The classroom wall of separation

One fact that heathen judges overlook in making their pronouncements of how much of God children should have is that His Royal Highness, the Judge, will one day stand before the judgement Throne of Jesus Christ and give answer for the life he or she has lived. Jesus said "if you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you when I come in my glory"! Eternity in hell will seem like a long time to these pious heathen who keep small children from being taught about Jesus and God. You have God's Word on it!

I cannot fathom how one could study a culture without studying its religion. Religious beliefs and themes derived from religious heritage influence art, literature, music, history, politics, architecture and other fields of endeavor.

"Eternity in hell will seem like a long time to these pious heathen who keep small children from being taught about Jesus and God."

So someone who's raised Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Jewish, taught all their life by their parents and every authority figure they knew and trusted that those religions were true and right, and makes an effort to live a good and decent life but never converts to your faith deserves to burn in hell forever and ever, in unimaginable torture, just for that? We don't inflict such punishment on serial murderers - but your God inflicts it on anyone who chooses the "wrong" religion in the Russian roulette game of life? (After all, yours has no more objective proof or evidence for it than any of the others.)

And you praise, flatter, and kiss up to the God who inflicts such horrors on your brothers and sisters, just so your abusive father will refrain from torturing you, too? (Unless, of course, you've guessed wrong...or broken some arbitrary rule you may not even have known about...)

Says a lot about the morality of the sadistic, abusive deity you worship, and about your morality, too.

In God we trust is for all who belive in God. It is not for one religion or one type of a religion. Why do you want to push a relegion or type of a religion in a public school class room? The USA is a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is not for any religion but you have the right to beleive in what ever you want just so that you do not force your beliefs on other. If you want to , try Afghanistan for exsample.

A course in comparative religions can be taught in public schools if the content objectively presents all different religious viewpoints and does not endorse any one of them over the others. The claim that religion can not be taught in public schools comes essentially from those who don't agree with these parameters and who wish to proselytize their particular religious belief. If they can't teach that their belief is the only true belief, then they don't want any discussion of religion, essentially they are keeping the discussion of religion out of the classroom. If they can't have their way they won't play. Funny, if all religions are compared side by side, then wouldn't the one, true faith boldly shine forth? Why do true believers worry so if God is on their side? Isn't their personal relationship with God sufficient for them? Don't they have faith that God will bring all His children home? Grace comes from God, not the church.

So the MATH teacher had all the religious-themed banners up in his room? Shouldn't he have math-themed stuff up? Unless, of course, he's trying to sneak a little religion into math class, which makes a lot of sense (if you're a religious zealot).

In a classroom devoted to history or humanities or comparative religion, graphics that show religion's impact on human culture would be appropriate. I can imagine a woodcut of apostates being tortured by Catholic Inquisitors, or of Luther nailing up his 95 theses. You could have photos of Greek temple pediments, complete with the sculptures of gods and goddesses, etc. But a bunch of "America is God's special country" banners in a math classroom? This guy needs to mellow out.

Lets place christianity in it's true context. Slavery, conquest, crusade, witch trials, inqusition, hate, discrimination, oppression to all who do not kneel before the cross.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." - John Adams

You cannot deny the principles in which this country was founded. You can, however, choose not to believe in God.

You cannot deny why hundreds of thousands of people risked their lives on less than sea worthy skiffs for three months to cross the Atlantic to live a life where they could worship and practice religion any which way they choose. 99.99% of them were what? That's right, Christians.

As history continues to be rewritten and rewritten every year our founding fathers and the founding citizenry of this country miraculously become less and less "Christian".

Just because this information is no longer in text books does not mean it didn't happen.

Bradley Johnson did his due diligence and insuring that four statements had an equitable place on the walls of this institution.

Jon Lennon (was not a natural us citizen) can have a quote, but "...And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'." 1814 by Francis Scott Key can't?

Malcolm X get to state his opinion, but "... that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom." 1863 by Abraham Lincoln does not?

Nirvana gets a reference, but "...God Bless America." 1918 by Irving Berlin does not?

"Celebrate Diversity" gets to be on the school's walls when "...God Shed His Grace on Thee." 1895 by Katharine Lee Bates who was celebrating diversity before it was popular by being a lesbian college professor has to go to court to get any space.

nellienails wrote:
". . . 99.99% of them were what? That's right, Christians."

Sounds to me like nellienails should attend Bradley Johnson's math class for some remedial math lessons. Or maybe Mr. Johnson teaches a class that is several grade levels higher than such a remedial class needed by nellienails?

According to nellienails, there are less than 35,000 descendants of American Indians, and non-Christian Asiatic Indians, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Pakistanis, Arabs, Iranis, North Africans, etc., not to mention the more than the 5,000,000 Jews in the US. The "less than 35,000" figure is based on a US population of 305 million (it's actually less than 32,000).

Please take your Christo-Facism back to the hole you climbed out of, nellienails.

What alarms me very much is the denial of what this country was founded on. To deny one's past is to deny oneself -I believe.
Another thing is that very few people realize that Christians and Muslims come from the same base (?) father (?) Abraham.

It's about context. As an Atheist, I'm not necessarily against the fact that other people have beliefs different from my own or even express them. However, when they cross the line from expression to proselythizing, that's where their First Amendment rights stop.

So, if the Math teacher was legitimately using these expressions in a way related to the course, I don't have a problem. However, as a Mathematician myself, I don't see how this could possibly be relevant. I'm betting that the teacher has crossed the line from expression to proselythizing.

Leaving theology out of history is not realistic.
The study of theology is not the same as accepting a religion.
Some believe that religion is to important to be left to public schools.
Theist: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods
Atheist: someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods
Antitheist: One opposed to belief in the existence of a God

There has to be a balance. The high school's tilt toward freedom of academic expression and away from separation of church and state opened the door to teachers posting religious expressions on the walls of Westview. The school's attempt to restore balance tilted to much toward separation causing a push back by teacher accustomed to the freedom of academic expression the school allotted them, resulting in the court ruling. This in a nutshell captures the on going tension in the United States between public schools, personal religious expression, and academic free expression.

Jesus can speak for himself. Until then I wish his followers would shut up. Especially given that a lot of them are nasty, mean, and act evilly towards anyone not like them.

Critter69 - thanks for the advice. Well, I climbed out of the hole you suggested I go into to thank you for taking out of context the figure that was referenced.

The 99.99% figure refers to early European settlers and their direct decedents (as it was clearly stated, reading comprehension is useful) and not the current U.S population. That is why it says "hundreds of thousands". I guess if the Washington post allowed me to draw pictures they would have had an audience of you in mind with that thought.

Jamestown, Plymouth, William Penn - any of that ring a bell?

The only point that was trying to be made was that the founding citizens who fought an eight year revolution to earn the right to shape a new wilderness any way they collectively preferred to chose to do so on a foundation of Christian principles.

I guess that is a benefit when you start and found something new like, oh, ...a country. The people and the people chosen to represent those citizens get to be the architects (declaration of independence, bill of rights).

For example, if Critter69 started a club or organization for people who choose not to or suffer from an inability to understand what they read then they collectively (democracy) or Critter69 could make up the rules himself (dictator) could shape this group any way they or he saw fit. That is the fun of starting something new.

It's cute how Critter69 got all huffy and didn't understand what Critter69 was reading. I'm sure Mr. Johnson would allow you to do your homework over since you didn't understand the assingment.

well, since nellienails started the silly "we were founded as a christian nation!" quotefest -

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." - Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." - Thomas Jefferson - 1814

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams - Dec. 27, 1816

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." - John Adams

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine

(now wasn't that fun?!)

on topic: in general, I've got no problem with the teacher's display. It sounds like it was pretty ecumenical in that it exampled many belief systems and religions but championed none. Math class might not have been a place one expects to see such a display, but it sounds pretty innocuous.

You religious folks are funny, and ridiculous. How can you believe such fairy tales?

Why do people insist that it's necessary to post religious messages on their walls? What happened to knowing them by their acts?

I would never dream of putting posters that indicated my personal beliefs up in my place of work. Why are schools different?

Churchlionjudah,

Noone is preventing children from being taught about god and Jesus, except in schools. I'm sure there are plenty of churches around who would happily teach them about god with no objections from anyone.

Is it your position that god doesn't want children to have a sound education based on the best of current human understanding?

WILYARMADILLA

Quotefest? One John Adams quote = a quotefest? Perhaps Sesame Street's Count Von Count should have been a little more influential in your early stages of development?

Guess what? I bought a new album it had one song on it. According to your math one song = album.

If you're referencing the quotes that Mr. Johnson was ordered to take down then I am not sure that you actually read the article that has inspired all this reaction?

My point, which you missed, was that a collection of influential Americans deserved the same space on the walls of this high school as some their contemporary counterparts. I simply provided a historical citation as to where, when, and by whom these phrases were created. To reference something you should indicate, and in this case the actual quotes on the walls of the institution, what is being referenced.

Francis Scott Key
Abraham Lincoln
Irving Berlin
Katharine Lee Bates

Just because time has made these people less and less socially relevant does not diminish their accomplishments. And in context for the periods that each of these statements were made God was more influential on the values and the culture of America at the time.

Don't confuse the poor example that some Christians portray with the life of Jesus. He is the example, not the people who follow him.

In this religious conflict among the adults, I hope these kids learn to add and subtract.

All I am going to say for all of you, who have a problem with someone displaying their christian beliefs in the classroom. Rememeber one thing, you would not be blogging on this sight if the greats such as francis scott keys and others did not place there trust in God and had the unconditional faith that HE was going to deliver this nation. So before you get worked up about it read the history books and try to obtain a little bit of knowledge of the religion this country was founded on. After you research then you come up here and make a statement, until then may God Bless You All.

Rationalista: So the MATH teacher had all the religious-themed banners up in his room? Shouldn't he have math-themed stuff up?

That was one of the first things that hit me as well. When I taught math, my classroom walls had multiplication tables, graphs, Escher tessellations, geometric figures, other examples of basic and applied mathematics, and pictures of historically significant mathematicians on them. They didn't have diagrammed sentences, pictures of Washington crossing the Delaware, diagrams of dissected frogs, or religious material on them - none of those were relevant to the course.

A glaring example of why we can't trust Mormons to respect the separation of church and state:

The president of Northwest College in Powell, Wyoming, says he'll keep religion out of his recruitment efforts after a recent mailing to Mormon high school students raised ire on campus.

Paul Prestwich wrote an e-mail to students and faculty members on Tuesday saying religion won't be the focus of the school's formal recruitment efforts in the future.

Prestwich, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sent about 1,000 letters to LDS teens last month touting the benefits that the school and community offer students of that faith. The letters were written on school letterhead and were accompanied by a letter on church letterhead from Fred Hopkin, president of the Mormon church's Cody Wyoming Stake.

"It's about context. As an Atheist, I'm not necessarily against the fact that other people have beliefs different from my own or even express them. However, when they cross the line from expression to proselythizing, that's where their First Amendment rights stop."

Yes and no. Proselytizing itself does not infringe upon the First Amendment. Proselytizing by government officials, to include teachers, operating in a governmental capacity, viz. while on the job getting paid by tax dollars, cannot proselytize. If they proselytize in their free time, that's up to them.

Nellienials,

I think that the differance in the quoes you re referencing is that their are historical religious leaders who were passionate about their faith but still respected the establishemtn claause and understood that religion, while a powerful, personal driver, does not belong in politics or state endorsed arena. Tale Lincoln as an example and google the National Associatopn. During his presidency, they wanted amend the U.S. Constitution to include Christian language and he was clearly against it, aloowing for seperate, unendorsed ideas on reliigion. You talk about "one quote" from Adams but it was not. The founders had seen wide spread religious intoloerance and whole they came to America as religious people, they were very guarded about a "single" religion, even to the point to Christianity. While mostly Christian or deiest, Washington's own tolerance allowed him include "mohamadans" (Islam) and "hindoos" ((hindu) to be on an wqual footing in some of his writings.

For a state endorsed school to have referancdes to God on the walls is out of line, moslty because the assuption from theat techer is obvioulsy Christian and against the establishment clause.

Does anyone have a single shred of proof of the existence of a god(s)?

While our children are ranked no better than 16th out of 30 countries polled in math and science, let's continue to waste our collective time talking about religion in the classroom. These are the national debates that have turned us into partisan morons incapable of getting anything done and the United States into a 3rd world country that can't pay it's bills.

And if this country doesn't grow up and start acting more tolerant and logically, we will be relegated to 3rd world status permanently.

"For a state endorsed school to have referancdes to God on the walls is out of line, moslty because the assuption from theat techer is obvioulsy Christian and against the establishment clause." (CADAM72)

But why are only references to God out of line? Why are references to other religions considered "diversity" but references to Christianity/Judaism are considered "inappropriate"?

I deeply respect the Establishment Clause, but I don't believe that one teacher choosing to put several banners (two of which are historically relevant phrases commonly used by the United States government) violates that Clause.

One other question - everyone is assuming that the other teachers used posters and banners relevant to their classrooms. The resounding assumption is that the Malcolm X and Ghandi posters were in a history class. But would a quote by, say, Abraham Lincoln, that used the word God, be acceptable in a history or government classroom? And what if these phrases were NOT in a history class? What if they were in a science class, or music (it's not out of the realm of possibility, as the author cited a John Lennon lyric)? What then?

Just something to think about before you - pardon my reference - crucify the teacher.

One last parting comment - many of you are sadly bitter and angry towards people of religion (though it seems to be mostly towards Christian, but that is a generalization). Perhaps this teacher is trying to teach these students to be accepting and tolerant of all religions and beliefs? Tolerance and diversity should be taught and celebrated - but in a full and open way, where all views really ARE appreciated. Were the teacher to say that only his way was the right way, that would be one thing, but there is no evidence that he actually did so. Until he did, it's hardly fair to single out his views as "inappropriate" simply because we have a hyper-sensitivity to Christianity.

Religion does not belong in the public schools unless it is in a historical context (one cannot exactly study ancient Egypt without understanding their religion, since it was basically their way of life) or in a comparative religions-type class, as has already been mentioned.

But expressing oneself is not religion. What's next, forbidding teachers from wearing crosses? What kind of message does that really teach our kids?? We teach them about respect, equality, fairness, tolerance, and compassion - and then remove all forms of expression relevant to one specific view that we deem "religious" and "inappropriate." Maybe allowing religions symbols is not the answer, but only forbidding one kind of religion is not either.

I'd like people to keep their invisible friends out of the classroom.

for those refering to god bless america and irving berlin, i would like to point out irving berlin was an atheist.

Freedom of religion does not mean the absence of religion. If I grant you the freedom to worship as a muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Budhist that does not mean I have to surrender my faith or hide it from you.
Most people don't realize it but the people that made up the majority of the revolutionary war army and at the end of the American civil war were catholics. We won the freedom and the union of this country and we'll keep Christ who is God right where He is - thank you very much.

A math question:

How many times do the words: "God", "god(s)" appear in the Constitution of the United States?

All I am going to say for all of you, who have a problem with someone displaying their christian beliefs in the classroom. Rememeber one thing, you would not be blogging on this sight if the greats such as francis scott keys and others did not place there trust in God and had the unconditional faith that HE was going to deliver this nation. So before you get worked up about it read the history books and try to obtain a little bit of knowledge of the religion this country was founded on. After you research then you come up here and make a statement, until then may God Bless You All.
Posted by: ahall033
____________________

And my God bless you too...you're gonna need it because logic certainly isn't your strong suit.

This nation was not founded on any religion. Find the name of God in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution.

Our country incorporates certain Christian principles becuase that was the background of the founders but our country is no more Christian than it is Greek. After all, democracy and rule by city/states is an Athenian/Greek method of government.

Doesn't it occur to you that if the authors of the Constitution intended this country to be Christian nation they could have easily written that into the founding documents of the United States?

When you're ready to admit we are a Greek nation I'll admit we are a Christian nation.

fr churchlionjudah:

>...Eternity in hell will seem like a long time to these pious heathen who keep small children from being taught about Jesus and God. You have God's Word on it!

1. This was a high school, not an elementary school.

2. Nobody is keeping anyone from being taught about Christ here. It jus tdoesn't belong in public schools.

Freedom of religion does not mean the absence of religion. If I grant you the freedom to worship as a muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Budhist that does not mean I have to surrender my faith or hide it from you.
Most people don't realize it but the people that made up the majority of the revolutionary war army and at the end of the American civil war were catholics. We won the freedom and the union of this country and we'll keep Christ who is God right where He is - thank you very much.
Posted by: agapn9

_________________

You don't have to hide your religion. You can be Christian all you want. You can even pray anytime you want in school.

Simply don't use my tax dollars to give the impression the government supports Christianity over any other religion. This is in violation of the Constitution.

The SCOTUS didn't come up this ruling in a vacuum you know. They read the collected works of Jefferson, Madison, and others and based their decision upon the authors intent.

My bet is you would be livid if you had to bring an offering to school to lay at an ancestral alter.

Here's a hint, too. Unless you fought in the Civil War, the use of "we" is pretty presumptuous.

Eternity in hell will seem like a long time to these pious heathen who keep small children from being taught about Jesus and God. You have God's Word on it!
Posted by: churchlionjudah

____________________

Why aren't good Christians teaching their own children about Jesus and God? Why don't they go to church to learn about Jesus and God? Why don't they pray together? Why don't they discuss Jesus and God with their children? Why don't they post the Ten Commandments in their own homes? Why aren't they volunteering their time to teach little children about Jesus and God? Why must they get religious education in a public school? Why don't they go to a religious school?

These people who rely on public schools to educate their children about God and Jesus don't sound like very good Christians.

A little parental responsibiliy and self-sufficiency would go a long way.

I think it only fair that students be exposed to some of the thoughts of millions of people who prefer no religion at all and no god at all. I suggest a banner/sticker/whatever that allows for and encourages contrarian thinking: Religion, a self imposed curse of human kind.

Sounds like a smart judge corrected a case of reverse discrimination.

I sent my four children to parochial school from K-12. Cost me about $150K total, but it was worth it so they could be exposed to my faith values, hear daily prayers, and see my hero hanging from a cross on the classroom wall. They are all now law-abiding citizens.

I'm ok with moderate use of instructive religious symbols and concepts in public schools, not everyone's got an extra 150K to pay for that kind of beneficial moral guidance in today's decaying social climate.

ghandi was not a deity, he was a non violent racist...
he thought little of blacks...

By coincidence or not, other religions focus on treatment of others. This goes well with character education for children. Christianity, however, has as it's focus only the acceptance of Christ (i.e. needlessly bombing the crap out of Iraq for capital/egotistical gain while at the same time refrencing the 'awmighty'). No place for that nonsense in a classroom for children.

Christians could go along way toward working themselves back into the public sector if they would only abandon the idea that a ten in the plate on Sunday buys them the freedom to give the rest of the world the finger the rest of the week.

This being and educational institution, shouldn't "Critical Thinking" and reasoning skills be also taught.

If a teacher wants to advocate the existence of a god (which contradicts the laws of nature), they should also be able to prove this god exists, in a reasonable fashion and not by just quoting scripture or claiming it exists because it can't be proven that it doesn't exist.

A.K.A. The Appeal to Ignorance (a logical fallacy).

Well interesting how God's Name is posted as the Vatican has the following:
The German scandal comes after the Pope led talks last month with Irish bishops over allegations of abuse at schools, orphanages and other institutions in Ireland over several decades.

So now we know why Republican Law Makers and the Churches are fighting to deny abortions and woman's rights. Now the Holy City is picking up innocent young men for the High Priest. Well God said Satan would be in the Church and even Jesus warned how this but it seems no one listened.

JJJ,
I sent my daughter to a public school and to religious education classes at a Unitarian church so that she could decide for herself what, if any, religious beliefs made the most sense to her. She is now an adult, and a more compassionate agnostic you won't find anywhere.

EDDIE111 said:While our children are ranked no better than 16th out of 30 countries polled in math and science, let's continue to waste our collective time talking about religion in the classroom.

Which is the point. Had this been in a history classroom or, arguably, used as examples of poetry in an English classroom, I don't think some of these issues would bother me.

But it was a math classroom, and as others have pointed out, math classrooms usually have math concepts illustrated, not diversity statements, not quotes about God, not schema for nuclear reactors.

Maybe I'm just backward, but I'd prefer classic math themes in a math classroom.

The US likes to pretend they don't favor Christianity, but they do. Ok, we give up. Go ahead and drop your math, science, and English books and just use your bibles and prayer beads. Go ahead and study that and get even more stupid.

As long as America is represented as a nation which protects all religions then I have no trouble with it all. The pictures of Ghandi, Teresa, King, should also be accompanied by pictures from scenes of the Mahabrata, the Koran, the Bible, and so on. Then you can have your crucifix if you want it. Not in my country, however, will you ever see just a representation of the Judeo-Christic-Islamic deity -- which is one and the same. This is a country and place where people are free to address their own version of the inneffable. Just keep your Jesus in his place, m'kay?

I was in the 4th grade when my teacher tol the class that due to a Supreme Court ruling, we were no longer permitted to pray in school. Going to church every Sunday, I could not believe that some people didn't believe in God. I don't have a problem with that; people can live as they choose. But don't tell me that where I practice my beliefs or how. People that know someone greater than they should be able to display without fear of being reprimanded. Why shouldn't children be exposed so they know that if they choose God, it many ways to express themselves/

I've seen many flowers and none can be said as ugly. They are all pretty. How can something without eyes and brain able to critique itself make such a visual masterpiece unless there's a highly intelligent being behind it?

Prove me wrong in my assertion that you guys are no match with my analytical thinking skills.

That question is ORIGINAL coming from a true thinking engineer.

From a crawling worm (caterpillar) eating leaves into a graceful flying pretty butterfly eating nectar. The science of metamorphosis. It's is an engineering marvel which can't be duplicated by any scientist or engineer even in theoretical methods like computer simulations. How then can butterflies metamorphose without a highly intelligent being behind it?

Prove me wrong in my assertion that you guys are no match with my analytical thinking skills.

That question is ORIGINAL coming from a true thinking engineer.

There are many fragrant flowers. They have no smelling capability and no brain to critique their smell. Yet they are perfectly plesant to smell. The chemical process is not that easy coz if it is, then people could easily make perfumes from soil and water plus the sun. How is it possible that they can be makers of fragrant scents without a highly intelligent being behind it?

Prove me wrong in my assertion that you guys are no match with my analytical thinking skills.

That question is ORIGINAL coming from a true thinking engineer.

fr skinfreak:

> was in the 4th grade when my teacher tol the class that due to a Supreme Court ruling, we were no longer permitted to pray in school....

Your teacher was wrong. It's teacher-led prayers that are not allowed. Kids can still pray, quietly and SILENTLY, whenever they wish, so as to not disturb those of other faiths/beliefs.

What about a picture of the stars? I don't think Gandhi, Jesus, Abraham, Buddha, Mohamed or any sect with its own mystery person would claim a higher power than the universe? Or do their followers truly believe their man is the One? How do they dare buy into the novel idea pigeon holed between cave drawings and Andy Warhol is the one supreme being? Don't they ever consider their story to be no more relevant than a primitive tribe's story. Christians two thousand years ago were primitive tribes. They just had a better PR man and marketing campaign. No one should have to invest in another person's beliefs especially when they have caused such sorrow in non-believers for centuries.

Currently liberals are on a campaign to extirpate religion from public schools. Christianity played an important role in the development of Western Civilization that even most liberals would not deny. The great cathedrals of Europe- Notre Dame (Our Lady), St. Peter's- to mention only two, the music of Mozart and of Bach, again only two out of hundreds, bear testimony to the importance of that role. Will leftist judges ban the playing of Mozart's Requiem? I will not be surprised if they do. Islam in Europe is a threat to European civilization but barbarians are not limited to believers of that faith.

The images of Ghandi or Martin Luther KIng Jr inspire thought without endorsement. They were leaders or role models in society of their times.

The same could be said of Jesus, but his image on a clasroom wall would be perceived as an endorsement of a particular faith.

These days we could use some positive inspiration. How about Thomas Jefferson...

Isn't time to take religion out of everything except religious institutions? Do we need superstitious nonsense in educational establishments? isn't it time to rid ourselves of religious sponsored "public" education? No student should subject to religious propaganda and indoctrination in getting an education. If the so-called religious people want to indoctrinate their kids and those of others then do it outside the public education system!! And certainly no religious slogans and superstitions should adorn classroom walls... in context of studying Gandhi or King or Western Civilization then the "fair and balanced" discussion of religion is appropriate... perhaps; I doubt there are many redoubtable Christians that would consider the study of Gandhi and his non-violent methods as permission to inquiry and extol any virtues of Hinduism!

The theocratic kinds of Christians are not going to understand why they are so destructive to the US Constitution. Since they have a political learning disability, here's an exercise for them: imagine substituting a belief system that you are opposed to, as a replacement to every one of your impositions to schools and in the public at large. Imagine Jewish, fundamentalist Islam, or even Satanic or atheist promotions at the local schools and town square. You would be the first to rightly declare that to be inappropriate.

Born-Again-Christians have totally abused their rights and welcome as they are nothing more than morally depraved predators upon the weak. They are always on the prowl, constantly trolling, searching for their next victim to molest, searching for their next convert. They just want to add another notch onto their dastardly cane.

Some Born-Again-Christian predators went trolling for Jews to molest in Israel for their next cane notch. Israel threatened to deport all of them as undesirables. They eventually signed a cease and decease agreement with Israel to avoid being deported.

Islam has the best remedy for this proselytizing disease. They see proselytizers as so morally depraved that they are subject to the death penalty if found guilty.

I can't stand all this nonsense that we a "Christian Nation". That is a flat out lie and needs to be called out. Read the Constitution, the Founders insisted that there should be no establishment of a state sponsored religion. All these "In God we Trust" signs in public schools is wrong, but out politicians are too cowardly to point it out. Read the Constitution, and stop trying to cram Christianity down my throat!

The degree of anti-Judeo-Christian bias in public schools is well documented and amazing...everyting is okay EXCEPT references to God, even via the offical national motto of the United States of America? Give me a break! The blindness of this school district takes one's breath away! And the idea that the offical national motto of the US - In God We Trust - is somehow unconstitutional would be comical if the ignorance weren't so sad.

Does no one understand the basis of this case? It's not about Christianity. It's about whether a school can choose to single out a single faith tradition for exclusion while allowing all others. I'm fine with them allowing NO religious expressions on the walls. But can't y'all see that if they allow this they can't say 'everything is welcome...except traditional theism?' I don't know what is more frightening the act of this school district or the inability of all the readers of this article to understand the very basic premise of equal protection under law! Yikes!

Jumpin jeezus k frog, you religious fanatics are so friggin nuts it's hard to believe.

Believe whatever you want but keep it to yourself.

religion and the fools that believe that crap are responsible for more death and misery than any other group.

It will be a much better world when all the religions are at long last tossed onto the ash heap of history.

Ladies and gentlemen: As an example of the brilliance and integrity and truthfulness and professionalism of the hacks working for the Washington Post, consider this offering by Waters: "The Constitution demands that public education be neutral ....about matters of religion." Not only does the Constitution do no such thing, the Constitution doesn't even mention public education. Oh, and guess what? There's no "wall of separation" in there either. I would reprint the First Amendment here for you, but most of you are intelligent and capable; just try to be a little resourceful and LOOK IT UP!

As a Catholic - I find it fascinating that the Public Schools want me to pay up and shut up. Everyone's opinions are welcome but mine? I don't think so. Meanwhile I'm still forking out taxes to a school system that spends $10,000+ per student but gets the same or worse results than the Catholic School that spends less than half that amount for equal or better results. (And nicer buildings.)

Some people just do not get it, there is supposed to be separation of church and state in this country. Teachers in public schools should not put on display in their classrooms direct references to "god."

As to Martin L. King, Jr. Gandhi, Malcolm X, nearly everyone who is familiar with each of these individuals knows their fame is based upon their secular achievements, not their religious beliefs.

If it's Ok to put up a poster that says "God is Good", then it's OK for someone else to put up a poster saying "There Are No Gods", or "Allahu Akbar", or "Who Needs Superstition?", or "I LOVE Tinkerbell", or "Rama is d'Man" or whatever.

As we live in a world of superstition, where everyone believes something different about who we are, and how we got here - well maybe it's time we looked to science and reason to enlighten us. There is no reason to believe that gods ever existed, and there is no reason to think that death is avoidable. Such ideas defy common sense, are untrue and clearly intended to console and comfort people who can't handle the reality of death and dying. We got to grow up and put away such childish notions, starting with religions-of-the-supernatural. AS far as we know - there is only the natural.

Talking about superstition and stupidity :

Reading comprehension deficiency and wilful ignorance are common among atheists.

Self-replication is a solid proof that a super-intelligent God exist. Only a crazy person can dispute this. It's sad coz atheists will pay a heavy price for their stupidity.

I've seen many flowers and none can be said as ugly. They are all pretty. How can something without eyes and brain able to critique itself make such a visual masterpiece unless there's a highly intelligent being behind it?

Prove me wrong in my assertion that you guys are no match with my analytical thinking skills.

That question is ORIGINAL coming from a true thinking engineer.

From a crawling worm (caterpillar) eating leaves into a graceful flying pretty butterfly eating nectar. The science of metamorphosis. It's is an engineering marvel which can't be duplicated by any scientist or engineer even in theoretical methods like computer simulations. How then can butterflies metamorphose without a highly intelligent being behind it?

Prove me wrong in my assertion that you guys are no match with my analytical thinking skills.

That question is ORIGINAL coming from a true thinking engineer.

Animals are different from humans. They belong to a lower form of intelligence and morality. If you butcher half of the pigs in a pen (most of these pigs are siblings), life continue with the remaining pigs as if nothing happened. Nobody will shed a tear for their "brother" or "sister" whom you just butchered.

You can't apply the morality of animals to humans like what evolutionists are doing. Humans belong to a level of intelligence and morality almost equal to God. This is both a blessing and a curse. A curse to the unbelievers and blessing to the believers.

If one thinks he is an animal, that is not an excuse in which he won't pay for the stupidity he makes. Animals have all the right to be stupid coz they belong to a different realm - the lower intelligence realm or the "stupid" realm.

The problem with atheist is they try to belong to that "stupid" realm. It's not possible. It's a formula for a path towards hell. Don't be duped folks.

Disagreement does not equal animosity. I hear you who post here who live within your constructed reality that there is a God and heaven and hell. If that belief supports you in remembering in every moment how Jesus would actually treat another human - great. If that belief bleeds over into you imposing your beliefs on anyone else, not so great. It's like cigarette smoke - your right to smoke ends when it would affect the air going into my lungs. ALL religions are cults, some more benign than others. Religion can help some people do the right thing...for the wrong reasons. I believe in treating others as generously as possible given my own human frailty. I don't need any other reason than the idea that you are a human too. Religion is simply human organization wanting to control others experience of the unknowable which is larger than us. Allah, Christ...every revered religious around the world is a human attempt to create meaning out of the mystery of the universe, aligned with methods to manage human behavior. None of us here on earth have the answer...because we are here on earth!

I have friends across the religious spectrum. Some of the most kind, christian people I know believe in walking the walk and skip talking the talk. Many Christians I know spend way too much time talking the talk, but where's their walk?
Love to you all.

The Math Teacher wanted his students to believe in God, so he put the quotes up.

I am certain his students know that he wants them to believe also. This is typical of any religion and quasi-religion. I am certain that Redskins fans are even more violent than Christians and Muslims when confronted with non-believers.

It will not hurt students to pretend that they believe in God, and it may cause this teacher to think better of them.

This teacher needs his students and his school district to validate his faith in God.

The very least these students can do is to repeat back the things the teacher wants them to say. They certainly do not have to say they believe when they have received their grades and are no longer his students.

It is a Win-Win situation: the teacher gets to tell his fellow Christians how he takes the message to everyone and preaches even in a Public School,

and if the teacher is correct, some of his students will come to believe in his God,

and they better, because his God is quite big on punishing humans forever and forever and forever, with endless torment accompanied by wailing and gnashing of rotten teeth and endless burning for not at least SAYING they believe even if they don't and cannot because the God speaks only to Pat Robertson and others and only appeared a few times all in one country thousands of years ago.

mwcob,
Speaking as someone who has no children, yea you're quite welcome to put a sock in it.

The bad thing about these folks is around the time they start getting worked up about how other people are going to "burn in hell" the odds of those said to be destined for hell's houses start being burnt up.

I'll flatly say that anyone who goes down a theological line contending that others are eternally damned over their choice in religion or sect is acting as an agency of evil when they do it.

Yes I wish a teacher could bring god to school so we could beat the crap out of him for being an evil, stupit, heartless, selfish, arrogant, uncaring, destructive, slimy, murderous, lying, cretin who hasn't done a damn thing to help anyone but who still wants our money every Sunday. J3rk.

Yonkers, New York
09 March 2010

To the question, "Can teachers bring God to class?" my quick and simple answer is, "No--and not into class in public and therefore secular schools."

There will always be attempts by those who believe in religion--and in "God," "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism"--to bring it to class in public schools.

These people should be reminded, pointedly and ceaselessly, that the U.S. Constitution wisely provides a firewall separating Church from State, forever. That firewall is and should be unbreakable.

American students in public schools should not be taught the falsehoods and the lies which religion, any religion, teaches. They should instead be taught how to think logically and rationally, using correctly and to the full their cognitive faculties.

Mariano Patalinjug

I am so sick of Christians cramming their religion down my throat and forcing me to acknowledge their form of worship EVERY DAY; while every day they abhor and insult my form of worship.

I am also sick of the WaPo Faith page being so unshamefully Christian-centric! Why not focus more on the other faiths represented in our community?

I've got to agree with the poster who questioned why these banners were on the wall of a math teacher.

A mix of illustrative material in a social studies class would be appropriate. An uneven display of references to the Anglo-Saxon idea of God in a math classroom is not.

The posters displayed (according to your reporting) were not academic references to varied religion in various cultures, but rather the pap that is offered as authoritative mantras: In God We Trust, One nation under God, God shed his grace on thee, God Bless America. Psychology 101 Mind Control! Mr. Johnson's personal belief ought not be authoritatively posted to subliminally plant itself in the minds of students.

When you theocratic Huckabee "Christians" are finally through with your constant sneering, harping and Obama bashing, you can elect Mormon Elder Romeny President.

He can then order NASA to build a gigantic spaceship with which his Mormons can "hie to Kolob" (the planet where they think God lives) and take all you right-wing white supremacists with you. Then the rest of us can then go about our normal lives without your constant trying to jam down our throats your ignorant intolerance and bullying in the name of poor old Jesus.

First of all, it is the church's responsibility to teach the Word of God and not the world. I really cannot understand how some Christians accept public schools teaching the scriptures. Public schools are not churches and many teachers are not Christians. It is NOT a place for worship but a place to learn and get your education. If you want to learn about God, go to church.

It's really that simple.

" 'It is not just about these particular banners in this particular room,' Chiment said in the statement. 'We are concerned with the lawsuits we will get in the future if the district cannot control what goes up on classroom walls.' "

There you have the essence of public education. School administrators care NOTHING about education. Their entire raison d etre any more is to prevent litigation. The hell with whether anyone learns anything. Public education should be shut down.

I, too, see no correlation between religion and a mathematics class. Where is the relevance?

If it were a class in comparative religion I would hope to see banners and signs and posters regarding ALL types of religions, not just Christianity. And no promoting or proselytizing in classrooms!

As an "equal-opportunity heathen" if I had children in school, I would definitely raise some ruckus about the promotion of only ONE religious belief in ANY CLASSROOM!!!!

Coloradodog: VERY well said!! Back to my comment: Churches are for religion and schools are for LEARNING!! WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAY?

Public schools are for education. Not proseletyzing. You want god shoved down your throat? Go to church, temple, Catholic school, etc. To some the "word of god" is fact. To the rest of us who live in the real world, it's nothing more than mythology. If you want to teach it in public schools, teach it as mythology. Teach it to give cultural context in a social studies class. When you start teaching it as substantive fact or endorsing it, you're crossing the line.

There is a lot of heated debate on the merits of religion vs the constitutional protection from endorsement. For the Christians reading this, the founders were so passionate about their faith(s) that they enshrined on our documents the RIGHT of free practice and the PROTECTION of individuals from the state. This means that any person acting on behalf of the state (school teacher, mayor, etc) can not endorse a PREFERRED religion at the expense of the citizens. For our consitution it does not matter (and did not matter) if a majority of those citizens are Christian etc because they saw the slippery slope of endorsing Christianity and then moving to endorsing particular creeds,etc. You can be proud that the founders shared some elements of your fatith, although there were agnostics, deists, etc but be prouder still that those same religious men chose NOT to enshrine in the constitution that we are a Christian nation. They wanted no part of religious tests for office ar state sponsored religion in any form. The first jews immigrated in 1654 to New Amersterdam If you look at the revolutionary war, many of those who fought from Turkey were Muslim as were many of the slaves coming from Africa. (Senegal, Gambia). Those same muslims defened this nation against the British in the War of 1812. From Jefferson to Adams to Lincoln, they were proufoundly religious men who saw that this concepts of ws imperative. While you are correct that "In God We trust" is not the official motto of the US, realize that was done in 1956 at the height of the cold war, Red scare and McCarthyism and from 1776 until 1956 our motto was "E pluribus unum" - outo of many, one.

It is more than ironic that the people who want teachers to be allowed to bring "god" into the class room would be the first to scream bloody murder if a jewish or muslim American teacher started lecturing their kids about Judaism or Islam, or papering the classroom with posters about the "Chosen People" or the commands of the prophet.

Of course this is only an issue because the school is run by the government.

If we privatized schools, we wouldn't have this incessant (and silly) wrangling about religion in schools.

For the next wall postings:(as noted previously by many bloggers)

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being myths and embellishments (e.g. miracles/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before.

In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added effect, Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "kneelers" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the father into god the killer of his son.

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of angelic visits and prophecies for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Having these incitements up in math class seems a bit suspect. Still, if it's OK because religion is a part of American history then a music classroom could have pro-slavery quotes from 1850s South Carolina plastered all over the room. That's part of U.S. - and religious - history too.

As a taxpayer in that school district am I allowed into that classroom to post my beliefs. After all, I'm paying for that room, the supplies and that teacher's salary.

I'd like to post that "In God We Trust" was added to our currency to justify the killing of Confederate soldiers during the Civil War.

This is actually an interesting problem. Certainly teaching about religion, an important subject in history, should not be ignored but blatant proselytization by a teacher should not be allowed.

It seems that the school district in San Diego had the default view that many districts in liberal areas do that mentioning all religions except Christianity in a favorable light is accepted but Christianity is taught with both good and bad aspects presented.

This is the problem. People, even kids, know about Christianity and its warts as well. Often minority religionist parents seize control of curricula as it applies to their own religion and make certain that only favorable aspects are taught. This is allowed because of ignorance on the part of educators and fear of offending minorities. Furthermore distilling down the tenets of a certain religion in order to teach it runs afoul of the many views that different sects of a major religion carry about the specifics of their faith.

It is a difficult subject to teach and teachers have to run the gauntlet of political correctness, offended faithful and their own beliefs in order to teach it.

Why would any sane parent want their child indoctrinated with the rites, rituals, and superstitions of cavemen? To perpetuate this mindless insanity is nothing short of crazy. This is the 21st century. Its time to put away the primitive superstitions of our ancient ancestors.
Religions are the root of all evil. Countless millions have been subjected to the intolerant cruelty of religions. Countless millions more have been murdered by these "good religious" idiots that pray to imaginary sky daddies.
Studies prove that the higher a persons IQ, the less likely they are to be conservative or religious. Of course this comes as no surprise to anyone that's actually listened to the mindless rantings of the religious right.
Religion is a mental disease. The only known cure is education. To perpetuate this disease in our institutions of learning is just plain crazy.

Some idiot wrote: "One fact that heathen judges overlook in making their pronouncements of how much of God children should have is that His Royal Highness, the Judge, will one day stand before the judgement Throne of Jesus Christ and give answer for the life he or she has lived"
=============================================================
Can prove this to be a fact? I didn't think so. Because that's not even close to a fact.
What is a fact is that only mindless morons buy into this "imaginary sky daddy" crap.

BrattyKathy,

I'd like to add one more comment to yours if I may. Indoctrinating religion into children who are too young to understand or to make a rational choice for themselves is a form of child abuse. My first grader was asked by another first grader if she believed in god. My daughter said "No." The other first grader said, "You're going to go to Hell."

I don't blame the child. An adult taught that child that if she doesn't believe in god, she will burn in Hell. Intentionally inducing that kind of irrational fear into a six-year old is abuse. Period.

Waters appears to be manipulating the facts of this case dishonestly. He attempts to make his case by deliberately confusing the important distinctions between the physical spaces involved.

The issue in this case is, what message is Bradley Johnson's classroom sending to the students? As far as I can tell, while the school's hallway walls display a variety of messages that create an overall neutrality (or lack of religious establishment), Johnson's classroom displays a preponderance of "God" messages.

If so (and that appears to be what is happening) then Johnson is in violation of the 1st Amendment. He cannot make his classroom a god-centered space. But if his banners were placed in the hallways like the others then they would be entirely appropriate and in keeping with the 1st Amendment. And this would be the same for a teacher who wanted lots of Bob Marley posters or passages from the Bhagavad Gita to dominate her classroom. It is simply not permitted by our Constitution.

The context of general versus individual space is paramount in this case. I am deeply disappointed in David Waters for his crass dishonesty about that context. I had thought he was not the sort to stoop to such low tactics. I am sorry that I was wrong.

That this question is even being debated is an indication of how successfully the Christian Right has undermined the Constitution and the foundations of this nation's concept of religious freedom.

Don't teach about God in schools unless evolution is taught in churches. Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.

Ban teachers from wearing necklaces with crosses, Stars of David or any other decoration with religious significance.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

The problem I see is that these AUTHORITY FIGURES are posting religiously oriented stuff. The students should be able to post on the walls of THEIR classrooms too. And maybe the parents, after all, they pay the taxes. Heck, let every citizen come into the school and post stuff.

Seriously, take all the religiously oriented stuff down. Math classrooms should have math-oriented postings. IF there is a class in history of religion, post religious stuff in that classroom only. And even there it should be a balanced mix.

Ban teachers from wearing necklaces with crosses, Stars of David or any other decoration with religious significance.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 9, 2010 12:12 PM

--------
Please tell me you see the difference between wearing a cross or a Star of David on your body and hanging a cross, Star of David, or other reference to God in a public school classroom.

I was merely responding to the conceit that hallways and classrooms are different in nature. I also think trying to banish all references to religion from the classroom is foolish.

I noted the difficulty in teaching religion in an earlier post, but as we all know, teachers come in all flavors, good, bad and indifferent. Even a bit of proselytization can come in those flavors.

As a member of a distinct religious minority it doesn't bother me. Banning all mention of faith from the public schools bothers me more.

The mention of a god as in god bless america is not a specific endorsement of a particular religion.
The declaration of independence invokes a Creator without specifying his sect.
Dr. King and Gandhi were about much more than religion.
If I were a Jew and suffered 2 millenia of oppression under the image of a carpenter who was tortured to death, I might have objections to it hanging on the wall in the place where I must attend.
A good rule might be:
Keep it neutral by omitting from school--WHERE WE ALL MUST GO OR BE SUBJECT TO THE TRUANCY LAW--those images, beliefs and quotations that to derive from religious scripture.
There are plenty of churches, websites, and columns like this one to spread the word.
All classroms, not just Mr. Johnson's, should have that rule enforced.

"The mention of a god as in god bless america is not a specific endorsement of a particular religion."
-----
No, but it is an endorsement of religion over atheism. An endorsement of monotheistic religion over polytheistic religion.

It can and does alienate (arguably unconstitutionally) some who either don't believe in a god or believe in many gods.

Not to mention the fact that asking god to "bless America" as opposed to blessing everyone is unseemingly egocentric.

Teachers and kids have plenty of opportunity to worship as they see fit outside of the public school. In church, temple, synagogue, mosque, at home, etc. No one is arguing against the practice of religion. However, why on Earth must we insert religion into the public school system?

That being said, I'm not arguing against teaching in a History or in a Social Studies class the significance of relgion on cultures, historical events, etc. There is a huge difference between teaching in a public school that religion exists and has affected culture and history, (e.g., the Crusades, 9/11/2001, the Vatican covering up child abuse, etc.) and teaching in a public school that the substance of any particular religion or religions is any more valid than another religion or any more valid than no religion.

Most teachers probably are not equipped to present religion. Unfortunately, as we see with teachers presenting political issues, they would also expose students to their prejudices, weaknesses, and yes, hate...And many conservative Christians confuse their religion with their patriotism and their ethnocentrism (a blonde blue-eyed Jesus). A child's grade could then ultimately depend on his/her agreement with such a teacher's views. No thanks. 1 Peter 3:15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

My problem with Judge Benitez's formulation is that he posits the existence of God. I'd be OK if he prefaced each use of "God" with "a belief in"
But this story is just the camel's nose.Wait till the good folks in communities that are predominantly fundamentalist expand this relatively modest example with their triumphalist messages.
"That God places prominently in our Nation's history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson's public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God."

As a member of a distinct religious minority it doesn't bother me. Banning all mention of faith from the public schools bothers me more.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 9, 2010 12:48 PM
***********************************

Your or my preferences one way or the other are not the point here. The issue being discussed is establishment of religion in schools as prohibited by the 1st Amendment.

Nobody is saying that all mention of religion or faith should be banned from schools. In literature, history or philosophy classes (at least), discussion of faith and religion - as they play a role in those subjects - is both appropriate and Constitutionally protected.

The issue at hand is: can an individual teacher use his classroom as a tool for proselytizing his religion. The answer to that is clearly No. The only real matter for debate is: was Bradley Johnson using his classroom to proselytize a religion? From what I understand from Water's article, the answer is Yes. But if anyone has details or an interpretation of the facts that contradicts this view, I would love to hear it.

This country is going downhill as fast as the bob sleds in Vancouver. One of the main reasons is organized religion. The examples are manifold through out history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, The Catholic church imprisoning Galileo for pronouncing that the sun and not the earth is the center of the universe. For the last several years Christians have tried to impose Christian doctrine in the public schools. In this area, a large number of students are not Christians but that is of little interest to militant Christians trying to take over the country. Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Shinto and Hindi need to be very worried. If the Christians have their way, these people will be pointed out as being heathens and it will be very uncomfortable for them in public schools. It has already taken place in our military academies where Jews are openly called Christ killers. The worst acts ever perpetrated on humans have been done under the guise of God fearing Christians doing God's work. A pox on all your houses.

Thank you WilyArmadilla, for taking the effort to reply to the 'quotefest' challenge that is raised when people start making historic remarks based on their personal beliefs rather then on historic facts.

I was happy and relieved to see the remarks from Jefferson, Adams, Paine, all showing that we should give them a lot more credit for their wisdom in how to deal with religion then accepting a notion that they placed Christianity ahead of atheism, agnosticism or other religions.

The fact that they strongly supported religion freedom, and defended the rights of the Christian majority, doesn't mean that they felt that Christianity is the base of the founding of the USA. Rather this based was formed by ideas from Humanism with inclusion of freedom of religion.

Thanks you WilyArmadilla

"The only real matter for debate is: was Bradley Johnson using his classroom to proselytize a religion? From what I understand from Water's article, the answer is Yes."

The trier of fact decided in the context of other faith messages at the school, his proselytization did not constitute an establishment issue. Once again, since some find the context of halls and classrooms so distinctive, should the school district ban the wearing of any religious paraphernalia by teachers? Where do institutions draw the line in personal expression by their employees? It seems that this school drew the line at Bradley Johnson's expressions in his classroom but not at other messages at the school and the court found no issue with establishment as a result.

I remember well the separation of church and state growing up in Utah. Prior to the fourth grade, I had all "A"s. In the fourth grade my teacher said, "All of you who are not LDS, raise your hands" My, and only my, hand dutifully shot up and my grades were "B"s because the teacher told my neighbor, "No 'Gentile' could be smart enough to get all 'A's." In the seventh grade, my Utah History teacher gave me a "B" even though my test average was 96%. Her reason? "No non-Mormon could really know "Church History."

Here's a "Latter Day" example:

POWELL, Wyo. (AP) — A Northwest College recruitment letter targeting prospective students who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sparked a campus debate about whether the public school should be focusing on members of a specific religion.

Northwest College President Paul Prestwich, an LDS Church member, wrote the letter on college letterhead. The college sent the letter this month to about 1,000 Wyoming high school students who are LDS.

The envelope also included a letter on church letterhead from Fred Hopkin, president of the Cody Wyoming Stake, describing the student congregation's offerings.

Prestwich has defended the letters, saying it is appropriate for a public school to let prospective students with a religious background know about faith-based organizations available in the school and community.

Mormons, among others, can not be trusted to keep a "Wall of Separation" in the classroom.