|
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
The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!).
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature?
|
On August 17 2009 22:01 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +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!
|
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
Read William Rehnquist. Secondly, I fucking hate the SCOTUS. The Government is supposed to have three CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. The SCOTUS is not co-equal. By controlling the SCOTUS you can effectively mandate and constitutionalize your ideology. That was not the intent of the Founders and it has become this perverse notion that one judge, or a set of 5 people can dictate to the nation and rewrite the Constitution. That was not the intent. Activism be fucking damned. Why should I abide by the judgements of these judges if suceeding generations may not be bound to the present set of guidelines?
I'm going to have to bookmark this. If I ever see you promote a Government program I'm going to bring this up over and over.
Why should my tax money support a government program I don't believe in? Why should my tax money support anything I don't believe in? If this was the prevailing thought then there would be no Government programs. HURRAY! I wish this was the prevailing thought, sadly it is not. You may not like it, but there is no constitutional amendments stating that if you don't agree with a government program that it shouldn't be instituted.
In any event, I see you have resorted to that arguement upon hearing the factual basis of my arguement. Can you still explain that if the First Amendment meant explicitly what you think it means then why is there scripture on capital buildings, national monuments, national songs and anthems, Declaration of Independence, Presidential Addresses / speeches / inaugurations, why must we place our hand on the BIBLE in a COURT OF LAW?
The First Amendment only EXPLICITLY forbade the establishment of a STATE RELIGION. Unless you can show me the Church of US, or that the US has enacted a law that only allows Christianity in America, then this did not violate the First Amendment and William Rehnquist was pretty clear, even though I think no persons, or judges shall have that much power.
|
On August 17 2009 22:05 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +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 The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!). Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature?
i was referring specifically to aegrean asking if i am opposed to religious views being taught in public schools, not the greater issue at hand here
|
you don't have to swear in with your hand on anything, actually, and many oaths remove 'so help you god' from the oath
|
On August 17 2009 22:07 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +
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.
|
On August 17 2009 22:11 benjammin wrote:
you don't have to swear in with your hand on anything, actually, and many oaths remove 'so help you god' from the oath
But wait, if any mention of religion in the public forum was against the First Amendment then why is this even allowed in the first place? Oh right...because it isn't against the First Amendment.
|
can you not see the difference between any possible mention of religion in a public forum and the teaching of it in a school?
|
Say, benjammin, what does he have his left hand on?
|
On August 17 2009 22:11 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
that's lincoln's bible i believe, and is the choice of the president-elect to use it, afaik there's no law requiring a bible to be present, he just wants to appeal to all the jesus freaks out there who think he's a muslim anyway
|
On August 17 2009 22:15 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On August 17 2009 22:16 benjammin wrote:
that's lincoln's bible i believe, and is the choice of the president-elect to use it, afaik there's no law requiring a bible to be present, he just wants to appeal to all the jesus freaks out there who think he's a muslim anyway
All president's put their left hand on the Bible, so, no, it's not just Obama.
|
United States22883 Posts
The course has nothing to do with prayer in school (and if the teacher introduces it in the class, they should be fired) so I see nothing wrong with it. The Bible has a very important historical role so it should be taught, but the class should probably be taught as a Western religious course. Religious displays are allowed on public property, but they must include multiple religions without one deliberately overshadowing the others, so if you were to apply it to this, you should probably include the Koran, Torah and multiple versions of the Bible (and point out the historical context of the King James bible.)
Quite frankly, after learning about the history of these texts, it's difficult to believe in any of them.
Also, lol @ Aegraen's ridiculous rants about evolution/Supreme Court/why "originalists" like himself are the best. You live in a make believe world. The law has to be interpreted and you do not know what the founders intended (and there were many of them, who all intended different things.) These are philosophical truths. Take some fucking epistemology.
|
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
|
On August 17 2009 22:08 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:05 Gnosis 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 The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!). Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature? i was referring specifically to aegrean asking if i am opposed to religious views being taught in public schools, not the greater issue at hand here
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature?
|
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.
|
On August 17 2009 22:18 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:08 benjammin wrote:On August 17 2009 22:05 Gnosis 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 The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!). Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature? i was referring specifically to aegrean asking if i am opposed to religious views being taught in public schools, not the greater issue at hand here Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature?
EDIT: removing my own troll-bait
yes, i do, i took a course that studied the bible in college (look at me, i took a course that studied the bible! weeeee!)
|
read the bible from 2 standpoints
literary: this ver sucks balls, theres no story/plot or anything to qualify it as a real book.
religious: still sucks, my grandma made me read it and it made no sense... -__-
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.thatjonesgirl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/20swearing_600.jpg)
