Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Congress has not made a law prohibiting that and if they did it would be deemed unconsititutional and please name one law that prevents free exercise of the Christian religion.
However, when people try, like the Texas board of education, to set up America as being founded on Christianity...that flies smack in the face of the establishment clause. We are not founded on any religion...if we were we sure as heck wouldn't have a clause preventing congress from establishing a religion in the first amendment.
Not every one is happy about having their freedom of expression taken away either...
Quote:
SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FL, June 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace High School stood up in protest against the ACLU and recited the Lord’s Prayer during their graduation ceremony last Saturday. Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith. 400 Students Defy ACLU and Stand to Recite Lord's Prayer at Graduation
Our new government is coming from these graduates, who may one day take a look at the first amendment and see it for what it really is. Seems to me Texas is going to make sure that happens, they way it should.
Tell a kid they can not do something, that's the thing they are going to want to do and they are going to want to see to it, their kids can do it too.
I encourage you to read the supreme court decisions Engle v Vitale and Abington School District vs Schempp which are the two you are referencing from the 1960s. They state that public schools cannot promote organized school prayer at school functions, because that constitutes using school resources for the purpose of the establishment of religion. Pupils are still 100% free to pray during school provided it does not disrupt the learning environment.
In Engle V. Vitale it was ruled that schools cannot force the students to recite a school prayer.
In Abington School District vs Schempp it was ruled schools couldn't sponser bible readings and require students attend.
But anyway, "historians" have their biases just like anybody else. Hell, I double-majored in college (Political Science and History), so does that make me an official "historian"?
Thanks for admitting blatant bias in the revision. Or, should I call it, a revisionists' history? No, I actually don't think college degrees guarantee anything. It is how you present yourself counts a lot more.
Texas politics is a joke, and situations like this serve as a regular reminder, why that is.
I've been reading the Treaty of Tripoli got my attention in your comments so I investigated.
There is a mystery about the Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. The original treaty was written in Arabic and presented to the Barbary Muslim nations, yet the Arabic treaty has no strange Article 11 in its document. The English version has Article 11, but the Arabic version does not.
Joel Barlow a known Christian critic, translated the original treaty from Arabic into English, which is the version that President John Adams and the US ratified. That treaty was renegotiated in 1805 and replaced by Treaty of Tripoli 1805-6. (8-years later)
Hunter Miller's notes, Government Printing Office 1931 "note regarding the Barlow Translation, the "defects throughout are obvious and glaring".
Army Captain William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict first appointed by President Adams and President Jefferson later authorized him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.
Excerpts from Eatons private journals:
I want the whole story, not just bits and pieces. Also, if you go to that link you will find on that page:
Apparently there are four documents in the Department of State file of this treaty, read them understand them and the situation, then draw the conclusion. Excuse me do I see Christian Nation words appearing there? Why yes I do believe I do.
Oh and last I checked we do not, nor have we in the past, nor will we ever have a government established National Congressional Church as that would be unconstitutional! (the first amendment clause and the LETTER & the church of England)
Apparently more can be found out about the conflict surrounding the Treaty of Tripoli & British Slaves of the Barbary Coast @ BBC Web Site. (just thought you'd want to know where I'm headed next, just in case you'd like to follow)
The Barlow translation is horrendously bad and this whole controversy was the subject of a 1931 investigation by the Hunter-Miller commission which discovered doubts as to the accuracy of the arabic translation all the way back to 1800.
Even so that does not change the fact that the treaty, including article 11, was ratified by congress unanimously and acceded to by president John Adams in the English version. And as the 1931 Hunter-Millar commission determined that for the purpose of statutes and treaty collections, the English version is in fact the text the United States has deemed to be the correct version.
Therefore for the purposes of this particular argument article 11 including the section which states "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Was part of the version acceded to by the president and congress and agree to by the United States government. The Arabic version translated by Barlow does not hold this esteem and is thus irrelevant in determining the founders opinions on the separation of church and state.
Additionally the first Amendment does not say anything about establishing a Congressional church. It is much broader...It says Congress cannot create a law establishing a religion...last time I checked Christianity was a religion so saying the founders based the founded the government on Christianity and Christian principles kind of goes against that.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 05-24-2010 at 12:43 PM..
The claim that "Separation of Church and State" does not appear verbatim in the constitution allows for mixing of the two, is targeted to appease the stupid, and create more stupid.
Now, only if they could also show the word "church" or "Christianity" in the constitution. Then we could, perhaps, discuss the principles used to devise the constitution.
Thanks for admitting blatant bias in the revision. Or, should I call it, a revisionists' history? No, I actually don't think college degrees guarantee anything. It is how you present yourself counts a lot more.
Texas politics is a joke, and situations like this serve as a regular reminder, why that is.
As I said, history is a biased subject by its very nature. The liberals are just upset because it doesn't reflect their biases. And they have them for sure.
As I said, history is a biased subject by its very nature. The liberals are just upset because it doesn't reflect their biases. And they have them for sure.
Then you don't know a thing about history. You're equating human emotions and history. They are two different things.
MLK is still in there and is an entire month long section in all grades of education from K-12. They also have added back missing George Washington Carver and many others, to coincide with Black History Month.
You think the Republicans would leave out how MLK was a Republican, until the Democrats threw him in jail, only to have JFK bail him out for his vote? That's a Goldmine to teach the kids! The truth, not just the half you wish they hear.
Well they certainly would leave out the part that the Democratic Party had two very distinct wings during that time. The northern liberal wing and the southern CONSERVATIVE wing, and it was that southern CONSERVATIVE wing aka the Dixiecrats that were the ones who followed Jim Crow, threw King in Jail, it was that CONSERVATIVE wing that fought the Civil Rights Act and then bolted from the Party when MLK signed the Civil Rights Act, and that wing was then targeted by Goldwater & Nixon.
Yes they did:
Not every one is happy about having their freedom of expression taken away either...
Our new government is coming from these graduates, who may one day take a look at the first amendment and see it for what it really is. Seems to me Texas is going to make sure that happens, they way it should.
Tell a kid they can not do something, that's the thing they are going to want to do and they are going to want to see to it, their kids can do it too.
Good for them! I'm sure alienating people who don't believe as they do and forcing people to sit through their prayer was very adult of them.
They could have gotten together before or after the ceremony and prayed, or even prayed in small groups during the procession without the fuss. But, as usual, the Christians want to force everyone to pay attention to them.
I encourage you to read the supreme court decisions Engle v Vitale and Abington School District vs Schempp which are the two you are referencing from the 1960s. They state that public schools cannot promote organized school prayer at school functions, because that constitutes using school resources for the purpose of the establishment of religion. Pupils are still 100% free to pray during school provided it does not disrupt the learning environment.
In Engle V. Vitale it was ruled that schools cannot force the students to recite a school prayer.
In Abington School District vs Schempp it was ruled schools couldn't sponser bible readings and require students attend.
What you don't want to say is, that it didn't force anyone that they could not say it either. Schools cannot force them to say it, but they could not force them not to say it. Everyone had a choice at that point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
