[quote]ZEB wrote:
Reread my above post, I don’t have much to add to that. Other than to say, (once again) teachers are by nature liberal, they are PC and will be pushing an agenda. And tha’t NOT what teachers are being paid to do. And as has been mentioned by others they are not trained to even go there. But funny how we mentioned God in school and even prayed in school for 200 years and it didn’t harm a thing. This is off topic so I won’t go into the number of school shootings, and general violence since prayer has been removed.[/quote]
So following this logic, most teachers are not trained theologians - they are not trained in religious studies and it’s not what they are paid to do. So, no mention of anything religious or God-related. Focus more on improving math and science.
Agreed?
[/quote]
I am thinking that a lot of this stuff people are complaining about are symptoms and not actual causes. I maybe wrong though, I haven’t studied much on it, but what I have seems to indicate this.[/quote]
Agreed.
[/quote]
Wait you agree that the removing of prayer is the symptom of the moral degrading of society and as well, increased violence in schools shows how even further degraded our moral standards are as a country?[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]"[u]Congress[/u][/center] shall make no law…"[/quote]
That’s cool, center the whole sentence. [/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore about 200 years of legal precedent that has never been overturned or legislated out by Congress.[/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore the words of the Constitution itself.
[/quote]
I would ask you to do the same. You kind of left stuff out. Here’s the rest of the sentence:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If I am at a school, and I don’t like your particular prayer, should I be forced to say it, or even listen to it? Assume in this example that I am, in fact, a Christian, not a Wiccan or something else.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder if the ACLU would be upset if the school board wanted to teach children all about homosexuality? Ah, we all know the answer to that don’t we?[/quote]
Would it not be fair to say that if one ‘lifestyle choice’ (as people often depict homosexuality) is to be kept entirely out of the classroom, so should others (religion, etc.)?[/quote]
Matters if it is moral or not.[/quote]
That is quite obviously subjective. Fantastically subjective.
In my opinion, for example, it is far more moral to have sex with someone you love (even if they are of the same gender as you) than it is to lie to children about the origin of their species.
You disagree with me. Which why it is subjective.[/quote]
Disagreement doesn’t equal subjective it means one of us is wrong. If I did my job right, and I got 95% of the United States to believe that abortion was morally illicit, would that be okay?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder if the ACLU would be upset if the school board wanted to teach children all about homosexuality? Ah, we all know the answer to that don’t we?[/quote]
Would it not be fair to say that if one ‘lifestyle choice’ (as people often depict homosexuality) is to be kept entirely out of the classroom, so should others (religion, etc.)?[/quote]
Matters if it is moral or not.[/quote]
That is quite obviously subjective. Fantastically subjective.
In my opinion, for example, it is far more moral to have sex with someone you love (even if they are of the same gender as you) than it is to lie to children about the origin of their species.
You disagree with me. Which why it is subjective.[/quote]
Also immoral to teach theory as fact. And to encourage anal sex which is not procreative.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]"[u]Congress[/u][/center] shall make no law…"[/quote]
That’s cool, center the whole sentence. [/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore about 200 years of legal precedent that has never been overturned or legislated out by Congress.[/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore the words of the Constitution itself.
[/quote]
I would ask you to do the same. You kind of left stuff out. Here’s the rest of the sentence:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If I am at a school, and I don’t like your particular prayer, should I be forced to say it, or even listen to it? Assume in this example that I am, in fact, a Christian, not a Wiccan or something else.[/quote]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The only thing prohibited in that sentence is congress making specific laws. If congress isn’t making a law it doesn’t in any way violate that article. All of those are only restrictions on congressional law. Period.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’d like to go back to the days where you could send Christian material home. We had a safer, and in many ways better society then. I don’t want to be fair to the Wiccan’s, or any other fringe group that feels left out.
This is a Judeo/Christian society not a Wiccan society, thank God. And moreover what we’ve done actually works. It is now being dismantled piece by piece through various pc groups who want to please every one. We’ve come way, way too far honoring literally micro percentages of society at the cost of the entire society.
You’re a reasonable guy and I know you know exactly what I’m talking about.
[/quote]
Read my post about being careful what you wish for. As I’ve said, Christians can’t even agree and the tenets of Christianity. But let’s play let’s pretend. We now have a law that says anything Christian related can be sent home to kids but no other religion allowed. Great. I am a former biology teacher who has become the principle of a school. I happen to be Catholic which, last I checked, was a Christian denomination. I decide to send home material saying that Pope John Paul II endorsed evolution. This is true. He is also now a saint, or in the process of becoming one. So, we have a saint who endorsed evolution. Certain fundamentalists in my district who believe in creation are infuriated by this. But they can’t do a damn thing about it because my material does not endorse any religion other than Christianity. Good result?[/quote]
You make a valid point. I’m not saying any sort of material can be sent willy nilly. Of course there needs to be guidelines. Maybe one of the major guidelines would be to be more centrist. [/quote]
And here’s the thing: when do “guidelines” become “regulations” become a “law that establishes a religion?” Even something “centrist” is going to offend someone out there, and at some point, some government official is going to have to decide what’s “Christian” and what’s not. It may seem contradictory to you, but I actually developed a strong belief in separating religious beliefs from public matters as a somewhat religious Catholic who grew up in the South among fundamentalist Baptists. Because “them good Ba’tists don’t like them Cathlic Pope-luvin’ fuckers.” You know this to be true. So, even if I were absolutely devout in my beliefs, I still would oppose any sort of school prayer because how I pray (or at the moment, the fact that I don’t pray) is my business and no one else’s.
But I would ask you, and I ask this sincerely, is this really and truly limiting your right to practice your religion how you see fit? I don’t think it does.
[quote]And last I checked, no goverment police force has forcible kept any Christian group from entering a house of worship because a Wiccan group wanted it to be so. Christianity is the dominant religion and enjoys many benefits. Spare me the persecution complex.
I’m not saying that it has come to the point where police officers prevent people from attending services. Obviously, that’s not the case, yet. But when I see various rights being taken away from Christian groups. And militant atheists who are now being featured on prime time TV, it’s not very heart warming. It begs the question where are we going from here? Certainly not in the right direction. [/quote]
Again, I’m going to make the distinction between public displays and private religious practice. Yes, 10 Commandment displays have been taken down, but you are free to put one up in your house. And as for atheists on prime time TV, well, that’s a free speech issue. I may not like the stuff that Pat Robertson says, but I will staunchly defend his right to say it. Speaking of which, Pat et al. has the Christian Broadcasting Network, and I think there is another Christian network, Trinity perhaps? Having Richard Dawkins appear on a 20 minute segment of a news show can hardly compare. And then you have the phenomenon of the mega-churches. From my perspective, Christianity is still very much alive and well in the U.S. While I would agree that taking down a manger scene is a bit silly, it’s really nothing. Look at all the heavy-hitting groups Christians have:
Pat Robertson and his ministries and networks
Focus on the Family
Can’t remember the name, but I know there is a Christian legal defense organization that was set up to counter the ACLU
Tim Haggard’s mega-church and other mega-churches.
And for the record, I support each and every one of these group’s right to do what they do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]"[u]Congress[/u][/center] shall make no law…"[/quote]
That’s cool, center the whole sentence. [/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore about 200 years of legal precedent that has never been overturned or legislated out by Congress.[/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore the words of the Constitution itself.
[/quote]
I would ask you to do the same. You kind of left stuff out. Here’s the rest of the sentence:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If I am at a school, and I don’t like your particular prayer, should I be forced to say it, or even listen to it? Assume in this example that I am, in fact, a Christian, not a Wiccan or something else.[/quote]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The only thing prohibited in that sentence is congress making specific laws. If congress isn’t making a law it doesn’t in any way violate that article. All of those are only restrictions on congressional law. Period.[/quote]
So if a state legislature establishes a religion in a particular state, that would be okay?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]"[u]Congress[/u][/center] shall make no law…"[/quote]
That’s cool, center the whole sentence. [/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore about 200 years of legal precedent that has never been overturned or legislated out by Congress.[/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore the words of the Constitution itself.
[/quote]
I would ask you to do the same. You kind of left stuff out. Here’s the rest of the sentence:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If I am at a school, and I don’t like your particular prayer, should I be forced to say it, or even listen to it? Assume in this example that I am, in fact, a Christian, not a Wiccan or something else.[/quote]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The only thing prohibited in that sentence is congress making specific laws. If congress isn’t making a law it doesn’t in any way violate that article. All of those are only restrictions on congressional law. Period.[/quote]
So if a state legislature establishes a religion in a particular state, that would be okay?[/quote]
Wrong. It wouldn’t violate the constitution.
I take issue with the erroneous idea that there is separation of church and state in the constitution. It isn’t. Fact. Period.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]"[u]Congress[/u][/center] shall make no law…"[/quote]
That’s cool, center the whole sentence. [/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore about 200 years of legal precedent that has never been overturned or legislated out by Congress.[/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore the words of the Constitution itself.
[/quote]
I would ask you to do the same. You kind of left stuff out. Here’s the rest of the sentence:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If I am at a school, and I don’t like your particular prayer, should I be forced to say it, or even listen to it? Assume in this example that I am, in fact, a Christian, not a Wiccan or something else.[/quote]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The only thing prohibited in that sentence is congress making specific laws. If congress isn’t making a law it doesn’t in any way violate that article. All of those are only restrictions on congressional law. Period.[/quote]
So if a state legislature establishes a religion in a particular state, that would be okay?[/quote]
Wrong. It wouldn’t violate the constitution.[/quote]
Wrong. The 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. That’s a good thing. It makes little sense that the federal government can completely ban guns but the individual states can.
The Free Exercise clause kind of makes this a necessity.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]"[u]Congress[/u][/center] shall make no law…"[/quote]
That’s cool, center the whole sentence. [/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore about 200 years of legal precedent that has never been overturned or legislated out by Congress.[/quote]
And while you’re at it, ignore the words of the Constitution itself.
[/quote]
I would ask you to do the same. You kind of left stuff out. Here’s the rest of the sentence:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If I am at a school, and I don’t like your particular prayer, should I be forced to say it, or even listen to it? Assume in this example that I am, in fact, a Christian, not a Wiccan or something else.[/quote]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The only thing prohibited in that sentence is congress making specific laws. If congress isn’t making a law it doesn’t in any way violate that article. All of those are only restrictions on congressional law. Period.[/quote]
So if a state legislature establishes a religion in a particular state, that would be okay?[/quote]
Wrong. It wouldn’t violate the constitution.[/quote]
Wrong. The 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. That’s a good thing. It makes little sense that the federal government can completely ban guns but the individual states can.
The Free Exercise clause kind of makes this a necessity.[/quote]
No it doesn’t and no it doesn’t. Congress can’t legislate something to restrict or establish a religion. That’s it. That’s all it says. The fourteenth amendment doesn’t change that because states don’t control congress as specifically noted in the first amendment. And no, separation of church and state is in no way required to make congress not do that.
Nope, no mention or acknowledgement of anything gay in public schools, that’s not what they are there for.
What else do you want to talk about?[/quote]
How can you possibly not see that this line of reasoning applies perfectly to religion as well as to homosexuality.
“Nope, no mention of anything CHRISTIAN in public schools, that’s not what they are there for.”
How can that be lost on you?[/quote]
You equate homosexuality with religion. Just think about that a while.
Study some history and take a good look the role that religion has played in the making of the United States of America. Every major (historical) university, virtually every major charitable institution. Religion is more than whether you believe in God or not. It is an institution which brings families together and helps keep them together. I could go on there is so much more to say. It is at the very heart of this great nation. I don’t have the time or inclination to educate you on this matter, or I would. The fact that you are so ignorant of the direct connection between this nations success and religion is actually shocking.
But I shouldn’t be shocked you are from a generation that has not gone to church, does not believe in God and have been spoon fed much of what you think by very far left people working in institutions which more than likely were either begun by or funded by Christians. Oh the irony.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder if the ACLU would be upset if the school board wanted to teach children all about homosexuality? Ah, we all know the answer to that don’t we?[/quote]
Would it not be fair to say that if one ‘lifestyle choice’ (as people often depict homosexuality) is to be kept entirely out of the classroom, so should others (religion, etc.)?[/quote]
Matters if it is moral or not.[/quote]
That is quite obviously subjective. Fantastically subjective.
In my opinion, for example, it is far more moral to have sex with someone you love (even if they are of the same gender as you) than it is to lie to children about the origin of their species.
You disagree with me. Which why it is subjective.[/quote]
Also immoral to teach theory as fact. And to encourage anal sex which is not procreative.[/quote]
That’s right, which is why theory should be taught as theory. Unfortunately for the religious, their dogma is not even theory. It is fantasy.
As for anal sex: first, the quadratic equation doesn’t lead to procreation either. Neither do mustard seeds, or dog food, or electric razors. Are they immoral?
And second: no one is advocating that anal sex be taught in a classroom. At all. Mentioning the word ‘gay’ is not synonymous with drawing a diagram that explains to children the intricacies of buttfucking. No one–I repeat, NO ONE–wants anal sex taught or mentioned in a k-12 classroom.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder if the ACLU would be upset if the school board wanted to teach children all about homosexuality? Ah, we all know the answer to that don’t we?[/quote]
Would it not be fair to say that if one ‘lifestyle choice’ (as people often depict homosexuality) is to be kept entirely out of the classroom, so should others (religion, etc.)?[/quote]
Matters if it is moral or not.[/quote]
That is quite obviously subjective. Fantastically subjective.
In my opinion, for example, it is far more moral to have sex with someone you love (even if they are of the same gender as you) than it is to lie to children about the origin of their species.
You disagree with me. Which why it is subjective.[/quote]
Disagreement doesn’t equal subjective it means one of us is wrong.[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder if the ACLU would be upset if the school board wanted to teach children all about homosexuality? Ah, we all know the answer to that don’t we?[/quote]
Would it not be fair to say that if one ‘lifestyle choice’ (as people often depict homosexuality) is to be kept entirely out of the classroom, so should others (religion, etc.)?[/quote]
Matters if it is moral or not.[/quote]
That is quite obviously subjective. Fantastically subjective.
In my opinion, for example, it is far more moral to have sex with someone you love (even if they are of the same gender as you) than it is to lie to children about the origin of their species.
You disagree with me. Which why it is subjective.[/quote]
Also immoral to teach theory as fact. And to encourage anal sex which is not procreative.[/quote]
That’s right, which is why theory should be taught as theory. Unfortunately for the religious, their dogma is not even theory. It is fantasy.[/quote]
It’s fantasy to YOU. You have no idea of the actual history that surrounds Christianity and the Bible. You condemn things you know nothing about. And Christianity is the only thing that people like you are allowed to condemn without ever having read the Bible, much less actually study religion.
No but then again they have not been considered immoral for 5000 years have they junior? Once again, change the game change the outcome.
Not just yet, all of that comes later. You are not old enough to remember homosexuals only asking for tolerance, that’s all they wanted. Marriage? That was out of the question. Just please tolerate us and don’t persecute us. Hey fair enough this is America, if two guys want to have sex in the privacy of their own home, who cares? But of course it didn’t end there did it? Fast forward 20 years and the left now wants to explain homosexuality to kids. But there’s no slippery slope…noooooo.
Not yet they don’t. But I know a way where it will be assured that it will NEVER be taught. Let’s leave it to the parents to tell the kids all about homosexuality. There’s a novel idea and one that lefty’s won’t like.
It’s fantasy to YOU. You have no idea of the actual history that surrounds Christianity and the Bible. You condemn things you know nothing about. And Christianity is the only thing that people like you are allowed to condemn without ever having read the Bible, much less actually study religion.
[/quote]
Funnily enough, it wasn’t until I actually studied Christian doctrine in an academic setting that I became militant about it.
My parents did me the favor of not indoctrinating me from early childhood. You see, children are stupid, naive, and gullible. And when they are told fantastical lies by adults who they trust unquestioningly, it is only natural that they believe those lies. The lie then becomes so familiar to them that by the time they have become intelligent enough to critically evaluate claims, it has far too strong a hold on them.
When you are spared from that cruel indoctrination, however, and you (as an intelligent adult) read things like “a snake told a woman to eat an apple” or “a man put two of every animal on Earth in a boat to survive a big flood” or “a man lived for three days inside a whale that had swallowed him” or “a virgin had a baby” or “a man walked on water” or “a guy was killed and then rose from the dead”, you have a pretty fucking difficult time respecting the book from which the stories came or, for that matter, the people who for some unspeakable reason have decided to devote their lives to the preposterous mythologies of bygone primitives.
It’s fantasy to YOU. You have no idea of the actual history that surrounds Christianity and the Bible. You condemn things you know nothing about. And Christianity is the only thing that people like you are allowed to condemn without ever having read the Bible, much less actually study religion.
[/quote]
Funnily enough,[/quote]
Funnily enough?
[quote]it wasn’t until I actually studied Christian doctrine in an academic setting that I became militant about it.
My parents did me the favor of not indoctrinating me from early childhood. You see, children are stupid, naive, and gullible. And when they are told fantastical lies by adults who they trust unquestioningly, it is only natural that they believe those lies. The lie then becomes so familiar to them that by the time they have become intelligent enough to critically evaluate claims, it has far too strong a hold on them.
When you are spared from that cruel indoctrination, however, and you (as an intelligent adult) read things like “a snake told a woman to eat an apple” or “a man put two of every animal on Earth in a boat to survive a big flood” or “a man lived for three days inside a whale that had swallowed him” or “a virgin had a baby” or “a man walked on water” or “a guy was killed and then rose from the dead”, you have a pretty fucking difficult time respecting the book from which the stories came or, for that matter, the people who for some unspeakable reason have decided to devote their lives to the preposterous mythologies of bygone primitives.[/quote]
Wow I am so blown away by your wisdom I just don’t know what to say. 22 years old and you have God, religion and the whole freakin universe all figured out. And of course you can’t possibly be wrong because you’ve never ever thought something was right and then later on it turned out to be the exact opposite, no that’s never happened.
It’s fantasy to YOU. You have no idea of the actual history that surrounds Christianity and the Bible. You condemn things you know nothing about. And Christianity is the only thing that people like you are allowed to condemn without ever having read the Bible, much less actually study religion.
[/quote]
Funnily enough, it wasn’t until I actually studied Christian doctrine in an academic setting that I became militant about it.
My parents did me the favor of not indoctrinating me from early childhood. You see, children are stupid, naive, and gullible. And when they are told fantastical lies by adults who they trust unquestioningly, it is only natural that they believe those lies. The lie then becomes so familiar to them that by the time they have become intelligent enough to critically evaluate claims, it has far too strong a hold on them.
When you are spared from that cruel indoctrination, however, and you (as an intelligent adult) read things like “a snake told a woman to eat an apple” or “a man put two of every animal on Earth in a boat to survive a big flood” or “a man lived for three days inside a whale that had swallowed him” or “a virgin had a baby” or “a man walked on water” or “a guy was killed and then rose from the dead”, you have a pretty fucking difficult time respecting the book from which the stories came or, for that matter, the people who for some unspeakable reason have decided to devote their lives to the preposterous mythologies of bygone primitives.[/quote]
Speaking of naivete…[/quote]
Push beat me to it.
“Funnily enough, it wasn’t until I actually studied Christian doctrine in an academic setting that I became militant about it.” Priceless.