FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: mrsellis09 on November 20, 2009, 03:20:52 am
-
What do you think about...
The constitution mentioning God that our nation was founded under?
Every single US currency has the word God on it?
Taking God out of our public schools?
-
First of all we would not even be here if god did not exist! So why would we take God away from our children? it is bad enough that most people don't even teach their children about God at home so they need to hear his name from somewhere. No i do not believe that they should exempt God from the schools or anywhere else.
-
god is a good thing, without him the world would be in constant chaos. maybe if god was allowed in schools there wouldn't be so much violence and bullying. :angel12:
-
Unless they decide to teach about ALL GODS in school, then it should be left out. Times have changed, there are so many different religions out there! School isn't church, if you want your child to learn about your god send them to your place of worship. I think that the people who are okay with that are the ones that are okay with that certain god. If you sent your child to school and they were told to worship let's say Allah or something that doesn't go along with your line of religion, wouldn't you be a mad? Why subject other people's kids to that?
-
The Constitution does not reference the Christian god, nor is this country founded on the ideology of Christianity, nor were all the founders adamant on pushing Christianity into the government. This is all blatantly obvious with just a little research and just a little reading into the context of the foundation.
"In God We Trust" and the "under God" (in the Pledge) were both added in the midst of the Cold War to nonsensically combat the view of "evil, godless communism." They are not an accurate representation of the American public, and they are blatantly unconstitutional additions which should be done away with.
The teaching of theistic beliefs has no place in public schools. If you want to teach the history of religions, the cultural/political ties religions have, and other topics like that that, go ahead. But the actual teaching children to have faith in any specific god(s) or follow a certain religion is absolutely unacceptable in public education. It is, frankly, morally reprehensible to teach younger children those things...along with it being obviously unconstitutional by the terms of the Establishment Clause.
Contrary to silly popular belief, barring of religious teaching from public schools was not put in place to remove people's rights, it is there to protect rights. If a school board all the sudden decided they wanted to start teaching Islam in a school district, began holding specific prayer times throughout the school day to pray to Allah, began mandatory teaching of Islamic traditions and beliefs, etc. people (Christians specifically) would be in uproar. With the structure that is currently in place, this could never happen legally -- there is no legal basis for the teaching of any religious beliefs in public schools. If you don't like it, get the Constitution amended; if you do so, I think you'll find that your rights are going to be infringed upon quite often and nobody will be there to stop it.
There is a place for education and there is a place for religion. Education is meant for schools, religion is meant for churches (or private schools).
god is a good thing, without him the world would be in constant chaos. maybe if god was allowed in schools there wouldn't be so much violence and bullying. :angel12:
No, really there would likely be less chaos and more agreement.
There is no logical basis for saying there would be less violence/bullying if religion were pushed harder in schools.
-
I'm gunna have to agree with GoGoKokiGo. Forcing one religion or one God upon many different children from many different backgrounds is bound to upset many parents. It's such a conflicting and touchy subject. It's good to be informed, but many people also dislike being "forced" into things. I'm also not one for pushing my views onto others because everyone is different and believes differently. To me personally, religion is a personal matter that should be discussed at home, church, etc but not necessarily in school. Religion is a very personal thing imo. What you decide to do with your life, how you live it, who you live it for, who you worship, etc is only your business.
I do have a feeling this topic is gunna have one big heated debate. :P
-
First of all we would not even be here if god did not exist! So why would we take God away from our children? it is bad enough that most people don't even teach their children about God at home so they need to hear his name from somewhere. No i do not believe that they should exempt God from the schools or anywhere else.
everyone has different views on whether god put us on this earth or not. This is a forum not a point of veiw statement/judgement incounter
-
First of all we would not even be here if god did not exist! So why would we take God away from our children? it is bad enough that most people don't even teach their children about God at home so they need to hear his name from somewhere. No i do not believe that they should exempt God from the schools or anywhere else.
everyone has different views on whether god put us on this earth or not. This is a forum not a point of veiw statement/judgement incounter
Although I honestly thought her post was nonsensical, impractical, and just plain silly, a forum is precisely a place to show your point of view on a topic. Do you know what the word "forum" means?
-
Unless they decide to teach about ALL GODS in school, then it should be left out. Times have changed, there are so many different religions out there! School isn't church, if you want your child to learn about your god send them to your place of worship. I think that the people who are okay with that are the ones that are okay with that certain god. If you sent your child to school and they were told to worship let's say Allah or something that doesn't go along with your line of religion, wouldn't you be a mad? Why subject other people's kids to that?
I agree with you 100%!! Your words are like razors to those who indeed need a wake up call on this matter.
-
What do you think about...
The constitution mentioning God that our nation was founded under?
Every single US currency has the word God on it?
Taking God out of our public schools?
The Constitution makes no reference to any god. The closest thing to it is the First Amendment that gives us freedom of religion. The Declaration of Independence says "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." which references a creator, but it doesn't mean the Christian god.
The fact that our currency says "In God We Trust" is under a lot of fire nowadays. It violates the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...".
God should DEFINITELY be taken out of our public schools. Schools should be about knowledge, and it is often that religion is countered by knowledge. For example, people used to believe that lightning was caused by the fury of a god, and now we know that its caused by an electricity charging up inside a cloud until it discharges.
In my opinion, mankind invented god to provides answers for questions we haven't figured out yet.
First of all we would not even be here if god did not exist! So why would we take God away from our children? it is bad enough that most people don't even teach their children about God at home so they need to hear his name from somewhere. No i do not believe that they should exempt God from the schools or anywhere else.
Your first sentence is merely what you believe. There is no evidence for creation. None. At all. "Well it couldn't have happened any other way!" isn't evidence. Making that claim is no different than saying "I haven't figured it out...therefore, God did it!" If you haven't found your answer, you keep looking.
Besides, who's to say that YOUR god is the real god?
god is a good thing, without him the world would be in constant chaos. maybe if god was allowed in schools there wouldn't be so much violence and bullying. :angel12:
Actually, if you look through history, you will find many wars that were started simply from religion. If anything, religion actually STARTS wars more than stopping them. You know all the constant bickering in the middle east? It pretty much all started due to differences in religion.
I think its kind of ironic to claim that religion prevents violence while entire cultures declare war in the name of their god.
-
^ ^ ^ ^
That's why we don't need it in our schools. Can we just leave it at that? Because there are way too many religious topics that always go the same route-- people post nonsense, smart people post corrections, and then the nonsense people don't read and post more nonsense.
-
The last two posts just put this discussion to an END! :thumbsup: I think people are brainwashed to ignore any facts.
-
^ ^ ^ ^
That's why we don't need it in our schools. Can we just leave it at that? Because there are way too many religious topics that always go the same route-- people post nonsense, smart people post corrections, and then the nonsense people don't read and post more nonsense.
I find this statement to be rather ignorant past, "That's why we don't need it in our schools. Can we just leave it at that? Because there are way too many religious topics that always go the same route". Just because people post their beliefs or opinions on a matter, whether those opinions and beliefs are on God(whatever God or Gods it or they might be) or not, doesn't make them nonsense. Not only that, but it doesn't make them stupid or nonsensical. What's nonsensical is when people make comments on those beliefs, trying to debunk them, which only makes the one attempting the debunking come off sounding like a complete douche. Don't like what's being said? Then don't read it. It's as simple as that. :)
As far as whether God should be included in schools or not, it's a touchy subject, and if done right, could work. But the only way to do it right would be to teach about all Gods/Goddesses. Even then, some people would get their toes stepped on, figuratively speaking.
-
Just because people post their beliefs or opinions on a matter, whether those opinions and beliefs are on God(whatever God or Gods it or they might be) or not, doesn't make them nonsense.
Its not the belief itself I have a problem with. Its the ignorance of facts and getting offended when someone says they might be wrong.
Not only that, but it doesn't make them stupid or nonsensical. What's nonsensical is when people make comments on those beliefs, trying to debunk them, which only makes the one attempting the debunking come off sounding like a complete douche. Don't like what's being said? Then don't read it. It's as simple as that. :)
You're making a huge jump here. To me it sounds like trying to debunk someone's beliefs makes them sound like a complete douche, and that if something goes against their beliefs, and it offends them, they just shouldn't read it. Am I understanding you right?
If so, that's a bad, non-productive, and possibly outright dangerous way to think. Again, take my example in my previous post regarding lightning. If we didn't allow people to research lightning to find out what it really was, how to produce it, and possibly how to harness it, then people would still continue to believe its an act of a god.
And that right there is my problem with religion. When science gets proven wrong, they go "Oops. Let's see what we did wrong and find out how to do it right." When religion gets proven wrong, they cover their ears and yell about how they're offended.
As far as whether God should be included in schools or not, it's a touchy subject, and if done right, could work. But the only way to do it right would be to teach about all Gods/Goddesses. Even then, some people would get their toes stepped on, figuratively speaking.
Don't teach religion in schools. Teach ABOUT religion. Handle it the same way we handle Greek Mythology. Don't say "God created you." Instead, say "Christians believe that a god created you." There's a huge difference.
-
Well, we wouldn't be here if God didn't create us, and for some of us to snub God, that is not my call and I am not the judge of any, but I am not going to snub my creator, no way, no how, God has done alot for me, picked me up and gave me a life, other then what I had being homeless and drinking, not a good life, my husband and I both have since came to know the truth and we both quit drinking and have a fairly normal life now. Because God loved us first.
-
Thank you for completely proving my point about believers completely ignoring what the non-believers say. Allow me to repeat myself.
[That] is merely what you believe. There is no evidence for creation. None. At all. "Well it couldn't have happened any other way!" isn't evidence. Making that claim is no different than saying "I haven't figured it out...therefore, God did it!" If you haven't found your answer, you keep looking.
Besides, who's to say that YOUR god is the real god?
Its not about snubbing "our creator." Its about questioning the EXISTENCE of a creator. Its about opening your mind to the POSSIBILITY that you might be wrong. You need to do yourself a major favor and go read the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I mean it. Do it now. You can order a used copy from Amazon.com for $9 including shipping, or go get it from your local library.
Of course, I know you won't. You're too close-minded. Instead of listening to logic and reason, you'll just be offended.
-
*slaps head*
After my last post, everything I stated came true. Again.
As far as whether God should be included in schools or not, it's a touchy subject, and if done right, could work.
No.
Don't teach religion in schools. Teach ABOUT religion. Handle it the same way we handle Greek Mythology. Don't say "God created you." Instead, say "Christians believe that a god created you." There's a huge difference.
Yes!
-
Gods from outer space! Yes!
-
Any religion taught in a school should have equal time spend on it as another. The best idea would be leave it out until it is incorperated in a World History class. :BangHead:
-
I believe God should be put everywhere, especially in the schools!
:angel11:
-
leave it out theres plenty of time for god after school
-
Ugh... :BangHead:
-
I believe God should be put everywhere, especially in the schools!
:angel11:
:BangHead: Yet another fool that completely ignores the other side. :BangHead:
-
God, any and every definition and understanding of, most definately belongs in our public schools. Our elected officials have dropped the ball.
-
God, any and every definition and understanding of, most definately belongs in our public schools. Our elected officials have dropped the ball.
:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
-
God, any and every definition and understanding of, most definately belongs in our public schools. Our elected officials have dropped the ball.
Why?
-
I believe God should be put everywhere, especially in the schools!
:angel11:
I agree
-
I believe God should be put everywhere, especially in the schools!
:angel11:
I agree
Allah as well? Zeus? Krishna? Helios? Gaia? Iris? Anat? Lotan? Reseph? Eostre? Geat? Tiw?
Should I continue?
-
I agree with God in our Public Schools. I think our society has taken out of school and life in general those things that were sacred. Look at where we are NOW :dontknow:
-
I agree with God in our Public Schools. I think our society has taken out of school and life in general those things that were sacred. Look at where we are NOW :dontknow:
What's wrong?
Atheists do it without guilt.
-
I agree with God in our Public Schools. I think our society has taken out of school and life in general those things that were sacred. Look at where we are NOW :dontknow:
Where exactly are we? I think we're doing just fine, although there's obviously room for improvement. We're certainly doing better than we have for much of history...ironically this improvement has coincided with increasingly secular societies and increasingly secular governments.
-
thats a touchy subject... but i believe that God shouldnt be removed from the school... i mean He gave us this blessing of getting educated why take him out.
-
i am a christian and i believe everyone needs God
HOWEVER
i dont think it should be forced on people
in school there are usually a lot of religons at least covered in history class and government classes when i was in school we had to pick a religon and do an oral report on it
i think christianity should be taught along with other religons but not so much forced on ppl as in praying together in school or so forth
if individuals want to pray quietly or read their bible during study halls or quiet times in class i think this is perfectly fine i also think its alright to witness to ppl in school as long as your not shoving it down their throat
God is evidnet and talked about a lot outside of school and everyone will face him someday
-
You all know there is such a thing as Sunday school, maybe you should send your kids there. That way you wont complain about the public schools not teaching about YOUR god. As many have posted I think most of the parents on here would be very angry when your kids come home saying there is more beliefs than just yours and other gods than just yours.
-
thats a touchy subject... but i believe that God shouldnt be removed from the school... i mean He gave us this blessing of getting educated why take him out.
That is faith based belief, and one without any backing whatsoever, by definition. That is the precise reason it should be left out.
Would you approve of schools teaching that Allah is the one and only creator? Would you approve of schools teaching students to pray to and have faith in the millions of other gods/goddesses that have been proposed throughout history? Would you approve of schools teaching belief in ANY other religion or deity except your own? Would you approve of your kids having designated times throughout the day where they must drop what they're learning, get on their hands and knees facing Mecca, and pray to Allah?
If you answer "no" to ANY of these questions, then you see the purpose in keeping public education settings secular. If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, how much time out of a 6-7 hour school day do you honestly think is going to be spent teaching your kids what they need to know to actually help them achieve higher education and become an active citizen?
-
thats a touchy subject... but i believe that God shouldnt be removed from the school... i mean He gave us this blessing of getting educated why take him out.
That is faith based belief, and one without any backing whatsoever, by definition. That is the precise reason it should be left out.
Would you approve of schools teaching that Allah is the one and only creator? Would you approve of schools teaching students to pray to and have faith in the millions of other gods/goddesses that have been proposed throughout history? Would you approve of schools teaching belief in ANY other religion or deity except your own? Would you approve of your kids having designated times throughout the day where they must drop what they're learning, get on their hands and knees facing Mecca, and pray to Allah?
If you answer "no" to ANY of these questions, then you see the purpose in keeping public education settings secular. If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, how much time out of a 6-7 hour school day do you honestly think is going to be spent teaching your kids what they need to know to actually help them achieve higher education and become an active citizen?
I think I love you. :)
-
You all know there is such a thing as Sunday school, maybe you should send your kids there. That way you wont complain about the public schools not teaching about YOUR god. As many have posted I think most of the parents on here would be very angry when your kids come home saying there is more beliefs than just yours and other gods than just yours.
"Don't pray in my schools. I won't think in your church."
Always easier to say that :D
-
Again, it would be a very bad thing to do. Many people have different beliefs and christianity is just one of tens of thousands. America is great because we are such a diverse group of people and within the diversity lies separate religious beliefs. Teaching a 'dominant religion' in public schools is a real slap to the face to anyone not believing in a jewish zombie who said he was somehow god and gods son.
I'm sure this was written somewhere (if not in this thread then in another), but what if this thread was titled "Allah in our Public Schools" and people were pushing public schools to teach about the Qur'an and Muhammad? You christians would go postal. Why? Because it's wrong-- it's not your cup of tea and you don't believe it. But every ignorant muslim around you is going " ;D ;DWELL IT NEEDS TO BE EVERYWHERE ESPECIALLY IN OUR SCHOOLZ!!! ;D ;D" Well congratulations because now you've broadened your viewpoint. Us agnostics, atheists, pagans, etc. don't believe in your god. Many people don't believe in Christianity and telling people it needs to be taught in public schools is beyond rude and ignorant.
By saying it does need to be taught in schools, you're only hurting the image of your religion. And with all respect, that's what is murdering Christianity in this country. So great job to anyone saying it does need to be taught.
EDIT: Weird...liljp just posted practically the same thing as I did at the same time! WOAH!
-
Again, it would be a very bad thing to do. Many people have different beliefs and christianity is just one of tens of thousands. America is great because we are such a diverse group of people and within the diversity lies separate religious beliefs. Teaching a 'dominant religion' in public schools is a real slap to the face to anyone not believing in a jewish zombie who said he was somehow god and gods son.
I'm sure this was written somewhere (if not in this thread then in another), but what if this thread was titled "Allah in our Public Schools" and people were pushing public schools to teach about the Qur'an and Muhammad? You christians would go postal. Why? Because it's wrong-- it's not your cup of tea and you don't believe it. But every ignorant muslim around you is going " ;D ;DWELL IT NEEDS TO BE EVERYWHERE ESPECIALLY IN OUR SCHOOLZ!!! ;D ;D" Well congratulations because now you've broadened your viewpoint. Us agnostics, atheists, pagans, etc. don't believe in your god. Many people don't believe in Christianity and telling people it needs to be taught in public schools is beyond rude and ignorant.
By saying it does need to be taught in schools, you're only hurting the image of your religion. And with all respect, that's what is murdering Christianity in this country. So great job to anyone saying it does need to be taught.
An excellent post. However, there's only one problem with it.
All the Christians will ignore it. They might read it, sure, but they won't be swayed. They are so stuck in their ways that they will never be able to open their minds to the fact that there ARE other religions out there, and they all deserve fair treatment.
Us Atheists/Agnostics don't hate Christians because of their beliefs. We hate them (Note that I should say SOME of them) because of their lack of tolerance for other religions.
-
First of all we would not even be here if god did not exist! So why would we take God away from our children? it is bad enough that most people don't even teach their children about God at home so they need to hear his name from somewhere. No i do not believe that they should exempt God from the schools or anywhere else.
LOL !
-
God is soo "great and wonderful" that he lets sweet innocent children like Noah Biorkman die every day.
-
(http://img405.yfrog.com/img405/3066/sciencevsfaithbig.png)
-
I am definitely not closed minded, I did not grow up in the church, I grew up always looking for the party, that is how unclosed minded I am. I ran and did what I wanted, till it hit me square in the face. I had a decision to make, now closed minded, I am not, I seen the bad side, now I see the good, praise God, I would not even be here today, I would be dead, where I sat in ICU, or my husband, I would still be living it up or dead like half of my friends. Closed minded, not me. I been there. Thank God for coming into my life and giving me a second chance.
-
The Constitution forbids Congress from making any laws regarding the establishment of religion. Putting "In God We Trust" on the money is not establishing a religion, nor is it infringing on the free exercise of anyone's religion. The first amendment was not intended to mean that there could be no public profession of anything that could even be remotely considered religion. That is what you get in a Communist country, where everyone has to hide their religion, which is considered the "opium of the people."
-
It was just in 1978 that the indigenous of this country were allowed the right to practice our Spirituality, before then we had to have our Ceremonies in secret and hide our Spiritual items. Even today the only Natives allowed to "legally" posses some of our Spiritual items are the few that the federal gov. decides they recognise, others are lawfully denied our right to participate in some Ceremonies.
So since we are forced to hide our traditions for fear of arrest, fines and imprisonment.....does this mean the U.S. is a communist country?
Sorry your argument doesn't wash.
Freedom of religion????...yeah right.
-
I am definitely not closed minded, I did not grow up in the church, I grew up always looking for the party, that is how unclosed minded I am. I ran and did what I wanted, till it hit me square in the face. I had a decision to make, now closed minded, I am not, I seen the bad side, now I see the good, praise God, I would not even be here today, I would be dead, where I sat in ICU, or my husband, I would still be living it up or dead like half of my friends. Closed minded, not me. I been there. Thank God for coming into my life and giving me a second chance.
So was like god your doctor or something? Nurse? Was he on the medical staff somewhere in that ICU? I want to know why "god" gets the credit for things science does.
-
If I was a doctor, I'd be pretty offended. You spend tens of thousands of dollars and many years going through med school, and someone comes into your hospital ER from a horrible accident. They're on the brink of death, and you work a double shift, sweating, tired, and aching, just so you can save this person's life. And how do they thank you?
By giving credit to their imaginary friend in the sky.
How do you think that doctor feels? To put such an effort to save a person's life, only to have them give the credit for surviving to someone else.
-
god made us all. God brought us here, and if god wanted to he could take us out
-
i dont think anybodys forcing god on anybody the united states of america is all around based on god from the dollar bill to the pledge of alligance..there are many people in schools that are from a diffrent religion but why is everybody just stuck on tacking god out of everything if your gonna attack one religion attack them all ..thats just my opinion
-
i dont think anybodys forcing god on anybody the united states of america is all around based on god from the dollar bill to the pledge of alligance..
Once again... -.-
This is not a Christian country. The government is not a Christian government. This nation was not founded upon Christianity. There is not a mention of Christianity in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Many, if not a majority, of the Founding Fathers were deist, atheist, or agnostic. Multiple Founding Fathers were opeonly anti-religious, specifically anti-Christianity. Some of the Founding Fathers were Christians -- even those Founding Fathers who proclaimed themselves as Christians blatantly stated that, above all else, they were secularists and were adamant on founding a nation where the government and religion were separated. The Constitution was very clear on this being a nation of freedom of religion, which also entails freedom FROM religion. The Constitution also makes it more than clear that there shall be no official establishment of ANY religion in any government institution (public schools are a government institution, with government employees).
Once again... -.-
The phrase on US currency and the line in the Pledge were added in the 1950s in the midst of the Cold War. They were put in place for absolutely no other reason except propaganda against the USSR. They are not an accurate representation of the American citizenry and they are, without any doubt, unconstitutional.
there are many people in schools that are from a diffrent religion but why is everybody just stuck on tacking god out of everything if your gonna attack one religion attack them all ..thats just my opinion
Can you not see what just happened?
"There are many people in schools that are from a different religion..."
EXACTLY!
This is the precise reason students should not be subject to forceful practicing of another religion. This is the precise reason the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment exists. Secular government institutions was among the most important goals of the Founding Fathers.
We are attacking Christianity specifically, because it is the most dominant religion in this nation that is constantly trying to push its nonsense into government. You gave two examples yourself: the Pledge and the phrase on US currency.
If Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Greek mythology, Shinto, Taoism, Wicca, or any other religion you can think of replaced Christianity, my reactions, opposition, and arguments would be the same as they are now.
Once again... -.-
There is not some radical, undeserved prejudice against Christianity in this nation. It is the most attacked and the most opposed in the US simply because it is the most prevalent and the one most often pushed by nutcases. If you don't want it attacked, keep it in your church, keep it in your home, keep it in your organizations, keep it to yourself until people ask for the information. If you don't want it attacked, keep it out of government (and by effect, public education), as was intended from the start.
-
The Constitution forbids Congress from making any laws regarding the establishment of religion. Putting "In God We Trust" on the money is not establishing a religion, nor is it infringing on the free exercise of anyone's religion. The first amendment was not intended to mean that there could be no public profession of anything that could even be remotely considered religion. That is what you get in a Communist country, where everyone has to hide their religion, which is considered the "opium of the people."
That is precisely what the Establishment Clause is for. Don't be ridiculous.
The Establishment Clause was put in place specifically to keep the government from taking a biased religious stance or respecting any religion more than another. Legislating that all US currency make reference to the Christian God is making a law respecting Christianity -- it is clear violation of the Establishment Clause. There's no getting around it.
I agree, the First Amendment does not bar "public profession" of religion; it protects one's right to do that actually, which I fully support. Citizens can freely express their views about religion all they want in public provided no physical harm is done (they'll face whatever opposition comes about obviously). What it does say is that the government cannot carry out this same action; it specifically says it is illegal for any branch of the government to show biased respect toward or unreasonably legislate in favor of any religious institution.
That is not the criteria for a communist government. That is what we call a secular government. Do you know what communism is? I suggest you do a little reading before throwing around fairly unrelated terms, such as communism.
-
The Constitution does not reference the Christian god, nor is this country founded on the ideology of Christianity, nor were all the founders adamant on pushing Christianity into the government. This is all blatantly obvious with just a little research and just a little reading into the context of the foundation.
"In God We Trust" and the "under God" (in the Pledge) were both added in the midst of the Cold War to nonsensically combat the view of "evil, godless communism." They are not an accurate representation of the American public, and they are blatantly unconstitutional additions which should be done away with.
The teaching of theistic beliefs has no place in public schools. If you want to teach the history of religions, the cultural/political ties religions have, and other topics like that that, go ahead. But the actual teaching children to have faith in any specific god(s) or follow a certain religion is absolutely unacceptable in public education. It is, frankly, morally reprehensible to teach younger children those things...along with it being obviously unconstitutional by the terms of the Establishment Clause.
Contrary to silly popular belief, barring of religious teaching from public schools was not put in place to remove people's rights, it is there to protect rights. If a school board all the sudden decided they wanted to start teaching Islam in a school district, began holding specific prayer times throughout the school day to pray to Allah, began mandatory teaching of Islamic traditions and beliefs, etc. people (Christians specifically) would be in uproar. With the structure that is currently in place, this could never happen legally -- there is no legal basis for the teaching of any religious beliefs in public schools. If you don't like it, get the Constitution amended; if you do so, I think you'll find that your rights are going to be infringed upon quite often and nobody will be there to stop it.
There is a place for education and there is a place for religion. Education is meant for schools, religion is meant for churches (or private schools).
god is a good thing, without him the world would be in constant chaos. maybe if god was allowed in schools there wouldn't be so much violence and bullying. :angel12:
No, really there would likely be less chaos and more agreement.
There is no logical basis for saying there would be less violence/bullying if religion were pushed harder in schools.
[/quote
I agree with your statement above, I was also going to bring this up.
-
*ACLU to Argue FRIDAY for Kindergartener' s Right to Religious
Expression Before Appeals Court
http://www.commondr eams.org/ forward/emailref /50157
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear arguments
Friday, December 4, in an appeal of a federal judge's ruling that
the Needville, Texas Independent School District (NISD) violated the
U.S. Constitution and Texas state law by punishing an American
Indian kindergarten student for wearing his long hair in braids as
an expression of his heritage and religious faith............
-
*ACLU to Argue FRIDAY for Kindergartener' s Right to Religious
Expression Before Appeals Court
http://www.commondr eams.org/ forward/emailref /50157
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear arguments
Friday, December 4, in an appeal of a federal judge's ruling that
the Needville, Texas Independent School District (NISD) violated the
U.S. Constitution and Texas state law by punishing an American
Indian kindergarten student for wearing his long hair in braids as
an expression of his heritage and religious faith............
He wasn't punished for his religious beliefs or any religious expression, he was punished for disobeying the known dress code. Perfectly reasonable.
He should be held to the same standard as every other student in the school -- his parents enrolled him with full knowledge that there was a dress code and that it prohibited long hair on male students. If his parents didn't know this, then they didn't read the handbook they were given when they enrolled him...which is entirely their fault. Willful ignorance of the rules/laws does not excuse you from the consequences of breaking them.
There is a limit to religion. Disobeying known rules in an educational setting and pulling the "religion card" doesn't work. I'm very surprised the ACLU is even wasting their time with this nonsense. He was not unfairly treated, assuming of course, that other students are equally punished for disobeying the dress code, regardless of "religious expression."
But taking into account that he is a kindergartner, maybe this punishment wasn't entirely necessary. I'm sure his parents made sure he was ready for school that morning and probably even dropped him off at the school or bus stop. Measures should have been taken to speak to the parents and let them know this behavior is prohibited before tossing a five year old in detention.
That doesn't change the facts obviously -- he was not put in detention for expression of his religion, he was put in detention for breaking the dress code that every student is required to follow. If you're going to relax the dress code for religious expression, then you have to relax it for every kind of expression, in which case you no longer have a dress code.
-
They should teach about ALL gods and religions and then let the kids learn about which god they are interested in or believe in... or at least something of that nature... as for having "One nation under God" in the pledge it should remain there!!!!!!!!!!! This country was founded on religion therefore that phrase deserves to be in the pledge of allegiance
-
how can you say this is not a christian country all ours laws are based on the bible if you kill you go to jail ..if you steal you got to jail ......the bible says thow shall not kill , or still , the dollar bill says in god we trust , the pledge of alliegence says one nation under god .. get out of here with that you know good as well as i do that this country is based all around christianity
-
as for having "One nation under God" in the pledge it should remain there!!!!!!!!!!! This country was founded on religion therefore that phrase deserves to be in the pledge of allegiance
A) No it wasn't. It was founded on secular principles with a clear, purposeful intention to keep government and religion separate.
B) It was founded upon religious freedoms and equal respect toward all religions, with a clear, purposeful intention to keep government from respecting certain religious establishments more than others. A reference to the Christian god in the Pledge is not equal respect to all religions.
-
how can you say this is not a christian country all ours laws are based on the bible if you kill you go to jail ..if you steal you got to jail ......the bible says thow shall not kill , or still , the dollar bill says in god we trust , the pledge of alliegence says one nation under god .. get out of here with that you know good as well as i do that this country is based all around christianity
You really think the idea that killing and stealing are wrong originated with the Bible? So all that time before the Bible was written and mass distributed (up to the 1600s when the printing press came into wide use), nobody even pondered the idea that it is wrong to kill or steal? There were no laws against killing or theft before people had common access to the Bible? There was no philosophy behind treating others with respect and having basic morals before the Bible?
It would take 30 minutes of reading a history book an ancient history to see you're incorrect.
How can I say this isn't a Christian country? A couple reasons off the top of my head:
* Because the nation was clearly and purposefully established as a nation without an official declared religion.
* Because the nation was clearly and purposefully established as a secular nation where the government makes no biased laws in support of or against any specific religious institution
* Because there isn't a single mention of Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Christian god, or the Bible in any of the official founding documents of this nation.
* Because this nation and its constitution are vastly different from other nations that were being founded upon Christianity in the late 1700s.
* Because many, if not a majority, of the founders were non-Christian, or at the very least recognized the great importance of keeping religion out of government (and vice versa).
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Establishment Clause
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
And to repeat yet again: The "In God We Trust" on money and the "Under God" in the Pledge were added in the midst of the Cold War as propaganda tools against the USSR. They were not put in place by the founders of this nation and they were not in place until 50-60 years ago. They are not an accurate representation of the American public, as there are great numbers of people here who have zero connection to the Christian faith -- Jews, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, you name it. They are blatantly unconstitutional acts of government respecting a specific religious establishment.
-
since the constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
if they take the bible out of school and tell people not to even so much as utter a word about god and things like that isint that prohibiting the free exercise of our religion ...
and why when people go to court they put there hand on the bible or there religious bible and they tell them to say .....i swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god .....why do they read the bible to people who are about to be executed in prison.. there is so much reason that this coutry is based around religion its rediculous
and the whole dollar bill is based on religion even if its not christianty the eye in the triangle of the dollar bill is actuelly the eye of horus and its used in buddisum, its also the symbol of the christianianity in Europe ... The lowest level of the pyramid shows the year 1776 in Roman numerals. The combined implication is that the Eye, or God, favors the prosperity of the United States look it up ...
-
I live in L.A. where public school students of many different beliefs (or non-beliefs) attend. Even if there were not a Constitutional mandate for separation of church and state, it would be necessary to avoid religious activities to prevent quarrels and angry parents. It is the duty of a public school to provide an academic education and teach students to treat others with kindness and respect, not push religion on them. Schools have enough on their plate as it is without messing with religion. Leave that to parents.
-
if they take the bible out of school and tell people not to even so much as utter a word about god and things like that isint that prohibiting the free exercise of our religion ...
You fail to see a lot peoples points-- if students simply study the bible to study christianity, nothing is wrong with that. Put it on the same grounds as studying hinduism, judaism, islam, etc. You can still openly read a bible or any religious doctrine in school independantly. You can talk to students about your beliefs if you are a student-- nobody cares unless you're going nuts and pushing it. I see this all the time as I work at/attend a college-- a friend of mine who just transferred told me a bit about hinduism since she was one. OMG I LERND SUMTHING! Just trying to be realistic here.
The argument here is should we PUSH christianity onto students? No. I don't see why we should.
and why when people go to court they put there hand on the bible or there religious bible and they tell them to say .....i swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god
You can request any religious doctrine for that. Secular affirmations are allowed in court. But the thing is if you don't believe in it, who cares? It's just a book that's not going to bite you. Since it means nothing to the person who does not believe it, I think that's a bit of an opening for not telling the truth.
Simply put, they just do it since it's so common.
"Most courts in the United States no longer use a Bible during swear-in of a witness, citing separation of Church and State in due process." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_person_refuse_to_take_an_oath_on_the_Bible_in_a_courtroom
"The fact that requesting a secular affirmation could prejudice the judge or jury against you makes me believe that religious oaths should be eliminated all together. Everyone should simply affirm under penalty of law to tell the truth. Short, simple, and legal for both believers and non-believers." http://www.funadvice.com/q/if_an_atheist_goes_to_court_do_they
why do they read the bible to people who are about to be executed in prison
Because they request it.
and the whole dollar bill is based on religion even if its not christianty the eye in the triangle of the dollar bill is actuelly the eye of horus and its used in buddisum, its also the symbol of the christianianity
Ehhh...I'll look this up later. Not to be mean, but seeing how you didn't do you research for the first few statements...this is up in the air for now.
-
o well in that case ...no religion shoudint be forced on anyone and noone is forcing it on anyone i dont see were thats coming from ..but eaither or the fact of the matter is america is based all around religion and you cant say its not and in diffrent places your no longer aloud to read the bible in public places and that stupied women took prayer out of school so ...were on a verge of not being able to freely state religion anyways ..point blank period if there was no religion then there wouldint be any morals for people ......
-
..but eaither or the fact of the matter is america is based all around religion
Yes! But FREEDOM of religion. Not just christianity. It's just the most common in this country.
were on a verge of not being able to freely state religion anyways
This depends on the subject matter in my opinion. If we're going to follow bible rules in court, we're going to have a very rough time with fairness (such as slavery).
"You need to respect you father and mother, son."
"But your honor, they beat me constantly! They broke my legs!"
"Too bad! That's what the bible says! Deal with it!"
But using it out of those institutions is fine by me as long as they aren't causing trouble.
if there was no religion then there wouldint be any morals for people
Uh oh! I think you just stepped on the liljp landmine!
-
yeh the bible i says honor thy mother and father witch you should do anyways out of respeact but the bible also says if any person lays a hand on a child it is better for them to tie a milestone to there kneck and be cast out into the sea
-
Even so, does that not seem a little extreme by todays standards? Obviously punish the parents...but kill them?
-
you mentioned about the bible and it says it is better ....not that should .... but it is better for them to do that ......in the old testement when children dishonored there parents they were stoned ...but in the new testment when jesus came and forfilled the law ...those laws were changed ...so the bible dosint say anything about killing children in the new testment if there were disobediant so that would irrelevent if they used the bible today
-
I'm not going to put my own views here. I'll just say there is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Not everyone believes in 'God' or 'Jesus', do those people not get to have their own views discussed? As someone said in another post, if you want your children to learn about your 'God' send them to your church.
-
It was founded upon religious freedoms and equal respect toward all religions,
Really? then why was it illegal for the indigenous of this land to practice our traditions all the way up until 1978 and even now if you are not a registered member of a Tribe the the FedGov. recognises it still illegal to posses some Ceremonial items?
Freedom of religion my *bleep*!!!!
-
how can you say this is not a christian country all ours laws are based on the bible if you kill you go to jail ..if you steal you got to jail ......the bible says thow shall not kill , or still , the dollar bill says in god we trust , the pledge of alliegence says one nation under god .. get out of here with that you know good as well as i do that this country is based all around christianity
Events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans
*As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples
were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
*Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
*Examples of destroyed Temples the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea,
the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the
Heliopolis.
*Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis
were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468] *Pagan services became
punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
*Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed,
because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all
Christian teachings..."
*In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
*In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on
demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
*The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to
pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a
Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
Mission
*Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to
convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
*Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church
taxes between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain
5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
*Battle of Belgrad 1456 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
*15th century Poland 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by
Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
*16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and
civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable
beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common
of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of
the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother
of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what
sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte
off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche
side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused
"greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde
fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99,
225]
Crusades (1095-1291)
*First Crusade 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
*Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96
thousands. [WW23] *9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish),
thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
*Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered
(number of slain unknown) [WW30]
*After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and
60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed.
[WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the
enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their
bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres.
[EC60]
*Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the
subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were
eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
*Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish,
muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
(In the words of one witness "there [in front of Solomon's temple]
was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood
of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people
marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of
gratitude")
*The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote "It was impossible to
look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay
fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the
blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies
and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of
all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the
victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous
sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that
within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels
perished." [TG79]
*Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following
summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of
decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
*Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the
name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
*Fourth crusade 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims
unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
*Rest of Crusades in less detail until the fall of Akkon 1291
probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas
alone). [WW224]
Note All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.
Heretics
*Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus
and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
*Manichaean heresy a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice
birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics)
was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between
372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
*Albigensians the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians.
[DO29]
The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely
sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept
roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single
pre-*bleep* mass murderer) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209
destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including
Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends)
20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
*Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed.
[WW181]
*subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half
the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were
exterminated. [WW183]
*After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search
and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the
stake 1324. [WW183] *Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy
alone), [WW183]
*Other heresies Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and
many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some
Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of
persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including
the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
*Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220
burnings. [DO28]
*John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was
burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
*University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna.
[DO59]
*Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for
seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori
(Rome) on 2/17/1600.
Witches
*from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several
thousand.
*in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars
several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or
hanged. [WV]
*incomplete list of documented cases
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times
Religious Wars
*15th century Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
*1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all
English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into
action). [DO31]
*1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million
rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.
[DO31]
*1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope
Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
*17th century Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader.
After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off
his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the
river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for
the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ...
to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and
crows'." [SH191]
*17th century Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany roughly
30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were
found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still
sucking the *bleep* of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
*17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant) at least 40% of
population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
Jews
*Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by
Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
*In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed
on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The
first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river
Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388.
[DA450]
*17. Council of Toledo 694 Jews were enslaved, their property
confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
*The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who
would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
*First Crusade Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000
total. Places Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons),
Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund,
Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations
Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
*Second Crusade 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully,
Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
*Third Crusade English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
*Fulda/Germany 1235 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
*1257, 1267 Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton,
Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
*1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
*1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51
towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
*1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two
thousand) burned. [DO41]
*1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly
burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians
in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
*1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
*1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were
slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made
easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the
age of ten had been forced to wear.
*1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than
150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way
6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
*1648 Chmielnitzki massacres In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
-
yeh the bible i says honor thy mother and father witch you should do anyways out of respeact but the bible also says if any person lays a hand on a child it is better for them to tie a milestone to there kneck and be cast out into the sea
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote
"And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon
their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very
Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who
laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making
them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen,
filling the Place with dead Bodies" men, women, children. [SH113-114]
*So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts,
and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly
destroy them..." (Deut 20)
*Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the
*bleep* sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his
readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children
must perish with their parents". [SH114]
*Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The
colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to
devour children from their mothers *bleep*, in the colonists' own
words "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them."
(This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
-
*Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed
religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts
Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to
purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do
bears'." [SH241]
*Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington,
a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to
be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women
and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white
flag 400-500 killed.
-
if they take the bible out of school and tell people not to even so much as utter a word about god and things like that isint that prohibiting the free exercise of our religion ...
The Supreme Court has never -- never -- ruled that religion is to be banned completely from public schools. The Supreme Court has never -- never -- ruled that prayer is to be banned completely in public schools.
As a student, you can exercise your religion/pray as much as you please, provided it does not interrupt the setting and purpose of schools (which is to give everyone an equal opportunity at an education).
As a teacher/administrator, you can exercise your religion/pray as much as you please UNLESS you are operating in an official government capacity -- ie teaching a lesson, monitoring a classroom of students, etc. -- teachers and administrators of public schools are government employees and thus must abide by the regulations laid out in the Constitution (the government cannot show bias toward any specific religion or show establishment of a specific religion; that includes government employees who are "on the job," as teachers are).
The free exercise of religion is not being prohibited unfairly here at all:
Students may exercise their religion or pray before, during, or after class unless it legitimately imposes on other people's freedoms, imposes on other student's rights to an education, or breaks other acceptable, known school rules such as dress code.
Teachers/Administrators may exercise their religion or pray anytime they are not operating in their government capacity. They can leave their job at the end of the day (the school), walk across the street to a sidewalk 20 yards away from the school, and start yelling about how Jesus is going to save everyone if they repent. At that point, they're no longer actively serving as a government employee and their free exercise of religion is fully protected. However, they cannot yell about how Jesus is going to save everyone when they're teaching a history lesson -- that is illegal and unconstitutional.
and why when people go to court they put there hand on the bible or there religious bible and they tell them to say .....i swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god
Traditional nonsense mostly. Along with the vast majority of people in this country being of the Christian religion, and thus not thinking twice about it. Simply because something is done, even on a large scale, doesn't make it constitutional or morally correct.
why do they read the bible to people who are about to be executed in prison
They request to have such things done. Not everyone does.
there is so much reason that this coutry is based around religion its rediculous
The fact that religion has invaded the daily lives of people in this country does not make the nation a Christian nation. The founding of this nation and the principles it is based upon are secular in nature.
and the whole dollar bill is based on religion even if its not christianty the eye in the triangle of the dollar bill is actuelly the eye of horus and its used in buddisum, its also the symbol of the christianianity in Europe ... The lowest level of the pyramid shows the year 1776 in Roman numerals. The combined implication is that the Eye, or God, favors the prosperity of the United States look it up ...
There is much debate and conspiracy over what the symbols on the $1 bill represent.
-
It was founded upon religious freedoms and equal respect toward all religions,
Really? then why was it illegal for the indigenous of this land to practice our traditions all the way up until 1978 and even now if you are not a registered member of a Tribe the the FedGov. recognises it still illegal to posses some Ceremonial items?
Freedom of religion my *bleep*!!!!
I don't disagree with you. Sadly, the principles this nation was founded upon were very idealistic for their time, and perhaps even still are to some extent. There are countless examples of hypocritical atrocities being carried out in this nation while the correct thing to do is clearly written in our Constitution and Declaration.
We have lofty ideals such as "freedom of religion, expression, press, etc." and "all people are created equal and deserve equal opportunities" written plain as day in our founding documents. And yet for decades this nation was founded upon and supported by slavery of Africans, Asians, Native Americans, and arguably a genocide of what I would guess you would label "your people" (Native Americans).
I will attempt to make no excuses for those actions and many more that were carried out in the past. They were wrong, plain and simple.
-
you mentioned about the bible and it says it is better ....not that should .... but it is better for them to do that ......in the old testement when children dishonored there parents they were stoned ...but in the new testment when jesus came and forfilled the law ...those laws were changed ...so the bible dosint say anything about killing children in the new testment if there were disobediant so that would irrelevent if they used the bible today
So the things written in the Old Testament are unnecessarily brutal and shouldn't be followed anymore, since there is a "New Covenant" as Christians like to play it off?
-
but in the new testment when jesus came and forfilled the law ...those laws were changed ...so the bible dosint say anything about killing children in the new testment if there were disobediant so that would irrelevent if they used the bible today
So the things written in the Old Testament are unnecessarily brutal and shouldn't be followed anymore, since there is a "New Covenant" as Christians like to play it off?
On top of this statement-- why do christians still quote the old testament then? How come they brush off dumb rules like stone your children yet still use other aspects in the OT like banning homosexuality? Whatever's convenient to get your point across to the naive-religious I suppose.
-
you can save alot of money on car insurence by switching to ghecco
-
but in the new testment when jesus came and forfilled the law ...those laws were changed ...so the bible dosint say anything about killing children in the new testment if there were disobediant so that would irrelevent if they used the bible today
So the things written in the Old Testament are unnecessarily brutal and shouldn't be followed anymore, since there is a "New Covenant" as Christians like to play it off?
On top of this statement-- why do christians still quote the old testament then? How come they brush off dumb rules like stone your children yet still use other aspects in the OT like banning homosexuality? Whatever's convenient to get your point across to the naive-religious I suppose.
from Tim Callahan's "Secret Origins of the Bible"......
"Even if a biblical narrative is deemed historically true , can we base our ethics on such narratives and their moral injunctions? Fundamentalists frequently use the codes of sexual ethics from Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a club with which to beat others. Since these codes include prohibitions against adultry(Lev.18:20, 20:10;Deut.22:22), incest(Lev.18:6-18, 20:11, 12, 14, 17, 19-21; Deut22:30), rape(Deut22:25), prostitution(Deut. 23:17), and bestiality(Lev.18:23, 20:15,16), the codes seem to relate to acts universally condemned by all societies, which gives them a certain validity. Of course, the main prohibition stressed by fundamentalists is that against homosexuality(Lev. 18:22, 20:13).Assuming that the penalties are moderated a bit(most of these offenses carried the death penalty)many people might be swayed by their seeming reasonableness.
However, this same code also prohibits a couple from having sex during the wife's menstrual period(Lev.18:19, 20:18), with the penalty that the offenders will be "cut off from among their people." The Hebrew word translated as "cut off" is karath, which also means to destroy. Thus, a couple having sexual relations during the wife's menstrual period would be put to death if the act was discovered. Most of us would consider our decision as to whether to have sex with our wives during menstruationto be our own business. In fact, the prohibition against sex during menstruation has to do with another Levitical code, that of ritual impurity. Leviticus 15:19-30 goes into great detail about how a woman is unclean during her period, how anything she touches becomes unclean, how anyone who touches her or any thing she has touched is unclean for a day and must bathe to be cleansed, and how at the end of her period she is to offer two pigeons or doves to be sacrificed, one as a sin offering, so that the priest can "make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge"(Lev.15:30). Most of us today do not see menstruation as a sin or consider this quite natural funtion either unclean or a "sickness"(see Lev.20:18). I wonder if those state legislators who quoted Leviticus while fighting against the passage of California's law legalizing all private, voluntary sexual behavior between consenting adults(1972) kept their wives locked in menstrual huts during their periods, or if any fundamentalist congregations still ask a sacrifice of pigeons for the "sin" of menstruation.
That the Levitical sexual prohibitions were based on a psychology far different from our own can be seen not only in the exaggerated fear of menstrual blood, but in a verse just preceeding the list of penalties for sexual offences. Leviticus 20:9 says:
For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother,
his blood is upon him.
Are we to read this to mean that if, in a fit of rage, your teenage son or daughter yells, "GD you!" it's curtains for them? To understand the harshness of this penalty we must remember that in ancient times words were thought to have power. To curse someone was to literally call down a supernatural force on the cursed, hence the injuction in the Ten Commandments not to take the Lord's name in vain. Cursing one's parents was tantamount to physically assaulting them. It was also thought that such curses could likely reult in the victim's death unless that person had a protective counter charm. One way of protecting one's self was to have a secret name that was one's true name. Curses against one's prosaic name would then be ineffectual. Even today, when such ideas seem primitive and absurd, it is not uncommon for Jews to have a special "Jewish" name separate from the equally Jewish name they generally use. That the prohibition against swearing is based on magical thinking has not blunted its force among some believers.
A fundamentalist, however, might say that even though we today do not indulge in either sacrificing pigeons, putting women in menstrual huts, or stoning people to death for sexual offences, he and his wife do not have sex during her period and that he believes sexual relations condemned in the Levitical and Deuteronomic codes should be against the law.This would not only make homosexuality illegal but transvestitism (Deut22:5)and heterosexual premarital sex (Deut22:20, 21, 23, 24)as well.Is the fundamentalist justified in thinking that this view is consistent with what he considers the word of God? Not unless he is prepared to make it against the law to wear wool and linen(or any other two cloths) at the same time, since this is prohibited in Lev.19:19 and Deut.22:11. This is part of a series of prohibitions against mingling, and thus "contaminating" just about any thing> Deuteronomy 22:9 prohibits planting different seeds in the same orchard, and Deut.22:10 prohibits plowing with an *bleep* and an ox yoked together. (This last practice sounds a bit unworkable in any case.) The point of all of this is that something cannot be considered pure if it's mixed with something else. (As to whether a law against wearing wool and linen together would also extend to mixed weaves of cotton and polyester poses a knotty legal problem indeed!)
-
again in the old testement not the new
-
again in the old testement not the new
The church ordained genocide on this continent has been ongoing(yes it still continues) for the last 517 years. Do the christians use the old testament or the new to justify that?
-
They should teach about ALL gods and religions and then let the kids learn about which god they are interested in or believe in... or at least something of that nature... as for having "One nation under God" in the pledge it should remain there!!!!!!!!!!! This country was founded on religion therefore that phrase deserves to be in the pledge of allegiance
Where in the world do you get your information that, "This country was founded on religion"?? This country was in NO way founded on religion.
-
If I was a doctor, I'd be pretty offended. You spend tens of thousands of dollars and many years going through med school, and someone comes into your hospital ER from a horrible accident. They're on the brink of death, and you work a double shift, sweating, tired, and aching, just so you can save this person's life. And how do they thank you?
By giving credit to their imaginary friend in the sky.
How do you think that doctor feels? To put such an effort to save a person's life, only to have them give the credit for surviving to someone else.
Very well put!! When my youngest daughter had a siezure and it took two doctors because she was still an infant, to save her life I cried so hard thanking them (the doctors) over and over for saving her, their was no god in that room, their was myself, my husband, two Medical doctors and a nurse holding my hand NOTHING more NOTHING less!!
-
well then since people are telling there storys let me tell mine my grandmother has cancer for almost 3 or 4 years and she was suppose to have surgery on a certain day but she told the doctors that she wont let a knife cut into her and they told her that they had to ...she went in the bathroom and prayed that god would heal her and when she went back into the doctors office and the took a x-ray of her heart there was no cancer found just an insision mark on her heart and this was only a few seconds so she coudint have had surgey in that little time ...tell me thats not god or mabe its just a cawensadince to you ...god can use anybody to save peoples lifes god can work threw doctors to ..
Anything is possible with god if you only believe
-
CHURCH - STATE :binkybaby:
-
again in the old testement not the new
I'll ask again since you keep saying this and didn't address my question the first time:
Are you saying that things in the Old Testament shouldn't be followed because of the New Testament?
-
If they start taking God out of things, this country is going to completely fall apart, we think it is bad now, how will people hear about God? this is the work of satan doing these things, and anyone that encourages this to happen is being falsely blinded by satan.
God is our protector from all that is evil. So who takes God away, is the defender of evil.
-
No...its like this the old testment is the new testment conceiled and the new testment is the old test reavealed its basicly everything that happened in the old testment was leading up to jesus coming into the world its not so much as we shoudint listen to it at all because in the old testment god worked threw men to write what he had to say so we take heed to them so that we know ...what god forfilled ..but yes some of the laws in the old testment that people did because it was there custon were bad because jesus hadint came and forfilled them yet ..like the scribes and pharasis back then they had religions were to be baptized you had to go threw all these steps and if you were lower then them there was borders preventing you from the high babtizim but when jesus came into the world he walked in there ......you should read more on it to get a better understanding if you still dont get what im saying
-
If they start taking God out of things, this country is going to completely fall apart, we think it is bad now, how will people hear about God? this is the work of satan doing these things, and anyone that encourages this to happen is being falsely blinded by satan.
God is our protector from all that is evil. So who takes God away, is the defender of evil.
I don't know Tuts.......us NDNs done pretty well with our own Creator up until al you christians came and killed most of us.
-
when did christians start killing people if anything were the ones being killed and ambushed because of our views some christians in diffrent coutries have to read the bible hidden in the fear that they will get murdered for reading it we get bashed because we dont believe in homosexuality , we get bashed for just planly beliving in god for that matter, if there is any christians going around killing people and just treating people badthere not christians at all so they shouldint be in that catagory at all
-
If they start taking God out of things, this country is going to completely fall apart, we think it is bad now, how will people hear about God? this is the work of satan doing these things, and anyone that encourages this to happen is being falsely blinded by satan.
God is our protector from all that is evil. So who takes God away, is the defender of evil.
I laughed. Clever.
-
when did christians start killing people
go back to the previous page to my posts that you obviously didn't read about that....you know...the ones before your retarded ghecco comment?
-
if there is any christians going around killing people and just treating people badthere not christians at all so they shouldint be in that catagory at all
One of my favorite -- pardon my choice of words -- idiotic excuses. No. Just plain no. That's not how this works.
-
yes it does ...dont go around calling yourself a christian if your not doing things that pleasing in gods eyes plain and simple
-
yes it does ...dont go around calling yourself a christian if your not doing things that pleasing in gods eyes plain and simple
Tell that to Pope Innocence IV(google is your friend) hell tell that to Pope Benedict XVI
-
yes it does ...dont go around calling yourself a christian if your not doing things that pleasing in gods eyes plain and simple
Define Christian and then tell my why your definition has authority.
-
you define christian and tell me why it dosint
-
you define christian and tell me why it dosint
Someone who proclaims themselves a Christian, holds the belief that Jesus Christ walked the Earth and is the son of God, holds the belief that Yahweh exists and intervenes in the universe.
-
you define christian and tell me why it dosint
Someone who proclaims themselves a Christian, holds the belief that Jesus Christ walked the Earth and is the son of God, holds the belief that Yahweh exists and intervenes in the universe.
the last time I saw the name Yahweh was on another forum and a rather interesting exchange with some identity xtian nazis....they spelled it Y-hw-h, citing that even the name was so holy that it was disrespectful to speak it or spell it out.
-
way much more then that honey...way much more then you can ever imagine ..
-
:bs:
-
i think they should keep the public schools how they are
i mean the only time we use God is in the pledge of alliegence
many ppl dnt mind that
i mean i simply dont at all
thats the only real time we ever say God in public schools
barely do anything that has anything religious but only around the winter holidays
-
Okay sure if you want to have god in schools there could be a time for fiction. It should be optional though.
-
I find it interesting to know that the church provided the education for all children. Many children had primers, but they used the Bible as well. Many times the school day would begin with a scripture. Kids learned such things as justification, sanctification as well as bible history. It wasn't until later on that the church relinquished education over to the government. Our schools were founded on teaching our children to have a relationship with God, and prayer in the schools.
-
when did christians start killing people if anything were the ones being killed and ambushed because of our views some christians in diffrent coutries have to read the bible hidden in the fear that they will get murdered for reading it we get bashed because we dont believe in homosexuality , we get bashed for just planly beliving in god for that matter, if there is any christians going around killing people and just treating people badthere not christians at all so they shouldint be in that catagory at all
How about the burning times how many people do you think your Christians killed for the sake of the word "witch"? If you know nothing about this please do your research!! And most certainly allot of Christians are nothing more than hypocrites.
-
way much more then that honey...way much more then you can ever imagine ..
Everything else is arbitrary and opinionated, and changes greatly from Christian sect to Christian sect. The things I listed are absolute requirements for reasonably labeling one's self a Christian. You cannot be a Christian without accepting the that Jesus Christ was divine, that Yahweh exists, and without labeling yourself a Christian. Anything else is irrelevant and up to the follower to decide.
But I see you haven't defined "Christian" yourself, so I'll continue to wait for your opposing definition and why some people aren't Christians according to you, even though they've met the criteria.
-
what you listed was yuor own personal thoughts..if yuor that intrested in christianity then try it for yourself its not in my place to try and define christianity for you ...... becuase baptist christian ..or whatever ..we all should be one in christ without a title ....so like i said before its not in my place to define it ..but yeh your right but you do not become a follow of jesus christ just becuase you believe that he is divine ...alot of people can believe that he is divine and go out and kill thousands of people ..thanks to gods grace and mercy he still loves us threw our sins ..yuo dont have to label your self as anything ..becuase god dosint come with a barcode....thats the problem with people theres alot of religions that believe in god besides Christianity ..with it shoudint be like that and alot of these churches today try to seperaact like there higher then somebody by seperating thre religion from others...so no it dosint work that way ...you have to be true to god and love god with your heart,, you have to not only trust him .and sinners can be christians to if you didint know jesus said he came into the world not to for the rightous but the sinners he calls the sinners because they are strong...because you can bring them to christ.. and ive never said anyone wasint a christian cuz thats not for me to judge waht i was saying is that you cant go around ..acting like your higher then somebody or go around doing bad stuff then sit up in church and talk about how holy you are
-
what you listed was yuor own personal thoughts..if yuor that intrested in christianity then try it for yourself its not in my place to try and define christianity for you
No, they're really not. That was my point. To be labeled a Christian, there are three things you must accept:
1) Belief in the existence and intervention of Yahweh, the Christian deity.
2) Belief in the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ
3) Self-proclamation that you're a Christian.
Anything else is arbitrary and changes depending on what branch of Christianity you follow. Those three things listed above are the bare minimum to be labeled a Christian.
Christianity has been tried by me. I was baptized in the Catholic church and was a practicing Catholic for over half my life.
-
Yes i think god should be in our schools.
-
It's funny that people can be so small minded to think God and the Belief in God slows down Science and Progress but in all truth it actually speeds it up because people are so desperate to know the truth and how life became and what caused it to happen.
Funny how most scientists are agnostics or atheists.
Oil Spills
Polar Bears extinct in 2050
Holes in the Ozone Layer
We noticed these problems through technology and have/are trying to repair them. Oil spills? Thicker hulls. Polar Bears? Up in the air if we're causing this. This is an argument for another thread. Ozone Layer? Ridiculously better than it was 20 years ago. Do your research. Many people tell you this but you keep failing to do it.
There is a thing called a Simple life and don't you know technology is of the Devil and pretty soon you will see why
I stopped reading right here. You're posting on a computer inside of a heated home aren't you? You took a shower this morning? Do you own a car? Did you drive down a road? Technology has done amazing things throughout history and improved every life on this earth but you decide to just concentrait on the few negative things it brings. How dare you badmouth this worlds infrastructure. You have no idea how to argue and are so completely naive and ignorant it's laughable. You, maddam, are despicable.
-
There is a thing called a Simple life and don't you know technology is of the Devil and pretty soon you will see why
hehe wow
Then everything you do in this Life is devilish....!? It really seems, to me, like your posts go in circles...I can never understand your real point of view.
-
Well if you're just posting thoughts that make no sense, don't post them! Come back when you've thought them through and can add to the collective argument!
-
Why don't you just leave me alone
Because you posted. This is a forum.
-
Why don't you just leave me alone
Because you posted. This is a forum.
what ive learn from these posts is that ..you catn convense anyone of anything and that people are gonna do what they wanna do and believe what they wanna believe .i believe god is real and thats all that matters im not gonna focus on and judge weather or not someone elses life is right with god ..i just want to be right with god ..and im glad i belive.. so i incourage you to stay beliving and speak out on your thoughts and im glad you posted it :)
-
I don't understand why everyone makes these posts into such a huge debate. It's almost like certain people believe, by pointing out facts or bullshit or calling the other person out on their inconsistencies, they're going to bring others around to their way of thinking. This is a forum and I understand and completely respect that everyone has their own opinion but that's exactly what it is....an opinion. Stop judging and just respect the fact that we're all different.
-
I don't understand why everyone makes these posts into such a huge debate. It's almost like certain people believe, by pointing out facts or bullshit or calling the other person out on their inconsistencies, they're going to bring others around to their way of thinking. This is a forum and I understand and completely respect that everyone has their own opinion but that's exactly what it is....an opinion. Stop judging and just respect the fact that we're all different.
Whose judging?......In your Judgment...am I judging?
-
I'm not going to get into another debate or arguement, I'm just saying people should be more respectful of others opinions. :)
-
I don't understand why everyone makes these posts into such a huge debate
Is this your first forum? ;)
I'm just saying people should be more respectful of others opinions
Well then it is my opinion that nobody is stating any decent reason as to why we should have god in our public schools. We are getting way off topic and all I'm seeing is scribbled posts that make no sense. I fail to see a reason as to why these people continue posting random bits of whatever pops up every second in their heads without taking the time to think or proof read/spellcheck. When someone posts something so awful as "Technology is the devil!" and they support having god in schools, it shows the horrid messed up logic that goes on in people who want god in schools-- it makes that side of the argument look terrible.
Walksalone said it best-- we're calling out peoples inconsistencies so people actually taking the time to read the posts can gain whatever knowledge they like.
-
I'm not going to get into another debate or arguement, I'm just saying people should be more respectful of others opinions. :)
For what? If people posted here about how black people are the scum of the Earth and should all be killed, should we respect that opinion and tolerate the content of the opinion? Surely the answer is no. One should tolerate the right of everyone to have an opinion (and I'm sure everyone here does, at least I do), but that tolerance does not translate into respecting the actual content of the opinion. The content of people's opinions should not be placed on a pedestal under the label of "opinion." If the content of the opinion is nonsensical or plain false, it should be corrected. If the content is outrageous and non-serious, it deserves no respect.
And you don't have to respond to me, as it's clear you don't want to.
-
I'm not going to get into another debate or arguement, I'm just saying people should be more respectful of others opinions. :)
When someones opinion is in support of an institution that has, since it's inception, been one of the most superioristic, non accepting,violent, hateful, murderous, heinous etc etc etc institutions in the history of man kind,that has been directly responcible for the deaths on hundreds of millions of peoples, and in fact caused the extinction of entire nations(low estimate of 20 million of my people alone and in only the last 500 years) I see no reason to respect it. I do how ever see great and proven danger of loss of more life and the extinction of even more cultures, by the acceptance by people like you, of people trying to force this ideology onto others, or further reinforce the social stigma attached to be a non member and enabling this superioristic attitudes.
I admit that most who push christianity are completely ignorant of what it is they support. They believe, as we have seen here, atleast twice recently, that people doing horrendous things are not really representative of christianity. It is very easy and very fast to find a tremendous amount of information online about atrocities committed from the time of inception, right up to last week. And not only by some no bodies who claim they are christians but by ministers, pastors, priests, elders, deacons, popes and all sorts of church leaders.
The problem of people remaining ignorant, while running all over pressuring others to join into this madness, is quit simply unacceptable and very very dangerous, as has been proven over and over.
When someone comes into this, or any other, forum and looks down their nose and tells me I should turn my back and disrespect my Ancestors, walk away from the people, traditions and culture I adore and become a member of an institutions that has tried for the last 517+ years to make our Culture extinct...and then YOU tell me I should respect them......I say F YOU!!!
-
So that means I should hate white people because what they did to my ancestors according to your logic.
See my Great Grandmother was pure blood Cherokee Indian and if you ever heard of the Trail of Tears, then I should hate the people that took over this country and killed the Indians.
This is not what he said in the least bit.
-
After reading all of the post on this forum today I have come to a few interesting thoughts. These have been brought about by almost all of you(save some of the more ignorant of you). When one thinks of the statute of right and wrong you have to wonder where this came from. The more religious of course will say that it came from the Bible so I will not direct this question at you, but I want to know from those of you similar to me. I have often thought that a conscience is something that we are all just born with, but as this forum shows, peoples so called 'inner voices' differ just as our opinions do. And since this is the case who has the right to say that what someone is doing is right or wrong. One example could be homosexuality and marriage. Some people are against it to the point of dying just to make sure that homosexuals never get the right to marry while others want to live to just see it happen. And then you have 'moderates who secretly take a stand on it but do not want to get flamed for their opinion so they either lie or just stay quiet. But let's take on a more extreme case such as racism. I would have to say that the majority of Americans will say that they are not racist, but I know many people who were afraid to say they did not vote for Obama this past election for fear of being labeled a racist. Because the popular 'belief' is that racism is wrong. My question is who says? If someone wants to hate members of another race who has the right to tell them they are wrong for doing it if they themselves think they are justified in doing so. If I have not struck at least some sort of nerve so far then this next topic will surely at least raise your eyebrows(if only for the fact you hope I never post again). Murder is seen by many as wrong and this is a common notion. But what if someone murdered your son or daughter right before your very eyes....on accident. And in a rage you murdered the person who did it. You believe you are justified in doing so and believe you did nothing wrong, but someone tells you that you are wrong. Many will simply just point to the Bible or even the Constitution, but both are just pieces of paper that millions of people follow every day.
-
Another hot topic in America today seems to be abortion. The right of a mother to end her child's life if she so chooses. Many support her right, but others believe that this is wrong. It seems that to justify the mother's right to do this people say that it is not a person yet so it is technically not murder. If this is the case then why if I hit a pregnant woman in a car and killed her would I go to prison for manslaughter against her and the baby? If it is not a person yet it should be insignificant that I killed it. The fact that the mother wanted the baby is irrelevent. Does wanting there to be a Santa Clause make him real? no. Therefore wanting to keep the baby does not make it a person. I am only adding this to my last post to vent about a personal situation I am sorry if I distracted you from arguing about allowing God in public school....But one last thing to the girl who said if there is a God why do bad things happen to people...If you were 'God' and people did not appreciate you and cursed your name on a daily basis would you let them live a life of rainbows and butterflies? I personally would make everyone suffer. Whether you believe in God keep that in mind its quite a funny thought. I'm agnostic and it makes me laugh. :wave:
-
The fact that there are so many gods in our world, I'm surprised that our seducation system is not destroyed by our religions. There is always going to be the arguments of whose god or religion is better. Plus, the fact that we put God on our money only proves that we are basically slaves to the economic structures of America.
-
So that means I should hate white people because what they did to my ancestors according to your logic.
See my Great Grandmother was pure blood Cherokee Indian and if you ever heard of the Trail of Tears, then I should hate the people that took over this country and killed the Indians.
Ok, respectfully, I just reread my entire post and I was just wondering where you read, anywhere in my post, about anyone being white?
I don't think I have ever met anyone who didn't claim Tsalagi ancestry. I am exaggerating of course but not by much. Most of the time these claims are false, but on the off chance that you may be a relative.....would you mind if I check and see if your ancestor is on the Dawes or Baker rolls? If they were in fact full blood, they will be.
I hope you don't decide to hate all of any race of people, actually my best friend and someone I consider as my Sister is full blooded white.
If you got that meaning from any thing in my post then I apologize but I think perhaps you should just actually read it.
-
After reading all of the post on this forum today I have come to a few interesting thoughts. These have been brought about by almost all of you(save some of the more ignorant of you). When one thinks of the statute of right and wrong you have to wonder where this came from. The more religious of course will say that it came from the Bible so I will not direct this question at you, but I want to know from those of you similar to me. I have often thought that a conscience is something that we are all just born with, but as this forum shows, peoples so called 'inner voices' differ just as our opinions do. And since this is the case who has the right to say that what someone is doing is right or wrong. One example could be homosexuality and marriage. Some people are against it to the point of dying just to make sure that homosexuals never get the right to marry while others want to live to just see it happen. And then you have 'moderates who secretly take a stand on it but do not want to get flamed for their opinion so they either lie or just stay quiet. But let's take on a more extreme case such as racism. I would have to say that the majority of Americans will say that they are not racist, but I know many people who were afraid to say they did not vote for Obama this past election for fear of being labeled a racist. Because the popular 'belief' is that racism is wrong. My question is who says? If someone wants to hate members of another race who has the right to tell them they are wrong for doing it if they themselves think they are justified in doing so. If I have not struck at least some sort of nerve so far then this next topic will surely at least raise your eyebrows(if only for the fact you hope I never post again). Murder is seen by many as wrong and this is a common notion. But what if someone murdered your son or daughter right before your very eyes....on accident. And in a rage you murdered the person who did it. You believe you are justified in doing so and believe you did nothing wrong, but someone tells you that you are wrong. Many will simply just point to the Bible or even the Constitution, but both are just pieces of paper that millions of people follow every day.
As the answer you probably don't want at all: It would be extremely tenuous and difficult to go into discussion about the origin of morality here. It's such a huge subject with so many different proposals and requires a broad understanding of all the proposals to really make a reasonable conclusion (I don't think anybody here has this broad understanding of the field). Your best bet is to simply hit the library and read everything you can find on the subject, as that would yield you better answers than I think you'll ever find on most Internet forums.
-
If this is the case then why if I hit a pregnant woman in a car and killed her would I go to prison for manslaughter against her and the baby? If it is not a person yet it should be insignificant that I killed it. The fact that the mother wanted the baby is irrelevent.
As explained by a friend of mine, in words better than I could do myself:
The fact that the mother wants to carry to term is the only thing that is relevant.
"Why? Because in the law there is a provision for protection of potential items and revenue, if you can reasonably show that the potential item or revenue would have become a complete item or real revenue had it not been interfered with. The value of the item for the purposes of the damages done is extrapolated based on what is a reasonable assumption for what its value might have been. The amount of revenue considered lost is based on reasonably expected earnings.
For example, if I started writing a story and then someone came along and took it while it is still unfinished and published it (in its unfinished form), I could sue them for damages of lost income based on what I might reasonably have earned were it to be completed and published by me. The value for this potential income calculated is determined by the judge based on a number of factors. Whatever value the judge calculates for me, it would be a hell of a lot higher if the author who was robbed was, say, J. K. Rowling, instead of me, simply because even if I write the next Lord of the Rings, I could probably never hope to make as much as Rowling would if she sneezed in a napkin and published the smear.
The same logic extends to other things, like if I was building a house or a car and you came along and destroyed it before it was complete, it would count as destruction of property, not destruction of potential property, and I could sue you for damages based on the potential value of the item, not simply the cost of its parts. In fact, if I bought a custom car from someone that I intended to use to make money with, and it was being delivered to me and I had not paid for it yet, and you destroyed it, I could sue you for the money I was unable to make even though I hadn't bought the car yet (but I couldn't sue you for the value of the car itself, because I had not paid for it). There is lots of tricky legal crap involved with proving your claim on the (potential) item and the reasonable expectancy of the money you might make, and thus, your rights to sue... but once that is established, it's suing' time.
So when you kill the fetus of a mother who was planning to carry it to term, you have literally destroyed their potential daughter. Yes, you did not kill a human being, but the potential value of what you stole from that woman was equal to the value of a human, because if the mother does intend to have the child, chances are very, very high nowadays that she will. In theory, without the fetal homicide clause, the mother could sue you for the expected value of what you took from her, just as with anything else, be it potential story royalties or a potential car. But that just gets wonky because what is the value of a human being - a child, someone's offspring? You can't put a realistic price tag on that, so, instead, they do the next best thing... they say the expected value of a wanted fetus is a child, and you have taken that potential value away from the mother, which is equivalent to the a priori murder of their child. Thus, fetal homicide.
So why is this different from abortion? The answer is simple. The expected value of a wanted fetus is the value of a human child, because a wanted fetus will - under reasonable assumptions - be a human being eventually. The expected value of an unwanted fetus is... nothing... because the fetus will not become a human being (under reasonable assumptions). Therefore, the abortion doctor that performs the procedure is not killing a potential human being... because the fetus doesn't have that potential from the moment the mother says, "I want an abortion."
-
So why is this different from abortion? The answer is simple. The expected value of a wanted fetus is the value of a human child, because a wanted fetus will - under reasonable assumptions - be a human being eventually. The expected value of an unwanted fetus is... nothing... because the fetus will not become a human being (under reasonable assumptions). Therefore, the abortion doctor that performs the procedure is not killing a potential human being... because the fetus doesn't have that potential from the moment the mother says, "I want an abortion."
You have no idea how much argument-ammuntion you just gave me. Danke, sir.
-
Religion on this forum just blows. It needs to be insta-banned because of all the fanatics and nobodys that think they have an opinion on something that has nothing to do with them. :BangHead:
People should be able to express whatever they want so long as it doesn't HURT others. If you use the term "offend", then it will be a chaotic cluster-f*** of angry people that are offended by other people's existence and it's a self-perpetuating hate circle.
As for schools, I think it's cool that they have it, but it should be optional. As for the pledge of allegiance, that's a cultural and country-wide practice and that's ridiculous if you expect it to be any different. We cannot be a ghost of a shell of a country that is based on nothing.
-
What benefit is there to forcing someone to pledge allegiance to something they have absolutely no allegiance to?
My ancestors nor myself, immigrated to this country, we were here before there ever was an America.
We along with many other NDN Nations are sovereign countries within the borders of the US.
Several years ago we were all given citizen status for some political reasons that mostly benefited the US.
Constantly over the past 500+ years we have been asked/forced to give up more and more land and in exchange have been promised various monies and services in trade for these lands.
One of the provisions is the opportunity for an education, therefor we have the right to attend a public American school, even tho many of us do not consider our selves American and do not have very much allegiance to the US.
So what is the point in pressuring my child to recite a foreign oath, against their and my wishes.
The ol' "love it or leave it" saying doesn't really fit in this case huh?
-
So what is the point in pressuring my child to recite a foreign oath, against their and my wishes.
Fortunately there's no pressure for a student to say no to it today as it does conflict with peoples' various beliefs. I never did it as a kid. I did stand up, but I never put my hand on my heart or said it. I felt kind of out of place during it (the same feeling comes over me at a long Catholic wedding), but the teacher or other kids never really cared.
-
Religion on this forum just blows. It needs to be insta-banned because of all the fanatics and nobodys that think they have an opinion on something that has nothing to do with them. :BangHead:
People should be able to express whatever they want so long as it doesn't HURT others. If you use the term "offend", then it will be a chaotic cluster-f*** of angry people that are offended by other people's existence and it's a self-perpetuating hate circle.
Frankly, most people here are pretty calm in the discussions. I've seen much worse on forums. Everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone has a right to criticize or address that opinion. There is no such thing as "something that has nothing to do with them." We're on a public forum. If you don't want to read people's replies to your posts, you don't have to. That's the beauty of the Internet.
As for schools, I think it's cool that they have it, but it should be optional. As for the pledge of allegiance, that's a cultural and country-wide practice and that's ridiculous if you expect it to be any different. We cannot be a ghost of a shell of a country that is based on nothing.
I don't think you'll find a whole lot of sensible people who want the Pledge removed from schools. What you will find -- because it is unconstitutional and biased toward a specific religion, which is specifically prohibited in the First Amendment -- is people who want "under God" removed from it.
-
And, on everything else about God in the Schools, It dont matter to me but what was really crazy was my brother brought his bible to school and was reading it during free time reading and the teacher told him to put it away and when he didn't he got sent to the principle's office.
If he was reading it during free time, both the principal and teacher (specifically the teacher) should be reprimanded. Though I wouldn't be too surprised if he was actually reading it during class, which I guess is his choice, but I would venture to say the teacher just wanted him to pay attention and do well in that case. Probably overreacted.
Yes, One nation under God and if you remove it then I don't care because it doesn't remove God from my life.
You don't have to remove it from your life, you just have to remove it from other people's lives when they don't want it. That's the entire point of just about everything discussed in this thread.
-
No because not all kids in public school worship god
-
And, on everything else about God in the Schools, It dont matter to me but what was really crazy was my brother brought his bible to school and was reading it during free time reading and the teacher told him to put it away and when he didn't he got sent to the principle's office.
If he was reading it during free time, both the principal and teacher (specifically the teacher) should be reprimanded. Though I wouldn't be too surprised if he was actually reading it during class, which I guess is his choice, but I would venture to say the teacher just wanted him to pay attention and do well in that case. Probably overreacted.
Yes, One nation under God and if you remove it then I don't care because it doesn't remove God from my life.
You don't have to remove it from your life, you just have to remove it from other people's lives when they don't want it. That's the entire point of just about everything discussed in this thread.
No it was a Silent Free Time that kids chose what they read and he got suspended. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression. I don't make the laws and I don't have any control what laws get passed or even if they put One Nation Under God or In God We Trust on American Currency - That is just America and if people don't like it they can leave.
If that is the case, then as I said, the teacher was wrong and should be reprimanded for his/her actions.
And no, the entire point of having a democratic republic is so the public can take part in and change the actions of the government. You don't tell people "if you don't like it, get out." That destroys the very foundation everything about this nation.
-
The problem with a democratic society is if the majority rules, then the minority must go along the whims of the majority against their wishes.
And in this instance the minority I refer to isn't only to do with race. Religion also, in my opinion, has a great deal to do with it.
Take a look at "The Great Law of Peace" practiced by the Iroquois Confederacy.
Consensus by Representation. No religion needed.