Religion in school

[VictorP]

i think religion in schools is just fine. maybe it could be taught as an elective history class or something. i mean, religion is very prominent in today's society, and it would only help kids to be more knowledgeable and cultured.

 

[F_R_O_G]

Seattle times, opinion page, ~Dec 28 2003

"Is it possible that our cultural loss of civility is due to our unrestrained pursuit of freedom without boundaries? Have we made a fetish out of freedom to the point that it is viewed as the cure to all our unhappiness?

It seems to me that the most tragic 'freedom' fostered by our post modern culture is the yearning to be free from the restraints that faith in God provided for previous generations.

Dostoyevsky said it long ago in 'The Brothers Karamazov’: 'When transcendence disappears, everything is permissible' John Adams observed, 'Our political freedoms can not survive without faith'

Tyranny can prosper without faith in God, but freedom requires an inner restraint of the human spirit that faith in God has provided in the past, I know that faith is not something we can simply add to our personal perspective, let alone impose on anyone else - especially those with whom we disagree and who are acting uncivil!

But I believe it would help us all if we could see the huge loss of civility in ugly, partisan politics and in crude social vocabularies as not just 'freedom of speech,' but more as evidence that we have drifted too far from one anchor to civility that can tame the human spirit"

why don't they teach creation? does that not have sientific evidence?

 

[Green Gaia]

why don't they teach creation? does that not have sientific evidence?

No, it doesn't.

And what creation should they teach? There are many more creation stories than there are religions. The Native Americans were here on this land first, so we should teach their creation stories, right? And then we should teach our children about how our Christian founding fathers murdered the Native Americans just for the land. At least that part we can prove and no one can refute.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Come on FROG, get real. Tyranny has prospered in PLENTY of countries that have LOTS of faith in God, namely: Iran, colonial America, Afghanistan, and practically ALL of medieval Europe.

Society is not more morally degrading today than it was "back in the good ol' days". We no longer see the lynchings, racism including denying blacks their right to vote, mafia shootouts with the police, school fights, etc that we saw in past decades. Uncivil groups like the KKK and the Black Panthers are no longer a major force in society or politics. We don't have bandits running amok in the Wild West anymore killing and raiding trains. Take another look at your history book, and I think you'll appreciate today's America a lot more.

The major change that's taken place is that religion has been seperated more and more from government, which is a good thing--it has NOT, however, been forced out of society BY the government--this is a myth. What religious values to follow and how to follow them should be decided by society, not the government.

For example: You want people to learn about the Bible? Great--go start a program to give Bibles out for free. But don't get the government involved, unless you expect them to give out Torah's, Kabbalah's, and Q'ran's out for free as well.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with you VictorP, but I think FROG is proposing more religion in school than just freely-chosen electives (I think!).

 

[F_R_O_G]

I don't get you guys... where are you getting this from.

Maize, are you sure you want to say there is NO scientific evidence for creation?

Mr_spinkles though I disagree with you aren't we talking about religion in schools? There is nothing wrong with a state government funding the production of bibles and only bibles; I don't know where you get the idea that they can't do that.

 

[Redeemed of God]

[web:94ea35fff7]http://www.family.org/pplace/topics/a0025319.cfm[/web:94ea35fff7]

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't get you guys... where are you getting this from.

Maize, are you sure you want to say there is NO scientific evidence for creation?

Mr_spinkles though I disagree with you aren't we talking about religion in schools? There is nothing wrong with a state government funding the production of bibles and only bibles; I don't know where you get the idea that they can't do that.

What if the state government funded the production of Muslim Qu'rans, and only Qu'rans? Wouldn't you be a little peeved that your tax dollars were being used for such a program, when you're not even Muslim?

And I don't know why you haven't learned in school why the government can't do that--frankly, I'm horrified by it. Have you taken American History yet?

If so, you must not have been paying attention when you learned about Federalism and why the framers of the constitution feared a tyrannical majority.

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't get you guys... where are you getting this from.

What are we getting what from? American History? Try a book.

Maize, are you sure you want to say there is NO scientific evidence for creation?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. There is no scientific evidence for the Biblical story of creation, although I'm sure some quack somewhere has twisted real scientific findings to "prove" that creation took place, and that you're now going to give me that "proof." :roll:

 

[Redeemed of God]

Mr. Sprinkles our tax dollar is already going to an atheistic public school...where they won't let you publicly pray, where crimes are growing because most people don’t have any moral values, where they teach evolution instead of creation because they think coming from apes is more logical than being created by God.
Do you believe are forefathers died for their Muslim beliefs or even for a” No God Nation”? I don't think so, they died for the only living and true God because they wanted to worship him freely and not in hiding like most of the Christians had to do.
Do you know that Christian schools get better grades than almost every public school? Not just because they are smart but because they know God and live by him and for him. I’m not saying public schools are stupid but they would be a lot smarter if God was in their lives. If Discipline was used in schools there might be fewer crimes. Now if you get in trouble you get suspended and sent home to your parents where they might just give the “don’t do it again speech." In Christian schools they discipline...they give them more homework or have them help the janitor or something.
If we were taught Muslim beliefs...may God help us all because we'd all be killing each other. It's a fact that terrorism and Muslim beliefs are linked. They believe the more people you kill the more people you will have in paradise or wherever they believe they go when they die. Now a lot of the Muslims are peaceful because they have been civilized by a Christian nation.
There are still many other reasons why we should have God in our schools and those are just a few reasons why.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr. Sprinkles our tax dollar is already going to an atheistic public school...

Atheist means you do not beleive in God. Public schools do not teach that there is a God, nor do they teach that there is NO God. The government doesn't teach either beleif, they let the parents do that.

where they won't let you publicly pray,

I definitely support people's right to publicly pray in school. The government should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (Bill of Rights). Government should neither endorse NOR shun religion in school.

where crimes are growing because most people don’t have any moral values,

I agree, crime grows when moral values go down. But beleif in God itself is coincidental to morals--some beleivers are good, some believers are bad. The difference between the bad and the good people is their morals, not their religious beliefs.

where they teach evolution instead of creation because they think coming from apes is more logical than being created by God.

Evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community (which is composed of scientists of all faiths). It has evidence to support it. Students are free to draw their own conclusions as to what caused evolution (God, Allah, etc).

Do you believe are forefathers died for their Muslim beliefs or even for a” No God Nation”? I don't think so, they died for the only living and true God because they wanted to worship him freely and not in hiding like most of the Christians had to do.

Yes, they wanted to worship freely-- and they wanted people of ALL faiths to worship freely. And they wanted the government to stay out of it.

Do you know that Christian schools get better grades than almost every public school? Not just because they are smart but because they know God and live by him and for him.

No, it's because kids who go to private schools are smarter, wealthier, and work harder. A dumb, lazy student who beleives in God will not do better than a smart, hard-working student who does not believe in God.

I’m not saying public schools are stupid but they would be a lot smarter if God was in their lives.

God is in the lives of many, many kids at public schools. That's because most parents don't depend on government employees to teach their kids about God.

If Discipline was used in schools there might be fewer crimes. Now if you get in trouble you get suspended and sent home to your parents where they might just give the “don’t do it again speech." In Christian schools they discipline...they give them more homework or have them help the janitor or something.

I agree--all schools must have discipline.

If we were taught Muslim beliefs...may God help us all because we'd all be killing each other. It's a fact that terrorism and Muslim beliefs are linked. They believe the more people you kill the more people you will have in paradise or wherever they believe they go when they die. Now a lot of the Muslims are peaceful because they have been civilized by a Christian nation.

You're ignorance astounds me. Your characterization of Muslims would be like a Muslim saying it's a fact that Christians believe in lynching blacks, gassing Jews, burning "witches" and heretics alive, etc. Neither is a fair characterization.

 

[CJW]

"Atheist means you do not beleive in God. Public schools do not teach that there is a God, nor do they teach that there is NO God. The government doesn't teach either beleif, they let the parents do that."

The federal judiciary has no business making all of our philosophic judgments for us and establishing agnosticism or atheism. There is no Constitutional authority for them to be doing what they have done. Indeed, if their tyrranical notions were really Constitutional then the Constitution would be unconstitutional because it mentions God (puts God as sovereign over or Creator of time by saying, "In the year of our Lord...") and "establishes" a religious doctrine (keeping the sabbath holy, Sundays are exempt from the time a President has to consider and veto a bill.)

This bit about denying that state schools teach that there is no God is specious. State schools teach Darwinism that has always been predicated on atheistic theological arguments. E.g. Darwin: "This explains suffering in the world better." "Why would God design something in this faulty way?" Etc.

where they won't let you publicly pray,

I definitely support people's right to publicly pray in school. The government should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (Bill of Rights). Government should neither endorse NOR shun religion in school.

What part of government are you talking about? Actually, the Constitution reads that Congress shall make no law.... not that "government" shall make no law. In fact, this law was passed to protect all the laws that communties had from federal intrustion. Geez.... how have we got to the exact opposite in which the Constitution does not protect religion but is said to extirpate it from public life... ignorance is bliss for the disinformed and fodder for atheistic totalitarians, I guess.

"The difference between the bad and the good people is their morals, not their religious beliefs."

What is it that you're judging their morals by?

"Evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community (which is composed of scientists of all faiths). It has evidence to support it. Students are free to draw their own conclusions as to what caused evolution (God, Allah, etc)."

The propaganda word "evolution" can mean anything from "change" to a total explanation for reality as we know it. Typically, this process of defining it depends on how threatened that the science geeks who simply made a mythology up feel when confronted with anomalous empirical facts.

"Yes, they wanted to worship freely-- and they wanted people of ALL faiths to worship freely. And they wanted the government to stay out of it."

It is important to remember that the only reason that the notion that separation of church and state came about and was adhered to is because of Protestant Christianity. In fact, it seems as Christianity declines there is less separation and you find state schools teaching Nature based mythologies, establishing agnosticism or atheism, etc., regardless what parents/communities want.

"A dumb, lazy student who beleives in God will not do better than a smart, hard-working student who does not believe in God. "

Not the point, students who don't believe in God tend towards numerous problems which lead them to the physical rather than the metaphysical. So they are fodder for atheistic totalitarian's physically based indoctrination techniques instead of the education typical to the critical metaphysical mind. This process has been called "The Closing of the American Mind." Of course, in some Orwellian twist those whose minds are the most closed believe them to be the most open.

"God is in the lives of many, many kids at public schools. That's because most parents don't depend on government employees to teach their kids about God."

Most parents/communities want to be able to decide what to teach their kids sans interference by atheistic totalitarians using the state to indoctrinate. But note how fiercely totalitarians fight to keep parents from making certain decisions, e.g. school vouchers. E.g. indoctrinating Darwinian mythology as a "fact." Etc.

"I agree--all schools must have discipline. "

Well, atheistic philosophies that deny the metaphysical are the least capable of discipline, i.e. sitting in judgment on the physical. That is all they are themselves, after all, just one rationalization after another but no rationale.

"You're ignorance astounds me. Your characterization of Muslims would be like a Muslim saying it's a fact that Christians believe in lynching blacks, gassing Jews, burning "witches" and heretics alive, etc. Neither is a fair characterization."

Christians didn't believe in lynching blacks because of Christianity. The Nazis gassed the Jews and they believed in Nature based mythology and paganism, part of the reasoning for the elimination of the "Jewish influence." They forbid publishing the Bible, etc. Interesting how the Catholic church signed a concordat to keep issues of church separate from the state. I.e. separation of church and state.... this seems to be the kind of separation that atheistic totalitarians have in mind. It was not what the American Founders had in mind in the least.

You didn't really refute what he said about the correlation between Islam and terrorism. Why is it that Muslims are fighting Hindus using methods of terrrorism, fighting Jews using methods of terrorism, fighting America using methods of terrorism, fighting Europeans using methods of terrorism, etc. Most other religions and nations do not demonstrate this broad and deep pattern that is typical to Islam. There are isolated incidence here and there but not this type of phenonema. So what is your explanation for the facts? Let's stick to the facts instead of going immediately to "characterization."

 

[Redeemed of God]

This was written by my friend.

Separation Of Church And State
1
"The separation of church and state" is a common phrase used by
lawmakers, schools, and lawyers, yet most Americans do not even know
where the phrase originated from. Some of the more educated people might
tell you the "the separation of church and state" is part of the first
amendment. David Barton, a Christian historian, had a discussion with a
U.S Congressman, also an accomplished attorney, about the importance of
religious values in public affairs. He stated, "We know they're
important; we just can't do anything about it." Barton asked "Why not?"
He replied, "Well, we just can't." Barton persisted, "Why?" He answered,
"because of 'the separation of church and state'-we cannot have religious
values in public affairs." Barton questioned him, '" Separation of church
and state' where is that?" He replied, "its in the constitution- the
constitution will not let us do it." Barton responded, "That's not in the
Constitution." He said, "Yes it is." they went back and forth, eventually
Barton handed him a copy of the Constitution and asked him to show him
the phrase. He said "I'd be happy to" and he immediately went to the
first amendment and became very red in the face. He said, "I can't
believe this! In Law School they always taught us that's what the First
Amendment said." He was never required to read the constitution in law
school. "Separation," "church," or "state" are not used in any Founding
documents, including the First Amendment [Myth Of Separation Barton, page
3-4].
The rioting and looting that often follow a victorious sports event, and
the rise in rape, Murder, and theft that we can see on our local news
channels illustrate that crime is
2
out of control in America today. Was America always like that, or have we
changed? Why is there so much disrespect of authority and elders in our
schools and on the streets? Why does the largest "Christian" nation in
the world deny the use of the of the Word God, or anything related to
Christianity in our public schools, our government or any public event,
claiming it to be unconstitutional and against our First Amendment? These
are questions that should not have to be asked if American lawmakers,
lawyers, presidents and all American citizens knew their history and the
Godly foundations our nation was created from.
In 1731, one-hundred settlers moved into Georgia territory. When they
touched shore, they kneeled in thanks to God. They said, "our end in
leaving our native country is not to gain riches and honor, but singly
this: to live wholly to the glory of God" [Myth of Separation, Barton,
43] This feeling could be said for almost anyone of our founding fathers.
These feelings can be seen in many of the State constitutions, such as
Delaware's "Article 22. Every person, who shall be chosen a member of
either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . shall. make
and subscribe the following declaration, to whit:" "I,__________, do
profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and
in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore: and I do Acknowledge
the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine
inspiration." Take also the Pennsylvania constitution. Frame of
Government; Section 10. And each member of the Legislature before he
takes a seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I
do believe in one God , the creator and governor of the Universe, the
rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge
the Scriptures
3
of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." The
Massachusetts constitution states: Chapter VI, Article I. All persons
elected to states office or to the legislature must make and subscribe
the following declaration, viz. "I,_________, do declare, that I believe
the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth." [Myth Of
Separation, Barton 23-25] I could go on and on with these types of
founding documents. Patrick Henry said "It cannot be emphasized too
strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by
religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been
afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." [Myth Of
Separation, Barton, 118] There are many quotes from our founding fathers
showing their devout Christian faith, and the dream they had of building
a country based on Biblical principles and morals.
Not until the middle of this century have history books ceased to carry
any mention of the faith of our founders. So what brought about this
change? The devil has influenced many minds to change the wording and
meanings of our founding documents through court cases, helped along with
the increasing number of Americans who do not care what happens in
government.
Recently Judge Roy More, residing in Alabama, was removed from his court
because he refused to remove a monument containing the ten commandments
and many quotes from our founding fathers that referred to our Christian
nation. The U.S Supreme Court told Judge Roy More to remove the monument
because it was unconstitutional. Nothing of this court case was heard on
public radio or on national television. In the 1892 court case, Church of
the Holy Trinity vs. United States, the court ruled that
4
Christian principles and morals must be taught in schools. The supreme
court ruled "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any
legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. this
is a Christian Nation." [Demar, 11] This was a short case, in only 16
pages of court records, 87 precedents were quoted from founding fathers
and previous court rulings. So how, 110 years later, is a judge
reprimanded for displaying the 10 commandments in his court room?
June 25, 1962, in Engel vs. Vital, the turning point in the history of
America takes place. Prayer is deemed unconstitutional in schools. In a
similar case in, June 1963 Students are no longer able to read or bring
their Bible into public school because it is declared unconstitutional.
These two cases were the first cases in American history were they had
zero precedence's, no quotes from founding fathers, and no previous court
case rulings. Their sole argument was based on an out-of-context
explanation of the First Amendment by President Thomas Jefferson.
In 1802, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut , wrote
to President Jefferson expressing fears of a "One denominational
government." [Myth of Separation, Barton, 41] However, each state
encouraged Christianity, no state allowed an exclusive state-sponsored
denomination. Still, many citizens remembered earlier years when one
denomination ruled over and oppressed all others. It was in this context
that president Jefferson replied, "I contemplate with solemn reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between church and state." [Demar, 65-68] Remember the First
Amendment
5
simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (and it is important
to state that the word "religion" that our founders used is in the same
context as "Christian denomination") So basically, the First Amendment
sates that: "It is unconstitutional to set up any State or One
denomination, or prohibit the exercise of any Christian denomination."
Why, then, did Jefferson use the phrase "A wall of separation between
church and state." First of all, Jefferson was addressing a group of
Baptists, a denomination of which he was not a member, and was seeking to
achieve a common ground necessary between an author and his audience. By
using the phrase "a wall of separation" Jefferson was actually borrowing
the words from a prominent Baptist minister, Rodger Williams. Williams
words had been: "when they have opened a gap in the hedge or Wall Of
Separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the
world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself ..and that there for if
He will err please to restore His garden and paradise again , it must of
necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world." According
to Williams, The "wall of separation" was to protect the "garden of the
church " from the "wilderness of the world." [Myth Of Separation, Barton,
page 42-43] This was also Jefferson's understanding through his
statements concerning the First Amendment. Also, none of these writings
were recorded as documents and none of the wordings of these letters has
ever been a part of our constitution. This has been completely ignored by
the supreme court on many occasions. The phrase "separation of church and
state" is quoted so often in our courts today that many think it is part
of our constitution. Even learned lawyers and the supreme court are
fooled by the phrase.
6
So, what's so bad about all this? What's wrong with a separation between
the church and the state? Many studies have been done since the Engel vs.
Vital case that have proven that the morality, the crime rate, and the
general welfare of American citizens has decreased since prayer and Bible
reading have been taken out of our public schools. Many of our founding
fathers predicted this. Let's take a look at some of their quotes.
President John Quincy Adams stated "we have no government armed with
power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and
religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
[Foundations of American government, Barton, page 6] This would explain
some of the wild looting and crazy actions of crowds following a sports
event. With the Bible out of schools, people are no longer taught
"unconstitutional" moral standards but are merely "unbridled" without
conviction. In Washington's farewell address he gave many warnings,
including this: "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds. reason and experience both forbid us to expect that
national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." The
supreme court did not heed this warning when they ruled that it is
unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to hang on the walls of a
classroom, since the students might be lead to read them, meditate upon
them, respect them, or obey them. Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand
Forks Public School Dist.,1980; Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981. This had to be
passed after the Engel v. Vital case of 1962. And since the Engel v.
Vital case, the birth rate for unwed girls 15-19 years of age increased
50% from 1962-1987. Violent crime has gone from .25 million offenders in
1963 to 1.7 million offenders in 1990, while
7
the population only grew .3 million people in the same time period.
Sexually transmitted diseases in age group 15-19, has gone from 350
contracted diseases per 100,000 teens in 1962, to 1300 infected teens out
of every 100,000 in 1975.[Myth of Separation, Barton, 209-216] But what
can we expect when "national morality" is no longer influenced by
"religious principle".
Unless there is a reversal in our government today, I do not believe our
nation will survive much longer. Men are accountable to God, and will
give account for their souls before the Great White Throne on Judgment
Day. So, how does a nation get judged from God? It is this day and age
that America will be judged for turning its back on the principles of
Gods laws, and the morals he has set before us in his perfect
Commandments. Humanists, and Atheist religions, the ideas of the Knew
World Order, the anti-Christian anti-American U.N, and elite groups such
as the Council On Foreign Relations are some of the contributors trying
to destroy Americas Godly Heritage. Unless we remove these groups from
America, and reestablish the ways of our Founding Fathers, America is
heading on a road to destruction. No Nation will last forever but there
is still hope for our country if Christians and true patriots become
involved with our government.





CENTRAL BAPTIST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO
Mrs. Francis
ENGLISH GRAMMER
By
Brett Moody


Yorkshire, NY
25 may 2004


SOURCES CONSULTED
Barton, David. "In Defense Of The Ten Commandments"
AFA Journal, Nov/Dec 2003, page 22-29
Barton, David. The Foundations Of American Government,
1st ed. Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1993
Barton, David. The Myth Of Separation,
3rd ed. Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1993
Barton, David. Americas Godly Heritage.
Wallbuilders video, 1990. Video
Barton, David. What The Founding Fathers Really Meant By "Separation of
Church and State"
Wallbuilders video, 1992. Video
Demar, Gary. America's Christian Heritage,
1st ed. Nashville, Tennessee; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2003
Unknown author. Anti-Separation of Church and State,
httpcom/EndTheWall/Index.htm://members.aol. (accessed 19 May 2004)

 

[painted wolf]

so why not just pass a law making freedom of religion illigal and get it over with... That should take care of your problems now shouldn't it...

if everyone has to be christian, then everyone will good, respectfull and nice to one another and anyone who wants to follow another faith can either convert or go live in some other country... or better yet you can establish small segrigtaed communities for them so they don't bother anyone elce...

of cource only athiests and pagans will complain about this but hey, they are going to burn in hell anyway so what does it matter?

everyone knows that eventually the christians will rule the world anyway. :roll:

 

[CJW]

"...so why not just pass a law making freedom of religion illigal and get it over with... "

Because we are still living in a nation in which there is enough Christian moral capital left that that is not done. The notion of separation comes from Christianity, after all. In pagan nations there has been no separation. In atheistic nations there has been no separation. So to answer your question, it's the remnants of Christianity in our collective consciousness.

"...if everyone has to be christian, then everyone will good, respectfull and nice to one another..."

In Christianity, everyone does not have to be Christian but it is up to Christians to tell others the gospel. The fruits of Christianity are things like tolerance and separation of church and state. But not the type of separation that you might be thinking of that is similar to the "separation" that the Catholic church agreed to with the pagan Nazis. Note how leftists tend to blame the Catholic church for that although they are generally still the ones who demand the same sort of separation.

"...or better yet you can establish small segrigtaed communities for them so they don't bother anyone elce..."

Christianity attenuates pagan tribalism, it doesn't create it. Now, if Christianity is to be separated from the state and the state is to be atheistic/agnostic and/or pagan then you will really see what segregation by class/Marxism and race/Nazism looks like.

"...of cource only athiests and pagans will complain about this but hey, they are going to burn in hell anyway so what does it matter?"

As long as there are relatively few atheists and pagans they will be afforded tolerance by Christians and a state founded on Christian principles. But when they are the majority and control the state then you will see what tribalistic and classist intolerance truly looks like. This fear-mongering with respect to Christianity rings false in light of the historical facts.

"....everyone knows that eventually the christians will rule the world anyway."

Please, it has always been the Nature/world based religions that have been most concerned with ruling the world. I suspect that all the history you have studied comes from the myopic perspective of tribalistic victimization and has little to do with what actually has generally promoted and will promote all of our general welfare. And what will attenuate tribalism itself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The federal judiciary has no business making all of our philosophic judgments for us and establishing agnosticism or atheism.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I don't think public schools should teach kids that there is no God. I don't think they should teach them Jesus is their Savior, either. Religion should be left up to the parents.

There is no Constitutional authority for them to be doing what they have done. Indeed, if their tyrranical notions were really Constitutional then the Constitution would be unconstitutional because it mentions God (puts God as sovereign over or Creator of time by saying, "In the year of our Lord...") and "establishes" a religious doctrine (keeping the sabbath holy, Sundays are exempt from the time a President has to consider and veto a bill.)

Nice try--It wouldn't make the entire Constitution unconstitutional, just those two specific parts.

This bit about denying that state schools teach that there is no God is specious. State schools teach Darwinism that has always been predicated on atheistic theological arguments. E.g. Darwin: "This explains suffering in the world better." "Why would God design something in this faulty way?" Etc.

Your logic here is specious. State schools teach evolution because it is widely accepted in the scientific community. Teaching evolution has nothing to do with teaching that there is no God any more than teaching about the human reproductive system negates the Virgin birth of Christ.

What part of government are you talking about? Actually, the Constitution reads that Congress shall make no law.... not that "government" shall make no law. In fact, this law was passed to protect all the laws that communties had from federal intrustion.

I agree, it was. But I'm glad that the judiciary decided earlier in the 20th century that the Bill of Rights applies to state and federal government, aren't you? Or do you think states should have the right to restrict freedom of religion?

Geez.... how have we got to the exact opposite in which the Constitution does not protect religion but is said to extirpate it from public life...

No one says it extirpates religion from public life. Just from the government. Which of the many religions would you have the government adopt, by the way? Wait, I think I can guess.... :roll:

ignorance is bliss for the disinformed and fodder for atheistic totalitarians, I guess.

I think you are greatly "disinformed" about this issue. I just graduated from a Catholic high school which I loved. I would never encourage my (atheist) beliefs to be taught in a public school, because I respect a parents right to teach their kids that there is a God. Will you give me the same courtesy, and not require that public schools teach my kids that there is a God? Whatever happened to freedom of religion? I blame the "totalitarian" Christians, myself....

What is it that you're judging their morals by?

Me, personally? By my own feelings of what is right and wrong, and by my reasoning on how we should behave in order to acheive right and banish wrong. For example, I think the Golden Rule is great--public schools should be able to teach that, in my opinion, as long as they don't say "obey the Golden Rule--and don't eat shellfish".

The propaganda word "evolution" can mean anything from "change" to a total explanation for reality as we know it. Typically, this process of defining it depends on how threatened that the science geeks who simply made a mythology up feel when confronted with anomalous empirical facts.

Go to the evolution forum if you want to debate evolution. As long as teachers don't teach that there is no God, they aren't teaching religion just science.

It is important to remember that the only reason that the notion that separation of church and state came about and was adhered to is because of Protestant Christianity.

:lol: I can't figure out if you're praising or blaming Protestants for this notion.

In fact, it seems as Christianity declines there is less separation and you find state schools teaching Nature based mythologies, establishing agnosticism or atheism, etc., regardless what parents/communities want.

Give me some examples of this.

Not the point, students who don't believe in God tend towards numerous problems which lead them to the physical rather than the metaphysical. So they are fodder for atheistic totalitarian's physically based indoctrination techniques instead of the education typical to the critical metaphysical mind. This process has been called "The Closing of the American Mind." Of course, in some Orwellian twist those whose minds are the most closed believe them to be the most open.

Sounds like religious propaganda to me. If a neither teaches that Allah is one, nor teaches that Jesus is God, which religion is the school "closing" the students' minds to?

Most parents/communities want to be able to decide what to teach their kids sans interference by atheistic totalitarians using the state to indoctrinate.

How are kids being indoctrinated? Give some examples. Most educators and public officials believe in God...who are these "atheistic totalitarians", and are they anything like all the religious totalitarians who think their own religion should be taught by the government?

But note how fiercely totalitarians fight to keep parents from making certain decisions, e.g. school vouchers. E.g. indoctrinating Darwinian mythology as a "fact." Etc.

When the scientific community rejects evolution, I will support it being removed from public school teaching. I support school vouchers, quit putting words in my mouth. That has nothing to do with teaching religion in public schools anyway.

Well, atheistic philosophies that deny the metaphysical are the least capable of discipline, i.e. sitting in judgment on the physical. That is all they are themselves, after all, just one rationalization after another but no rationale.

Please don't characterize me. I am capable of discipline. I just graduated from a Catholic school, and I thought their discipline system worked well to preserve order. Tough, but fair. You don't need to teach about God, Allah, Jehova, Jesus, Buddha, etc to have discipline.

Christians didn't believe in lynching blacks because of Christianity. The Nazis gassed the Jews and they believed in Nature based mythology and paganism, part of the reasoning for the elimination of the "Jewish influence." They forbid publishing the Bible, etc.

And many Muslims make the same argument regarding terrorists-- that they don't base their actions on Islam. All I'm saying is it is unfair to characterize an entire religion based on the actions of some.

Interesting how the Catholic church signed a concordat to keep issues of church separate from the state. I.e. separation of church and state.... this seems to be the kind of separation that atheistic totalitarians have in mind. It was not what the American Founders had in mind in the least.

Seperation of church and state does not promote atheism any more than it promotes Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. I think this is what our Founders had in mind.

You didn't really refute what he said about the correlation between Islam and terrorism. Why is it that Muslims are fighting Hindus using methods of terrrorism, fighting Jews using methods of terrorism, fighting America using methods of terrorism, fighting Europeans using methods of terrorism, etc. Most other religions and nations do not demonstrate this broad and deep pattern that is typical to Islam. There are isolated incidence here and there but not this type of phenonema. So what is your explanation for the facts? Let's stick to the facts instead of going immediately to "characterization."

Facts: The Nazis claimed to be Christian, they murdered 12 million people in the holocaust; the KKK claimed to be Christian; the Church burned thousands alive at the stake for being witches, saying that the Earth revolves around the sun, etc; as we speak Christians in Nigeria are carrying out a campaign of brutal killings against innocent civilians; Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors (I happen to be pro life, by the way); Christians from Europe throughout history have conquered, enslaved, and pillaged; Christian groups from militias in the U.S. to one day fight the government (OK City bombing);

But these people "weren't really Christian" right? They claimed to be, and that's all that matters. Islamic terrorists claim to be Muslim, too.

 

[F_R_O_G]

I just don't see how to federal government has any bissness in school... it's up to the states. And a classroom that teaches there are morals and absolutes is not restricting anyone’s rights. it's up to each state to deside how to run there schools.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, FROG, what would you change? Do you think the schools should teach a certain religion as part of the curriculum?

 

[F_R_O_G]

just a little question. how are the students rights being violated? there not being indoranated enless you want to say that teaching evolution is idocranation... so what rights are being taken away?

 

[CJW]

"I couldn't agree more. That's why I don't think public schools should teach kids that there is no God. I don't think they should teach them Jesus is their Savior, either. Religion should be left up to the parents."

I don't care what you think the public's schools should or should not be teaching. What children are taught should be up to their family/community and not you or an atheistic and increasingly totalitarian federal judiciary. Let's face facts. In your support of the federal judiciary and their trashing of the Constitution you cannot then turn around and say, "I believe these matters must be left to parents." These are discriminations that are not being left to parents but are being made by the federal judiciary. This is just what Thomas Jefferson predicted would happen. He argued that this would be the unbalanced branch that would become tyrannical. You are supporting what they are doing and then turning around and disingenuously saying, "Leave it to the parents." If the public schools are the publics and not some state schools run by atheistic/agnostic totalitarians then very well, leave it to the parents/community/public. But instead by what you say here it is clear that you seek to inflict your atheism/agnostism on everyone.

"Nice try--It wouldn't make the entire Constitution unconstitutional, just those two specific parts."

So the federal judiciary gets to decide what parts of the Constitution are "constitutional"?! Do you realize what you're saying? This is just the sort of thing that Jefferson predicted. You fail to see the tyrrany because you apparently agree with a sort of totalitarian state enforcement of atheism/agnosticism on the parents/communities/public (and on children).

"Your logic here is specious. State schools teach evolution because it is widely accepted in the scientific community."

Bah, you reference to "evolution" can mean anything as common as simply being born to a total explanation of reality as we know it. But you're right, they are currently state schools and not the publics, i.e. public/community schools.

"Teaching evolution has nothing to do with teaching that there is no God...."

That depends on what you mean by the propaganda word "evolution." How about we look to textbooks and see what "evolution" is and if scientists say it is founded on atheism or not?

any more than teaching about the human reproductive system negates the Virgin birth of Christ.

"I agree, it was. But I'm glad that the judiciary decided earlier in the 20th century that the Bill of Rights applies to state and federal government, aren't you?"

Why should I be? Do you honestly think that he federal judiciary has a better track record when it decides to be the legislature, the executive and the total of government taking all powers away from "We the people...."?

"r do you think states should have the right to restrict freedom of religion?"

What is "restriction" the federal judiciary making all of the people's discriminations for them or parents/communities/the public making their own discriminations through the legislature? Any pretense of totalitarianism among those who blindly support an increasingly totalitarian judiciary is projection.

"o one says it extirpates religion from public life."

Neither did the Nazis say that they were extirpating traditional religions that bore the "Jewish influence" from public life. But that's still what they did.

"Just from the government. Which of the many religions would you have the government adopt, by the way? Wait, I think I can guess.... :roll:"

Governments are guided by religion, i.e. systems of belief, period. It is only a matter of what the beliefs are, not whether beliefs will guide government. Notice how merely praying to God in schools and/or mentioning God and/or mentioning the metaphysical (e.g. Intelligent Design) is not a "religion" that the state is adopting. Theism is a philosophic issue that is part of some religions. But look how far you go in supporting a federal judiciary that is tending to fascism. And I don't use the word fascism lightly as some stigma word. It has philosophic meaning and it is an increasinly fascist oligarchy that you apparently support whole-heartedly. In fact, it seems that you believe that if we don't let the this oligarchic state make all of our discriminations for us then disaster will result in which we'll all run around making evil intolerant discriminations. Where do you get this sort of phobia from and from whence comes this blind faith in the judiciary?

"ill you give me the same courtesy, and not require that public schools teach my kids that there is a God? Whatever happened to freedom of religion? I blame the "totalitarian" Christians, myself.... "

Then you have little to no sense of history. There is a reason that atheism correlates to totalitarianism. It is the same sort of reason that you are so utterly blind of how you inflict your atheistic/agnostic views on others. Certain issues of philosophy and religion are too important to deal with in a totalitarian way. One way or another they must be left to parents and the community. If that means giving you your taxes back so that you can seek out a way to educate your kids in a way that you see fit. So be it. You are working from a set of false options. But again I note that atheistic totalitarians are the exact same people seeking to limit options and then saying, "THe options are limited, so indoctrinating atheism/agnosticism is the only safe bet." So they rationalize discriminating against all believers in the favor of some little minority based on a set of false options. If you really think it is dangerous for your kids to learn anything that even smacks of God in school then you could certainly find an atheistic school. Seeking to limit everyone's options and then saying that you're supposedly victimized if they disagree with this sort of totalitarianism would be immoral.

" think the Golden Rule is great--public schools should be able to teach that, in my opinion, as long as they don't say "obey the Golden Rule--and don't eat shellfish"."

Well, the Golden Rule is a part of various religions but not a part of others. So it would be discriminatory against some minorities to teach it and it must be extirpated. See how the new atheistic totalitarianism works? Frankly, it's the same old thing. And I note your reference to the "Jewish influence." That's pretty much it, isn't it? You're fine with everything but that. Christianity sans the Judeo part, as long as Christianity is merely some social gospel similar to Marxism, fine. That's not the "religion" that atheists/agnostics really seem to have a problem with. No, typically it's the "Jewish influence" like the Ten Commandments, etc. This would all sound very familiar if you were familiar with history. But apparently you're not. If you were then it is doubtful that you would be following the pattern you're following here.


Go to the evolution forum if you want to debate evolution. As long as teachers don't teach that there is no God, they aren't teaching religion just science."

Evolutionism in its grand Darwinian narrative is a mythological narrative of those with a Nature based religion. And what is actually in the textbooks on this issue is far from science, in fact it is fraud.

Give me some examples of this.

"ounds like religious propaganda to me. If a neither teaches that Allah is one, nor teaches that Jesus is God, which religion is the school "closing" the students' minds to?"

When state schools are discriminating in favor of atheism/agnosticism and against all believers any sectarian difference among believers does not matter. If the state schools are indoctrinating children in favor of the merely physical and against the metaphysical then it is little wonder that children grow up with an anti-philosophy philosophy that is destructive to themselves and others. Any fear-mongering with respect to, "If we let any believers back in the schools and quit discriminating in favor of atheism/agnosticism then DISASTER will result!!!!" is utterly laughable. You want to see disaster? Look at the barbarism that the state schools that discriminate against all believers churn out.

How are kids being indoctrinated? Give some examples."

Because of the length I won't go into this now. I mentioned frauds presented as established scientific facts in textbooks in order to promote atheism/agnosticism. That is one way. If you want the examples I can provide them.

Most educators and public officials believe in God...who are these "atheistic totalitarians", and are they anything like all the religious totalitarians who think their own religion should be taught by the government?

It is not a matter of if the government is going to be guided by religion but what type of religious philosophy the government is going to be guided by. I guess I will have to keep repeating this. There is no sense in moving on until this inane belief in neutrality is done away with. There is no neutrality in belief. Even if you believe that you don't believe something that is still a belief. And it seems that atheists/agnostics are the first people to inflict such beliefs on other people using the state. I would disagree with you if you said, "I believe that the state should be agnostic/atheistic." But I would respect you more than when you say, "I think that the state must be neutral." putting a level of disingenuous inbetween your philosophy and what you advocate that the state do. What if I were to argue that, "THe state must be neutral...." while it was clear that I thought the "neutral" view was Christianity? That sort of thing is dishonesty and the hiding of one's beliefs behind a layer of speciousness.

"I support school vouchers, quit putting words in my mouth. That has nothing to do with teaching religion in public schools anyway."

It has plenty to do with it. And in supporting vouchers you're actually following through in deed the notion, "I want parents to decide." But in supporting the judiciary making all of our discriminations for us (which is the role they want to take on) you fall away from that. And note the judiciaries view of vouchers in which they still want to mangle the Constitution (some parts we'll adhere to, others we won't, etc.) in order to inflict their views on everyone. (Rather than having their viewpoint limited to the Constitution.)

Well, atheistic philosophies that deny the metaphysical are the least capable of discipline, i.e. sitting in judgment on the physical. That is all they are themselves, after all, just one rationalization after another but no rationale.

Please don't characterize me."

Hmmm, that seems to be what the moderators of these forums do. A religious philosophy is criticized and they literally throw themselves in front of it and then claim some sort of personal attack. There can be no discussion this way because anyone can claim to take things personally. And anyone can make any unverifiable personal claims on an anonymous forum to claim to take offense to pretty much anything. At any rate, I said atheistic philosophy and that's pretty clear. If you take offense to philosophic disagreement with and criticism of atheistic philosophy then so be it.

"You don't need to teach about God, Allah, Jehova, Jesus, Buddha, etc to have discipline."

Yes you do. And that is quite simply the end of it. But I can debate what you have to say if you like. As to the personal argument you made. Of cousre you will take personal offense to saying anything of it, I suppose. But you did make it personal by citing yourself as evidence. Note the irony of an atheist who just finished Catholic school saying, "See, you don't need the metaphysical for discipline." All this really proves is that atheists can live off of the moral capital of others, just as you live off the moral capital of America. But your purely physical type of "philosophy" is totalitarian in its very nature. It is very likely that if that moral capital was not there and so ingrained in you and if you were in an atheistic society you would join fellow totalitarians in their purely physical focus. This is where the masses are to be conditioned through propaganda methods manipulating the emotional/physical (i.e. visceral emotions) and so on. People who disagree must be liquidated, physically. All is physical, so politics must deal with things in a physical way. Politics is medicalized, people who disagree are "sick" or "infected." You see, there is no such thing as a metaphysical disagreement and everything is viscerally/physically personal. That is, after all, all the person is. Your philosophy supports totalitarianism to its very core. It defines totalitarianism. It seems like you simply don't know history.

"And many Muslims make the same argument regarding terrorists-- that they don't base their actions on Islam. "

If there was a vast international pattern of Christians around the world all coming to the same conclusion that Christianity calls for racism then common sense would indicate that there is something in Christianity itself causing this phenomena. There is a vast international pattern of Muslims around the world coming to the same conclusin that Islam calls for terrorism. It seems to me that a reasonable person would think that there is something in Islam itself causing this phenomena.


"I think this is what our Founders had in mind."

Why do you care what the Founders had in mind? You just said that some parts of the Constitution can be said to be unconstitutional if the federal judiciary says so. So you seem to be selective as far as this care.

"Facts: The Nazis claimed to be Christian...."

Nope, they generally didn't. This was a problem for them in elections so sometimes they did. In their own writings and so on they did not. Christianity bears the "Jewish influence," after all. Other things you said could stand some correction. But you have quite a laundry list to be dealt with. Only on some of it do you have a point. E.g. the Oklahoma city bombing, etc.... but if that is supposed to be the evidence of a comparable vast international pattern of Christian terrorism then you have a long, long way to go. Either you don't understand the depth of the pattern of Islamic terrorism or you are very phobic with respect to Christianity and don't understand how shallow that pattern is. Given your notion about how if Christianity influences the state "DISASTER!!!" will result, I suspect the latter. And note that Christianity already influences the state by bringing up the notion of separation of church and state in the first place.