Since this comes up in other threads and I have been discussing it with high-school students the past year I figured its own thread would help consolidate ideas.

 I ask for these guidelines to be followed for this thread:

 The topic relate to religion in publicly funded schools in exclusivity, not private, charter, home or any other school type that doesn't receive a portion of its funding from US tax dollars.

 Gun control, banning of guns, structure of US gun rights, active shooters in schools as a method to discuss gun bans, arming of teachers as a method to discuss gun bans are not part of the topic and I ask that those discussions remain in the many other threads containing that discussion type.


 The Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never reversed a decision banning the celebration of holidays in schools, anyone with information contrary is welcome to provide reference.

 As far as I know one can practice their religion in public school.  A school can not mandate, require, force or otherwise create a situation where any student must adhere to a religious practice.  Students may however pray at school, as long as it does not interfere with classes/assemblies etc. similar to allowing students to bring their own lunch as long as it isn't something like bringing in a live animal that is slaughtered on school property to make sure it is prepared consistent with their religion.  

 The issue as far as I can tell is the school structuring the presentation or practice of a specific religion.  For instance requiring prayer in the morning for all students, playing prayer over the intercom, requiring bible readings, teachers distributing Quran literature, things of this nature are not allowed as public taxes pay in portion for the education system to run.

 Things allowed are FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) and similar, which is completely optional.  Bibles can be, and typically are in school libraries, students can pray on property, they can within the school's guidelines distribute religion information - and lets face it, bibles, pamphlets etc. are extremely outdated, distribution is done digitally through phones.

 So lets start with three questions:

 How do schools present without violating law, very specifically without violating law, present religion to children?

 How do they select the religion types for presentation?

 Should they be presented equally?

"or a politician saying God Bless America, or a whole host of other examples, where public employees reference their religion....even Omar, and her religious head wear.....  "

 There's nothing illegal about that, it is actually illegal to say they can not exercise their religion.


"Not sure why you would even use this domain, the one you say is merely words on a screen, to find honest dialogue and exchange?"

 To place that statement in context I was referencing why someone felt they needed to retaliate against other members regarding negative statements made.  A discussion makes sense, retaliation does not.

 This by itself does not mean all words typed are without value.  For instance information about carb tuning is valuable and of use even though they are technically only words on a screen, but who is offended here by carb discussions?

 The issue I was referring to is why make retaliatory statements when the entirety of the damage done to oneself is exclusively emotional, and voluntary.  

 So to clarify:

 Why retaliate against other member's opinions about oneself?  They have with their words done zero damage beyond whatever emotional amount you allow them to do.  They are not physical bodily or property damaging activities, they are only words on a screen that may or may not have discussion value within them.  A discussion would be more valuable than an insult exchange.
 

Eegore wrote on 11/10/19 at 10:09:26:


Sure...peer to peer.

If they're gonna' study the bible in school,.. is it okay if they study science in church?...

Eegore wrote on 11/10/19 at 12:22:10:


Absolutely.....it has to be free will, to choose, or reject, or its nothing.

"Well there you go, your own bias and prejudices, speaks your truth and reality, no others need to apply.

Thank you for being honest finally."

 What are you talking about?  In what capacity have I been dishonest?

 What bias and prejudices apply when paraphrasing someone else?  They aren't my words, those were the words of Ken Hamm and Bill Nye.

 If I quote Trump does that mean I am Trump and as such share the same bias and prejudices?

But that might be akin to Social Studies.

 I agree here, and also this is where I was exposed to religion types when I was in school when it comes specifically from the school itself.

 I do, to a degree, understand some of the concern or backlash or whatever one want's to call it when it comes to a public school teaching religion concept.  There are a lot of bonehead teachers out there.

 Limiting exposure I do not necessarily understand, but having some teacher say one is better than the other I can see as an issue.  This is part, but not all, of why there are consent forms, or permission slips for students to be exposed to certain curriculum.