Why send your children to private school?

[August]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Huh, I got more reasons to not want to go to private school than that...

Try getting dragged down to the principal by the ear/hair for being "rebelious" (or what ever they call the head Dickhead) and sit there for a hour.

Well, were you being rebellious?

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by August

Well, were you being rebellious?

Not really, just being a normal kid (yea, I was 5)... not as bad as some others.

[tater]

Yeah, the libertarian take (intentionally lower case, BTW ) is right I think.

Any time ANYTHING is paid for by the government it is ALWAYS political. Science, schools, whatever. This is, and will always be true. If your money is tax money, then political representatives decides who gets it and how much.

The science, for example, is annoying. The fundie take is 100% wrong. Not debatable, sorry, it's fantasy. But since the schools are political by definition, they might well get creationism nonsense in there at some point—luckily this always gets bitch-slapped in court.

Going all private has some positives, but then we'll see a balkanization I fear. Muslims in madrassas, christians being trained to be equally stupid in their schools, etc. On the plus side, those of us using good private school will save tax money, and still train our kids to be the ruling class (in every serious discipline) over fundie morons.

[CaptainHaplo]

@ Undersea - exactly...

@ tater - I answered that challenge about God in the constitution already in this thread. Also - your saying that the Declaration of Independance has no legal force? Excuse me - it is THE document that founded this country - NOT the Constitution. The Constitution defines HOW the nation that was founded in the Declaration of Independance will operate. Nice try to twist it - but withou the DoI - the Constitution cannot exist - because the United States of America cannot exist.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

So even the signatories note in the document that the US of A was and had been in existence for 12 years - so the Constitution is not the founding document. SHEESH!

@ Sailor Steve - Ms. Dunbar can claim to be whatever faith she wants, and want whatever she wants to be taught. I made the point that the statement that was quoted say "under God" - which is accurate. I also stated had they said "under the Xtian God" they would be wrong. I don't see us as disagreeing on what they may or may not have meant - but what was stated - was accurate.

Also - Steve, I have great respect for you - but I posted the links directly to the material in question for debate - and you reply with a link from a week old newspaper source in the UK? I would think the actual material is better source data for discussion than what some newspaper across the pond thinks when its doubtful they have looked at it in depth. If we are going to debate whether changes are good or bad, religious or not, etc - then lets use the actual stuff being changed - instead of some overseas news article.....

I have not at all said that there is no "seperation of church and state" - what I have done is state that people take the term freedom of religion and have tried for decades to make it freedom from religion - freedom from having to allow others to practice it as they see fit, freedom from having others promote it as they wish provided it does not violate another persons rights, etc. I have not said that religion needs to be part of government - and in the cases of MOST of the laws Skybird posted - I think they are unconstitutional and should be abolished. No man can be constrained to worship outside the dictates of his conscience - I agree - but I also agree that no man should be constrained to NOT worship in ways he sees fit provided that no rights of another are trampled. And sorry - an elected representitive who wants to put the ten commandments in his office - or an elected judge wants them in his courtroom - well - vote em out if you don't like em - but if you stop them - your stopping them from worshipping as they see fit - and that violates the freedom of religion clause.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

@ @ Sailor Steve - Ms. Dunbar can claim to be whatever faith she wants, and want whatever she wants to be taught. I made the point that the statement that was quoted say "under God" - which is accurate. I also stated had they said "under the Xtian God" they would be wrong. I don't see us as disagreeing on what they may or may not have meant - but what was stated - was accurate.

You said that these people said "under God", and not under the Christian God. Their agenda is very specifically Christian, and there's no denying that. I think a direct quote from the woman's book is sufficient direct evidence for that.

I have not at all said that there is no "seperation of church and state"

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...2&postcount=14

- what I have done is state that people take the term freedom of religion and have tried for decades to make it freedom from religion - freedom from having to allow others to practice it as they see fit, freedom from having others promote it as they wish provided it does not violate another persons rights, etc.

But that phrase - "Not freedom from religion" - has been used by evangelicals to say that the government should be based in religion. Most people I've listened to don't believe that anyone should be denied their freedoms. The believe the Christians want to enforce their beliefs on everyone. The fear is on both sides.

No man can be constrained to worship outside the dictates of his conscience - I agree - but I also agree that no man should be constrained to NOT worship in ways he sees fit provided that no rights of another are trampled.

Then we are in complete agreement on that.

And sorry - an elected representitive who wants to put the ten commandments in his office - or an elected judge wants them in his courtroom - well - vote em out if you don't like em - but if you stop them - your stopping them from worshipping as they see fit - and that violates the freedom of religion clause.

Well, putting your beliefs in your office is your business. Putting up in a taxpayer funded courtroom is a little different. Do you want to go into a courtroom with Buddhas on pedestals everywhere?

And the protests aren't over private usage, they are over public displays on the lawns of public buildings.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve - the link is in regards to the constitution. The fact is that a seperation of church and state does in fact exist - and I have not said that it is not a proper thing. Specifically - it should exist to keep government from mandating ANY religion. I have said as much repeatedly - there is a difference to it "not being in the constitution" and it "not being"....

The seperation of church and state is founded on a letter to the Danbury Baptists - a PRIVATE letter - that was used to justify a legal ruling. Now you can lump anything in with "those evangelicals" or "those gays" or "those (insert your target here)" all you want - but your painting a with a broad brush that is intentionally generalizing.

I disagree with Ms. Dunbar on a number of points. But while their AGENDA may be one thing, their statement on "under god" is in fact correct. See the 2 declarations I mentioned earlier for proof. The fact that the DoI was the document that founded us - and specifically put our independance before the "Supreme Judge" is rather clear, regardless of whether people like it or not. I will say it again - has she said "under the Christian god" then I would be right there with you saying she was wrong. But there is a difference. The terms used - as has been pointed out - were very deist - which in fact most of the "Founding Fathers" were.

As for the issue of Buddhas in the courtroom - I personally wouldn't care. If I did have an issue with it - there are options. First - make sure the judge isn't re-elected - and also appeal IF and only IF the law was not followed. What statue is in the room matters not one bit to the legal ruling - and if it does - then the ruling isn't going to stand. Simple enough.
Also - an elected official has an office - but taxpayer money pays for it, taxpayer business is done in it - and taxpayers often see officials in their office. So what is the difference between that and a courtroom? Both are accessible to, serve and are paid for by the taxpayer. Careful with your answer though - because if you say ok remove every religious icon in government buildings - then your also saying a religious person could not bring a token of faith to their work - and that infringes on their right to worship as they see fit.

You see - its a 2 edged sword..... Lets say you did have a judge that wanted to have a statue of Buddha on his wall. Ok - then his clerk wants to bring in a small Cross mounted on a stand. Maybe the court recorder wants to have something else on her little desk. Where do you stop - or do you? Does it matter what each of them does as long as they do the work of the people as they are duty bound to by law and terms of employment?

People want to talk about how Xtians want to take over and remake government - and a few loonies do. And I will stand with you to stop them when I see the idiocy- but the lunacy has to stop when it comes to the rabid FEAR of any religion having any impact on governance... If it were not for religion - this country would not exist - because most of the settling of this country was an attempt to find religious freedom. Meaning you practice your thing - I'll practice mine, and we live and let live. But instead you have people who want to make sure no one can practice anything on "public" grounds. Well public means yours and mine and the other guys too - and last I checked you weren't to tell me what to do any more than I am to tell you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Steve - the link is in regards to the constitution. The fact is that a seperation of church and state does in fact exist - and I have not said that it is not a proper thing. Specifically - it should exist to keep government from mandating ANY religion. I have said as much repeatedly - there is a difference to it "not being in the constitution" and it "not being"....

The seperation of church and state is founded on a letter to the Danbury Baptists - a PRIVATE letter - that was used to justify a legal ruling.

And I've shown that it was used repeatedly by the man who wrote the first amendment. He obvoiously believed that was what it meant.

Now you can lump anything in with "those evangelicals" or "those gays" or "those (insert your target here)" all you want - but your painting a with a broad brush that is intentionally generalizing.

You're afraid of people trying to use that to remove all traces of religion from American life. I'm with you on that. On the other hand every time I've heard someone using the "no separation" phrase they've been pushing an agenda. You seem to be the only one who means it differently. Why should I believe you, other than that I'm willing to give anyone the benifit of the doubt?

I will say it again - has she said "under the Christian god" then I would be right there with you saying she was wrong.

But she did say it. The fact that she didn't say it there is what has people up in arms. She's lying.

But there is a difference. The terms used - as has been pointed out - were very deist - which in fact most of the "Founding Fathers" were.

I'm glad we agree on that. And I'm not intentionally generalizing, I'm speaking of the most outspoken leaders - the ones who make the most noise and seem to speak for the majority, even if they don't. They are also the ones whom people listen to.

As for the issue of Buddhas in the courtroom - I personally wouldn't care. If I did have an issue with it - there are options. First - make sure the judge isn't re-elected - and also appeal IF and only IF the law was not followed. What statue is in the room matters not one bit to the legal ruling - and if it does - then the ruling isn't going to stand. Simple enough.
Also - an elected official has an office - but taxpayer money pays for it, taxpayer business is done in it - and taxpayers often see officials in their office. So what is the difference between that and a courtroom? Both are accessible to, serve and are paid for by the taxpayer. Careful with your answer though - because if you say ok remove every religious icon in government buildings - then your also saying a religious person could not bring a token of faith to their work - and that infringes on their right to worship as they see fit.

And that is a tough question. No, people should never be prohibited from demonstrating their faith in the open, as long as it doesn't intrude on anybody's rights. That can be a thorny question itself. My only answer is to refer to Jefferson.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes On The State Of Virginia

You see - its a 2 edged sword..... Lets say you did have a judge that wanted to have a statue of Buddha on his wall. Ok - then his clerk wants to bring in a small Cross mounted on a stand. Maybe the court recorder wants to have something else on her little desk. Where do you stop - or do you? Does it matter what each of them does as long as they do the work of the people as they are duty bound to by law and terms of employment?

I believe the courtroom itself, as a public place paid for by the taxpayers, should be free of all religious symbols. Though the Judge's office is also provided by the taxpayers, that is not a public place, but a private office. If a Church wants to have a cross, that is their business and nobody elses. If someone wants to put a cross or anything else over a public school, that is a violation of the concept.

People want to talk about how Xtians want to take over and remake government - and a few loonies do. And I will stand with you to stop them when I see the idiocy- but the lunacy has to stop when it comes to the rabid FEAR of any religion having any impact on governance... If it were not for religion - this country would not exist - because most of the settling of this country was an attempt to find religious freedom. Meaning you practice your thing - I'll practice mine, and we live and let live. But instead you have people who want to make sure no one can practice anything on "public" grounds. Well public means yours and mine and the other guys too - and last I checked you weren't to tell me what to do any more than I am to tell you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander....

I agree about standing against loonies, no matter what fringe they're from. But as for finding religious freedom, most of the colonies were started as business enterprises, mostly planting. Massachussetts was founded by a group seeking religious freedom, which to them meant escape from the established Church of England and finding a place where they could establish their own Presbyterian Church. And they drove out anyone who preached religious freedom. This included Roger Williams, who was the only contemporary religious leader who did practice true tolerance, and he ended up founding Rhode Island. Interesting that he called his capital 'Providence', a decidedly non-specific term. The history of Christianity in early America is not one of religious tolerance. It took Enlightenment types like Jefferson to go against the grain and push laws guaranteeing freedom. And the religious leaders of his own day branded him an Atheist.

As for practicing in a public place, I used to attend a church that met in a local park. I thought it was a great setting, and I see not problem with anybody meeting anywhere public. I do, however, have a problem with the government, whether federal, state or local, using taxpayer money to put up religious symbolism.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

@ tater - I answered that challenge about God in the constitution already in this thread. Also - your saying that the Declaration of Independance has no legal force?

The DoI has no legal force. It was written before our system of law was even founded in the Constitution.

Excuse me - it is THE document that founded this country - NOT the Constitution. No it isn't. The Constitution defines HOW the nation that was founded in the Declaration of Independance will operate. Nice try to twist it - but withou the DoI - the Constitution cannot exist - because the United States of America cannot exist.

You've been doing the twist for this entire thread. The DoI attempts to justify the break with Great Britain by saying we have rights extending from the creator. It continues with a long whine about George III, and ends by stating that the colonies are now a separate country. Wow, what a founding.

What will this new country be like? Will it be a democracy, a republic, or a monarchy? How about a theocracy?

Will there be nobility? Will there be slavery? Will there be guaranteed freedoms? What will they be? What will life be like in this new country?

It's the Constitution that decided these questions. It didn't just organize government; it provided the foundation for the lives of the country's citizens.

The Declaration of Independence did none of that. That's why we aren't founded on the DoI, we're founded on the Constitution. If the drafters of the Constitution had wanted to found our country in belief, they could have easily done so. But they didn't.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

The DoI attempts to justify the break with Great Britain by saying we have rights extending from the creator. It continues with a long whine about George III, and ends by stating that the colonies are now a separate country. Wow, what a founding.

I really liked your post and I thank you for the good viewpoint. People also need to understand the reason for the Declaration of Independence.

It was to justify to the people in the colonies the rational for what was not a very popular rebellion. The audience was the people in the American colonies not the King of England.

We (the rebellion) did not even send a copy of this declaration to England. It was sent to England by some British officers.

The document is not, as often remembered, the big FU to the King, but was a document of persuasion to inform and influence public (in the colonies) opinion on what was an illegal rebellion.

So the Declaration of Independence can be used as a historical documentation of intent, but you are most correct when you say that it can not be used as a citation for government structure.

Some good books on the subject are

American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (1997) by Pauline Maier

I can also recommend the appropriate chapters of "A people's history of the United States" (2003) by the late Dr. Howard Zinn

"Origins of the American Revolution" (1947) By John C. Miller

And my pride and joy I have a first edition of

"Notes on Historical Evidence in reference to adverse theories of the origin and nature of the Government of the United States" published in 1871 by John B Dillon. If you can find this book in a library, take the time to read it. It is fascinating!

The period between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is one of my favorite periods of history.

[CaptainHaplo]

Geez - first you guys say that the DoI is not the founding document of our country - and now you admit it is - but that it isn't the basis of our government.

Ok - I can agree with that - but I never argued that the DoI was the basis of our government. Your trying to twist the arguement into something else entirely.

This isn't about seperation of church and state right now - the point I am making is whethere the country was FOUNDED "under God" - and because the document that states we are now the US of A has God in it repeatedly - including putting our decision to the "Supreme Judge" - the nation was founded "under God".

As for the DoI not having the force of law - if your correct in that assumption, then the Constitution is incorrect when it refers to the US of A being independant for 12 years... After all - what was that statement based off of? For that matter, if it had no legal standing -then England could not have surrendered and recognized the iindependance of the US because the constitution - which your trying to claim "founded" the US - had not been written yet.

So when Cornwallis surrendered - and the Treaty of Paris was signes - the Constitution was not yet written. According to the "logic" given here - England could not surrender because the "founding" constitution wasn't written - and thus the US didn't exist...

Want to discuss force of law? Ok - do a search on the Articles of Confederation - the FIRST version of the Constitution - that not only worked off the basis of our independance (as claimed in the DoI) but also formed the basis for the colonial united government. It was this that structured Congress, and it was this Congress that ratified the Treaty of Paris - so are you going to say that the Articles of Confederation also did not have any force of law? Given that they were the basis of government that England surrendered to - one would have to say they did hold force of law.... Bad news - the Articles of Confederation also contains the following (emphasis added):

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.

OK - so what is it about document after to DoI - used for 12 years of the US existence as our form of government - that your going to use to claim IT isn't part of our founding?

The 2 documents - DoI and the Articles of Confederation - combined - create, and then structure the government of - the new nation called the United States of America, respectively. In each of those 2 documents, reference to A God is clearly made. This is the establishment and governance beginnings of our nation today. You can wail and gnash your teeth, but its historical fact. In fact, the US Government does in fact hold the Articles of Confederation as the "first" constitution, and represents them as such. One more little historical tidbit for you - the Treaty of Paris - another legally binding document - states:

in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,

and was ratified by the second Continental Congress - meaning they accepted the treaty as ordained by the "Trinity" - a rather "God"ish reference if ever their was one.... Considering this treaty also is used to demonstrate the formal acceptance by England of the existence of the US.

Its funny how those with an anti-god need want to make out like the spiritual was not a part of the founding of this country. So much so that apparently they want to say that the US didn't exist until the current Constitution wsa adopted.....

Good luck with that - historical facts are not on your side.

[Sailor Steve]

You're starting to rant.

What Platapus said was

So the Declaration of Independence can be used as a historical documentation of intent, but you are most correct when you say that it can not be used as a citation for government structure.

And he's exactly right. The Declaration is just that - declaring independence, nothing more. It is a vital part of our history, and as he said is useful for divining what they meant. The Articles attempted to set up a mutually beneficial parent government for the states, but it didn't give congress any power to enforce it. The Constitution is the guidebook for how the government is to be run. It lays down the rules.

No one is saying that they didn't believe in a god. What we are arguing with is the ongoing evangelical contention that the United States was founded as a Christian country. And that is the predominent evangelical party line, deny it all you want.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Geez - first you guys say that the DoI is not the founding document of our country - and now you admit it is - but that it isn't the basis of our government.

I didn't say the DoI was a founding document. That was sarcasm.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.

That's it? One passing reference in a document that was voided 6 years after being ratified, and that sounds more like a rhetorical flourish than anything else? And based on that you say the country was founded in belief? If that had actually been the case, the drafters would have said as much in the part of the document that's actually relevant to the founding. And if they thought they were founding a believing nation, wouldn't they have done the same in the Constitution, the only document that's relevant today? If it was important in the AoC, why didn't it make it into the Constitution?

The Founders were Deists and Christians. They could have been Kali worshipers for all it matters. What's important is how they actually went about the founding.