Acts 4 wrote:And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
No one is commanding you not to speak. Certainly not the government. They are simply saying there is a time and place and while you are employed by the state and working with a captive audience on behalf of the state and in a state facility. Then that is neither the time nor the place.
If this is something you are incapable of doing, then obviously the profession is not for you. You have plenty of other choices of profession. And if this is something that you think no Christian should agree to, then you are saying that no Christian should enter the teaching profession. I'm quite confident that most Christians would disagree with you on that point.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Acts 4 wrote:And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
No one is commanding you not to speak. Certainly not the government. They are simply saying there is a time and place and while you are employed by the state and working with a captive audience on behalf of the state and in a state facility. Then that is neither the time nor the place.
No one is commanding you not to speak. Certainly not the government. They are simply saying there is a time and place and while you are employed by the state and working with a captive audience on behalf of the state and in a state facility. Then that is neither the time nor the place.
Maybe the government got it wrong on this one.
The First Amendment? They got that wrong?
That is what this is actually about.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
No one is commanding you not to speak. Certainly not the government. They are simply saying there is a time and place and while you are employed by the state and working with a captive audience on behalf of the state and in a state facility. Then that is neither the time nor the place.
Maybe the government got it wrong on this one.
The First Amendment? They got that wrong?
That is what this is actually about.
I'm proposing that perhaps if the First Amendment is being interpreted as prohibiting teachers from teaching their students about God, then perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation thereof might be wrong.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:18 am
Maybe the government got it wrong on this one.
The First Amendment? They got that wrong?
That is what this is actually about.
I'm proposing that perhaps if the First Amendment is being interpreted as prohibiting teachers from teaching their students about God, then perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation thereof might be wrong.
The First Amendment has always been interpreted as the state should not favor a specific religion over others. When a teacher who is acting on behalf of the state (and working in a state facility with an audience provided by the state) decides to promote a particular religion that constitutes a first amendment violation.
It also protects us from teachers of every crazy faith from Scientologists to Hare Krishnas to atheists on a mission to denigrate religion from using their positions to do the same thing to our children.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
I'm proposing that perhaps if the First Amendment is being interpreted as prohibiting teachers from teaching their students about God, then perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation thereof might be wrong.
The First Amendment has always been interpreted as the state should not favor a specific religion over others. When a teacher who is acting on behalf of the state (and working in a state facility with an audience provided by the state) decides to promote a particular religion that constitutes a first amendment violation.
The First Amendment has not always been interpreted as forbidding a state from allowing teachers to lead their students in distinctly Christian prayers during official school time, nor has it always been interpreted as forbidding the states from applying religious tests for holding state offices. In fact, there is reason to think that the First Amendment was initially interpreted as forbidding Congress from interfering with existing state sponsorship of religious practice.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:32 pm
I'm proposing that perhaps if the First Amendment is being interpreted as prohibiting teachers from teaching their students about God, then perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation thereof might be wrong.
The First Amendment has always been interpreted as the state should not favor a specific religion over others. When a teacher who is acting on behalf of the state (and working in a state facility with an audience provided by the state) decides to promote a particular religion that constitutes a first amendment violation.
The First Amendment has not always been interpreted as forbidding a state from allowing teachers to lead their students in distinctly Christian prayers during official school time, nor has it always been interpreted as forbidding the states from applying religious tests for holding state offices. In fact, there is reason to think that the First Amendment was initially interpreted as forbidding Congress from interfering with existing state sponsorship of religious practice.
Yes, our understanding of the Constitution changes over time. And how we implement it is a work in progress. The first Amendment has always represented separation of church and state. One can go back to the writings of Jefferson and Hamilton to see this. Yes, some of the original colonies like Maryland and Massachusetts got their start as religious colonies. But when they combined to form the United States under the constitution in 1789 they set aside that past history. Even if it took a while. The treatment of Indians and Blacks is another example of how long it took until the principles outlined in the Constitution were applied equally to all people.
But the current interpretation of how the 1st Amendment applies to public schools was resolved 62 years ago by the Supreme Court in the case of Engel v. Vitale. And it is exactly as I described. Like it or not, we are bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court. That is why they exist. To settle these sorts of issues for us.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
The First Amendment has always been interpreted as the state should not favor a specific religion over others. When a teacher who is acting on behalf of the state (and working in a state facility with an audience provided by the state) decides to promote a particular religion that constitutes a first amendment violation.
The First Amendment has not always been interpreted as forbidding a state from allowing teachers to lead their students in distinctly Christian prayers during official school time, nor has it always been interpreted as forbidding the states from applying religious tests for holding state offices. In fact, there is reason to think that the First Amendment was initially interpreted as forbidding Congress from interfering with existing state sponsorship of religious practice.
Yes, our understanding of the Constitution changes over time. And how we implement it is a work in progress. The first Amendment has always represented separation of church and state. One can go back to the writings of Jefferson and Hamilton to see this. Yes, some of the original colonies like Maryland and Massachusetts got their start as religious colonies. But when they combined to form the United States under the constitution in 1789 they set aside that past history. Even if it took a while. The treatment of Indians and Blacks is another example of how long it took until the principles outlined in the Constitution were applied equally to all people.
But the current interpretation of how the 1st Amendment applies to public schools was resolved 62 years ago by the Supreme Court in the case of Engel v. Vitale. And it is exactly as I described. Like it or not, we are bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court. That is why they exist. To settle these sorts of issues for us.
Thank you for the history lesson. Now you understand why I say perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation might be wrong. Perhaps it was better understood for the first 100 years after it was written, and the relatively recent 62-year-old interpretation is faulty.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:09 pm
The First Amendment has not always been interpreted as forbidding a state from allowing teachers to lead their students in distinctly Christian prayers during official school time, nor has it always been interpreted as forbidding the states from applying religious tests for holding state offices. In fact, there is reason to think that the First Amendment was initially interpreted as forbidding Congress from interfering with existing state sponsorship of religious practice.
Yes, our understanding of the Constitution changes over time. And how we implement it is a work in progress. The first Amendment has always represented separation of church and state. One can go back to the writings of Jefferson and Hamilton to see this. Yes, some of the original colonies like Maryland and Massachusetts got their start as religious colonies. But when they combined to form the United States under the constitution in 1789 they set aside that past history. Even if it took a while. The treatment of Indians and Blacks is another example of how long it took until the principles outlined in the Constitution were applied equally to all people.
But the current interpretation of how the 1st Amendment applies to public schools was resolved 62 years ago by the Supreme Court in the case of Engel v. Vitale. And it is exactly as I described. Like it or not, we are bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court. That is why they exist. To settle these sorts of issues for us.
Thank you for the history lesson. Now you understand why I say perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation might be wrong. Perhaps it was better understood for the first 100 years after it was written, and the relatively recent 62-year-old interpretation is faulty.
You wouldn't be the first person to think that current Supreme Court interpretations are wrong. Folks who want to see more gun control think that the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is utterly insane and ahistorical. That the founders had no intention of putting unregulated AR15s in the hand of psychotic 18 year-olds. But that is the world we live in unless or until the Supreme Court reverses course. Same thing goes for proselytizing in schools.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Yes, our understanding of the Constitution changes over time. And how we implement it is a work in progress. The first Amendment has always represented separation of church and state. One can go back to the writings of Jefferson and Hamilton to see this. Yes, some of the original colonies like Maryland and Massachusetts got their start as religious colonies. But when they combined to form the United States under the constitution in 1789 they set aside that past history. Even if it took a while. The treatment of Indians and Blacks is another example of how long it took until the principles outlined in the Constitution were applied equally to all people.
But the current interpretation of how the 1st Amendment applies to public schools was resolved 62 years ago by the Supreme Court in the case of Engel v. Vitale. And it is exactly as I described. Like it or not, we are bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court. That is why they exist. To settle these sorts of issues for us.
Thank you for the history lesson. Now you understand why I say perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation might be wrong. Perhaps it was better understood for the first 100 years after it was written, and the relatively recent 62-year-old interpretation is faulty.
You wouldn't be the first person to think that current Supreme Court interpretations are wrong. Folks who want to see more gun control think that the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is utterly insane and ahistorical. That the founders had no intention of putting unregulated AR15s in the hand of psychotic 18 year-olds. But that is the world we live in unless or until the Supreme Court reverses course. Same thing goes for proselytizing in schools.
Yea, that's the second issue I think the current SCOTUS might have gotten wrong.