Far out.

It means that kids of different religions shouldn’t be taught under federally funded roofs that Christianity is the one and only true religion. It isn’t (ask any Muslim or Jew), and in a country founded on the idea (if not always practice) that all men have the right to worship as they please, it’s not right to use federal funds to foster the opposing idea.

Your argument presupposes everyone believes as you do. Therein lies its fallacy. There is no concrete proof that what you espouse is not, as they say, “smokin’ dope.”

We can’t teach that within a child is an adult human because this is manifestly untrue.

That being said, there is an interesting book on this topic that’s aimed at parents. School should teach math, science and English. Parents should raise their children and not abdicate responsibility to schools. I would venture a guess that most parents are more concerned with obedience from children, not their inner dignity.

I think that there is a wonderful component in most people I meet that I might refer to as their spirit (not soul, but spirit). I think most teachers really want to work to bring out that innate part of each child that is inspired by learning new things and to make their faces light up when they connect the dots between what they know and what they don’t know. In my mind, that is the intended “spirit” of education.

As for religion, I think if you are going to teach about one, then you spend as much time on the others (e.g., a World Religion course). There will be some smaller faith traditions that may fall by the wayside (e.g., Jainism), but I don’t have any problem with an overview of the different faith traditions. In fact, I think it is rather implicit in learning about history (e.g., the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation, the Holocaust, etc.). Without a passing familiarity with the world’s religions, these elements of history are completely without context and make it hard to understand the significance of what transpired.

Teaching in this way also helps ensure that an individual teacher’s faith tradition is not forced on the children. A friend of mine teaches 6th grade social studies and it includes a review of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. in an appropriate context as they learn about the different continents and countries. They learn about foods and dress from different places along with the prevailing belief system in a given locale. This makes sense to me. What you described does not.

As @BarnacleBill stated, you are assuming everyone believes in this so-called ‘soul urge’. So we would be teaching kids about a system of beliefs that is not proven to be factual, only your opinion. Although what I think you are trying to manifest is the idea of growing to your full human potential. That is another topic.

I don’t think that education is the realm for the soul or teaching thereto. It is not the business of the state to be awakening a soul urge and spirit.

@marinelife I think having a soul pretty much dooms you to failure in modern America. Education is to get a kid ready for the real world, and these days the surest path to success requires ditching anything resembling a soul or a conscience.

I’m with @Kayak8 on this point most specifically: A friend of mine teaches 6th grade social studies and it includes a review of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. in an appropriate context as they learn about the different continents and countries. They learn about foods and dress from different places along with the prevailing belief system in a given locale. This makes sense to me. What you described does not.

Freedom of religion is not about the freedom to practice your religion so much as the restriction on the government to establish a state religion, or advocate certain religious beliefs. This means that the government needs to present only the objective information regarding religion and belief systems, and not instruct on the truth. Rather, the government can establish schools that teach citizens to seek truth. Because public schools are institutions of the government, they must only take this approach.

As @BarnacleBill states, School should teach math, science and English. Parents should raise their children and not abdicate responsibility to schools. I would venture a guess that most parents are more concerned with obedience from children, not their inner dignity. Public education is not where education stops, and parents are free to instruct their children on religion, unhappy as it may make the rest of us as to what they are raising their children to believe. If public education contradicts any of that, it is because the information is objectively obtained, and parents can choose not to utilize it. Although there may be practical implications to this (e.g., parents can’t afford private religious schools or they can’t take work off to home school), it is a neutral policy that allows parents to teach and advocate certain religious beliefs without limiting any particular religion because of these practical issues.

This is what separation of church and state means…there is no state religion. The practice of religion has no place in government institutions. No statement on the value of religion, but a recognition that the government cannot teach beliefs neutrally because, then, it would have to teach ALL beliefs equally. This cannot be done objectively. In order to prevent advocating any religion, it must teach none. The freedom is left to the people to make these decisions for themselves.

As a matter of principal, the linking between church and state we have here in the UK, and the state funded religious schools, are an outrageous anachronism. However, in practise, it all seems to work as, by and large, the regulation stipulating that all schools conduct ‘a daily act of broadly Christian worship’ is largely ignored and fudged into a moral homily about being good. My daughter attends a Church of England (CofE) school with a multi-cultural class including muslims, sikhs and hindus, and even there they don’t push the religious angle too much. I have no need for religion and am wary of those who attempt to force it onto others; despite her school being run by the CofE, I have no qualms about her attending.

It could be that the establishment of the CofE actually reduces the role religion plays in most people’s lives. The devout have no grounds on which to campaign – they’ve got what they want – but know they have to tread very carefully if they don’t want to blow the privileges they’ve got. Somehow, it seems to work.

Separation of church and state is a good idea, but not really that necessary. Some times people take it too far in my opinion. For example, I don’t think there is anything wrong with teaching kids that religion ‘a’ believes ‘x’, religion ‘b’ believes ‘y’ and religion ‘c’ believes ‘z’, and so on. They are bound to meet people in the real world that believe those things, and therefore teaching them about it is useful.

I also don’t think it is necessary to remove a statue of the 10 commandments from a court house, as long as the judge is following the law of the land and not ruling based on the 10 commandments alone I don’t have a problem with it. sure the 10 commandments can be seen as a religious thing, but it could also be seen as a historical monument to man’s first attempts at forming laws and societies.

However, separation of church and state is the best policy. As it guarantees that schools will be a place to learn facts, rather than turning them in to a battle ground for different unsupported ideas and superstitions.

Some religious people tend to be against the idea of separation of church and state, until they realize it’s not just their religion that is separated. They are all for teaching kids about, say, Jesus and the bible, until Muslims, Scientologists, and the church of the flying spaghetti monster show up to try and indoctrinate their kids. then they are all for separation of church and state. So arguing against it is usually only done by the short sighted, who can dish it out but cant take it.

As for souls and spirits in children, there is not a single piece of empirical evidence to support it, and loads of strong arguments against it. There are not even any valid hypothesis or coherent ideas to explain how a soul or spirit would work on manifest its self. How it would interact with the brain, how a soul comes to be, how it leaves the body, etc… So talk of souls is basically the same as talk of invisible magic, and therefore we cant even have a discussion about it as there is nothing to base it off of. We might as well talk about invisible forest elves, all we will end up doing is discussing fantasy.

It’s called The Establishment Clause.It means exactly what it says,“that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion”,which means Congress will not take sides.The Establishment was added to the Constitution because previous to it’s existence,states would require public office holders to belong to the preferred religion of that state and would fiscally punish the minority faiths with excessive tax.It has since,because of a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist minister explaining that religions would not be persecuted,been misinterpreted to exclude religion from all public life.That was not it’s intent.

The problem is the word “education” is subjective in itself.

It means exactly what it says: public schools should not take the side of any arbitrary religion or, in the case of the original post, spiritual mumbo jumbo. One reason is that such ideas are largely factually untrue, but another reason is that our country was founded to avoid the endless partisan religious wars that engulfed Europe.

Public schools should promote science, mathematics, and studies of the humanities because these are all universally useful skills that will directly help students succeed in future academics and society in general.

Here’s what I think:

Schoolwise

There should be no endorsement of any particular religious viewpoint in school.

If it is relevant to the lesson, and not for dogmatic purposes, a teacher reading from the Bible, Koran, Rig Veda, or whatever is acceptable.

Teachers shouldn’t lead prayer, but if some kids want to pray on their own time together, that’s fine.

Religious clubs should be allowed as long as they follow school rules, the school doesn’t directly endorse it, and the school allows all religions the same opportunity to get together and form a club.

In the larger public sphere

I really don’t care if it says In God We Trust on money, and I’m definitely not a Christian. When I was an atheist, I didn’t care either. As long as it’s green.

Politicians leading prayers in the House or Senate makes me uncomfortable.

I don’t really care if the Ten Commandments are hanging up somewhere, as long as my tax dollars didn’t pay for them.

Um, because not everyone believes what you believe? I certainly do not. Would it have been fair to force me to believe what you believe in school? How arrogant to assume that your personal beliefs should be imposed upon schoolchildren. That’s why we have separation of church and state. We don’t teach things of a “spiritual” nature since it’s all a matter of opinion and perspective and for some people, it’s very personal. Not everyone’s beliefs in that realm agree with each other.

(I’m having trouble taking this question seriously, just so you know).

Separation of church and state has been well covered in this thread. It’s noteworthy to add that the person most responsible for the idea as part of the US Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, had this epitaph on his tombstone: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Author of the Declaration of American Independence of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom and FATHER of the University of Virginia.” He was also the third president of the country but thought it more important that these three things, including religious freedoom, should be what he was remembered for.

Separation of church and state allows the two institutions to exist side by side. One is not to interfere with the other. It is against the highest US law to teach that any one religion is more valid than another or more valid than believing in no religion.

I lived in Australia for a year and was quite active in my parish Anglican church at the time. One Sunday, the local children from the nearby public school all came to worship dressed in their school uniforms and accompanied by their teachers and principal. My American sensibilities were shocked. I was appalled. School is not the place to be teaching about beliefs. Forcing children to attend a religious service where words are recited to an invisible being is not the purview of a state school. School is the place for teaching factually based information.

Schools are for learning the classical liberal arts: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmatic, astronomy, music, and geometry. They are not the place to teach the magical.

@poisonedantidote

“Separation of church and state is a good idea, but not really that necessary. Some times people take it too far in my opinion. For example, I don’t think there is anything wrong with teaching kids that religion ‘a’ believes ‘x’, religion ‘b’ believes ‘y’ and religion ‘c’ believes ‘z’, and so on. ”

Just to clarify. On the recent Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study on religious knowledge, one of the most common misconceptions was that schools cannot teach about different religions. This is untrue, Schools can and do teach about religions; they simply cannot do anything that favors or endorses a particular religion.

I got your soul urge right here…

I think church has no place in school and so the (supposed) separation is a really really good idea. And if a teacher spoke to my child the way you wrote in the details, I’d worry.

I am with @crisw here; I have no problems with schools teaching about religion, and in fact, I wish they did. However, I draw the line at indoctrination. I was one of those kids who said the Pledge of Allegiance the old-fashioned way; without the ”...under God”.

What @lucillelucillelucille said.

It’s been theorized that spirituality has been hardwired into the human psyche. By denying this part of ourselves, we set ourselves psychologically and culturally adrift. I agree that the non-sectarian basics involved in human spirituality, the various religions of mankind as embedded in the varous cultures, and what role belief plays in society should all be taught in school. Anything over and above this is parental and ecclesiastial responsibtility.

I think that, in education, a school is closer to a church than to a state.

‘State’ is managerial in nature, and must be reigned in, else it will try to manage, and over-manage, things outside its domain.

Look, there are too many distractions in Public School already. They need to teach reading, math, real history, civics, geography, and learn how to think. They also need to have fewer tests, short quizzes, and tests are fine, final exams are necessary. The rest of the government mandated “no child left behind” tests are detrimental to a child’s education. Adding religion just confuses things. Besides religion should not be forced on a child, it is a decision for an adult.

@Ron_C While I agree that the NCLB testing is ridiculous (and makes me glad I was out of school long before it came around), I disagree with teaching about religion confusing things. I feel that knowing what/how another culture thinks can be a good thing in a nation that allows immigration and/or has dealings with other nations. Think of it as Civics 101.

@jerv If you could include comparative religion as part of a civics course, it may have some value but with the short school year, constant pressure on teachers, increasing class sizes, and the conservative push for school vouchers, I don’t think there is enough time or sufficient resources. I hear of schools cutting art and music courses, it would be a shame to replace them with religion. Religion, like sex, should be learned on the street, not in school.

@Ron_C Many parents don’t teach about sex, nor any religion other than their own.
Then again, many schools these days don’t teach English or math any more either :/

FWIW, I always found study halls (they still have those, right?) to be a bit of a waste of time, so why not have the kids in a classroom instead of staring at the hot babes or smoking in the boys room?

@jerv I worked when I was a teenager. I used the study hall to finish my homework and catch a little nap.

The don’t teach English or math? That can’t be.

@Ron_C Maybe they actually do, but looking at the kids/20-somethings around me these days, you wouldn’t know it!

We had comparative religion as part of civics classes in high school. I think this is still fairly standard in California.

People should have the choice whether they want their children to go to a religious school or not. I don’t believe religion of any type should have any say in politics, but it definitely has a place in education, even if only as an alternative theory.

Separation of State and Church means not using tax dollars to teach one particular form of official state religion. – OK, I understand. I ask because it is not the same in every country around the world. I ask as what it means in American culture and historical context.

I don’t believe in state-funded public education because that is another way for State to become Church. You just take out the “religion, dogma” but you replace it with another tradition.

Thanks to all who have answered I have gotten the answers I was looking for. This posting is not a debate about church or religion. It is twofold : (a) meaning and context of separation of Church and State in the countries that practise them (b) whether people believe there can be a higher order education for a human being outside of a mechanical education that expects chidren to “get a job”.

@jerv I was at a small convience store and the part of the cash register that tells the clerk how much change to give didn’t work. The poor kid was really flustered and started figuring it our on paper. I taught him how we used to make change in the old days. For example if you gave $2 for an item that costs $1.59. First you take a penny to make it 1.60 then pick a dime for 1.70, then a nickel for 1.75, then a quarter for $2.00. No paper necessary and you don’t even have to add it up (1+10+5+25=.41 cents). The kid was amazed.

@ron c, I’ve had the same problem. I’ve had a total of $1.76 I gave the kid $2.01 and he had absolutly no idea that I wanted a quarter and not 24 cents. Pretty scary. I’m no math genius, far from it, but I was taught to be a cashier before the cash registers of today existed.

@GracieT the scariest part is that the kids that are working as clerks are probably the more intelligent and better motivated. The real dummies and lazy ones still depend on their parent’s support.

@Ron_C Or maybe they’re the smart ones

@YARNLADY you may have a point but the latest surveys show that all Americans, except for the very richest are becoming poorer. It may not be a wise choice to leech off you parents.