(February 19, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Godschild Wrote:(February 19, 2015 at 11:58 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Or no religious symbols on any public ground.
Why, we pay taxes shouldn't our beliefs be represented as well as those who have no belief at all, it's not the fault of religious people that some decide to have no belief. Don't come back saying churches do not pay taxes, I'm referring to individuals here.
GC
So, do you really want "majority rule" on endorsing religion on public school property? Unlike you, most people in the U.S. are not Southern Baptists, so you would not get your religion endorsed, but something a bit different. Do you want the public schools to be pushing the majority religion on your children? Or do you think that maybe it would be better for them to stay out of the matter as much as possible?
If you want the majority religion pushed on your children, I hope a bunch of Muslims move into your school district. The idea that the majority religion should be imposed in public school is a very bad idea.
Also, as Clueless Morgan states above, the absence of a symbol is not a symbol. No one (at least, no one, so far, in this thread) has advocated that atheist symbols should be displayed on school property. So, here is the idea: No symbols endorsing any religion, and no symbols endorsing a rejection of religion, on public school property, is what is being advocated. Insofar as reasonably possible, public schools should not be endorsing any particular views on religion.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.