Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bishop · Jun 11, 2004, 01:50 pm

nothing wrong with kids being religious - even though it's ripe with indoctrination these days. especially compared to "worshipping" britney, etc..

that is besides the point though.. it's about the constitution and separation of church and state.

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 01:50 pm

bishop · Jun 11, 2004, 01:52 pm

i beg to differ... i've seen much from the religious right that is completely anti-homosexual. i recall their outrage when the courts ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

Sonart · Jun 11, 2004, 01:56 pm

Quote:

But it's sad to see kids worshipping Christina, Britney and about a million other whores while unelected appointees attempt to command and control all aspects of our lives.

Then have them go to church and get involved in church activities, have their parents communicate their values to them or even have them get involved in AFTER SCHOOL religious study.

Forcing everyone else to either join in or set themselves apart is not going to change what they watch on MTV.

And by the way, how old are you? Were you ever a Beatles fan? Elvis? Disco?

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 01:58 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
i beg to differ... i've seen much from the religious right that is completely anti-homosexual. i recall their outrage when the courts ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

I misunderstood your post. I thought you were talking about me. "Their outrage"...Who is they?

bishop · Jun 11, 2004, 01:59 pm

the christian right. christian coalition and the rest.

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 02:03 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonart,

And by the way, how old are you? Were you ever a Beatles fan? Elvis? Disco?

I'm 25.

Quote:

Forcing everyone else to either join in or set themselves apart is not going to change what they watch on MTV.

You aren't forcing anyone to do anything. At the end of the day you are FORCING them to go to school and learn US hist according to....THE US. Hum, after school studies. Yes, I have time for that. I'm FORCED to pay for the school. I'm FORCED to send my kid to the school, the community and I want to teach our kids the way we want, some moron in DC says we can't. FUCK THAT.

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 02:06 pm

Quote:

Were you ever a Beatles fan? Elvis? Disco?

I think I know were you are going with that. There is a big difference.

The Troubadours
"All you need is love"...
"The love you take is equal to the love you make"...
"Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend"...

The Troubawhores
"Baby, dance up on me"....
"I need that stuff to get me off"...
"I'm not that innocent"...

Sonart · Jun 11, 2004, 02:51 pm

Oh, and by the way, non-Christian China makes up about 20% if the earth's population while Hindhu India makes up another 15% or so, which seems to cut into your 99.9999999999999999 percentile.

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 02:53 pm

Read what I said one more time.

LogicaLunatic · Jun 11, 2004, 03:38 pm

"I'm FORCED to send my kid to the school, the community and I want to teach our kids the way we want, some moron in DC says we can't. FUCK THAT."

So, given that, any community can include public school classes promoting ANY doctrine or ANY subject so long as the community wants it.

Obviously, I'm opposed to teaching Christianity. But lets see a few more that I'm opposed to...

White Pride/Neo-Nazism
Islam
Judaism
Flat-Earth Geology
Creationism
The Earth-Centered view of the solar system.
Holocaust Denial
etc...

Do you really want each community to have the ability to teach any one of the above in a public simply because they "want" to?

And as for this country being founded on Christian beliefs and principals and this being a Christian country...

BS, please see one of MANY threads about this issue in Philo/Religion.

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 03:49 pm

It's called the 1st amendment...

LogicaLunatic · Jun 11, 2004, 04:48 pm

The first amendment says that the government should pick up the tab if a community wants to teach it's children religion?

Where do you read that in the following...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 04:55 pm

The government isn't picking up the tab. Governments don't ever pick up the tab.

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 05:00 pm

Quote:

Do you really want each community to have the ability to teach any one of the above in a public simply because they "want" to?

No, I think people should simply take dictation by the state. They should be told what to think and not ask any questions.

LogicaLunatic · Jun 11, 2004, 05:03 pm

The state government pays for the school using the taxes collected from the entire state and money given to it by the federal government.

I really don't understand why you think this is a first amendment thing. Check out the tenth.

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 05:17 pm

The LOCAL taxpayers pay for their school. They want to choose the curriculum. Having a thirty minute, NON MANDATORY, bible session does not violate anyone's civil rights. The existance of this bible study is not "an establishment of religion" but banning it IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 05:27 pm

Quote:

money given to it by the federal government

Which doesn't even belong to them, it's merely taken and redistributed to hold the schools hostage by controlling it's "funding".

dotcoma · Jun 11, 2004, 05:46 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by LogicaLunatic,
"I see this ruling as a loss for humanity... Unless we can learn to study different religions than our own without being offended, we'll never have true tolerance...

However, in a public school, all religions should be studied, not just the Judaeo-Christianic set..."

But not in Elementary school. Those children are too young and have many more important things to learn than religion. It should be an elective or optional class in high school.

Like what? Moral relativism and state worship? What? And it is optional. Read the article.

LogicaLunatic · Jun 11, 2004, 05:55 pm

The tenth amendment actually leaves this question up to the state to decide. let's take a look at TN's view on this...

FROM THE TENNESSEE STATE CONSTUTION

"That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship."

Based upon that, the decision is perfect.

Since the religion is being taught in the school it could easily be defined as a place of worship (Note a place of worship isn't defined in the constitution of TN). So the state has a choice. Either stop making people support the school via tax money or simply make sure it ISN'T a place of worship anymore. Which is what they did.

Also, the teacher of this religiously slanted class could be seen as a minister and as it says, no man can be compelled to maintain any minister without his consent. I HIGHLY doubt that every person in TN gave the state his/her consent to pay that teacher/minister to teach a religious class. So they again have the choice of witholding tax money from that school or just makre sure a teacher there can't be seen as a minister while at the school.

The actual district court that decided this doesn't seem to have the jurisdiction given the 10th amendment but remember, it wasn't brought to that court immediately. It went up through the ranks.

Jun 11, 2004, 01:50 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	nothing wrong with kids being religious - even though it's ripe with indoctrination these days. especially compared to "worshipping" britney, etc.. that is besides the point though.. it's about the constitution and separation of church and state. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 11, 2004, 01:52 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i beg to differ... i've seen much from the religious right that is completely anti-homosexual. i recall their outrage when the courts ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 11, 2004, 01:59 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	the christian right. christian coalition and the rest. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 11, 2004, 02:51 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
Sonart It's only logical Location: San Diego Posts: 4,951	Oh, and by the way, non-Christian China makes up about 20% if the earth's population while Hindhu India makes up another 15% or so, which seems to cut into your 99.9999999999999999 percentile. I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it

Jun 11, 2004, 03:38 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	"I'm FORCED to send my kid to the school, the community and I want to teach our kids the way we want, some moron in DC says we can't. FUCK THAT." So, given that, any community can include public school classes promoting ANY doctrine or ANY subject so long as the community wants it. Obviously, I'm opposed to teaching Christianity. But lets see a few more that I'm opposed to... White Pride/Neo-Nazism Islam Judaism Flat-Earth Geology Creationism The Earth-Centered view of the solar system. Holocaust Denial etc... Do you really want each community to have the ability to teach any one of the above in a public simply because they "want" to? And as for this country being founded on Christian beliefs and principals and this being a Christian country... BS, please see one of MANY threads about this issue in Philo/Religion. "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jun 11, 2004, 01:50 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	...

Jun 11, 2004, 02:53 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Read what I said one more time.

Jun 11, 2004, 03:49 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	It's called the 1st amendment...

Jun 11, 2004, 04:48 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	The first amendment says that the government should pick up the tab if a community wants to teach it's children religion? Where do you read that in the following... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jun 11, 2004, 04:55 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	The government isn't picking up the tab. Governments don't ever pick up the tab.

Jun 11, 2004, 05:03 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	The state government pays for the school using the taxes collected from the entire state and money given to it by the federal government. I really don't understand why you think this is a first amendment thing. Check out the tenth. "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jun 11, 2004, 05:17 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	The LOCAL taxpayers pay for their school. They want to choose the curriculum. Having a thirty minute, NON MANDATORY, bible session does not violate anyone's civil rights. The existance of this bible study is not "an establishment of religion" but banning it IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Jun 11, 2004, 05:55 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	The tenth amendment actually leaves this question up to the state to decide. let's take a look at TN's view on this... FROM THE TENNESSEE STATE CONSTUTION "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship." Based upon that, the decision is perfect. Since the religion is being taught in the school it could easily be defined as a place of worship (Note a place of worship isn't defined in the constitution of TN). So the state has a choice. Either stop making people support the school via tax money or simply make sure it ISN'T a place of worship anymore. Which is what they did. Also, the teacher of this religiously slanted class could be seen as a minister and as it says, no man can be compelled to maintain any minister without his consent. I HIGHLY doubt that every person in TN gave the state his/her consent to pay that teacher/minister to teach a religious class. So they again have the choice of witholding tax money from that school or just makre sure a teacher there can't be seen as a minister while at the school. The actual district court that decided this doesn't seem to have the jurisdiction given the 10th amendment but remember, it wasn't brought to that court immediately. It went up through the ranks. "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin