[Allie]

Originally Posted by Socrates To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am outraged. Today, in my high-school junior English class, we were required to read and study a very upsetting (to me) sermon from a Puritan minister given in the early years of America. This, combined with the previous several religious stories required, forced me to abandon my philosophy and acknowledge the existence of a "God" in order to pass my class. I believe my right of religious freedom has been desecrated, and I am considering filing a complaint with the school board as well as refraining from studying religious material. On top of the material covered in class, today my teacher told the class that, and I quote, "I know that some of you do not go to church on Sundays, and shame on you." Simply appalling. I would like to know others' opinions on this topic before I make any rash moves.

1. I agree with you. Let the religious materials slide. If you've already firmly determined your stand on religion, then any further religious study will only reinforced your beliefs. Consider them just that: educational/learning experience.

2. You have a valid complaint against the teacher. But, you have to be prepared to defend your beliefs, regardless of the outcome of your grades because, whatever route you take (anonymously or directly), it would still impact your grades in the end.

Anonymous or not, do you think the teacher would connect the complaint to you? How will you argue your stand on paper? Knowing your school and your teacher, do you think the complaint will be productive/effective?

You either forget the whole thing, or hit it head on. You can't have one foot in and one foot out, and expect an effective outcome: to curb/prevent your teacher from enforcing her biases and getting a fair grade regardless of your opinions on religion.

Another option would be to have a one-on-one discussion with the teacher after school, with a trusted neutral third party (a school counselor?) as a referee. The idea is to present your side in a non-threatening way. At the same time, requests that she not make personal comments, but keep them neutral as pertained to the lessons.

Finish the lessons, stand by your principles and defend your positions on paper. If her reasons cannot justify your grades in the end, then you have more backup to make a stronger case against her then. Lodge your complaint at that point, if you still feel strongly about it.

[Monte314]

Freedom of exercise of religion does apply in tax payer institutions... but, like the exercise of other fundamental rights, it may be reasonably limited.

[PHS Philip]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Freedom of exercise of religion does apply in tax payer institutions... but, like the exercise of other fundamental rights, it may be reasonably limited.

What I meant was that religion or lack thereof can't be pushed, preached, etc on taxpayer time. Those are covered under free exercise, but aren't applicable on public time. Basically, constitutional free exercise is inapplicable. A different, more limited definition of free exercise is applied on taxpayer time.

[Tocsin]

It sounds as though you live in a "religious" community.

I would guess the composition of the local school board is representative of that community.

Another guess would be that complaining to such a school board of excessive prosletyzing in public education would encourage them rather than outrage them.

The best advice I can give is collect as much information as you can, contact the closest
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
organization, and fully inform them of your predicament.

[True Rune]

It may an uphill battle, because the higher-ups will probably be in the same league as your teacher, and your complaint will be subject to their bias. I don't know, I wouldn't make a huge deal out of it. But maybe that's MY bias..

[Deepdelver]

Originally Posted by PHS Philip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Freedom of exercise of religion does not apply in tax payer funded institutions. It's that pesky wall of separation again. Judging by your "PS," you meant this regarding the material used, but I don't think that that was using free exercise of religion. If it had been, as I said, it wouldn't be acceptable in a tax payer funded institution. As it is, I think that it could be a legitimate use of the text. I don't know the details of the circumstances, so I can't say for sure, but the use sounds to be within what is acceptable. The comment is the problem.

I want to claify my "PS". I am referring to the teacher's comment, "I know that some of you do not go to church on Sundays, and shame on you." I think it would have been best if she kept her comment to herself. Because, the end result of her statement would not produce anything productive.

I am for seperation of church and state. I don't think the state should regulate our beliefs. I don't know of a law that states religion must be taught in a tax payer funded institution. But, do we have the right to talk about our religion in a tax payer funded institution? Or is our religious freedom and freedom of speech denied or null in a tax payer funded institution. Are our freedoms limited to location? For the state to regulate our rights as to what we can say or what we can believe (whether in a tax payer funded institution or not) isn't freedom at all.

I never thought of freedom as being "confined". Thanks for a new perspective. It's an interesting thought.

[PHS Philip]

Originally Posted by Deepdelver To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I want to claify my "PS". I am referring to the teacher's comment, "I know that some of you do not go to church on Sundays, and shame on you." I think it would have been best if she kept her comment to herself. Because, the end result of her statement would not produce anything productive. I am for separation of church and state. I don't think the state should regulate our beliefs. I don't know of a law that states religion must be taught in a tax payer funded institution. But, do we have the right to talk about our religion in a tax payer funded institution? Or is our religious freedom and freedom of speech denied or null in a tax payer funded institution. Are our freedoms limited to location? For the state to regulate our rights as to what we can say or what we can believe (whether in a tax payer funded institution or not) isn't freedom at all. I never thought of freedom as being "confined". Thanks for a new perspective. It's an interesting thought.

I knew what your PS meant, I was saying that your PS made me think that the part I quoted was referring to the material.

The problem is that you are only looking at the restriction here, not the why. Even very religious courts have defended a rock solid separation of church and state, because the consequences for failing to do so have historically been very, very bad. A teacher cannot use time they are being paid for teaching during for any sort of pushing of religion, because allowing any promotion of a specific religion (or lack of religion) in schools can be disastrous. Their right to free exercise is intact on their own, private time.

The limit placed on exercise in public institutions is from the interpretation of the establishment clause based on writings by the founders (like Jefferson's letter that I quoted, saying that it was meant to drive separation between church and state). "Congress shall make no law" has been applied, through interpretations and amendments, to all levels of government, not just federal, and to the other branches as well. This means that taxpayer money can in no way, directly or indirectly, be spent on helping or pushing ("establishing") any religion. Once the teacher is paid, they can use their own money on it, but they can't use the time they are being paid for.

[Socrates]

Hey whoa, I just read all your replies since I left yesterday, and you're really making me sound like a jerk. I didn't "violently outlash," I just wanted to explain my situation. And thank you Philip for standing up for me. Apparently you're one of the few who understood what I was saying clearly.

Anyway, taking into consideration the bais that my local culture displays overall against non-believers, I'm going to wait and see if my teacher's behavior continues in this manner before I bring it into veiw of a figure of authority. And just to clarify, I don't frown on religious people. If religion gives some people a motive for righteous behavior, than I'm all for it. I just don't personally believe in a deity. I don't tell people that there is no god, and I certainly don't judge people on their religion, and I just wish that people would treat me the same way. In the end, I just want what is best for all of us.

[Monte314]

Originally Posted by Socrates To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hey whoa, I just read all your replies since I left yesterday, and you're really making me sound like a jerk. I didn't "violently outlash," I just wanted to explain my situation. And thank you Philip for standing up for me. Apparently you're one of the few who understood what I was saying clearly. Anyway, taking into consideration the bais that my local culture displays overall against non-believers, I'm going to wait and see if my teacher's behavior continues in this manner before I bring it into veiw of a figure of authority. And just to clarify, I don't frown on religious people. If religion gives some people a motive for righteous behavior, than I'm all for it. I just don't personally believe in a deity. I don't tell people that there is no god, and I certainly don't judge people on their religion, and I just wish that people would treat me the same way. In the end, I just want what is best for all of us.

Well, you ARE a tiger....

[Socrates]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, you ARE a tiger....

You notice I favor my feline bretheren...?


I'm a cute, cuddly kitty. Now jump in here so I can ea... I mean play with you.

[phantasma]

Originally Posted by Socrates To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am outraged. Today, in my high-school junior English class, we were required to read and study a very upsetting (to me) sermon from a Puritan minister given in the early years of America. This, combined with the previous several religious stories required, forced me to abandon my philosophy and acknowledge the existence of a "God" in order to pass my class. I believe my right of religious freedom has been desecrated, and I am considering filing a complaint with the school board as well as refraining from studying religious material. On top of the material covered in class, today my teacher told the class that, and I quote, "I know that some of you do not go to church on Sundays, and shame on you." Simply appalling. I would like to know others' opinions on this topic before I make any rash moves.

Let me guess, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? That angered me too, and I'm Christian. I think you're getting too worked up over it. While that remark from the teacher was out of line, and s/he should keep in mind that there's a lot more out there than Christianity (you should tell them that in a calm courteous way), you need to be tolerant as well. I tolerate atheism, and other religions, and you should do the same.

I seriously doubt the purpose of teaching with Puritan-related literature was to shove it all down your throat. No matter what religion you are, you have to admit the Puritans had a big effect on early American history and literature. That is most likely the school's intent in presenting this to you. It's almost like studying Israel and disregarding Judaism, or India without Hinduism. Christianity had and has a big effect on American culture, literature, history, and today's political hot topics. You can't ignore that.

No one is forcing you to abandon your beliefs. The only person that can make you do that is you. You don't have to believe that God exists in order to pass that class. You just have to acknowledge and keep in mind that the Puritans and the people/characters in the literature you're reading do believe in God. However, from experience with my Buddhist friend in my past English class (she had no background in Christianity and had a hard time in that unit), there ought to be more footnotes and background information in the textbooks, rather than assuming that everyone knows. However, my Buddhist friend did fine, and still got good grades in that Puritan unit, even with her lack of background information. I'm sure you can too.

Also, filing a complaint wouldn't get you anywhere. Too many people think the American government, and therefore the school system, is based on judeo-christian values. While it was in fact based on deist values, too many people will rely on their original beliefs. And school bureacracy is a pain in the butt. That being said, you should talk to your teacher, and make the point that you don't have to be a churchgoing Christian to be "good" or "normal", and that s/he should be tolerant of everyone's beliefs. (Just remember to stay calm and courteous and not get all fired up. Being an intolerant, vehement atheist will only make your teacher turn into a monster, and you will lose by virtue of their authority over you.) You have a much better chance to make a change on an individual level than the school board level.

[Deepdelver]

	Originally Posted by PHS Philip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem is that you are only looking at the restriction here, not the why.

Would you take the time to explain the "why"? I don't think I understand.

Originally Posted by Socrates To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hey whoa, I just read all your replies since I left yesterday, and you're really making me sound like a jerk. I didn't "violently outlash," I just wanted to explain my situation. And thank you Philip for standing up for me. Apparently you're one of the few who understood what I was saying clearly. Anyway, taking into consideration the bais that my local culture displays overall against non-believers, I'm going to wait and see if my teacher's behavior continues in this manner before I bring it into veiw of a figure of authority. And just to clarify, I don't frown on religious people. If religion gives some people a motive for righteous behavior, than I'm all for it. I just don't personally believe in a deity. I don't tell people that there is no god, and I certainly don't judge people on their religion, and I just wish that people would treat me the same way. In the end, I just want what is best for all of us.

Socrates, When you said, "you're really making me sound like a jerk", I hope you weren't referring to me. If you were, then I apologize. It was not my intent to make you look like a jerk. You asked for the opinion of others and I volunteered.
Would you do a huge favor for me and let me know which statement(s) I used to make you look like a "jerk"? You could send it through private e-mail or post it publically, if publically others could learn from my mistake. If it wasn't me, then I don't need to know anything further.

Perhaps, I didn't understand the situtation as clearly as others did.

[PHS Philip]

	Originally Posted by Deepdelver To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Would you take the time to explain the "why"? I don't think I understand.

...

Originally Posted by PHS Philip

The problem is that you are only looking at the restriction here, not the why. Even very religious courts have defended a rock solid separation of church and state, because the consequences for failing to do so have historically been very, very bad. A teacher cannot use time they are being paid for teaching during for any sort of pushing of religion, because allowing any promotion of a specific religion (or lack of religion) in schools can be disastrous. Their right to free exercise is intact on their own, private time. The limit placed on exercise in public institutions is from the interpretation of the establishment clause based on writings by the founders (like Jefferson's letter that I quoted, saying that it was meant to drive separation between church and state). "Congress shall make no law" has been applied, through interpretations and amendments, to all levels of government, not just federal, and to the other branches as well. This means that taxpayer money can in no way, directly or indirectly, be spent on helping or pushing ("establishing") any religion. Once the teacher is paid, they can use their own money on it, but they can't use the time they are being paid for.

[Deepdelver]

	Originally Posted by PHS Philip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...

I thought you were referring to the original post when you said I was missing the "why".

[Socrates]

Sorry bout' that DeepDelver, I was just using your phrase as an example. Nothing personal, and no offense intended.





Socrates added to this post, 3 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Just for any of you who want to know, I have been back in school for ablout a month now and I haven't learned anything about liturature in there. They should take about the first 2-3 chapters out of the textbook and add them to the history textbook.

[Jgib5328]

Was it an objective analysis of the text? Back in my world lit, we studied the genesis because we were comparing stories about the creation of the world. I really enjoyed it and it wasn't like, "God created the world in 7 days!! If you don't believe it you get an F!" My teacher was actually an atheist, which was cool. There was no problem with the situation and how she taught it, it was basically how we'd study any piece of literature, I think in cases like that it's perfectly fine.

[Deepdelver]

Originally Posted by Socrates To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry bout' that DeepDelver, I was just using your phrase as an example. Nothing personal, and no offense intended. Socrates added to this post, 3 minutes and 14 seconds later... Just for any of you who want to know, I have been back in school for ablout a month now and I haven't learned anything about liturature in there. They should take about the first 2-3 chapters out of the textbook and add them to the history textbook.

No problem and thank you.
I hope school is better for you this time.