[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

There most certainly is a level of education about religious content in public schools that should be tolerated, but setting the level at zero tolerance allowed is short changing our youth. However, some people in this thread seem to think otherwise.

I don't know, is there anyone? I certainly don't think there should be zero religious content in public schools.

But there's a difference between teaching about religion and teaching how to be religious.

In the context of elementary, that's the difference between saying "some people believe this, some people believe that" and "you should believe this, other people believe that but they're wrong". Or if two kids get in a fight the difference between "what do you say to Johnny?" and "First we have to ask Jesus to forgive our sins, because sin separates us from God, then what do we say to Johnny."

A Catholic school presumably would be interested in teaching the kinds how to be Catholic, not just about Catholicism.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

As for this article, seeing as how the kids are in Kindergaten, I'd be willing to bet the extent of religous penetration into other classes is something along the lines of singing Jesus filled Christmas songs, and making Jesus themed Christmas crafts, if it's more than that, then sure this woman probalby has a valid point, but we don't know.

We don't know, and it can be hard to see someone else's point of view too. What one person views as innocuous another sees as significant, and without a detailed discussion on why it's significant it's too easy to just dismiss as an overreaction.

See what I said above about the difference between teaching about religion and teaching how to be religious, I don't find it difficult at all to imagine a Catholic school crossing that line into teaching how to be religious (they are a Catholic school after all), and a non-Catholic parent being concerned about that.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

My problem is that my preception is of someone who complains that the angel on the Christmas tree is pushing Christianity down here throat, but would contribute to "There is no god" bus signs. Is that the type of person she is? Probably not, but there have been so many cases of people getting all up in arms about trival things (from both sides) that whenever I see someone arguing about the inclusion or exclusion of religion in anything, I just think they're being an uptight ###### who needs to chill out and let others do their own thing.

People are always going to overreact no matter what. But I like to try and find out why they overreact, because sometimes if I actually understand the whole situation and appreciate their position, I find out it's not as much an overreaction as it first appears to be.

The there is no god bus thing, they didn't actually say that. And while I agree with you I don't like proselytising in general, there is something to be said for raising awareness and trying to normalize something that still has a very negative stigma attached to it. If atheists were as accepted and equally treated in society as everyone else, there wouldn't be a need, but they aren't.. If no one cared if someone was gay, there wouldn't be a gay pride parade. It's a way to push back against society's views, let people know that they're not the only atheist out there, and that it's not something they should have to hide.