| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: October 01 2010 at 09:26 |
 Trademark wrote:
Dean wrote:
Why can't you all join an all embracing religion club? I think it would be great if all christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists and wiccans could put aside their petty differences and embrace their common belief as one happy bunch. |
I agree this would be a cool club. I'd join. |
if they let atheists in I'd join too.
|
|
What?
|
 |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17061
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 09:30 |
Trademark wrote:
I was thinking more of the non-Christian clubs and I thought I made that clear. Islam, Hinduism taoism, etc. are not denominations that would be expected of a Christian club.
As far as including all Christian denominations, I would tend towards agreement, but I don't think that is what the ever moderate voice of textbook was driving at. His point, as I understand it, was that since there were no clubs for NON-Christian students due to faculty laziness or apathy, that the one religious club that did form (the Christian one) must be disbanded out of "fairness" to the others. If I understand his point correctly, my basketball/tennis analogy works. You might not see any reason for the club to exist for the reasons you gave but, as I understand it, the school allowed it, then changed its mind when no other religions formed similar clubs.
To be clear, what I said was that if all religions were allowed to form clubs and some chose not to (for any reason) the disbanding of the one that did form is not done in fairness, but rather as a form of penalization. |
Your last line is pretty hard to dispute. Some folks are just never happy unless they can claim some kind of victimhood or persecution. Then again, why do schools have to host any clubs at taxpayer expense? Why can't people have religious clubs on their own time, in family homes, like they used to do.. I remember my parents having like 20 people over for a bible study back in the old days. Students could do the same....find like minded students and meet with them off school grounds. Sure the groups may be a bit smaller, but again, schools are strapped enough without having to expend resources on the use of their buildings, which no doubt puts liability on them as well if someone is hurt on school grounds after hours.
|
|
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 09:37 |
Trademark wrote:
I was thinking more of the non-Christian clubs and I thought I made that clear. Islam, Hinduism taoism, etc. are not denominations that would be expected of a Christian club. |
Islam, hinduism, taoism are not denominations, they are religions that have their own denominations within them, which is why I deliberately said that the christian club would be not be "of one denomination" since the christian religion has some 40,000+ individual denominations within it.
Trademark wrote:
As far as including all Christian denominations, I would tend towards agreement, but I don't think that is what the ever moderate voice of textbook was driving at. His point, as I understand it, was that since there were no clubs for NON-Christian students due to faculty laziness or apathy, that the one religious club that did form (the Christian one) must be disbanded out of "fairness" to the others. If I understand his point correctly, my basketball/tennis analogy works. You might not see any reason for the club to exist for the reasons you gave but, as I understand it, the school allowed it, then changed its mind when no other religions formed similar clubs. |
I say again - if there are no muslim teachers to organise a muslim club, and no jewish teachers to organise a jewish club and no buddhist teachers to organise a buddhist club then that's not laziness or apathy - that's simply "unfair" on the non-christian religious students. Just because there are non-christian teachers it does not follow that they are of other faiths or can organise non-christian faith clubs. Would it be fair if there was a catholic club but no protestant or presbytarian teachers to organise non-catholic clubs? What if the only club that could find an organiser was wiccan?
Your basketball/tennis analogy doesn't work for that reason and Iván's similar analogy doesn't work because they are not faith-based and they are not culture-based. Anyone can play any sport - you are not going against upbringing or family by playing tennis instead of basketball or tennis and basketball. People are "excluded" from sport clubs through personal choice and personal taste, not because of who they are or who their parents are.
Trademark wrote:
To be clear, what I said was that if all religions were allowed to form clubs and some chose not to (for any reason) the disbanding of the one that did form is not done in fairness, but rather as a form of penalization. |
Would this be true in a catholic school, a muslim school or a baptist school? If the school is secular then it should be non-religious period.
Edited by Dean - October 01 2010 at 09:45
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 09:44 |
Finnforest wrote:
Trademark wrote:
I was thinking more of the non-Christian clubs and I thought I made that clear. Islam, Hinduism taoism, etc. are not denominations that would be expected of a Christian club.
As far as including all Christian denominations, I would tend towards agreement, but I don't think that is what the ever moderate voice of textbook was driving at. His point, as I understand it, was that since there were no clubs for NON-Christian students due to faculty laziness or apathy, that the one religious club that did form (the Christian one) must be disbanded out of "fairness" to the others. If I understand his point correctly, my basketball/tennis analogy works. You might not see any reason for the club to exist for the reasons you gave but, as I understand it, the school allowed it, then changed its mind when no other religions formed similar clubs.
To be clear, what I said was that if all religions were allowed to form clubs and some chose not to (for any reason) the disbanding of the one that did form is not done in fairness, but rather as a form of penalization. |
Your last line is pretty hard to dispute. Some folks are just never happy unless they can claim some kind of victimhood or persecution.
Then again, why do schools have to host any clubs at taxpayer expense? Why can't people have religious clubs on their own time, in family homes, like they used to do.. I remember my parents having like 20 people over for a bible study back in the old days.
Students could do the same....find like minded students and meet with them off school grounds. Sure the groups may be a bit smaller, but again, schools are strapped enough without having to expend resources on the use of their buildings, which no doubt puts liability on them as well if someone is hurt on school grounds after hours.
|
I completely agree with this. I've never been sure that its a great idea to expend state resources and facilities for this, but I could just as easily extend that to sports or band and drama programs as well. There are other outlets available for all these activities. It seem that drawing the line becomes a difficult proposition for school administrations so they err ("if err is the word I want" to quote Wodehouse) by being inclusive. You could say that only religious groups are not allowed and that sports isn't a religion, but anyone who says that has never lived in the southern US or been in Columbus the week of the OSU/Michigan game.
I suffer from a little known syndrome called ASA (Acute Sports Apathy). When I lived in Alabama I discovered that what I thought was a benign condition can actually be fatal.  Down there it's better to support the "wrong" team than to support no team at all.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 11:14 |
|
^ So how would you feel if the local government would suddenly support a football team with taxpayer money?
I think that we need to distinguish here between state and private businesses. Many of the recent posts regarding this school issue that Textbook brought up as if it was a public school - which, if I remember correctly, it isn't. I guess there's nothing wrong in a legal sense with a private school endorsing a religion - depending on which country you're talking about, it may be perfectly legal to endorse religions in public schools. Personally I think that it would be best if religion would be kept out of any school - schools should be about teaching facts, not fiction. And sorry if this offends some of you, but until you present objective facts that withstand the scientific process, it should not be called fiction.
And as far asTextbook's actual issue is concerned: The Christian students should found a club - that's perfectly fine, even in US public schools it would be ok. As long as the school doesn't endorse or promote a particular religion, prayer at school is not any problem at all. I'm using the US as an example since they have the most rigorous separation of church and state.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 11:25 |
|
^ I assumed Textbook's school was a typical secular New Zealand public school and not a private school (nothing in his posts suggests it is)
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 11:37 |
I asked him a while back ... I'm too lazy to go back and search for the post. Maybe he'll clarify. 
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 12:06 |
^ all these pragmatic arguments are a bunch of baloney...sorry just my opinion.
The fact that we all walk around on eggshells when one group has initiative and the indoctrination of other religious groups suddenly springs up as an unfair issue.....makes me mad. Especially when 99% of many students days are taken up in school work, texting mates, browsing google/FB and buying a pie at the local cafe. We have become a bit like the ' Sacksvile Bagginses' , only really throwing mud once the owner's out of town.
Do a friggin referendum at school for all indiviuduals. teachers and students. Get the students to run the referendum and let the people decide. A fun exercise but not based on sushi eating, ipad shuffling teachers based in staff rooms getting off on hobbit talk.
I cannot believe some of you are so anti religion at schools. What are you scared of? Your kids forming their own opinions? Freewill?
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 12:22 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ I would say they should either have religious groups for every religion or none at all. Of course I like the latter much better, plus the other choice is next to impossible to implement. What's clearly inappropriate to me is to have the staff organize a group for one religion and then leave it to the kids to organize their own groups. |
Then if there's no Cricket and Lacrosse teams,,,The Schools should not have Baseball, Footbal or American Football team, yes I know it sounds stupid, but IMO is as stupid as forcing all religion groups or none |
It sure sounds like the same argument, but it isn't. The school has an obligation to provide Physical Education for the students and sports form part of that curriculum. If the school does not privide cricket or lacrosse as sports options the students have to partake in one of the other activities - the school can "force" people who would prefer to play Cricket to play Baseball when it is part of the curriculum, but not if it is extracurricular, technically sports teams are co-curricular since they are parallel to the curriculum and they wouldn't have a cricket club if they didn't provide cricket "education" as part of the normal scholastic lessons. That is not the same as Religious Education or Religious Instruction.
Anyone is eligible to partake of extracurricular sporting clubs, even cricket players who don't like baseball can join a baseball club - muslims cannot join a christian faith club - they are excluded from membership because of their faith.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Of course I like the latter much better, plus the other choice is next to impossible to implement. What's clearly inappropriate to me is to have the staff organize a group for one religion and then leave it to the kids to organize their own groups. |
Good play MIke, use the plurality as an excuse to limit their constitutional right to religious belief or worship, all the regions have the same chance, if they don't take it, nobody can force them, but in no way their lazyness should be an excuse to diminish the rights of other religions. |
It does not limit their constitutional right to religious belief or worship. It doesn't go anywhere near it.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
What happens if there's one Buddhist boy and a couple of Jewish students? Shoud the existence of a Buddhism and Jewish group must be mandatory for several hundred or even thousand Christian boys hav a a group? |
At what point is your cut-off - 10 buddhists? 100 buddhists? 500 buddhists? 1000 buddhists?
Imagine the public outcry and newspaper headlines if the only religious club that could find an organiser was wiccan. ("School Promotes Witchcraft Shock!" - "Naked Rituals in the Classroom!" - "Student's Shouldn't BeTaught to Spell!")
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Sounds absurs, as a excuse for those who are against religion to limit the Constitutional tight to freedom of religion and worship.
Iván
|
Again, this doesn't touch constitutional rights to freedom of worship - it is an extra-curriculum activity - the school is not obliged to provide it at all so it cannot be infringing any rights if it doesn't provide it.
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 12:26 |
Dean wrote:
Would this be true in a catholic school, a muslim school or a baptist school? If the school is secular then it should be non-religious period. |
I was trying to deal with what is and not what should or shouldn't be. That's why I was stressing what is "allowed" so much. If it is allowed you can't change the rules due to the lack of participation of other groups. Whether it is a public or private school wouldn't matter. If religious groups are allowed by the school's governing board, you can't shut one down just because no one else wants one unless that is specifically the way the rules are written. If they are following the rules with their group, shutting it down constitutes unfair penalization. Should or shouldn't aren't in the mix for existing rules.
Mr. ProgFreak wrote:
So how would you feel if the local government would suddenly support a football team with taxpayer money?
|
This happens all the time in every major city in the US including mine. The city and state governments use tax dollars (and tax abatements and deferments and all other euphemisms) to build sports stadiums for pro teams, and to make the needed improvements to the roads and parking facilities needed to handle the traffic. Hell, the town I live in spent $500,000 to widen a street just to get a stinking Wal-Mart. Did I vote against it? Sure. Did it matter? Not in the long run, but I did it anyway.
The university I work for spends over $400,000/year on one sports team's coach alone, not to mention all the rest and the construction and improvements to the facilities they use. It is a public university so my tax dollars at both the State and Federal level are used to fund these decisions. Do I think that is a judicious use of taxpayer money? No. I think those funds should be spread a bit more evenly across the broad range of programs at the school.
Does it all bother me? Not really. Its part of the deal in a representative government situation. You go to the polls and vote. You join the faculty senate and vote. You run for election if you think you can change things and ask others to vote. You do what you can to make your case, you vote, and then live with the outcome until the next opportunity arises. If the majority never agrees with your point of view you'll probably be out of luck, as I am with sports funding. I can't say as I'll ever lose 5 minutes sleep over it though.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 12:44 |
Trademark wrote:
Dean wrote:
Would this be true in a catholic school, a muslim school or a baptist school? If the school is secular then it should be non-religious period. |
I was trying to deal with what is and not what should or shouldn't be. That's why I was stressing what is "allowed" so much. If it is allowed you can't change the rules due to the lack of participation of other groups. Whether it is a public or private school wouldn't matter. If religious groups are allowed by the school's governing board, you can't shut one down just because no one else wants one unless that is specifically the way the rules are written. If they are following the rules with their group, shutting it down constitutes unfair penalization. Should or shouldn't aren't in the mix for existing rules. |
Okay - I'll clarify - "If the school is secular then it shall be non-religious period" - in a secular school in the UK proselytising is not permitted, I understand that in the USA Religious Education is forbidden in schools. Unless we know exactly waht the situation is in Textbook's school and what the "rules" are in New Zealand for state and public schools (sorry English-ism, I mean state and private schools, public school means private school in the UK), we cannot be specific about what is and is not allowed in this case.
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 13:00 |
Dean wrote:
Trademark wrote:
Dean wrote:
Would this be true in a catholic school, a muslim school or a baptist school? If the school is secular then it should be non-religious period. |
I was trying to deal with what is and not what should or shouldn't be. That's why I was stressing what is "allowed" so much. If it is allowed you can't change the rules due to the lack of participation of other groups. Whether it is a public or private school wouldn't matter. If religious groups are allowed by the school's governing board, you can't shut one down just because no one else wants one unless that is specifically the way the rules are written. If they are following the rules with their group, shutting it down constitutes unfair penalization. Should or shouldn't aren't in the mix for existing rules. |
Okay - I'll clarify - "If the school is secular then it shall be non-religious period" - in a secular school in the UK proselytising is not permitted, I understand that in the USA Religious Education is forbidden in schools. Unless we know exactly waht the situation is in Textbook's school and what the "rules" are in New Zealand for state and public schools (sorry English-ism, I mean state and private schools, public school means private school in the UK), we cannot be specific about what is and is not allowed in this case. |
What I said was "If it is allowed". I think that covers it. If it is not allowed shut it down, no questions asked. if it is allowed and if it is following the rules as written, my points apply. I thought I was clear about it, but maybe I wasn't as clear as I hoped.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 14:44 |
Dean wrote:
It sure sounds like the same argument, but it isn't. The school has an obligation to provide Physical Education for the students and sports form part of that curriculum. If the school does not privide cricket or lacrosse as sports options the students have to partake in one of the other activities - the school can "force" people who would prefer to play Cricket to play Baseball when it is part of the curriculum, but not if it is extracurricular, technically sports teams are co-curricular since they are parallel to the curriculum and they wouldn't have a cricket club if they didn't provide cricket "education" as part of the normal scholastic lessons. That is not the same as Religious Education or Religious Instruction.
Anyone is eligible to partake of extracurricular sporting clubs, even cricket players who don't like baseball can join a baseball club - muslims cannot join a christian faith club - they are excluded from membership because of their faith. |
The Constitutuion of the USA (which uis over any curriculum) states.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So even if the School is not forced to provide anything, if the students want to excercize their religion in a school, they are not forbidden, as a fact I believe that if the school doesn't provide the students a place to excercize their religion, they are breaking the First Ammendment.
If there are Muslims in a school, they should have the same right to open a praying group.
Dean wrote:
It does not limit their constitutional right to religious belief or worship. It doesn't go anywhere near it. |
Yes they are, because they don't provide a place where this kids can excercize their faith....Or would it be better to pray in the classrooms?
Dean wrote:
At what point is your cut-off - 10 buddhists? 100 buddhists? 500 buddhists? 1000 buddhists?
Imagine the public outcry and newspaper headlines if the only religious club that could find an organiser was wiccan. ("School Promotes Witchcraft Shock!" - "Naked Rituals in the Classroom!" - "Student's Shouldn't BeTaught to Spell!") |
If Wiccam is an established church according to the First Ammendment (And I believe LEGALLY it is according to the 1980 Federal Recognition), the public opinion matters a sh!t, the Constitution is above gossips por whoever doesn't like it.
Dean wrote:
Again, this doesn't touch constitutional rights to freedom of worship - it is an extra-curriculum activity - the school is not obliged to provide it at all so it cannot be infringing any rights if it doesn't provide it. |
Yes, if they aren't allowed to worship in their own school, their right is being limited.the school should p´rovide a safe and private environment for that, unless there is no place what I beluieve is not a probvlem after classes.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 14:53 |
Ivan, I think (not certain) that the school where this club "thingy" took place is in New Zealand. I don't know exactly what the laws are over there which is why I have been careful to reiterate the phrase "If it is allowed". Here in the US, it is allowed and frequently practiced with any number of religions.
I do think that a general "all faiths" group would be a great thing to see though (shoot, there might be a few around. I don't keep tabs on high school clubs), so long as a decent level of mutual respect could be maintained.
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 15:02 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
It sure sounds like the same argument, but it isn't. The school has an obligation to provide Physical Education for the students and sports form part of that curriculum. If the school does not privide cricket or lacrosse as sports options the students have to partake in one of the other activities - the school can "force" people who would prefer to play Cricket to play Baseball when it is part of the curriculum, but not if it is extracurricular, technically sports teams are co-curricular since they are parallel to the curriculum and they wouldn't have a cricket club if they didn't provide cricket "education" as part of the normal scholastic lessons. That is not the same as Religious Education or Religious Instruction.
Anyone is eligible to partake of extracurricular sporting clubs, even cricket players who don't like baseball can join a baseball club - muslims cannot join a christian faith club - they are excluded from membership because of their faith. |
The Constitutuion of the USA (which uis over any curriculum) states.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So even if the School is not forced to provide anything, if the students want to excercize their religion in a school, they are not forbidden, as a fact I believe that if the school doesn't provide the students a place to excercize their religion, they are breaking the First Ammendment.
If there are Muslims in a school, they should have the same right to open a praying group.
Dean wrote:
It does not limit their constitutional right to religious belief or worship. It doesn't go anywhere near it. |
Yes they are, because they don't provide a place where this kids can excercize their faith....Or would it be better to pray in the classrooms?
Dean wrote:
At what point is your cut-off - 10 buddhists? 100 buddhists? 500 buddhists? 1000 buddhists?
Imagine the public outcry and newspaper headlines if the only religious club that could find an organiser was wiccan. ("School Promotes Witchcraft Shock!" - "Naked Rituals in the Classroom!" - "Student's Shouldn't BeTaught to Spell!") |
If Wiccam is an established church according to the First Ammendment (And I believe LEGALLY it is according to the 1980 Federal Recognition), the public opinion matters a sh!t, the Constitution is above gossips por whoever doesn't like it.
Dean wrote:
Again, this doesn't touch constitutional rights to freedom of worship - it is an extra-curriculum activity - the school is not obliged to provide it at all so it cannot be infringing any rights if it doesn't provide it. |
Yes, if they aren't allowed to worship in their own school, their right is being limited.the school should p´rovide a safe and private environment for that, unless there is no place what I beluieve is not a probvlem after classes.
Iván
|
Ivan, are you saying that non-denominational schools are obliged to provide time within the school curriculum and make facilities available for religious worship for every type of faith? This seems excessive 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 17:17 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
It sure sounds like the same argument, but it isn't. The school has an obligation to provide Physical Education for the students and sports form part of that curriculum. If the school does not privide cricket or lacrosse as sports options the students have to partake in one of the other activities - the school can "force" people who would prefer to play Cricket to play Baseball when it is part of the curriculum, but not if it is extracurricular, technically sports teams are co-curricular since they are parallel to the curriculum and they wouldn't have a cricket club if they didn't provide cricket "education" as part of the normal scholastic lessons. That is not the same as Religious Education or Religious Instruction.
Anyone is eligible to partake of extracurricular sporting clubs, even cricket players who don't like baseball can join a baseball club - muslims cannot join a christian faith club - they are excluded from membership because of their faith. |
The Constitutuion of the USA (which uis over any curriculum) states.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So even if the School is not forced to provide anything, if the students want to excercize their religion in a school, they are not forbidden, as a fact I believe that if the school doesn't provide the students a place to excercize their religion, they are breaking the First Ammendment.
If there are Muslims in a school, they should have the same right to open a praying group. |
What's this got to do with the price of fish? If this school was in America (it's not) and if this was about withholding or preventing anyone's right to worship and if this was about providing a safe environment to worship and if this was about what the students wanted rather than what a teacher wanted then I don't think I would have expressed any opinion on this mater at all.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
It does not limit their constitutional right to religious belief or worship. It doesn't go anywhere near it. |
Yes they are, because they don't provide a place where this kids can excercize their faith....Or would it be better to pray in the classrooms?
|
You don't know that at all, for all you know the school has provided places where the students can excercise their faith. This is about an after school christian club and is nothing to do with worship (though I'm sure they would have said a few prayers during the meeting)
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
At what point is your cut-off - 10 buddhists? 100 buddhists? 500 buddhists? 1000 buddhists?
Imagine the public outcry and newspaper headlines if the only religious club that could find an organiser was wiccan. ("School Promotes Witchcraft Shock!" - "Naked Rituals in the Classroom!" - "Student's Shouldn't BeTaught to Spell!") |
If Wiccam is an established church according to the First Ammendment (And I believe LEGALLY it is according to the 1980 Federal Recognition), the public opinion matters a sh!t, the Constitution is above gossips por whoever doesn't like it.
|
This ain't no America. And that was not the point I was making, but nevermind.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Again, this doesn't touch constitutional rights to freedom of worship - it is an extra-curriculum activity - the school is not obliged to provide it at all so it cannot be infringing any rights if it doesn't provide it. |
Yes, if they aren't allowed to worship in their own school, their right is being limited.the school should p´rovide a safe and private environment for that, unless there is no place what I beluieve is not a probvlem after classes.
Iván
|
A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church.
/edit: AND this is not about allowing worship but about a christian club - a group of people who share a common interest, where they discuss all maner of things christian, but don't actually hold religious services...
Edited by Dean - October 01 2010 at 17:28
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 19:13 |
Dean wrote:
A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church.
/edit: AND this is not about allowing worship but about a christian club - a group of people who share a common interest, where they discuss all maner of things christian, but don't actually hold religious services... |
Not correct Dean, and the law doesn't make a difference between clubs either.:
| Public secondary schools must allow Bible clubs the same privileges as any other school club. Meetings may include prayer, Bible reading, and worship. Bible clubs must also be allowed to promote their activities through school newspapers, public address systems, and bulletin boards on the same basis as other clubs. The school must provide a room and resources for the Bible clubs. The only difference the Court allowed between Bible clubs and other clubs is that the faculty sponsor may not control the Bible club. The faculty sponsor must merely ensure that the club follows school policies, since any official control by the faculty members of religious activities of the club could be an establishment of religion. The club must be student-led, and students may occasionally invite outside community religious leaders to speak.
|
Even more:
The Equal Access Law:
The Equal Access Act was passed in the Senate with a vote of 88 to 11; it passed in the House 337 to 77; it became law on 1984-AUG-11. The law applies only to public secondary schools which:
 |
Receive Federal financial assistance. |
|
Already have "a limited open forum." i.e. at least one student-led, non-curriculum club that meets outside of class time. Chess, model building, political, religious and many similar types of clubs are considered to be non-curriculum based. A French club might be considered to be curriculum related. |
The language of the Act is quite clear. Such schools must allow additional clubs to be organized, as long as:
|
Attendance is voluntary. |
|
The group is student-initiated. |
|
The group is not sponsored by the school itself, by teachers, by other school employees, or by the government. This means that such employees cannot promote, lead or participate in a meeting. However, a teacher or other school employee can be assigned to a group for "custodial purposes." |
|
The group is not disruptive. i.e. it "does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school." |
|
Persons from the community may not "direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups." |
The school is required to treat all of its student-led non-curriculum clubs equally:
|
Each club must have equal access to meeting spaces, the PA system, school periodicals, bulletin board space, etc. |
|
School officials have the right to monitor meetings. |
|
Officials can require all clubs to follow a set of rules, including non-discrimination policies. However, a court has ruled that religious clubs can discriminate against persons of other faiths in their selection of officers. |
|
The school may limit meeting times and locations, but must apply rules equally to all groups. |
|
The school may prohibit people from the community from attending student clubs. However, they must apply this rule equally to all groups. |
Thus, if the school receives financial support from the Federal government and already has one or more student-initiated, extracurricular clubs on campus, then additional clubs cannot be prohibited. One exception would be in the case of a group that can be shown to be disruptive to the educational process. The Equal Access Act and the U.S. Constitution itself protects students' right to the enjoyment of free association and speech.
|
It's clear, they are forced to allow this clubs, if not they are volating the student's rights and also to provide a place for them.
ExittheLemming wrote:
Ivan, are you saying that non-denominational schools are obliged to provide time within the school curriculum and make facilities available for religious worship for every type of faith?
This seems excessive
|
Lex dura lex sed lex.
To Trademark: Thanks for the note, just checked the case of New Zealand
Now being that this country has no codified Constitution as we know, but the Section 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights says:
___________________________________________
15 Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
____________________________________________
It's clear, the limits are even less than in USA, you can worship and teach even in public.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 01 2010 at 19:25
|
|
|
|
Any Colour You Like
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 19:23 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
It's clear, they are forced to allow this clubs, if not they are volating the student's rights.
Now being that New Zeland has no codified Constitution as we know, but the Section 15 of the New Zeland Bill of Rights says:
___________________________________________
15 Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
____________________________________________
It's clear, the limits are even less than in USA.
|
Yes Ivan, but this does not include the formation of exclusive groups in Public state run schools. If a student in NZ wants to practice religion at school, they go to a Religious school. Simple.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 19:28 |
Any Colour You Like wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
It's clear, they are forced to allow this clubs, if not they are volating the student's rights.
Now being that New Zeland has no codified Constitution as we know, but the Section 15 of the New Zeland Bill of Rights says:
___________________________________________
15 Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
____________________________________________
It's clear, the limits are even less than in USA.
|
Yes Ivan, but this does not include the formation of exclusive groups in Public state run schools.
If a student in NZ wants to practice religion at school, they go to a Religious school. Simple.
|
Unless there is a limiting law (Something hard because that law will have less power than the Bill of Rights which is a constitutional document), the Bill of Rights makes no difference between Public and private places,I guess the law will be more permissive.
You can't limit where the law doesn't limit is a universal principle.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 01 2010 at 21:01
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 01 2010 at 19:34 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church.
/edit: AND this is not about allowing worship but about a christian club - a group of people who share a common interest, where they discuss all maner of things christian, but don't actually hold religious services... |
Not correct Dean:
| Public secondary schools must allow Bible clubs the same privileges as any other school club. Meetings may include prayer, Bible reading, and worship. Bible clubs must also be allowed to promote their activities through school newspapers, public address systems, and bulletin boards on the same basis as other clubs. The school must provide a room and resources for the Bible clubs. The only difference the Court allowed between Bible clubs and other clubs is that the faculty sponsor may not control the Bible club. The faculty sponsor must merely ensure that the club follows school policies, since any official control by the faculty members of religious activities of the club could be an establishment of religion. The club must be student-led, and students may occasionally invite outside community religious leaders to speak.
|
Even more:
[quote]
The Equal Access Law:
The Equal Access Act was passed in the Senate with a vote of 88 to 11; it passed in the House 337 to 77; it became law on 1984-AUG-11. The law applies only to public secondary schools which:
|
Receive Federal financial assistance. |
|
Already have "a limited open forum." i.e. at least one student-led, non-curriculum club that meets outside of class time. Chess, model building, political, religious and many similar types of clubs are considered to be non-curriculum based. A French club might be considered to be curriculum related. |
The language of the Act is quite clear. Such schools must allow additional clubs to be organized, as long as:
|
Attendance is voluntary. |
|
The group is student-initiated. |
|
The group is not sponsored by the school itself, by teachers, by other school employees, or by the government. This means that such employees cannot promote, lead or participate in a meeting. However, a teacher or other school employee can be assigned to a group for "custodial purposes." |
|
The group is not disruptive. i.e. it "does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school." |
|
Persons from the community may not "direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups." |
The school is required to treat all of its student-led non-curriculum clubs equally:
|
Each club must have equal access to meeting spaces, the PA system, school periodicals, bulletin board space, etc. |
|
School officials have the right to monitor meetings. |
|
Officials can require all clubs to follow a set of rules, including non-discrimination policies. However, a court has ruled that religious clubs can discriminate against persons of other faiths in their selection of officers. |
|
The school may limit meeting times and locations, but must apply rules equally to all groups. |
|
The school may prohibit people from the community from attending student clubs. However, they must apply this rule equally to all groups. |
Thus, if the school receives financial support from the Federal government and already has one or more student-initiated, extracurricular clubs on campus, then additional clubs cannot be prohibited. One exception would be in the case of a group that can be shown to be disruptive to the educational process. The Equal Access Act and the U.S. Constitution itself protects students' right to the enjoyment of free association and speech.
|
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
It's clear, they are forced to allow this clubs, if not they are volating the student's rights. |
This club was organised by a teacher - not by students - so if it were in the USA (which it isn't) it would not be allowed by all the USA regulations you have pointlessly quoted.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Now being that New Zeland has no codified Constitution as we know, but the Section 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights says:
___________________________________________
15 Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
____________________________________________
It's clear, the limits are even less than in USA.
Iván
|
I don't see how this applies in this case, but nevermind - I'm sure you do.
ps: does this mean that shopping malls, gas stations and public libraries have to provide exclusive clubs for people's worship, observance, practice, or teaching? No, of course it doesn't, and neither do schools, colleges, universities or kindergartens. Nothing about this infringes anyone's rights to religion or belief.
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?