The Rebpublican/Democrat parodox (multiculturalism, Democrats, Republicans, drug)

[edspace]

I find this interesting with both parties.

Democrats: Very suspicious of religion due to the 'non-establishment' clause of the Constitution. And thus they purged schools of all traces of religion, esp Xtianity. (Which I suppose was in compliance to the Constitution.) In came Darwin. And from Darwin, I learned 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' But in practice, druggies, constantly-pregnant single women , and all around irresponsible people are saved and funded by Democrats (actually by working people), rather than considered 'naturally selected' to die on the streets so they will not burden the responsible hard-working people. And those who are most savvy at 'surviving' in our society are considered financially liable for the 'less fortunate,' who according to Darwin, would be the least fit. So basically, the liberals preach Darwin, but don't practice it.

Republicans: Believe that society should conform to Xtian values. However, Jesus Christ did say (perhaps many times during his life) "Whoever has two coats, must give one to the man who has none." Also, regarding filthy sinners, He said, "Judge not, or you will be judged." And there were references about, "THey will come from the East, and they will come from the West..." (multiculturalism???) Now this is in direct conflict to waving signs that say "God hates ****!" Some conservatives (though far from all of them) have struggled to purge Darwin from schools, yet live by his 'survival for the fittest' theory.

So it seems it would make more since for the two parties to switch sides, since they both seem to follow the other's icons.

Of course, these are the far-right and far-left in America. You'll find among the working class members of both parties whose interests are hardly represented in D.C. due to the vocal extremists getting their agendas pushed through.

[TrapperJohn]

Government is the progressive's religion and Uncle Sam is their Jesus.

[padcrasher]

Vocal extremists are getting their agenda pushed through?

No. Wealthy, corporate, elite interest get their agenda pushed through. Has nothing to do with how hard people scream.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by edspace

I find this interesting with both parties.

Democrats: Very suspicious of religion due to the 'non-establishment' clause of the Constitution. And thus they purged schools of all traces of religion, esp Xtianity. (Which I suppose was in compliance to the Constitution.) In came Darwin. And from Darwin, I learned 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' But in practice, druggies, constantly-pregnant single women , and all around irresponsible people are saved and funded by Democrats (actually by working people), rather than considered 'naturally selected' to die on the streets so they will not burden the responsible hard-working people. And those who are most savvy at 'surviving' in our society are considered financially liable for the 'less fortunate,' who according to Darwin, would be the least fit. So basically, the liberals preach Darwin, but don't practice it.

Republicans: Believe that society should conform to Xtian values. However, Jesus Christ did say (perhaps many times during his life) "Whoever has two coats, must give one to the man who has none." Also, regarding filthy sinners, He said, "Judge not, or you will be judged." And there were references about, "THey will come from the East, and they will come from the West..." (multiculturalism???) Now this is in direct conflict to waving signs that say "God hates ****!" Some conservatives (though far from all of them) have struggled to purge Darwin from schools, yet live by his 'survival for the fittest' theory.

So it seems it would make more since for the two parties to switch sides, since they both seem to follow the other's icons.

Of course, these are the far-right and far-left in America. You'll find among the working class members of both parties whose interests are hardly represented in D.C. due to the vocal extremists getting their agendas pushed through.

Gee, everyone simply complying with the Constitution.... what a novel idea (especially since it also kinda takes care of the rest of your quasi-Libertarian "observations")!

[DiogenesofJackson]

Originally Posted by edspace

I find this interesting with both parties.

Democrats: Very suspicious of religion due to the 'non-establishment' clause of the Constitution. And thus they purged schools of all traces of religion, esp Xtianity.

This is patently false. Public schools all across the United States offer elective courses in Bible classes as well as classes on other scriptural traditions. Moreover, students have Bible clubs and organized groups that meet around the flag pole to pray. Public school yearbooks include all kinds of candid shots where students are shown wearing, among other items and clothing, religious symbols like cross necklaces, or t-shirts with a church name on it or some religious messages.

So to say that schools are "purged" of "all traces of religion" is entirely false. There is indeed much religion at public schools.

Now for the next part of your erroneous claim. Democrats did not "purge" schools of anything. I can only assume that what you meant here is that democrats started the ball rolling on several Supreme Court cases that challenged how schools required students to take Bible classes, even if they weren't religious.

Unlike the petitioners in Engel v. Vitale, in Abington v. Schempp (1963) for example, the petitioners sued the school district because it required students to complete a bible class required for graduation. The Court ruled that public schools requiring Bible study classes "established" a religion. The interesting thing here is that the petitioners weren't just one family, but included Catholics, Jews, Universalists, and several other parents affiliated with other Christian denominations. The petitioners in this case were mostly politically conservative and members of the Republican Party. So it was a broad mixture of liberals and conservatives, who in the 1950s and 1960s, began challenging public schools' ability to require certain religious beliefs among their students, especially when those established beliefs contradicted those of the students.

This brings up an important question in our society about public education. Do schools have the ability to undermine parental authority? The Supreme Court has consistently said NO.