The religious discussion thread

[Archangel]

This thread was created to bring a local new story to light, which can be viewed below:

JACKSON, Ohio (AP) — An Ohio school district decided Tuesday night to keep a portrait of Jesus hanging in the school where it's been 65 years, denying a federal lawsuit's claim the portrait's display unconstitutionally promotes religion in a public school.

The Jackson City Schools board offered a constitutional justification of its own in voting 4-0 to keep the portrait up in its middle school, saying it must protect students' free speech rights. The vote drew cheers and applause from the dozens of people gathered in the elementary school gymnasium.

Read all of it here: http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-school-b...xzBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0A1Rlc3RfQUZD;_ylv=3

I posted his here @ NP to see what ppl had to say on the issue. As it turns out, this sparked many debates. I've considered closing this thread but after multiple suggestions, I decided to keep it open. Feel free to join in the topics but per forum rules, please refrain from obscene, threatening, rude, or insulting posts.

 

[Keith]

It should be removed IMO.

The picture clearly represents just ONE of many religious beliefs. That's not to mention those that have no religious beliefs at all. I say to the board, what about everyone else's "freedom of speech/religion?"

 

[JB Lions]

A person that does not defend his Christian values is not a true Christian, plain and simple.

Nonsense. You act like all Christians agree on everything. For example, you being homophobic are against gay marriage. Not all Christians are. And where in the Bible does it talk about pictures in schools? What Christian value are you talking about in regards to this case?

Let me ask you a simple question, Gilsan. Do you think schools should be pushing one religion over another, or should schools be a neutral place, realizing people come from different backgrounds, different faiths etc.? You don't think these Christians who were booing those who wanted it removed, would they be acting differently it there was somebody else up there besides Jesus? I guarantee you, put Muhammed up there, those Christians would lose it. Put somebody up there representing Atheism, same thing.

Schools should be neutral. Now if it was a class on religion, ok. Catholic, religious school ok.

 

[DU]

Your educational experience sounds much different. Were you taught at a public school, payed for with tax money? My wife is a teacher, I've never heard of such a diverse school as yours but I'll ask her.

UK. May have been C of E.

My first RE teacher was a christian who taught primarily from a C of E bent but it was still looking at the bible from a non-religious context. He also taught about Sikhism, Buddhism but was clearly not quite as comfortable. Being in the UK meant a lot of my friends were 1st generation English Indians. It was an interesting time to see them be brought up in England with many of them having very traditional parents.

It was tax payer and my parents hated the concept of RE (they are atheist). The reality was that I thoroughly enjoyed learning about the different religions (after all, many of my friends were Sikh, for example). My parents were a but shocked to find out I liked it.

History in general covered religion in a different way. How can you learn about the Protestant Reformation without understanding relgion? How can you discuss Kant vs Hume without understanding religion? Most people are shocked to learn that Newton and Darwin were religious (Darwin studied to become a clergyman). This fact adds a lot to the story of evolution.

I don't believe that evolution destroys the concept of God.. and I don't believe the concept of God destroys evolution and I think I can do that because I can respect both positions. This I think stems in part from how religion was addressed as a much more critical thought. (Some people will be upset that I say concept of God - that's to be expected right now.)

I find fundamentalism of all kinds annoying. Fundamentalist atheism is no better than fundamentalist evangelism.

I do believe that what you practise should be private and I think the biggest reality and difference though between then (my schooling) and now is that religion just wasn't that big a deal and now it has become a real problem.

I don't believe the U.S. is built to handle religious education in public schools right now. We can teach black history and women's suffrage so it's just a matter of getting to a place where people are more comfortable talking openly about things ... I'd like to believe it can be done.

Education should be about learning to understand each other and not about teaching the other

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Keith]

I remember when Randy created a thread separate from this but on topic. I renamed it to the current heading and mods combined the threads.

RIP @Archangel

 

[twomoon]

In my opinion in the times when Christian religion is not so popular as before in a Christian countries and sometimes it becomes almost intolerant to be a Christian, it's a good move by Ohio School Board.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

I totally agree with J.B. Lions.

Public school is no place for proselytizing for ANY religion.

My husband is Jewish (I am not), and he tells me horror stories of growing up in the 1940's and 1950's and being banned from certain beaches with friendly signs like "No Jews or Negroes Allowed."

So I can't imagine that the 40's and 50's were very embracing times for Jews and African-Americans (among other groups, I'm sure). We White, Christian folk have no idea what it's like being excluded in society.

If you want your children to have a religious education, then, by all means, send them to religious schools.

*

 

[JB Lions]

If US is not a country based on Christian values - i have nothing to say.
And, yes, you're right, I'm not in this country too.
I think Gilsan and me, we just see what's happening in the Europe for example, and looking on all of these with open eyes - this is why some posts and opinions are out of our understanding. Although can speak only for myself.

It's based on laws. And a lot of those laws are not in conflict with Christian values or values or other religions. There are some that some Christians (not all) will have issues with, like abortion, same sex marriage etc. But other stuff is pretty basic. Like don't murder, steal etc. Laws and values are pretty much on the same page on stuff like that.

In the end, these are public schools, full of kids with different religions and no religion at all. Should be neutral.

 

[Keith]

Public schools are not the place to teach religion. Had I been atheist, well, who in the hell should have the right to teach my kids about God if I try to teach them there is no God at all? A teacher is to TEACH & NOT to instill religious values.

If you send your kids to public school, they will surely be exposed to some sort of religion through their peers. That's why I said kids at public schools can learn through "social interaction."

I completely agree with you that teachers should NOT install religious values. Kids should'nt have to stare at religious pictures while being forced to attend the public education system either.

 

[DU]

That would be true except we have that little thing in the US called "seperation of church and state." So in actuality, you cannot teach religious studies under any circumstance in a public school.

General Rule: Public schools may not teach religion, although teaching about religion in a secular context is permitted.

One can't remove religion from schools. Why was America founded? Who was Cromwell and what was his beef? What was the holocaust about? What about the Crusades? Who was Calvin? Why was he important? Who was Luther? Henry the 8th? Discuss the growth of the Medici family without using religion?

What about China and its policies? Toward Tibet? What about Turkey and its relationship to Iraq? What about Israel? Why was it created? How? How can we discuss peace issues?

If you make no attempt to study religion then history, literary studies and the arts are a waste of time.

The constitutionalist view is archaic outdated and should have been dumped in the 18th century. America is one of the most modernized countries in the world with people that lean on the most anachronistic principles ever devised.

Rather than taking the brilliance of the founding fathers (some of them truly were) and constantly striving to improve we look back to some ancient principles as the be all end all and do nothing but stifle.

Can you imagine a 21 st century business looking at its 17th century founders for guidance?

The US needs a upgrade of its boardroom.

 

[RogueWriter]

As far as that goes, it takes 2 to be irresponsible and make a baby....

BTW, thinking back on of all the people I've ever met, the few who I suspect might have tried to hit anything with a pulse were male.

I apologize in advance for the driveby....no way I am getting sucked into a no win zillion page discussion on religion, lol. Just two thoughts as I drive past.....

Thought One: If it takes two, in your opinion, to be irresponsible and make a baby, should it take two to choose to kill the baby as well?

Thought Two: Had a friend a few years ago that found out his wife had been screwing around on him when she transmitted a std to him. He ended up finding out she had slept with 11 people for sure, probably more. He tried to deal with the mental anguish of losing the love of his life like that, but never could come to grips with it, even after consulting with therapists. He ended his life with a rebel yell and a gunshot. I know of another friend whose wife was sleeping around on him, she just ended their marriage after 20 years. My point being, it happens, and horndogs exist on both sides of the fence.

I've never understood the mentality of screwing around on your spouse. It's not just about honor, and integrity; your spouse is supposed to be your friend. -shrugs-

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Hmmm...

If marriage is all about procreation, I suppose all those senior citizen marriages become invalid the minute the old ovaries implode.



*

 

[Kate]

They forget that the one bunch of people they love so much and will protect so much (the muslims)....
KILL GAYS!!!!!!

Well guy,
Try reading about Iran, Iran, Afghan, blah blah...

Where there they kill gays.

These countries aren't democratic, but the divide between democratic/undemocratic nations does not run along religious lines.
For instance, there are countries in Africa that are violently anti-gay, even when christianity is the dominant religion.
Examples: Cameroon, Zimbabwe.
I think there is a problem with religionS in general, and intolerance.

Am sure, if the muslims in the USA could get sharia enforced, they would go on a gay killing spree.
When they are not too busy with their honor killings.

I would be more concerned about the many Christian fanatics and Jesus camps. There is no shortage of Christian nutjobs in the US.

 

[DU]

 

[GILSAN]

Once the "news" has spread, it is possible for people that absorb the information that they are looking for and then make out that they are somehow smart....they don't even realize the spoon is being fed to them.
DU

Thanks DU, for the perfect description of smart ass Liberals. Could never have said it better myself

 

[Domainace]

The Spirit in the Sky.
That is all one needs to know.

A great song, too. A Christian song by a Jewish guy. Try doing that in Riyadh.

 

[Domainace]

In any public setting--'especially' schools--there shouldn't be any sort of imagery, references or otherwise to anything that is inclusive of some and exclusive of others. It goes against the very idea of what the word "public" means.

That's simply extremism. Those standards mean that an image or reference to anyone at all would be forbidden. An image of a man would exclude women. A reference to democracy would exclude those who believe in other forms of government.

The founding fathers clearly never imagined the extent of pedantic and bizarre bickering that goes on under the name of civil rights these days. Especially while the most basic civil rights they cherished, such as free speech, are being trampled.

 

[RogueWriter]

Your need to categorize is very much connected to being religoius.
You are welcome to put in in whatever category you like but that won't hide the fact that you reacted instead of constructively comment my post.

The need to catagorize is a human trait, not a religious one, and is based on our curiosity and desire for intellectual, philosophical and yes, spiritual growth. Obviously, you are an atheist, since no sane person would voluntarily participate in what they view as a plague, so there's not really a reason to ask you that question, since you have already catagorized yourself.

I would also suggest that wealth and power are the greatest dividers in the history of mankind, not religion. Have wealthy and powerful individuals misused religion as a vehicle to maintain or grow their own personal wealth? Yes, sometimes. But religion is not the cause of human strife, and their actions do not make the religions themselves a plague.

It is okay to be soulful, to believe in something greater than Xbox Games and a 20% commission.

 

[RogueWriter]

Why the shit can't the government of the USA, England, etal do this?

I would like to believe that we are messing with Isis financials, infrastructure and general info. And, the less our government talks about it the better.

 

[iowadawg]

Chaos is really when your wife is away for more than 2 days.
Trust me.

 

[verbster]

How about we get back to the topic that makes this thread fun: The equal opportunity mocking of each other's religious and non-religious beliefs in a futile attempt at proving whose beliefs and God(s) are the "real" ones.

 

[twomoon]

Many wife-beaters seem like good guys until the wife speaks up. Even then, many people would choose to not deal with it.

Agree with you, but in this situation I guess it's not a good example.
The picture didn't make any harm during 65 years to anybody and you and me - we all know it.
What is happening now (during last years) is just a brainwashing. Some are ok with it, and some not. I am not.

You may not have meant to, but you just insulted his parents. . . sort of like what the photo does to people of other religions, including those paying the taxes that help fund the school.

I didn't insult Sabre's parents, it was a joke, and to make all people sure it's a joke I even put that smiling symbol // - hope this symbol is not insulting anybody here for now.
The views of Sabre's halfs parents are just similar to mine - and I like it.
BUT, Sabre if you got insulated, excuse me, I didn't mean to.

 

[-NC-]

to ensure freedom of religion they could let any student put up a picture of religious significance to them. it would be educational. I'm sure it would turn out well.

 

[GILSAN]

"The population was 6,397 at the 2010 census."

Figured. It's those lil podunk towns that are usually still trapped in the 50's. After reading the history of the town a little more, it's pretty much a Christian town, Jesus ain't going nowhere.

So you have a problem with "lil podunk towns" that are majority Christian?

And on top of it they are trapped in the 50's.:O How shocking Wow, you really are good at analyzing a town through the internet and in just a few minutes you can tell that they are all trapped in the 50's. The MSM should hire you as an investigative reporter. :gl: They sure are in dire need of them

How evil the people from the 50's must have been. If only someone could send them on a learning vacation to big cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, San Francisco where they can meet all those nice liberal folks, so that they can finally liberate themselves from the "Evil 50's".

 

[JB Lions]

Love the fake outrage from somebody living in Portugal. Yes, the towns are a lil backwards (I've seen more than a few), and the 50's weren't great for everybody in the U.S.

 

[GILSAN]

A person that does not defend his Christian values is not a true Christian, plain and simple.