God in school: Mine Okay, yours not okay

[_Coggins7]

I read the most mind-numbingly outrageous self-contradictory comment in a news article just now.

To summarize, a woman's fight to keep Harry Potter books out of her school library just ended in defeat, but she's considering taking it up the legal chain. You can read the story here.

Check out her rationale:

At Tuesday's hearing, Mallory argued in part that witchcraft is a religion practiced by some people and, therefore, the books should be banned because reading them in school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

"I have a dream that God will be welcomed back in our schools again," Mallory said. "I think we need him."

So, what on earth is this scatterbrain's real opinion, anyway? Should the separation between church & state be upheld, or should God be welcomed back into schools?

For the sake of the argument, let's say she's right and that A) witchcraft is a religion, and B) Harry Potter promotes witchcraft. In that case, shouldn't she be glad that witchcraft-related books are on the shelves, since this means that God has, indeed, been welcomed back into our schools?

HOW ON EARTH are some people so utterly blind to their self-contradictory opinions?

Read Diane Ravitch's The Language Police for a detailed elucidation of what PC, the assault on language, and the nation of hypersensitive whiners its created who's sole purpose in life is to use the public square to impose their own values on others by force (or to deny the availability of this or that) has done to our society.

The rot that was originally introduced into the apple cart by the Left has infected other cultural elements as well, such that the public schools are now a battleground (and a playground) for every special interest group able to get their paws on the immature and impressionable minds who by law, must be in those classrooms for a certain time during the work week.

The big hairy Creation Science debate in the public schools partakes of the same attitudes and mind sets, as does the continuing crusade to impose elements of the homosexual rights agenda, environmentalism etc. upon the same captive audience.

[_harmony]

The big hairy Creation Science debate in the public schools partakes of the same attitudes and mind sets, as does the continuing crusade to impose elements of the homosexual rights agenda, environmentalism etc. upon the same captive audience.

What elements of the gay rights or environmental agenda are you referring to? Hmmm... like equal access to health care? equal access to housing? information that might stop the rape of the planet?

Perhaps you could impact the public school environment directly by becoming a teacher?

[_Mr. Coffee]

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.

Then censor it next time.



Repost, sans "S" word....

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.

Wrong answer, Ajax. Anyone who ignores exidence that is shown to them, fails to produce anything remotely credible to counter it and instead makes a series a strawmandering, red herring laden, appeal to emotion/authority riddled BS from behind a massive wall of ignorance is not only stupid, they're probably functionally retarded as well.

See the difference yet or should I bust out MSPaint and draw your some pictures?

We should make that the the slogan for the democratic party.

Because obviously anyone who isn't a good little christian and doesn't support religion in government institutions is a "democrat", amirite? What's next? Are you going to pull a page out of the Loran Fundimentalist Retard Rhetoric Playbook and accuse me of being a socialist leftie because I spanked you hard in a debate?

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.

Of course, since you are to stupid to comprehend the Establishment Claus no matter how nicely or how bluntly it's presented to you, that means that we are in the wrong, and not you.

Typical Christian BS. When in doubt, blame others for your shortcomings.

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.

Oh please, boy. Show me where I have made an appeal to emotion once in this thread. I can show where you've done so three time in just the last post. Also, show me where I have defended any "liberial" position. If anything I have demonstrated that I am a hardline federalist and a classical conservative.

Let me guess, you've backed yourself so far into that little corner you're reduced to flinging labels at people. But hey! Keep on posting more of the same, as I'm enjoying making you look like an irrational little idiot with each successive post, Ajax.

[_ajax18]

A publicly funded school is a government institution, I.e. it is part of the government. Therefore, as part of the government, it cannot constitutionally enforce religion on the students. That is precisely what a school mandated prayer time is. It is forcing religion on the students, which makes it an establishment of religion, which makes it unconstitutional.

Sorry but the reason I didn't understand your view on this the first time was that I'd always understood that while the founding fathers did not want to enforce a specific form of Christianity, in general Christianity was very encouraged. I know I stated this already but I still don't exactly see how you can conclude for certain that separation of Church and state meant absolutely no religion invovled in government. It seems that all our laws and government are based up on Christian principles. So while a judge I heard about in the news didn't espouse Methodism per se, he did have an engraving of the ten commandments up for a long time before they forced him to take it down. It would seem to me that the founding fathers would have had no problem with this. Do you think differently?

Of course, since you are to stupid to comprehend the Establishment Claus no matter how nicely or how bluntly it's presented to you, that means that we are in the wrong, and not you.

Or maybe I just see it differently.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Sorry but the reason I didn't understand your view on this the first time was that I'd always understood that while the founding fathers did not want to enforce a specific form of Christianity, in general Christianity was very encouraged. I know I stated this already but I still don't exactly see how you can conclude for certain that separation of Church and state meant absolutely no religion invovled in government.

No, it is not encouraged. If Christianity was encouraged by the government then that would be an overt establishment of religion, i.e. it would be a statement that christianity is the official religion of the US. Since that runs contrary to the First Amendment, we know that is simply not the case, Ajax.

THAT is how I can conclude that seperation of church and state is not only implied, be spe ifically encorded into our nation's framing documents.

It seems that all our laws and government are based up on Christian principles.

And your evidence for that is more idle conjecture with no historical documentation or context. Show me one single document written by anyone that signed off on either the Declaration of Independance, The United States Constitution, or the Bill of Rights that backs your claim.

So while a judge I heard about in the news didn't espouse Methodism per se, he did have an engraving of the ten commandments up for a long time before they forced him to take it down. It would seem to me that the founding fathers would have had no problem with this. Do you think differently?

Considering that they used the Magna Carta and NOT the Bible as the basis for the Constitution, yes... As a matter of fact I do think different and I can actually back my line of thought with evidence. Can you?

Or maybe I just see it differently.

Differently != Wrongly, Ajax. You think wrongly on this subject. You've done nothing but toss out random excuses for why your particular religion should get an out while others should not. You've not cited a damned bit of evidence to support your claims, you have yet to even acknowledge that I've asked you several tims so far to do so.

So, let's see you back some of your claims, shall we?

[_asbestosman]

It seems that all our laws and government are based up on Christian principles.

And your evidence for that is more idle conjecture with no historical documentation or context. Show me one single document written by anyone that signed off on either the Declaration of Independance, The United States Constitution, or the Bill of Rights that backs your claim.

Oh yeah? What about Thomas Jefferson? Wait. Nevermind.
Then maybe Thomas Pa . . . doh!

So many of the founding fathers were deists and some possible atheists (this was before Darwin's dangerous idea). But there are some things I don't understand. How did the decalogue get into the courtrooms in the first place? Was also during the commie scare? What about prayer before a session of Congress? How about swearing on the Bible in court or for presidents (despite the fact that some have sworn on the Constitution instead)? Looking at such factors, one might suspect that while the founding fathers weren't trying to make a Christian nation (remember the Treaty of Tripoli where it stated such), yet they may have allowed for government employees to make use of Christianity as part of their duties while yet ensuring that such is not forced upon the general public (if you don't want to pray / swear on the Bible, you have an alternative).

[_Mr. Coffee]

Oh yeah? What about Thomas Jefferson? Wait. Nevermind.
Then maybe Thomas Pa . . . doh!

Hehe.. Yup, you'd be hard pressed to find any statement from any of them along the lines of "This will be a Christian nation".

How did the decalogue get into the courtrooms in the first place?

Once again, we're back to tradition. You'll notice that quite a few or the larger courthouses (meaning county or state level on up) across the US have some sort of gallery or display of different legal codes through out history. The Ten Commandments is generally displayed along with other codes, usually in a non-religious form to show how law has evolved over time. These sort of displays are considered historical and not religious in nature. (Fun Quiz: Name a Secular-based legal code that predates the Ten Commandments and win some respect.)

It really wasn't until very recently that you had certain Judges or Courts try to put up monuments displaying just the Tend Commandments or other religious displays. More prominent cases of this include Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, where he decided to place a display of the Ten Commandments outside the state courthouse as a stand alone religious display. The Federal government (read as the US Supreme Court) ordered Judge Moore to remove them and he refused, leading to Moore's removal by Alabama's Court of the Judiciary.

The Ten Commandments themselves are interesting as they set down a few very basic laws that to this day still stand as part of most developed nation's legal code. Thanks to The Ten Commandments concepts like Purgury and bearing False Accusation have become crimes in most societies over the centuries.

It's the religious bits (No false idols and such) that ceased to be judicially relevent when we figured out that the earth isn't flat, the universe isn't geocentric, and the witches float because humans are naturall boyant and not because they're made of wood.

What about prayer before a session of Congress?

Once again, tradition. Even at the very first Continental Congress, the prayer was still very much non-denominational, and over the years, as more and more non-christians have come into office, the prayer has become increasingly non-denominational.

How about swearing on the Bible in court or for presidents (despite the fact that some have sworn on the Constitution instead)?

That is a matter of personal belief, not of enforced religion. As you pointed out, some of them swear on the COnstitution or other documents they hold sacred (like Obama's recient swearing in using the Jefferson Koran). It's purely a matter of personal preference. For example, one the few occasions I've been required to take the stand in a court room, I didn't swear on the Bible, but instead affirmed that I would be honest on the stand.

Though I find it rather ironic that any christian would swear on the Bible when not only do the Ten Commandments tell you not to, but Jesus specifically said not to in Matthew 5:33-37, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

So if you catch a Christian swearing on a Bible, politely remind them that they are "sinning".

Looking at such factors, one might suspect that while the founding fathers weren't trying to make a Christian nation (remember the Treaty of Tripoli where it stated such), yet they may have allowed for government employees to make use of Christianity as part of their duties while yet ensuring that such is not forced upon the general public (if you don't want to pray / swear on the Bible, you have an alternative).

Exactly, Asbestos. You can be a religious person and serve in government just fine. It doesn't become unconstitutional until that person tries to force their religion on others in the performance of their duties as a memeber of the government.

[_Bond...James Bond]

(Fun Quiz: Name a Secular-based legal code that predates the Ten Commandments and win some respect.)

Code of Hammurabi

[_Mr. Coffee]

(Fun Quiz: Name a Secular-based legal code that predates the Ten Commandments and win some respect.)

Code of Hammurabi

Ding ding ding! +10 respect and a vodka martini for giving (one of) the right answer.

[_Blixa]

Aren't there also several Mesopotamian collections of laws that pre-date Hammurabi? I'm not sure if the Laws of Manu predate the mosaic commandments, and the only other early legal guide I can think of is Solon, who I think is too late by half. Sorry, that's the best I can do without Google.