I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated.
Sorry but you have that exactly backwards. It's the freedom from
religion crowd that wouldcausethe establishment clauseto swallow the free exercise clause and that is not
what the Founders intended. Refusing to allow any form of religious expression, be it bible study or moments of silence or wearing of religious symbols violates free exercise and is itself a form of religious indoctrination insecularism. Permitting free exercise does not equal establishment. I can't put it any better than this:
"The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. Itâ€™s about the right to dress according to oneâ€™s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers donâ€™t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarvesâ€”yet â€śfreedom of worshipâ€ť would protect none of these acts of faith.
Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip â€śUnder Godâ€ť from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.
The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And itâ€™s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered â€śblasphemousâ€ť to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in oneâ€™s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?"
Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand. You see, the same people who want to restrict free exercise when it comes to religion areon a mission to restrict it when it comes to firearms. We can't allow either effort to go unchallenged.