Why send your children to private school?

[CaptainHaplo]

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...

[Ducimus]

I don't have to. It's implied by the 1st amendment. No i'm not going to get into a constitutional debate with you. No you are NOT going to change my mind. So don't even try. My hatred for evangical ram rodding runs VERY deep, starting from childhood, and has risen to a degree that defies description. I have about as much tolerance and respect for those hypocritical bastards as they have for other people, which is to say, NONE.

[TheBrauerHour]

As a social studies teacher in the great state of Texas, I can say that I am concerned about some of the changes being called for. Still though, the article that was posted is not entirely accurate, and seems to be stretching the boundaries of truth to make the story more appealing.

The comment about the slave trade is a prime example. The vocabulary term "Triangular Trade" actually did include slavery. By placing the issue of slavery inside the larger Atlantic triangular trade, we get to analyze the role of mercantilism and get into deeper discussions about slavery...not just the "slavery was bad" stuff. There is still plenty of discussion concerning the great work of abolitionists during the Antebellum era and the evils of slavery.

I took a look today at the latest and greatest proposed changes, and can tell you that the only people crying to high heaven were the teachers who worship all things liberal and refuse to teach a balanced approach to the students. Sure there are some blatantly obvious right wing changes that concern us all, but on the whole we, as professionals, will still supplement our instruction to provide a balanced education for our students.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...

Does it have to be in the constitution?

Our country is defined by more than just the constitution.

[Ducimus]

Some of the historical rewrites mentioned..... They CANT be serious. No way something this blatant can be real, can it? Are they really that deranged?

Seriously, taking a look at a couple that offer specfics...

- Slave trade to Atlantic triangular trade? what a GROSS euphism and avoidance of the real topic there. They were slaves right? We were trading em right?

- Civil Rights Movement to "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes". What kind of white pride inspired horsecrap is this? Nevermind we have a black president now, minor detail!


This article is probably more to incite folks like myself who have a real deep seeded dislike of evangelical doings .

[CaptainHaplo]

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.

Funny - I see no implication of a SEPERATION of church and state implied...

Too many people love to try to say this is a freedom FROM religion - which it is not - it is the freedom OF religion. If your religion is that you want to worship the almighty spaghetti monster - you can. But freedom OF religion - and the FREE EXERCISE thereof means that there cannot be a prohibition of religion in government - or else your limiting that free exercise. That does not mean that government can establish a religion - aka force you to conform to one - but it also should not limit anyone's ability to practice theirs as they see fit provided it does not infringe on another persons rights.

Also - its amazing how people get all worked up over an article.... would really be wise for people to look at how the "GAWKER" even describes itself....

"Gossip from Manhattan and the Beltway to Hollywood and the Valley."

Just so you all can understand:

Gossip is defined by dictionary.com as "idle talk or rumor" and "hearsay"....
In other words, you have nothing but a lot of unsubstantiated and non-referenced rubbish thrown out by a left wing rumor mill with the intent to incite outrage....

Boy did some of ya'll fall for that....

[Sailor Steve]

I reread Haplo's post, and I would like to address one idea that hinges on which way you look at it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Too many people love to try to say this is a freedom FROM religion - which it is not - it is the freedom OF religion. If your religion is that you want to worship the almighty spaghetti monster - you can. But freedom OF religion - and the FREE EXERCISE thereof means that there cannot be a prohibition of religion in government - or else your limiting that free exercise. That does not mean that government can establish a religion - aka force you to conform to one - but it also should not limit anyone's ability to practice theirs as they see fit provided it does not infringe on another persons rights...

I have heard the phrase "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" used before, and I think you mean it a different way than I do. When I hear that line I fear people wanting to enforce religion on all. You seem to fear that "freedom from religion" means removing religion entirely. I think it depends on who is saying it.

Same with "Separation of Church and State". That phrase means that the government doesn't interfere with religions, and religions don't interfere with the government. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's exactly what the founders wanted, so yes it is directly implied in the First Amendment. What part of that do you disagree with?

So the question really comes down to what the speaker means when he uses that phrase.

[Skybird]

The confusion here is because of a very simple reason: some people think their"freedom" includes that their freedom goes beyond that of others, and that is because they claim that freedom has to be a totally unlimited, unregulated quality. This claim for unlimited own freedom necessarily brings people into conflict with others - simply because there are other people. Such conflict can only be avoided were both sides understand that there is a natural borderline for own freedom - which is set to be were own freedom starts to limit the freedom of others.

In shorter words, what such people really mean when they talk about "freedom", is this: "My freedom". Freedom of others is of considerably less concern as long as they do not join one's own peer-group.

The causative principle, which in this context would mean that somebody limiting the freedom of others for the sake of his own superior freedom is responsible for the conflict resulting from this and thus has to solve it by stopping to behave the way he does, gets ignored, explicitly excused or silently implied on the grounds of an argument that tries to justify such violation by ideological/religious claims that include that one has a religious/ideologic "obligation" to actively missionise and spread one's own belief, faith, ideology. I must not explicitly describe how much violence, cruelty, barbarism and inhumane terror has been caused by this - history speaks for itself.

Freedom of religion is freedom to practice one's own religion - but only as far and in a communal context where the form of it's practicing does not force others - who do not want to participate in that - to make extra concessions, to change their own habits, or needing to adjust their own lifestyle. In other words: freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. You cannot separate the two without installing tyranny and supression. Nobody has the right to demand others that they have to take note of oneself practicing one's religion. An if others force me to take note of them doing their thing, instead of me being allowed to just stay unaware of their practicing, I rate that as an attack on my personal freedom and rights, and I react accordingly - by counterattacking. Because my right to be "free" does not count less than theirs, and when they cause the annoyance, then it is up to them to stop it - it is not up to me to adapt to them. Again, this is elementary reason in form of the causative principle.

I think this is the intention of what the American historic papers and paragraphs in the accoprding documents have to say on the relation between state and religion.

therefore I usually ignore and leave in peace all religious people who practice and do their thing inside their own small community of fellow believers, or inside their private sphere, as long as they do not actively, without being demanded, approach me with their thing (whatever it is), or worse: as long as they do not try to change communal structures and the constituional order of the nation I live in (by invading the curriculum of the education system for example, or forming legislation, and more), to bring it in accordance with their faith.

If there are two people, and the one plays his radio so loud that he annoys the neighbourhood, and the other guy as well: what is the appropriate demand to make: that all others have to move away ("if you don't like it, get away!"), or that they have to play their own radios louder, or have to get used to it - or the one with the loud radio having to reduce the volume of his radio...?

Especially religious bigots and moralizers do not understand this, because in a way they all are supremacists. They run their life by a principle of assuming that they are better than the others and thus the others have to give ground. And even when these moralizers are less fanatic in their action and leaving others alone when being demanded - you still have a high chance of getting that one last greeting of theirs, saying: "You may not believe in my god, but even in your disbelief my god still loves you (that fantastic my god is)". Which only on the surface is a kind phrase, but in reality displays the utmost arrogance and supremacism possible to human thinking. What that somebody is telling in fact when using versions of that phrase is simply this:

"I am better than you, you poor little creature."

Religion. Lovely.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The confusion here is because of a very simple reason: some people think their"freedom" includes that their freedom goes beyond that of others, and that is because they claim that freedom has to be a totally unlimited, unregulated quality. This claim for unlimited own freedom necessarily brings people into conflict with others - simply because there are other people. Such conflict can only be avoided were both sides understand that there is a natural borderline for own freedom - which is set to be were own freedom starts to limit the freedom of others.

Or as my old pa used to say, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends right at the tip of my nose."

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...

Haplo, I challenge you, or anyone, to find any mention of church, God or Christ in the constitution.

No, the Constitution does not directly use that phrase, but the man behind it, the "Father of the Constitution" and author of the First Amendment, James Madison, certainly believed it.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
-Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
-Detached Memoranda, circa 1820

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
-Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

The only mention of religion within the body of the Constitution is Article VI, Section 3, which says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The founders were very aware of the domination religion had held over every government in Europe. Most of the people who had come here seeking "religious freedom" had then enforced intolerance of anyone who disagreed, even the legendary Pilgrims. Roger Williams was banished from Massachussetts by those same Puritans for preaching religious freedom.

But I have a personal question. Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right. There is now no separation of Church and State. What does that mean to you? What changes will you make?

I'm curious.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...
Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right. There is now no separation of Church and State. What does that mean to you? What changes will you make?

I'm curious.

And if so which "Church" would that exactly be?

Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant flavor #1 , Protestant flavor #2, ... Protestant flavor #57, ...

.

[Skybird]

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

Do not complain that again I repeat this link. Same questions repeated ad nauseum deserve not different answers, but the answer just being repeated as often.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html

Separation of Church and State

The words 'Separation of Church and State' are not expressly written in the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Rather it is based on Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the 'Establishment ' clause that James Madison introduced in the 1st amendment.
Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
First Amendment to the Constitution

"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..."

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment

'Seperation of Church and State': a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
In a letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller (Jan. 23, 1808)
"I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted [forbid] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…."

James Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug. 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)

More thoughts from Madison:

"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" [Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819]
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" [Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822].
U.S. Supreme Court

Hugo Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
[Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
[Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws nor impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of a God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
[Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)]

Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court:

'The Lemon Test', in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It Determines if a law is permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

• A law must have a secular purpose.
• It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
• It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

More
"Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion."
[Melvin v. Easley (1860)]

"First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.... Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another."
[Justice Tom C. Clark, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)]

"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of nonreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
[Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103 (1968)]

Others

Ulysses S. Grant

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

Was the United States founded as a Christian Nation?

The Christian majority

It is true that that Christianity was the majority religion of the first european colonists, it was the majority religion at the time of the country's founding and has remained by far the dominant religion throughout the history of our country. There is no doubt that the country was settled by Christians and has been populated by a Christian majority.
The statement that is commonly made is that "The United States was founded as a Christian Nation". To examine this statement we will look at the founding documents: the Declaration of independence, the Articles of Confederartion, the Constitution and the First Amendment. As well as the Treaty of Tripoli and The beliefs of the Founding Fathers.
Declaration of Independence

(transcript) There are no specific reference to Christianity or Jesus in the Declaration of independence. There are a few references to a 'Nature's God' who is the creator of life, giver of rights and 'supreme Judge of the world' but that is rather vague..
"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
Notice that it specifically describes 'Natures God', this is a more generic idea of God, this is god as nature.
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
This does describes God as a creator of life and giver of rights but goes no further.
"...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"
Here God is the 'Supreme Judge'.
All three of these examples would fit into nearly any organized religion or idea of god but especially that of Deism and Pantheism due to the lack of specificity.
It is expected that people of the time would speak of a god, there was little to no doubt at that time of God's existence, but there was plenty of doubt about Christianity among the framers. In order to justify their defiance of the King they had to invoke a higher authority and make the case that they were endowed with the higher power's blessing.
Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation were the first constitution of the United States. During 1776–1777. In a sentance stating the date it speaks of 'our Lord'.
"on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord..."
This is the only mention of God or Jesus in the Articles and although clearly a Christian practice, it was a common way of writing the date. On March 4, 1789, the new U.S. Constitution took effect, superseding the Articles of Confederation and giving them no legal standing.
The Constitution

(transcript)
The 1787 constitution is a nearly godless document. It mentions neither God, nor Christianity outside of a reference to the date using the Christian calandar. It does however have a provision against requiring specific religious ideas as a qualification for office.
Article VI, Section 3, US Constitution
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Article. VII, US Constitution
"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"
It certainly can be argued that this sentence sets up The United States under 'our Lord' Jesus Christ, but when viewed in context it takes on a much lesser importance. The sentence is in the last section of the fourth and final page of the Constitution and was a common way of referencing the Christian calendar. 'In the year of our Lord' translated to latin is 'Anno Domini' which is commonly abbreviated 'A.D.' and is still used to this day by most of the western world when stating the year. It is merely a tradition and holds no religious significance. (more)
First Amendment to the Constitution

If the United States were set up as a Christian Nation would it grant equal rights to all religions?

"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..."
Treaty of Tripoli, article 11

A 1797 treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified by the US Congress and signed by President John Adams. (more)
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."
The Founders

Even though the majority of Americans at the time were Christians, several of the key figures in politics were Deists. They rejected the specific beliefs of religion and Christianity.
John Adams

2nd president, Proposed and signed the Treaty of Tripoli
"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years."
letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 106-7, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."
letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

Thomas Jefferson

3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." [Notes on Virginia]
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" [Letter to von Humboldt, 1813].
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814].
"Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion 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 Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." [Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363]
James Madison

4th president, influential in the Constitutional Convention, Proposed the 1st Amendment
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." [April 1, 1774]
Benjamin Franklin

Signer of Declaration of Independence, signer of Constitution
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
[Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758]
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
"He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard." [Franklin's Autobiography]
George Washington

1st president
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/trust.html

In God we trust?

The original motto

"E Pluribus Unum"
Latin for "One from many"
In 1776, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson submit their design to congress for 'the Great Seal of the United States' with the motto "E Pluribus Unum".
In 1782, The Secretary of Congress submits a design of an eagle with a heart-shaped shield and a scroll bearing the motto "E Pluribus Unum".
The seal is approved and used on some coinage in1795.
The new motto

"In God We Trust"
In 1814, Francis Scott Key pens his poem 'Defence of Fort McHenry' which will eventually become known as 'The Star-Spangled Banner'. It contains the verse "and this be our motto: In God is our trust."
In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."
In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".
In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.
In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.
In 1889, The Star-Spangled Banner is recognized for use by the Navy.
In 1916, The Star-Spangled Banner is recognized for use by the President.
In 1931, The Star-Spangled Banner is made the national anthem by a congressional resolution and is signed by President Herbert Hoover.
In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.
On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.
Challanges

• In 1970, The constitutionality of the motto is challenged (Aronow v. United States). The Circut court determined it "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion".
• In 1979, Madalyn Murray O'Hair of American Atheists challanges the motto (O'Hair v. Blumenthal). The circut court ruled "the slogan was secular".
• In 1994, The Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the motto citing it's survey that showed a majority of americans consider the motto religious. lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial

US Treasury: History of 'In God We Trust'

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/under_god.html

One Nation, Under God?


The Pledge of Allegiance

Original adopted October 12, 1892, 'Columbus Day'.
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Amended June 14, 1924, 'Flag Day' to include "the flag of the United States of America".
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Amended in 1954, during the Cold War McCarthyism, at the request of Christian and anti-Communist groups to include "under God".
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Challenged in 2003, Michael Newdow, a California Atheist, Doctor and Lawyer successfully sued over the words 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance being recited in his daughters classroom. He won in the 9th circuit appeals court in a 2-1 decision. The US Supreme Court threw out the case on a technicality.

The 'G' word

The use of a capitalized 'G' in "God" is commonly considered the specific Judeo-Christian god.
The use of 'God' may disclude all non Judeo-Christian believers, as well as polytheists (belief in more than one god) and agnostics (unsure of god).
The use of 'God' does disclude Atheists.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/principals.html

Was the United States founded on Christian Principals?

Well let's look at some of the founding principals of the country:

Democracy/ Republic?

The ideas of Democracy and Represantation first began in Pagan Greece in 5th century BC and later began to take hold in western europe in the late 1700's after religion's power in government had lessoned.
Secular Government?

People can argue endlessly over the entanglements of religion and government but for the most part our government was set up as a secular government and has remained mostly separate from religious affairs.
Freedom of Religion?

It is in no religion's interest to make it easy for people to join or explore other faiths.
Separation of Church and State?

History has shown that Religion loves to mingle with Government. Religion likes to have the heavy hand of Governent behind it and Government likes the unquestionable blessing of Religion.
Moral Principals

Unequal rights?







Even thought the Declaration of Independence speaks of all men being created equal, it was not taken literally.

• Blacks and Native Americans were not equal with whites,
• Women were not equal with men
• Men who were not land owners were not equal with those who were.

Many of these ideas of inequality (slavery, subservient women) can be supported by the bible but most modern Christians would not consider these as 'Christian Principals'. [Romans 7:2, Timothy 2:11, 1 Corinthians 14:34]
Slavery?

Like stated above, slavery is supported by the bible but most would not consider that a good Christian Principal. [Leviticus 25:44, Titus 2:9, Ephesians 6:5]

U.S. State Laws That discriminate against people who don't believe in a god


Arkansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arkansas

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Article 19, sect. 1 of the 1874 constitution
Maryland

"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.. nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." Bill of Rights: Article 36
Massachusetts

"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: herefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."
Declaration of Rights: Article III
North Carolina

"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."
Constitution Article 6 Section 8
Pennsylvania

"No person who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth".
Declaration of Rights Article 1 Section 4
South Carolina

"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being..."
Article 4 Section 2
Tennessee

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Bill of Rights: Article 9 Section 4
Texas

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Article 1 - Bill of Rights: Section 4

Slave trade to Atlantic triangular trade? what a GROSS euphism and avoidance of the real topic there. They were slaves right? We were trading em right?

But you must understand that her "education" advisor explains that slavery is justified by the bible, after all as they want to "return" America to biblical law will the biblical slavery laws make a "comeback".
I do like the bit about the growth of the abolition movement (which they incredibly claim led the world). It appears the growth in the abolition movement was due to Americas slave laws not being aligned with biblical slave law which meant the inconsistancy made slavery too difficult to reform gradually or peacefully

[Bilge_Rat]

two thoughts here, none related to the thread topic:

1. . The separation of church and state is implied by the text of the U.S. constitution of 1787, most notably this part:

First Amendment to the Constitution

"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..."

In 1787, the standard practice in all European countries was to have one state religion imposed on all the inhabitants. People who practiced other religions were tolerated, but discriminated against. I seem to recall that there were heated discussions on whether the U.S. should have a state religion, but this was abandoned in favour of the present text which made it clear that the U.S. government could not favour one religion over another, a quite revolutionary concept at the time;

2. Canada was a British colony at the time. Most of the inhabitants were french catholics. In 1763, when Canada became a British colony, the British guaranteed the French, the free exercise of their catholic religion and guaranteed the legal status of the catholic church. This was also quite unorthodox at the time since the current practice was to force all the inhabitants of a conquered country to convert to the state religion. Of course, the British had done this for practical reasons since they knew it would be dificult to rule Canada without the tacit consent of the Canadiens. The U.S. rebels made many overture to Canada to join the U.S. Many of these were rebuffed because the Canadiens did not trust the U.S. leaders to respect their religious freedoms. They had more faith in King George.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Stealth Hunter - when I asked about issues in the curriculum - you steered toward the "wallbuilder" website,

"Steered" implies that I'm trying (or rather I tried) to dodge the issue, which I did not. The WallBuilder website simply shows the fantasy land these people live in, and why their position is not admissible in this case- furthermore to demonstrate their motives for making this textbook change. The responses to their lunacy on their website merely highlight the numerous inaccuracies and blatant dishonesty they have for history, and indeed science.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

as well as stated that there was "no real historical problem" with the existing curriculum.

Before this was passed, I mean. The current existing curriculum, they one they just voted on and passed, has made a problem of it because of the above mentioned historical revisionism towards the American Civil War and indeed the founding of the country, not to mention the figures for each historical event.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

the kids were being taught that this nation is a democracy - which is incorrect - and has been amended to a "constitutional republic" - which is accurate)

The United States government is a Constitutional Democratic Republic today, among other things. It was founded originally under the Articles of Confederation as... a Democratic Confederation. But because too many elements of Direct Democracy and Individual Statism existed, the country could get nothing done. Each state was practically its own individual nation. Ergo, the reason for the successful ratification of the United States Constitution. The Constitution establishes the country as two things: a Republic (the people elect their Congressional members and their leader) and a Democracy (the people are free to voice their opinions and may be directly involved in the affairs of government via the voting/campaigning processes; it's true when Lincoln said "for the people, of the people, by the people"). So is it wrong to teach the United States was historically founded as a democracy? No, because originally it was, and the beliefs in democracy are maintained to this very day by not only the law but the people. As far as what it is and isn't now, in the modern era, that's more of a question to be put to a government class, not a history class.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

- there were changes to be made.

Which have not done anything to teach the correct history of the United States. The history the books had previously was just fine; accuracy wasn't the problem. They were just too brief, not at all in-depth. Now, accuracy is a problem with them trying to teach that the CSA was a movement that was not treasonous (even though by legal definition it was in fact an act of treason) and that the country was founded on the principles of Christianity/religion, despite the words of the Founding Fathers (whom they also claim were mostly religious, despite the contradictory facts) and indeed the words of not only the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but also the words and rulings of the Supreme Court, Congress, and several presidents.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It also is the duty of the board, at specifed intervals, to review and amend the curriculum. That is what was done.

Nobody's debating that. Nobody's even trying to discuss that with the legal authorities right now. What they are going on about, however, is what they've decided to amend, and how they've decided they should amend it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So whether or not the last one was "pretty ok" is irrelevant.

Not really, considering that the last one was in terms of accuracy was at least correct in what it stated compared to this hogwash they're trying to put out there in the schools.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The wallbuilders site is not the curriculum.

Master Of The Obvious.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its the views of those that support a certain viewpoint.

Which are the exact same views the exact same people who founded the website (at least in the case of Mrs. Dunbar) are trying to put into the textbooks. This demonstrates exactly my point, and the point everybody else is trying to get across: the only reason they're amending the textbooks to say these things is because they don't like how the original ones don't support their views; how the original ones don't say that the United States was founded as a Christian/religious nation, that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, that the Civil War was not an act of treason, and that the rebel Confederates were justified in their cause. The reason why the original textbooks didn't say these things? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN HISTORY. The United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The fact that some of those same people are part of the Texas Board of Education is no more a civil horror than avowed communists being advisors or leaders in federal government - which we have seen just recently.

Communists? I thought they were Socialists? Or are they Fascists? Nazis maybe? It changes every day with groups like the Tea Party. But that's not what we're talking about. It's not a matter of being a "civil horror", it's a matter of these people are being dishonest to twist the facts to their agenda. Even if they're not doing it intentionally, and they honestly do believe this stuff (which it wouldn't surprise me if they did), it's still not the historical truth. The kids are there to learn what actually happened in history; the original textbooks lived up to that. They were accurate, albeit brief. Now, they're inaccurate. How long is it until they decide to change something else in the historical textbooks? How long is it until they do it with the science textbooks? These exact same people advocate Creationism, you know; when are they going to say that teachers HAVE to teach "Intelligent Design" (they've started calling it that to make it sound more scientific) along with evolution? It's time to stop this dumbassery before it goes any further. It's not about "censorship" or anything like these people like to cry about; it's what's fact and what's not.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The curriculum is a guideline - stating what the teacher is to teach.

The only real downside being that it's too brief; but now the information that the teacher is to teach is inaccurate, making it entirely problematic.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

How they choose to teach it is not specified - and so unless there are historical inaccuracies in the curriculum itself - and so far no one has pointed any out - I still don't see the problem.

Where have you been? Under a rock? Twiddling your thumbs in the bathtub perhaps? I reiterate, the United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up. They want to teach that the founders were mostly Christians who created the country based upon Christian/religious principles and that the Civil War was not an act of treason on the part of the Confederacy and that it was merely an armed rebellion against the United States government, to "protect states rights" (the main issue of which that was in dispute during the election of 1860 being slavery and arguments for and against it; the Southern Dixiecrats were afraid it would be abolished by Lincoln and would thereby cripple their economy; there is a reason you know why the country became rich so quickly in its brief history up to that point).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The question I put to you - and I welcome you or anyone else to answer, is in the actual changes to the curriculum - where you do you have an objection?

Alright now I know you haven't been paying attention. I've already stated where my objections lie; others have too. Why you can't see this is beyond me. It's painful to see the obliviousness. It really is.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Are we going to continue to put out false information (democracy vs republic as an example) - or are we going to correct inaccuracies?

I don't know. You tell me. If things continue with this whole affair in Texas, inaccurate information will simply be continued to be put out there. Should it be stopped? Absolutely. Are there people fighting to stop it? Thankfully, yes, there are.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If your ok with kids in school learning stuff that simply is in error - well - thats up to you.

Indeed. I, for one, am not. Nor are most of my contemporaries here and elsewhere. Though some, including Mrs. Dunbar, really don't care so long as the information that our kids are learning suits what they believe and want to be taught, even though it is a-historical.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This is why I have put out the challenge - review the changes - and point out in the changes themselves (and not "news" articles) where the problesm are.

I already have. The news articles have too. Their choices of wording are different, but the changes that will be made are nevertheless outlined in them. There is nothing that makes them inaccurate. They have outlined what they're going to change and what is inaccurate; I for one have spent most of my time here outlining what is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I have linked to the actual document of changes - and have asked 3 times in this thread where exactly people take issue.

And we have responded three times to where we are taking issue. Or at least I have anyway. And I have outlined three times how to correct the issue. Yet, it is only you who are oblivious to this. Everyone else sees the posts; why can't you?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So far - no one has dared touch that question.

On the contrary, we have. So perhaps you should touch on why the information is accurate. I mean, we've already refuted your claims about the Christian/religious founding of the United States and the major religion/beliefs of the Founding Fathers, but that still doesn't mean you can't try (and fail lol) at trying to point out why their changes to the Civil War history are "accurate".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Instead - we get "well the last version was ok" even though it had errors.

And we get utter obliviousness. You pretend not to see our arguments and the facts, pretend that we have no way to refute what you're saying, you trudge on, ignoring us even though we're damning your arguments by the keystroke. Furthermore, you have yet to outline what "errors" existed with the sections they decided to change. And you were refuted on your claim that the "United States isn't a democracy".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Is this one perfect? No -

No kidding? Where was your first clue?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I doubt anything can be -

Master Of The Obvious.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

but for every "flaw" that it introduces, I am willing to bet I can match things it fixes to be factual.

Go for it. We've already shown why they aren't factual. So try your best. How much are you willing to put down? I'll wager a hundred.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Course - when no one takes the first challenge - I can't even make the second one!

Perhaps you should reread, on my part, these posts lol, though I doubt you'll be any less blind to them:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=128
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=134