Hindus, Muslims, and Christians

[ohio jones]

Ken-
Would you object to a theoretical public American school that was 100% staffed by, and 100% of the students and their parents, and 100% of the school board etc., was the same religion, and openly promoted their religion in that school?

I’m thinking sort of olden days when roughly everyone shared a basic religious framework. Except, let’s turn up the community religious alignment

You are proposing a hypothetical that exists nowhere in this country. I would challenge you to find a single school district anywhere in the country where all students, all parents, and all taxpaying citizens in that district are all of the same faith and of the same mind when it comes to the tenants of that faith.

A school district with geographic boundaries and a common landlord, perhaps not. But what about a public charter school?

[Ken]

Ken-
Would you object to a theoretical public American school that was 100% staffed by, and 100% of the students and their parents, and 100% of the school board etc., was the same religion, and openly promoted their religion in that school?

I’m thinking sort of olden days when roughly everyone shared a basic religious framework. Except, let’s turn up the community religious alignment

You are proposing a hypothetical that exists nowhere in this country. I would challenge you to find a single school district anywhere in the country where all students, all parents, and all taxpaying citizens in that district are all of the same faith and of the same mind when it comes to the tenants of that faith.

A school district with geographic boundaries and a common landlord, perhaps not. But what about a public charter school?

If it is a public charter school then legally it is a normal public school paid for by all the taxpayers in the district, no different from any other regular public school or magnet school. Every public charter school pertains to the geographic school district in which it exists.

I know there are some places like Oklahoma that are pushing the envelope on this. But even so, I doubt they are going to be proselytizing to captive groups of students in class, even if the charter school itself is being administered by some religious group.

[Josh]

Ken,

Have you read the book of Philemon?

Yes, more slavery apologia. We are all better off that the Constitution outlawed slavery rather than accommodate it as Paul did and as the Bible does. If you want to circle back to the original subject that spawned this subthread, there is frankly more discussion and support for slavery in the Old and New Testaments than there is for your position on LGBT people. That is just an uncomfortable fact.

Regardless of what you or I think. Our government and public schools are governed by the Constitution and not the Bible. Teachers who do not understand that are in the wrong profession. And that is frankly a good thing because we live in a diverse society and only a tiny fraction of teachers are going to share the particular tenants of your faith or mine.

I see your view on scripture is that is “slavery apologia”.

[Ken]

Ken,

Have you read the book of Philemon?

Yes, more slavery apologia. We are all better off that the Constitution outlawed slavery rather than accommodate it as Paul did and as the Bible does. If you want to circle back to the original subject that spawned this subthread, there is frankly more discussion and support for slavery in the Old and New Testaments than there is for your position on LGBT people. That is just an uncomfortable fact.

Regardless of what you or I think. Our government and public schools are governed by the Constitution and not the Bible. Teachers who do not understand that are in the wrong profession. And that is frankly a good thing because we live in a diverse society and only a tiny fraction of teachers are going to share the particular tenants of your faith or mine.

I see your view on scripture is that is “slavery apologia”.

In Philemon Paul sends a slave back to his master. YOU brought up the subject of slavery not me. Tell us where in the Bible Paul condemns slavery and says it is a sin to own other people.

I'm merely pointing out that there are actual reasons why we live under a Constitution and not Biblical law. The Bible is actually not a good basis for forming a modern government. The founding fathers were well aware of this fact which is why you find no real trace of Biblical law anywhere in the Constitution. Even the 10 Commandments which evangelicals like to cite as the foundation of American law and post up in courthouses and classrooms? Only two of them are found anywhere in US law (murder and theft). And those are basic tenants of natural law that every society adopts, Christian or otherwise. The other 8 Commandments? They are completely absent from US law.

This is also partly why Anabaptists have always supported separation of church and state. Because they are separate spheres or kingdoms as you will.

[Josh]

I never said anything about forming a government.

I simply said that the Bible tells me what is right and wrong and is another authority then any of the Empire’s laws. And the Bible commands us to share the gospel, and to obey God rather than men.

[Ken]

I never said anything about forming a government.

I simply said that the Bible tells me what is right and wrong and is another authority then any of the Empire’s laws. And the Bible commands us to share the gospel, and to obey God rather than men.

There are more forms of government than the kings and emperors mentioned in the Bible. We are not subjects of an emperor. If you are a public school teacher you are governed by a volunteer school board that was democratically elected by your neighbors.

Also if you are a public school teacher then you are subject to an employment contract that YOU signed in which you agreed to the terms of your employment. Those terms include following all the laws, rules, and procedures that your position is subject to. If disagree with the terms of that contract you should not have signed it and should not have agreed to take the job. Simple as that.

[Josh]

It is never wrong to share the good news of Jesus Christ.

[Ken]

It is never wrong to share the good news of Jesus Christ.

And if that is your attitude then you have no business being a public school teacher or holding any other public job in which as a consequence of your job you are given a captive audience of people who have no choice in the matter but to interact with you. Nor should you be signing an employment contract (which all teachers must sign) in which you agree to abide by the rules of your employer. One of which is to avoid proselytizing to the children who are assigned to your care.

When you sign an employment contract to be a teacher, you are agreeing to the terms of that contract. One of which is that you are a representative of the state and not your church during your working hours. When you are on your own time you are free to do whatever you want.

[ken_sylvania]

Ken-
Would you object to a theoretical public American school that was 100% staffed by, and 100% of the students and their parents, and 100% of the school board etc., was the same religion, and openly promoted their religion in that school?

I’m thinking sort of olden days when roughly everyone shared a basic religious framework. Except, let’s turn up the community religious alignment

You are proposing a hypothetical that exists nowhere in this country. I would challenge you to find a single school district anywhere in the country where all students, all parents, and all taxpaying citizens in that district are all of the same faith and of the same mind when it comes to the tenants of that faith.

And, in any event, it doesn't matter what I thing anyway. The courts would rule that such an arrangement would be an impermissible violation of the 1st Amendment separation of church and state. Because you would be using the power of the state to coerce citizens to pay taxes for such as public school. And public employees paid for by public tax dollars would be using their public positions to favor and promote one specific religion.

Isn't it interesting how it took more than a hundred years after the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution for the courts to figure out what it actually was intended to mean? Sort of like how it took about 200 years for them to figure out that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was way broader than anyone might have guessed?

[Ken]

Ken-
Would you object to a theoretical public American school that was 100% staffed by, and 100% of the students and their parents, and 100% of the school board etc., was the same religion, and openly promoted their religion in that school?

I’m thinking sort of olden days when roughly everyone shared a basic religious framework. Except, let’s turn up the community religious alignment

You are proposing a hypothetical that exists nowhere in this country. I would challenge you to find a single school district anywhere in the country where all students, all parents, and all taxpaying citizens in that district are all of the same faith and of the same mind when it comes to the tenants of that faith.

And, in any event, it doesn't matter what I thing anyway. The courts would rule that such an arrangement would be an impermissible violation of the 1st Amendment separation of church and state. Because you would be using the power of the state to coerce citizens to pay taxes for such as public school. And public employees paid for by public tax dollars would be using their public positions to favor and promote one specific religion.

Isn't it interesting how it took more than a hundred years after the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution for the courts to figure out what it actually was intended to mean? Sort of like how it took about 200 years for them to figure out that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was way broader than anyone might have guessed?

The Constitution is a living document. If it was clear to all what it means in our changing world then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court would we?

And even when one court comes to one conclusion regarding the meaning of a particular clause of the Constitution, future courts may determine otherwise. Plessy v. Fergusson ruled that "separate but equal" segregation was Constitutional. Brown v. Board of Education reversed that decision decades later. The Constitution didn't change but our interpretation of it did.