2007-03-22 17:12:41 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why is it that liberals do not understand the difference between being taught and being forced.
Yes, the Muslim religion should be TAUGHT in schools. There is so much misunderstanding about the Muslim religion now, that people think that all Muslims are terrorists. Only the extremist Muslims, that misinterpret the Kuran are.
2007-03-22 17:32:55 · update #1
Why is it that liberals still cannot distinguish between teaching and forcing?
2007-03-23 11:17:31 · update #2
Liberals just don't want the Christian religion taught in schools. Other than that they're all for Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or any other religion. - Just not the one that they take as the being the biggest threat to them.
Ain't it funny how the group of "civil liberties" wants so badly to silence and persecute the Christian faith so badly ?? And ....bigoted ?? Very much so. Among many other words.
2007-03-30 11:58:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let me ask you to do this. Read the book "Mister Jones Meet the Master" by Rev. Dr. Peter Marshall. You can get it at your local library and I think you will Find it worth the time it takes.
The statement "separation of church and state" is about the government NOT telling us that the only religion is religion X and that is the one we will practice. The government has no right to form a National religion...the statement does not mean that religion should not be taught in schools.
I am against Islam being taught in schools because this is a supposedly Christian Nation founded on christian principles.
Read the book .
2007-03-23 02:00:45 · answer #2 · answered by Bashful Reader 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by "being taught"?
That phrase seems to imply the same way, say, chemistry is taught -- that is "water consists of 1O and 2Hs...."
That's what I object to.
If what you mean is that, as an important historical and sociological phenomenon it should be taught about -- that is, the fact that there are these religions, and -- well, comparitive religion, where it's not a case of indoctrinating students into one, but having them study a variety of religions, then, I'm all for it.
A curriculum that pretends no one has ever been religious is silly.
But it's not the liberals who would howl at this, it's the "Tatoo the 10 Commandments on everyone's forehead" crowd that would freak.
2007-03-23 02:07:16 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To them the first amendment applies only to them. Since they know what is best for everyone they should be the only ones to decide what can and can not be said, what can and can not be taught and what or who can be worshiped.
Look at the bill in the house that would restrict your ability to contact your congressman.
The words separation of church and state is no where in the Constitution.
The First amendment says congress is to stay out of religion it has never said religion is to stay out of government
By the way, for those of you that asked the stupid question "Would you want Islam taught in public schools", It is already being taught in public schools. Students in California even have to act out being a Muslim. Don't here any of you bleeding hearts out there complaining about that though!
2007-03-23 00:43:26 · answer #4 · answered by Kye H 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm not a liberal and I don't want religion taught in public schools, under creationism or thinly disguised creationism being called "intelligent design." I would have no problem with a class that taught World Religions.
It is the opposite of bigotry to not want one religion taught over all others in a public school setting. It shows common respect for those students that do not subscribe to that particular religion. They are there to get an education in math, science, history, reading and writing. Religion can be taught at home, and in the church they attend. There is no overwhelming reason to to insert religious instruction into a public school setting, there IS overwhelming reason not to allow it. If parents wish their children to receive religious instruction right next to their ABCs, then there are Christian schools available for that purpose, or they are free to home school. If that's not good enough, that's too bad, to be perfectly honest.
2007-03-23 00:26:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I thought liberals are those who do not interfere in the choice other people's make. In the US citizens can excercise their choice. Liberals can only remain liberal by stoping any one who wants to impose his/her choice on another including their children. Liberals should insis that scools offer courses on various religions, anti-religion religions and terrorist religions. Then only the children will have opportunity to know adequately to make their choices. Up to a certain basic level, these courses should be offered free of cost, with the bills taken up by the State. Any religious study beyond the cut-off basic level should be heavily taxed to provide the subsidy for the basic level.
2007-03-30 15:18:20 · answer #6 · answered by sensekonomikx 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Teaching ABOUT religion, and covering in a very simple way the similarities and differences in religions would be alright with me. (Such as mentioning that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all spring from the same source--Abraham, and his monotheism....)
But to actually teach a particular religion?? Are you nuts?? They can barely graduate kids that can read and write....I surely wouldn't trust them with the intricacies of MY religion. (Catholicism). And if I want to learn about other religions, I'd rather go to someone who teaches/preaches it---you know, get it from the horse's mouth???
I don't want any of my children, grandchildren, or the children of anyone I know to learn "religion" at the feet of a teacher in the public schools!
2007-03-23 00:48:35 · answer #7 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That depends on which religion would be taught. I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as long as equal time is given to all other religions.
Wouldn't the Christian Right be showing just how bigoted it is by only allowing the teaching of their religion?
If your child came home with an assignment to do a 10 page essay on Satan would you be happy?
2007-03-23 00:22:50 · answer #8 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
being a bigot would be institutionalizing religion and punishing others for not being of the majority faith...I'm all for religion, but why do my children have to conform to your conditions....i really don't care if your kids pray in school, but it needs to be a private thing for them......You really want access to my kids to try to convert them...You want my kids to pray...your kids can...so the more you complain about not having God in school, the more I will think that your ultimate goal is access to my child...and legally submit him to pressure to be with you....children are sponges and are open to suggestion...I believe it is my right to protect my kids from you.
If there were religious classes in school, then there can be no preaching...and the bad done by religious groups must be shown along side the good in a fair way...treat it as history...Do you want the grocery store to have religious overtones...should the lumberyard preach to you as you pick out 2 x 4's....what is the big deal about having religion in schools if not to have access to my children...my children are not yours to fondle or fill with your religious ideals
2007-03-23 01:04:38 · answer #9 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am a conservative republican and the last thing I want is religion being taught in schools. schools are for teaching not indoctrinating.
2007-03-28 03:17:06 · answer #10 · answered by notadolphin 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋