is nearly universal. Making the argument for me that this is forcing a particular historical and religious view on all students. Which young student would wish to be the one in a class to refuse the Bible history course?

Last edited Tue Nov 21, 2017, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Teaching the Bible is unConstitutional.

I seem to recall that teaching 'comparative religion'
(the systematic comparison of the doctrines and practices of the world's religions) is OK.

Totally inappropriate.

It should be in private church affiliated schools. At least it is not taxpayer funded, or so they say.

And its only for a specific religion, not all religions like would be taught in an academic class in comparative religions or the philosophies of the world's religions.

It must be a godsend for the religious groups to get access to the impressionable minds of thousands of kids to brainwash, and they also get the building with utility service, security, janitors, free parking, and paid liability.

Why can't they teach religion in churches or bible schools? Go buy a home study course, pay for a tutor, book a seat at a religious seminar, buy a ticket to a revival meeting, or make a reservation at a Bible retreat, but don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize religious training in publicly owned facilities. The coercion is built in, the religious leaders know that kids react with a herd mentality and no one is likely to buck the system and go their own way.

Especially, as I pointed out, the coercive aspect.

Standing is nearly universal.

It seems that this is socially-compelled compliance.

Presumably, socially-compelled anything is un-Constitutional?

But non-compliance is completely Constitutional. In fact, if teachers try to compel compliance, they're at risk of termination. If other students bully the person "without standing", it's bullying and they're likely to receive some sort of punishment.

It's hard to imagine a popular practice of standing for the Pledge that would pass Constitutional scrutiny.

Or nearly anything else that relied on popular opinion for enforcement.

(Wasn't Charlie Rose just fired not because he was found criminally culpable, but because of social-compelled compliance?)

When we make things like "social compliance" part of the legislative and administrative apparatus of the US government, we're treading on pretty weak surface tension. Ice? Not even.

of religion. It should be challenged on those grounds.

Claims of being voluntary seem ridiculous if all of the students are attending.

They should lose the challenge and be forced to stop. Though our country has been a dumpster fire for a year or more, so nothing will surprise me anymore.

Oh, and it's crap like this that drives my yearly contribution to the FFRF.

One hopes that the court will also agree.