legal contradiction?

[Sergeant]

Ok, so we have exhibit A:

Requiring seventh-grade students to pretend they're Muslims, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Quran, pray to Allah and even to play "jihad games" in California public schools has been legally upheld by a federal judge, who has dismissed a highly publicized lawsuit brought by several Christian students and their parents. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118)

and exhibit B:

CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that argued weekly Bible classes are unconstitutional in the public schools of Rhea County, the same county where the "Scopes Monkey Trial" pitted creationists against evolutionists 79 years ago (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/08/bible.ruling.ap/index.html)

Why the contradiction? Why is it ok to require students in California to pretend they're Muslim, read from the Quran and pray to Allah, even play "jihad games" but in Tennessee a school can't hold a bible class?

Shouldn't it be one or the other? Isn't the first a violation of separation of church and state?

[maccool]

In her 22-page ruling announced Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said Excelsior is not indoctrinating students about Islam when it requires them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah as part of a history and geography class, but rather is just teaching them about the Muslim religion.

Nevertheless, the judge ruled the program was devoid of "any devotional or religious intent," and as therefore educational, not religious in nature.




The appeals judges ruled that although school officials contended that the classes were value-driven, teaching responsibility and positive morals, they were "also teaching the Bible as religious truth."

I don't see the contradiction here. Both rulings seem reasonable and they both make sense.

[Yaboosh]

Eh, let the first case get a bit farther in the appeals process before you persecute the entire Judiciary. It just seems the judge had an overreaction to political sensitivity and the need for our kids to have a knowledge and respect for the Islamic religion, and for them to be able to tell the difference between extremists and regular practitioners.


The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as "Allah Akbar," which is Arabic for "God is great," and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.


The article makes a very good point, that if this religion were replaced with Christianity, it would be turned down very very quickly.

[Sergeant]

I don't see the contradiction here. Both rulings seem reasonable and they both make sense.

Well, why is one ruling requiring students to practice the Muslim faith, in a class setting while the other ruling prohibits running a bible class and NOT requiring students to participate.

Why is it ok to require students to participate and do Muslim-ish things but students in another state cna't have a bible class if they want?

And please don't say "because the judge said so". I know that. I'm looking for the justification of one that doesn't apply to the other.

[Yaboosh]

Well, there is a long legal history disallowing public facilities to be used for religious teaching, regardless of whether or not they required the students to be there.

[garublador]

In the first case the class is teaching about Islam by example. In the second case the school was trying to actually teach the kids Christianity. It's a pretty big difference.

[Sergeant]

In the first case the class is teaching about Islam by example. In the second case the school was trying to actually teach the kids Christianity. It's a pretty big difference.

But in the first case, it is REQUIRED and in the second case it's VOLUNTARY.

Even if the Cali schools are only teaching about Islam and the Tennessee schools are teaching Christianity (to those who want to attend), why is it ok for schools to require it in one place and disallow it in another.

What do you think would happen if the example in California was exactly the same except the religion they were "teaching about" was Christianity? Do you think it would still have had the support of that judge?

[maccool]

Well, why is one ruling requiring students to practice the Muslim faith, in a class setting while the other ruling prohibits running a bible class and NOT requiring students to participate.

Why is it ok to require students to participate and do Muslim-ish things but students in another state cna't have a bible class if they want?

And please don't say "because the judge said so". I know that. I'm looking for the justification of one that doesn't apply to the other.

Hey, try reading the bit I quoted from the articles. In one case, the ruling was that learning about Islam was acceptable in an educational context. In the other case, the judges ruled that the class was indoctrinating students into Christianity.

Seeing as how neither one of us was in either of the classes or heard any of the arguments in court, it's kinda tough to say, "This is a contradiction." based on 2 articles. Well, you did. But that's a knee-jerk reaction to something you obviously don't like.

Those were the rulings. Again, they are certainly reasonable within the context of the law. Wait for the imminent appeal if your panties are in a bunch over this issue. Better yet, get yourself appointed to the Federal Court of Appeals. Then you can interpret law.

[Yaboosh]

Telling kids to chant Allah Akbar and telling them to fast to simulate Ramadan would not be upheld if the same was to, as the article said, chant the Lords Prayer and celebrate some Christian holiday. They need to revamp their curriculum.

[Sergeant]

Those were the rulings. Again, they are certainly reasonable within the context of the law. Wait for the imminent appeal if your panties are in a bunch over this issue. Better yet, get yourself appointed to the Federal Court of Appeals. Then you can interpret law.

Well, do you think the ruling in California would have been the same if the religion in question had been Christianity?

[garublador]

But in the first case, it is REQUIRED and in the second case it's VOLUNTARY.

Even if the Cali schools are only teaching about Islam and the Tennessee schools are teaching Christianity (to those who want to attend), why is it ok for schools to require it in one place and disallow it in another.

What do you think would happen if the example in California was exactly the same except the religion they were "teaching about" was Christianity? Do you think it would still have had the support of that judge?

It's not voluntary for the tax payers who have to pay for the class to be offered.

You're totally missing the point in your second paragraph. It's OK to teach kids the various customs and beliefs of different religions. It's not OK to teach that those customs and beliefs are right or wrong. The first case is just teaching the kids that the customs and belefs of Islam exist and explains what they are. The article doesn't say whether or not other religions are covered in that same class. Perhaps they are taught about Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judiasm as well. That's what the carriculum was when I was in jr. high. The second case teaches that the beliefs of Christianity are all true.

Speculation about what the judge's ruling would be if the religion in question was Christianity are worthless. I don't know the judge and I'm willing to bet you don't either. Chances are no one in this thread even knows his or her name. Saying that you think the judge would have a different ruling if they were learning about Christianity (which they could be) proves nothing.

[Sergeant]

Speculation about what the judge's ruling would be if the religion in question was Christianity are worthless. I don't know the judge and I'm willing to bet you don't either. Chances are no one in this thread even knows his or her name. Saying that you think the judge would have a different ruling if they were learning about Christianity (which they could be) proves nothing.

Thank goodness I'm not trying to prove anything, only discuss.

[maccool]

Well, do you think the ruling in California would have been the same if the religion in question had been Christianity?

If it were necessary to learn about Christianity to better understand a region's geography and history and culture, yes. For example, if you want to study the the Roman Empire, you'd better have a pretty good idea about their version of polytheism. And if you're teaching it to young people, it's probably a better idea to have them learn interactively than just sit there reading or listen to a teacher drone on.

The problem here is that in order to learn about, appreciate and understand Middle Eastern culture, it is necessary to learn about Judaism and Islam. In order to learn about, appreciate and understand Western culture, it isn't necessary to learn about any religion.

[garublador]

Seeing as how neither one of us was in either of the classes or heard any of the arguments in court, it's kinda tough to say, "This is a contradiction." based on 2 articles. Well, you did. But that's a knee-jerk reaction to something you obviously don't like.


You mean the federal courts don't make decisions based on one sentence synopsis of the cases? ;)

[garublador]

Thank goodness I'm not trying to prove anything, only discuss.

What possible interesting discussion could come out of speculating what the judge would have ruled if the customs of a different religion were being taught? You'd say, "I think he or she would have ruled differently," and I'd say, "I think they would have ruled the same." At best it's just like two people arguing "Is too" vs. "Is not." Personally, I don't think that's worth discussing.

[Sergeant]

What possible interesting discussion could come out of speculating what the judge would have ruled if the customs of a different religion were being taught? You'd say, "I think he or she would have ruled differently," and I'd say, "I think they would have ruled the same." At best it's just like two people arguing "Is too" vs. "Is not." Personally, I don't think that's worth discussing.

Then don't discuss, no one has a gun to your temple. There, that was easy.

[NightShade]

I find that in these situations, even mentioning the fact that this is unfair in one way or another is stupid.

It's ever lasting. Well if this was Christianity it'd be kicked out so lets kick out the muslims too mentality has sprung into action imo.


Is there something detremental about that? Do you have an honest problem that these kids are learning the Muslim ways? Hell, the Jihad game would probably be the only damn fun thing for them. I pity the kids because the class would suck, not because they have to learn it.

In this thread it's a legal reference, but in general it's a whole lot of people whining "OMG BUT I DIDN'T GET TO!" when some one else does something perfectly harmless.


The same is true on the reverse angle. Religion has no place in school...followed closely by banning everything of the christian religion. and having people watch you like a hawk, but pretty much anyone else can practice theirs so they aren't descrimitated against.


The rules don't work. Why? Because they frankly don't make sense.


That's why there will never be much foundation on the legal side. It'll always be one judges ruling or another that sets precident.

[smokey[dead]]

Not to steer this discussion off course. But when i was in 6th grade I remember my teacher was Jewish. So in order for us to learn about different religions and holidays she had us make a dredal (too lazy to spellcheck) and spin it. I thought it was really fun and it had no impact at all on my current beliefs (I'm methodist) It wasnt intended to case harm, it was just a classroom activity. Maybe the Judge ruled that the activity was educational, not religious.


On a side note, the teachers name was Brooke Carlin, that doesnt sound islamic to me. Maybe having a cocasion teacher teaching a different culture appealed to the judge's moral.

[NightShade]

Not a bad point. A white guy teaching middleeastern religions is less likely to be thought of as "pushing them" on people as some one a wee bit more tanned.

[Damascus]

That's why teaching and preaching are two different words.

[NightShade]

Either way , if you nap, you may get beat about the face with a text book

[mattksa]

still not as bad as this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1233641,00.html

[Stevinator]

I think those who are reading much more into these cases are missing the big picture. Yes there is a weasely argument for why it might be acceptable to teach islam in the classroom and not allow a bible study. in fact, i agree there should not be a bible study paid for by the school and put on in the school as long as the school is public. i also don't think it is appropriate to make kids learn about islam...though a better understanding of islam would be good for the kids, having them pray and fast during lunch is wrong--for the government to be doing.

here's the thing. Schools should not be run by the state. I don't think the government should be trusted with education. that is a job for communities, not state educator boards and government officials. I think the school system should be privatized. Catholic schools often prepare kids better than public schools, and they do it for less money per student. If all schools were not for profit organizations, teachers would end up making more, education would improve because parent's could move their kids to the best schools, people in the "ghettos" could opt to take their kids to schools in better neighborhoods, Christians could teach their religion in class, Non-religious people could have religion free schools--schools could specialize in different fields as colleges do. Kids could get a leg up on teaching their kids business or engineering skills. you could specialize in music or art or whatever. Teachers would be free to create innovative lesson plans--this muslim thing would be acceptable in some schools but not others.

You'd have schools touting their brightest teachers, keeping their student:teacher ratios low, competing for better test scores or college placement rates...the market system would bring alot into the school system and you wouldn't hav eto worry about indoctrination, unless of course you wanted that for your kids. I think it would do wonders for our system.

[Anakha1]

One is teaching about a religion as part of the curriculum, the other is using public facilities to promote a religion. Therein lies the (big) difference.

[Plum]

Heh, Stevinator your libertarian reflex is peeking out again.


I see a pretty large difference between the two cases, so no, I don't see a contradiction between the examples.

In one case, the idea is that Islam is part of the curriculum. Just like many children (myself included) learned about other cultures and religions in junior high, these kids are learning about Islam.

In the second case, the biblical classes, as far as I can tell from the article, were taught during school hours. The two key phrases would be "taught" and "school hours". It would kind of be like sex ed, except with religion replacing the sex part. That would seem to be mixing public school and religion, and therefore would be crossing over the line between state and church.

Based on the link in your first article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26074) (way more informative), the problem I do see with what the teacher is doing is that that same line seems to be extremely fuzzy right now. Most of it seems semi-acceptable if it wasn't mandatory though, except for the 'extra credit for memorization of verses' thing.

Overall, I'd probably support a requirement for the teacher to tone down the course a bit. But I definitely do not think that the curriculum should be changed.

[{KOW}Spazed]

One is teaching about a religion as part of the curriculum, the other is using public facilities to promote a religion. Therein lies the (big) difference.
So you think it would be perfectly ok for the schools to make the children say the Lord's prayer, not eat meat on fridays during Lent, and take communion? I know that most of that is Catholic, and that there are other Christian sub-denominations.


Personally, I don't think religion should be part of the curriculum. If a student asks a teacher wearing a cross/star/pentagram what it means the teacher should be able to answer without getting a slap on the wrist. I also think that having people get pissy about having religion in school, then turning around and forcing thier ideals on the religious people. Atheists are the most religious people in the world. Atheists push harder to get their way than any other group, because may God forbid some people choose differently from them!

A definition of religious is " 3. Scrupulously faithful".

[Plum]

According to the principal (I'm generally inclined to believe a school authority over enraged parents and lawyers, and he or she can be easily refuted if it's untrue), the activities weren't mandatory. It wouldn't make any sense for them to be either; as long as you know the facts and complete the assignments, you usually get your marks by the seventh grade.

[Anakha1]

So you think it would be perfectly ok for the schools to make the children say the Lord's prayer, not eat meat on fridays during Lent, and take communion? I know that most of that is Catholic, and that there are other Christian sub-denominations.

I don't think it should have been mandatory, and neither should that. But I don't think teaching about either is bad, just as long as it's not preached about.



Personally, I don't think religion should be part of the curriculum. If a student asks a teacher wearing a cross/star/pentagram what it means the teacher should be able to answer without getting a slap on the wrist. I also think that having people get pissy about having religion in school, then turning around and forcing thier ideals on the religious people. Atheists are the most religious people in the world. Atheists push harder to get their way than any other group, because may God forbid some people choose differently from them!

I'm not religious because I don't believe in a deity. Athiests don't usually have a problem with people choosing their own religion, we just don't want to hear about your religion and be subjected to it constantly. You have some pretty skewed perceptions of atheism. Atheists aren't forcing their ideals on anyone, we just don't want to be subjected to theirs.

[DurfBarian]

I'd like to know more about the class where Islam was taught in that way. Was there also a unit where the kids learned Jewish tradition in the same manner? Did they do a Catholic mass? Was this part of a course teaching about lots of faiths?

[Sergeant]

One is teaching about a religion as part of the curriculum, the other is using public facilities to promote a religion. Therein lies the (big) difference.

Fair enough. So if a Christian Bible class were made part of the cirriculum to teach about the historical value of the bible and the history of christianity (in the same manner Islam is being taught), that would be ok? I could agree to that. I just have a problem if it's just Islam that's being forced on them in a classroom.


I'd like to know more about the class where Islam was taught in that way. Was there also a unit where the kids learned Jewish tradition in the same manner? Did they do a Catholic mass? Was this part of a course teaching about lots of faiths?

That would make all the difference. If it were a course on the major world religions and other religions were represented in a similar manner, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Mostly because it's not singling out one religion and giving the impression that religion is being highlighted above the rest. Either teach about all major religions or none at all. There needs to be a balance.

[Draconis]

I don't see how anyone could argue against students being taught about Islam. And I would think the same of kids being taught about Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and any other religion. As long as it isn't taught by Christian fundamentalists who are going to regale the students with stories of heathen baby-eating ;) A thorough education about religions, their customs, their historical, social and cultural context has possibly never been more important.

[Anakha1]

Fair enough. So if a Christian Bible class were made part of the cirriculum to teach about the historical value of the bible and the history of christianity (in the same manner Islam is being taught), that would be ok? I could agree to that. I just have a problem if it's just Islam that's being forced on them in a classroom.

Suits me. I took history of Christianity in university and I thought it was interesting. Makes sense that if they're teaching about one religion they should teach about all of them.

[Sergeant]

Suits me. I took history of Christianity in university and I thought it was interesting. Makes sense that if they're teaching about one religion they should teach about all of them.

We really need to stop agreeing and start arguing again. It doesn't seem natural, like a cat walking on its hind legs.

[Anakha1]

We really need to stop agreeing and start arguing again. It doesn't seem natural, like a cat walking on its hind legs.


Yeah... I feel so... dirty. :teeth:

[nnndave]

Don't worry sarge, you don't have to convince me. Even though it pisses me off I understand what they are doing. They are basically trying to reverse the "arabs are bad guys" aura. Don't let it sweat you... its california dude.

(And yes, I read Michael Savage's book too, :) )

[Steel_Avatar]

Psst, that's because they're not :rolleyes:

[highphin13]

Ok, I go to private school for crap like this. In public school they would teach us about Jewdiasm, Islam, and other world religions but Christianity... hell no. So its ok to teach about Allah but not about Jesus? I guess thats what they are trying to say. "Little Jimmy its ok to learn about Allah in school because we must be politically correct, but if we talk about Jesus we would be forcing the christian religion on the oppressed Muslims in our class. I'm sorry Jimmy we have to be fair"... first of all if you want to get the rules straight you cant force any of them in school at all. But if you are going to allow one... you must allow the others. And the point of that you must learn about other peoples cultures and crap like that has nothing to do with making kids dress like muslims, yes i am sure if we all dressed like muslims we could have prevented the war in iraq because we would have understood there culture (that is what those liberals are trying to get at)... You want to wonder how that one Californian became part of the Taliban (That Walker guy)??? I would think dumbass things like this could be a decent start to that inquirery.

Just my two cents...

And even if it was ec, it would be an unfair advantage because i wouldnt let my kid learn about the wonderful teachings of Islam, It would be even more of an issue if i was jewish.

[Damascus]

I don't know what schools everyone else went to, but I was never preached any religion. We also spent little time learning the religions, maybe I just went to a weird school.

[Steel_Avatar]

Agreed. I went to public school in Canada (that socialist paradise!), and the most we did was study the major religions of the world, including Christianity.

[highphin13]

I don't know what schools everyone else went to, but I was never preached any religion. We also spent little time learning the religions, maybe I just went to a weird school.
I lived in Northern VA, right by DC so it was EXTREMLY politically correct, it is different everywhere you go. My little brother in 7th grade had to read 4 books this year for english, all of them were about minorities and other religions besides christianity. This is the problem that i find with public school, why cant they have a christain book too, it would be so simple... Oh well...

EDIT: In America, we are taught that all the worlds problems are our fault :lol:

[Plum]

Okay, those are some of the strangest justifications I've seen.

Let me get this straight- because Christianity isn't taught in depth in the curriculum, Islam should not be either? And then at the same time it's ok to whine and moan about how Christianity has always been slighted when it comes to its place in schools? That's basically advocating two separate positions at the same time. When people do that, I get confused.

Maybe I missed out on something all those years, but part of history or social studies, or whatever they call it now, was learning about the different aspects of cultures and their characteristics. If they want to teach (not preach) about Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, certain cults, and so on, then I'd support that simply because they all hold a place in the world we live in. The major religions in particular have had enormous effects on our history, and I think it's rather important to know at least some basic, straightforward, non-sugar coated facts about them.

[highphin13]

Okay, those are some of the strangest justifications I've seen.

Let me get this straight- because Christianity isn't taught in depth in the curriculum, Islam should not be either? And then at the same time it's ok to whine and moan about how Christianity has always been slighted when it comes to its place in schools? That's basically advocating two separate positions at the same time. When people do that, I get confused.

Maybe I missed out on something all those years, but part of history or social studies, or whatever they call it now, was learning about the different aspects of cultures and their characteristics. If they want to teach (not preach) about Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, certain cults, and so on, then I'd support that simply because they all hold a place in the world we live in. The major religions in particular have had enormous effects on our history, and I think it's rather important to know at least some basic, straightforward, non-sugar coated facts about them.
Um... actually my point is that if you are going to teach one religion you must teach them all or teach none of them. Sorry if this came off as unclear, i get pissed off when i had to learn about Jewdiasm and Islam but not christianity. I garuntee you if it was the other way and we only tought Christianity heads would roll.

[Steel_Avatar]

Considering that Christianity has largely been the dominant religion in the USA, wouldn't the idea be to teach children about other cultures?

[dantose]

Um... actually my point is that if you are going to teach one religion you must teach them all or teach none of them. Sorry if this came off as unclear, i get pissed off when i had to learn about Jewdiasm and Islam but not christianity. I garuntee you if it was the other way and we only tought Christianity heads would roll.
The problem is that if you mandated teaching all religions in any class that taught about one you wouldn't be able to go into the needed detail. Just about any religion has enough background that it could be taught as it's own class. If the lesson or block is already being taught as part of another class (i.e. teaching the background of Islam in an Arabic class) then you really can't do justice to the different religions under the "all or none" rule. Something like a "world religions" class should probably cover all major religions though (Islam, judism, hindu, buddism, and christianity at a minimum)

[highphin13]

The problem is that if you mandated teaching all religions in any class that taught about one you wouldn't be able to go into the needed detail. Just about any religion has enough background that it could be taught as it's own class. If the lesson or block is already being taught as part of another class (i.e. teaching the background of Islam in an Arabic class) then you really can't do justice to the different religions under the "all or none" rule. Something like a "world religions" class should probably cover all major religions though (Islam, judism, hindu, buddism, and christianity at a minimum)
Yes there are classes like this at my school i beleive, it is an elective but not mandatory. I beleive this is a good way to teach about religion, you can take it if you want, and if you take the class you get all the religions not a select few. Good point, you can't water down things like this, but teaching just one instead of the others is the thing I am angry at.

[Damascus]

Yes there are classes like this at my school i beleive, it is an elective but not mandatory. I beleive this is a good way to teach about religion, you can take it if you want, and if you take the class you get all the religions not a select few. Good point, you can't water down things like this, but teaching just one instead of the others is the thing I am angry at.

Well I think you're directing your anger where it doesn't need to be. Since we've already tried to say it should be about teaching and not preaching, does it matter which are and are not taught? Can I raise a stink because Irish history isn't taught in school while Roman history is?