Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know why he's against "separation of church and state"?
Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I will provide a link to the appropriate thread discussing this topic.
It's an official government document, approved by both the current president of the time, John Adams, and the Secretary of State. It was then, furthermore, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate. Since it's never been retracted I think it's safe to presume that it's a default position of the U.S. government that the country isn't, despite claims to the contrary, 'founded on Christian principles'.It must be understood that the United States was being DIPLOMATIC towards a Moslem nation.
So?What was not said is that our people and governmental officials are not on the whole christian in character.
I'm not familiar with any Christian doctrine or tenet that directs or commands followers to proselytize through the educational system.You also seem to forget the part where Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free excercise of religion. The major part of the free excercise of religion is proselyizing through education.
Okay---- "Today childen being a Christian and your teacher, how about if we read 2 verses of the book of Proverbs everyday to open our literature class. Then you may discuss your thoughts...."It's an official government document, approved by both the current president of the time, John Adams, and the Secretary of State. It was then, furthermore, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate. Since it's never been retracted I think it's safe to presume that it's a default position of the U.S. government that the country isn't, despite claims to the contrary, 'founded on Christian principles'.
So?
I'm not familiar with any Christian doctrine or tenet that directs or commands followers to proselytize through the educational system.
Insert any other faith and tell me, would you be all for your children being force-fed their religious beliefs? Or are the only teachers to be Christians now?Okay---- "Today childen being a Christian and your teacher, bow about if we read 2 verses of the book of Proverbs everyday to open our literature class. Then you may discuss your thoughts...."
So, even a particualr Supreme Court ruling can be in error. They are only mortals. As a citizen of the United States, are you going to let them get away with it and act the servant, or are you going to try to persuade them of their mistaken understanding, as an American?The Supreme [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing Court disagrees
No, it is not:
Establishment clause, Treaty of Tripoli. Nuff said.
And if you had a Muslim teacher? An atheist teacher? A Wiccan teacher? Would you be okay with them discussing passages from their various texts in the classroom?Okay---- "Today childen being a Christian and your teacher, bow about if we read 2 verses of the book of Proverbs everyday to open our literature class. Then you may discuss your thoughts...."
I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation. And if you notice I asked the class to provide their thoughts....Insert any other faith and tell me, would you be all for your children being force-fed their religious beliefs? Or are the only teachers to be Christians now?
So you'd be okay with your child receiving instruction from the Qu'ran?I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation.
I get the impression he's of the more militant type... If nothing else, the fact that he wrote something titled "The God Delusion" contributes hugely to that impression. And I wouldn't call someone who talks about religion in this manner peaceful:How is Dawkins not a peaceful atheist?
positiveatheism.org said:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
[SIZE=-1]-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
(quoted HERE, the original Humanist article HERE)
As long as the students could openly discuss what was read and compare it to other writings, I see only good things happening. Obviously, what we presently have in place doesn't amount to thinking on the part of students. It amounts to censorship of religion. And I thought that the governent could not do that acording to the Consitution?So you'd be okay with your child receiving instruction from the Qu'ran?
I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation. And if you notice I asked the class to provide their thoughts....
So, even a particualr Supreme Court ruling can be in error.
They are only mortals.
As a citizen of the United States, are you going to let them get away with it and act the servant, or are you going to try to persuade them of their mistaken understanding, as an American?
I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation.
And if you notice I asked the class to provide their thoughts....
As long as the students could openly discuss what was read and compare it to other writings, I see only good things happening. Obviously, what we presently have in place doesn't amount to thinking on the part of students. It amounts to censorship of religion. And I thought that the governent could not do that acording to the Consitution?
It seems to me that your are afraid that your children will make discisions contrary to your own beliefs. This is the only reason some (and in 1963 there were few people who felt threatened by open Bible readings in public schools) went to the courts In fact prior to the censorchip of such activities, it was usually the peragative of the teacher if and when such activities occured. It usually, happen only if time allowed. So some days and even weeks on end there might not even be a Bible reading. But how many are willing to tell you that....?Well, I imagine YOUR children will be exposed to your beliefs outside of school.. so I fail to see your point. It seems to me, what you would rather have, is all children exposed to YOUR belief and YOUR deity. And so what if you asked the class to provide thoughts? How would this imaginary teacher handle negative criticism of the bible? How would you prevent students from targeting eachother over their beliefs? Or lack of?
LittleNipper, this already happens. I discussed the Bible in class when I was in public high school. There's no prohibition against discussing the Bible. There's a prohibition against promoting the Bible over other holy books, or promoting Christianity over other religions.As long as the students could openly discuss what was read and compare it to other writings, I see only good things happening. Obviously, what we presently have in place doesn't amount to thinking on the part of students. It amounts to censorship of religion. And I thought that the governent could not do that acording to the Consitution?
Well, I imagine YOUR children will be exposed to your beliefs outside of school.. so I fail to see your point. It seems to me, what you would rather have, is all children exposed to YOUR belief and YOUR deity. And so what if you asked the class to provide thoughts? How would this imaginary teacher handle negative criticism of the bible? How would you prevent students from targeting eachother over their beliefs? Or lack of?
That must not have been meant to be directed to me... I never advocated anything of the sort.. as a matter of fact I would think its quite clear we are in agreement...Say you got your wish, and the Bible and Christianity was open to discussion as part of the kids' education. Now, imagine I was the kids' teacher. Do you really want an atheist critiquing the Bible and telling kids why it is wrong, with the backing of authority inherent in the position of "teacher"? Perhaps even worse, do you want an atheist who has never studied the Bible teaching its meaning? Formal religious education should be left up to religious professionals. That is what church is for.
You know why he's against "separation of church and state"?
Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I would be glad to discuss this with anyone who is interested.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?