The Founders included the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution partly to protect religious rights. It was intended to keep the Federal government from interfering in religious practices and to keep it from establishing a national religion. Today, the 1st Amendment is turned on its head due to lack of historic perspective. For more insights, check the reading list: The First Amendment and The U.S. Consitution
The Supreme Court in "Abington v. Schempp" (374 U.S. 203. 1963) said:
"If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and…had been psychologically harmful to the child."
Read the whole decision at supreme.justia.com
4 comments:
"He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school."
So, not allowing one religion to impose their biases on schoolchildren, not allowing them to deride children of other religions, is somehow being "hostile to religion"?
Fair enough. But how many books would the following apply to:
"But if portions of ___ were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child"
This case tended to kick the Bible out of school, at least in people's minds. Now that's not the fault of the decision's total wording, but it does combine with other cases that set up a belief in the "wrongness" of anything regarding religion being seen/heard in a public school. (Actually, the Bible can be used as part of course on religion as far as I know.)
Readers please note: comments are welcome as long as they are respectful. Supporting material such as crypticlife supplied above is especially welcome, but I would still approve a polite opinion without supporting material even if it disagrees with my opinion.
Yes, the Bible can be used in a course in high school; I believe these are generally electives. Even the ACLU agrees with this, and produces a guide on high school Bible courses.
It seems even this case mentions Bible courses, but distinguishes them from these recitations that are done without any explanation.
You're right, though, about the perception. Many teachers and educators don't have a good handle on what their responsibilities are regarding the first amendment. When they infringe on the religious rights of expression of students, it often bothers me.
And I guess many books, read without explanation, might be psychologically harmful. One could look at the "banned" book lists to check which ones people had thought harmful by someone.
I'll note that you've been great about allowing respectful contrary opinion. Many who moderate comments do not, so this may prevent some from commenting.
Post a Comment