God in school: Mine Okay, yours not okay

[_ajax18]

No. It's a reflection of the founding father's wish that government remain seperate from religion. They firmly believed that the state has no buisness either establishing or enforcing any religion. While some of them were deeply religious men, they were all firm secularists when it came to politic philosophy.

Don't believe me? Try reading the Federalist Papers sometime.

I knew they meant the state had no business enforcing a religion. I interpret that to mean they wouldn't enforce Calvinism over Lutheranism. The federalist papers may be intereting but if the founding fathers were so against prayer in school, why did it exist when they were alive?

And I tend to believe that you know jack and s*** about either the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the intent of the framers when they wrote both documents.

You're probably right about that to an extent. But you've proven to be a rude jackass who acts more childish than an LDS church leader when someone challenges one of his statements or asks for further explanation. I learn by arguing. Are you sure you didn't serve as an area authority at one time? It seems like I remember this bullying from somewhere.

It's not a mere case of "well, I disagree". You are trying to say something that clearly is not true in saying that either the framers had no intent to keep religion out of government institutions or that enforced prayer in schools is somehow constitutional.

Ok, so if they did intend to keep it out, why did it exist while they were alive and pretty much up to 30 to 40 years ago?

Please, tell me exactly what "void" would be left by teaching useful subjects like math, science, history, english, foriegn language, art, or even PE instead of teaching useless religious b***s****ery?

Well a big part of public education is learning how to get along with other people. Do you think that punishment alone is enough to keep kids in line, or even adults for that matter? Maybe if you live in Hitler's Germany but definitely not in a public school setting with the teachers hands tied behind his back. What's to stop people from just constantly looking for ways to beat the system? Then we'll spend more money on police, forensics, crime etc. That's money that could have been used to build you an extra vehicle.

As if christians in general, or Mormons in particular do a good job of living by a reasonable ethical framework? I've seen more lying, hypocritical, uncompassionate, criminal, and dishonest behavior out of your supposedly morally superior religion then I ever have out of a secularist. Hell, at least when an atheist b***s***s you he doesn't try to make excuses about how he was following the word of the Magic Sky Pixie.

Why do atheists choose to live behind this moral framework? Do you think its a very powerful motivation or a rather weak one?

Also, since laws don't motivate you, I invite you to go and break a few (try some minor ones at first like speeding). I'm sure the nice men and women with the badges and firearms will be more than happy to provide a motivation for you not to repeat that behavior again.

Even if you catch a thief, it's statistically around the 25th time he's stolen something that you catch him. As long as my crime is nonviolent, I usually can get away without any jail time and just tell my creditors to, "Get in line." They might get paid in 30 or 40 years or maybe never. From what I gather repeat ciminal offenses are almost as big a problem as retention of members by Mormonism. Obviously I'm not the only one not motivated to live ethically by the men in badges with firearms. Some of these people spend 15 to 20 years with them and don't seem to change much.

Whatever the case may be I think you need to give kids a better reason to behave themselves than just simply, "It's for the public good." I just don't think they really care about that. You can't really physically bully them and motivate them out of fear. I'm not convinced they're very scared of after school detention, not to mention the costs of keeping an extra teacher on duty after hours. You can keep adults in line by firing him. What are you going to do to a kid, kick him out of school? Is it possible that kids need religion worse than anybody, hence public prayer and an effort to try to teach ethics or at the very least some kind of karma? Make no mistake about it. Making good decisions as a kid requires faith.

It would be an interesting experiment to see how well a godless multicultural society would function. I'm not convinced the results would be favorable.

[_James Clifford Miller]

Just in case you're one of those clueless funditards like the one mentioned in the OP, the motto of the United States of America is not "In God We Trust". It is "Novus Ordo Seculorum".

I wouldn't classify myself as one of the fundamentalist Shades mentioned above, but maybe you'd think different. I've never heard of "Novus Ordo Seculorum. What's that mean? New order Secularism? Is it some new new atheist system of ethics?

It's not "Novus Ordo Seculorum", it's "Novus Ordo Seclorum" and it was meant by the Founding Fathers to indicate "the beginning of the new American Æra."

http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_Mr. Coffee]

I knew they meant the state had no business enforcing a religion. I interpret that to mean they wouldn't enforce Calvinism over Lutheranism. The federalist papers may be intereting but if the founding fathers were so against prayer in school, why did it exist when they were alive?

Maybe because at the time they didn't have Ilsamics, Buddhists, that many Atheists (there were a few Atheists around, and couple were signatories to the Declaration of Independance), or even Mormons. Also, back then the local school house was usually run by the local pastor or one of his flunkies, as back then those people tended to be among the educated, and you needed someone with an education to tach in a school.

But, once schools started to recieve funding that came from taxes garnered by the state they became government institutions. And at that point, the founding father's ruling on no religion in government started to apply to schools.

You're probably right about that to an extent. But you've proven to be a rude jackass who acts more childish than an LDS church leader when someone challenges one of his statements or asks for further explanation.

Wrong. You didn't question, you flat out said "you are wrong". Worse, when shown that your position is bunk, you start in with the broken-record s*** and continue to say the exact same thing. This is the third post where you've tried to shine me on that because prayer in schools was ok back before schools became government institutions that it somehow negates the Establishment Claus now that schools are government institutions.

That means you're either dishonest or stupid. Which is it?

I learn by arguing.

I learned by actually recieving an education. Arguing just hones my debate skills and occassional exposes me to new ways of looking at a subject. Since you're still claiming the same b***s*** for the third time despite being shown your position is wrong, I have doubts that you can learn through arguing as you haven't learned anything thus far.

Ok, so if they did intend to keep it out, why did it exist while they were alive and pretty much up to 30 to 40 years ago?

After a time prayer in schools died off as people became more interested in learning useful subjects like math and science. Back in the 1950's when everyone in the US was afriad there was a communist under their bed, someone not only decided to put enforced prayer times in school, they also amended the Pledge of Allegience with the "one nation under god" line (Previously it was one nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice fore all. No mention of god at all). They did this out of the idiotic notion that the Soviet Union was governed completely by athiests, when in fact the USSR was deeply orthodox christian.

Then came the Engle v Vitille (1962), the Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) cases were the US Supreme Court ruled that enforced school prayer was a violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments. These rulings were later backed by the Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) case that not only enforced the previous dicisions, but also established a "Lemon Test" for school activities based on the activities having to be 1) secular in nature, 2) cannot inhibit or promotereligion, and 3) must not result in an entanglement of religion and government.

Now, see, that's the job of the United States Supreme Court as the Judicial Branch of the US Governemnt. They interpert law as applied to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They do so by examining not just the words contained in those documents, but also through interpreting the meaning and intent of the founding fathers through ancillary works such as the Federalist Papers and other historical documents.

Now I hope you can lay this retarded line of thout to rest, Ajax. Publically funded schools are government institutions, The founding fathers expressly forbad religion in government, therefore religion in public schools is verbotten.

Well a big part of public education is learning how to get along with other people.

And that is done throiugh social interaction with their peers and by the school administration enforcing school rules. The combination of social enforcement by their classmates with social enforcment by their teachers, principles and (hopefully) their parents. You don't need the Bible to do that.

Do you think that punishment alone is enough to keep kids in line, or even adults for that matter?

Yes. And until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe exactly that. Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Maybe if you live in Hitler's Germany

Wow, so not only are you ignorant of basic US Civics, you're also completely ignorant of history as well. Hate to be the one to break it to you, Ajax, but Nazi Germany was a deeply christian state, to the point that even the butchers of the Schutzstaffel from the Waffen-SS all the way to the murderous assholes in the Einsatzgruppen all professed their love of Jesus and even had the motto "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). Hitler himself was a devout Catholic, contrary to Christian appologist views that he was an atheist.

But I digress...

What's to stop people from just constantly looking for ways to beat the system?

Are you seriously trying to say that Bible thumping christians don't do the same?

Also, where is your evidence that this is such a widespread problem that we need to force religion on people in order to solve it or that forcing a state religion would even solve the problem?

Why do atheists choose to live behind this moral framework?

Because it works and it is not dependant on some Magic Sky pixie for it to work.

Do you think its a very powerful motivation or a rather weak one?

Obviously it is. Otherwise criminal statistics would say otherwise.

Even if you catch a thief, it's statistically around the 25th time he's stolen something that you catch him. As long as my crime is nonviolent, I usually can get away without any jail time and just tell my creditors to, "Get in line." They might get paid in 30 or 40 years or maybe never.

Wow, so instead of letting something as simple as "don't take things thta do not belong to you", you instead weigh it based on a simple cost/benifit analysis? S***, I guess I should convert to your religion! I could ignore the laws as long as I can not get caught if I sign up for you're cult!

Whatever the case may be I think you need to give kids a better reason to behave themselves than just simply, "It's for the public good."

Where the hell do you think your goofy religios laws came from? They arrose from the same place that secular law did, as a social control system to promote the greater public good. Last time I checked, theft, murder, rape, and other offenses are not in the best interest of public welfare. Doesn't take a Magic Sky Pixie to figure that one out.

I just don't think they really care about that. You can't really physically bully them and motivate them out of fear. I'm not convinced they're very scared of after school detention, not to mention the costs of keeping an extra teacher on duty after hours. You can keep adults in line by firing him. What are you going to do to a kid, kick him out of school? Is it possible that kids need religion worse than anybody, hence public prayer and an effort to try to teach ethics or at the very least some kind of karma? Make no mistake about it. Making good decisions as a kid requires faith.

So now you are saying that religious people do not commit crimes? Your evidence for that is what?

It would be an interesting experiment to see how well a godless multicultural society would function. I'm not convinced the results would be favorable.

Wow... So a secular government that safeguards the right of the citizens to worship freely is now a "godless" society...

Nice appeal to emotion, Ajax.

[MODERATOR NOTE YET AGAIN: Please do not use the "s" word, or any of its variants, in the Terrestrial Forum. There's a perfectly good Telestial Forum in place for that.]

[_Blixa]

You're a patient man, Mr. Coffee.

[_Mr. Coffee]

You're a patient man, Mr. Coffee.

Just doing my part to fight the forces of stupidity. We're doing out part. Are you?

Service guarantees citizenship.

Would you like to learn more?

[_ajax18]

Ok you're right I have asked you the same thing several times and I've found your explanations unsatisfactory, although I seemed to be able to squeeze a little more out of you the third time around. Just remember, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Since he's not as smart as you he's not quite he therefore doesn't deserve proper respect or explanation to his questions. We should make that the the slogan for the democratic party.

Excuse me Blixa for not embracing the true religion of leftism without question or a call for further explanation. You know what you're right. I haven't learned much from you guys. But I'm going to take a page out of the book of the liberals and blame the teacher not the learner.

It's jerks like yourselves that drive people back into Mormonism. I'm serious you're emotional response to my questioning of your liberal religion is just as bad or worse than when I question Mormons. Good bye.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Mr. Coffee's response to Ajax18 can be found in the Telestial Forum here. Ajax18, if you'd like to continue your conversation with him, please do so in that new thread, not this one.]

[_Mr. Coffee]

Whisky Tango Foxtrot, over?

Let me get this right, Shades, Ajax can fling accusations, ignore evidence, and basically lie his way through the thread but when I call him on his wankery you shunt my post off?

Gee, way to encourage honest debate there, chief...

[_Dr. Shades]

Let me get this right, Shades, Ajax can fling accusations, ignore evidence, and basically lie his way through the thread but when I call him on his wankery you shunt my post off?

Nope. Calling him on his wankery is perfectly fine. Using the "S" word twice, even after a request to refrain from doing so, is not.

Gee, way to encourage honest debate there, chief...

It has nothing to do with encouraging or discouraging honest debate. It has everything to do with keeping the "S" word in the appropriate forum is all.

[_harmony]

Whisky Tango Foxtrot, over?

Let me get this right, Shades, Ajax can fling accusations, ignore evidence, and basically lie his way through the thread but when I call him on his wankery you shunt my post off?

Gee, way to encourage honest debate there, chief...

Oh, quit whining. No one's discouraging your debate, censoring you, or stopping your participation. They just moved it to the forum that it fits in.

We all get vehement about something, that's why there's so many interesting threads in the Telestial forum. I've got several there myself, and I'm about the least caustic pickle here.