W.Va. mom says her daughter was bullied after they balked at Bible classes in public school
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The chill set in not long after word got out that Elizabeth Deal’s little girl was not taking the Bible class at her West Virginia public grammar school.
Her daughter, Jessica Roe, then a first-grader, felt it first.
When her teacher and the pastor who ran that class realized they didn’t have a permission slip for Jessica Roe to attend, they placed her and another girl who wasn’t enrolled in the county's Bible in the Schools program in a coat closet and gave them iPads “to amuse themselves" during the 30-minute class, Deal said.
In the days and weeks that followed, Jessica Roe brought books from home when she was dispatched to the library or computer lab to sit, mostly by herself, while her classmates were in the Bible program, her mother said.
“My child was offered no alternative education,” said Deal, 42, a granddaughter of two West Virginia coal miners who was raised a Methodist in the Virginia suburbs of Washington and now describes herself as agnostic.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
78 visitors
This religious bullying should never be tolerated in a taxpayer funded school - this includes charter schools.
Agreed.
I understand what you are saying but you're missing a point...
Bullying should never be tolerated in school - ANY school.
Agreed. However, do you know how religious bullying is regulated in private religious schools?
No I do not. But to me it doesn't matter. Bullying, regardless of it it's in a public school, a private religious school or out behind Billy's barn should not be tolerated. It's wrong in any setting.
Of course it's wrong.
One of the problems here is that the school is creating the environment that leads to the bullying. They're creating a situation in which students in the religious minority are singled out as minorities. If they'd leave religious instruction to churches and the home, as they should, this would be less of a problem.
ok, I get it. You want to harp on the religious instruction while I am more bothered by the bullying. I understand it but I think the priorities here are a little misplaced. In my mind the bullying and the fact that the "adults" in the room are setting it up and allowing it to happen is the bigger issue.
This isn't an either-or. Bullying is a problem. Religion in public schools is also a problem.
If the child was older that could be a hate crime because of religious harassment. If the girl wasn't disciplined for her actions the teacher was as fault.
This shouldn't be a class in any school.
I don't mind if it's a class in a private religious school. But it absolutely shouldn't be in public schools. Somebody needs to sue to include a Quran class.
Honestly, I love my home state, but West Virginia's state officials can be so damn stupid sometimes. They're consistently ranked near the bottom nationwide in educational attainment. What's the obvious thing to do? Well, take kids out of class and use educational time to indoctrinate them, of course/s
Where are the Satanists.........?
That's what happens when you have idiots focusing on fantasy bible teaching instead of reality fact teaching.
“My child was offered no alternative education,”
Actually, they were, the bible teaching class IS alternative education and that was all that was offered. Just like eating Rhino horn is supposed to be alternative medicine for erectile dysfunction, biblical teaching is alternative history for an alternative universe, one we have zero evidence actually exists or existed.
I also want to know how they are teaching bible school in a public elementary school? This is a blatant violation of Engel v. Vitale. It also ignores the Lemon test of constitutionality from Lemon v. Kurtzman. The state cannot be endorsing religious belief over non-belief or pushing one religion over the others.
From the seed this has been accepted practice for years in 625 public high schools in 42 states if they use the following book/teaching aids.
I googled for more info on the book and found a map on their web page citing the states that are teaching the Bible via this book. I don't know anything about this program. Maybe someone who has children in schools that are teaching this book will weigh in about what is currently happening in our public school systems. I had read where religious organizations had pushed to open charter schools and be allowed to teach religion with taxpayer funds. I don't know if this is a factor in the number of schools that are currently teaching the Bible.
I will assume that since it's a public school, it's taxpayer funded. The child cannot therefore be forced to attend a bible study class. Even if she is not forced to attend, she is clearly being singled out, which is harassment, which I would further assume is illegal in W. Va.
Nope. She chose to skip an elective. No discrimination involved.
What elective? Elementary school? Knock, knock, knock, Hello, is anybody home?
She was singled out, that's discrimination.
This isn't a discrimination case, at least not directly. There is no similar class being offered for other religions, so this is a promotion of Christianity by a taxpayer-supported institution, which is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Bible class at a West Virginia PUBLIC GRAMMAR SCHOOL...
I read that line three times to be sure of what it said. WTH are these idiots thinking.
They're thinking about votes. They're pandering.
Pandering? That is not an excuse. It's against the 1st Amendment. There is a separation of church and state. End of story. Any religion in a public school is forbidden. This should be made clear as it goes through the court system.
We had a teacher who tried to use the classroom to for Jehovah Witness bible class. Once the administration found out, she was put on probation for not following the law of the land.
I agree it's not a valid excuse, of course. But it does win those who decide this is a good idea votes.
The time would be better spent teaching kids civics and science.
Civics is the most under taught subject in schools today. I was lucky enough to have my girls go to a high school that also taught classical education, so civics and the debate team were a big part of their lives.
As for science, we are one of the lowest ranked in the western world. I find that scary. We used to be #1. As a science teacher, I can't even start to expound on the importance of STEM classes to keep us competitive in the world.
Obviously.
Which is sad. We used to be a leader in science's, as I recall.
I swore when I was a kid that I would never do this but....
When I was a kid, we never had days off from school. The major holidays and Spring break, that was it. My daughter is about to turn 15 and she is out of school, no kidding almost literally one day a week all year long for one reason or another. I think our kids are spending less and less time actually in school, which doesn't help.
Just my opinion.
I went to WV public schools, and we were taught civics in those days. We did not have Bible classes in public schools in my county at the time, but the Mercer County school system was being sued for having them at about that time. Mercer County is in southern WV, the region consistently ranked poorly in WV for everything from economic conditions to healthcare to education. It's an area that obviously needs to embrace education, but doesn't.
I grew up across the river from West Virginia and I know that there is very little thinking that occurs in that State. If further evidence is needed you need only be reminded that they voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
This is how they manipulate and brainwash their citizens. From very early they teach them to follow the bible and to attend church. That's where they reinforce their "roles" and plant the seeds of hate. Peer pressure with the children is a very successful tool against independent thinking.
What is wrong with this picture?
Bible study during regular class hours? How is that even legal?
Because it is an elective that discusses the bible's influence on history. Nothing unconstitutional here despite the faux outrage.
these are first graders.....first graders don't typically take elective classes
Yes, parents have the option...
The kid is being bullied because she's not taking the classes. Did you read the seed?
Did you? The quote in my comment is from the article. Did I mention anything about bullying? Try and follow the conversation. The class is elective because permission to attend the class is needed by the parent. Very simple.
And like I said, first graders don't typically take elective classes. This is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause. Regular classroom time should not be taken up by bible indoctrination. This is first grade, they should be focused on learning to read, write their letters, and add 2 plus 2
It is not a required class. Establishment Clause does not apply. You may not like it so don't let your child attend.
And in the mean time the little bullies torture the one or two kids that don't attend.
Take your kid to Sunday School if you want them to have a religious indoctrination, but don't take time out of my kid's day to study fiction. There's plenty of time for that later
The Establishment Clause does apply.
You have no fucking idea what it's like to live in the Bible Belt! No fucking clue!
So address the bullying not the program.
Who is doing that? Someone forcing it on children?
No it doesn't.
Stick to the topic...it isn't about me.
It does if similar classes aren't offered regarding other religions' texts.
[Deleted]
Do you really think that 1st graders are prepared to contemplate "the bibles influence on history" ? ROFL.
I bet if we saw a transcript of the teachers words during the class it would be seen to be more proselytizing and solidifying ingrained beliefs than a discussion of "history".
I love you!
Maybe...only if the availability of similar classes are denied. Then the state would be establishing one religion over another. But, the school is not establishing any religion...the class is set up as a lesson not promoting religion and is not required.
I'd bet good money that a lawsuit demanding the representation of other religions would put an end to such classes. It has elsewhere.
These folks have no intention of making Quran classes available.
[deleted/ taunting]
Just imagine if the class were on Islam instead! This class was clearly promoting Christianity (the idea of it being a history lesson would be hilarious, if it weren't so pathetic).
You cannot cure willful ignorance.
Perhaps, but no one seems to be doing that.
If they are paying teachers with tax dollars, and those teachers are using the time they are being paid for to teach children about any religion, be it reading to them from the bible or the Koran, regardless of whether a kid has the "choice" to go sit in the coat closet, it should never be allowed. It is using tax payer dollars to promote a specific religion in exclusion of all others. That is the very definition of government used to "establish" a religion. This is in clear violation of the constitution, and the other Christian kids being little dicks, well that's par for the course, but what do you expect when the adults are excluding kids, labeling them and putting them in the closet. The adults had been telling every one of her Christian classmates "This child is different, their not like you, they have to leave the room while we talk about our special connection to Jesus which they don't share...". The teachers and parents created those little piece of shit bullies, and it's no wonder they're growing up to be just like their parents and peers.
'Perhaps, but no one seems to be doing that.'
We'll see what happens dear.
Yeah, I know a lot about bullies dear, but not because I am one.
You can say that again. Some are even worse and less mature.
Actually, there is, since this is a public school. It is against the first amendment.
Hi Kathleen – My New Year was relaxing and nice to have a day off. Hope yours was well.
It is awful anytime any bullying is done. No one would disagree with you. Unfortunately bullies will find any reason to bully. It is within their character... not because of a class, religion, sexual preference, identity, intellect, and on and on. Who wants to see any school program, function, sport, etc suspended based solely on bullying? Peer pressure does start young and continues through high school on every level…academic, athletic, etc. I would hate to see any school group abolished based on bullying from a few.
I have two grandchildren who attend a diverse Public Montessori grade school and the bullying happens all the time. Kids of all ages, race, religion can be bullies and will find any reason to be one.
If the school did violate any Constitutional, federal, state, or local statutes, then they certainly should be held responsible for it, but for bullying alone is rather weak. I don’t see where the school promoted any bullying. Seems some are just pissed over the subject of the class. I would prefer my child not be taught sex ed, so I would opt out my child…not sue. But, there are some school districts who don’t allow another option. The state is deciding what the “healthy attitude” is towards abortion, etc and promoting it.
Presenting materials regarding morality in public schools is acceptable as long as no religion is involved....what a surprise!
Well they weren't so your entire comment is irrelevant.
When did elective courses become possible in elementary school? I didn't have the option of elective courses until high school.
Any public school religion class must be a critical survey class with all religious beliefs and non-belief represented equally and without bias. The class cannot be taught from the perspective of any sect of Christianity in the US if it is to be constitutionally permissible in public school or a publicly funded charter school. Any public school is not to be seeking to support any religious belief or act as a way to further religious thought that would happen in a parochial Bible school.
The effect of Bible can be mentioned in passing in both history and literature classes but that would be a few minutes at most. This was a Protestant bible study course being taught in an elementary school with a captive audience and as such is blatantly unconstitutional because of the obvious First Amendment violations.
When were public schools teachers not paid with tax dollars?
It is in the article...helps to read it.
That would place this course before the Engle v. Vitale SCOTUS decision on school prayer. The government isn't to be teaching or endorsing religious morality in public schools because there are as many ideas of what is moral as there are who is or isn't god. The Lemon Test, from Lemon v. Kurtzman, on religious constitutionality, is very clear on that subject.
These kids are not to being fed a diet of privately-funded religious beliefs in a public school. They are too young to understand to question what they are being taught and as such, this is biased religious propaganda. This activity belongs in a private school or a church bible school.
Yes, it does. Here is how it works. If student self-initiate prayer in school it's allowed. If bible class is an after-school activity lead by a student, it's allowed. If a minister wants to use the school for an after school activity, it's allowed.
But bible school as part of the regular curriculum and taught by a teacher and or minister during the school day is not allowed. That is a violation of the Establishment Clause even with permission slips. The school has gone over the line.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.
lol really?
Who is praying?
Who is being forced to pray? Good grief did you even read the seed?
The Lemon test does not apply either.
What students are allowed to question materials presented in any class?
Parents have the option to opt out their child....nothing forced on the child.
The material was presented as a lesson not as promoting a religion.
The Establishment Clause does not apply.
Wrong. It does apply in this case: here is why:
Those seeking to introduce Bible courses in public schools should particularly take into account the following three key principles that emerge from The Bible in Public Schools :
First , while it is constitutional for public schools to teach children about religion, it is unconstitutional to use public schools to advance particular religious beliefs . Among the important statements made in the guidelines are:
Unfortunately, some people promote "Bible education" as a disguised way of advancing their particular religious beliefs in public schools. One way for public schools to avoid being used to promote particular religious beliefs is to offer courses that teach about a broad range of the world's religions rather than courses that focus on a single religious text. While this approach is not constitutionally required, it certainly can help alleviate legitimate concerns about there being a hidden agenda to promote a particular religious tradition.
Second , the structure of the specific course curriculum, including the choice of textbooks, supporting materials, and teacher outlines, should be developed with a conscientious effort to avoid advancing particular religious beliefs.
If public schools decide to teach about the Bible, the curriculum should be scrupulous in not showing favoritism for one version or religious interpretation of the Bible over another, whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or other.
Third , if public schools decide to offer religion or Bible courses, teachers should possess the relevant academic training and should teach the course as a proper academic subject . The teacher's educational background should not be limited to that of a particular religious tradition, but should include serious academic study of the Bible.
While teachers are completely free to have deeply felt religious beliefs, it is not appropriate for them to use the classroom to advocate their religious beliefs to public school children.
Now this case has gone to a local federal judge who would not hear the case, but it will now be taken to a higher court. That should sort things out.
And if you are wondering why I know this, it's because I was a public school teacher for over 20 years.
All they have to do is a put a stack of prayer rugs at the entrance and the complaints would stop.
There is no substantial facts to show the course is promoting one belief.
All the reason for the Establishment Clause not applying are within your comment.
No proof has been provided that those conducting the class where advocating, promoting, prostylizing their own personal beliefs.
No facts have been put forward that support violations of the Establishment Clause.
I know you where a teacher, but all the accusations have not been substantiated.
Religious belief isn't factual so they must be taught to question what they are being told. You can ask questions about the validity of science, literature and history, so why would it be any different in a religion class, especially one that is taught in a public school? It should be very obvious that not all Christian sects agree, not even among the Protestant sects, so a student must be aware that they have the right to question what they are being taught and why this is being taught. There is absolutely way that this can happen in an elementary school because of their lack of emotional maturity. At a minimum, it should be limited to high school with a constitutional statement read on the first day by a lawyer or the principal that they have the right to question what is being taught and that no one religious belief is correct or endorsed by the school.
That assumes that the child agrees with their parents on this subject. I knew that at an early age that religion was nonsense. Public schools are not to be furthering any religious beliefs and they aren't there to be a fertile recruiting ground for various churches/religions. That fact applies to Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism or otherwise. You would be outraged if this course was taught by an Imam or Buddhist prayer group so why it is permissible if it is a Baptist, Catholic, or Lutheran church?
If they are teaching religion or any religious belief in any form then the Establishment Clause must apply. It logically cannot be otherwise. Originally, the Establishment Clause did not apply to cities and states but that changed with Incorporation Doctrine via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in the late 19th century, so now the Establishment Clause applies equally to the federal, state, and local governments, as well as any entity that is funded by taxpayer money and/or state authority.
Freedom of religion by definition means freedom FROM religion as well. It doesn't matter what religion they were pushing but I would bet that it wasn't Islam or Buddhism.
It's the first grade. They were not teaching religion without putting some bias on it and 1st graders are very impressionable. Why do you think MANY parents tell their kids about Santa? Because they will believe it.
I believe she still is.
Except that there is. The suit has given examples of lessons:
Also, the class is taught by a specific minister, Rev. Ray Hurt, from the Church of God. He is not teaching comparative religion to high school kids. He is teaching bible class as clearly represented above.
That is not a generic bible class. That is specific to creationism. And that is a violation of the establishment clause.
I am not uptight about religion. I just know the difference between when the law is being broken and when it is not. When my daughters were in high school (public), the debate team was taught by Jesuit Priests. They debated the bible as part of their training. I am not Catholic, nor did I think that the priests were trying to convert my daughters. It was an exercise of the mind. What this minister is doing is pushing a specific faith to children who are too young to even debate it with him.
Wheel a 6' Baphomet statue into that classroom and their pearls would be clutched tight enough to metamorphize into marble and diamonds.
The class is not teaching to believe...why is that difficult to understand? The class teaches the historical influence of the Bible.
Well, I don't think the kids couldn't ask questions. What makes you think they couldn't?
Agree with what?
You don't seem to understand the concept or lessons of the class. And there is no proof that the class was used for that purpose.
Before you make an argument you must have some supporting facts.
True, but the class is not required.
She said she was....not me.
That could be done with a secular textbook and no permission slip, if that is what is happening. Middle East history is not mentioned to school children until 7-8th grade so why the need for Bible study between reading class and math class? Any form of morality that could or should be taught to public school students of this age is easily understood and constitutionally permitted by the secular Golden Rule.
The Washington Post disagrees with you. They were teaching Bible stories to school children. Noah is not a secular historical figure and neither is the flood.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/a-popular-public-school-bible-class-in-west-virginia-faces-legal-challenge/2017/04/23/14c50460-2144-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?utm_term=.e25dcdeb9f3e
That's it? One comment like that hardly proves that the only purpose of the class is to convert or promote religion. Perhaps that is why the case was dismissed. And I don't believe a person is biased because they are a Reverend who teaches a class. Pretty sure the court would agree. Ministers, Priests, Rabbi's are quite capable of being impartial. Not sure why that would violate the Establishment Clause.
It has not been decided if the law was broken or not, the case was dismissed.
So? That is your opinion which is not applicable.
No one said it was needed..it was offered as an elective. You have absolutely no understanding of article. When you can stop making up your own preferred version of the circumstances, I will be happy to converse with you.
I am not going to give a litany of what he taught in the class. Clearly, that is a specific belief. And while I know Ministers, Priests, Rabbi's are quite capable of being impartial, that is a very specific belief that not all of those faiths believe in. That and the fact that it is being taught as part of the curriculum makes it a violation of the established rule.
And actually, there was a reconsideration in the case:
*sigh*
Your reply doesn't pass even the most basic test of scrutiny. How can you possibly claim to say that the Bible is used as a textbook for history class when the veracity of the Bible is questionable, and that is being very generous? The Bible is a book of religious myths so it cannot be used as a secular textbook for any public school class. You know that claim is a sham, but claiming that it is a history class is how this bible study is being sold to people in an attempt to pass the constitutionality requirement.
How can it be an option when it is taught during the school day and there was no way to opt out besides not returning the slip? The fact that they told the students to sit in the closet is proof that they didn't expect parents to opt out because they did not have a reasonable alternate place for the students who chose not to attend.
You don't know what was taught in the class, so how can you give a litany? The school claims the class is not being taught as a belief. If the plaintiff can prove that the entire purpose of the class lessons are to promote a belief then they might have a winner, but not seeing any evidence of that. The class can be part of the curriculum as it is currently still an elective in the high school.
Of course not all faiths believe in the Bible, but that does not directly apply to the Establishment Clause. And, reconsideration of the case is not a decision.
I see no reason for the *sigh*. If the conversation bothers you, I suggest you don't participate.
Nothing in your reply is applicable to the Establishment Clause. It is all conjecture.
Everyone has provided facts. You have provided nothing.
You're so funny! This is Perrie's site.
What facts?
Thanks! I don't believe that requires her to participate. What is your point?
You're arguing just for the sake of arguing and you have not debunked anything.
whatever dear.
I guess you have no facts.
You're the one with no facts
What facts have been put forth to support a violation of the Establishment Clause? All I have seen are assumptions.
It can be awkward for some parents.
To what fact would you pay heed? I'm starting to wonder.
You need to open your eyes dear.
Wonder what? I don't understand your comment, please explain further.
You even quoted Perrie who showed that these "bible" lessons are not academic and scholarly, but are in fact more or less Sunday School lessons.
Jesus Christ on a stick but I didn't think you were that dense
Several comments from lessons given in the class have been quoted. They serve as evidence that the class is a promotion of Christianity, rather than the secular, impartial class it claims to be. But you have dismissed them, while only repeating "We don't know what was being taught!" In the face of quotes from the lessons that are proselytizing, you provide only biased speculation that they might not have been.
because they played a game....no academic class ever plays a game.
too funny
[Removed]
O. M. G.
One quote hardly establishes a pattern....kids play games in many classes.
It is a frivolous law suit...
That's what I thought. You value your own biased speculation over fact in support of your point.
Fortunately, a judge disagrees, so maybe kids in southern WV will spend time learning science and civics rather than mythology and how to bully religious minorities.
Time to leave Sunshine to talk to herself
There are no facts to support an Establishment Clause violation no matter how hard you wish there to be.
What judge disagrees?
Trolling, trolling, trolling, get them doggies trolling, rawhide.
On the contrary, there are, no matter how many times you try to say there aren't.
Judge Motz, who said the case had been dismissed in error and referred it back to the Fourth District Court, disagrees with you. If the case had no merit, it wouldn't be brought back up for consideration.
Fortunately, everyone doesn't ignore facts that don't suit their biases.
That is all that is required for the left to declare someone on their hit list guilty. No proof or evidence needed just an assumption and a false accusation.
Another one who can't see the facts smacking him in the face.
What facts? You seem to have forgotten to give any again. BTW, dispute what Harry read says, anonymous sources are not proof .
The Judge disagreed on the reason for the dismissal, not whether there was actually enough evidence (facts) to prove a violation of the Establishment Clause. It remains to be seen if the case will go forward. Quite a stretch there.
Yes, fortunately everyone does not ignore facts.
Very convenient to forget.
It wasn't dismissed because it lacked merit. It was dismissed because Dean transferred her daughter to another school, and the school discontinued the classes. If there had been no evidence that the Establishment Clause had been violated, it would have been dismissed on lack of merit. But it wasn't.
I didn't say it was.
Like I said already...the case still has not gone forward by the court so we will see if it will.
It is only speculation on your part at this time.
The *sigh* is for a useless discussion. You will never change your mind and the facts of the case mean nothing to you, no matter what. When I have a discussion, I back up my points with facts. All you did was just say, nope. That is not a discussion, hence the *sigh*
I am sorry Perrie but you did not present any facts to support a violation of the Establishment Clause as you claimed it was.
You did not provide exactly what part of the Establishment Clause was violated, why, and proof or evidence of facts to prove it...only hearsay and speculation.
If you don't like this type of discussion, you do not need to respond to it.
Sure she did. You just choose to ignore them, while presenting no facts of your own.
Just those two quotes show that this class doesn't come close to satisfying the Lemon Test regarding compliance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
There is no secular purpose to imagining dinosaurs living with humans to provide them with waterslides.
Imagining how much better things would be if we follow the Ten Commandments is promoting a religion.
Religion being taught in schools at the expense of instructional time is excessive entanglement.
What I don't like are people who say no, without providing their own information to back up their points. I supported mine all the way through. All you did was say no and dismissed everything I showed you. That is NOT a discussion. If you don't like my *sigh* at the frustration of trying to make a point while you willfully dismiss it, well, sorry.
Your going to need more than a few quotes to get a win...In what context where these quotes said and where they actually said. What evidence and facts do you actually have?
We will see, but on this alone very weak.
Why should I? I am not claiming the class violates the Establishment Clause.
If you don't like me dismissing your points based on your own weak and unproven claim..well then sorry.
I can't help your own frustration.
I'll let my points speak for themselves and let readers decide:
They of course can...but more important it is up to the court to decide. At this point there is no ruling.
It's still in the process.
And precedent shows that we are correct - this was unconstitutional and will be ruled as such. Unfortunately, some people choose not to do research, and worse yet, continue to promote Christians being treated as a special class.
This video makes it pretty clear that what is taught in the class violates the Establishment Clause, as it is intended to promote Christianity:
Just a note that this broadcast is from February 8, 2017 [SP]
Good video. I believe the Bible is for home or Church unless you allow it to be treated as all other literature which is open for discussion and criticism without penalty.
Exactly what in the video makes it pretty clear?
I think someone needs a hug.
Anybody watching the video without bias should be able to see that.
Those who refuse to see indoctrination where there is indoctrination will refuse to see it.
How can is not be related to the separation of religion and the government? Either you are being intellectually dishonest or you don't understand the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The government is not to be showing favoritism to religious belief over non-belief or showing favoritism to one belief over the others. Teaching a religious idea such as using the Bible as a (very questionable) history in taxpayer-supported public schools is a blatant violation of both ideas and as such is unconstitutional.
The Bible is of very questionable veracity and it is obviously a religious book, so the use of it in public schools is an endorsement of the Protestant Christian religion over other religions as well as the endorsement of religious belief over non-belief because the schools are teaching the Christian faith as fact instead of as a religious belief. Neither idea is permissible in a public school.
Why are you so eager for the public schools to teach religion to very impressionable children? What is the secular good of this action?
Anyone with bias towards religion will choose to see indoctrination where there is none. No evidence or facts where presented in the video. Only personal opinions that they liked the class.
See how that works?
There is no Quran class.
There is no Torah class.
There is no class on the Bhagavad Gita.
There is no place to mark "no" on the permission slip.
The class is a continuation of what is being taught at home and at church, which is religion, not comparative religions, which is inappropriate at this grade level, anyway.
This is Sunday school, being taught in real schools. This is indoctrination. This is one religious group using taxpayer-funded institutions to teach their religion, and their religion only, to students who are bullied if they choose not to participate. Their parents are bullied in the community for choosing to have the Constitution enforced.
But you go on denying it's happening. Everybody sees what you're doing, just like everybody sees what this Bible class was really all about.
Public schools are not to be teaching religious ideas such as the Garden of Eden or Noah and the ark as facts because that is the endorsement of a religious belief as fact. These ideas can be mentioned as literature and as part of a mythology class but they cannot be taught as facts in a public school because of the mandate of separation of church and state. It would be the same as teaching Islam or Hindu Vedas as fact. What is the overarching secular good of teaching any religious idea in public school that is necessary to satisfy the Lemon Test of constitutionality?
Do you want one? Seems you are following me around for something.
You just keep repeating yourself and none of it applies to the Establishment Clause reagardles of how bad you want it to.
Why don't you just wait and see what the court ruling is?
I would love for them to teach from
Celtic Lore & Spellcraft of the Dark Goddess: Invoking the Morrigan by Stephanie Woodfield.
How can this bible study class not apply to the Establishment Clause when taxpayer dollars are used to support public schools and these children are a captive audience in a public school? Taxpayer dollars are not to be used to further any sort of religious belief.
It's a blatant violation of the establishment clause. You saying it isn't doesn't make it so.
The WV state legislature was smart enough (eventually) not to make Bible classes a statewide thing, because they knew it was a violation of the Establishment Clause. They just hoped they could sneak it under the radar, or that people ignorant of the Establishment Clause would love them for trying. But in the end, the Constitution prevailed. They knew it was a fight they couldn't win.
And BTW, I wouldn't talk about repeating oneself, from your position. That's really all you've done, while the rest of us have posted quotes, links, interviews with locals, and laws. You have only repetition of your assertions to support your position. Talk about a weak position.
I'd like them to read an accurate translation of the Song of Songs
They seem to make up their own meanings of verses & passages when they translate.
Can you provide the accurate translation????
I can't wait for the Samhain ritual to be celebrated in public schools. It could be fun.
It is fun. Lots of dancing, fire, food, and wine.
I'm sure that the Baptists, Mennonites, and Pentecostal parents will have no problem with their children taking part in all of the festivities.
I was part of a Druid grove in the mid to late 1990s.
Hmmmm - maybe that should be taught.
People don't want their kids to be taught sex ed in school, tho....
[deleted]
Have a nice rest of your day.
Denial isn't a river in Egypt.
Keyboard lawyers well aren't lawyers...we will see what the ruling is or where the case goes.
[deleted]
I'm confident that everyone here can see which side came armed with evidence, and which side thinks that repeatedly ignoring that evidence somehow serves as evidence itself.
Have a good day.
Are you persecuting her about her belief system?
lol..good try but no star for you.
Oh, I see. You can denigrate other's beliefs by using condescending word usage and it is A-OK, but wishing you Happy Holidays is persecuting you as a Christian - Gotcha.
When have I ever claimed to be a lawyer? I want an apology.
You flatter yourself dear. Plus you have it ass backwards
Public schools should not have bible class
That's not up to you.
If he pays taxes, it is
It's up to the Constitution - which says government cannot endorse one religion over others.
As a Citizen, Taxpayer and one who had to take bible classes when I was in public grade school I have right to object to waste of tax money and something that has been ruled illegal many times.
Do students receive an academic grade for these classes?
I grew up in a small town like this, very religious, and the reward for following lock step is not being ostracized by the community. If you rocked the boat, if you weren't part of the Sunday Church crowd, well you weren't invited to any social functions, no one let their kids play with your little "heathens" if you were atheist or of another faith. And not only are the kids bullied, but the parents of those kids are often sneered at by their neighbors, constantly gossiped about and often blamed for any bad things that happen in the area. They're often the first ones suspected when a crime is committed as most Christians don't want to believe bad things about their fellow Christians, but it's easy to suspect the people they don't see every Sunday at Church. "What exactly are they doing while we're here?" was actually a word for word a quote from one of the members of my old Church one Sunday suspiciously talking about the only atheist family we all knew in town. That was some 25 year ago now, but I still see the same sentiments on the lips of many Christians I talk to even today. The idea that without God, specifically their God, you can't be a moral person, shouldn't be trusted, have no purpose and thus should be suspected of any crimes since without that specific God in their lives they must somehow be "evil" sinners. This sentiment isn't lost on their children who transfer all those negative emotions onto those ostracized children which is often manifest as bullying.
Bingo. And that's exactly what was happening to this little girl in her own school. Great post.
way back when I was in elementary school we got a grade for classes and a check or minus on report card for almost everything. But I don't think we got credit for bible class
So a group of parents sued in 1985, won something but no one remembers what?
Another group of parents sue in 2017 and the School Board backs down within a few weeks, prompting a Federal Judge to dismiss the case
because the program was suspended, with the Judge leaving the door open for continuance if the program is reinstated.
Now an Appeals Court has decided that the first Judge should not have dismissed the case that way and sent it back for a final determination.
Seems like overkill....
Not necessarily.
There was a bill last year in WV requiring high schools to offer elective Bible classes (but not Quran, Torah, etc., classes, of course). The bill was allowed to die, because the Freedom from Religion Foundation opposed it. It had a fair amount of public support, though.
Locking until I'm back.
I'm back.
I wonder how they are told to address the pastor teaching the class, Mr. or Rev.?
As a taxpayer I do not want my taxes to fund Bible classes. As those that want to opt out of their tax money feeding the poor or helping them survive I do not wish for my taxes to pay for a class that should occur at a church.
How about a class on how to create a Book of Shadows?
Breaking news ...... third grader gets bullied in school over (insert reason here) ...... news at 11
Breaking news . . . third grader gets discriminated against in school for not attending an indoctrination/brain washing creationist bible humper class . . . lawsuit to come
Breaking news ..... tort reform stops frivolous lawsuit filed, over alleged bullying, by third graders mother ..... West Virginia ambulance chasers weep openly ..... news at 11
First, it's a first grader, not a third grader. Second, this isn't about a lawsuit over bullying. It's about teaching a bible class to a captive audience of first graders....6 and 7 year olds who don't have the maturity to know they are being indoctrinated
Did you read the article? In addition to being a bullying issue, there is a First Amendment issue here. Don't you have a problem with a school system breaking the law with impunity?
Nah, any time a conservative breaks the law, it's just fine. If a liberal does it, it's "convict them without due process."
First, thx for checking my work. Always nice having you and tessy following me around, proof reading my content.
Second my original comment spoke to bullying not lawsuits. The following comment simply injected a little hyperbole. Having trouble with that or the fact that it was me posting it? Never-mind, i know the answer to that one.
Lastly the whole point of my post was to point out the clearly outrageous thinking that bullying in grade school is unusual. In a perfect world it wouldn't exist at all but last time i checked this is hardly a perfect world. First grade, third grade .... doesn't matter, its hardly front page news.. You'll never get rid of bullies. Grade school or otherwise Look no further than NT for proof of that.
Hope that helps ...... as i truly aim to please
Yes i read the article and commented on a portion of it.
Did you read my original comment?
Some like to flatter themselves don't they TG?
I stopped reading after your first snark full sentence. Guess it took you all weekend to come up with that comment, eh?
p.s. you never aim to please you only aim to piss me off. Good day to you
[deleted]
This is pretty simple.
Don't like what i post? Then don't read it or respond to it. No re-calibration required there ..... [deleted]
Pretty simple eh?
And yet, once again, here both of you are. At the same time, pushing the same narrative.
[deleted]
when I was in grade school we never had a bible class, but we did have the son of a pastor preaching on the playground. after his trousers ended up in the trees a few times, his parents found a new elementary school for him to attend. luckily for him, he had learned to tone his thumping down by the time to attend the only jr high in town.