> So, the question becomes should we keep schools neutral or not?

What is the role of school? Is the role to prep kids to go to college? Is it to drive social change? Is it to teach what kids need to perform common jobs? Is it to teach kids how to have skills to operate as adults (like managing their personal finances)?

These are questions we don't agree on as a culture.

A bunch of debate is rooted in disagreement as to what these should be.

"What is the role of school?"

There are really only two possible answers in the current public school systenlm:

1. Whatever a broad consensus of people want them to do.

2. Whatever a slim majority can impose on the rest.

As consensus evaporates, we are left with the latter. This plays out in red/blue states differently.

Eventually, we may need to move to a voucher system so that the parents just pick a school that they like.

> There are really only two possible answers in the current public school systenlm:

There is one more option. Have a small group of people push their agenda while the masses are mostly unaware.

By asking what the role is, you presupposed that we can decide on one, and that it will somehow happen. If the adminstrators and teachers don't fulfill their role, that's a different question.

There might be slight difference between prayers in classrooms and books being available in a library for children to check out if interested. Unless you're suggesting that all material containing any religious content or characters also be excluded from libraries in the name of neutrality?

I think there's some validity to this thought process. I'm of the opinion the books shouldn't be banned, but this point gives me pause.

There's an obvious difference here via the 1st amendment, which doesn't regulate social issues, but that's more legal technicality than philosophy.

My experience as a kid (after these crusades) was that religion wasn't forbidden as a topic, but that endorsement or derision of any particular religion was forbidden. E.g. it would be fine to ask what the difference in belief is between a Catholic and an Amish, but a teacher would probably refuse to answer if asked which one is better supported by historical fact. One of the history classes spent a week or two on the various common religions.

If I'm recalling correctly, the school library had copies of at least the Bible, the Quran and a Hebrew Bible (I feel like there was a better term but I can't recall it). There wasn't an attempt to hide the information, the school just couldn't endorse a particular religion. Tolerance was generally encouraged to all religions (or lack thereof).

This feels like it's going further than the religious issues. It's an attempt to suppress knowledge, rather than to suppress opinion.

> there was a crusade against Christian prayer

Bullshit. There was a backlash against forced Christian prayer, as there should be.

> teachers here-and-they’re wanting to assert their belief system in the classroom

Bullshit. Making a wide variety of books available to interested students is literally the opposite of asserting a specific belief system.

> activist parents

Bullshit. This is very clearly neo-fascist alt-right book-burners trying to bring about white Christian nationalism. Very clearly: they're not even trying to hide this fact. Any argument that does not acknowledge this is a bald-faced attempt to instate white Christian nationalism is not in good faith.

> the question becomes should we keep schools neutral or not?

Bullshit. This is a clear attempt to set the standard for "neutral" as "white Christian nationalist" and anything other than that as non-neutral.

> my intellectually curious atheist self

Green username, bad-faith argument filled with bullshit. Why do I get this feeling this statement is similar to "as a gay black man ..."

> Bullshit. There was a backlash against forced Christian prayer, as there should be.

Need I remind you that the US is one nation _under God_?

> Bullshit. Making a wide variety of books available to interested students is literally the opposite of asserting a specific belief system.

It'll be quite "convenient" if certain books had more space on the shelves than others.

> Green username, bad-faith argument filled with bullshit. Why do I get this feeling this statement is similar to "as a gay black man ..."

Please make sure you're following the HackerNews commenting guidelines. :>

> Need I remind you that the US is one nation _under God_?

I refused to recite that fascist bullshit in school, and "under God" was added by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954. I disagree that the US is "under God". What's your point? You're going to come to my house and wreck the place if I don't kneel for your God? What are you even talking about?

> It'll be quite "convenient" if certain books had more space on the shelves than others.

What are you talking about? Say what you mean. Otherwise it'll be quite "convenient" if your grandmother turns out to be a bicycle.

> Please make sure you're following the HackerNews commenting guidelines. :>

"Assume good faith" stops when strong evidence presented that the argument is in bad faith. I stated what that evidence was.

> “Back in my day…” there was a crusade against Christian prayer and what not.

No, there wasn't.

There has historically been litigation against forced or state-agent-led prayer, and that litigation was often by Christian (or Christian-adjacent; boundaries are disputed) groups.