Slashdot Mirror
Texas Approves Conservative Curriculum
Macharius writes "Today, the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light. The article goes on to mention that Texas's textbook approvals carry less influence than they used to due to digital localization technology, but is that even measurable given how many millions of these textbooks will still be used across the country?"
they didn't have that when i was in school.
Their they're doing there hair.
They have books in Texas?
had the founding fathers of usa, each of whom were intellectuals following the age of enlightenment principles and age of reason heard this 'role of christianity in founding of usa', im sure they would laugh their asses out. but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.
ill leave to you, finding which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'. and if you dont know what i was talking about benji, you have loooooong reading to do.
Read radical news here
In other news, today, Knowledge was drug out in the street and shot in the best interest of revisionist history.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
California has half again the population of Texas. Is there no CA state approval for textbooks? Seems that CA and TX should balance each other out, politically.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I don't know much about this issue. Can someone who does tell me what the conservatives wanted in the books, what the liberals wanted in the books, and what actually happened? All I saw on the news was someone use the race card against the conservatives, which doesn't speak well of either side to me.
“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.”
Oh boy.
Will they also emphasize the decline and perversion of Christian values in Government? How about the fact that the inclusion of Christian values in government affairs necessarily renders them un-Christian? I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.
FTFA: "They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians," she said. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world." "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past." ---- 1984 by George Orwell
Do you like the fire department? The public library? Public education? Guess what...you like socialism! We really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism. There is room for the two to coexist. I am a Christian myself, but I will fight to the death to prevent a Theocracy of any kind from taking hold in the United States.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
It's pretty much common knowledge that Texas and is an educational wasteland: http://www.edgetech-us.com/Map/EduLvls.htm
Another shot from a school book repository. The real God has an ironic sense of humor, I think.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The fact that anyone else in the rest of the country gives a damn is an example of how eroded state's rights have become. Why should I care? I don't live in Texas. What if this were another country? Would it be our business? No. It's really not any other state's. Local decisions like this will help or harm them.
Reminds me of the old (ooooooooooooooooolllllllllllddddddd) textbook my calculus teacher has that managed to sneak through Texas book approval. It had four graphs printed right next to each other, the first of which was a step function, the second a parabola, the third was 2 sqrt functions forming a right-facing parabola, and the last was a right facing absolute function. This was the first time the graphs had been printed in color, too, so the *ahem* naughty word really popped.
It doesn't matter which side wins in this debate in Texas. Either way young Texas children will still grow up with no idea how many provinces there are in Canada, what language they speak in Egypt, or who the president of France is.
Take that, O reality with your liberal bias!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Abraham Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN! It's about time the GOP reclaim their long-long-looooooong forgotten mantle as the party that ended slavery and created the platform for modern civil rights.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
As much as this concerns me, the underlying assumption here is that kids actually learn things from textbooks. I find that assumption lacking giving the complete failure of our educational system no matter what they are trying to teach other than that school sucks and the government gives you money.
Yeah because in high school that's what they teach. How totally awesome Che Guevara was!
It's funny seeing how conservatives react to this, as if it's some sort of game of revenge.
You set up a strawman about Che Guevara and then argue in favor of revisionist history, as long as it supports your political views.
Frankly I'm surprised the politicization of classroom materials hasn't been more flagrant and widespread. I'm also wondering why there isn't more of a flip-flop between liberal and conservative influence on school curriculums as voting blocks swing between conservatives and liberals?
The ping pong of history books that was dramatized in 1984 was also a reality as power shifted and people and principles went in and out of favor in Chinese and Russian totalitarian states. I imagine now we will see it here.
Did we think we were going to make China more democratic? We are the tail and they are the dog. We are becoming more like them every day. The high castes of the conservative party long for it. They see the setup of China's ruling class - the iron grip on history - the apparently successful stifling of dissent - and salivate.
If Thomas Jefferson can be "deemphasized" in American History and the separation of church and state can be erased from the history books, there is no longer any break on this. Freedom of ("liberal") speech is not far behind. Make no mistake, this is a bellweather for how much further our society can fall. It also suggests the way America could balkanize, as different regions of the country no longer share a common history.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
There is a 30 day public comment period now, but they are still expected to approve the books on a final party line vote.
What's ironic about your statement is that the "conservative stamp" these turkeys approved includes teaching the speeches of Jefferson Davis alongside those of Lincoln, who was a Democrat. It just goes to show you that LBJ didn't overestimate when he said "there goes the south for a decade" while passing JFK's civil rights bill. The realignment was so severe it now threatens to rewrite history, literally.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
That's rich! Zealous Republicans want to add right-wing propaganda to textbooks, and you blame liberals for it.
There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
Come on, NYT! Why on God's conservative, 10,000-year old earth would legislators consult so-called experts? F*cking New Yorkers have no common sense.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You might be thinking of telling him "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." and collecting on that bet. But like all Republicans who say it's not in the constitution, he'll say "I said 'Separation of church and state' and your quote doesn't mention that at all." They argue that just because they can't pass a law involving any religious institution in any way, doesn't imply they have to be separate. They can mandate all sorts of things religion-related, it just says they can't pass a law!
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
A lot of fundies these days *don't* like the above. As a fundie I used to say, and I have heard other fundies say, that parents sending their children to public school instead of homeschooling them were shirking their parental responsibility to "train up a child in the way he should go" (Proverbs 22.6a KJV).
I still would prefer to homeschool, if I could find materials that weren't written by and for FUNDIES! >_
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
that map only shows where people move to after they get advanced degrees. It does not necessarily mean education in Texas is substandard, although I'm not saying it means the opposite either.
Currently hooked on AMP
Yeah, that First Amendment is for atheists and pinko liberals anyways.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Don't bother replying to that guy. All his posts have always looked like that. Real short, idiotic, and hostile.
80-90% of them quickly sink to -1 and all the rest get 5, which probably reflects a political polarization among moderators.
"Liberals and other anti-Christians"
I hate to break it to you, pal, but the vast majority of liberals in this country are also Christians.
It's pretty pathetic seeing the right-wing talk about 'states rights', when they only care about that concept when it suits them.
Round down the value of Pi to three, like it is in the Bible.
30 day unpaid suspension for teachers using European measurements like millimeters in the classroom.
Add Red Meat Studies to curriculum.
Found Flat Earth Research Institute. Curves of round Earth lead to unclean thoughts. Flat Earth would be easier to navigate around.
Rewrite history so that America won its freedom from the British at the Alamo.
Texas schools to be connected with special filtered internet which only allows access to Conservapedia, foxnews.com, and Amway.com.
OK, now that my knee is done jerking and I've at least skimmed TFA, there are some interesting tidbits.
Dr. McLeroy pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent approach. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
This might not be such a bad thing if it leads students to learn more. For example, in going over materials regarding the Panthers, they might learn that group exercised 2nd ammendment rights. It was the fear of Blacks with guns that led to some of the first (the first?) gun control measures in California. The law was, IIRC, signed into law by... Ronald Reagan!
I'd love to be there when a student raises his hand in class to ask the teacher why a Republican would sign gun control legislation, or presents this fact in an oral report about the Panthers.
Oh, and I wasn't taught this in school. I knew nothing of it until I moved to the Bay Area and learned more about the Panthers simply because I heard they got started in this area. That caused me to become curious and read up on their history. School certainly didn't teach it.
Hearing the adults argue about all this will probably teach the kids in ways that neither side anticipated.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I like my fire department. Now, I don't know about yours, but my fire department is not socialistic. See, the local fire department where I live is a private organization made up of volunteers. They operate by running fund raisers and otherwise getting donations.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I think any smart Christian has to agree that theocracy is a bad idea. After all, nothing guarantees that the state religion has to be the one you happen to believe in.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
"Republican Philosophy?"
Philosophy is literally, the love of knowledge.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I'm an atheist, but he's right. The Constitution does not mention separation of Church and state -- it merely forbids the establishment of any religion. Or am I wrong here? What does it mean really to "separate Church and state?" The idea of a secular state is an excellent one, but I wish the Constitution were clearer on some of these points.
Currently hooked on AMP
I would think more Christians would be for removing "In God We Trust" from the money. For one thing, it's obviously a huge lie. Also, it's really ironic if you think about it.
If they want to put something that reflects Christian values on the money, they should use "Render unto Cesar".
Well, then you can say to him that the Constitution says nothing about the right to own guns. He might be thinking of telling you about the Second Amendment says "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", but you could just respond that that is ambiguous, as it doesn't specify whether they mean "arms" as in weapons, or "arms" as in the upper extremities. Maybe Madison was just concerned about the government chopping them off, as he may have heard that they do in Muslim lands. Then perhaps that jagoff will resort to references of those coeval extra-constitutional writings, wherein the phrase "separation of church and state" can also be found.
Ah, the joys of willful ignorance.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian values
Now I know that the Mormons claim that Jesus visited North America after he was "resurrected," but I wasn't aware that they actually converted. It's like the person that said they only used the King James version of the bible, because if "[Middle English] was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Speaking from personal experience let me say that yes, education in Texas is substandard. Unless that standard is Mississippi.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Honestly, I don't believe that you believe what you are writing for a second, but I love a good troll, so I'll play along.
You really don't think through the consequences of your ideology, do you? What would happen if the fire department were privatized? It would fail. If you don't put out a fire blazing in a building that is not covered, what happens? Does the fire just go out on its own? Or does it spread to the buildings of those covered, as well?
Fighting fires is a public good. Putting out your neighbor's fire helps you, as well. The free market can not efficiently allocate resources in the case where there are externalities, either public goods like fire fighting, public libraries, public schools, and roads; or public bads like pollution. To illustrate: an educated populace creates more value than an uneducated one. If everyone were forced to pay for their own education, we would have a less educated populace, as fewer people would be able to afford it, or would consider it valuable. We would have a less educated populace, creating less value, and we would be worse off overall.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I say we give him what he wants.
Take a stand or shut up.
I hold every single person responsible if they turn a blind eye or stay silent when their principles are trampled.
If possible, even more so, if it's their job to stand and be counted on issues they have been elected to represent.
Every side is entitled to try and promote their viewpoint. To let them get a vote like that by leaving is certainly an emotional statement but completely lacks the realization that; the vote was held, the tally counted, and voluntary absent to make a statement still means factual defeat.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
If only what happens in Texas were like what happens in Vegas.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism and atheism through schools for a long time. It's about time we got back to good, old-fashioned American, Christian values
Wow, and all of this time I thought the idea behind cheap school lunches was simply to ensure that all of the students were fed.
Here I sit, all broken hearted.
Came to poop, but only farted.
We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials. Want to learn about communism? Read The Communist Manifesto along with statistics about communist nations. Want to learn about capitalism? Read The Wealth of Nations and read statistics. Want to learn about evolution? Read the Origin of Species along with contemporary news.
The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other. Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...sometimes it helps to know the issues on which you are commenting.
Granted, some of the points may have been distateful, but a majority of them had to do with watering down American history...to the point that history before 1900 was close to being irrelevant.
* Dropping out the "discovery" of America by Chris Columbus (I know, it's really the "West Indies" on which he landed)
* Removing references to "Christmas" as the celebration of Jesus' birth, BUT adding the Hindu holiday of "Diwali"
* Citizens of the US no longer...texts would talk of "global citizenry"
* Free Enterprise" = BAD ; "Capitalism" = BAD ; BAD = "Imperialism"
"Social Justice" = GOOD ; "Political Correctness" = GOOD
Yeah, many of us may not like all of the changes that were passed, but some of US history may have been salvaged.
Whatever you may think of the process or the results, our history, and that history of the founders of the US, is just as important as knowing how many provinces and territories make up Canada, or the complete lineage of Queen Elizabeth II, back to Harold himself. Every country has it's history, and that's important, but not any more important than retaining the history of the U.S.A.
In the late 80s, the republican base was slipping. Bush I barely won against Dukakis. Keep in mind, Bush was at the center of political power his whole life, headed the CIA, and had just completed 8 years as Vice President. His campaign had to resort to a racist attack ad about Willie Horton.
In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian. Most evangelicals had been uninvolved in politics, until they were discovered by the dying Republican movement. As long as you professed to be evangelical and pro-life, you'd have local preachers pushing their followers to vote for you. Bush II toed the line, and got elected twice for it. The only problem is now the evangelical movements want one of their own in the White House - Sarah Palin - and that's something the ruling business party cannot allow. They brought her in for the VP job, but she couldn't pull the moderate record of McCain. Palin could have been the sideshow, but the business party is greedy, not crazy, and they'll never let her within ten miles of the big red button.
The evangelicals are an enormous and active voting bloc. They do exactly as their pastor or preacher tells them, and nearly half of them are in church every single sunday. Now they are being used up by two seats of power: Republicans and their own church leaders. The Republicans get a voting bloc that will campaign against their own interests, and the church leaders get access to power and a fanatical flock that now worships money, and gives them a bunch of it.
Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day. The evangelicals have no idea which way is north. They don't even have a coherent set of values left. They are just following orders.
Ya, in the US red is interpreted as the people who want to take away our freedoms. It makes more sense to us, because we don't have formal public education on actual political ideology.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
The only thing I learned in school was 1. Trust Science and Math and 2. Most non-science/math text books are full of shit. If you want to learn history start with Howard Zinn and use the book the school gives you for doodling practice.
They did. They walked out of the meeting in protest, because they are in the minority on the board. Would you prefer they stay in the meeting and still lose the vote?
Instead, they created a big enough fuss to gain a lot of media attention, and the conservative board members are actually having electoral troubles.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177 is good for general quotes from the Founding Fathers regarding religion. I like:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." - John Adams
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" - Thomas Jefferson
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." - James Madison
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine
Hear me out on this.
I would suggest that the contents of a high school government or history textbook are unlikely to guide the development of political ideas within the minds of youths. Most people develop political ideas similar to those around them that they trust -- friends, family.
Another way political ideas are developed are through personal experiences -- for example, someone in their 30s still paying off the $50,000 in student loans they ran up at age 18-22 may be more likely to support free public higher education or someone that lost their job (and health care) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care. Someone that experienced an IRS audit or witnessed a bungled federal program first-hand may be less likely to support generous support of public institutions.
In my experience, I have spoken to few people that have reasoned their way to a political view, which would be the process by which such a textbook would impact political leanings. Just a thought...
I also want to note that high school kids are cynical as hell and are not unwilling to call bullshit on things that don't pass the smell test.
Actually, I kind of fear states rights when it comes to religion... Take for example the Ohio Constitution:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=1&Section=07
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. ...
Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.
I assume being an Atheist makes me less moral knowledgeable than the men who flew those planes into the World Trade Center. After all, they were religious and believed in an almighty god.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The school board yesterday and prior has been discussing and weighing the topics and having open discussion.
It's not an open discussion if you think with a closed mind.
Hey here's something the "lazy democrats" tried to pass, but failed:
How can you be Liberal and Christian? Aren't Jesus' words about leadership contradictory to the idea of using a political office to help the poor?
There is already an establishment of a particular branch of religions in including God though...
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
When a system is broken, like this ultra-politicized textbook process, its justifiable to give up on it. Some people take principled stands in life. Sometimes you just need to walk away from a game that's impossible to win.
Id also walk out if a room full of fundies told me that the best compromise is "making sure to list evolution as an untested theory full of flaws and we'll consider mentioning that man and dinosaurs didnt live together, but we're not budging on Christian values forming America."
Its these bullshit compromises that have lead to the US being mocked by other western governments for its pitiful education system.
Oh well, a small percentage of them will go away to college away from their right-wing monoculture and be exposed to different ideas. Lets just ignore this headline then: Texas graduation rate worst in nation, again. Theyre up to 69.2 percent now, err, I guess thats progress.
Godless liberal countries with universal healthcare like Canada and Finland have the best graduation rates in the world. Sorry Texas conservsatives, youre on the losing side of history.
typical. this is WHY conservatives win all the time, because you idealists can't stick to your guns and are too lazy to take the fight to them.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Network tv used to use red for the incumbent/majority party, blue for the other (or maybe the other way around). At some point (possibly 2004), the colors were attached to the party/ideology rather than the incumbency or majority/minority status.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Once again, what would you prefer they have done?
The Conservatives were going to have 11 'yes' votes. The liberals were going to have less than 11 'no' votes. The liberals have been arguing against this for about a year now.
What, exactly, should they have done?
Possibly. That means, if an applicant wishes to apply to a school outside the Texas education system, they'll have to present a cogent, well presented argument as to why they are qualified. They may actually bump a few self-entitled nitwits off the accepted lists by doing so.
All 'round, not a bad way to go.
dot-sig.
If someone can point to an article in the NY Times or Washington Post about how CA or some similar state put a liberal stamp on the nation's textbooks, then I'll begin assuming this article might be something more than an idiotic culture war volley.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
Huh. Apparently they're actually good for something.
Every state has a required course in that state's history.
Bwahahahah!
Good luck with that. The Conservative Ascendancy, such as it is, isn't driven by the libertarian wing of the Republicans, it's driven by the Apocalypse-mongering religious conservatives who want Creationism taught in school and anti-communist fanatics like Joe McCarthy rehabilitated. Your kids will be praying in school and will learn about sex in the back seat of a Ford rather than from a textbook that tells them how to avoid pregnancy and STDs. Vibrators will be illegal nationwide, not just in Alabama. The Federal budget will be 100% Defense, and the streets of every city with more than 5,000 people will be full of the homeless panhandling since Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security were privatized. And the U.S. will be occupying the entire Middle East to provide a buffer zone for Israel's sake.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
A voice of informative reason in a sea of discord. Mod parent up, please.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Ayn Rand? Ya... it stung a bit to reference the site...
Every side is entitled to try and promote their viewpoint. To let them get a vote like that by leaving is certainly an emotional statement but completely lacks the realization that; the vote was held, the tally counted, and voluntary absent to make a statement still means factual defeat.
There are 15 members of the board. All 15 voted. All 15 votes were counted. Exactly what is your point?
On top of that, when you have a majority of votes already publicly declared, the other side has lost. The anonymous coward OP is just spewing FUD because it is obvious that uninformed and biased non-educators have done something publicly shamming to us all and wants to defend them.
For Gods sake, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the revolution. You know him, the AUTHOR of the DECELERATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
Hey guys, relax! If this isn't the kind of change you were hoping for go make changes yourself! It's still a free country! Just some questions to ask yourself:
Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?
Why do you dislike these people so much?
Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?
If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?
Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?
Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you don't believe exists?
Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who don't believe in what you believe?
They also voted BEFORE walking out.
It says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The key word here is "respecting". They cannot make a law that RESPECTS an establishment of religion. Some people try and claim that the Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, but that is obviously not the case. To understand why, simply change the first part of the sentence to something like:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Notice now that what this sentence prohibits the establishment of a state religion AND laws that prohibit the free exercise of state religions.... but that doesn't make sense, because why would you make sure that people have free exercise of a religion that can't exist because of the first statement?
It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes, as well. The first amendment establishes a clear and complete separation between church and state, for the mutual benefit of both.
-Bill
As I have just pointed out, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the Revolution. As everyone today knows, he was the primary author of the Deceleration of Independence. But school children taught under the new rules will NOT know that.
It is one thing to disagree with a belief or have a political view and want to support it. It is another thing entirely to re-write history with absolutely no regard for the truth. This is simply shameful.
TFA says: 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.
First of all, good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US, co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression, and has been very influential around the world. Also good for adding F.A. Hayek, the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics.
But in truth, I was never taught anything about Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes in public school (in one of the best public school systems in the country). Did anyone on Slashdot learn about these guys in public school?
What you really need to know about Hayek and Keynes is in this rap video.
Karl Marx was mentioned, but in a more political way regarding the growth of Communism.
That, and the "Homepage" is a giveaway.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Indeed, and let's not forget the military - funny how the people who whine most about "socialism" seem to be all in favour of a socialised military...
emphasis added
The Texas Freedom Network continues to live blog the Texas State Board of Education hearings where the collection of ignorant dolts on that board debate and amend the social studies standards. And it's getting downright surreal. They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history standards. Seriously.
9:27 - The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.
9:30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with "the writings of") and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson's ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don't buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.
9:40 - We're just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.
9:45 - Here's the amendment Dunbar changed: "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present." Here's Dunbar's replacement standard, which passed: "explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone." Not only does Dunbar's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history -- Thomas Jefferson.
9:51 - Dunbar's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board's far-right members and board member Geraldine "Tincy" Miller of Dallas.
The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy. So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world, and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas, who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment, and John Calvin, who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history, the Reformation, which preceded the Enlightenment.
Yes, you should, in fact, be mouthing the words "what the fuck" right about now.
And the stupidity continues:
11:21 - Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view. This is absurd. If they want students to study the right to bear arms, at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it. This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes. Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard. But the amendment passes anyway. The board's far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.
11:30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. No one seems to care.
11:33 - Bob Craig tries, once again, to talk some sense into these
Very very conservative. Had two teachers who were democrats who taught political science and debate the rest were republican. My english and history teachers worked for Nixon, and a few republican legislatures before becoming teachers. One even mentioned during a creative writing assignment that we should write something we are passionate about like Bob Dole.
My dad was shocked as I turned super conservative thanks to my view of teachers including one who was saying how Reagan saved America. The curriculum was at least supposed to be neutral even though the teachers mentioned their own conservative philosophy they at least taught the other side ... a little.
I do not mind conservative curriculum if liberal is taught beside it so people can think for themselves. I do not get how these extremist feel threatened with anyone who does not think like them. I at least understand how other people and maybe thats what makes me different. Some people think ignorance is a bliss.
http://saveie6.com/
Hate to break it to ya pal, but going to church once a year does not make you christian...
Indeed.
Attending church services is not required at all to be a Christian. Not does attending a Christian church every single day make you a Christian.
It is solely a matter of faith in the fundamental Christian doctrine of salvation though belief in and acceptance of Jesus and his teachings.
There is no political test for Christianity, nor any other doctrinal test.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Network tv used to use red for the incumbent/majority party, blue for the other (or maybe the other way around). At some point (possibly 2004), the colors were attached to the party/ideology rather than the incumbency or majority/minority status.
I think it was the 2000 election when, instead of the map colors being used one day every four years, they were on the screen every day for weeks while the Bush-Gore recount was underway. The terms "red state-blue state" was coined and it stuck.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Public schools should be eliminated and replaced with a voucher system so kids can get a quality, Christian education.
Great, at least in a privatised school system, I could send my children to one where they can learn about socialism[*] and atheism, and not be subject to the stupid changes discussed in the article!
[*] Actually overall I favour capitalism to socialism, but the arguments you make are too funny.
I have news for you atheists, you will all be "under god" as you are burning in hell.
Yes, but at least I'll have a socialised fire service to put it out.
Do they refuse to put out fires for people in the district that don't help support the volunteer fire department then?
So tell that to all the idiots who whine about national healthcare, falsely calling it "socialism".
Look at the hint in their user-profile, then look at your keyboard, reikk == troll
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
I thought that Jefferson and the other founding fathers were in favor of acceleration of independence not deceleration.
I think the finding fore fathers were thinking of the Catholic Church to influence American politics or at least have some other church like the King's Anglican Church. That is it and I agree with the religious right that if senators want a prayer meeting in an office in a government building then they should. Its to just make sure a religious organizations do not pull the puppet strings of the leaders.
http://saveie6.com/
Why can't the exact same thing be said to be true for Texas?
i.e. "Texas is the second largest textbook market, but it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
With clarity, I mean the catholic church in the old days picked kings and made them sign covenants to serve the church. France and Italy for example had hand selected leaders by the pope. In England the king or queen is hte head of state with its anglican church too.
The seperation merely means government is government and church is church.
http://saveie6.com/
So... how many fire fighting gigs do they budget for?
By proscribing the establishment of an official national religion, the Constitution implies that no single religion may be favored by the government over other religions. Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion. Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Hey braintrust - The liberals did vote. No one abstained from voting.
Well that's simple. They should sling assault rifles over their shoulders as they go to these meetings. It's a valid form of protest now, according to modern conservatives.
If you want to go there, fine. How can a conservative be a christian when Jesus preached about helping the poor?
Oh so now conservatives get to judge who the "real christians" are.
For the record I'm and atheist, and you're validating much of what I hate about organized religion, and the right-wing's usurpation of a religion for their political goals.
But wait Mexico, there's more! You can also get Alabama for the low, low price, of one Taco Bell in every town! ;)
What does Mexico have to do with Taco Bell?
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
To clarify the AC's point below mine, Texas' market for textbooks is large enough that publishers write the textbooks to Texas standards and then sell them nationwide. West Virginia's (or South Carolina's, or Maine's, or Illinois') standards don't get considered.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Damn those hedonistic heathens! No wonder the Texas School board took pains to reduce the importance of Thomas Jefferson.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
=P Its a little known fact that they wanted really, REALLY slow independence. Like being free in molasses.
Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.
Case in point: look at the county by county results for proposition 8 (banning gay marriage). Outside Alpine, Mono, and Santa Barbara counties, and the greater Bay Area (a shoe-in), the entire state voted "yes" to ban gay marriage. Honestly I'm rather surprised by Alpine and Mono, being some of the most inland counties, where inland is traditionally more conservative.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I live in Texas, and when it comes to voting, my top priority is to find out who is a fundamentalist whack job, and vote against them. When in doubt, vote Democratic. These fundamentalist weasels are always trying to catch the electorate sleeping.
I know of this McLeroy character mentioned in the article. The man is a creationist, though he's learned to be slick about it. I'm hoping he loses in the election, and am doing my part to help that result along.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
“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.”
Oh boy.
He is probably pulling the "amendments aren't part of the constitution" gambit, by which the validity of the Equal Protection clause and the Income Tax is also "refuted." -dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
WHAT WE NEED MORE OF IS SCIENCE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ
I just finished grad school in Texas and was dumbfounded on how many arguments I got when I had to teach human evolution. Some of the most basic things that we take for granted as fact were just thrown to the wayside. Fortunately college has a way of forcefully opening your mind, but I really feel for these kids up until that point.
Unfortunately Texas students may not be ready for college, and if they do go to college they may need to take remedial classes.
The only thing I saw I liked was the inclusion of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek in economics.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
He can't, obviously.
I grew up in Dallas long ago when text books were even more conservative. I do not remember anyone being influenced by the views therein. Everyone knew that the text books were simple strokes for bears of little brain. The bears of little brain understood this as well, so in the end nobody paid much attention to text books. By age 16 I had read Darwin's Origin of Species and The Voyage of the Beagle. I was surprised that neither those who were pro evolution nor those who were anti evolution had bothered to do so. So I ignored both camps. College in Massachusetts, much the same. Students might be on the side of "science" but had remarkable little knowledge of science itself. Probably what is needed is text books that can also double as toilet paper. At least that way you could get some use out of them.
"Respecting" is used in the sense of concerning or referring to, not in the sense of esteem. And establishment is used in the sense of an existing institution, not creating a new one.
It's a trick question. Bradley knows full well that words the specifically say that, are not in The Constitution itself. Oh, they are a matter of record, and yes, in just so many words. Just not in that particular document. That's what Bradley and his ilk bank on - ignorance. They know that that the drooling dittoheads they play to are disinclined, if not incapable, of reading for themselves and learning what the framers of The Constitution had in mind when the drafted that great work.
They're working on it. From TFA:
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.
Godless liberal countries with universal healthcare like Canada and Finland have the best graduation rates in the world. Sorry Texas conservsatives, youre on the losing side of history.
I know you are kidding, but godless Canada? We actually have a God reference in our anthem, something the US anthem lacks.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
The question I have for you is if you have schools that includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. what kind of prayer or religious symbols would you allow in the school. Allowing a dominant Christian culture to take over may be intimidating to members of other religions and the non-religious, something the Federal Government is required to protect you against in public life.
At least he's braver than some AC. (Not that I don't occasionally post AC myself).
Libertarian wing, thank you for clarifying. The Libertarian Party, proper, is staffed with kooks, (with Ron Paul types, I agree.)
Those of us eating the Republican Party alive are currently focused on getting candidates elected that will deliver the following three things, in order:
1) Draconian spending cuts - balanced budgets aren't enough, start paying debts. No such thing as "non-discretionary"
2) Drastic tax cuts - bet on the private sector to pull you out of recession
3) Handle defense. Maybe increase, maybe decrease - but just take the job seriously
Some people I've dealt with put #3 before #2. If that's all we disagree about, I'm happy. Collectively, we have no social agenda, we're going Big Tent style to win big and focusing primarily on finances.
I personally don't cry foul about the notion of transfer programs and government services getting the axe. The main reason why I think this is my opinion that Big Government is very poor at service delivery and represents a poor investment. It is also my opinion that Big Government hopelessly twists our economy (see: our suicidal monetary policy, effects of Medicare/Medicaid/gov't regulation on the medical industry, our schizophrenic tax system, etc.)
I don't ascribe to the notion that "socialist/big/progressive government hasn't been done right, yet" as an explanation for why those styles of government ultimately collapse of their own weight. It's my contention that Big Government is impossible to get right: human nature and power-hungry individuals in the system always prevent any real good from getting done. I know there is PROMISE in big government, but the follow-through always falls way short of the promise.
I believe this is why the American style of government was originally structured the way it was, having a weak central government and strong states. The centralized power is attractive, but doesn't scale well. I know at the state and local level, I have a better chance at wringing the responsible party's neck when I'm not happy. When power rests with nameless bureaucrats, then I have no neck to wring.
Go ahead and label me "mean" or "cruel" or whatever, in my opinion the Big Government model does not work and takes too much of our freedoms, economic and otherwise. I say, transfer power to local/state governments and try to vote yourself gifts there, if you'd like - I'll be sure to fight you or move somewhere else that values personal responsibility and freedom.
Put another way: living in the world, by and large, sucks. It sucks less here in the States because we value (or at least USED to value) freedom and liberty and justice. By and large, people are good natured and healthy and can take care of themselves, so leave them alone. A reduction of my freedom on promises of even less suckyness doesn't square in my mind with history - in fact, itsatrap.
I am not advocating anarchy and no government and no regulation and no government spending, I'm just looking for a vast rollback of those things.
Going meta on this discussion for a moment. It is at this point is when liberal friends of mine always pull out the sob stories about someone who needs big gov't to save them (or they pull out the personal insults to try to get their way.) I've always felt this was just ivory tower brow-beating and lacked much substance. Anyhow, sorry to diverge there.
kthxbye
It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes, as well.
But their papers and notes are not in the Constitution and thus superceded by the debatable wording of the Constitution itself.
For more tortured constitutional phrasing see:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
With the positioning of the commas in that sentence it says that you had to be alive at the time the Constutitution was adopted (circa 1787) in order to be eligible to be president.
Of course not. Though after 2008-2009, you would think coverage of Friedman and Hayek would be less than complimentary.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
His e-mail is: sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us
The part of the constitution he would be looking for would be the first ammendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
And the charity I asked him to support is: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
I hope many of you join me in e-mailing him.
Okay, good luck with that. I think you vastly overestimate your ability to remake the Republican party (and vastly underestimate the space you're sharing in your traditional coalition with social conservatives), but we'll see what the next ten years bring. If you actually succeeded as you outline above, it sounds like it would be pretty good--but this isn't a new philosophy, and it has its own history of failing in practice. Everyone thinks every entitlement should go--except their favorite. The enduring image of tea partiers I have is an old lady being interviewed, and saying she wants the government to keep its hand off her Medicare. The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
As an aside, if you'd started with something this calm and thoughtful, rather than the snotty, liberal bashing you began with, you might get more reasonable discussions.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
its a travesty, but rousseau, voltaire, montesqieu were even bigger proponents of secularism than jefferson. for starters, all of these come before jefferson, and have influenced jefferson and his generation. not to mention that their writings have practically kickstarted the enlightenment movement in late 18th century. hilarious.
Read radical news here
Perhaps Madison just wanted to make sure Americans could possess as many bear extremities as they want.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Dang it. I basically agree with you but, when you write something like that, you really need to proof-read to make sure you don't make that kind of mistake. As for politics, not playing is the sure way to lose. The only way to win WRT politics is to not get into stupid arguments and instead research who the candidates are before heading to the voting booth.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
They are right, stop judging people as groups. It is just wrong and makes you look stupid and small minded, unable to comprehend diversity among similar people.
no comment
I guess the sorry state of education in this country is to blame.
Several of the original states (colonies) had established churches (official state churches, like the Church of England) at the time the constitution was being written. The establishment clause was specifically intended to protect those state churches by forbidding the federal government from legislating them away. It is really an anti-dis-establishment clause.
It really helps to understand that "establishment of religion" is being used as a noun here, and not as a verb.
See that "Preview" button?
It works better if your read the page out loud with a thick Russian accent.. while using a ridiculously long cigarette holder.
Now we catch moose and squirrel..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You could just provide vouchers in lieu of public schools, and give the fundamentalists the finger as you sent your kids to whatever hippie school you ever wanted. See? Liberalism need not be wedded to socialism.
I graduated HS in 2003 and until the 8th grade in San Antonio, we were taught Texas History, and something called "Social Studies", which was mostly about contemporary national politics. The curriculum may be biased, but a first step should include teaching kids earlier on about the rest of the world. Seriously, before arguing, all you non-Texans should first realize that most Texans are still silently plotting how we can secede from the Union.
Dear Mexico (no one is particular, just all of Mexico),
Please come pick your child up, like right now, he's being a pain in the ass and the other kids in the playground, except Alaska, want him to shut up. Please come get your child, because we're tired of dealing with him for the last 100 years (take New Mexico too, he gets uppity sometimes too, we'd like to keep Arizona).
Sincerely,
New England
That's the problem with that bet, because you can just redefine what you think "separate of Church and state" means and not have to pay up. Basically though I do think the Christian right is probably closer to matching the views of most of the founding fathers than those advocating for a complete divorce from all concepts of religion by governments. Though these issues were present from the very first congress of the US (the draft oath of office included the word "God" which was later removed before becoming law). What the founding fathers overtly intended was to prevent having a national church or religion, which was essential in what at the time was a society with many fundamentally different religious ideas and institutions (including Quakers and Unitarians).
Objectively, it is a bit hard to see a difference between someone who sues the school district because they teach evolution and someone who sues the school district because a teacher leads a prayer. Both views come down to "how dare they expose my children to ideas I don't want them exposed to!"
Funnily enough, that's the sort of thing the Bolsheviks did when the Mensheviks tried to have calm, rational meetings with them.
Before the Mensheviks were shipped off to the Gulag or purged, I mean.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The more fun one is asking how you can be gay and be a christian. I mean, really, mon. The bible expressly tells all the people you are hanging out with that, ah, if you act on your natural impulses that they have to KILL YOU.
C//
they had a bad case of humorrhoids
I disagree. It's better that the children learn about hip hop now from their school, rather from their "homies" in their "hood". ;-)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Do you like the fire department? The public library? Public education? Guess what...you like socialism! We really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism. There is room for the two to coexist. I am a Christian myself, but I will fight to the death to prevent a Theocracy of any kind from taking hold in the United States.
If you think a public safety mechanism like a fire department is socialism, then "socialism" has no meaning. Fire departments, police departments, armies... these are not argued against by any sane person I've ever met, from communist to Randroid. Public libraries? You know, I can't recall anyone arguing against those, either, since they're very cheap ways to provide the public with means to educate itself. (Also: they're run by local governments, not the feds.) Public schools? Well, now you're talking about something where there's no reason to believe that the government can do the job better than anyone else. We don't generally give poor people food; we give them food stamps. We don't give them housing; we give them housing vouchers. There's not really a way to provide "library vouchers", but it's pretty easy to provide school vouchers.
It's funny seeing how conservatives react to this, as if it's some sort of game of revenge.
Pretty schoolyard of them, isn't it?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
holy fuck, talk about just throwing in the towel. get more liberals on the board, work on individuals that might turn into a swing vote if talked with away from the group.
inspite of what you seem to think here on slashcrap, groups of people are NEVER 100% polarised on any topic. every person will have a different view and who can be bargined with to get a mutually benefical outcome.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
A group of people helping their fellow man without expectation of pay?
Men cooperating with men to fight the dangers that we face in our lives?
People paying for their service only when they want to and when they can afford it?
This is nothing but socialism, and should be stamped out at every available opportunity! I am raising a personal militia to take down these socialist bastards!
(Any support will be greatly appreciated.)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
If you think that "socialism" is the word for anything government-funded, then it has no meaning.
The parent's comment is harsh, but when time comes to look for a job, so is the employer.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Separation of church and state" is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 (long after the founding fathers were all dead).
The phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
so someone moderate parent insightful please.
Read radical news here
There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. That's why we need an amendment.
I believe that my sig (which I've had for years) indicates exactly what you are saying.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Education here is terrible unless you pay through the nose for private - the cheapest around here is $4500/yr for elementary, rising to $10000/yr for jr high/high school.
Hmm, and I guess that, since the constitution doesn't expressly allow laws regarding the separation of church and state, it would be unconstitutional to pass such laws.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
First, that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion whatsoever.
Second, how do you explain "Creator" and "Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence?
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
> you will all be "under god" as you are burning in hell.
Which god? I don't believe any of these fairly tales, but I would laugh my head off at the very thought of you waking up in the afterlife and facing Zeus, Odin, or Vishnu.
And in any case, I would rather spend eternity in Hell than spend forever in worship and obedience of a megalomaniac dictator. Kind of like an eternity in North Korea.
My rights don't need management.
They're working on that too. There's a vocal bunch of assholes who want to replace The Star Spangled Banner with "God Bless America" as the official national anthem.
They already put "under God" in the pledge of allegiance which wasn't in there when my Father and Mother learned it as kids.
mods are rediculously anti-christian (or liberal). Look at my post compared to the parent - exactly the same, but mine is modded down and his is up ;-P
Exactly! I've been saying stuff like this for years.
You don't like the condition of the roads in your area?
Get together with your neighbors, have a bake sale to raise money, buy some construction equipment, put on a hard hat and start paving.
You don't like that the your area isn't as safe as it could be?
Get together with your neighbors, have a bake sale to raise money, buy some guns (or sack of doorknobs), set up a jail, and start serving justice.
You don't like that you drinking water is unsafe?
Get together with your neighbors, have a bake sale to raise money, put on a hard hat to build a waster water treatment center and then starting cleaning our water.
And the list goes on and on.
I don't understand why we pay taxes when it is so obvious that the alternative of a system of private voluntary organizations seems so straight forward and easy to implement. All you have to do is get together with neighbors and have fund raisers! My god, what could be simpler???!!!
PS - I like peanut butter chocolate brownies.
Yes it is, it has been less than 10 years since the Taliban lost power and was kicked out of Kabul and Afghanistan isn't a strict Islamic nation. Heck the Taliban has to pay and or scare some of those it gets support from.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, God does. His Bible does. His value of human life does. And if any christian wants to argue the issue of abortion, be my guest. I simply find it impossible to support abortionists (democrats) as a Christian, regardless of (relatively) petty economic or foreign policies.
Did you look at some of the stuff they objected to? That they tagged as "conservative"? The Times objects to the teaching, for example, that we are a constitutional republic rather than a democracy - which is an objectively true fact. They object to teaching that the free enterprise economic system works best in the absence of limited government intervention - which is another objectively true fact. Someone else here objected to the rejection of a liberal's amendment trying to explain that the founders favored a separation of church and state, when it is objectively false that they did. Imagine if those bad bad conservatives tried to teach the objective fact that bans on prayer in schools (public or otherwise) are in direct violation of the constitution.
"Do you like the fire department? The public library? Public education? Guess what...you like socialism!"
That's a pretty disingenuous argument, and assumes that if you support any level of public funding for something, that you should support all levels. Because I find my post office and fire department necessary in no way means that I find government ownership of banks, automakers, and medicine necessary. The founders wanted things like a postal service, and at the same time said "the government that governs best is that which governs least". Kind of hard to govern least if the government pays for everything, no?
"e really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism."
The dichotomy isn't false, and is in fact, pretty stark.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Let me take a wild guess...
When they were written by non-whites, non-christians, and non-westerners?
It's sad how so many cannot move beyond such racial/ethnic binning. Us against them. I married one of "them", and I am happier for it.
My rights don't need management.
I get it now. American politics is now dominated by the "Bloods" and the "Cryps"! Oh, Southpark, how prescient are you?
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I'm quite sure that an engineer gone dentist is the right person to decide on a social science curriculum: This is the leader of the conservative majority. I think the next Oscars should be awarded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.
T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Much of that is for demographic reasons, though. The areas of Texas considered worse than average are heavily concentrated along the border with Mexico. That's an immigration issue, not an issue with the quality of Texas schools. The other areas where stats are similar are in central California... ground zero of winter agriculture, again, an immigration issue.... and in the southern Mississippi valley, where there is a huge population of elderly black people whose education years were pre-civil rights era, and in Appalachia, where there's a heavy concentration of poor white elderly that had almost no access to schooling pre-WWII.
In 30 years, those two areas will look largely like the rest of the country, simply because the elderly have died off. But unless we adopt draconian immigration controls, southern Texas and central California will largely be the same.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"With affordable health care, the Honorable Gentleman Senator of Michigan could be able to remove that hairy wart from his ass."
There's one thing I noticed in the health care debate, none of the Democrats proposed voters get the same health care as congress gets. Perhaps that's because they know it will bankrupt the nation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
How about working on Sundays and being Christian? How about eating shellfish and being Christian?
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
Referring to Democrats as abortionists is absolutely retarded. Do you have a hard time supporting Republicans as well? The last time I checked Jesus didn't think too highly of capital punishment, or war.
I've heard many die-hard liberals using Jesus to try to claim that Jesus would support communism / socialism, so we should be communist / socialist.
They are not Liberals, liberals believe in "the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals". What these people believe in is big government.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I've lived in areas with so-called volunteer fire departments and every single one depends on a big-town fire department that is paid for with tax dollars to come to their assistance for anything really serious. And often the "volunteer" departments will have a couple of paid firemen.
History is about events that happened. "God" never did *anything* that has evidence of actually happening. So why should "he" be mentioned in a book of history? Sure talk about religion. Priests and equivalent clerics had a major influence on history. But priests are human.
No, they don't. Illinois doesn't.
No, God does. His Bible does. His value of human life does.
You have GOT to be kidding me. God completely wipes the world clean of all life (save a chosen few) in a flood, orders the Hebrews to go to war and to murder the survivors, gives long lists of rules that end with "then they shall be put to death", and that's just the introduction! If you want to argue that God cares about the fate of our souls and as part of that orders us not to commit murder that's fine, but from a Biblical viewpoint mortal life is a trivial matter.
I simply find it impossible to support abortionists (democrats) as a Christian, regardless of (relatively) petty economic or foreign policies.
But you know, about as certainly as you possibly can, that even with significant Republican majorities that abortion will remain legal, and very few things in that area will change. On the other hand, with different leadership we might have avoided the Iraq war entirely - saving tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives, and possibly giving us the manpower to make Afghanistan work; health care reform (if done properly) could save thousands of American lives. And just to make it really crazy: better sex ed, cheap or free birth control, letting gays and single people adopt, and better health care could easily lower the number of abortions preformed, but because most people that support those things still want abortion legal, you're willing to support those that give token speeches about the evils of abortion, while doing everything possible to make sure that women still have reasons to get them.
Several of the founders were Deists - they believed in a creator god who set the universe in motion, but thereafter had no influence on its affairs. Not Christians.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Seriously, New England is the only place to surrender to France in the last 200 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_(1775) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
Hah. Presupposes that you're going to find an agreeable school within a sane distance without moving elsewhere.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
{citation needed}
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
as there are believers
As I've pointed out to some Christians when they've brought up Pacal's Wager, the problem is which "God" do you believe? Some of them are jealous and smite thee for idolization. So which do you believe, the one who's name can't be spoken? One of the Christian ones, or one of the Allas?
One would think that the spectacle of Islamic Jihadism would be enough to remind us of what religion is when given free reign, but two hundred years of domesticated and tamed Christianity have encouraged the illusion that the creature has changed its nature. It hasn't. It's just biding its time...
While true of many there are some who want to "bring it on". Much like the Taliban in Afghanistan there are Christian Talibans in the US, such as Dominionists and other Christian Reconstructionists who would have people stoned to death for adultery, homosexual actions, and other things.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
The Bill of Rights contains the establishment clause. In the Constitution itself there is a strict prohibition against a religious test for public office:
"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -- Article VI
That looks to me like an unambiguous statement about the relationship between church, or better, *religion* and state.
As for other ambiguities in the Constitution, the document was forged out of numerous compromises part of what the opposition saw as an illegal effort to nullify the Articles of Confideration. The document was made intentionally ambiguous so that opposing parties could read into it what they wanted and argue for their positions after its adoption. The original drafters just needed to get it signed because the Confederation was failing.
These same conservatives talk about upholding the Constitution and returning to the founders' intentions. The founders argued with one another more than modern Americans do, and the Constitution legitimates slavery and denies womens' suffrage.
Finally, the opening paragraph of the Constitution states the intent of the signers to ensure the "promotion of the general Welfare." That could very well be interested to support the intervention of government in public health.
Apologies for the asides, but people should read the damn document before they spill tears for it.
Brother Glitch23,
Jesus Christ was the Son of God and He died for my sins. We follow God by taking up our crosses and feeding the hungry, visiting the imprisoned, healing the sick and clothing the naked. We preach the good news and the acceptable year of the Lord.
I am a Liberal, I am your Christian brother, and if you don't believe me, just go ask Pop.
And as much as it pains me to point this out, you have some reading to do.
There is nothing wrong with making known our history just because it has a religious foundation, except for those who hate religion.
I'm assuming you're referencing the Puritans, since Jamestown was a fairly commercial endeavor. Your problem is that those Puritans would not have recognized you as a fellow Christian, any more than you most likely recognize Catholics as fellow Christians. If you're a Southern Baptist, Assembly of God or any other Evangelical, you'd have been shunned as a heretic.
BTW, those Puritans you're putting on the pedestal, you might want to read a little Hawthorne, or the history of King Philips' War. The Indians saved the lives of the Puritans that first winter. The children of the Pilgrims paid them back by slaughering the Indians' children and stealing their lands. Like I said, don't take my word for it. Go spend some time with Nathaniel Hawthorne.
"There is no reason to hide that fact unless the agenda is to try to make our country look like it was not founded on religious beliefs."
Sigh. Start reading Jefferson. Read it long, read it hard, and read it in the knowledge that it was written by a man who spent his nights literally cutting and pasting the supernatural out of his copy of the Bible. Read it in the knowledge that the man who wrote this nation's beginning had a decades-long affair with a woman that he owned as a slave.
If you think it's going to be diffiult to square Jefferson with your theology, tighten your seatbelt and hang on, because when you read about the unbridled debauchery that was Benjamin Franklin...
When you can't take that any more, start in on the "Federalist Papers." They're dry, they're tedious, and they'll permanently put to bed any idea that this was meant to be a "Christian" nation.
As far as taking "In God We Trust" off the currency, it is for the same reason as what I stated above.
Sigh. That motto was put on US currency in 1956, during the same wave of panicked nationalist fervor that spawned Hoover and McCarthy. Are you sure the Church should be laying claim to that?
But since we're talking about Christianity and Coins, let's go back to the book we really ought to be reading. When the Zealots asked Christ "Is it lawful to pay taxes unto Ceaser?" it wasn't a financial question. You didn't exactly file a W-2 with Rome. Taxation under Rome was a lot closer to outright mugging. Why do you think tax collectors like Zacchaeus were so hated?
What the Zealots were really asking was "Don't you think it's time to throw off Roman bondage and establish Isreal as God's Holy Nation again?"
Look at His answer. Give it to them. Look at His other answers. Sell all that you have, and give to the poor. If they take your shirt, give them your coat too. If they make you a slave, do more than they ask you too. Resist not evil men. Give to any who asks. Here, take this, care for this man and if you need any more, charge it to my account. I'll pay it. Put down that sword, I don't need you to fight for Me, my Kingdom is not on this world and if you're fighting over things that are here, you have missed the point. Yes, I'll die to save people who do not deserve it. I'll die to save the people who are actually killing me.
My Kingdom. Is. Not. Here.
Those men in Texas have forgotten this. They don't want to take up their cross. They want to lay down the law. They seek to further the Kingdom by political will, rather than by feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked and visiting the imprisoned.
And my real fear for those men is they'll be asked why they didn't one day...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2010/01/king-james-was-liberal-media.html
Table-ized A.I.
The Bill of Rights are most certainly part of the original US Constitution. The First Amendment is what he is looking for that declares, explicitly, that thou shalt not bare any Religion within Government, commandment crap. It speaks volumes to the person for never grasping language and bothering to read Jefferson, Madison, and more on their intent with the amendments.
TO AVOID THE USUAL FATE OF NATIONS
There is so much information that became the US Constitution in this one page from the Debates On The Constitution, Part I compiled by the Library of America that anyone who claims there is no Separation of Church and State has a comprehension problem.
Amendment I
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.
The US Constitution means what it says: it forbids precisely the establishment of a state religion.
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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."
It's not hard to understand this, if you even briefly study the world the Constitutional framers lived in, and the context of English government at the time.
This has NOTHING to suggest that the founders intended a secular state; in fact, church services were held in the congress for years.
I would also argue that this clause should make the government religion-blind; churches should have no special tax status certainly, nor be treated in any way differently than any other corporation or association of individuals.
-Styopa
The question I have for you is if you have schools that includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. what kind of prayer or religious symbols would you allow in the school.
Whatever people want. I think kids are smart enough to know if Mrs. McGrooty's prayer is her prayer, or a prayer mandated by the school corporation (the State). As things stand now, Mrs. McGrooty can't pray out loud in school without getting sacked. "She tried to lead us in prayer, then she said we were dismissed for Christmas Break!"
Allowing a dominant Christian culture to take over may be intimidating to members of other religions and the non-religious, something the Federal Government is required to protect you against in public life.
Wait, what? The Fed is required to protect everyone from the evils of religion... not even the evils of religion, but just the implicit self-created intimidation when you're around religious folk? Where'd that amendment come from? The Fed is supposed the stay out of citizens' ways and let them sort it out (unless things turn violent... wait, civil protection is local government's job. I guess the Fed is supposed to STAY THE F*#% OUT ALWAYS).
Well, I mean, equipment can be tallied up easily enough but through the course of using gear, tools, and vehicles, they will wear out and can be damaged. More fires, more use, more maintenance required.
Basically, I'm sort of wondering if them raise a bunch of money to cover costs and then some or if they simply raise just enough to cover current debts. I'm not sure how it is here and, while I was trying to make a pointed question, my curiosity has been piqued.
I'm sorry you lived in areas where not enough people were civic minded enough to support a competent volunteer fire department. When there is a serious fire in this area, five or six or more volunteer fire companies may turn out to fight the fire. If the next town over has a government fire department it would certainly respond to a multi-alarm blaze. Of course, if the government fire department has a multi-alarm fire within its area, the nearest volunteer fire departments will turn out to help fight the fire. Where I am specifically the nearest government fire department would over 1/2 hour to get here.
And yes, some of the local volunteer fire departments have paid fire fighters, but they aren't paid with tax dollars. They are paid out of the same fund raisers that pay for the fire hall and the fire engines.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't know the details of how they do the budgeting, never having been part of one of them. However, I know of three or four that I know are approximately 200 years old (that is they were founded not long after the original volunteer fire department started by Benjamin Franklin).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What about:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"
and
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Good news.
Funny how these fundamentalists (Christian that is) are quick to condemn any other religion, and yet here they behave like the fundamentalist Muslims. What a bunch of hypocrites passing lies off as fact. If my daughter was in public school I would make sure she knows not to believe any of it.
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
Not in Colorado or Massachuettes
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
... I vote Republican because I don't want a 50% overall tax rate.
a) If you voted for Democrat(s), you would not be supporting a 50% overall tax rate. b) While Democrats tend to vote for more government services i.e. expenditures, often without raising tax revenues to pay for it, Republicans tend to vote for eliminating tax revenues, often without eliminating government services that they finance. Neither situation is in the best interest of the citizens of the USA as they increase future taxes more than otherwise be prudent. That's one reason I consistently vote for people that are not endorsed bay any political party for the Federal or State office I'm casting my vote for. Last presidential election I voted for Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, NJ. I'm willing to vote for a Democrat or Republican that supports the public funding of federal election campaigns as advocated by fixcongressfirst.org. But only for one term.
that map only shows where people move to after they get advanced degrees.
I fear you are guessing. The likelihood of 9th grade "graduates" not relocating (ie. staying in KY or TX) might be just as high as the college graduates staying put (take a look at the white county right in the middle of PA; that's Centre County where Penn State is located.)
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
if you read the first amendment in a historical vacuum then yes is forbids an establishment and does not explicitly speak about 'separation'. However if you read what almost all of the major 'founding father' figures were writing at the time, and what they said about it afterwards it is obvious that they intended to separate church and state affairs. Of the major 'founding fathers' that everyone hears about (Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Madison, Adams, etc.) they were all secularists at the very least but many of them were outspoken Deists who were nothing if not hateful of organized religion both philosophically and as it relates to governance. Furthermore 'separation' is an arbitrary distinction from a lack of establishment, both of those words have different meanings depending on who is arguing at a given moment and those meanings always meld to fit whatever agenda they are pushing.
Of interest is that it doesn't say "God", or make any specific reference to the christian god. In fact, separating it out in such a manner would seem to indicate there is a separate entity, at least in the minds of the framers.
Interesting things pop up when you listen objectively.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
No, you should just move to Canada!
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
Wow. Just when I start to think there's absolutely no value in religion, I read a post like this!
I still don't believe in the supernatural aspects, but this is spot on. The only problem is (as many others have pointed out), good people tend to do good and bad people tend to do bad regardless of what their own religion professes. Furthermore, those who most need to hear your message will not listen to it.
Nevertheless, thank you for being a voice of sanity on behalf of Christianity!
This. Thanks for writing that post. :)
Christianity has got everything to do with Christ, and not much to do with Jesus.
Please, please don't use "socialism" as shorthand for "government services". Socialism versus capitalism is about the relationship of workers to the means of production. Just because the various Social-Democratic parties long ago abandoned socialism, that doesn't mean we should forget what the concept even is.
Property is theft.
Let the superior EU mind answer these questions correctly.
Canada is the 52nd state, it doesn't have provinces since it joined the world AKA the USA
Egyptian obviously, all languages can be known by just adding ian to the country name. Dutchian, belgianian, englishian.
And the president of France is the crook, not the fascist.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
GP is still right though. A militia consisted of people with chopped off upper extremities is pretty much useless.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I have to be careful here, because I might accidently mention that Santa Claus does not exist and that would shatter your child like view of the world... oops.
This might not be such a bad thing if it leads students to learn more. For example, in going over materials regarding the Panthers, they might learn that group exercised 2nd ammendment rights. It was the fear of Blacks with guns that led to some of the first (the first?) gun control measures in California. The law was, IIRC, signed into law by... Ronald Reagan!
You really believe this? You really believe that this is the viewpoint that the republicans want to show? Somehow I doubt it, and that any lynchins and show trials in republican areas would quite by accident not be mentioned at all.
No, I think you need a bit more growing up young one. A bit more exposure to how people with an agenda think and speak.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You mention it almost in passing but never actually examine what you believed your country to stand for.
And that is what is wrong with these people as well. They claim to be Christians because they go to church without ever asking what Jesus Christ stood for. There is nothing in the actions of modern churches that has anything to do with the actions, as recorded in the new testament, of this mythical figure they nonetheless claim to follow. Modern Christianity is like an american wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt made in a sweatshop and sold for 90 dollars in a designer store or a white suburban guy dressing like a gangster or a hippy raging against the man while living on his dads money made by working in the weapons industry.
Really, you can check any Christian by asking "when have you last washed the feet of a hooker". Oh, never. Never broke bread with the poor? So what makes you a Christian. "Well I go to church where I do business deals".
Oh yeah, I do think there is a bit about that in the bible... I don't think it ends the way you think it does.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Socialism is completely incompatible with Christianity
Reminder: "Thou shalt not covet" (don't desire what others have) and "Thou Shalt not steal" (don't take things that belong to others) and of course you could go to the bits about not feeding people who refuse to work, not placing excessive burdens on those doing the work, etc. etc. etc.
All the New Testament instructions for charity and giving and caring for others are calls to individuals to deal properly with other individuals, and to do so because it is right rather than because of government force
Christianity calls upon individuals to give freely from their own possessions as they see fit to those in need (this is actual charity). Christianity has nothing in common with the idea that the majority will enable a taxman to rob people against their will in order to give to both the poor (who might be poor through no fault of their own) and the lazy (who are poor because they hate work or like drugs and alcohol more than food). The Bible (New Testament) actually lumps tax collectors in with prostitutes and other unpopular sinners. It is true that some left-leaning Christians created a movement called "liberation theology" which attempted to give a moral basis to Marxism, but that appeal only works with people who have not actually read a Bible completely from cover to cover (as one generally does with books one claims are important).
Also, the continual references to a theocracy in the context of Christianity are themselves a laughable display of ignorance. There is simply nothing in Christian theology that would lead to a theocracy The closest thing possible already happened long ago when the former Roman empire converted to Christianity The secular government of the time embraced and used the new faith with a result that was still much less than a pure theocracy but was still much more than anything advocated in the New Testament (which does not have a focus on government or law).
I recommend a little less Dave Letterman and Jon Stewart, and a little more serious study... because that line of "We really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism" displays a flabbergasting ignorance of both systems.
No, you just showed how ignorant you are.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Socialism is completely incompatible with Christianity
Wow - you really don't understand either concept do you?
Christianity has nothing in common with the idea that the majority will enable a taxman to rob people against their will
Since you like to quote the bible, how about when Jesus said "render unto Caesar those things which are Caresar's" when they were trying to arrest him on the idea that he was encouraging people not to pay their taxes?
It amazes me how many so called Christians have a decidedly un-Christian attitude when it comes to helping the sick and poor. Or for that matter, thinking they are justified in killing someone for stepping on their property.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
First, that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion whatsoever.
Second, how do you explain "Creator" and "Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence?
Nor does it mean it was based on any religion. As for "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, the DOI was written by Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist, as were many other Founding Fathers. And while Deism can be said to be a religion itself it is based on reason and observation of the natural world alone, faith not needed. Hay, that sounds like science. What is kind of ironic is that in conspiracy theory circles the Founding Fathers were members of the Freemasons or wealthy groups like the Illuminati who wanted to take over the world.
I don't have any references right now, and I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet Jefferson only included "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the DOI because others had to approve and sign it. He had already made concessions in it, he opposed slavery and was pro equal rights and in early drafts of the DOI he wrote slaves and women had the same rights. But because some of those who were going to sign it believed in and owned slaves that was taken out. And like slaves, some thought women were property, or at least lessor than men, so that was removed as well. On the other hand TJ also thought women had their proper place and was supposed to be modest. He also owned slaves, however every slave he owned he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. He never bought a slave, but he freed some. For instance though Sally Hemming was a slave TJ left in his will that her children were to be free.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Agnosticism.
I think that depends on the person, there are some who become religious or more religious.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes I do, and like Thomas Jefferson I am a Liberal. I believe in liberty and small government.
In the US that's "classic liberalism"
"Classical" has to used to modify "liberal" because the word "liberal" is used incorrectly in the US today. As the wiki article I linked to says "The phrase classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean early liberalism". That is why I frequently correct people and provide a link to the proper meaning of "liberal" when it is used falsely, as it was in the post I replied to.
If you're going to use a word be sure to learn the definition first. I also do that, correct people, when they use other words incorrectly. Such as "hacker", a hacker is an explorer who follows the hacker ethic. Now the definition linked to is about computer hackers whereas I use "explorer" because other things such as electronics can be hacked as well. Reporters and other writers used to be called hacks as well. And polygamy is when males and females have more than one spouse. What the Mormons practiced, and some sects still practice is not polygamy, it is polygyny, "having more than one wife at a time".
And when I use a word incorrectly I appreciate others correcting me. I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A Beka is affiliated with Pensacola Christian College, not? I think that alone is a red flag for someone like me (who isn't a follower of Peter Ruckman) to keep well clear of them.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Less Right Wing homeschooling alternatives might crop up in response to this Texas schoolbook foolishness. I'm getting worried for my (not yet school-aged) child.
You know him, the AUTHOR of the DECELERATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
I know our liberties aren't what they used to be, and I thought that they were eroding faster than ever, but I'm definitely going to start calling them the deceleration of Independence.
Amazing i can quit my job in IT, get a job picking grapes 3 months outta the year and have basically the same standard of living after the CARE programs, welfare, tax refunds, gov housing
You must live in a generous state. After working for years, while trying to take classes for an engineering degree, I was disabled in an accident. I get less than $800 in disability and $50 in food aid a month and Medicare health insurance. For Medicare though almost $200 is deducted from my disability. I'll get aid from the county I live in to pay the premium. However I get no assistance for housing, I have to pay rent out of my disability. Unfortunately my rent has not been paid in almost a year. Fortunately my sister, who actually gets my disability, is my landlord. She owns the apartment I live in. Otherwise I'd be on the streets if not dead.
Why dont we just all quit our jobs and live off the government unless we're making over 60k a year?
Years before the accident that left me disabled I had one full-time job that didn't offer health insurance. I wanted some though so I shopped for some medical insurance myself. The cheapest policy I found was about 1/3 of my income, and as I was already struggling to save money for tuition I couldn't afford it. Someone suggested I check with the health department of the county I lived in for insurance. There I was told I made too much money, however I was told that if I quit my job they could give me medical coverage. The system is designed to keep people down, not to give them a helping hand so they can become financially independent.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The dumbing of America continues. I'm actually ashamed of being a 4th generation Texas.
Wherever you go, there you are.
I'm not guessing. The map shows where people with degrees live. That's all it shows. The conclusion that this is where education is best is not unreasonable, but not a slam dunk either. I just think the map is at best an indirect indicator. I'm pretty sure that educated people tend to bring a preference and a demand for good education as well, so it seems likely that education is good where they move to, but this would be a side effect. My interpretation is that the map is also showing is where high-paying jobs and nice living conditions are, because educated people have more ability to demand such things.
Currently hooked on AMP
True, and maybe I'm making a distinction without a difference. I guess I'm saying that preventing a Congressman or group of Congressmen from engaging in religious practices or citing religious beliefs in their decisions is going too far, but that no law that has the intent to support a particular religious view, such as modifying textbooks to mention Christianity, should be allowed.
Currently hooked on AMP
that map only shows where people move to after they get advanced degrees.
Where does it say that those education levels are only from those who move there and not the education level of people who grow up there? On the other hand immigration status isn't indicated and more Latin American immigrants may drive the educational levels down.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Sorry, why? Are the democrats NOT in favor of abortion?
On a personal level Jesus made a point to forgive, but He never spoke on either war or capital punishment (very common in those times) on a government level. I will agree with you though that God generally would prefer us not to fight, but I don't see anything in the Bible condemning violent bahvior when it comes to protecting one's own society/nation.
Not my nation, just the one I live in has been driven bankrupt by neoconservatives, neoliberals, and socialists. Unfortunately they took over my nation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Some are and some aren't. Just like socialists.
Conservatives really are under attack based on comments from people like you.
When they do stuff like this school board does, they should be corrected. Of course that applies to those on the US left as well, such as those pushing for Obamacare.
I will applaud the board for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek though. Now if only more states will include them too.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Revenue can't be the problem because if it were, then we might have to admit we need to raise taxes or fees.
Revenue is part of the problem but so is spending. During the booming '90s, with the state rolling in tax revenue, spending was increased a lot. However now that revenue has shrunken while spending hasn't the budget is in trouble. If the state had invested some of the money coming in when tymes were good, and was allowed to run a deficit when money was tight, it probably wouldn't be as bad as it is now.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You literally are saying "give up, give everything away, let people walk over you and SMILE while they are doing it!". Time for a reality check.
Yes, that is pretty much exactly what Dad told us to do:
Matthew 5:44
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Actually, that whole chapter in Matthew pretty much sums it up; give up, give everything away, let people beat and steal from you, and BLESS them while they're doing it:
Matthew Chapter 5:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I find it easy not to steal, kill or bow down to false idols. "Love your enemies" is the hardest thing Pop ever told me to do.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Instead of "move to" I should have said "live". They might have not moved there, it's true. But they also might well have moved there, and I will claim that most did in fact move there. My reasoning: Most people go somewhere other than their birth town for advanced degrees, then they take a job somewhere and that also is likely to be somewhere other than where they grew up, so I said "moved to." And your point about Latin dudes and chicks moving in, yes, it all goes to show that the level of education of people in a certain spot is not necessarily equal to the level of education available in that spot.
Currently hooked on AMP
Can't remember who said it but, "Liberals (Democrats) are tolerant of everything except intolerance".
This post is LAW where prohibited by VOID. Prosecutors will be violated.
>>"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
If you're going to blindly quote people, you should at least know what you're talking about. This was in a treaty to the (Muslim) Barbary Pirates in Tripoli, and was writing this as a sort of diplomatic goodwill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
What you probably don't know was that he got into deep shit for it, because the people at the time did in fact believe America was founded on the Christian religion.
But don't let me challenge your dogma.
I would also argue that this clause should make the government religion-blind; churches should have no special tax status certainly
If only for one reason churches should not be taxed, if you're taxed then you have a seat in politics. Some, though not all, church leaders have gotten into trouble because they've spoken out on political issues as the church's leader. I have no problem with them speaking out as a private citizen, even Rabbis, Priests, and Mullahs pay taxes. But as soon as they start telling church goers in sermons who to vote for, they've gone to far. The problem with this is what defines "too far", where is the line?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I do think the Christian right is probably closer to matching the views of most of the founding fathers than those advocating for a complete divorce from all concepts of religion by governments.
Many of those Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians.
What the founding fathers overtly intended was to prevent having a national church or religion, which was essential in what at the time was a society with many fundamentally different religious ideas and institutions (including Quakers and Unitarians).
Here I agree.
Objectively, it is a bit hard to see a difference between someone who sues the school district because they teach evolution and someone who sues the school district because a teacher leads a prayer.
There are big differences between them, one is science and can be tested and possibly falsified whereas the other relies on faith.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There is already an establishment of a particular branch of religions in including God though...
And where in the Constitution is "God" found? I'll increase your odds of finding by saying you can use the Declaration of Independence too.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion. Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.
Allowing prayer in school is forcing religion on students in one way or another. In elementary school I went to a public, not private church rule, school and I had a wooden ruler forcibly applied to my hands when I refused to pray in school. The same for "under God". Heck I even knew Christians who refused to say it, to them it was taking God's name in vain. I also saw others who could not handle the peer pressure of others to pray in school. If you want to allow a moment of silence that's fine with me but no led prayers.
Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.
Would those same Christians who want to take religious symbols to school and have prayer allow Muslims their prayer? Or a Wiccan take their pentagram and pray?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The more fun one is asking how you can be gay and be a christian. I mean, really, mon. The bible expressly tells all the people you are hanging out with that, ah, if you act on your natural impulses that they have to KILL YOU.
I ask Christians if they can point out in the Bible where Jesus taught homosexuality was bad.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
(democrats)
Oh, all Democrats support abortion and no Republicans do? Funny, sad really, that's one of the issues holding up the passage of the health care bill.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't see anything in the Bible condemning violent bahvior when it comes to protecting one's own society/nation.
What danger was either Afghanistan or Iraq to the US? How about Viet Nam? East Timor? Now if you want to talk about protecting people why did Reagan and Bush Sr arm Saddam, give him chemical weapons, and allow him the massacre civilians?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well, at least you're not hiding the fact that democrats typically do support abortion and that's enough more me as a Christian to not support democrats. That make sense to you? And sure, there's republicans who also support abortion, but as a political party we do not.
I live in one of the 10 largest metropolitan areas of the US, so I am not a hillbilly (not that I would mind). No, I hated the fact that the government created the telephone monopoly that it later broke up.
I do dislike health insurance, because it isn't really insurance and the fact that it exists is one of the factors contributing to medical costs rising faster than inflation (Medicare and Medicaid are the main factors in that).
Personally, I preferred when people helped those less fortunate than themselves out of the goodness of their hearts rather than at the point of a gun.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
. . . the "average" intelligence level of an American 8th grade student today...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
I'm not saying there is and I agree that there's not. I'm mainly agreeing that I think it's improper to put "God" on Federal money, pledges, etc. which pretty much "establishes" a particular branch of religious belief. After reading my post, I realize I could have added more substance.
Also, the declaration of independence does mention "Nature's God" in the preamble but it doesn't really dictate that as an establishment, more of a statement of inclusion. (Also, the capitalization of "creator" in the first sentence of the second section (the famous one) could constitute religious belief in a higher power... thus alienating atheist citizens)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
No laws supporting any religion should be allowed. Showing favoritism toward any religion will only encourage other religions to request the same, or attack us for supporting it.
Religion is a personal belief and cannot be taken away from anyone, nor shall it be enforced. No Atheist is trying to "remove God" from the lives of US citizens, they are simply trying to remove it from the government.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Can't remember who said it but, "Liberals (Democrats) are tolerant of everything except intolerance".
Riiiiiiight. Do you seriously believe that ?
Let's see, don't even do this. Just imagine it. See what your own opinion is about the matter. You walk into a democrat on the street. Just any democrat activist. Anyone at all.
Now tell him that you don't believe in global warming.
So what is your imagination telling you happens next ?
Is it a reasoned discussion ? Didn't think so.
If democrats were truly "tolerant of everything except intolerance" they'd out-suicide-bomb the muslims.
Devout Muslims are expected to face Mecca and pray 5 times daily. While I believe the religion allows some flexibility in timing, it is not at all unreasonable to allow them to pray by themselves while at school, as long as it is not disrupting the learning experience of other students. Likewise, it is not unreasonable to allow Christians, Jews, or whatever a chance to pray, as long as no one is forced to participate. Most school prayer lawsuits confront the gray area around the question "At what point does the free exercise of my religion start to become perceived by others that don't believe as I do as coercion towards them to participate?" I profess to be a Buddhist, but I have no problem with listening to others talk about their religion, or even inviting my daughter to attend their church. It's called "tolerance"; our founding fathers had it, but lately it appears to be in short supply.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The atheists and others who believe in the separation of church and state
Um, Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and Render unto God that which is God's? Remember Pontius Pilate's question? Are you a king? The response? My Kingdom is not of this world. As far as this world goes, our Lord Jesus Christ believed in the separation of church and state. He specifically chose not to join the Zealots who wanted to overthrow pagan Rome and found a new free Isreal loyal to God. You want to talk about evil Liberals suppressing religion, can you imagine living in a world where the cities you lived in were officially dedicated to a Pagan god?
And Christ chose not to bother with it. He had larger concerns than temporary distractions like the rule of Rome.
But let's suppose you got the Theocracy you want. Which Christian Church is to hold sway? Will you follow a President loyal to the Pope? No? Greek Orthodox? An Anglican, perhaps? No? Want a Good Ol' American denomination, do you? Episcopalian? Methodist? Seventh Day Adventist? Plain ol' Baptist? Church of Christ? Oh, you'll be happy so long as it's Evangelical? Really? Southern Baptist? Assembly of God? Vineyard Ministries? Got a favorite in there, do you?
We can't even get the followers of Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn and Robert Schuller to agree on a coherent plan of action. When you try to wed civil power with Christian religious authority, it results in endless fighting. You might want to ask the British about that.
There's a reason why the first Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's why the Founding Fathers used weasel words like "Creator" and "Nature's God," because they specifically did not want to reference Jesus Christ the Messiah or Lord God Almighty Jehovah. By the way, more reading to do -- "Deism."
If the liberals who hate religion would ever get their way to lay down the law then all religion would be banned in this country unless it was talked about and practiced within the confines of a church or home.
Hi. Remember me? The Liberal? No one is looking to ban religion in this country. For goodness' sake, the Sheriff's office directs traffic at the churches on Sundays in my town. Our previous attorney general was the son of an Assemblies of God minister and a fervent supporter of that church. To imply that the Christian Church in America is under any kind of persecution is to dishonor the memory of all the Christians who actually were persecuted and actually did die for their Faith.
But let's suppose it happened, let's suppose Obama really did turn out to be Lucifer's left hand, and the First Amendment got repealed next week. Let's suppose a profession of Christianity merited summary execution starting next Monday.
Do you suppose it would endanger the Church at all? Or will you join me in believing that God Almighty alone decides the fate of the Body of Christ? By the way, that decree actually happened once. Rome decided to stamp out Christianity once and for all. All the Roman swords and lions did was fan the flame of the Word all the way across Europe.
Do you know why? Because Men and Earthly politics do not decide the fate of the Church. God doesn't need the support of the Legislature, or the school board or the Media.
Since this is Slashdot, after all, God ... doesn't need a starship.
I have good news for you, Brother Glitch. God is still in His Heaven, and all the evil sandal-clad long-haired dope-smoking Liberals of the world do not pose a threat to His Church. He built that church on a rock, and the very gates of Hell will not stand against it, so I don't think Nancy Pelosi is much of a problem.
You can relax. We're covered.
Well, we're covered on that problem. As I continue to read the Gospels, we seem to have other issues. It seems that our Lord (Luke 4) has come to preach good news to the poor, t
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Well, I admit it may be a somewhat hyperbolic statement, but in principle yes I believe it.
Ummm He laughs his ass off?
I thought that all sides had pretty much agreed that global warming was a fact and that the discussion had moved on to whether or not human activity has had any effect on said warming.
See above.
This post is LAW where prohibited by VOID. Prosecutors will be violated.
God is more interested in our eternal being.
That was exactly my point - there are plenty of ways to argue that God doesn't want us to kill, but "because he values (mortal) human life" isn't one of them.
Oh, and just so you know, it's the terrorists that are still taking lives over there, not the coalition soldiers.
That has to be the single most obviously wrong statement I've ever hear about either war. I don't even know what kind of craziness to attribute it to: Do you really believe that we're firing bullets, launching missiles, and dropping bombs and magically never hurting anyone? Do you just not count opposing forces as people and somehow think that no civilians get killed by our actions? Or do you just think that because we're "on the right side" that the people killed by our actions don't count?
And the war IS unavoidable. Even Obama continues to surge into Afghanistan.
I was specifically talking about the Iraq war. Don't change the subject.
I think if there was a way to avoid the war, Obama would have brought the troops home. :)
Those are different things - just like pregnancy, avoiding one to start with is quite different than stopping it in the middle.
You seem to forget the massive bi-partisan support the war originally had.
And how large must support for abortion rights be among Christians before you change your mind?
My point remains: Someone who has a personal relationship with God cannot in good conscience be a democrat.
And other people use the same type of logic to support the idea that they couldn't be a republican.
I don't think that - if we agree on this, then the claim "The left-wing cooks have been trying to spread their socialism" in US schools is nonsense in the first place. And tell that to all the people claiming that national healthcare plans are socialist.
National defense falls a long way outside socialism. An army is the sine qua non of a state. Likewise police forces. Nationalized health care is socialism, and I think it's disingenuous to argue otherwise - of course it's socialist; that's why its supporters like it!
My problem is with pretending that nationalizing an industry that accounts for one sixth of GDP is just like having a police force, or a public library. I'm sure there are plenty of purists who would argue with me, but I think that the negative aspects of socialism have to do much more with its extent than with its nature - a small parasite is not really a problem, but a big one is.
I understand what you mean, but the Sabbath is more generally known as Saturday, not Sunday. Just FYI.
Last I checked, most Christians consider Sunday the Sabbath. I think the Seventh-Day Adventists changed to Saturday for some reason.
Again, they profess a supreme creator, but say nothing about the establishment upon Christian beliefs.
And at the time, the people were wrong. They're still wrong, too.
Hm. Fire Department? Not really a model for socialism any more than road systems are. There are basic services that even the most hardy of capitalists agree should be done by your "socialist" method.
Public Library? No, because it's just a way to short-change authors by skirting around IP laws.
Public education? Well if you intend to use that to further an idea for socialism, I won't stop you. Public education is a failure by just about all accounts. I say they should commercialize education -- and you could start by using vouchers for paying for education. Let the market decide who the best educators are.
The problem is that when government runs things, they do not do so efficiently or even the best way, and are fraught with corruption every single time. If socialism were always the best way, then even in the road systems you wouldn't have bids proposed by local contractors to build them. It would just all be built by the government. And it would be slower, more regulated, of less quality, and cost 10x as much.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
of course it's socialist; that's why its supporters like it!
Rubbish. I for one support national healthcare, and am not a socialist. But even if it was true, your argument is a logical fallacy - whether something is socialist or not is nothing to do with "why supporters like it".
As for your argument based on the amount being spent - the UK NHS budget around £100 billion ( http://www.hsj.co.uk/5000730.article ). The US military budget is £685 billion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States ). Now the US is a factor of 5 times the population, but that still puts the US's military expenditure more than the UK's NHS. So if you think that the UK healthcare is socialist, and your criterion is the extent, then yes, you are claiming that the US military is socialist too.
Where do you get the one sixth figure from?
Are you a Jesuit, a trial lawyer, or both? ;)
The military is a prerequisite of a state ("A language is a dialect with an army and navy"). It cannot be socialist, no matter its extent. A public library is, by the strict criteria, probably socialist, but it's so inexpensive that I just can't get too worked up about it. Fair enough?
If you're talking about the government providing non-essential services directly, you're talking about socialist goals. That doesn't make them communist goals, or fascist goals, or even (necessarily) bad ideas. It doesn't mean that you're trying to go back to pre-Thatcher Britain.
As for the one sixth, it may be a bit of an exaggeration for now, apparently. According to the WHO tables US healthcare spending was 15.3% of GDP in 2006, while 1/6 would be 16.67%. However, it has been rising as a percentage, so it's a good rough estimate. It's certainly more than 1/7.
If I had mod points I'd give all of them to you! ... and that from a lefty Buddhist.
Beautiful
Well, at least you're not hiding the fact that democrats typically do support abortion and that's enough more me as a Christian to not support democrats. That make sense to you? And sure, there's republicans who also support abortion, but as a political party we do not.
No it doesn't make sense, you paint Democrats with a broad brush but not Republicans.
Falcon
Oh BTW, do you also oppose capital punishment? More Republicans do than Democrats. But that's okay?
Should there be a Law?
So did the US. Don't believe me? The US protected the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, who included CIA operatives, in 1976. The year before, in 1975, the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, in which 200,000 East Timorese were massacred. In 1973 the US supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government in a coup d'état Thousands of people disappeared afterwards. The US has a history of arming and supporting repressive regimes with large human rights violations.
Heck, at the same tyme the US was supporting Saddam, the US was also arming Iran, who he was fighting against. If the US had allowed democracy in Iran, instead of aiding the overthrow of Iran's elected government and installing the Shah in a dictatorship, there would not have been the revolution in Iran in 1980.
As far as Iraq goes, we had a treaty in place that allowed us to investigate them at will and they broke that treaty.
What treaty was broken and when? After Scott Ritter came out and stated Iraq had no significant WMDs the Neocons in Bush Jr's admin had to besmear him for not supporting their lies.
As for breaking treaties, the US has broken many treaties. I can think of 2 treaties Bush Jr broke or tried to break. With Starwars he was breaking the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In trying to locate the permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mount he would also have violated the Treay of Ruby Valley which granted the Western Shoshone Yucca Mount and the surrounding land. The US broke a number of treaties with the Sioux. When Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears he broke a treaty when the Cherokee.
The US also supports Israel who has consistently disregarded UN resolutions, there was an uproar when VP Biden went to Israel and they announced more settlements in occupied territory.
the point was to keep Iran's military in line.
Why then did Reagan administration officials sell weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair? Quite simply they were supporting a number of different sides who were repressive.
At that time there was also a threat by the Soviets against northern Yemen (after they invaded Afghanistan) and Iraq was prepping to fight with Saudi Arabia to defend against them.
Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. And the same Muslims going there to fight would have fought for the Saudis as well, heck a lot of Saudis went to Afghanistan. After Saddam's invasion of Kuwait al qaeda offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam. They would have caused the Soviets trouble too.
By the way, the USA did NOT give Saddam chemical weapons. Did you just make that up?
Should there be a Law?
Also, the capitalization of "creator" in the first sentence of the second section (the famous one) could constitute religious belief in a higher power... thus alienating atheist citizens
If only the scientific theory of Evolution had been proposed before the DOI was written instead of about 80 years later, it could also mean evolution.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It's not that I refuse to have a conversation or make a friend with a democrat, but to those democrats I hang out with, this issue does not matter (and they are not christian). To me, as a christian, it's huge - considering the staggering number of murders this causes. And there really is no argument that as a political party, the democrats support abortion and the rupublicans oppose it. It's not MY brush painting democrats as abortionists, but rather the majortiy of abortionists within the party who give the rest a bad name. Republicans supporting abortion are rather rare (if they want to keep their position within the party). Therefore, as a Christian, I simply cannot support a democratic candidate.
I actually support capital punishment for the statistical lives saved, but either way, it's a small number compared to abortions.
I thought that all sides had pretty much agreed that global warming was a fact and that the discussion had moved on to whether or not human activity has had any effect on said warming.
If only! No, if global warming actually happens is still hotly debated.
Thus all the snickering and eye-rolling you'll hear from the conservative side this past winter during the blizzards. "But I thought we had global warming! Sure seems cold to me."
It is your brush, you are the one saying it.
I actually support capital punishment for the statistical lives saved,
What saved lived? Where is your scientific evidence capital punishment saves lives. And where's your evidence all of those executed were guilty of murder? The Innocence Project has cases where people were convicted of murder but were later proven innocent. Unfortunately they aren't able to save every innocent.
That's not the only reason I oppose, nor why Christians should oppose, capital punishment. Myself I also oppose it because you don't tell people isn't wrong to kill people then kill them yourself. And Christians, along with Jews and Muslim, should oppose it because it's one of the ten commandments.
Falcon
Oh, BTW I separated myself from Christians above because I am not one, I do not believe in any religion. I am agnostic, "a", without and "gnosis" knowledge. Or believe. Well I believe one thing, that if there is a supreme deity and it requires faith to be save, otherwise the unbeliever burns in hell for eternity, it is sadistic and deserves to be despised not worshiped.
Should there be a Law?
That's an interesting website. I would love to have a perfect system, but that does not exist. Statistically, there is plenty evidence to suggest that capital punishment deters murderers, and in a majority of cases capital punishment is reserved for unrepentant confessions. I'm sorry for those tragic cases of innocent people being executed, but as a whole, the system works. Anyhow, I'm not really interested in debating this topic, but thanks for that resource anyhow.
Back to the point that democrats support abortion, I'm not sure where the confusion is? Do you realize that the democratic party supports funding abortions?
I'm sorry for those tragic cases of innocent people being executed, but as a whole, the system works.
Yea the system works unless you're one of the innocents who are executed. Just as some of the USA's Founding Fathers believed, I believe it's better to let 10 guilty go free than falsely convict one innocent. Well, once you're executed there's no bring you back. At least if you're imprisoned you can be set free.
Anyhow, I'm not really interested in debating this topic
Okay, that's it.
Well, I've go ahead and get this too...
I'm not sure where the confusion is? Do you realize that the democratic party supports funding abortions?
Not all Democrats support abortion and not all Republicans oppose it. It seems you're the one confused about that. As for funding abortions, can you point out where abortion is funded in Obamacare?
Falcon
Oh, I hope you understand from my use of "Obamacare" I do not support whatever health bill the Democrats approve. I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere, I oppose almost any health care bill from congress. I ask, but no one has answered, where does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to pass laws and regulate health care and medicine. I ask this about the FDA as well. The one power the Constitution specifically grants the federal government is the regulation of interstate commerce. If congress and the president really wanted to do something about health care and medicine then they could use the interstate commerce clause to tell states they have to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. I should be allowed to buy insurance from another state if I want, say for instance because it's cheaper. Another thing congress and the president can do is give individual people the same tax breaks for buy insurance as employers get for offering insurance to employees. Employers getting tax breaks but not individuals goes back to FDR and WWII.
Should there be a Law?
Arguing from, with, and on scripture is pointless.
When I speak to my friends, I speak English. When I speak to some of my family, I use their native language instead. When my friends and family are together, I try to speak English, because it's rude to cut my friends out of the conversation, but sometimes I have to drop out of English to get my point across to my family.
When I'm speaking to Glitch, as fellow believers we share a common song. I'm playing specific notes of scripture for specific reasons in a specific way to get my point across. I understand that cuts the resident atheists out of the conversation, and for that rudeness I apologize.
the only thing we can rationally conclude is that, due to a complete lack of evidence
Agreed, and Bertrand Russell said it better. Religion is the opiate of the masses, and Christianity is the philosophy of slaves. I'll go you one better and stipulate the Christian religion has been used to justify some of the more heinous wars and atrocities in history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the justification for slavery -- anyone who's ever had a repugnant idea has always pulled out a Bible and a flag to cover it. John Ashcroft spouted scripture while permitting state-sanctioned torture for the first time in the nation's history. The KKK references Genesis all the time.
It gets even worse. I've read the Old Testament. The Book of Ezekiel is a slasher film. You think I don't understand your point? My faith is forged in a Russian crucible of doubt.
I was born and raised in the United States of Jesusland and as a young man got so sick of the nonsense and the hypocrisy of the church that I walked away from it for decades. I mean, really, how could anyone with a brain associate themselves with people who built a "Museum of Creationism" where they put a saddle on a dinosaur?!
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen, which means from here on out, strictly speaking, I'm talking nonsense.
I could tell you that Science proceeds from the assumptions that the universe is observable and comprehensible -- and those are reasonable assumptions to make -- but that I believe the universe goes beyond our observation and is probably beyond our comprehension. More things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio...
I could make those arguments in good faith, but not sincerity. Faith cannot be shown by a geometric proof; you cannot mathematically derive a belief in God. Pascal's wager is a clever dodge, and CS Lewis' arguments are so specious not even he believed them in the end.
I find my faith at the place of the skull. I see that image in my head, I feel that place in my heart, I hear "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" and I know the truth of it.
I find that as my hair goes completely grey, matters become simpler. I suppose time boils my anger and ego away, and properly strips matters down to the bone. A man becomes a good husband by devoting himself to his wife, by placing her needs above his own. A man becomes a good father by giving himself over to the care of his children. It's simple. A man builds a home by joyously tearing out of pieces of his own flesh for bricks.
Those three nails tether me to that Cross, and I feel my God's love as surely as I feel my wife's love when we are oceans apart, as surely as I know my children even without a paternity test.
The hammering begins to all the mob's cacophony of the politicians hiding behind Him for power, and the polyester televangelists crying for money, and the idiots using him to justify their every craven impulse...
And before we come to "It is finished," all that noise has faded to silence, and I am left alone with blood and nails and the World. What do I believe?
I believe in a God who died to save His own creation, who died to redeem His children. I believe I want to follow my Father on that path, and that all the rest of it doesn't matt
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
The Times objects to the teaching, for example, that we are a constitutional republic rather than a democracy - which is an objectively true fact.
Except the fact is that we have a democratic republic.
Right, because Standard Oil and AT&T improved all on their own without government intervention. Because it's regulated, socialist countries that try to blow up the world economy every few decades.
You should have stopped digging a hole in your credibility when you passed Baghdad Bob. The founders were deeply concerned about keeping government out of religion and religion out of government. Which is why we have the first amendment. Which is why the Constitution specifically says that a religious test will never be required to hold any office.