Thinly Veiled Circumvention
By Chris | August 15, 2007
Regarding Dorchester District 2’s introduction of an ‘elective’ Bible class in their schools. Elective for students, but not for taxpayers. Do you think they’ll give non-Christians refunds? I’ll be posting more about this when I get out of work this evening.
Okay so I never posted that evening when I got out of work, so here we go. Firstly, people will say that there is no ’separation of church and state’ in the Constitution, and that’s correct - there isn’t. It’s generally implied and was coined from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in reference to the 1st Amendment and people love to use it in defense of keeping religion out of government - where it shouldn’t be anyways. Reason being of course is that if the government should not imply or endorse or have anything to do with a religion, lest it infringe upon the rights of any other religions or those who want to practice them. You know, didn’t the Pilgrims come here to avoid religious persecution? Hmmmm?
I forget the exact date, but earlier the room full of idiots wonderful people known as the SC Legislature passed an act or law or whatever allowing the teaching of a Bible class in the public schools here in SC. Their thinly veiled reasoning was to use the class to teach students the effects that the Bible has had on history, literature, etc etc. Aside from that line of BS, they gained favor by stating that it would be elective. That’s great and all. I’ve no problem with them offering the course but if and only if the taxpayers do not foot any of the bills for this class. It’s bad enough that school taxes are 70% of the property tax I pay, it’d be even worse to know that a portion of that goes to teach a religion-based class for a religion I may not even worship.
Proponents say that “it’s elective, they don’t have to take it if they don’t want” but they are distracting everyone from the real issue - public dollars paying for it. It’s clearly wrong. If they are going to teach one religion then they have to teach all of them - and there are lots. Even within some religions there are many delineations. Once one is sanctioned then legally all must be sanctioned.
This whole thing just makes me nauseous. The fact that this even got this far is amazing. It will all be soon settled in the courts, as it was in Florida. So the religious proponents will end up costing the state and the taxpayers money either way. Read more at this link:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1353
Ugh.
Topics: General |
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.