Illinois: Doing away with freedom of religion, one bill at a time

[Amethyst Hunter]

When our schools are so over-crowded and our students so over-booked that the government has to mandate a moment of silence or a chapel room simply to allow students to express themselves, we need more than a debate over those mandated moments of silence- we need fundamental change in the school system. Students are humans, and children, and forcing them into schedules so strict it's impossible to find a few quiet minutes to pray is detrimental to much more than freedom of religion.

Two problems:

1) American schools do not want students who can actually *think*. They want little drones that will slavishly follow the system and turn out more little drones. This is why genuinely good teachers/schools can't get the help that they need and get edged out by the mediocre/crap mobs and BS like NCLB.

2) The *majority* of the people who are pushing for mandated "moments of silence" (which IS code for school prayer) in schools are NOT doing it out of any sympathy for overstressed students - they are explicitly trying to force a particular religious agenda into a place where it doesn't belong. This is also the same mindset that thinks Intelligent Design needs to be taught in place of evolution and accepted scientific theory. And yes, there IS a section of dominionism wherein these people are *encouraged* to get seats on school boards and other local administrative positions of power in order to help pave the way for just these types of shenanigans.

I would not have a problem with students having some type of 'free time' during their class day where they could have a breather to use as they pleased (whatever happened to study halls?). However, when a vocal minority attempts to shovelfeed their version of morality down everybody's throat and tries to pass it off as something neutral, that annoys me greatly.

At last count, the Illinois law was struck down not long ago, but as I understand it, it's going back to another court for review and perhaps editing to a voluntary status (which isn't quite as bad as mandated, but it still irks me that they have to call it a "moment of silence").

[I8DaCookie]

I'm jumping in here late and haven't read all of the posts but I do have my own bit to add.

I work in Maryland as a substitute teacher and I'm student teaching one day a week. Maryland has manditory moment of silence. I don't know when they started doing this but it was after I left the school system as a student. I was surprised the first time I was back in a classroom and they did it.

I personally believe that it is a waste of time. The MOS is done right after the pledge (which I believe should also not be required but that's a different topic) where students are asked to stand for a bit. Most students look board or if I'm in a high school, they're already starting ot chat with one another.

I don't see it as mandated prayer time. There really isn't time for a prayer, everyone is just quiet and I can tell you, no one is reflecting on anything.

And if there is prayer...it's praying that you don't fail the big test you didn't study for.

[Nekojin]

Hoo boy, where to begin.

Allowing the free exercise of religions in public school is a very, very thorny situation - moreso than most people seem to get. There is no "good solution" that caters to everyone equally.

If you go with a wide-open policy that allows all students to specify a religion and dictate when they "must" do religious observations, you open it to all sorts of shenanigans, especially when lassiez-faire parents get involved ("My kid says he's a Pastafarian, and needs a full hour for lunch? You heard him - and I support my child!"). Is the school expected to be well-versed in all possible real religions (as opposed to wholly-fabricated ones)?

Either the religious time of some students gets infringed upon, or the proper teaching of students does. When a student can get up in the middle of class, say, "Religious pass," and walk out, to come back 20 minutes later, how can they expect to actually learn the lessons being taught?

It is simply not possible to cater to all religions; therefore it is best for public schools to cater to none. Most people are not devout observers of their religion. If you are, do you want a school that caters to your devout worship, and gives appropriate breaks? If so, then find a suitable private school.

It's not a perfect solution. But it is the best one, IMO.

[Seshat]

If students are completely unable to find a few minutes and a quiet space each day for gathering their thoughts, prayer, meditation, or just to get AWAY from each other, it's no suprise so many kids cut class at higher grade levels!

<snip>

Students are humans, and children, and forcing them into schedules so strict it's impossible to find a few quiet minutes to pray is detrimental to much more than freedom of religion.

I spent most of my school years in the library. There was nowhere else that I was safe from the teasing.

As for a place to pray or meditate or get away from other people? No such place. The library was the closest you could get - and it was safe primarily because there was nowhere there the librarians couldn't see you.

[Slytovhand]

I'm coming in even later.. but I did read all previous threads...

I like Saydrah's idea, which was sort of similar to what I had in secondary. We had 7x45 periods per day. We had a few choices and a few required - English, a from of maths, religion (it was a private school). We also had the choice for a 'study' (hahahaha - who chose that name?? ) period. That should be a good time to exercise one's religious requirements (not that we did, given the christian school...).

Also, back when I was in primary, every Tuesday we had some sort of religious education - where we would go to a designated classroom, and meet with a designated authority on the religion of our 'choice' (choice is in brackets cos we were kids.. like we could really choose!!). Mine was Mormon (IIRC) - not that we were, but because mother decided she liked some aspects of it - I dunno!!

I appreciate both sides to this argument, and other than Saydrah's idea, I don't think of a 'fair' balance.

Oh - and I do think religion should be taught in schools - but as a history/psychology exercise. After all, it is one of the most potent and driving forces in humanity.

The 1st amendment states that the government nor its agencies, as has been determined by the supreme court, can endorse or support relgious activites. Nor can they prevent or prohibit religious activities unless it breaks other existing laws. (ie trying to do a wiccan skyclad ceremony on times square at high noon would be rather frowned upon from a legal standpoint)

Why?? Only because it's skyclad?

Slyt