School orders families to sign "biblical morality pledge".

[Pandeeria]

I'm pretty sure educational standards apply and as such secularism should apply. It doesn't matter if they're owned by the state, corporate giants, like businesses, ect they should be secular.

Religious classes are beyond standard criteria. They are beyond the required curriculum. It's not illegal for schools to have classes that go beyond core standards and classes.

I have a question for you Vaz. Do private schools teach religion was if it is fact?

[Vazdania]

Its in a private school not a public one. Secularism doesn't apply.

Debatable. I find it hard to believe that the First Amendment suddenly vanishes just because you, as a customer, choose a certain business with certain sociopolitical leanings.

You may be removed from private property for anything by the owner. The owner of private property may also silence your first amendment rights on their property.

[Liriena]

More power than the Constitution? That just reeks of sedition. It also reeks of simplism. The Bible has countless interpretations, some of them pro-LGBT.

I didn't know it was illegal to hold dominionist political ideals...I thought we were passed the McCarthy Era.

It's not illegal to hold dominionist ideals, regardless of how insane and disgusting they are. It is, however, of dubiously ethical, to say the least, to claim that the Bible should be, as far as private, personal beliefs and behaviour goes, above the Constitution, which actually is a legally binding document.

[Free Tristania]

I see no problem with this, provided they're stripped of all government funding immediately. Why on earth should private schools, especially ones aimed at religious indoctrination, qualify for such?

Also, I hope their uniforms don't mix two types of fabric and that female staff and students keep their hair covered at all time, and detention is replaced with stonings. After all, if you're going biblical you may as well go all the way.

Exactly. We don't see such nonsense in Christian schools here in the Netherlands (thankfully) eventhough they have been funded by the government since 1917 (along with public schools) as a result of the Schoolstrijd. I am not sure why it doesn't work in other countries but the system works very well here and I think we should keep it the way it is.

[Benuty]

Thank Adonai, at-least we do not have to deal with this non-sense in the Yeshiva's.

[Liriena]

The owner of private property may also silence your first amendment rights on their property.

Not quite true.

[Vazdania]

Religious classes are beyond standard criteria. They are beyond the required curriculum. It's not illegal for schools to have classes that go beyond core standards and classes.

I have a question for you Vaz. Do private schools teach religion was if it is fact?

You really should clarify that statement.

My school taught primary classes and also included quite a few Bible Classes. As it was Baptist in nature the instructor made each person take their own stance as opposed to telling them what to believe.

I know there are religious schools which do teach a specific understanding of the Bible, but alas my school was much different.

[Vazdania]

The owner of private property may also silence your first amendment rights on their property.

Not quite true.

Completely true. Private Property is much different than public property.

[Vurdenburg]

Only if the school is a Christian school, should it be allowed.

[Vazdania]

Only if the school is a Christian school, should it be allowed.

It's a private religious school.

[Benuty]

Only if the school is a Christian school, should it be allowed.

It's a private religious school.

It wouldn't be a problem if it accepted money through a private fund rather than taxpayer money.

[Pandeeria]

Only if the school is a Christian school, should it be allowed.

It shouldn't be allowed at all.

[Vazdania]

It's a private religious school.

It wouldn't be a problem if it accepted money through a private fund rather than taxpayer money.

And as I stated earlier that money is used to teach non religious things like Math and Physical Education.

[Vazdania]

Only if the school is a Christian school, should it be allowed.

It shouldn't be allowed at all.

Yes it should.

[Benuty]

Only if the school is a Christian school, should it be allowed.

It shouldn't be allowed at all.

We cannot all be semantically inclined overlords of the law making hive mind syndicate.

[Vurdenburg]

Only if the school is a Christian school, should it be allowed.

It's a private religious school.

Well, that's what I meant.

[Blasveck]

It wouldn't be a problem if it accepted money through a private fund rather than taxpayer money.

And as I stated earlier that money is used to teach non religious things like Math and Physical Education.

Do you have a source that the taxpayer money is ONLY going toward those classes?

[Pandeeria]

It shouldn't be allowed at all.

Yes it should.

Private schools should be subject to secularism.

It shouldn't be allowed at all.

We cannot all be semantically inclined overlords of the law making hive mind syndicate.

Cute. But in reality, having private schools be secular isn't making a hive mind.

[Benuty]

It wouldn't be a problem if it accepted money through a private fund rather than taxpayer money.

And as I stated earlier that money is used to teach non religious things like Math and Physical Education.

Which seems rather supinical of them to use public money (even if for generalized education) while denying all possible access from potential students (on the basis of gender and sexuality). Just have a private fund handle those matters and I wouldn't see an issue with it (aside from morality).

[Vazdania]

And as I stated earlier that money is used to teach non religious things like Math and Physical Education.

Do you have a source that the taxpayer money is ONLY going toward those classes?

Well Blasveck, no I do not, but I do know for sure, that government money can be used in private schools, but cannot be used in religious funding due to Everson v. Board of Education, (1947) and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

Things like Math and Physical Education serve no religious purpose and a "secular" in nature.

[Benuty]

Yes it should.

Private schools should be subject to secularism.

We cannot all be semantically inclined overlords of the law making hive mind syndicate.

Cute. But in reality, having private schools be secular isn't making a hive mind.

My humor is wasted on this site like a beached whale trying to get off an island.

[Vazdania]

Yes it should.

Private schools should be subject to secularism.

We cannot all be semantically inclined overlords of the law making hive mind syndicate.

Cute. But in reality, having private schools be secular isn't making a hive mind.

No they shouldn't. Private schools follow many secular standards and have many secular classes, but they should be allowed to host private religious classes if they so choose.

[Pandeeria]

Private schools should be subject to secularism.



Cute. But in reality, having private schools be secular isn't making a hive mind.

My humor is wasted on this site like a beached whale.

Sure is.

[Vazdania]

And as I stated earlier that money is used to teach non religious things like Math and Physical Education.

Which seems rather supinical of them to use public money (even if for generalized education) while denying all possible access from potential students (on the basis of gender and sexuality). Just have a private fund handle those matters and I wouldn't see an issue with it (aside from morality).

Private schools have a wide variety of options to choose from when determining qualities and characteristics for enrollment into their system.

[Blasveck]

Do you have a source that the taxpayer money is ONLY going toward those classes?

Well Blasveck, no I do not, but I do know for sure, that government money can be used in private schools, but cannot be used in religious funding due to Everson v. Board of Education, (1947) and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

Things like Math and Physical Education serve no religious purpose and a "secular" in nature.

So then your whole argument a moot, because taxpayer money is ALSO used to fund religiously motivated discrimination.