| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2006 09:38:49 AM |
| Object: |
Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines |
http://www.news-daily.com/morelocal/cnhinsfaith_story_038121407.html?keyword=secondarystory
[excerpt]
Published: February 07, 2006 12:14 pm
Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines
By Jennifer Hill
THE NEWS-COURIER (ATHENS, Ala.)
ATHENS, Ala. —
Gathered recently to answer questions about a state proposal to allow a
course on the Bible to high school students, Athens, Ala., parents,
students and a teacher questioned whether the bill mandates guidelines to
teach the course without violating the separation of church and state.
Legislation introduced by Rep. Ken Guin, D-Carbon Hill, and House Speaker,
Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, is set for a vote this legislative session to
allow an elective course in public high schools called “The Bible and Its
Influence.”
Individual boards of education would have the authority to offer the course
in each jurisdiction if the bill passes. The bill does not stipulate who
would teach the course, nor does it offer guidelines for qualifications of
that teacher.
“The Bible and its Influence,” by Cullen Schippe-Chuck Stetson, is the only
textbook named in the bill. The text takes the Bible and examines it as an
influential document and how it has affected such things as art, literature
and culture.
While its content is meant to examine only the influence of the Bible and
not its religious meanings, a Clements High School teacher said teachers
may not be able to separate their beliefs. Chris Faulkner, a science
teacher, was one of several people attending services at Berea Baptist
Church on Wednesday night who agreed to discuss the bill.
“There is no way to bring this into the classroom without getting into a
discussion about belief, “ Faulkner said.
He said there would eventually be a student in the class who doesn’t
necessarily choose the class but is forced to take the class because of
scheduling issues. It could be the only elective course available at the
time a student needs, for example.
“We have real difficulty with scheduling problems,” he said.
Faulkner is also concerned about credentials required to teach the course.
“I think that before this happens there needs to be a required amount of
hours of training,” he said. “They’ve got to know what they can say or
can’t say. A kid is going to raise his hand to ask ‘What do you believe?’
Can I tell them?”
Anthony Harbin, a youth leader at Berea Baptist Church, said he would
welcome students learning about the Bible.
“Any exposure to the Bible is good,” he said. “Hopefully, if they can get
in the basics out of that with no denominational bias it’s better than not
getting anything.”
The four parents in the group agreed, but said they are not concerned as
much about the separation of church and state as about the influence the
course and the teacher could have on the students.
[end excerpt]
Jennifer Hill writes for The News-Courier in Athens, Ala.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines; fails 10th A. test, vague constitutional reference |
08 Feb 2006 01:20:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.news-daily.com/morelocal/cnhinsfaith_story_038121407.html?keyw=
ord=3Dsecondarystory
[excerpt]
Published: February 07, 2006 12:14 pm
Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines
By Jennifer Hill
THE NEWS-COURIER (ATHENS, Ala.)
ATHENS, Ala. -
Gathered recently to answer questions about a state proposal to allow a
course on the Bible to high school students, Athens, Ala., parents,
students and a teacher questioned whether the bill mandates guidelines to
teach the course without violating the separation of church and state.
Beware of church-state separation issues like this one which fail to
mention the 10th Amendment. Secularists cannot afford for the 10th
Amendment to be brought up in discussions concerning our religious
freedoms. This is because secularists don't want the public to catch
on to the fact that the States wrote the 10th Amendment to reserve
certain government powers uniquely for themselves, the power to
legislate religion for example, prohibiting only the federal government
from having this power by means of the 1st A.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros
and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless that atheists, separationists, secular judges and
the liberal media are misleading people to think that such things are
unconstitutional.
Legislation introduced by Rep. Ken Guin, D-Carbon Hill, and House Speaker,
Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, is set for a vote this legislative session to
allow an elective course in public high schools called "The Bible and Its
Influence."
Individual boards of education would have the authority to offer the cour=
se
in each jurisdiction if the bill passes. The bill does not stipulate who
<
<snipped for brevity>
Jennifer Hill writes for The News-Courier in Athens, Ala.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines; fails 10th A. test, vague constitutional reference |
08 Feb 2006 02:55:59 PM |
|
|
On 8 Feb 2006 11:20:44 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
........States wrote the 10th Amendment to reserve
certain government powers uniquely for themselves
States did NOT write the 10th amendment you idiot.
The "states" (only as a function of regional
administration) asked that certain "guarantees be
included in the constitution before they ratified it.
"States" wrote nothing.
"States" did not ratify the constitution the PEOPLE (in
those states) did.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The key-word is "congress" and "promoting"
"Congress" is not limited to a NATIONAL congress, its a
generic term to signify the legislative branch of
"government" and that can include state and local
"congresses".
The "fear" was that a NATIONAL congress could
(possibly) do what the European model did----institute
catholicism or Anglican churches as "official" and THAT
was the fear the prompted the "establishment clause".
It was also the knowledge that the founding colonies
"established" official religons and that was
unacceptable to the founders.
Third, it makes no difference what they "thought" in
1789, the "thought(s)" later on were incorporated into
constitutional DOCTRINE as a reading by the USSC. That
is the function of the USSC----to interpret..."What the
constitution means"
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros
and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless that atheists, separationists, secular judges and
the liberal media are misleading people to think that such things are
unconstitutional.
Public schools can "teach" creationism, "intelligent
design" or any other "ism" in a specific class NOW.
That isn't the issue, FREDDIE
The issue is that it cannot be taugh in SCIENCE class
as an alternative to a general theory of evolution.
The religious stupidity can be taught in comparative
religions, comparitive philosophy, philosophy, or any
number of NON-SCIENTIFIC classes.
Why are you so stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines; fails 10th A. test, vague constitutional reference |
08 Feb 2006 04:41:16 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 11:20:44 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
........States wrote the 10th Amendment to reserve
certain government powers uniquely for themselves
States did NOT write the 10th amendment you idiot.
Official state representatives drafted and then authorized the 10th A.
The "states" (only as a function of regional
administration) asked that certain "guarantees be
included in the constitution before they ratified it.
whatever
You're making much ado about technicalities. Again, it was official
state representatives who authorized the 10th A.
"States" wrote nothing.
"States" did not ratify the constitution the PEOPLE (in
those states) did.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The key-word is "congress" and "promoting"
"Congress" is not limited to a NATIONAL congress, its a
generic term to signify the legislative branch of
"government" and that can include state and local
"congresses".
You're not being honest with yourself about how the word Congress is
used in the 1st A. of the federal BOR. The founding states had the
power to legislate religion before they established the federal
government and its Constitution. The founding states reserved the
power to legislate religion uniquely for themselves. They did this by
writing the 1st A. to prohibit only Congress from having this power.
Given the 10th automatically reserves those powers not explicitly
prohibited to the federal government to the States, the States retained
the power to legislate religion. Again, they had the power to
legislate religion before they established the federal government and
its Constitution.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
Jefferson himself reflected the division of powers of the 1st and 10th
Amendments:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
If Jefferson had meant for his famous "wall of separation" words to
include the States, he would never have written the above note about
the States being trusted with the care of our religious freedoms. The
Court has gotten the wires crossed about Jefferson's "wall of
separation".
The "fear" was that a NATIONAL congress could
(possibly) do what the European model did----institute
catholicism or Anglican churches as "official" and THAT
was the fear the prompted the "establishment clause".
It was also the knowledge that the founding colonies
"established" official religons and that was
unacceptable to the founders.
Third, it makes no difference what they "thought" in
1789, the "thought(s)" later on were incorporated into
constitutional DOCTRINE as a reading by the USSC. That
is the function of the USSC----to interpret..."What the
constitution means"
The only reason that you are cheerleading the USSC's corrupt
interpretation of the 1st A. is because you are likewise an enemy of
free religious speech:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros
and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless that atheists, separationists, secular judges and
the liberal media are misleading people to think that such things are
unconstitutional.
Public schools can "teach" creationism, "intelligent
design" or any other "ism" in a specific class NOW.
That isn't the issue, FREDDIE
The issue is that it cannot be taugh in SCIENCE class
as an alternative to a general theory of evolution.
The religious stupidity can be taught in comparative
religions, comparitive philosophy, philosophy, or any
number of NON-SCIENTIFIC classes.
LIAR!
You are ignoring that public schools who want to teach such things are
now living with the fear of being dragged in front of corrupt,
anti-religious expression judges who are unlawfully legislating the
bogus constitutional principal of absolute church-state separation from
the bench:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Why are you so stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines; fails 10th A. test, vague constitutional reference |
08 Feb 2006 05:15:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1139438476.714602.183040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
{...}
The issue is that it cannot be taugh in SCIENCE class
as an alternative to a general theory of evolution.
The religious stupidity can be taught in comparative
religions, comparitive philosophy, philosophy, or any
number of NON-SCIENTIFIC classes.
LIAR!
You are ignoring that public schools who want to teach such things are
now living with the fear of being dragged in front of corrupt {...}
Really?
The Saint Louis Post Dispatch seems to disagree with you:
U.S. law allows the Bible to be taught in public schools
as long as the schools offer the courses as electives,
and as long as teachers teach about the Bible rather than
teaching the text as Scripture. For most public schools,
this means teaching the Bible as literature in an English
or history class.
The ADL seems to disagree with you:
Religious theories of creation may be included in classes
on comparative religion as an example of how some religious
groups believe human life began. However, creationism may
never be taught as scientific fact.
The National Center for Science Education seems to disagree
with you:
It is easy to prove that this is not some kind of slippery
slope that bans all discussion of religious views. We can see
this just by looking at the descriptions of the Intersession
courses offered in the Lebec school district (posted below).
Readers will note, for example, that front-and-center on
page 1 is a Comparative Religion class. No parents have
complained about this course, and neither Americans United
nor anyone else has considered filing a lawsuit to block this
course in Lebec! Comparative religion, although not usually a
stand-alone class, is a standard part of social studies
classes, and is part of a good general education. World
history and current events are impossible to understand
without some basic knowledge about the major world religions.
In fact, the CURRENT DOVER SCHOOLBOARD -- remember them? --
said that intelligent design should be taught in comparative
religion class.
Now you, I'm sure, can provide me with some examples where
the courts have rejected a proposed comparative religion
class in public school?
- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines; fails 10th A. test, vague constitutional reference |
08 Feb 2006 07:33:28 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1139438476.714602.183040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
{...}
The issue is that it cannot be taugh in SCIENCE class
as an alternative to a general theory of evolution.
The religious stupidity can be taught in comparative
religions, comparitive philosophy, philosophy, or any
number of NON-SCIENTIFIC classes.
LIAR!
You are ignoring that public schools who want to teach such things are
now living with the fear of being dragged in front of corrupt {...}
Really?
YES REALLY!
What a coward! You evidently couldn't handle the reference I provided
to the article which showed the school in California which decided not
to challenge a lawsuit to stop the school from teaching intelligent
design:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
The Saint Louis Post Dispatch seems to disagree with you:
U.S. law allows the Bible to be taught in public schools
as long as the schools offer the courses as electives,
and as long as teachers teach about the Bible rather than
teaching the text as Scripture. For most public schools,
this means teaching the Bible as literature in an English
or history class.
Look at these unconstitutional tests that they're putting on "free"
religious speech! This is no different in principal from designating
colored seating on busses. And this is all in the name of the bogus
constitutional principal of church-state separation. What happened to
the 10th Amendment? This is what Jefferson really thought about
religious expression:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
The ADL seems to disagree with you:
Religious theories of creation may be included in classes
on comparative religion as an example of how some religious
groups believe human life began. However, creationism may
never be taught as scientific fact.
Funny, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says that
creationism can never be taught in public schools as scientific fact.
The National Center for Science Education seems to disagree
with you:
It is easy to prove that this is not some kind of slippery
slope that bans all discussion of religious views. We can see
this just by looking at the descriptions of the Intersession
courses offered in the Lebec school district (posted below).
Readers will note, for example, that front-and-center on
page 1 is a Comparative Religion class. No parents have
complained about this course, and neither Americans United
nor anyone else has considered filing a lawsuit to block this
course in Lebec! Comparative religion, although not usually a
stand-alone class, is a standard part of social studies
classes, and is part of a good general education. World
history and current events are impossible to understand
without some basic knowledge about the major world religions.
You've switched the subject from intelligent design to comparative
religion. You are ignoring that schools are having to compromise what
material is taught in such classes in order to avoid lawsuits.
In fact, the CURRENT DOVER SCHOOLBOARD -- remember them? --
said that intelligent design should be taught in comparative
religion class.
Now you, I'm sure, can provide me with some examples where
the courts have rejected a proposed comparative religion
class in public school?
Again, you're sidestepping the issue by trying to change the subject to
"comparative religion". Comparative religion is merely a way to get
religious themes into the classroom by compromise which people
shouldn't have to do. Schools don't want to get dragged in front of
corrupt judges who wrongly humiliate people by legislating bogus
absolute church-state separation from the bench.
Again, here's the school in California that opted to get out of a
lawsuit that was forced on it in the name of the bogus constitutional
principal of church-state separation because the school wanted to teach
a class in intelligent design:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Feel free to delete it again.
- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines; fails 10th A. test, vague constitutional reference |
09 Feb 2006 10:40:20 AM |
|
|
In article <1139448808.709786.182860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1139438476.714602.183040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
{...}
The issue is that it cannot be taugh in SCIENCE class
as an alternative to a general theory of evolution.
The religious stupidity can be taught in comparative
religions, comparitive philosophy, philosophy, or any
number of NON-SCIENTIFIC classes.
LIAR!
You are ignoring that public schools who want to teach such things are
now living with the fear of being dragged in front of corrupt {...}
Really?
YES REALLY!
What a coward! You evidently couldn't handle the reference I provided
to the article which showed the school in California which decided not
to challenge a lawsuit to stop the school from teaching intelligent
design:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Actually, I hadn't noticed the cite. Looking at it now, however,
I see nothing about "comparitive" anything. Doesn't seem
to be comparative religion, comparative philosophy, comparative
anything -- simply a one-sided pitch for one particular
myth which is believed by one particular sect. Nothing like
what I describe below.
The Saint Louis Post Dispatch seems to disagree with you:
U.S. law allows the Bible to be taught in public schools
as long as the schools offer the courses as electives,
and as long as teachers teach about the Bible rather than
teaching the text as Scripture. For most public schools,
this means teaching the Bible as literature in an English
or history class.
Look at these unconstitutional tests that they're putting on "free"
religious speech!
Your free religious speech ends with the first penny of my
tax money you accept.
This is no different in principal from designating
colored seating on busses. And this is all in the name of the bogus
constitutional principal of church-state separation. What happened to
the 10th Amendment? This is what Jefferson really thought about
religious expression:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
The ADL seems to disagree with you:
Religious theories of creation may be included in classes
on comparative religion as an example of how some religious
groups believe human life began. However, creationism may
never be taught as scientific fact.
Funny, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says that
creationism can never be taught in public schools as scientific fact.
Creationism absolutely could be taught in public schools as
a scientific fact -- if actual scientists regarded it as
such, which they do not. You could also teach in public
schools as scientific fact that winds are caused by
the breath of Zeus -- if scientists believed that this
to be the source of winds.
The National Center for Science Education seems to disagree
with you:
It is easy to prove that this is not some kind of slippery
slope that bans all discussion of religious views. We can see
this just by looking at the descriptions of the Intersession
courses offered in the Lebec school district (posted below).
Readers will note, for example, that front-and-center on
page 1 is a Comparative Religion class. No parents have
complained about this course, and neither Americans United
nor anyone else has considered filing a lawsuit to block this
course in Lebec! Comparative religion, although not usually a
stand-alone class, is a standard part of social studies
classes, and is part of a good general education. World
history and current events are impossible to understand
without some basic knowledge about the major world religions.
You've switched the subject from intelligent design to comparative
religion. You are ignoring that schools are having to compromise what
material is taught in such classes in order to avoid lawsuits.
Because intelligent design could be taught in a comparative religion
class with no problem whatsoever. The essential aspect
is comparative. You would also want to teach that Raven
coaxed First Men from that clamshell, and that Coyote
ventured into the Abyss and emerged with the world.
You know: various creation myths, not just your favorite one.
But these all could be taught in a comparative religion class.
In fact, the CURRENT DOVER SCHOOLBOARD -- remember them? --
said that intelligent design should be taught in comparative
religion class.
Now you, I'm sure, can provide me with some examples where
the courts have rejected a proposed comparative religion
class in public school?
Again, you're sidestepping the issue by trying to change the subject to
"comparative religion". Comparative religion is merely a way to get
religious themes into the classroom by compromise which people
shouldn't have to do.
You don't have to. Just start your own school. Alternatively,
convince your local public school to cease taking one penny
of tax money. That would be perfectly valid, and Constitutional.
Schools don't want to get dragged in front of
corrupt judges who wrongly humiliate people by legislating bogus
absolute church-state separation from the bench.
Again, here's the school in California that opted to get out of a
lawsuit that was forced on it in the name of the bogus constitutional
principal of church-state separation because the school wanted to teach
a class in intelligent design:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
Feel free to delete it again.
- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, Freddie can't find a law against teaching religion |
08 Feb 2006 08:17:39 PM |
|
|
On 8 Feb 2006 14:41:16 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You're making much ado about technicalities. Again, it was official
state representatives who authorized the 10th A.
They were DELEGATES elected to ONE (1) specific
thing----to represent a demographic constituency for
the ratification of a national constitution.
"States" wrote nothing.
"States" did not ratify the constitution the PEOPLE (in
those states) did.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The key-word is "congress" and "promoting"
"Congress" is not limited to a NATIONAL congress, its a
generic term to signify the legislative branch of
"government" and that can include state and local
"congresses".
You're not being honest with yourself about how the word Congress is
used in the 1st A. of the federal BOR. The founding states had the
power to legislate religion before they established the federal
government and its Constitution.
The original colonists in states did pass laws making
specific religions "official", Freddie. It was a BAD,
BAD thing.
A century or so LATER, the people, via their delegates;
and the founders by conception, declared that a
GOVERNMENT cannot promote, establish, or OTHERWISE deal
in "official religious" observation.
States did NOT create the federal government----the
PEOPLE did. The ratification of the federal
constitution automatically made state constitutions
subservient. The national constitution was SUPREME.
Any notion that an individual state could create, or
take away a national constitutional guarantee is
ABSURD.
The Moore argument is *****.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
A state CANNOT do what is disallowed by the federal
constitution.
The federal constitution says that GOVERNMENT cannot
"establish religion". A state cannot abrogate that
freedom
Jefferson himself reflected
Jefferson is dead. His "letters, writing, or farts are
not legally binding
If Jefferson had meant for his famous "wall of separation" words to
include the States, he would never have written the above note about
the States being trusted with the care of our religious freedoms. The
Court has gotten the wires crossed about Jefferson's "wall of
separation".
It makes NO difference "what Jefferson meant".
The USSC has interpreted that "wall" to mean what is is
NOW.
catholicism or Anglican churches as "official" and THAT
was the fear the prompted the "establishment clause".
It was also the knowledge that the founding colonies
"established" official religons and that was
unacceptable to the founders.
Third, it makes no difference what they "thought" in
1789, the "thought(s)" later on were incorporated into
constitutional DOCTRINE as a reading by the USSC. That
is the function of the USSC----to interpret..."What the
constitution means"
The only reason that you are cheerleading the USSC's corrupt
interpretation of the 1st A. is because you are likewise an enemy of
free religious speech:
Name any place you cannot speak freely about religion,
you moron.
Public schools can "teach" creationism, "intelligent
design" or any other "ism" in a specific class NOW.
That isn't the issue, FREDDIE
The issue is that it cannot be taugh in SCIENCE class
as an alternative to a general theory of evolution.
The religious stupidity can be taught in comparative
religions, comparitive philosophy, philosophy, or any
number of NON-SCIENTIFIC classes.
LIAR!
You can't find a single legitimate school that cannot
(by law) teach a class on religion, religious
philosophy, or anything connected with it.
It cannot be taught in SCIENCE class.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines |
08 Feb 2006 03:44:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.news-daily.com/morelocal/cnhinsfaith_story_038121407.html?keyword=secondarystory
[excerpt]
<snip>
Anthony Harbin, a youth leader at Berea Baptist Church, said he would
welcome students learning about the Bible.
"Any exposure to the Bible is good," he said. "Hopefully, if they can
get in the basics out of that with no denominational bias it's better
than not getting anything."
The man has apparently never taken a class or entered into a discussion
where the bible is examined objectively.
.
|
|
|
| User: "phy" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents, students say Bible course needs guidelines |
09 Feb 2006 12:21:09 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:jDtGf.4042$rL5.324@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.news-daily.com/morelocal/cnhinsfaith_story_038121407.html?k
eyword=secondarystory [excerpt]
<snip>
Anthony Harbin, a youth leader at Berea Baptist Church, said he would
welcome students learning about the Bible.
"Any exposure to the Bible is good," he said. "Hopefully, if they can
get in the basics out of that with no denominational bias it's better
than not getting anything."
The man has apparently never taken a class or entered into a
discussion where the bible is examined objectively.
I think that they should at least be required to teach students about the
southern baptist rivivalist fad in the late 1800's where all the snake oil
salesmen (I mean preachers) would set up a big tent outside of town, preach
fire and brimstone, save people, take up donations(I mean love offerings)
and then move to the next town.
-phy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
