|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2005 : 23:31:16 [Permalink]
|
Who said anything about the parents being scared of this? That's mighty prejudicial of you.
that was in response to a statement Dude made. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 23:48:37 [Permalink]
|
And now more than ever, Doomar, it seems to me like you're more-or-less clueless on what "separation of church and state," and the SCOTUS decisions, and current law, and the Constitution, mean in relation to the issue of religion and government.
I don't appreciate your condescending response, Dave. If you are unable to enter discussions without resorting to this tack, I would suggest that you need to brush up on your rules of etiquette.
I am far more concerned about the effect of poor judgment by some supreme court judges on our society. I am also much more up to speed on current law than you think, and far more aware of the true intent of Constitutional law than most people. I do not, however, look to the SCOTUS for wisdom on such matters. It is this same bunch of elitists that ruled in favor of slavery, if you'll remember. I look to the writers for the intent of the law, not the modern day elitist judges living in their ivory tower. The actual writers of the law are greater than those that judge within the law. They (the writers) are the true elected representatives of the people. I am not one who espouses a "living, breathing Constitution". There is one correct interpretation and not many. I also believe in true critical thinking and don't think myself unworthy of judging the judges. To simply read their decisions and take them as "gospel" is foolish indeed. Now discussing the virtues of their decisions, that requires understanding which we should all seek to have. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/16/2005 23:54:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 23:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
They don't need that ability, Dave. They are not on their own in this matter. They have parents and friends to discuss it with. They are very able to "read" the sincerity of their teacher and note their personal conviction or lack thereof.
Doomar, your idealism in the face of the niavete of kids and the neglect of parents is astounding.quote:
I would like to see your statistical data on how the schools, society, and our nation have improved since the imposition of the '63 S.C. decision that, in effect, caused an intolerance toward anything religious in schools, or how the allowing of religious freedom among teachers and administrators in the time before that caused harm to individuals, society, and our country.
I've never made the claim that schools, society and our nation have improved since 1963. I'm quite positive that any such improvement would or could be due to many factors which have nothing to do with school prayer, and so would be an idiot to make such claims. While I do think the fact that Bush Jr ties his own religion into his governance has led to very bad things happening in the last four years, I've got no pretensions that the current shithole we find ourselves in is due to his desire for prayers in school.
Similarly, I've never made the claim that prior unconstitutional prayers or Bible classes in public schools did harm anyone. All I've claimed is that they were, in fact, unconstitutional.
And so, it seems obvious to me (and it should be obvious to you) that you're asking me to defend (with statistics no less) a position I have not adopted.
In fact, most of what I've been doing in this thread is simply asking you to defend your apparent position in this matter. That you often ignore (or at least, fail to reply to) these requests speaks volumes.
And so, back to it: I'd like to see anything from you on how the imposition of the '63 SCOTUS decision has harmed anyone more than the prohibition against ritual human sacrifice. I'd like to see anything from you on how times prior to 1963 were "better" than times after.
You also wrote:quote:
that was in response to a statement Dude made.
Yes, I know your "afraid" comments were in response to this statement of Dude's:And what of the minority in that community who wouldn't want their children exposed to such? You prejudicially went from "who wouldn't want" to "who are afraid of." I was calling you on it. Just 'fess up and be done with it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 00:31:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I don't appreciate your condescending response, Dave. If you are unable to enter discussions without resorting to this tack, I would suggest that you need to brush up on your rules of etiquette.
And I think the only proper response to your own condescension is as follows:
I spent quite a lot of time and effort crafting a response to your points which showed just how you are ignorant of the current laws and practices in public schools and elsewhere with regards to religion. I often cited your own failures to support your own points. That you apparently ignore all that, and respond to just a few sentences of my posts makes me think you didn't bother reading them. And then to tell me that I am the one in need of an etiquette lesson suggests the following label for you, yet again: hypocrite.quote:
I am far more concerned about the effect of poor judgment by some supreme court judges on our society.
Then point some out. Quoting the Founders doesn't do so.quote:
I am also much more up to speed on current law than you think...
Then demonstrate it by showing a case in which a teacher has been punished just for praying in class, on his/her own time.quote:
...and far more aware of the true intent of Constitutional law than most people.
Then demonstrate it by acknowledging the 14th Amendment.quote:
I do not, however, look to the SCOTUS for wisdom on such matters.
They've got far more legal and Constitutional knowledge than the likes of you or I. To dismiss their opinions is the equivalent of claiming that you can make a perpetual motion machine despite what those "elitist, ivory-tower" physicists say.quote:
It is this same bunch of elitists that ruled in favor of slavery, if you'll remember.
If you'll go look, the justices who ruled in favor of slavery are all dead. Even in 1963, they were all dead, as they would have been well over 120 years old by then. To claim that "the SCOTUS is the SCOTUS always" is to deny that certain viewpoints have anything to gain or lose by Bush Jr selecting perhaps two replacement justices in the next four years.quote:
I look to the writers for the intent of the law, not the modern day elitist judges living in their ivory tower.
Which is, of course, just prejudicial talk, unsupported by any evidence.quote:
The actual writers of the law are greater than those that judge within the law.
An argument not supported by anything within the Constitution.quote:
They (the writers) are the true elected representatives of the people.
And they wrote that there will be a Supreme Court which has the power to overturn laws passed by Congress. How is it that you appeal to their intent in writing one part of the Constitution, but deny their intent in writing another part of it?quote:
I am not one who espouses a "living, breathing Constitution".
No, you're just in denial that there exists a 14th Amendment (meaning the Constitution changed between its original ratification and today).quote:
There is one correct interpretation and not many.
You're correct on this point. SCOTUS has been ruling in one way and only one way with regards to church and state since 1848. And their rulings have been consistent with the apparent intent of the authors of the First Amendment, as evidenced by many of the documents you've selectively quoted here in this thread.quote:
I also believe in true critical thinking and don't think myself unworthy of judging the judges.
But you've yet to suggest any substantive reason why any particular SCOTUS case was decided wrongly. While you're certainly free to judge the judges, you don't seem to be doing so, but instead just griping about nonsense which doesn't happen. Or can you cite for me a case in which a teacher was reprimanded for suggesting that a student question his/her religious beliefs?quote:
To simply read their decisions and take them as "gospel" is foolish indeed.
Indeed, which is why I don't do so, either.quote:
Now discussing the virtues of their decisions, that requires understanding which we should all seek to have.
So let's have some. Quoting the Founders certainly isn't an example of striving towards the understanding you admire. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 07:38:43 [Permalink]
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, since when is a public school teacher, employed by a particular county forbidden by the Constitution from expressing their religious convictions? Can someone quote me this restriction in the law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No such restriction exists. What they cannot do is teach their religion as if it were fact. They cannot base a grade upon how well a child assimilates a religious belief or ritual. And they cannot ostracize a child for not sharing certain religious beliefs.
I have never heard of this occurring.
And they cannot ostracize a child for not sharing certain religious beliefs Again, I have never heard of this occurring.
What they cannot do is teach their religion as if it were fact.
If you don't believe your religion is a fact, what is the point, but I digress. Teaching your religion is not what is in question, as seldom is there such a class outside of parochial school, except maybe a voluntary devotional meeting, and that, too, is frowned upon as a "bad" thing, my business partner having experienced this as a student working with a teacher to have such a meeting before school and being asked to leave school grounds.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 08:00:33 [Permalink]
|
The idea that fear motivates all this legal action over religion in public schools is laughable.
Agreed, most are led by groups that have a strong ideological base that is opposed to any religious activity in school, including "Christmas" programs, any religious songs, or even religious holidays. These same groups hold to the ideology that "Separation of Church and State", not written in the Constitution, actually means separating God and all religion from public life. It is an attempt to secularize our country in every aspect, removing all mention of religion from the public arena, such as schools, libraries, court houses, government centers, and so on. If you are not aware of these cases, or, as you mentioned before, any cases where teachers have been fired or disciplined for mentioning God or using a Bible in the simplist of ways of saying a simple prayer, then you are not living in the same country as me. A recent SC case banned students from praying publicly before a football game, as was the tradition in Texas. Christmas vacation was a tradition in America that has been replaced with "winter break". Easter vacation became "spring break" or was simply not done. Singing a Christmas song about Christ has been forbidden as a result of several court cases. And yet you believe that the SC has upheld the true meaning of the Constitution's 1st amendment? You think I "have no clue"? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 08:30:50 [Permalink]
|
I've never made the claim that schools, society and our nation have improved since 1963. I'm quite positive that any such improvement would or could be due to many factors which have nothing to do with school prayer, and so would be an idiot to make such claims.
Of course making such a claim would be ludicrous, as there is statistical data showing just the opposite since '63. The point being that faith of teachers being shared in school never had anything but an overall positive influence in our communities and country. And such was the belief of our founding fathers, that such influence was necessary for the maintanence of our democracy. Removing this influence has helped contribute to a downward spiral of morality within our country. You know I do not advocate state mandating anything religious, Dave. I only desire the former state before '63 and before the State of New York imposing a "voluntary" prayer. I desire freedom of religion, which you are in a state of disbelief about its slow disappearance from our nation.
I desired to be a public school teacher and was trained as such, but even slight visits into the rhelm of morality within the classroom as a substitute brought trouble to me. I'm not talking about preaching to kids, as I'd be fired in an instant. I'm talking about explaining why it was wrong to swear or use profanity in my Architectural drawing class. Student would blurt out profanites when they made a simple mistake on their drawing. This was unacceptable within the class and against school policy, but I was rebuked by the principle for bringing up the issue and attempting to correct the issue. My partner was also a teacher who explained at the end of his class, the meaning of Easter to his class before the spring break. One student cried out, "this is against the law!" The principle warned him to never do such a thing again or face expulsion.
Yet you thing there is religious freedom in schools.
Teachers coucil students with problems all the time. They are forced to deal with such students day in and day out. You are right that many homes are just pits of despair, without any moral training. How much more should those with conviction and concern be free to explain how such a student can get help from God, as they themselves have done (in private). But a teacher in MN was fired for doing just that. He was beloved by his students and most parents and never forced himself on a student, they came to him. He was fired for violating "separation of church and state" policy. Had he been able, as you purport that teachers should be, to separate his religion from his counceling, then he'd been fine. Such separation of religion from your job is called "schizophrenia" in my book. It is an impossible feat to divide your belief and secularize it for the sake of an arbitary ruling of the court and takes the bite out of all such moral reasoning.
For a "smart" student who has taken in the belief that there is no spiritual rhelm, nor God, nor Creator, why would he refrain from any behavior he likes? What motivation would prevent him from suicide or killing his classmates? Any moral reasoning without an eternal consequence would be just plain foolishness to that student. Why, I've come from a monkey and men have made up all these rules. Why should I care? If I obey all the rules and live without any fun, I'll die like the rest, so why not drink, do drugs, have sex, and be merry. At least I'll have fun before I die. So without allowing any religious argument or training of morals or simple prayer by those so moved, is it any wonder we have shootings in our schools and other violence, drug use, and sexual promiscuity, where "chewing gum" used to be the worst problem in '63? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 08:57:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
For a "smart" student who has taken in the belief that there is no spiritual rhelm, nor God, nor Creator, why would he refrain from any behavior he likes? What motivation would prevent him from suicide or killing his classmates? Any moral reasoning without an eternal consequence would be just plain foolishness to that student.
Doomar, do these "smart" students to whom you are referring have parents or guardians? Is it your position that the school system is responsible for raising children?!
No one is suggesting that students should be raised to be amoral. Parents/guardians have the responsibility of teaching children right from wrong. Parents have the responsibility of instilling values and ethics. The school system has a difficult enough time providing an adequate education to many students without being expected to take them to raise.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 09:20:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
In what state of the union was this article part of their constitution? (only 13 to guess)
Who cares? Torasco V. Watkins (1961) makes the point moot.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488
Article VI, clause 3 of the US Constitution, old hat.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 09:39:27 [Permalink]
|
| Post deleted due to lack of kindness. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 01/17/2005 09:41:34 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 10:09:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doomar wrote:
Agreed, most are led by groups that have a strong ideological base that is opposed to any religious activity in school, including "Christmas" programs, any religious songs, or even religious holidays. These same groups hold to the ideology that "Separation of Church and State", not written in the Constitution, actually means separating God and all religion from public life. It is an attempt to secularize our country in every aspect, removing all mention of religion from the public arena, such as schools, libraries, court houses, government centers, and so on.
What is wrong with a secular government? It promotes no religion above another. And I don't think anyone is realistically trying to remove all mention of religion from the public arena, they are trying to see that all promotion of religion by taxpayer funded institutions is stopped.
quote:
I'm talking about explaining why it was wrong to swear or use profanity in my Architectural drawing class. Student would blurt out profanites when they made a simple mistake on their drawing. This was unacceptable within the class and against school policy, but I was rebuked by the principle for bringing up the issue and attempting to correct the issue.
How exactly did you attempt to correct the issue? Did you explain that profanity was against school rules, that it was rude and inappropriate in that particular circumstance, and that it could be offensive to others in the class, therefore the student should better control him/herself? Or did you claim that it was a sin to take the lord's name in vain? The former would be an acceptable admonition, the latter would not be.
quote:
How much more should those with conviction and concern be free to explain how such a student can get help from God, as they themselves have done (in private). But a teacher in MN was fired for doing just that. He was beloved by his students and most parents and never forced himself on a student, they came to him. He was fired for violating "separation of church and state" policy. Had he been able, as you purport that teachers should be, to separate his religion from his counceling, then he'd been fine.
I would see nothing wrong with this teacher referring a student to his (the student's) clergyman if he felt that that was the best advice, assuming the student professed some religious belief. But if he provided religious conselling as an employee of the state, then he was clearly wrong.
quote:
Such separation of religion from your job is called "schizophrenia" in my book. It is an impossible feat to divide your belief and secularize it for the sake of an arbitary ruling of the court and takes the bite out of all such moral reasoning.
We all have to separate ourselves from some of our beliefs, religious or otherwise, to hold down most jobs. My belief that an ice cold martini after lunch would make the rest of my day more productive is overridden by my employer's edict that I shall not consume alcohol during working hours. Believe it or not, I must occassionally suppress my belief that someone higher up the corporate foodchain has made an unbelievably boneheaded decision, which is, in my opinion, morally wrong because it wastes the shareholder's money and serves only to enrich the boneheaded decision maker. And, brace yourself, I am not permitted, on company property or at a company function, to tell anyone that their religion is just an old, outdated, illogical, unjust, and absurd superstition! The nerve of them abridging my freedoms like that!
Seriously, it does not require "schizophrenia" to reconcile any of this. They pay me. They get to make the rules. The rules are, as far as I can tell, all within what is legal. And if I find them too hard to deal with, I am free to pursue other employment.
quote:
For a "smart" student who has taken in the belief that there is no spiritual rhelm, nor God, nor Creator, why would he refrain from any behavior he likes? What motivation would prevent him from suicide or killing his classmates? Any moral reasoning without an eternal consequence would be just plain foolishness to that student. Why, I've come from a monkey and men have made up all these rules. Why should I care? If I obey all the rules and live without any fun, I'll die like the rest, so why not drink, do drugs, have sex, and be merry. At least I'll have fun before I die. So without allowing any religious argument or training of morals or simple prayer by those so moved, is it any wonder we have shootings in our schools and other violence, drug use, and sexual promiscuity, where "chewing gum" used to be the worst problem in '63?
Which explains why the prisons are full of athiests. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 11:31:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
and far more aware of the true intent of Constitutional law than most people.
bahahahahaha!
I stopped reading there.... there is no point at all in continuing.
But thanks for the laugh Doomar.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 20:35:58 [Permalink]
|
I stopped reading there.... there is no point at all in continuing.
In this we both agree. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 20:44:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
For a "smart" student who has taken in the belief that there is no spiritual rhelm, nor God, nor Creator, why would he refrain from any behavior he likes? What motivation would prevent him from suicide or killing his classmates? Any moral reasoning without an eternal consequence would be just plain foolishness to that student. Why, I've come from a monkey and men have made up all these rules. Why should I care? If I obey all the rules and live without any fun, I'll die like the rest, so why not drink, do drugs, have sex, and be merry. At least I'll have fun before I die. So without allowing any religious argument or training of morals or simple prayer by those so moved, is it any wonder we have shootings in our schools and other violence, drug use, and sexual promiscuity, where "chewing gum" used to be the worst problem in '63?
If you can't see how a person can logically come to a set of morals without the threat of eternal punishment (or promise of eternal reward), then I'm really unsure of how to convince you of anything.
Sex, drugs and violence can all have immediate consequences, and all one needs to do is convince a kid of his/her lack of immortality to have such sink in. Religion is no answer to this, as the kid may very well choose to "dare" God and continue bad behaviours. Or, worse yet, they may claim to have "accepted Christ" as their personal saviour, and so assume that they already have the key to Heaven, and continue their bad behaviours.
Look, Doomar, most importantly this line of yours:quote:
And such was the belief of our founding fathers, that such influence was necessary for the maintanence of our democracy.
is in direct contradiction to the Founders' ideas. That, specifically, was the European status quo they were rejecting when writing the First Amendment.
It is unbelievable to me that you could have picked and chosen all these quotes so carefully as to have missed this very important point: God doesn't need the help of any government. People have been granted "free will" to accept or reject God, and His influence coming from the government onto the people is the antithesis of "free will."
Oh, and I should answer this as well:quote:
I desire freedom of religion, which you are in a state of disbelief about its slow disappearance from our nation.
When you can show me that the government is hampering any single person's ability to worship the deity of their choice, you will have convinced me of the erosion of freedom of religion.
Because the people have not granted themselves a right to impose their religions upon others (such as in the Texas pre-game prayer), they've only granted themselves a right to practice their religions of choice.
When you can show me that Christian judges cannot be fully Christian without displaying the Ten Commandments in their courtrooms, you'll convince me that you're correct. Until such a time, I will still believe that Christianity doesn't depend upon such displays, and instead that Jesus taught that prayer is a private and solitary exercise best done while hidden from view. Did He not, after all, claim that public prayer was a sign of vanity, and not faith? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 21:01:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Singing a Christmas song about Christ has been forbidden as a result of several court cases. And yet you believe that the SC has upheld the true meaning of the Constitution's 1st amendment? You think I "have no clue"?
Yes. If you cannot see that a public school teaching students to sing about Christ promotes a large number of sects over others (those which don't revere Jesus as a god), then yes, it is my impression that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Oh, and I forgot this little gem:quote:
It is an impossible feat to divide your belief and secularize it for the sake of an arbitary ruling of the court and takes the bite out of all such moral reasoning.
Arbitrary? You read the '63 ruling as arbitrary? There are pages and pages of reasoning and argument which went into it, and you think it arbitrary? I really hate to think of what you feel about traffic court.
Besides which, the "bite" of moral reasoning in the case of Christianity is nothing more than the abject horror of being thrown into the lake of fire. But that's not reasoning, it is terrorism. Aren't you aware that positive reinforcement works better than negative, anyway?
Oh, and I'd like to see those statistics you spoke of. You demanded that I present numbers, but that was nothing but a straw man. You claim to have some statistics, so let's see them. As soon as possible, please. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
