Is Religion allowed in School?

Chip,

Did George Washington say this:

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
??

If he did say this, do you think he didn't want children to learn about God in school?

Huhn?!

Yes. he did. This is often used as a fundementalist talking point, but it is woefully misrepresented in its intent.

What is overlooked is that Washington is addressing Indians. The gist of the speech is that they will get along better with the now independant colonists if they understand their ways.

The full quote as follows:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

Washington is simply stating that as the majority of the Europeans in the Americas were followers of Christ, that to truly understand them --they must learn about Christ.

If that was the full quote, wouldn't the part I posted be in it, assuming the quote I posted was lacking. Read the qoute I posted and compare to the one you posted...


Your post: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

My post: “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”

Your post doesn't negate his point found within my post. In fact, your post strengthens my point. He believes children and adults should learn about God, as was absolutely how it was. All children learned abbout God in school during the time frame we are discussing.

Your quote is immediately BEFORE what I quoted. You are misunderstanding Washington's obvious intent. He is speaking to INDIANS who are having trouble relating to Europeans. Schools at the time were not Government funded, blah blah blah --this has all been stated numerous times.

The trouble I have with the way you debate, Kevn --is you simply repeat your points ad infinitum until we all become too tired to argue with you. It's quite annoying, and don't expect me to repeat myself.

If you would like to teach lessons about your Jesus in a private school. Please go ahead.
If you wish to bring it into a school that I pay taxes to support -- you can kiss my ass .

Oook, clearly any discussion between us is over. It's just not adult-like to say "kiss my ass" in a debate setting.

Sure it is. I'm an adult and I said it. See how that works?
For the record, I find it incredibly offensive that you believe that shoving your way of life onto others is some sort of moral victory.

I was just thinking, isn't it one sided that the left get to include their beliefs and moral values in our shared educational system? But when the right talk about their values it's "shoving it down our throats". Strange hypocrisy if you ask me.

It's not a binary equation. Your failure to understand that is the root of your problem.

I believe it was the communists who thought taking God out of schools was a good idea, not the founders of the USA. A communist doctrine.

Jefferson was a communist?

For the love of sanity, y'all, why not just put the poster on Ignore, 'kay? It wants little more than to involve others in its delusions, and not in a way so's to explore but to shore up its own pre-conceived notions and to try and get those with vision to be as blind as itself. We've seen over and over how its supposed "investigations" are just a front for its "Aha --- gotcha!" conclusions --- even when, as usual, it hasn't got a goddam thing. Let it go. It's not going to understand anything, it's not ever going to be otherwhere than the comforting, mindless fog of its own lifelong making. Let it bask in its fog alone, I gently suggest: Let it stew in its own vile juices. Let it go. There are so many other, more rational and more consistent and more basically charming people in here who also disagree with you to wrestle with, that you needn't shove your hands into the Tar Baby.

kk?

I mean, I hate to see Ulrika shooting fish in a barrel, you know? (It's such a waste of cold, flinty talent!)

Right, we wouldn't want her to have to step down from another position of trust based on her sniping at people with whom she disagrees. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Huh? The left doesn't teach moral beliefs in public schools any more than the right does. That's not what public schools are for. Not teaching religion is NOT equivelant to teaching that religion is wrong. Kids are not taught in public school that there is no god. What about that do you not understand? Get a grip.

The left teaches life came to being contrary to religious teachings. Both sides believe their side is correct because both sides have faith in their theories.

Science can become a religion to those who refuse to even look at the posibility of a creator.

"The problem, Cremo believes, is both misfeasance and malfeasance. You can find many cases where it's just an automatic process. It's just human nature that a person will tend to reject things that don't fit in with his particular world view. He cites the example of a young paleontologist and expert on ancient whale bones at the Museum of Natural History in San Diego. When asked if he ever saw signs of human marks on any of the bones, the scientist remarked, I tend to stay away from anything that has to do with humans because it's just too controversial. Cremo sees the response as an innocent one from someone interested in protecting his career. In other areas, though, he perceives something much more vicious, as in the case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre. What she found was that she wasn't able to get her report published. She lost the teaching position at the university. She was labeled a publicity seeker and a maverick in her profession. And she really hasn't been able to work as a professional geologist since then.

In other examples, Cremo finds even broader signs of deliberate malfeasance. He mentions the activities of the Rockefeller foundation, which funded Davidson Black's research at Zhoukoudian (in China). Correspondence between Black and his superiors with the Foundation shows that research and archeology was part of a far larger biological research project, (from the correspondence) thus we may gain information about our behavior of the sort that can lead to wide and beneficial control. In other words, this research was being funded with the specific goal of control. Control by whom? Cremo wants to know.

The motive to manipulate is not so hard to understand. There's a lot of social power connected with explaining who we are and what we are, he says. Somebody once said knowledge is power. You could also say power is knowledge. Some people have particular power and prestige that enables them to dictate the agenda of our society. I think it's not surprising that they are resistant to any change.

Cremo agrees that scientists today have become a virtual priest class, exercising many of the rights and prerogatives which their forebears in the industrial scientific revolution sought to wrest from an entrenched religious establishment. They set the tone and the direction for our civilization on a worldwide basis, he says. If you want to know something today you usually don't go to a priest or a spiritually inclined person, you go to one of these people because they've convinced us that our world is a very mechanistic place, and everything can be explained mechanically by the laws of physics and chemistry which are currently accepted by the establishment.

To Cremo it seems the scientists have usurped the keys of the kingdom, and then failed to live up to their promises. In many ways the environmental crisis and the political crisis and the crisis in values is their doing. And I think many people are becoming aware that (the scientists) really haven't been able to deliver the kingdom to which they claimed to have the keys. I think many people are starting to see that the world view they are presenting, just doesn't account for everything in human experience. "

So I clearly understand why the left is so biased against faith in God.

The right doesn't own religion, sweetie.
I know quite a few very devout religious people who are firmly on the left.

I come from a family of deeply religious Jews who are in fact very very left.

You've been so brainwashed by extremist religious indoctrination and propoganda it's truly frightening. I wouldn't even let you near my kids, let alone allow you to dictate what they are taught.

Bro Chip,

Why do you think so many are choosing to homeschool? So the left doesn't choose what their children learn.

Why? Because they drank the same kool-aid you have and no longer have even the slightest grasp on objective reality.

Ok, I think we have reached the end of our discussion in this matter. It was fun while it lasted tho. I don't want Jeska to feel the need to close the thread. Thanks for the chat.

I know where you're coming from, at some point it becomes obvious that some people have nothing of value to say. I like to listen to what people have to say even when I disagree with them. However, truely hateful people who refuse to listen to reason deserve it and yesterday I finally broke down and put someone on my ignore list. I still feel guilty about it, though.

We have two sides of an issue. Both sides wonder why the other side is so hard headed. Hmm, maybe both sides believe what they believe because no one has convinced them otherwise. I saw many great points from both sides but none made the point that changed a mind.

I think it's wrong to assume the other side is hard headed and ignorant for not agreeing with me. I hope everyone can allow other's an opinion without suggesting the other side of the debate is full of complete idiots. I try not to assume that of people who disagree with me.

Then why the insistance on force-feeding religion to our children?

I stand on my opinion, as you stand on your's. You insist we refuse kids the right to learn about God in state mandated schools and as such you are forcing your religion on me and others. To us, your belief there is no God is as much a religion as my faith in God. You see, it's the point of view that causes the bias. You are biased against God and I'm biased for God. Both are biases. There must be a middle ground.

Since 75-80% of the people in this country are religious, obviously most public school teachers are also. Once again, PUBLIC SCHOOLS DO NOT TEACH THAT THERE IS NO GOD! The ONLY middle ground is neutrality with respect to relgion, which means not teaching it pro or con. Your view that science is atheistic because it contradicts literal interpretation of your holy book is purely your own bias. You might understand that if you actually bothered to listen to anything said to you, but you won't. You believe what you believe, no matter how much it conflicts with reality or common sense. You're nothing but a shill for Christian propagandists.