Separation Clause

[SkinsOrlando]

SO, you are just sort of all over the place.

Something doesnt have to be IN the constitution for the government - especially the state government - to be permitted to do something.

You may be right that there is no law which "compels" children to attend school (although I think if they arent at least home schooled some social services laws DO come into play), but you are honestly just not arguing on any solid foundation.

Remember this statement the next time you go on a constitutional binge over something.

Check California's attempt to end homeschooling, the government wants control over children, to teach the children that government is the focal point instead of the individual. It's that simple, let me break it down further. If a child goes to a Baptist school, the faith of the Baptists will be part of there curriculum, the religion per se, in governent schools its the religion of government.

[sacase]

You know I always took freedom of religion to mean that you were free to choose what faith you followed and you would not be denied happyness becaue you are a different faith than someone else. I also thought it meant that the Federal Government would not fall under rule of people such as the Pope. The seperation of church and state simply means the church shall not rule over the state. Hell, look at the decloration of independance, look at our money, God (christian version) is prevalent throughout. They never meant the absence of religeon.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Remember this statement the next time you go on a constitutional binge over something.

Check California's attempt to end homeschooling, the government wants control over children, to teach the children that government is the focal point instead of the individual. It's that simple, let me break it down further. If a child goes to a Baptist school, the faith of the Baptists will be part of there curriculum, the religion per se, in governent schools its the religion of government.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what a "constitutional binge" is. And I have no idea how you think that negates anything I've ever said about constitutional rights.

For the record, the constitution explicitly DOES STATE that the government can NOT promote religion in any way. So, while it doesnt have to say that for a constitutional law to be passed saying "the government shall not promote religion in any way," it already does.

[Larry]

Something doesnt have to be IN the constitution for the government - especially the state government - to be permitted to do something.

Um, Tulane was posting in response to your demand that I specify which part of the Constitution allows states to pass truancy laws.

You're pointing out exactly what Tulane was pointing out.

[headexplode]

Check California's attempt to end homeschooling, the government wants control over children, to teach the children that government is the focal point instead of the individual. It's that simple, let me break it down further. If a child goes to a Baptist school, the faith of the Baptists will be part of there curriculum, the religion per se, in governent schools its the religion of government.

Certainly, the State has its own motivation for educating children the way it does, but it is not, as far as I can tell, just to teach that "government is the focal point instead of the individual." I think public schools do try to homogenize students, and teach them subservience to the "order of things," but the scope of that indoctrination extends far beyond worship of government. Most public schools' mission statements state that their goal is to teach students to become "productive members of society," to obey authority, to follow the rules, etc. But that authority is not always in the form of a government entity. Many times it is in the form of a private manager or supervisor, or CEO, etc. Surley, the desire is that students learn their place, and that hopefully when they grow into adults they will remember that place. Remember that in this country, government and private interests often go hand in hand.

[PokerPacker]

But the establishment clause refers to congress. This guy isn't congress. And the Government he does work for is a state Government, not the FED, which is who the establishment clause is directed at. So where am I going wrong here?

so you're arguing that the power to dictate religion is reserved to the states?

[Larry]

Certainly, the State has its own motivation for educating children the way it does, but it is not, as far as I can tell, just to teach that "government is the focal point instead of the individual." I think public schools do try to homogenize students, and teach them subservience to the "order of things," but the scope of that indoctrination extends far beyond worship of government. Most public schools' mission statements state that their goal is to teach students to become "productive members of society," to obey authority, to follow the rules, etc. But that authority is not always in the form of a government entity. Many times it is in the form of a private manager or supervisor, or CEO, etc. Surley, the desire is that students learn their place, and that hopefully when they grow into adults they will remember that place. Remember that in this country, government and private interests often go hand in hand.

I understand that the US school copied the idea of having classes start and stop at scheduled times of the day, regulated by bells signifying when it's time to do something, from the Germans. Who developed the system for the purpose of turning children into Good Factory Workers.

[33]

It seems to me the teacher put the bible on his desk because he wasn't allowed to hang the mural that included the 10 Commandments.

Fire him.

Not because he has a bible on his desk, but because he is trying to skirt around authority. He's a teacher for crying-out-loud. He should be concerned with teaching kids inside the classroom, rather than having a political or religious message.

He's welcome to take a pay cut and teach at a Christian private school if he would like.

[PokerPacker]

That's not true.

Wage Grade employees of the Federal Government do have a union, though it is not mandatory for employees to join. Many government employees are in sanctioned unions, as many teachers are, and it is well within their rights.

I, as a Federal employee, am working under a personnel demonstration project, and we do not have a union.

Of course, there are some in government who would like to see all unions eradicated, but as of yet, that has not happened.

I heard that the teacher's union is mandatory. I remember something about how the union donates to the democratic party so basically teachers are forced, through proxy, to support the democrats. at least i think i remember that.

[PokerPacker]

Does the reverse also trouble you?

The folks who ignore the "militia" phrase, but who'll argue things like:

• It says "Congress", so that means Executive Orders are OK.
  
• It says they can't create a state religion. It doesn't say they can't mandate a state prayer.
  
• It prohibits a state religion. But Christianity has more than one branch, so the government can endorse Christianity, as long as they don't specify Baptist or Catholic.
  

I don't "ignore" the militia phrase, but i do take it in proper context () and I do not agree with the rest of the list either.

[headexplode]

I understand that the US school copied the idea of having classes start and stop at scheduled times of the day, regulated by bells signifying when it's time to do something, from the Germans. Who developed the system for the purpose of turning children into Good Factory Workers.

I always thought it came from the Puritans and their Protestant work ethic.

[PokerPacker]

SO, you are just sort of all over the place.

Something doesnt have to be IN the constitution for the government - especially the state government - to be permitted to do something.

You may be right that there is no law which "compels" children to attend school (although I think if they arent at least home schooled some social services laws DO come into play), but you are honestly just not arguing on any solid foundation.

there are laws that compel children to attend school. i don't know them off hand, but i do know that the states were delegated the responsibility of education and that how they deal with it is not in the constitution.

[headexplode]

I heard that the teacher's union is mandatory. I remember something about how the union donates to the democratic party so basically teachers are forced, through proxy, to support the democrats. at least i think i remember that.

Could be. I'm not sure what the rules are for unions of government employees advocating political causes. That seems ethically suspect to me.

[PokerPacker]

Could be. I'm not sure what the rules are for unions of government employees advocating political causes. That seems ethically suspect to me.

yeah, i could never understand how you could be FORCED to join a union and pay union fees when the union turns around and uses those fees to support a political party.

[Larry]

I don't "ignore" the militia phrase, but i do take it in proper context () and I do not agree with the rest of the list either.

1) I wasn't saying that you did. But you and I both know that there are many who do.

2) Actually, I guess that I'm one of the ones who ignore the "militia" clause.

IMO, there's only two ways to deal with that clause:

Either that clause is the only Constitutional Amendment that has an expiration clause built into it. (A clause which has triggered.) And that the Second really means that the people may keep arms until such a time as the nation is able to defend itself without turning out a civilian militia.

Or it's empty verbiage, put there simply as a means of justifying why the People are being granted a right.

Me, personally? I believe (with, I'd admit, very little evidence to support my opinion) that the Framers fully intended the RTKBA to be a permanent right, of similar stature to freedoms of speech, religion, and so forth. I don't think that a single one of them ever envisioned the US becoming a global superpower with the largest standing army in the world. (Or any standing army at all.)

And the only way I can reconcile my belief, with the clear wording of the amendment, is to ignore the first half, and say "they didn't really mean that."

[Larry]

yeah, i could never understand how you could be FORCED to join a union and pay union fees when the union turns around and uses those fees to support a political party.

Well, you can't (technically) be forced to join a union.

But there are workplaces where the employer's contract with the Union specifies that the employer will not hire any one who isn't in the Union. Net result: Join the Union or you're fired.

(I worked for one. A grocery store, in the Chicago area.)

OTOH, I think there are a lot of people who seem to have a great deal of outrage over unions giving money to Democrats, but they don't have a problem with corporations giving money to Republicans. There seem to be a lot of people who's outrage depends on which political party is benefiting, rather than on whether the people who's money is being given away unanimously support the donation.

[twa]

So the Libs are into banning books now?...it IS considered quite a work of literature :laugh:

I agree with Mass that they are going too far.

When are we going to remove the bibles from our libraries,congress,Scotus?

Or do they have different rights and this is different because it is on a desk vs a bookshelf?

[techboy]

I heard that the teacher's union is mandatory.

Not in Virginia, though it is in California. It varies from state to state.

[Larry]

So the Libs are into banning books now?...it IS considered quite a work of literature

There's a rumor that one of the minor characters is gay.

[Larry]

OK, maybe there's some differences of perception (opinion? maybe even prejudice?) here.

I'll freely admit that perhaps the basis for why I feel the way I do about things like this, is because of my assumption that there's no possible reason for why a person in a position of government authority would want to display symbols of their religious preference at their place of work, to display those symbols to the people that they have authority over, for any possible reason other than intimidation.

I know, it's an assumption. But no other possible explanation that I can think of passes my personal "smell test".

Show me somebody who claims that he's been abducted by space aliens, and I'll believe that it's at least possible that this person is a loony who honestly believes what he's saying.

But show me a school teacher who keeps a bible on his desk, and who claims that it's there because he thinks it's great literature? I won't believe him. His statement is so far-out inconceivable (You keep using that word.) that I don't think it's possible for a single person, anywhere in the world, to honestly believe it.

Show me a judge, or a teacher, or a government official, who posts the Ten Commandments in his place of work, facing his "customers", and I'll show you someone who's purpose is to use whatever authority he's been given to force his religion onto others.

And show me someone who claims that his reason is because of his respect for our Judeo-Christian heritage, or because he thinks they're great literature, or that he only put them there for his own personal use? And I'll show you a liar who's purpose is to use whatever authority he's been given to force his religion onto others.

I know this is going to sound like I'm calling a bunch of people bad names. That's not my intent. What I'm saying is that the position that a lot of you folks are trying to advocate is, to me, unbelievable that merely attempting to advocate that position forces me to conclude that you're lying.

My belief feels rational to me. I've honestly examined other positions. They just don't stand up, to me.

And I'm perfectly aware that "I can't think of another reason for someone to do that" doesn't mean that there isn't a reason for someone to do that. I'm still open for people to give me a reason for people to do these things other than the one that I see.

But I haven't heard anybody come up with a single reason, that I haven't examined, a decade ago, and it didn't stand up.

This doesn't sit well with me. I try to take pride in my ability to examine an argument rationally and logically. But when I see people in this debate, I don't see logic and rationality. I see people frantically searching for a lie that people can't prove is a lie.

(I'm going to have to quit now. Before I become even more irrational and babbling.)

[twa]

Damn but you ramble on Larry :laugh:

What difference does it make if the teacher considers it literature or God's word if it is for his personal use and not instruction?

How does it differ from wearing a cross or other religious article?

Quote

Show me a judge, or a teacher, or a government official, who posts the Ten Commandments in his place of work, facing his "customers", and I'll show you someone who's purpose is to use whatever authority he's been given to force his religion onto others.

Aren't they posted in the Supreme court,or at least depicted on the wall and door?

Is the mere 'presence' of a personal bible somehow worse?

[sacase]

1) I wasn't saying that you did. But you and I both know that there are many who do.

2) Actually, I guess that I'm one of the ones who ignore the "militia" clause.

IMO, there's only two ways to deal with that clause:

Either that clause is the only Constitutional Amendment that has an expiration clause built into it. (A clause which has triggered.) And that the Second really means that the people may keep arms until such a time as the nation is able to defend itself without turning out a civilian militia.

Or it's empty verbiage, put there simply as a means of justifying why the People are being granted a right.

Me, personally? I believe (with, I'd admit, very little evidence to support my opinion) that the Framers fully intended the RTKBA to be a permanent right, of similar stature to freedoms of speech, religion, and so forth. I don't think that a single one of them ever envisioned the US becoming a global superpower with the largest standing army in the world. (Or any standing army at all.)

And the only way I can reconcile my belief, with the clear wording of the amendment, is to ignore the first half, and say "they didn't really mean that."

We are don't have the largets standing Army....we have about 470k.....China has about 1.6 million....we rank 6th in the world. What is funny is China has about 4 times the mumber of people we have and we spend about 4 times the amount china does. We spend about 470 Billion on out military per year...not counting Iraq/Afghanistan....you can add about another 200 billion to that figure.

[PokerPacker]

1) I wasn't saying that you did. But you and I both know that there are many who do.

2) Actually, I guess that I'm one of the ones who ignore the "militia" clause.

IMO, there's only two ways to deal with that clause:

Either that clause is the only Constitutional Amendment that has an expiration clause built into it. (A clause which has triggered.) And that the Second really means that the people may keep arms until such a time as the nation is able to defend itself without turning out a civilian militia.

Or it's empty verbiage, put there simply as a means of justifying why the People are being granted a right.

Me, personally? I believe (with, I'd admit, very little evidence to support my opinion) that the Framers fully intended the RTKBA to be a permanent right, of similar stature to freedoms of speech, religion, and so forth. I don't think that a single one of them ever envisioned the US becoming a global superpower with the largest standing army in the world. (Or any standing army at all.)

And the only way I can reconcile my belief, with the clear wording of the amendment, is to ignore the first half, and say "they didn't really mean that."

well, in terms of cons v. libs, yeah, most of them contradict themselves going from one issue to the next. libertarians v. authoritarians gives you a more consistent platform. most people subscribe to being a dem or rep, so most people contradict themselves from issue to issue.

[Midnight Judges]

so you're arguing that the power to dictate religion is reserved to the states?

Yeah, I guess that would be one implication of what I was saying. I was wrong.

[Midnight Judges]

well, in terms of cons v. libs, yeah, most of them contradict themselves going from one issue to the next. libertarians v. authoritarians gives you a more consistent platform. most people subscribe to being a dem or rep, so most people contradict themselves from issue to issue.

For a lot of people, when they refer to themselves as Dem or Republican are really just rounding themselves off. Don't necessarily agree with the party on everything.