DescentBB

Posted: **Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:07 pm**

Actually I think #2 is closer to what the founding fathers had in mind than a pure democracy...

In a pure democracy popular vote stands at the top, above everything. So for instance if there were a vote \"kill all criminals\" and it passed, the criminals would be denied fair punishment or appeals or even basic human rights. There are a lot of things in the constitution that are in many cases not popular, such as the second amendment, but it is important that the constitution stands above and overrides popular democratic opinion. In a pure democracy, bad things can and do happen because there are ultimately no rights for the individual, it becomes a mob rule.

And if you remember the pledge of allegiance from school:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Don't let the press con you into thinking America is only a \"democracy\" because that is a lie spread to help make you give up your individual constitutional rights.

Posted: **Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:02 pm**

Our nation was NEVER intended to be \"democratic.\"

It is a representative \"Republic.\"

I suggest you read more and talk less.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:38 am**

but we'll just concentrate on that one omission and ignore everything else Bee said.

From what i hear Texas's school board is a bastion of religious ignorance and anti-science.
Wasn't the religion of the flying spaghetti monster invented specifically to make fun of Texas's schools? IIRC, because they once said (i'm not sure it's still like this) that evolution and creationism should be given equal emphasis in the classroom - someone just invented another kindof creationism that by the rule \"must be given equal emphasis in the classroom\". The school board being the ignorant idiots they were - just figured that the Judo-Christian story of creation is the only creation story out there. *facepalm*

The point being just because an idea exists, does not give it reason to be taught in school. Plenty of stupid ideas exist, we have better things to do than teach our kids to be idiots. We have church for that

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
Guys like this are doing all they can to combat the stupidity infecting the Texas school board.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:09 am**

Roid is a Rational Response Squad allumnus it seems. (flying spaghetti monster?)

While I agree that the US really should be referred to as a constitutional republic- because that is exactly what it is, I don't agree with the establishment of any religion in government or public education.

And Bee- both the islamists and radical right wing christians are using Political Correctness to advance their agenda. They have both learned how to use this poisonous tool to their benefit.

(PC by radical christians under \"Intelligent Design\" and PC by islamists under \"religion of peace\" and \"moderate islam\" as examples.)

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:11 am**

Since we all know where this thread is going

roid wrote:The point being just because an idea exists, does not give it reason to be taught in school.

You mean like evolution?

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:44 am**

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:14 am**

Seems to me they are trying to \"conserve\" history so that the children will be PROPERLY educated instead of indoctrinated.

Don't even pretend that the left has never rewrote history to suit their needs of creating a dependent society.

Also, let me apologize for the personal attack.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:28 am**

Bet51987 wrote:I don't know what's worse. The spread of Islam or the spread of Conservapedia.

Bee

way to brand all conservative in the same breath as the Taliban

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:39 am**

Bettina really needs to buy some smaller brushes.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:00 am**

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:31 am**

As far as I can tell, you are the only one around here that even reads Conservapedia. I sure don’t.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:00 am**

Bet51987 wrote:I don't know what's worse. The spread of Islam or the spread of Conservapedia. Some highlights of the new social study standards adopted by the Texas school board of education.

Ha!
I wouldn't worry about what the worst education system in the entire United States TRIES to teach people. Even if they change it, they're going to fail at that too.

The problem isn't what they're teaching, it's that they can't teach period.

These silly Texan educational ideas will be fixed after someone figures out how to make Texas children become students. It doesn't even matter if evolution isn't taught in schools as long as kids start learning how to read on their own for recreation. The bad information learned in early life can be corrected by the students on their own. Remember: Texas grade schools and high schools are a daycare centers.

I'm a proud Texan, but boy do our schools suck.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:01 am**

Bee, you quote \"conservapedia' and complain that they have an agenda?!? Duh

Don't you think there are plenty of liberal ideology outlets that do the same thing to push the other sides agenda?
The Texas school board is, in my view, only wrong on a few points and quite correct on most. And more to the point I just raised regarding the extremes from both sides, the reason they are trying to put their tentacles into the school curriculum is because the left side extremists have been infecting the education for decades so they are pushing back! Are they pushing to far? Absolutely! The reason however that they feel compelled to push back should be a bigger issue for you than their goal. extremest are extremest regardless of which side they are on. They poison the stream of knowledge from either bank.

The real important question you should ask yourself is, do you want to stop this kind of social engineering or only stop it when it is done by the other side? so far, from all your posts here, you only care about stopping one party from pissing in the water...enjoy your next bath.

If you think you know which of the two sides is correct then you are supporting the status quo and the status quo is the reason we're all fucked!

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:19 pm**

ThunderBunny wrote:
roid wrote:Wasn't the religion of the flying spaghetti monster invented specifically to make fun of Texas's schools?
(flying spaghetti monster?)

My mistake
The religion of the Flying Spagetti Monster was originally created to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education regarding Creationism, not Texas. But now that we all know of the great noodley one, it shall be taught in all schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Will Robinson wrote:If you think you know which of the two sides is correct then you are supporting the status quo and the status quo is the reason we're all ****!

Ignorance vs Knowledge
Conservatism vs Progressivism
Creationism vs Evolution
Religion vs Science

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:20 pm**

Spidey wrote:As far as I can tell, you are the only one around here that even reads Conservapedia. I sure don’t.

Neither do I.

Roid wrote:Ignorance vs Knowledge
Conservatism vs Progressivism

It's good to have the line drawn and know where you stand.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:29 pm**

was there ever any doubt?

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:00 pm**

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:03 pm**

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:19 pm**

roid wrote:...
Conservatism vs Progressivism..

In the context of our national politics, which is what we are talking about, if you equate the choice between conservatism and progressivism with the choice between ignorance or knowledge then you are definitely a willing part of the problem or else a frikkin moron!

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:22 pm**

Roid wrote:was there ever any doubt?

Well, I knew you were a loon in some ways, but I didn't expect a blanket dismissal of conservative values as being ignorant or anti-intelligent. I guess your progressive, internet education is paying dividends.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:28 pm**

Bettina wrote:And what "social engineering" is being done to the school system by the left.

Oh God. The school system is progressive social engineering, with education on the side.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:57 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:...For example this is from the GOP conservapedia website.

---"blah blah blah"---

Is it truly a product of the republican party or did you just make that up....
See, I guess even you are willing to make ★■◆● up to try and support your position just like they are. Which group should we blame for your tactics and rantings?

Bet51987 wrote:Some questions Will...

What are those points in the Texas school board do you feel are correct?

Well I haven't read them all but here:

"Replaces "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government with "constitutional republic."

and

'drawing the proper contrast between Dr. King and his efforts in the civil rights struggle and the Black Panthers instead of grouping them together as if the Black Panthers were a benign group.'

and

"an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism."

and

"Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States."

and

"In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”

“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”

and

In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said."

Bet51987 wrote: what "social engineering" is being done to the school system by the left.

How about instruct all the kids wear traditional islamic clothing to get in touch with our muslim friends but don't you try to bring any sign of christianity to school...take that shirt off that has a bible quote on it because it's too provocative...

How about the whole concept of teaching ebonics!

How about eliminating score keeping in school sports or even giving grades like A-F because it hurts the little kids egos to lose!

Removing Ronald Reagan from history books where ever it mentioned something positive about him.

Good grief I could go on and on!
You probably don't even realize just how far left you've been pushed because it's always under the guise of compassion and tolerance.

Bet51987 wrote:Do you consider it an infection to teach children evolution instead of creationism, that the age of the earth is closer to 4.7 billion years instead of 6000, and that Dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the cretaceous period 65 million years before humans evolved and not like it's shown in the creationist museum?

Yea it's wrong, they are extremists...I already said as much. they are going too far but if you just stop them from this effort you have only addressed half of the problem and pop culture in this country is producing a bunch willing idiots who will elect someone totally unqualified and absolutely militant liberal to the Presidency just because a few moronic celebrities say he loves kittens and wants to give them "change"

Bet51987 wrote:
If you think you know which of the two sides is correct then you are supporting the status quo and the status quo is the reason we're all ****!
I agree and I'll admit that although I voted for Obama, I'm not as loyal to him as I once was. But rather than not vote, or vote a third party candidate that has no chance, I have to go with the party that enforces my ideals. Creationism out of public schools, protection of Roe vs Wade, a surviving rape victim's right to have access to emergency contraception, and keeping the stem cell restrictions overturned.

Since I see the GOP as a continued threat to all four, my choices are limited.

Bee

Crap, I wish my life was so simple as to be defined by 4 little things so I didn't have to consider the bigger picture and not realize that staying on the plantation makes me a slave to the master next door to the one I'm complaining about!
Then again maybe I'm glad I'm not like that and refuse to pick from the two evils and know that voting/working toward another choice is never a waste.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:07 pm**

Why bother to explain it, she is wearing blinders…the first thing in roid’s “vs.” list.

Ignorance vs Knowledge …That’s a no brainer, but knowledge without wisdom is a dangerous thing.

Conservatism vs Progressivism …One must know when to resist change, and when to go with it.

Creationism vs Evolution …Both still theories. (sorry, had to say it)

Religion vs Science …Science is the superior way to understand the world around you, but when science reaches its limits of understanding, it becomes very much like religion. And this is not the fault of science, it’s a human failing. And when science becomes a person’s religion, that’s the worst state of affairs. But, I also have to say that this is not a genuine conflict, because science & religion need not be in conflict.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:57 pm**

What I feel should be taught in every school.

Make up your mind. (YOU are an individual with your OWN thoughts!)

Be good to everybody. (What goes around, comes around.)

George Washington IS god! ( lol just kidding, Ben Franklin is GoD!) (Again just kidding)

I've been on the planet LONG enough to know that I AM DoG! (once again kidding)

Read some, keep up and decide what matters to YOU!

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:33 am**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Bettina wrote:And what "social engineering" is being done to the school system by the left.
Oh God. The school system is progressive social engineering, with education on the side.

seriously?

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:08 am**

Bet51987 wrote:
If you think you know which of the two sides is correct then you are supporting the status quo and the status quo is the reason we're all ****!
I agree and I'll admit that although I voted for Obama, I'm not as loyal to him as I once was. But rather than not vote, or vote a third party candidate that has no chance, I have to go with the party that enforces my ideals. Creationism out of public schools, protection of Roe vs Wade, a surviving rape victim's right to have access to emergency contraception, and keeping the stem cell restrictions overturned.

Since I see the GOP as a continued threat to all four, my choices are limited.

Bee

Loyalty to Obama? There is absolutely no reason to have any loyalty to Obama... I never had any loyalty to him in the first place, same as Bush and Clinton before him. My loyalty is to the constitution, the elected officials in Government are supposed to be loyal to the voters and to the constitution, not the other way around. (Unfortunately the vast majority of them are only loyal to their party, which is largely loyal to big business...)

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:42 am**

Ferno wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Bettina wrote:And what "social engineering" is being done to the school system by the left.
Oh God. The school system is progressive social engineering, with education on the side.
seriously?

I know better than to engage in one of your one-word arguments, but I'm going to anyway. Yes, absolutely. Kids in school are taught what to think, not how to think, and the folks behind it have a liberal "progressive" agenda for the culture. Shaping future generations according to how they believe things ought to be in every area touching society. That goes well beyond the reasonable mandate for education, in my book. It just stands to reason that it would be better for a society to have people who are educated and not indoctrinated, in my opinion, because indoctrination includes the assumption that the indoctrinating party is right or has the whole picture, and seeks to constrain the next generation by that assumption.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:41 pm**

Public schools teach how to be a proper citizen as much if not more than teaching how things work. To teach how things work, be it the English language or physics, the curriculum is easy to fill without including political or social preference of the teacher so it's easy to see if the job is being done correctly.
To teach how to be a good citizen you have to impart someones version of proper ideology and morality. That is where the argument lies and we should be focusing on removing the whole good citizen aspect from the curriculum instead of fighting to decide which side of the political machine we want to prevail in writing the curriculum! we would improve the quality of our children's education if we did.
I'm not saying the Texas School Boards machinations are a good example of that adjustment. What they have done is an example of one sides attempt to teach good citizenship in their image. Bad.

We spend way more than other developed countries on education yet our students fall behind. Go sit in a classroom and see for yourselves just how little knowledge is being shared compared to just how much opinion is being taught. I've been there and it isn't encouraging. When I talk to my daughters about what they learned in class today I'm focusing on the opinions more than the academic content and making sure I engage their minds on alternative points of view where applicable.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:47 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote: I know better than to engage in one of your one-word arguments, but I'm going to anyway. Yes, absolutely. Kids in school are taught what to think, not how to think, and the folks behind it have a liberal "progressive" agenda for the culture. Shaping future generations according to how they believe things ought to be in every area touching society. That goes well beyond the reasonable mandate for education, in my book. It just stands to reason that it would be better for a society to have people who are educated and not indoctrinated, in my opinion, because indoctrination includes the assumption that the indoctrinating party is right or has the whole picture, and seeks to constrain the next generation by that assumption.

if by agenda you mean science, physics, history and mathematics, then i'd agree with you.

but if you're referring to political parties being involved and teaching something more sinister, you really need to take a step back from those conspiracy theories you've been reading.

This isn't north korea.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:51 pm**

The most I learned from the Texas public school system is how to follow my walls in Counter Strike.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:32 pm**

Ferno wrote:if by agenda you mean science, physics, history and mathematics, then i'd agree with you.

but if you're referring to political parties being involved and teaching something more sinister, you really need to take a step back from those conspiracy theories you've been reading.

This isn't north korea.

Hehe. I don't read conspiracy theories. I'm not talking about a political party brainwashing students, I'm talking about the social movement (for lack of a better word) behind the political movement being involved in teaching this nation's children what to think more than how to think. If there is a sinister structure behind it that is more than spiritual then I don't know what it is, I just have a pretty good idea that that's what is happening, to a greater or lesser degree, in public schools in general.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:57 pm**

If you want to know why we say the schools are run by people with a liberal agenda here's an example of the right wings perspective. This is an article published by a pro-family organization about the NEA. It sure looks to me like the NEA is about a whole lot of social engineering not just better teaching of academic curriculum.
Regardless of your opinion of the good or evil behind these planks in their platform it is undeniable that they are engaged in social engineering by way of their control of the public schools.

NEA Resolutions Show Liberal Agenda

October, 1997
by Kent Kaiser

During its July 3-6 meeting, the representative assembly of the National Education Association (NEA) adopted 1997-98 resolutions for the teachers union.

One might expect the resolutions to focus strictly on education-related issues, and to be concerned with providing the best possible education for America's children.

But in fact the resolutions cover a surprising range of topics, and give insight into the political and social agenda of this powerful and influential union. Even rank-and-file teachers whose union dues fund the NEA would probably be shocked.

Some examples:

Abortion

\"The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.

\"The Association urges the government to give high priority to making available all methods of family planning to women and men unable to take advantage of private facilities.

\"The Association further urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.\"

Sex Education

\"...Teachers and health professionals must be qualified to teach in this area and must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits...

\"The Association urges its affiliates and members to support appropriately established sex education programs, including information on... birth control and family planning... diversity of sexual orientation....\"

Teen Parents

\"...The Association recommends programs for these students that include. flexible scheduling and attendance policies. development of self-esteem. on-site child care services...\"

Moment of Silence

\"...The Association opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence...\"

Gun Control

\"...The Association... believes that strict prescriptive regulations are necessary for the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale and resale of handguns and ammunition magazines. The possession by the private sector of automatic weapons and military-style semiautomatic assault weapons should be illegal...\"

Socialized Medicine

\"The National Education Association believes that affordable, comprehensive health care is the right of every resident.

\"The Association supports the adoption of a single-payer health care plan for all residents of the United States, its territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.\"

Public Housing

\"The National Education Association believes that all members of our society have the right to adequate housing...\"

Drug Testing

\"...[T]he Association believes that mandatory and/or random drug and alcohol testing of employees and job applicants is an unwarranted and unconstitutional invasion of privacy and opposes such testing.\"

Note: No exceptions are listed, not even for school bus drivers, industrial arts teachers, or coaches.

Tax-Funded Education for Convicts

\"The National Education Association believes that incarcerated persons, regardless of gender, are entitled to equal access to educational, recreational, and rehabilitative programs within all correctional systems.\"

Hostility Toward Choice

\"...The Association believes that closed public school buildings should be sold or leased only to those organizations that do not provide direct educational services to students and/or are not in direct competition with public schools.

\"...The Association opposes the use of public revenues for private, parochial, or other nonpublic pre-K through 12 schools.

\"The National Education Association believes that the following programs and practices are detrimental to public education and must be eliminated: privatization, performance contracting, tax credits for tuition to private and parochial schools, voucher plans (or funding formulas that have the same effect as vouchers), planned program budgeting systems (PPBS), and evaluations by private, profit-making groups.

\"The Association believes that proposals that would allow or foster the flow of public monies to private, parochial or sectarian schools;... a selectivity in admissions; the employment of unlicensed or uncertified educators; and a weakening of collective bargaining protections. should be defeated.

\"The National Education Association believes that federally or state-mandated parental option or choice plans compromise the Association's commitment to free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student. Therefore, the Association opposes such federally or state-mandated choice or parental option plans.

\"...The Association opposes all attempts to establish and/or implement [voucher plans and tuition tax credits].\"

Official Language

\"...The Association believes that... efforts to legislate English as the official language disregard cultural pluralism; deprive those in need of education, social services, and employment; and must be challenged.\"

Gay Agenda

\"...[P]rograms must. increase acceptance of and sensitivity to. gays and lesbians...\"

Other

The 30-plus page document discusses many other topics. Other resolutions not quoted specifically here advocate a nuclear freeze, statehood for the District of Columbia, reparation of American Indian remains, and increases in Social Security spending.

Critics argue that these and other NEA resolutions have little or nothing to do with educating America's kids. According to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, enacting the NEA's agenda into law would cost over $700 billion - more than the cost of even the most pork-laden agenda of any individual Congressional spendthrift.

The document says very little about basic academic subjects such as reading, writing, and math. When it does speak of academics, it frequently advocates the injection of non-traditional subjects into the school curricula without advocating increased classroom time for the individual curriculum additions.

The NEA is one of the nation's most powerful unions, and it has had the perks to prove it. For instance, the NEA has had a sweetheart tax deal on its national office in Washington, D.C. that lets it avoid paying its share of taxes. Because of effective lobbying of Congress, the NEA has been able to maintain an archaic law freeing it from having to pay its $1.6 million in annual property taxes.

It is reportedly the only labor union to enjoy this status. Not even the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts of America, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Red Cross, or Future Farmers of America enjoy the same special status that Congress has given the NEA.

In a recent development, the NEA has hired a public relations firm to help \"soften\" its image. One recommendation has been to give up its tax-exempt status. Time will tell if the new, softer \"look\" has any effect on the NEA's social and political agenda.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:51 pm**

Yes, the left HAS been trying to use the public schools as a social engineering project. So has the right. It's horribly wrong in both cases, but it's also inevitable. You can't teach Social Studies, History, Government, or many other similar classes without injecting a point of view. The best text books strive for neutrality and come close, the worst ones don't even try.

Case in point, the current Texas fiasco.

Another link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/1 ... tml#s73765

Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a \"constitutional republic,\" rather than \"democratic,\" and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

This is, of course, correct.

voted 10-5 to endorse the proposed standards after rejecting an effort to specifically mention that Tejanos were among the fallen heroes of the Alamo.

This one is inexplicable. We Texans are usually quite proud of our Mexican heritage. I just visited the Alamo recently, and they like to point out the wide diversity of people who fought there. People from Tennessee, Scotland, Ireland, England, Germany, a freed slave, and certainly Tejanos. (Texans of Mexican descent). Heck, they even let in a guy from New York! <link>

Not everyone can be born in Texas, but most try to get here as soon as they can.

Which is why this particular decision is just... baffling.

\"Members voted to polish up references to the American 'free enterprise' economic system and removed most mentions of 'capitalism,' a word that board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said has a negative connotation.\"

This one is also bizarre. The RIGHT trying to eliminate any reference to capitalism? Perhaps they are finally realizing that the republican party no longer supports actual capitalism and actually promotes a system of government welfare for business.

\"Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.\" \"I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,\" said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. \"I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.\"
...
The Board refused to require that \"students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.\"

And these are just terrifying. Just look at a history of England and you will see what horrors happen when you don't have that wonderful principle of the separation of church and state. The protestants persecute the catholics, and then the king changes, and the catholics persecute the protestants, and then the king changes... repeat over and over and over...

Separation of church and state is NOT about removing the religion from this country. Quite the opposite. It's about protecting BOTH religion AND government. Any unholy mingling of church and state always corrupts BOTH. The church does not need the support of the state to prosper; Indeed, the church prospers most when free from state interference.

\"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.\"
-James Madison, Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788.

\"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one.\"
-Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Dr. Price.

\"[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen; and... that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produced an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.\"
-Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli, 1797, Article XI negotiated under George Washington and ratified by the Senate under John Adams:

\"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate.\"
-Ulysses S. Grant, Speech at Des Moines, IA 1875,

The Bill of Rights decoupled religion from the state, in part because so many religions were steeped in an absolutist frame of mind--each convinced that it alone had a monopoly on the truth and therefore eager for the state to impose this truth on others. Often, the leaders and practitioners of absolutist religions were unable to perceive any middle ground or recognize that the truth might draw upon and embrace apparently contradictory doctrines.
The framers of the Bill of Rights had before them the example of England, where the ecclesiastical crime of heresy and the secular crime of treason had become nearly indistinguishable. Many of the early Colonists had come to America fleeing religious persecution, although some of them were perfectly happy to persecute other people for their beliefs. The Founders of our nation recognized that a close relation between the government and any of the quarrelsome religions would be fatal to freedom--and injurious to religion.
-Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1995).

\"I am ashamed of some Christians, because they have so much dependence on parliament and the law of the land. Much good may Parliament ever do to true religion except by mistake. As to getting the law of the land to touch our religion, we earnestly cry, 'Hands off! Leave us alone.' Your Sunday bills and all other forms of the act-of-Parliament religion seem to me to be all wrong. Give us a fair field and no favor, and our faith has no cause to fear. Christ wants no help from Caesar.\" -Spurgeon

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:43 pm**

Everything you've said about \"separation of church and state\" is very good (excepting Carl Sagan's bit), but frankly that's not what the anti-religious crowd mean by it at all. A lot of people just seem not to want Christianity to have any representation unless it's willing to leave its convictions at church, and as you well know popular culture has grown further and further distanced from acceptable Christian morality, to the point where they would have our children taught that homosexuality--a deadly sin in God's eyes--is an acceptable choice (furthermore some would consider it child-abuse to teach them differently at home).

I would really like to know where anyone would consider the separation of church and state to be in danger of being legitimately violated. Maybe we should have had their definition of a separation of church and state way back when our founders declared that our rights were given to us by God!

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:05 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Everything you've said about "separation of church and state" is very good (excepting Carl Sagan's bit),

Which part of his statement did you disagree with?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lot of people just seem not to want Christianity to have any representation unless it's willing to leave its convictions at church

Yep, and keeping a high wall of separation between church and state is one of the best ways of defending against them.

“Men's consciences ought in no sort to be violated, urged, or constrained.” --Roger Williams

The same principles that protect the rights of a Wiccan, Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist to practice their religion freely within the US, protect Christians as well. When we weaken the protection for other religions, we weaken the protection of our own.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:and as you well know popular culture has grown further and further distanced from acceptable Christian morality, to the point where they would have our children taught that homosexuality--a deadly sin in God's eyes--is an acceptable choice (furthermore some would consider it child-abuse to teach them differently at home).

But the proper defense here is NOT to weaken the wall of separation. Quite the contrary. At this time, Christians need to be re-emphasizing this countries protections for all peoples freedom of conscience. So long as you are not harming others, you are free to believe as you wish, and to teach your children the same. That means that yes, we MUST stand behind the rights of people to live in ways we do not approve of, and to teach their children those ways. It's not actual freedom of conscience if it only applies to people who agree with a certain point of view.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would really like to know where anyone would consider the separation of church and state to be in danger of being legitimately violated.

The wall of separation between church and state is being pulled down brick by brick, from both sides. The right has managed to get public funding for religious charities. Many on the right want a new amendment passed declaring this to be a Christian country. Meanwhile the left is passing "Hate Crime" laws and trying to declare raising children as conservative Christians to be child abuse. Plenty of idiots on both sides. It's like two angry and stupid children pulling bricks out of the sea wall that is protecting both of them. <sigh>

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:57 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Hehe. I don't read conspiracy theories. I'm not talking about a political party brainwashing students, I'm talking about the social movement (for lack of a better word) behind the political movement being involved in teaching this nation's children what to think more than how to think. If there is a sinister structure behind it that is more than spiritual then I don't know what it is, I just have a pretty good idea that that's what is happening, to a greater or lesser degree, in public schools in general.

well you sure sound like a conspiracy theorist with that kind of statement. I highly doubt either the left or the right is using the school system as some sort of mental 'breeding ground', simply because it makes no sense.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:00 pm**

Jessie James was asked…”why do you rob banks”

“Because that’s where the money is.”

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:02 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:Everything you've said about "separation of church and state" is very good (excepting Carl Sagan's bit),
Which part of his statement did you disagree with?

Carl Sagan wrote:or recognize that the truth might draw upon and embrace apparently contradictory doctrines.

I was reading through those quotes thinking yeah... yeah... yeah, then I came across that and thought "what the heck?", and realized who the author was. The Christian doctrine, for instance, is not contradictory only on an apparent level. It is as contradictory as claiming Christ to be the only way to God.

Kilarin wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lot of people just seem not to want Christianity to have any representation unless it's willing to leave its convictions at church
Yep, and keeping a high wall of separation between church and state is one of the best ways of defending against them.

Makes no sense...

Kilarin wrote:“Men's consciences ought in no sort to be violated, urged, or constrained.” --Roger Williams

The same principles that protect the rights of a Wiccan, Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist to practice their religion freely within the US, protect Christians as well. When we weaken the protection for other religions, we weaken the protection of our own.

So out of fear that it might be turned around on us shall we accept that a-moral activity and agendas are simply the practicing of differing world-views? I've never even begun to think that we should somehow outlaw being unChristian, so I can't make sense of your concerns here. Did you know that certain behaviors are unacceptable apart from Christianity, even though Christianity is one of the only remaining world-views that discerns them as such?

Kilarin wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:and as you well know popular culture has grown further and further distanced from acceptable Christian morality, to the point where they would have our children taught that homosexuality--a deadly sin in God's eyes--is an acceptable choice (furthermore some would consider it child-abuse to teach them differently at home).
But the proper defense here is NOT to weaken the wall of separation. Quite the contrary. At this time, Christians need to be re-emphasizing this countries protections for all peoples freedom of conscience. So long as you are not harming others, you are free to believe as you wish, and to teach your children the same. That means that yes, we MUST stand behind the rights of people to live in ways we do not approve of, and to teach their children those ways. It's not actual freedom of conscience if it only applies to people who agree with a certain point of view.

I've always held that you are very confused on that point. You almost seem to live in a separate reality where Christianity and morality are not under attack and subject to clever erosion. I accept people's right to live according to their conscience, but I do not accept the right of people who have no conscience to live in this society without limits doing whatever gives them pleasure (this is not meant as hyperbole, and applies specifically to such things as aborting a child for convenience, homosexuality, transsexuality, pedophilia, ...). There are also certain moral taboos that have never been illegal though they had been unacceptable, and in the face of their pervasion of our culture I would not ask that they be deemed illegal, but I would insist that it is wrong to make a place for such behaviors through government policy (sex outside of marriage and the resulting popularity of abortion, for example).

Our country could be so good, even if not everyone agrees on the subject of religion or world-view--we could still be free to follow our own consciences--but instead of anything so respectable we have a popular culture that will foolishly ride our society to the brink (and perhaps beyond) to satisfy their every desire in their ignorance and baseness.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:22 pm**

Ferno wrote:well you sure sound like a conspiracy theorist with that kind of statement. I highly doubt either the left or the right is using the school system as some sort of mental 'breeding ground', simply because it makes no sense.

Are you in a uniquely herbal state? It only makes no sense when you try to say it! If someone believes that the world should be a certain way they could campaign, write books, give speeches, but of course cutting to the chase and teaching it to the next generation would be a ridiculous notion, right? It's a highly effective way of changing the world, is what it is. One of the ways it can most easily be described is as a monopoly. For whatever reason (and I believe some of it is sinister in its lack of respect for our views and our consciences) either progressivism is hugely popular with people in the education scene, or the education scene is hugely popular with progressives. Either way it's what children all over the U.S. are learning and it is a retarded (literally) world-view. It distorts whatever it deals with.

DescentBB

The Texas school board

The Texas school board

Re:

Re:

Re: The Texas school board

Re:

Re: The Texas school board

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: