That's what I meant. The federal funding is going mainly to
"recognised" denominations, but there is nothing specifically
Forbidding the teaching of any religion, simply that one may not be
privileged above any other. Or so it is said.
--- Mary Christine Erikson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/7/2007 7:05:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Separation of church and State means, literally, "Congress shall
> make
> no law respecting an establishment of religion." If we teach one
> religion or spiritual practice in state-funded schools, it simply
> means that we have to provide the opportunity for them all to be
> taught, and that we cannot make any of them Mandatory.
>
> That's all.
>
>
>
>
> Actually "an establishment of religion" means a specific organized
> church, like the corner store is "an establishment of
> business."
> In those days no one thought anything about teaching
> Christianity
> assumed to be objective fact in the classroom. the issue
> was that
> no one religion - meaning no denomination of Christianity
> with a
> nod to Judaism and Islam to be taken for granted as okay
> but
> oddball and too minority to be of concern - would have the
> backing
> of the government against any other.
>
> The background to this was the religion fueled wars of
> Protestant
> and Roman Catholic in Europe.
>
> The Declaration of Independence takes its stand on some God
> given rights, with phrasing that presupposes an objective,
> non
> pantheistic Creator, though no such phrasing got into the
> Constitution
> itself. A lot of stuff was just taken for granted.
>
>
> Infowolf1
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at
> http://www.aol.com
>
--Wolven
On shaded wings drift
FireDark discoveries
Soul Architecture.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|