Doug, since you abandoned the other thread (you're not the first one who leaves when I ask "how many people did god create", I expected that), I really didn't want to move the whole thing here, but you've moved the playground to this location, so here I am.

>>However, the teachers and principal and other adults in a school are authority figures - when they say "We're now going to sing 'Silent Night'," the child whose religion prohibits him from singing it and who simply is uncomfortable singing it is put into an unreasonable position. "Teacher says to do this; Mom and Dad say not to. What do I do?"
>
>So, then instead of your child asking that question you now force my child to ask the same question?

What question? "Why didn't the teacher tell us to sing 'Silent night'"?

>Tell me how that is "fair"? ALl you are doing is making others do what you are asserting is "unfair". I fail to see the equity there. That's been my whole point but you seem to think you have special priviledges here and you get your way at my expense. (figuratively speaking)

OK, why would the inclusion of attributes of one religion in the curriculum be fair, and why would the request for not pushing such content on the others be unfair?

Having lived my life in a communist country, albeit the softest one with most liberties unimaginable in real-socialism countries, I have grown very sensitive to attempts of indoctrination. I almost wrote "brainwash" here, but I don't want to include TV and other media in the dispute. I specially don't want this done to my children.

>I find it extremely unreasonably and unfair that you (again, figuratively speaking) are forcing me to abandon my faith solely on the basis that you don't like my position.

If your faith forces you to push its content on others, you are asked only to abandon the pushing.

>I also find it to be hypocritical in the extreme, particularly since this is now the tyranny of the minority. Sure, from a Constitutional point of view we have all been taught that a Democratic Republic (not a democracy, remember <g>) that it was instituted to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Do I have any rights to demand that my children be spared (protected?) from religious POVs being served by the state (school) to them before they are legally mature to decide for themselves (i.e. the age could be decided as "age of consent", or "drinking age" or "driving age", whichever)?

>No, free speech is not limited to the confines of my home. It is specifically included in the public square. Come on Tamar.. You know better...

OK, so why don't the ABC's news readers (see the topic title) speak what they want? They are in a public square (though its sides are not exactly straight on my TV) and speaking.

>>Why should my child or Dragan's be forced to make himself or herself different. Our Constitution guarantees that the state will not establish a religion. I believe that having the school sponsor prayer (and I view singing of religious Christmas carols as prayer) is an establishment of religion.
>
>And again, why should your child's view force his view on my child? This sword cuts both ways. If it is 'wrong' for me to 'force' my pov on your child it is equally 'wrong' for you to be able to do that to my child as well.

Exactly, but I don't see where Tamar is forcing you to do anything.

>I believe you are entirely wrong in your interpretation that allowing various types of songs in a school is the establishment of a religion.

So why don't they sing Hare Krishna in the school? The melody is equally simple and easy for kids to learn.

> It is the acknowledgement of one perhaps but until the state starts collecting tithes I think you're still confusing freedom of religion as freedom from religion.

Right, they are not at the same level at all. Freedom of religion should include freedom from religion. How would freedom of religion be a real freedom if there was no optionbutton.caption="none"?

> Your faith (whether secular humanism or ?) has no right to prohibit me from expressing mine - even in the public square. If you are allowed to do that the next step is to assert that since the "public square" has been funded by the state that the expression of my faith there is somehow the government establishing a religion.

No issue here, except that the teachers, who are ipso facto servants of the state, should not interfere with this - except to protect these freedoms, and to encourage the point of view that all the religious options (including .null. value) are equal. In that light, I still see singing Christmas carols as "some options are more equal".

>Well, at the rate this country is turning its back on God I suppose you may have a point. Too bad for us but another example on anti-God thought. What is so onerous in the sying, "In God We Trust"? Goodness gracious what a horrible thing to do? Trust in God..

Wasn't a trust some sort of financial establishment? Maybe that's why these words can be found on dollars.

OK, I'm an outsider here, not a citizen of the US, so it's none of my business. If I was, I'd probably feel a second-rate citizen, having no god. If accepting "In God We Trust" is mandatory for becoming a citizen, they'll probably never let me in. So much for diversity.