Well evolution and creationism was what the topic was about. I'll repeat myself, there are school courses that study religion, their histories and related philosophical views. Right, then how would privatizing all schools improve the situation between religion and school? What I meant to say was off-topic is your justification. Are you proposing that allowing schools to teach creationism as science across the nation would be a better alternative to the prohibition of it for public schools?
If all schools are private schools--those schools are free to either incorporate religion, or to omit religion, or to find some middle ground to satisfy both sides of the fence in their various curriculum in accordance with consumer demand. In this way, no child or parent is forced to suffer religious education, or lack of it, at the hand of state mandates if they don't desire it. If there is enough demand to justify the production and delivery of a good or service, that good or service will be provided by the market. It's really that simple.
I guess something from the title of the thread "BAN RELIGION FROM SCHOOLS" made me think the topic was a little broader than one or two teachers teaching creationism? You keep talking about whats on topic and what's off topic but I tend to think that Religion is MORE than just creationism just as science is MORE than just evolution.
I found the following interesting reading How Christian Were the Founders? - NYTimes.com It's about how the christian ideals of the founding fathers are being reintroduced into History classes in texas dispite the evidence to the contrary.
I'll let Cynthia Dunbar of the Texas Board of Education put in her words and this is taken from the article in my previous post (p7-8) In 2008, Cynthia Dunbar published a book called “One Nation Under God,” in which she stated more openly than most of her colleagues have done the argument that the founding of America was an overtly Christian undertaking and laid out what she and others hope to achieve in public schools. “The underlying authority for our constitutional form of government stems directly from biblical precedents,” she writes. “Hence, the only accurate method of ascertaining the intent of the Founding Fathers at the time of our government’s inception comes from a biblical worldview.” Then she pushes forward: “We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world.” But the true picture of America’s Christian founding has been whitewashed by “the liberal agenda” — in order for liberals to succeed “they must first rewrite our nation’s history” and obscure the Christian intentions of the founders. Therefore, she wrote, “this battle for our nation’s children and who will control their education and training is crucial to our success for reclaiming our nation.” [/FONT]
You may find it helpful to consider that there is indeed a culture war playing out, with control of our schools being a significant battleground. Consider what persons like Lenin have said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted" It's no accident that, when his campaign of bombing and terrorism failed, William Ayers became a professor of education. It's not an issue of "is there or isn't there a culture war?" It's undeniable. It's an issue of "With whom will you side?"
I have difficulty accepting the NYTs as an unbiased source when it comes to examining American History, Christianity, the Constitution, or any of the above in combination. We can just as easily point to mountains of evidence that takes a different view of the founding fathers, especially when we consider that all of the Constitutions of the 50 states begin with an invocation of God, and one of the first acts of Congress was to order the printing of several thousand bibles. It is essentially impossible to assert that a nation whose roots are clearly religious, whose colonial boundries and challenges were often defined by matters of religion, so on and so forth, is not essentially Christian in its character. The amount of evidence that you must rewrite, ignore, or take out of context is so great as to make the thesis undefendable. To assert that Christianity is not an essential part of the American character and the foundation of this country is simply to strain credulity. You may wish it not to be so, but wishing doesn't make things so. Even Christians know that.
A lot of americans (98% i think) were christian yes so christianity was the religion of the people, it was not used as the founding principle of the constitution or for the governance of the people as that was the place of natural rights. I found it an interesting article an the comments were also interesting reading, the following is one of them: Benjamin Franklin: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." President John Adams: "Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments . . . it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." President Thomas Jefferson: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions. . . . I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrine." President James Madison ("Father of the Constitution" and principal author of the First Amendment): "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant violation." "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States. . . ." "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." I also found article 11 of the treaty of tripoli 1797 to be quite explicit: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries
Alright, we're making progress. Now what is the historical context of these quotes? All history actions can be described as both proactive (moving towards a certain goal) and reactive (reacting to some other action or thing). What thing were the founding fathers referencing in the above quotes? And, in what direction do they see the non-interference principle operating? Is it one way, or two ways?
Given that you have twice asked that this thread be moved as it was off topic i find it amusing that you now want to go off topic yourself I think the founding fathers wrote the constitution to be a long term legal document and as such worded it in such a way that it was exclusive of rights. Unless stated in the original doucment or it's ammendments all natural rights were deemed to reside with the indivdual. As the first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Taking into account the forethought given to these documents i reason that the state is not to support the cause of ANY religion, at all EVER. As that is the case i think that central govenment should bring forward specific laws to ensure a purely secular education for it's citizens as it is plain that the christian religion for one cannot be trusted not to try and enforce it's supernatural beliefs on US citizens.
We continue to make progress. Let's get more concrete. Did the founding fathers have a specific experience of some specific church-state involvement that was likely foremost in their minds? What is that specific experience, does it have a name, etc? You can't understand what's being said in the document until you can properly know the context. There is an important difference between what you think ought to be done, and what the document acually says and calls for.