and they don't think their children will be stigmatized by forcing the end of a 60 year tradition?

Assuming that's a public school, that seems a pretty clear violation of the Establishment clause. If I owned property in that county, I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to some church, regardless of whether my kids could opt out.

Then again, if the government didn't interfere in the education business, and this was one choice of many private and non-profit schools, this wouldn't be an issue.

I find the practice objectionable, but it is not a violation of the Establishment clause. The religious organizations receive no monies from the school sytem or the local government. The parents have the option of having their kids stay in school or attend any of the locally-offerred religion classes.

When I was a school kid in rural upstate NY, the teachers liked the program because it gave them a couple of hours off every Wednesday afternoon. Those of use who remained in school could study, read, or interact quietly with games like chess or checkers.

Privatize education and you wouldn't have this issue.

Even if the school district does not pay the churches for the baby sitting, which the article does not make clear, and which I am not sure about, I can say with relative certainty that there is some taxpayer provided transportation, which would violate the establishment clause.

In any case, children only spend 13% of awake hours in a year at school (Time Magazine statistic), so what's keeping those parents from parenting during the other 87% of the time, and teaching religion themselves, if that's what suits their fancy.

Also, if the churches are truly footing the bill in this case, then why not simply make it an after school activity, like all other special interest classes? (Hebrew school, etc.)

What's wrong with parents deciding how their children should be educated? It seems to me that for the government to demand that you send your kid to school, demand that you pay for it, and then demand that you not have any input as to the curriculum is rather close-minded.

Pasty, I fail to see how this differs from any other in school extracurricular activity, which are not necessarily held after school. Like ROTC for instance; or band.

It differs in a very simple and fundamental manner - it creates government entanglement in religion. In band, children learn to play music; In ROTC children learn about the military. These are not religion classes, where children learn about religions; these are Christianity classes where children learn to become Christians.

What's wrong with parents deciding how their children should be educated? Nothing, and in a private, church run, or non-profit school, you will find these classes with no objections from any involved.

What's wrong with parents using the bludgeon of government to force their agenda on my children? A great deal.

The government does demand that parents send their children to school, but it is not just demanding that they pay for it, it is demanding that everyone pay for it, so everyone wants input into the curriculum. This is because even if people don't have the investment of their child there, they want to make sure that their money is well spent. Of course, in these cases the tyranny of the majority often takes over, at the expense of the others, as in cases where tax dollars are spent supporting a particular religion.

I agree with you most of the time, but not in this case, although I think we can agree on the overshadowing issue here:

As I said in my first post, the government needs to get out of the education game.

But until then, they need to keep the Church out of public schools.

Sorry, I talk too much.

The government has always been "entangled" in religion. From the Declaration of Indendence to today. The courts have you swear on a bible. Our money says "In God We Trust". Such entanglements are harmless and do not violate the "Establishment Clause".

The Establishment Clause means that the government doesn't establish a national religion, nor can it force people to worship. That's it. Anything else is being read into it.

These religion classes are being offered just like any other elective, whether it be shop, home economics, or athletics. It is merely an offering, and not in any way required.

These folks may have an argument, if and only if they can show that the school is not creating equal access. For instance if they have a significant number of students that want to go to Synagogue or Mosque, and the school balks at providing them the opportunity. But that isn't happening. Basically, it's a bunch of parents whining that other people's religion interferes with their atheism.

Personally, I probably would not send my child to such a class (stigma or no stigma). But offering it doesn't deprive anyone else of life, liberty, or property so I say where's the harm?

A side note: Something that really burns me up is when liberals bitch about tax dollars being spent on religion, like they are suddenly fiscal conservatives. Yet at the same time the support abominations like the National Endowment for the Arts, which pays cash to artists who could not otherwise make a living in the free market.