| Author | Post |
|---|
Stonefree
Member
|
Posted: May 29th, 2007 06:32 pm |
|
Well i figured there were no posts in the category of Miscellaneous School Issues, so i thought i would "drop a house on someone's sister" here and post this topic
Today Laura Mallory lost her court case to ban the Harry Potter series of books from the public school libraries in her county of Gwinnett in Georgia. Her arguement can be paraphrased as "The books have witchcraft as their primary theme, witchcraft is a religion, therefore they violate separation of church and state."
First it is important to clearly state the definition of Separation of Church and State.
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.
Her use of it doesn't apply, anymore than teaching children about the Crusades or the Inquisition promotes Christianity. If every book was removed, by her argument, because it had religion at its base we would have lots of places in our schools to store kickballs because there would not be any books.
I am of the belief that religion should not be banned from schools, i think that if discussed in an impartial way it is valid educational material. We are, afterall, preparing children for the real world, and the real world has religion in it. Let's not fill our ears with sand when it comes to this topic. But what we cannot do is teach religion as fact, when it is, at its core BELIEF. Believing in something doesn't make it fact but the structure and history of a belief can be a fact.
Harry Potter books have been targeted, like the Catcher in the Rye of old, because a group of people felt they represented something inappropriate for their children or against their beliefs. My feeling is that if your child has been brought up to understand and appreciate your beliefs then no book can change that. But if your child has been told "that is what we believe because i say so" then they may be more likely to look for answers from places that will supply them. Remember there isn't a fear of a 6 year old dropping Yertle the Turtle and reading Harry Potter, like all material it should not be given to children until the reach the age that the child can understand the context of the material.
I am certainly happy, personally, that Mrs. Mallory lost her case. It would not have been good for the whole of the school system to be subjected to the views of only one or ten or ten-thousand people. We are all contributing to the school system, so it should be a system for everybody. Is that easy? Is it possible? I don't know, but it is for us to constantly attempt to make it so.
Remember, America is not simple, it is a complex way of life to have freedom and accept the freedom of others, even if they offer a point of view that violates yours.
Stonefree.
Last edited on May 30th, 2007 06:31 pm by Stonefree
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: May 29th, 2007 06:54 pm |
|
| most people do not understand the meaning of separation of church and state.
____________________
Roll Tide and Go Pack. Maybe or maybe not in that order. [insert profound quote here]
This post will self destruct in 10.......9......8....
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: May 29th, 2007 06:54 pm |
|
Stonefree wrote:
My feeling is that if your child has been brought up to understand and appreciate your beliefs then no book can change that. But if your child has been told "that is what we believe because i say so" then they may be more likely to look for answers from places that will supply them.
Well said, Stonefree. That's my favorite part quoted up yonder.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
rasin
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 29th, 2007 10:51 pm |
|
I say "well said" also. The more church and state are kept separate the more we do to protect the right to practice your religion or lack of one. In my humble opinion many people do not get this point and I always struggle to make the point succinctly. (I apologize in advance if by chance this is a valid religion.)
The best example I can give is how would they react if the local town council picked a prayer offering homage to squirrels? The example could easily be valid in a community as small as ours. A relatively small shift in our population’s religious beliefs could result in the election of officials that believe that the Supreme Being is represented by a squirrel. If this happened I am sure the current supporters of prayer in government would not be so supportive.
|
Current time is 01:06 pm | |
|
|
|