Connect with us on Facebook!
Subscribe.
Follow us on Twitter!
Make us your home page!
Authors, sign in!Posted by Gerald Britt on January 29, 2010:Gerald, I hope you caught the attention of all our authors and readers with that post! That statement puts tremendous individual responsibility on both leaders and followers. Writers must be careful of how they attempt to control man's thinking. Readers should weigh heavily how they allow their thinking to be controlled."When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions."
Carter G. Woodson, 1875 - 1950 Historian, Author, Activist
Dictatorships, whether religious or civil, depend upon this statement’s veracity. Thanks to the wisdom and experience of the founders of our great nation, this premise was what influenced the amendment to our United States Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right of individuals to assemble for common causes.
Religious organizations of any and every flavor, including atheism, are guaranteed the right to indoctrinate those who willingly assemble themselves in the assembly of that organization.
That is until such indoctrination threatens the peace and welfare of others who do not ascribe to that particular theology or doctrine. Civil government then has the right and obligation to step in and protect the rights of individuals outside of that assembly.
Public schools are not free to indoctrinate as though all their subjects or participants are willingly assembled to further any theology or ideology. Their purpose and goal is to give broad and comprehensive education to prepare students to be able to judge for themselves concerning values and priorities. This requires an open and honest presentation of history, both secular and religious. It requires exposure to culture and fine arts (including sports). It requires exposure of students to the knowledge about science and biology acquired by the generations before us. It requires the ability to master basic math and language. Advance research and development of all the above disciplines are, and should be, available through public tax funded institutions. But, advanced and narrowly defined theology or ideology is the responsibility of those institutions or organizations who hold in common those theologies or ideologies.
Legislative bodies elected by the public do not serve to further the advance of any religious theology or doctrine over another. Their duty is to legislate for fair and equal treatment of all mankind regardless of theological beliefs or lack of such; regardless of economic status; regardless of ethnic or racial heritage; and of equal importance, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
For all the reasons presented above, I am a radical believer and defender of ‘Separation of Church and State’. Theology is the responsibility of religious or church education programs. And there should never be mandatory attendance or financial support through government funding or actions.
Published February 2, 2010 by Ken Poland |
Permalink
| Tags:
Constitution
Public Schools
Separation of Church and State
Comments (4)
Great post, Ken. It is important to think for ourselves. There are many groups perfectly willing to try to do our thinking for us and they'll try to put peer pressure to get people to go along. When things don't work out, and the time of reckoning comes, these groups often disappear and the individual has to take responsibility.
The Founding Father's were wise to include a Bill of Rights to protect our freedom of speech, freedom of religion and so forth. I'm not sure if there's a specific thing you're referring to that is threatening the separation of Church and State right now, but I'm glad you're remaining vigilant in defending that wall.
Posted by Angelo Lopez
|
February 4, 2010 3:46 PM
Posted on February 4, 2010 15:46
What or who is threatening the separation of Church and State?
The Christian groups who are attempting to put 'Christian' prayer back into our schools opening excercises or before lunch; those who are advocating posting in our schools and public buildings selected Bible quotations (Lords Prayer, Ten Commandments, etc.); those who want laws specifically worded to reflect Biblical source for validity; those who want Christian symbolism evident in architecture and decor of public buildings. They claim majority status justifies excluding any other religion equal access or privilege.
And then, we have those who advocate censure of any Christian exposure in public, through the court system and specific legislation. But seem to have no problem with non Christian proliferation of doctrine.
Neither of these two extreme groups are supporting true freedom of religion. The government should neither promote nor restrict specific religious theology or doctrine.
Posted by Ken Poland
|
February 4, 2010 11:33 PM
Posted on February 4, 2010 23:33
Thanks for the answer, Ken. I was just wondering if there was some new incident that just happened that sparked your essay.
I agree with all your wrote. You're right that the two extremes are equally bad and that government shouldn't promote nor restrict religious doctrines.
Posted by Angelo Lopez
|
February 10, 2010 8:23 PM
Posted on February 10, 2010 20:23
Our churches are for religious education and worship, and our public schools are for academic studies. But that doesn't necessarily mean that God should be completely excluded from our children's classrooms. Atheism in my opinion is not a practicing religion, just a group of non-believers.
Posted by A Facebook User
|
February 13, 2010 7:16 PM
Posted on February 13, 2010 19:16