Socialized Education

[goofyjim]

And I am free to be a christian not to be ruled by atheist prinicples. BTW, find some principles of law that aren’t based in religious morality.

A moral code doesn’t have to be religious. An atheist can have his own with no religion to back it up. And if we are going to defend the freedom of expression why are we offfended by certain art exhibits or movies? Falls under freedom of expression I believe.

 

[wabrams]

A moral code doesn’t have to be religious. An atheist can have his own with no religion to back it up. And if we are going to defend the freedom of expression why are we offfended by certain art exhibits or movies? Falls under freedom of expression I believe.

You still haven’t answered my question: find some principles of law that aren’t based in religious morality.

With regards to what I emphasized, you lost me somewhere. What are you trying to say?

 

[cynic]

You have interpolated some information which was not in my post.

.

Actually it seems I was quite on the ball. Government funding shouldn’t exist, any public funding should come from charity. It is in fact a purely libertarian position, ie I shouldn’t *have *to subsidize any childs education other then my own.

But we are not discussing charity in this forum. We are discussing government-run, socialized education.
.

the funding of which can be, and is, a seperate issue.

Our annual property tax here is between $3,500 and $4,000. A large portion of that goes to our school district. That is, therefore, thousands of dollars which 1) I cannot invest in my own child’s education, .

because only your kids matter…whatever tax cuts the poor will be getting will make little difference to them and their ability to prvately educate their children.

 

[that1dude]

Exactly. Many modern atheists are not content with a Freedom of Religion. They believe that they are somehow being marginalized when a public official prays to God or a religious symbol is displayed in public. The whole point of Freedom of Religion is that we are all free to practice our faith. For an atheist, that means they are free not to worship and not to express a devotion to any god. It doesn’t mean they are free to force non-worship and non-expression on everyone else.

The conflict occurs because of the existence of “the commons”. In other words: land and institutions that belong equally to all citizens. Therefore, it is wrong to post religious or anti-religious symbols in these areas and institutions. Of course there are common areas that can be used to express all ideas, but these areas cannot be set up to permanently express religious or ant-religious views.

 

[rlg94086]

The conflict occurs because of the existence of “the commons”. In other words: land and institutions that belong equally to all citizens. Therefore, it is wrong to post religious or anti-religious symbols in these areas and institutions. Of course there are common areas that can be used to express all ideas, but these areas cannot be set up to permanently express religious or ant-religious views.

Where is this in the Constitution exactly?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Exactly. Many modern atheists are not content with a Freedom of Religion. They believe that they are somehow being marginalized when a public official prays to God or a religious symbol is displayed in public. The whole point of Freedom of Religion is that we are all free to practice our faith. For an atheist, that means they are free not to worship and not to express a devotion to any god. It doesn’t mean they are free to force non-worship and non-expression on everyone else.

I think you know the difference between a public official acting as a private citizen and making reference to his faith and someone in their public official condoning the display of a particular faith tradition on public property. I recognize that you may wish to pray in school, (for instance) but that is an inappropriate place to do so PUBLICALLY, wherein others must stop and either join or remain silent or leave. You then impinge on their right to be free from a “government” imposed religious exercise.

To be honest, when people say, that a certain court took prayer out of school, it was only in some parts of the country where this was so. i grew up in Michigan and there was no such thing in the 50’s. I’ve read of others who grew up in the late 40’s and 50’s on the other side of the state and they too never heard of any school having prayer. It seemed largely a southern thing, but then of course they were the last to join the rest of humanity in science either, and of course some still try to promote religion over science.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To be honest, when people say, that a certain court took prayer out of school, it was only in some parts of the country where this was so. i grew up in Michigan and there was no such thing in the 50’s. I’ve read of others who grew up in the late 40’s and 50’s on the other side of the state and they too never heard of any school having prayer. It seemed largely a southern thing, but then of course they were the last to join the rest of humanity in science either, and of course some still try to promote religion over science.

Nothing like an anti-Southern bigot.

 

[wabrams]

I think you know the difference between a public official acting as a private citizen and making reference to his faith and someone in their public official condoning the display of a particular faith tradition on public property. I recognize that you may wish to pray in school, (for instance) but that is an inappropriate place to do so PUBLICALLY, wherein others must stop and either join or remain silent or leave. You then impinge on their right to be free from a “government” imposed religious exercise.

Nonsens; government imposed would mean the government is forcing them to join in the prayer. Asking someone to stop and be respectful of someone else’s wish to pray is not impinging on anyones right.

To be honest, when people say, that a certain court took prayer out of school, it was only in some parts of the country where this was so. i grew up in Michigan and there was no such thing in the 50’s. I’ve read of others who grew up in the late 40’s and 50’s on the other side of the state and they too never heard of any school having prayer. It seemed largely a southern thing, but then of course they were the last to join the rest of humanity in science either, and of course some still try to promote religion over science.

Where does one start with such bigoted remarks? I think you know that schools have wished to inculde intelligent design along with evolution in science, but of course admitting to that would mean your prejudices are wrong. Can’t have that, can we?

 

[that1dude]

Where is this in the Constitution exactly?

It’s not. The constitution doesn’t go far enough. Non-superstitious children should not be subjected to “in god we trust” and “one nation under god”. It is immoral to post the ten commandments in a court of law. We don’t have sharia law in this country and we don’t have Christian biblical law. Most of the ten commandments are not even part of U.S. law. And the ones that are, are simply no-brainers that all societies adopt. Imagine a rational person walking into a courtroom and sees “keep holy the sabbath day”. That’s insane. One expects the court to be a place of justice for all and yet he sees a “commandment” to not take the “lord’s” name in vain! Do Christians really want to force everyone to bend to their will?

 

[that1dude]

Nonsens; government imposed would mean the government is forcing them to join in the prayer. Asking someone to stop and be respectful of someone else’s wish to pray is not impinging on anyones right.

Where does one start with such bigoted remarks? I think you know that schools have wished to inculde intelligent design along with evolution in science, but of course admitting to that would mean your prejudices are wrong. Can’t have that, can we?

I am all for schools teaching whatever they want to. It is their right. But not PUBLIC schools. They have to adhere to certain rules such as only science should be taught in science class. “Intelligent Design” is not science. This is not bigotry. It is simple fact. By definition, ID is not a science. It is an interesting philosophy that should be taken seriously, especially since it has the potential of becoming a science.

 

[SanJudas]

The constitution doesn’t go far enough. Non-superstitious children should not be subjected to “in god we trust” and “one nation under god”. It is immoral to post the ten commandments in a court of law.

Isn’t there some nice humanistic, atheistic, relativistic forum where you could go hang out, instead of bothering us with that same old tired drivel?

Do Christians really want to force everyone to bend to their will?

Yes, some of us do. My model of good government is Medieval Spain. [Edited by Moderator]

 

[rlg94086]

It’s not. The constitution doesn’t go far enough.

Enough said…the rest of your points can be ignored now.

 

[that1dude]

Isn’t there some nice humanistic, atheistic, relativistic forum where you could go hang out, instead of bothering us with that same old tired drivel?

Yes, some of us do. My model of good government is Medieval Spain. [Edited by Moderator]

I’d rather stay here and try to figure out the mind of people like you. Do you really think that in the land of the free, the money should be imprinted with the collectivist slogan: “in god we trust”? Can you answer in logically consistent and thoughtful manner please? You say that I am “bothering us”. Isn’t it possible that some Catholics agree that church and state should stay as separate as possible? Just trying to see where you stand. Getting specific might help. For instance: Do you think it right that in a PUBLIC school a teacher should lead the students in prayer when some of the students regard prayer as foolish? Should maybe prayer be left to those who hold it sacred?

 

[BamaRider]

SpiritMeadow made this observation-

To be honest, when people say, that a certain court took prayer out of school, it was only in some parts of the country where this was so. i grew up in Michigan and there was no such thing in the 50’s. I’ve read of others who grew up in the late 40’s and 50’s on the other side of the state and they too never heard of any school having prayer. It seemed largely a southern thing, but then of course they were the last to join the rest of humanity in science either, and of course some still try to promote religion over science.

I don’t agree with the Spirit about much but she’s rigth about this.

I moved to Alabama from a Virginia Catholic school in the 6th grade (1966) middle of the year. I was enrolled in a public school. I was the only Catholic kid in a student body of 500 Evals, Baptists, Methodists, C of C and I’m sure several others.

We started each day with the pledge to Flag, followed by a Bibe Reading, and the Lord’s prayer. Coming from the Sisters at Christ the King, I thought everybody prayed in school. It was here I found out Prostestants say the Our Father different then what I knew.

When the teached said bow your heads for the Lord’s Prayer (it was always the Our Father at CTK) I stood up, I wasn’t sure what the prayer was but I knew ya didn’t pray sitting down. I was politely told to sit back down. I made the Sign of the Cross before and after each devotional, and after a few days the teacher asked the obvious, are you Catholic? I think I might have been her first Catholic student ever LOL.

My 6th grade classmates never paid it any attention. But I was in cultural shock after 6 years of the Sisters at CTK to public school in Alabama.

The morning prayer was up to the homeroom teacher, some years we had it, some we didn’t. It was totally phased out by the early 70s in my district. But we still pray before football games, in the locker stadium (public) the team prays in the local room on school property, and they’re probably several other clubs that do.

If the ACLU want to sue about it, the feeling is so what?

 

[that1dude]

Enough said…the rest of your points can be ignored now.

Be interesting to see if you can actually answer my points in any thoughtful manner. Do you think that the U.S. Constitution is a perfect document? I don’t. That being said, I do believe everyone has a right to worship, or not, in any manner they choose. It becomes a legitimate problem in PUBLIC institutions because there is a fine line between endorsement and establishment. One glaring example of this problem is the “in god we trust”. Because that one is unarguably a lie. If “we” is the citizenry, then the phrase cannot be true. Same with the pledge. These are collectivist concepts that are anathema to what our nation stands for.

 

[rlg94086]

SpiritMeadow made this observation-

I don’t agree with the Spirit about much but she’s rigth about this.

I moved to Alabama from a Virginia Catholic school in the 6th grade (1966) middle of the year. I was enrolled in a public school. I was the only Catholic kid in a student body of 500 Evals, Baptists, Methodists, C of C and I’m sure several others.

We started each day with the pledge to Flag, followed by a Bibe Reading, and the Lord’s prayer. Coming from the Sisters at Christ the King, I thought everybody prayed in school. It was here I found out Prostestants say the Our Father different then what I knew.

When the teached said bow your heads for the Lord’s Prayer (it was always the Our Father at CTK) I stood up, I wasn’t sure what the prayer was but I knew ya didn’t pray sitting down. I was politely told to sit back down. I made the Sign of the Cross before and after each devotional, and after a few days the teacher asked the obvious, are you Catholic? I think I might have been her first Catholic student ever LOL.

My 6th grade classmates never paid it any attention. But I was in cultural shock after 6 years of the Sisters at CTK to public school in Alabama.

The morning prayer was up to the homeroom teacher, some years we had it, some we didn’t. It was totally phased out by the early 70s in my district. But we still pray before football games, in the locker stadium (public) the team prays in the local room on school property, and they’re probably several other clubs that do.

If the ACLU want to sue about it, the feeling is so what?

I’ve never experienced, nor have I ever advocated teacher-led prayer in public school, which is why I ignored the post. The problem with many atheists and some of our Christian (Catholic and non-Catholic) citizens is that they have tried to extend that common sense prohibition of religion to…

1. not allowing a speaker at a public school (e.g. valedictorian speeches) even mention or thank God…in the name of seperation of church and state.
2. not allowing any mention of Christian holidays in schools…but oddly in a lot of them, they will mention show the symbols of other religions…in the name of diversity.
3. calling for ridiculous things like the removal of religious symbolism of any kind from public places, even though we are a predominantly Judeo-Christian society.
4. calling for ridiculous things like removal of “God” from the pledge and our money, because the very small percentage of people who don’t believe in a God may be offended by the mention of something they don’t believe in.

 

[rlg94086]

Be interesting to see if you can actually answer my points in any thoughtful manner. Do you think that the U.S. Constitution is a perfect document? I don’t. That being said, I do believe everyone has a right to worship, or not, in any manner they choose. It becomes a legitimate problem in PUBLIC institutions because there is a fine line between endorsement and establishment. One glaring example of this problem is the “in god we trust”. Because that one is unarguably a lie. If “we” is the citizenry, then the phrase cannot be true. Same with the pledge. **These are collectivist concepts that are anathema to what our nation stands for. **

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights…”

Yeah…“an anathema to what our nation stands for.”

 

[that1dude]

I’ve never experienced, nor have I ever advocated teacher-led prayer in public school, which is why I ignored the post. The problem with many atheists and some of our Christian (Catholic and non-Catholic) citizens is that they have tried to extend that common sense prohibition of religion to…

1. not allowing a speaker at a public school (e.g. valedictorian speeches) even mention or thank God…in the name of seperation of church and state.
2. not allowing any mention of Christian holidays in schools…but oddly in a lot of them, they will mention show the symbols of other religions…in the name of diversity.
3. calling for ridiculous things like the removal of religious symbolism of any kind from public places, even though we are a predominantly Judeo-Christian society.
4. calling for ridiculous things like removal of “God” from the pledge and our money, because the very small percentage of people who don’t believe in a God may be offended by the mention of something they don’t believe in.

I agree with point 1 and 2. Point 3: I believe that private groups have the right to display religious symbols on government property (as long as that right is extended to all), but it is not the job of government to promote or display religious iconography. The ten commandments in courtrooms is a no-no because it is not only a symbol, but actual “commandments” that contradict U.S. law which guarantees citizens the right to break most of them.

Point 4: Having “god” on the money and pledge is un-American. America stands for liberty and individuality, not collectivism. Does the number of atheists, agnostics, and polytheists matter? Some polls say over 20 million. Does the number matter? It is the principle of the thing. If one day atheist outnumber theists, the nature of the government should not change. Our government needs to be independent of the “faith” of the majority.

 

[that1dude]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights…”

Yeah…“an anathema to what our nation stands for.”

nice try. The declaration of independence is not law. The constitution is the law. The U.S. Constitution does not mention God, Creator, Jesus, or Christianity anywhere. Plus, using vague “supernatural” language like their “creator” does not equate to declaring that all the citizens “trust in god”.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree with point 1 and 2. Point 3: I believe that private groups have the right to display religious symbols on government property (as long as that right is extended to all), but it is not the job of government to promote or display religious iconography. The ten commandments in courtrooms is a no-no because it is not only a symbol, but actual “commandments” that contradict U.S. law which guarantees citizens the right to break most of them.

Nonsense…you think the “commandments” supersede US law because they are displayed in a courtroom? You are making silly points.

that1dude:

Point 4: Having “god” on the money and pledge is un-American. America stands for liberty and individuality, not collectivism. Does the number of atheists, agnostics, and polytheists matter? Some polls say over 20 million. Does the number matter? It is the principle of the thing. If one day atheist outnumber theists, the nature of the government should not change. Our government needs to be independent of the “faith” of the majority.

Nope…doesn’t matter much. Explain to me why it would matter to an atheist to have “god” on their money? I used to be an atheist, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why someone would be offended by something they don’t believe exists being posted on their money. Regarding the pledge, they don’t have to recite it verbatim…I didn’t say “under God” when I was an atheist. No one ever said “boo” to me about it.

Agnostics shouldn’t care at all…they don’t know if there is a god or not, so why would they be offended of something they aren’t sure of?

Polytheists can pick a god to think of when they look at their money and add an ‘s’ when they say the pledge. Problem solved.