (if you had posted claiming you were in fact not typing at your computer some of us would have questioned your sanity ). The situation (as with your technology example) is completely different from religion. We know you're typing at your PC because we're seeing the results (your post) and because we know how the whole technological process works, therefore we know there must be someone at the other end who typed this post, and that person is you. In the case of religion you can believe (for example) that God created the world and we're seeing the result - except that we don't know how the process works, and therefore there is no requirement for there being God at the other end, the way there's you in this case.

 

This is the entire reason I'm vigilant about my own assumptions: Once I believe something, I'm already in error. I'm talking about the true definition of belief, not its misuse in language. Whether you are convinced by too little evidence, or none atall, makes little difference: You're in error. Because I uphold the scientific method, I can't categorize anything as absolutely true, only as very likely to be true. You remember the 'evolution's just a theory'-discussion on the boards, right? I can however determine whether something is clearly false or untrue. Just because the christian God has been disproven, doesn't mean all atheists now believe there is no god atall. Atheists say that the absense of a god is most likely, based on the evidence gathered to date. This is merely a valid assumption, not a belief.

I think this is an anomaly in the States. It's hard to do any research atall without claiming to be religious, since the investors almost all require this from you.

 

I'll take "Conjecture Pulled Right Out of the Ass" for 500, Alex.

 

That's simply not true. My observations may be due to my profession. I think religious people tend to migrate to areas of study where their religion is not seen as a liability. There is no conflict with chemistry and religion. I imagine there could be conflict with the other sciences of biology, geology and physics as they all involve the origin of life, the earth and the universe. A strong religious belief could make some studies difficult for the individual -- but no such restriction exists with chemistry.

 

You must of been on top or she would of went straight to Heaven with all of her "praying"...

 

I just watched this, it's one of Nataraja's favourites on YouTube.
Scary, disturbing, hilarious, ridiculous, you guys just gotta watch it!

I can sum it up in THREE words: Evolution is a lie.

 

This is a very funny joke video!

Wait a minute... it is a joke video, right?

 

It says at the end of the video that it was all taken from christian fundamentalist forums, so it's real opinions. Kinda makes you understand why people would want to get rid of any trace of christianity from school curriculums, doesn't it?

 

Nonono come on, this has to be joke.

"You wanna know what happens when you put something in acid? IT DISSOLVES!"

Come on. Yes, they're all kids, but COME ON! Nobody who claims to actually be debating against a scientific question and who's done enough research to actually pronounce "deoxyribonucleic acid" properly can be THAT stupid! And the smug look on his face when he said it!

Hey, you know what's also acid? VINEGAR! If you add vinegar dressing to your salad YOU WILL DISSOLVE!

I insist this is a joke made by three atheists to troll christian fundamentalist forums and the idiots at those forums actually thought it was serious. It has to be this way, because if I believe otherwise my head will explode from the sheer idiocy.

 

What kind of schools do ye have in the US? There's no way you'd get away with that kind of thing over here. Eh, and as Chandler said, "I went to an all boys' secondary school. Any sex I had would have involved some serious lifestyle choices." Oh, and also a severe violation of the school's Christian ethos.

Am I the only one who'd put a big distinction between a secular school and an atheist one? I'd regard a secular one as one where religion basically isn't mentioned whereas an atheist school would be one where it would be thought that religion doesn't exist (I've never heard of such a school). A major point of secular schools over here is that they allow kids from different religions to be sent to school together without their parents having to worry about them being taught a different religion. Going by this I'd regard what the officials did as wrong.

 

You're not the only one, secular and atheists schools would be very different, exactly the way you described. I'm not sure but I would guess China, the ex-USSR and other communist countries may have atheist schools. I'm pretty sure none of the other countries do.

 

Deise, again, where do you draw the line between exposing children to religions and allowing school administrators to practice their religions? Islam requires (if I understand this correctly) a certain number of prayers at regular periods throughout the day. If a Muslim teacher were to go through the day without praying, they'd be sinning (again, if I understand it correctly).

 

No. A Muslim who's work prohibits him from prayer is exempted from prayer during those specific hours, just as a sick or traveling Muslim is exempted from fasting during Ramadan. The Muslim can make up the prayers later in the day* and can simply conduct his fast when he is not traveling or ill.

* Although this really isn't necessary. The teacher could simply conduct his prayer in his own empty classroom during one of his free periods. In doing so, he would be forcing no one to observe his prayer.

 

I used to be a teacher's aid in the wood shop, and the instructor gave me a key to unlock the shop...well, that key also unlocked pretty much every classroom door at the school, so I used it to get into an unused classroom on several occasions.

I miss that key...


But back on topic...

My mom ran a in-house daycare & pre-school for over 25 years. My parents are very LDS, and at lunch time she would say a prayer before letting us, or the little brats, eat. I always thought it was odd to make everyone fold their arms, bow their heads, close their eyes, and shut their mouths no matter what religion (if any) they were. However, since it wasn't a public daycare/pre-school, and all the kids' parent's knew my family's background, I can understand how she got away with it.
Personally, there's no way in hell I'd let my (future) kid(s) go to any school where praying is allowed or forced.

 

In a school you must learn about all religions, not just push one in your head as the only and absolute truth.

I think that religion is the blame for most major problems in the world.

 

Merlanni, please tell me you don't seriously believe that? Looking through all the suffering in the world, the vast majority of it can be directly blamed on idiocy, greed, and hate (usually based on some random and meaningless difference). While religion may not have been too successful at stamping any of these out, I think the worst it can be blamed for is being one of the many reasons (and in some cases, one of the many promoters) of hate.

Drew:
Thanks for the info. That's news to me.

 

Basically, staff or students can do the odd minor thing as long as it doesn't disrupt their work and as long as they don't disrupt or offend others in so doing. But my main view would be that if you do want to practice your religion in a major way you shouldn't be attending/working for a secular school. To me that'd be like a vegetarian going to a steak house.

 

I wouldn't go this far. I don't think secular school should automatically mean "school for atheists" (and let's leave that definition for The Other Thread). But if you're working/attending secular school then you leave your religion and religious practice at home, irrespective of what it is, including not having a religion/practice/belief/whatever. I'm against preventing religious people from going to whatever school they want, but if they're going to a secular school then they shouldn't expect the school to make regulation to push their religion either. That's what non-secular (private) schools are for.