The Louisiana Public School Cramming Christianity Down Students’ Throats

reply to post by flammadraco


You did not provide one link to your sources . . . But you managed to call me sexist . . LoL whatever

Furthermore you link to the highest estimate of hundreds of years of religious wars (which is very sketchy). The sum of all of those is less than the lowest estimates of deaths at the hand of state atheism. Millions fewer than a single state (China). At the very least post a link to the wiki page you are getting your stats from. If you want to post all of human history and try to blame everything bad on religion like you have you are going to fail. That is why the argument was quickly changed to more bad than good.

As for the Thirty Years War . . . wow, trying to lay the largest estimate of deaths all at the hands of religion?

F-ing Absurd bro . . . here is the excerpt from the wiki article you forgot to link to;

The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) was a series of wars principally fought in Central Europe, involving most of the countries of Europe.[10] It was one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history, and one of the longest continuous wars in modern history.

Initially, religion was a motivation for war as Protestant and Catholic states battled it out even though they all were inside the Holy Roman Empire. Changing the relative balance of power within the Empire was at issue. Gradually, it developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe.[11] In this general phase the war became less specifically religious and more a continuation of the Bourbon–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, leading in turn to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers.[12]

Yeah, so how are you going to say that religion started WW2?

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am expecting some BS line now about how people near the top expressed religious beliefs and so that was the cause of the war. Or better yet some article about how the states used religious themed material to drum up support for their war.

60 million from one secular war. 23 million from one secular government.

I was not saying state atheism was the only alternative, the young turks were the liberal ideal of a secular state. That is why it is common to call the young progressive liberals, young turks.

Funny though how all you seem able to do is bash Christianity and try to link the Young Turks to a religious group when they were anything but. Maybe you should face the reality that all you have done is take the Great Satan of Judeo-Christianity and apply that label to Christians, under a more general term of "religion" to allow you some wiggle room.



Are you really going to try and use Tony Blair as a credible source? The guy who lied to get the Brits into Iraq and Afghanistan with us Americans?

Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence
www.independent.co.uk...
(The link is worth for a pic of Blair and Bush looking extra goofy)
Former head of MI6 threatens to expose secrets of Iraq 'dodgy dossier'
www.telegraph.co.uk...


PS
You have yet to send me an email detailing all the evidence you have of religious people making threads on ATS to bash homosexuality and such . . . .

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Check out Wikipedia for sources, other than that I'm not wasting any more effort conversing with you for the aforementioned reasons.

flammadraco
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Check out Wikipedia for sources, other than that I'm not wasting any more effort conversing with you for the aforementioned reasons.

So you are not going to email me any evidence of the mass amount ATS threads religious people start to bash gays?

Just going to call me a sexist and run eh?

I think you were just looking for a place to bash on religious people without having to justify your emotions with any sort of evidence.

-FBB

Ok, apparently this thread has run its course because it has gone completely off-topic. This thread isn't about if religion is better than atheism or which has killed more people, it's about the articles linked in the first two pages and Christianity imposing itself on children in a public school.

If you want to continue discussing whether religion or atheism is more dangerous there is a thread HERE on the topic.

Please stop derailing this thread, if it has run its course then so be it but there are other threads for those issues.

If you don't want the extra traffic flammadraco just let me know and I'll remove the link.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Thanks for trying to keep this on topic. It seems that some wish to derail the thread.

I have been reading up on the discriminatory case and came across the verified complaint. I know some people have said they do not believe this is a real case, well it is and worse than I had thought. The environment and attitude of the school towards non christians is sickening. The school is in no way being harassed it is the school doing the harassing. It is really sad that some people believe that is acceptable and some even seem to think such an environment is admirable.

Here is a link to the ACLU and documents pertaining to the case but here is some of the quoted verified complaint.

INTRODUCTION

1. Students of all faiths should feel safe and welcome in our public schools. At
Negreet High School (“Negreet” or “NHS”) in Sabine Parish, Louisiana, however, school
officials have a longstanding custom, policy, and practice of promoting and inculcating Christian
beliefs by sponsoring religious activities, as well as conveying religious messages to students. For
example, at Negreet, which serves students in kindergarten through twelfth grade, teachers ask
students for professions of faith in class. At least one science teacher treats the Bible as scientific
fact, telling students that the Big Bang never happened and that evolution is a “stupid” theory that
“stupid people made up because they don’t want to believe in God.” Paintings of Jesus Christ, 2

Bible verses, and Christian devotional phrases adorn the walls of many classrooms and hallways,
including the main hallway leading out to the bus pick-up area. A lighted, electronic marquee
placed just outside the building scrolls Bible verses every day. And staff members routinely lead
students in Christian prayer. The school district’s administration – all the way up to the
Superintendent of Schools – not only knows about these activities, but endorses and encourages
all of this.
2. So engrained is official promotion of religion at Negreet that when Plaintiff C.C.,1

a Buddhist of Thai descent, enrolled in the sixth grade this past August, he quickly became the
target of proselytizing and harassment by one of his teachers, Defendant Rita Roark, who even
ridiculed C.C. in class for his non-Christian beliefs and has told her students that his faith,
Buddhism, is “stupid.”

3. After learning of Negreet’s unlawful practices and treatment of their son, C.C.’s
parents, Scott and Sharon Lane, rose to his defense, taking their concerns to Defendant Sara
Ebarb, the Sabine Parish Superintendent of Schools. But she took no corrective action. On the
contrary, she told the Lanes that “[t]his is the Bible Belt” and that they would simply have to
accept that teachers would proselytize students. She also asked whether C.C. had to be raised as a
Buddhist and whether he could “change” his faith, and she suggested that C.C. transfer to another
district school – more than 25 miles away where, in her words, “there are more Asians.” The day
after meeting with the Lanes, the Superintendent sent a letter to Negreet Principal Gene Wright
stating that she approved of Negreet’s official religious practices. Wright read the letter to the
entire Negreet student body over the school’s public-address system.
4. Plaintiffs believe that their children should be able to attend public school without

1
Per L.R. 5.7.12(b), Plaintiffs who are minors are identified only by their initials in this
document and in all other public filings. 3

unwelcome exposure to government-sponsored religious practices and messages and without
harassment for their religious beliefs. Indeed, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution guarantees that public-school students have an unequivocal right to attend
school free from official imposition or promotion of religion. Defendants’ custom, policy and
practice of promoting and inculcating Christian religious beliefs, while denigrating students of
non-Christian faiths, plainly violates this right. Matters of faith are deeply personal and the
decision regarding which religious beliefs, if any, to follow belongs to students and their families,
not school officials.

5. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ policies
and practices are unconstitutional because they are religiously coercive, endorse and promote
religion, and have the purpose and effect of advancing religion. Plaintiffs further seek preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from continuing their unlawful practices;
nominal and compensatory damages; and other relief as set forth below.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Plaintiffs bring this matter under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (2014), for violations of civil
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

link

Everyone should be able to see that the school violated the child"s rights. Telling the parents they should move their child to where he could be with his own kind (AKA Asains). Even going as far as asking the parents if they could change their child's faith.

26. Defendants have a longstanding custom, policy, and practice of promoting and
inculcating Christian beliefs by coercing and encouraging prayer and religious exercise,
proselytizing students, and subjecting students to religious iconography and other religious
messages. Among other unlawful activities, Defendants routinely incorporate official prayer and
proselytization into class and school events, teach Biblical doctrine as fact, display religious
messages and iconography in classrooms and hallways, and degrade minority faiths.

This case is a prime example as to why religion does not belong in public school. I feel sorry for all the kids there because it is obvious that if any of them decide or try to go into the sciences that their education in that school was an absolute joke.

reply to post by Grimpachi

This case is a prime example as to why religion does not belong in public school. I feel sorry for all the kids there because it is obvious that if any of them decide or try to go into the sciences that their education in that school was an absolute joke.

Hey, Grim - thanks for that extra work.

I totally agree with you, if you didn't already know.
And then when you factor in Evangelical ACE (or whatever they call it) home-schoolers, it's even WORSE!
Some of those kids never get to leave the house, watch tv, listen to the radio - just church/home. (That's an extreme example, but - it does happen.)

reply to post by Grimpachi


Well found, shame I can't give you a flag

reply to post by Grimpachi


Thank you for adding this to the discussion. Apparently it wasn't all made up but was in fact true. I think this will run all of the defenders off because there is no excuse for this happening.

Thanks for the props everyone I only disagre with one thing 3NL1GHT3N3D1 said.

I am absolutely sure someone will try to defend the schools actions. No matter how heinous something is as long as it is Christian sponsored some Christians will defend it.

Maybe all faiths are like that but I only see it with that one.

I am going to contact some secular groups and see if they can help by unburdening the family of some of the added transportation costs that are now part of their life because they have to drive their child almost 60 miles each day to a school where he will not be harassed because of his faith.

aoxomoxoa

Xtrozero
You walk into a school and see on the wall

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives: More precisely, it commands us to exercise our wills in a particular way, not to perform some action or other.

Or you see

Thou shall not kill....

Please explain to me the difference other than a elementary student might have a harder time understanding the first one?

edit on 1-2-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

The difference is that the second one is from a religious text

And that somehow makes it invalid or wrong?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Thank you for adding this to the discussion. Apparently it wasn't all made up but was in fact true. I think this will run all of the defenders off because there is no excuse for this happening.

On the contrary, she told the Lanes that “[t]his is the Bible Belt” and that they would simply have to
accept that teachers would proselytize students. She also asked whether C.C. had to be raised as a
Buddhist and whether he could “change” his faith, and she suggested that C.C. transfer to another
district school – more than 25 miles away where, in her words, “there are more Asians.”

All hearsay unless the conversation was recorded.

The day after meeting with the Lanes, the Superintendent sent a letter to Negreet Principal Gene Wright
stating that she approved of Negreet’s official religious practices. Wright read the letter to the
entire Negreet student body over the school’s public-address system.

So where's the letter? I'd like to read what it says, wouldn't you?

26. Defendants have a longstanding custom, policy, and practice of promoting and
inculcating Christian beliefs by coercing and encouraging prayer and religious exercise,
proselytizing students, and subjecting students to religious iconography and other religious
messages. Among other unlawful activities, Defendants routinely incorporate official prayer and
proselytization into class and school events, teach Biblical doctrine as fact, display religious
messages and iconography in classrooms and hallways, and degrade minority faiths.

If that's the case then why isn't this a class action lawsuit? Surely him and his atheist brother can't be the only 2 kids offended by all the dogma.

They sound like a pretty diverse family. No mention of dad's religious beliefs, but mom became a Buddhist 14 years ago. She had 3 boys in school at Negreet... an Atheist, a Christian, and an adopted Buddhist. They also have 2 other children that the lawsuit doesn't mention. I'd like to know how long they've lived there and how long C.C. has lived with them.

I'd also like some history on the school. How long has it been there? Has it always been a public school? Have there ever been other lawsuits of this nature filed against this school?

All these things are important to get a clear understanding of what happened here, and in this case Google hasn't exactly been my friend.

Grimpachi

Anyway can you just clarify here? Do you think that any old religion is the same thing as a set of ideals?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by any old religion... In the past the vast majority of wisdom, knowledge, morality etc came in the form of religious books since the vast majority of the educated people were of a religious nature. Just because it might be a religious book doesn't suggest the knowledge within is some how corrupt just because it is presented in a religious format.

To answer your question...it depends...

For some it is the same, for others that happen to have faith in that religion it means more to them. As I said faith is an individual choice, it is not something you can inject into someone. I read the bible in high school as part of the list of books I had to read...I also read Fahrenheit 451 and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn... My high school was in Paris BTW.

Let me ask you this as well.

Would I be correct in thinking you would be fine if colleges were teaching more conservative ideals?

What would be correct would be to have a 50/50 view and let the students make their own choices. With that said, whether religion, politics morality etc there are still limits that society will set as to what is considered the norm or not that when exceeded is viewed as wrong. The good news is even though we all go through phases in our lives where we are influenced heavily by just one direction we still have choices that sooner or later are made.

How about this instead of posters in school saying Jesus is lord what if they said god is great they could also be in another language as well giving the kids some bilingual education and in parenthesis it could say Allah Akbar would you be good with that?

As I said society sets the norms. How about 1 minute of silence so people can pray, if you do not pray you can sit there quietly. This is called having tolerance of others views.

I'm sure in England in a Muslin community you will see a lot more Allah Akbar than Jesus is lord signs and that is because of that's societies norms. When I'm in a Muslin country there is extreme religion all around me and I hardly notice since I have little interest in it.

For many atheist they find the smallest reference to a religion as a form of fingers going down the blackboard...if you do not care and have tolerance for others then you don't even give it two seconds of thought....

flammadraco
These are just a few examples with the total number of deaths from just these examples totalling 23,750,000 deaths caused by religions.

I see your 23 million and raise you....


40 to 60 million killed by Stalin
100 million in China as they entered their communist industrial phase.
4 million by pol pot in a few short years
50+ million WWII
40 million Genghis Khan
4 to 6 million Darfur (warlords)

Your examples pale in comparison, but what does this mean? I means that humans are not a very nice specie to say the least... And so humans will kill each other no matter what the motivation is...religion is not evil, man is....

One could even make the point that when religion is not a factor then we really go off the moral compass path with no influence to get us back on it. At least with most religions, they are morally based even though humans have tendencies to corrupt that into their own personal gains, but the moral influence is still present and may help minimize the destruction when we seem to go crazy at times.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Both the Chinese and Russian conflicts were started as revolutions by the people against the government. Sad fact is that the people of these countries were left with dictators as a result of the revolutions.

The major causes of the Chinese Revolution, as with many revolutions, were economic. The Chinese people became frustrated with the increasing amount of money that was required to meet their tax debts. The Chinese people also began to have disputes between the central government of China and the outlying provinces that were working to build the railroad system in China. Discontent, disparity between the middle and upper classes, and increased taxation were the major causes of the Chinese Revolution

Pol Pot was another communist revolutionist.

Strange thing about Communism which the three aforementioned revolutions were about is what Karl Marx views on religion were;

"The founder and primary theorist of Marxism, the nineteenth-century German thinker Karl Marx, had a negative attitude to religion, viewing it primarily as "the opium of the people"

So an attack on religion in all three cases so could this not also be related to the OP?

During World War II, millions of Catholics participated in Germany's war against Europe, and many were also involved with the attempt to exterminate the Jews. Some people have condemned the Vatican's failure to act to stop the war or the Holocaust - even Hitler was never excommunicated. The Fact that Hitler showed so much hatred to the Jews has meant this war had religious undertones.

Genghis Khan seems to be the one that had the right idea about religion and showing tolerance to all religious believes.

Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions, and typically sponsored several at the same time. At the time of Genghis Khan in the 13th century, virtually every religion had found converts, from Buddhism to Christianity and Manichaeanism to Islam. To avoid strife, Genghis Khan set up an institution that ensured complete religious freedom, though he himself was a shamanist. Under his administration, all religious leaders were exempt from taxation, and from public service. Mongol emperors were known for organising competitions of religious debates among clerics, and these would draw large audiences.

Darfur conflict stemmed from several reasons, including the religious, ethnic and economic factors.

In virtually every society, religious difference serves as a source of potential conflict. Because individuals are often ignorant of other faiths, there is some potential tension but it does not necessarily mean conflict will result. Religion is not necessarily conflictual but, as with ethnicity or race, religion serves, as a way to distinguish one's self and one's group from the other.

Thus religion has been involved in all conflicts you mentioned in your post other than Gheghis Khan.

reply to post by flammadraco


Sorry 3NLiG I thought I was responding to the other thread, never realised it was on here

reply to post by flammadraco


No worries, I starred you anyways.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Heck, the atheists that I get best along with are those who find any excuse but God to have a moral code. I personally think that their system is flawed--but they see mine as flawed. I think we can live with that.

__________________________________________________________


But as far as the accusations about Christians bashing homosexuality: I've not seen it in here--although I've been gone a year, if you total up the time I do spend on here, between this name and the one I forgot the password to way back in 2004, you're talking about 5+ years of fairly continuous use, and I've never seen Christian-bashing-gays.

Now, that doesn't mean that Christianity as a whole doesn't talk about it a lot.

And some do bash (otherwise that twit group in the midwest that ticks everyone off wouldn't exist), but others defend. Got plenty of Christians on my facebook feed who are defending gay rights.

Or who are gay themselves. Talk about fun conversations when you're one who concludes that sexually acting up, at all, is a sin.

But then, a lot of "loving your brother" comes in with how you deal with those who don't see a sin that you see.

I seriously think that some people need to broaden their experience of humanity, if all they get is one flavor of Christianity.

CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

But as far as the accusations about Christians bashing homosexuality: I've not seen it in here-