|
On August 17 2009 22:19 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote:
i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds'
i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools
is that too much to ask?
|
On August 17 2009 22:20 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:13 benjammin wrote:
can you not see the difference between any possible mention of religion in a public forum and the teaching of it in a school? Do you not understand you are invalidating your arguement? Logic circles run amok! You quote the First Amendment, and then imply that "respecting an establishment of religion" means the promotion of a religion in the public sphere (That is; anywhere tax money is used, or where Government is involved) and thus is against the First Amendment. I rebutted this and showed you that, that isn't the case with facts where Religion is used in the public sphere and used since inception of the US. You then come back and say, it's essentially ok to mention religion in a public forum, and in politics; which is Government, but that it isn't ok to mention religion, teach religion, or otherwise talk about or even use prayer in school? In what part of the First Amendment does it allow Government officials to use Religion, talk about Religion, etc. but forbade teachers in doing so? Geeze.
see previous post for why this is wrong
|
On August 17 2009 22:16 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:15 Aegraen wrote:On August 17 2009 22:11 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:07 benjammin wrote:On August 17 2009 22:01 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote:
why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money. are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
funny, i thought this was the internet! I'm telling you that the money you're talking about isn't yours. But, yes, there is no constitutional question of teaching any religion in school as long as it is taught in a scholarly (versus a religious) way. Yes, this is the internet, but this is a discussion, not research. But you're doing your research as we're talking, and I doubt you have a stack of law books you're researching in. Tax money is yours. In fact, it doesn't belong to the Government. We didn't even have an income tax until 1914 under Wilson (That Fascist I might add). Your labor and the fruit of your labor is yours and no one elses. Money does not belong to the Government either. There is no central US bank and it was specifically made that way. The FED is an abomination that should be immediately dis-established. Fractional Reserve banking is theft and fraud on a grand scale. Manipulation of Inflation is the epitome of such theft. Well, that is a view, but the money does belong to the United States because it represents our GDP which is the country's, not the individual.
Actually no, it doesn't belong to the US. The Government merely made our currency legal tender. In order to print money you have to take debt on US Gov. bonds. If the Government owned the money and it belonged to them they could legally create a slave state. This is not the case.
|
On August 17 2009 22:22 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote:
i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government. i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds' i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools is that too much to ask?
As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
|
On August 17 2009 22:24 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:22 benjammin wrote:On August 17 2009 22:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote:
i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government. i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds' i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools is that too much to ask? As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
oh dear lord, how many times do i have to explain that I CAN, but that i DO NOT TRUST TEXAS
|
Well, it depends on what is taught with the Bible.
I mean, since they said Social Studies, I believe that to be a legitimate use for incorporating the Bible. After all, there has been a lot of different social effects caused by that book, and it has motivated historical events as well. Of course, I still believe it is religiously biased toward Christianity unless they teach about the effects of the Qu'ran, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc as well. =/
|
On August 17 2009 22:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:16 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:15 Aegraen wrote:On August 17 2009 22:11 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:07 benjammin wrote:On August 17 2009 22:01 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote:
why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money. are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
funny, i thought this was the internet! I'm telling you that the money you're talking about isn't yours. But, yes, there is no constitutional question of teaching any religion in school as long as it is taught in a scholarly (versus a religious) way. Yes, this is the internet, but this is a discussion, not research. But you're doing your research as we're talking, and I doubt you have a stack of law books you're researching in. Tax money is yours. In fact, it doesn't belong to the Government. We didn't even have an income tax until 1914 under Wilson (That Fascist I might add). Your labor and the fruit of your labor is yours and no one elses. Money does not belong to the Government either. There is no central US bank and it was specifically made that way. The FED is an abomination that should be immediately dis-established. Fractional Reserve banking is theft and fraud on a grand scale. Manipulation of Inflation is the epitome of such theft. Well, that is a view, but the money does belong to the United States because it represents our GDP which is the country's, not the individual. Actually no, it doesn't belong to the US. The Government merely made our currency legal tender. In order to print money you have to take debt on US Gov. bonds. If the Government owned the money and it belonged to them they could legally create a slave state. This is not the case.
It is illegal to deface currency because it is government property.
|
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
|
On August 17 2009 22:24 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:22 benjammin wrote:On August 17 2009 22:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote:
i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government. i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds' i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools is that too much to ask? As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
Even if it is only read and studied in school for its literary merits or for its historical significance its still biased to just pick one religion. Even if you only want to teach a class called "The history of Western religion" you would still have to include all the major religions and trace them back to their roots if you want to give a clear picture. Only including the bible in the curriculum screams hidden agenda.
|
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
You can. Just move out of the US and go to Austria. 
It's a great place to stay.
|
On August 17 2009 22:25 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:24 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:22 benjammin wrote:On August 17 2009 22:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote:
i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government. i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds' i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools is that too much to ask? As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text. oh dear lord, how many times do i have to explain that I CAN, but that i DO NOT TRUST TEXAS
So you do not believe the law itself in unconstitutional, it is fine, but that you don't trust Texas. Well, now that it's in the realm of opinion there's nothing to argue.
|
anyway, i am going to recap because i think there is confusion on the main topic at hand from more general discussions on separation of church and state. on the topic at hand:
1) i am skeptical of the motives of the school board here
2) there is probably enough for a lawsuit if the only religious text being taught in a foundational religious texts course is the bible
|
On August 17 2009 22:31 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:24 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:22 benjammin wrote:On August 17 2009 22:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote:
i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government. i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds' i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools is that too much to ask? As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text. Even if it is only read and studied in school for its literary merits or for its historical significance its still biased to just pick one religion. Even if you only want to teach a class called "The history of Western religion" you would still have to include all the major religions and trace them back to their roots if you want to give a clear picture. Only including the bible in the curriculum screams hidden agenda.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
|
On August 17 2009 22:32 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes. You can. Just move out of the US and go to Austria. It's a great place to stay.
Lmao. Why do you think all the Austrian School of Economics academics moved to the US?
http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Austria
Not that great. *cough* But, Arnie is from there which immediately gives it 10 points.
There is no country in which stoicly defends the free-market from Government hands and intervention. The Free-Market is the bulwark to Tyranny 
|
United States43820 Posts
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I should get some of my friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
It is quite a stretch. :p
Seriously though, having several of you repeating the same arguments wouldn't make them any stronger. You're making no headway because they're not good arguments.
|
On August 17 2009 22:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:32 ghrur wrote:On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes. You can. Just move out of the US and go to Austria. It's a great place to stay. Lmao. Why do you think all the Austrian School of Economics academics moved to the US? http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/AustriaNot that great. *cough* But, Arnie is from there which immediately gives it 10 points. There is no country in which stoicly defends the free-market from Government hands and intervention. The Free-Market is the bulwark to Tyranny
Lol, because Austria is part of that socialistic hell called Europe? xD Jk. :p
But Vienna is still a nice place. Lots of good music and food, lol.
And no, there aren't any countries that keep government and economics free from each other, although I'd love to see one and actually study the true effects of laissez-faire capitalism instead of speculating to its effects all the time. =/
On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
|
On August 17 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I should get some of my friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
It is quite a stretch. :p Seriously though, having several of you repeating the same arguments wouldn't make them any stronger. You're making no headway because they're not good arguments.
I guess you didn't read Murry Rothbard about Government intervention did you?
|
United States43820 Posts
On August 17 2009 22:52 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote:On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I should get some of my friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
It is quite a stretch. :p Seriously though, having several of you repeating the same arguments wouldn't make them any stronger. You're making no headway because they're not good arguments. I guess you didn't read Murry Rothbard about Government intervention did you?
Actually I did. It's not nearly as convincing if you don't already agree with all the basic assumptions behind and it the conclusions it reaches. Odd that.
|
On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
|
On August 17 2009 23:03 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions. If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's where it's arguable.
See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular.
However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious.
Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students.
And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
