Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric:

The hypocrisy of these schools is stunning. They want to present a historical viewpoint of things, but only by eliminating that portion of the history they don’t want to discuss.

Any history of the Pilgrims’ voyage to America and their subsequent Thanksgivings without mention of their faith is simply incomplete.

There is an important concept here that many are missing. While separation of church and state is important in the governing of our country, the mere mention of religion is not included in that statement.

Stating the existence of religion does not mean one supports it. Condoning another’s belief in a religion does not show support for that religion.

For example, if a valedictorian chooses to thank God, Yahweh, Buddha, Hanuman, Mohammed, or Jesus, it does not mean that the school officially endorses the religion. It is the valedictorian whose belief has been stated.

Just as television and radio stations condone the opinions of their hosts, while not ENDORSING those opinions, so too can schools condone opinions.

It is amazing that those in favor of freedom of speech dont see this issue. I fear they are blinded by their fear of religion of any kind, and it is simply appalling.

Oh, please. Every schoolkid knows the Pilgrims were religious wackos that got chased out of Britain. :)

BTW, from reading that Reuters article, it sounds like the teacher had gotten in trouble previously for evangelizing in the classroom.

The beautiful thing about America is that if you want a religious education, or want to teach religion, you can do so at one of our many fine private schools. You can even home-school, if you prefer.

BTW, from reading that Reuters article, it sounds like the teacher had gotten in trouble previously for evangelizing in the classroom.

My thoughts exactly.

Very good point there AP, about the alternative of choosing religious education and home schooling.

I had the TV on in the other room the other day, and I walked in just in time to hear Pat Buchanan lamenting how the FCC fines for indecency were pocket change to these pagan TV execs. Then, I heard the words ‘boycott’, ‘Kmart’ and ‘Wal-Mart’, and yet another good point from one of Buchanan’s guest.

If America is so concerned about ‘moral values’, where is the boycott of ‘Desperate Housewives’ sponsors? Where is the boycott of the NBA’s lucrative alcohol beverage sponsors, until the league gets it’s act together? Where is the pressure on Kmart and Wal-Mart to halt the sales of ‘Grand Theft Auto’?

Is it a genuine concern for the moral decay of the country, or really an effort to impose your morality (or religion) on society?

Bert and AP:

You miss the entire point. How about, Bert, if I suggest that you can only TALK about homosexuality in your home, but not in public. Would you accept that? Of course not.

To discuss religion in schools is NOT the same as supporting religion. There is much historical fact to discuss. For instance, just try to discuss the Crusades without discussing religion…this would be the same as discussing Thanksgiving without religion.

The point is that whether you believe in a specific religion or not, religion itself has played a huge role in our lives and in history.

People simply must understand that this is NOT a separation of church and state issue. Its a freedom of speech issue.

How does the mention of religion in a historical context in school hurt anyone? It violates no laws, nor does it abridge the Constitutional Amendments. The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It specifically does NOT say that religion cannot be discussed.

In what way is a law respecting an establishment of religion being made by the simple mention of religion in a school setting?

I wonder where the truly tolerant people are. From the comments made above, its clear that Bert and AP are not among them, since they dont want free speech. Absolutely amazingly hypocritical, based on their stances on other issues.

Every time there is a debate on religion and government here at Watchblog I start to gather my words and dive in. But I will never be able to express my point better than Ronald Reagan did in 1984.

Please read this speech. If you do not agree with it that’s fine, but at least you will understand where many conservative Christians are coming from.

On this Thanksgiving I too give thanks for my family, my children, my friends, and all the blessings that have been bestowed upon me. But I also give thanks for the life of the late Ronald Reagan and its impact on our country.

We should be careful not to start debating whether religion is good or not. The question in the schools is different and more mendacious.

People need some understanding of history to understand how and why their society works and to understand history they have to have some appreciation for the motives involved in decisions. Religion, throughout American history and still today is a major factor in people’s motivation. America’s relationship to religion is very interesting and almost unique in history. Religion has most often been imposed by elites on the governed. In America it went the other direction (and still does, something currently annoying U.S. elites.) The particular types of religion in early America set the pattern for American culture today so that even those of us who are not descended from English protestants – the majority of Americans – can trace our perceptions of a citizen’s relationship with government to the ideas they worked out. I say, “worked out” because it was done through discussion, compromise and experimentation. Does that remind you of another system?

We generally attribute the idea of democracy to the ancient Athenians and the framers of our constitution studied ancient models, but they interpreted it thought their cultural practices, which were shaped by their religion. That is probably a reason that the American experiment has endured more than two centuries while democracy never survived much more than a generation or two in its original forms.

My point is not to praise religion or blame it. The point is that it is not possible to understand American history without extensive reference to religion. If we don’t teach the kids about it, they won’t understand their own history and culture.

AP

Today’s students don’t know about the Pilgrims religious convictions unless someone outside school has told them or they misinterpret it the way you joked. It is not funny if they believe that whether through ignorance or malice, they are deprived of the possibility of understanding their history.

I wanted to comment about this item . There are people who do not agree on things and try to impose their views on the rest of the American people . I hear people talking about their rights . I hear them mention rights to marry the same sex , rights to their freedoms . Yet , if someone holds a different view than they do it is considered a right wing conspiracy and bigoted . We have rights in this country like everyone else and a right to our views and speech for that matter . If people can share their views on things like stated , then we have the right under the constitution to state ours . People are never going to agree on things and you just plain can not please everyone . Just because someone does not beleive in something does not mean it is hate towards anyone . It is just someone not agreeing and needs to be seen as someone sharing their views , and not hate . I think people sometimes need to look at it as views and not an attack or hatted towards people . If everyone agreed on something where would we be , we would be robots . Most people just want to share views and not hate . I hate no one . Just because someone does nto agree does not make them a bad person .

As long as that fellow was not trying to posit America as being a purely Christian country in it’s founding (which it was not) I have no problem with any of that. I do have a serious problem with censoring the religious nature of the pilgrims. It’s a lie by omission to leave that out and I whole heartedly agree. The Separation of Church and state should be a truce, not a gag order, an agreement not to proselytise from public office, not the removal from public office of the wisdom of our diverse religions. If you think all Democrats and Liberals are like this, you are fortunately mistaken. I think the essence of religious freedom and the overriding reason for the separation of church and state is to avoid the kind of destructive prejudice that a dominant, government sponsored religion can create.

As a recently confirmed Catholic, a person who chose to go back to the church of my Birth, I know the joy of that freedom, having been at turns an atheist, an agnostic, and today a full Catholic. Now I know that some liberals out on the fringe fear and hate religion, but by and large, we are only advocates of secularism in government, not in private life, not in revision of our nations history

I hope those people see the error of their ways.

Stephen:

Very well spoken. I do think it is the fringe people on the left who are either afraid of religion or simply hate it. These are the people who seem repulsed by the mere mention of God for some reason. While of course it is true that many bad things have been done in God’s name, it is also true that many good things have been done in God’s name. Same goes for Buddha or Mohammed.

Teaching our children in public schools that God is the only thing would not be good. Neither is leaving God completely out of the picture. An even handed tolerant viewpoint is what is called for, and all of us should urge those on the far fringes to quiet down.

I would hope that religion would be mentioned in such studies. It is important for the historic context of many events, and knowing that context helps people to understand current religious influence on politics. Removing references to it serves no one. However, I would also hope that it goes beyond merely the positive aspects of the religion of that era (such as Thanksgiving) and also mentions the more negative examples like enforced sunday-service attendance with death penalties for those who did not attend.

The first Sunday law in America was the Virginia Sunday law of 1610, which read: “Every man and woman shall repair [go habitually] in the morning to the divine service and sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to divine service, and catechizing [teaching the principles of Christian dogma and ethics], upon pain for the first fault to lose their provision and the allowance for the whole week following; for the second, to lose the said allowance and also be whipt; and for the third to suffer death.” G. Edward Reid, Sunday’s Coming, 77.
-Religious Persecution in America

I mention this because those who are calling for schools to teach the historic context of the pilgrims belief with regard to Thanksgiving seem to have little problem with this set of facts being omitted from the lessons, presumably because it casts the religious beliefs of the era in a more negative light.

I would hope a good curriculum would show both of these manifestations of faith, and would also show both the movements that ended religious laws in that era, and the thoughts of our founding fathers on such religious intolerance when we became a nation. If religion is going to be mentioned in schools, it should be done with full historic context, not selectively to favor either side.

One other thought:

In the case of the California School, we have only the word of the teacher affected that these documents have been censored for religious reasons, or that the Declaration of Independence was excluded for religious reasons.

I note that the teacher affected is a fifth grade teacher. And thinking back, I do not remember being taught directly from the declaration of independence until at least 7th grade. The language of the document, and its legal style, are rather complicated for fifth graders. The other documents (Washington’s journal, John Adam’s diary, Samuel Adams’ “The Rights of the Colonists,” and William Penn’s “The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania” are similarly advanced. And conspicuously absent from the article is any statement by the principle concerning why the teacher was denied the use of these documents in his lesson plans.

I agree that teaching religion is a part of history and is completely different than preaching it. No teacher should be preaching a religion in any public school.
Just the same, no teacher(professor) should be teaching history from his/her own viewpoint.
Seems some college professors are crossing many lines these days.

We learn from history. What ever happened to not wanting to repeat or make the same mistake over and over again?
How can anyone really learn history if someone picks and chooses what should be in the lesson to benefit their own point of view?
If their was a war we should learn about BOTH sides. The way it was viewed from them, not how someone wants to interpret it today.

Funny how people get mad if a document is released from the White House that has parts of it blacked out, but if we black out God from the history of our founding fathers people should accept that it is part of the separation of church and state.
No more book burning … just black out a few sentences here and there and pretend it never happened or wasn’t written.
This will make us a much better country.

There are a lot of misconceptions about this topic. I’ve been an accredited Social Studies and English teacher in three states, and keep seeing peculiar notions perpetuated about classrooms, and the separation of church & state.

I’d like to chip in on the articles; it should be obvious to everyone that there’s more to those stories. I suspect AP was right with an educated guess, and that one instructor was evangelizing.

Did you know students may pray in school? Good.

Did you know a teacher may not lead a classroom in prayer? Good.

Did you know a teacher may discuss the Bible, and even quote from it? Good.

Did you know a teacher may quote the Bible when using it as cultural or historical background? But that doing so in order to advocate its point of view as a religious truth is out of bounds?

Well, it’s time to carve the turkey, so I’ll have to close this out.

Wishing you & yours a Happy Thanksgiving,
Don

I think both sides have to understand that the principle cuts both ways: We have to admit that there was a great deal of enlightenment thought put into the founding of America, along with a great deal of Evangelical and Christian thought. And since then, that thought hasn’t always gone in expected direction. Christian revival during the twenties and thirties wasn’t conservative as it is now but in fact progressive and even liberal.

I think Religious conservatives need to recognize that they can push only so far before they endanger the freedoms they cherish so much. The moment they solidify political control of the country is the moment a counterculture to their can use the law to restrict religious worship and expression. Control of religion in government hands means control of religion in the hands of those who can get control of the government.

I’d say the Religious right has it in its self interest not to let religion have too powerful a hand or an entanglement with government. They embrace it too much, they may end up getting strangled by it.

I am a school board member of 9 years, and a conservative christian and republican. Here is my take.

Most of the story you cannot see because personel records are confidential. The attorney for the District is telling his client to keep their mouth shut, in order not to say something that will harm them in court. On the other hand the teacher is telling everyone that will hear, their side of things.

These things are all in the delivery. Teachers are hired to teach curriculum that has been approved by the school board for the purpose of achieving learning goals. If the teacher is using these documents to promote a private agenda, EVEN IF I AGREE WITH THAT AGENDA, I would do exactly what this district is doing.

Teachers are not hired to teach a private agenda. Obviously there is room for a teacher to be human, but their are limits. My guess, and of course it is only a guess, (but based on nine years of experience), is that this teacher was using these documents to teach subject matter that was not targeted to learning objectives. Since the teacher is from my own value system, I would say that they were doing the right thing in the wrong way. If they did not stop, I would vote to terminate.

There are many examples of this principle with other situations. Take for instance a gay teacher. Where a teacher is gay or not, is really irrelevant. (Just as if a teacher is a christian or not). However, if a gay teacher took license to promote a gay agenda in a classroom setting THAT WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD, I could vote to terminate them as well.

It is not about the righteousness of issue. It is not about being a liberal issue of a conservative issue. It is all about promoting personal or private agendas on the publics dime.

Since only one side of the story is currently being told to the press, I would hold back on an firm opinion, but remain skeptical of the teacher’s position.

Craig

One further thing that I just learned, to address the Thanksgiving portion of this discussion:

MYTH: The first Thanksgiving was in 1621 and the pilgrims celebrated it every year thereafter.

FACT: The first feast wasn’t repeated, so it wasn’t the beginning of a tradition. In fact, the colonists didn’t even call the day Thanksgiving. To them, a thanksgiving was a religious holiday in which they would go to church and thank God for a specific event, such as the winning of a battle. On such a religious day, the types of recreational activities that the pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians participated in during the 1621 harvest feast—dancing, singing secular songs, playing games—wouldn’t have been allowed. The feast was a secular celebration, so it never would have been considered a thanksgiving in the pilgrims minds.
-The History Channel

Washington might have designated it a day to thank God, but the schools are right to say that the pilgrim feast that it is based upon was secular in nature. And since the “first thanksgiving” is all we’re really taught about the day in schools, not about Washington’s proclamation, suggesting that they need to add more religion to the story of Thanksgiving is really just pursuing a partisan religious agenda.

To all discussing religion in schools. Folks - there are in fact two issues in play as we speak in Texas. First is the issue of incorporating religious foundations in the founding of our country. The second is the establishment of religion (voluntary for the time being) in the public schools via Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA).

Our country’s history cannot accurately be taught without discusssing various religious influences upon it from the the Puritans in the 1600’s to the atheists in the 1910’s and 20’s, to the Buddhists and Hindu’s in the 1960’s.

My 13 year old daughter was informed in her history class of the FCA to be conducted between 7:45 to 8:15 AM on Friday mornings in the gymnasium of her school where her history teacher offers students free orange juice and donuts to students along with games and then prayer. The FCA is conducted by this history teacher, a lady from the office of the school, and a 3rd gentleman who has no other role at the school.

My daughter began participating in the FCA on Fri. mornings, and her mother and I only became aware of it when we inquired why she was not eating breakfast on Friday mornings. When she told us what was up, we informed her the FCA was a violation of our Constitution. It was an attempt by members of a religion to establish religious services within a government run institution and whose design was to influence young people without their parents participation. We pointed out to our daughter that the free games, orange juice and donuts were being used as bribes or inducements to encourage students to attend religious ceremony they might not otherwise attend. We also explained to her, that religious activity in school at the very least should require parental notification and approval before students should be allowed to participate and that the FCA was usurping parental choice by the manner in which the FCA was structured.

Our daughter did not come around right away, but, after a few weeks of discussion about it, I am proud to say, our daughter quit attending the FCA and realizes that how offended parents would be if the exact same activitity was established by atheists or Muslims in the school.

So, there are two issues here, one is the attempt by Christian organizations to establish relgion withing public schools and the other is to teach the importance religion played in the founding and shaping of our nation. The former I reject utterly, the latter I accept wholeheartedly.

It is important that folks recognize the difference.

Jarin,

“Washington might have designated it a day to thank God, but the schools are right to say that the pilgrim feast that it is based upon was secular in nature. And since the “first thanksgiving” is all we’re really taught about the day in schools, not about Washington’s proclamation, suggesting that they need to add more religion to the story of Thanksgiving is really just pursuing a partisan religious agenda.”

It is my understanding, from what I’ve been taught and what I’ve read, that the first Thanksgiving was an event for the purpose for giving thanks to God, hence the name. The pilgrims were a very religious people. AP called them “religious wackos” and, while I don’t care for the connotation, it’s true by today’s standards.

So how is it right to teach that the first thanksgiving was “secular in nature?”
You said earlier:
“I would hope that religion would be mentioned in such studies. It is important for the historic context of many events, and knowing that context helps people to understand current religious influence on politics. Removing references to it serves no one.”
Have you changed your position?
Or are you telling us that the Pilgrims had a big feast just for the hell of it and it had nothing to do with thanking God?

Teaching that the Pilgrims gave thanks to God is not adding more religion to the story.
Washington’s proclamation may build upon what the Pilgrims did, but it did not add a religious connotation, since it was there in the first place.

Traveller:

It is my understanding, from what I’ve been taught and what I’ve read, that the first Thanksgiving was an event for the purpose for giving thanks to God, hence the name. The pilgrims were a very religious people. AP called them “religious wackos” and, while I don’t care for the connotation, it’s true by today’s standards.

So how is it right to teach that the first thanksgiving was “secular in nature?”

Evidently, you chose not to read the quote from the history channel that was included with this comment. It states, quite specifically, that the religious beliefs of the pilgrims would not have allowed the secular recreations known to have taken place at the 1621 harvest feast on a religious day of thanksgiving. A religious day of thanksgiving would be treated by the pilgrims more like a sabbath, with the time spent in public religious service. Not in feasts, dancing, games, and other secular entertainment associated with the harvest feast of 1621.

Have you changed your position? Or are you telling us that the Pilgrims had a big feast just for the hell of it and it had nothing to do with thanking God?

I have not changed my position, merely refined it now that I have learned more about the history of thanksgiving. We should certainly mention the religion of the pilgrims in studies of the pilgrims. But we should do so accurately. The pilgrims did not sing secular songs, dance, and feast on their religious holidays. They spent such religious days of thanksgiving in church. But they did sing and dance and feast during the 1621 harvest festival, the story of which has become known as the story of the first thanksgiving. Therefor, the modern holiday of thanksgiving is based on a secular celebration by the pilgrims. This does not mean that the pilgrims were not a very pious people, but we should not alter historic accounts of a secular celebration merely to illustrate that pious nature.

Teaching that the Pilgrims gave thanks to God is not adding more religion to the story. Washington’s proclamation may build upon what the Pilgrims did, but it did not add a religious connotation, since it was there in the first place.

I’m sorry, but no it was not. That is a myth. Please review the History channel quote for clarification on this. It may seem reasonable for us to suppose that on a festival that has come to be named thanksgiving they were thanking God, but please remember it did not have that name originally. To the pilgrims themselves, it was simply a harvest feast.

One of the things that should make it most obvious that the “first thanksgiving”, the harvest festival of 1621, was a secular holiday (other than the secular activities which took place and the lack of public religious service) is that it was an event shared equally with the Wampanoag Indians. These indians had their own spiritual beliefs, and the festival itself has more in common with their religious practices than with the religious practices of the puritans. Their beliefs involve six feasts of thanksgiving throughout the year, and the one they celebrated with the pilgrims in 1621 that became known as the “first thanksgiving” was the fifth such feast they had that year.

A religious day of thanksgiving on November 29th would not be seen for a further two years, when a drought caused many crops to die in the fields. Governor Bradford ordered a day of fasting and prayer, and it was soon thereafter that the rain came. To celebrate - November 29th of that year was proclaimed a day of thanksgiving. This date is believed to be the real true beginning of the present day Thanksgiving Day.

If you want to tell a thanksgiving story that promotes thanking god, that’d be the one to tell, not the story of the first harvest feast.

David:

FCA is a great organizaton, but I’d agree that there should have been parental notification about it. I find it amazing that parents are not notified of such things that involve our children. I’m always surprised by those who stand up for parents being notified about class trips etc while they support parents NOT being notified for trivial things like abortions. Parents deserve the right to be informed about their kids’ lives, and even with the best parents, things can be kept under the radar, but shouldnt be.

I’d hope you presented FCA to your daughter in a bit more of an even handed light than your statement implied. (We pointed out to our daughter that the free games, orange juice and donuts were being used as bribes or inducements to encourage students to attend religious ceremony they might not otherwise attend.)

If this is the manner that you presented FCA, then its not surprising that she turned away from it. Most kids would.

I’ve been involved in FCA in college and an organization called YoungLife for high school kids. Both encourage kids to have fun, and that boring a kid with religion is a “sin”. The fun isnt a “bribe” for the kids anymore than a teacher bribes students by arranging a field trip or the like. Its a way for the kids to have fun AND learn new things.

Face it, if religion is taught in a boring pedantic way, kids will think of it as boring and pedantic. It doesnt have to be that way, whether it is Christianity, Buddhism or whatever.

While you as parents should have been notified about the FCA group, it also sounds as if it was done PRIOR to the regular school day. If so, its perfectly acceptable to use public buildings for such purposes. If it were done as part of the school day, then it would not be acceptable.

I have a problem with most of this. I think that the meaning of the constitution should be read with a dictionary next to you that defines the words as they were defined when the constitution was written in order to get the real intent of the writers.

With today’s dictionary words have so many meanings it makes it easy to pick the one you want in order to twist the original meaning to what your bias wants it to be. There are many times that the constitution has been manipulated in order to get the bias decisions that we now live with and this is just one of them.

There is nowhere in the constitution that states separation of church and state. It says that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” so there for the constitution says that the government can not impose a religion on the people by making a law that states you must be Catholic, Baptist or some other religion. This would be the part that the Liberals are distorting into separation of church and state.

It also says that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. This is where the ACLU and the liberals are going to far and the silent majority is letting them out and out violating this part of the constitution.

Now that being said I do not favor religion being imposed on some one against there will. I do fill if I want to speak out about my religion in any format I am allowed to and this right is given to me by the first amendment just as you are allowed to walk away, change the channel or not read this posting.

To try and re-write the history book, band any reference to God from school, and changing the history of the founding fathers of this country is wrong. It is equally wrong to have an assembly at school and not let the parents know prior to and get their permission for their child to attend if it is a religious-based assembly

Secular fundamentalism really reaches with this case. The founders were religious or deferential to religion but also believers in non-coercion on such matters (although states were allowed to establish religion).

Many religious people get upset at the formulation of “separation of church and state”, Jefferson’s extrapolation. Why? It is perfectly unobjectionable that churches do not run the state and the state does not run the churches.

Objecting to that phrase is what makes pro-accomodationists — those who want the government to accomdate religion, like me — look silly.

The uniqueness of American (and English) history was that it managed to cultivate religious freedom and sincerely pious communities together. Neither side should blow it. For Christians the Gospel is strengthend by guaranteeing and protecting its overtness and dissemination to all. For nonbelievers or believers of other faiths, they can refuse it and challenge it openly.

Even in my most secular doubting moments I never “got” the anti-religious sentiments that animate alot of secularists.

jbod, FCA may be a great organization, but, they are using underhanded marketing and advertising techniques to recruit participants from a captive youth audience which arrives by bus for school.

Second, if they want to use the school for religious purposes, they should be paying the tax payers a lease fee for the use of the school facilities just like any private organization would to conduct activities outside regular school hours.

Third, during the school day, meaning from the time the first bus arrives with students for the purpose of attending school, till the last bus leaves to return students home from school, the school itself should not be used as a marketing vehicle to the students by private organizations.

If students wish to remain after school for FCA activities after the buses have left to return students home, I have no problem, provided parental notification and approval is obtained first. Or if parents wish to drop their students off at the school early for prayer meetings conducted by a private organization, I have no problem with that either.

But for buses to arrive at the school with hundreds of students 45 minutes to one hour before the start of the school day, and then give them the choice of going to the lunch room to hang out, buy breakfast, do homework, OR go to the gymnasium where they can get donuts and sodas and juice for breakfast for free plus engage in fun games and prayer directed by a private organization, the choice amounts to targeted marketing of taxpayer’s students by a private organization and I am 100% opposed to any organization which would take advantage of parents, students, and taxpayers in such a manner. Regardless of whether that organization is a fundamentalist Islamic organization wanting to engage in the exact same exploitation of our students or a Christian organization. It is exploitation of youth at tax payer expense by a private organization - and THAT IS WRONG!

FCA is in violation of all of these ethical precepts which I as a tax paying parent believe should be observed, and I am not alone.

Matt Hogan, revoke the tax subsidy to relgious organizations and grant them the same opportunities and protections under the law as any other private organization. The solution for both sides is really that simple.

Darrell said: There is nowhere in the constitution that states separation of church and state. It says that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Nowhere in the original Constitution does it say that religious organizations should receive special treatment by government such as tax subsidies not afforded any other private organization. Nor does it grant legal and unfettered access to public schools to religious organizations. But this happening anyway.

The only resolution is to revoke special tax treatment of religious organizations and grant them the same opportunities and freedoms of any other private organization.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the federal government can impose an Income tax on the people. It says the U.S. government my collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; No were does it say any thing about taxing individuals or religious organizations, but it does say not to tax the Indians though.

Although this is getting off the subject, which is really separation of church and state, I enjoy it when the constitution is used to verify a wrong that has been done in the name of the constitution such as separation of church and state. People like David try other ways to justify there bias such as revoke special tax treatment. What about the special tax status that organizations like PETA and the ACLU and other charities receive should they is revoked also.

Religious entities should have the same tax status (and requirements thereto) as other non-profits. It’s that simple.

And again what’s wrong with “separation of church and state”? There’s no contradiction between that and the free exercise of religion, including a generous accomodation of it.

David:

I’ll submit that its no longer a question of why your daughter made the decision to not attend FCA. As you say, “she did not come around right away”, but I now have a better understanding of how you convinced her to come around eventually. I’d bet most kids would come to the same conclusion given the information you gave her.

David, public schools are just that….PUBLIC. They are to be used by the public. They are used for book clubs, athletic groups, meetings, language clubs, craft organizations etc. They are used because they have facilities that the public has paid for. Some of these groups are made up of students and others are not.

Suppose a school offered not an officially sponsored school activity, but rather an informal club activity….say gymnastics. The club was formed by interested parents teenagers, but not necessarily affiliated or sponsored by the school. They hold it in the mornings or after school, and take advantage of the transportation provided by the school. Oh yes, and they provide drinks and snacks as well.

Would this be some heinous underhanded attempt to market illicit gymnastics to students?

Would it be the “exploitation of youth at tax payer expense by a private organization”?

You are overreacting because you dont like the choice that is allowed. Because you dont like the choice offered, you want the choice DISallowed, so that no one can make the free choice to attend or not attend FCA. If that doesnt fly in the face of tolerance, then I’m not sure what does.

It is simply amazing to me that people who claim tolerance are so intolerant of those things they disagree with.

jbod, the law says my child must attend school. We cannot afford to send our child to private school which is also true of most families in America.

You seem to be suggesting that I must give up parental rights over my child’s religious education because of my legal obligation to send her to school. That of course, is absurd. If you believe the state has the right to mandate your children’s upbringing, I might suggest you would be a happier person in Communist China where such thinking is more akin to your own.

We made a decision about our daughter’s religious and political education. We taught her that religion has no place in public schools where the state obligates children to attend. Where the state de facto by law requires students to attend a school, that state should have no involvement whatsoever in imparting religious education to those same students. That is establishment of religion by the state. And that is precisely what our Constitution forbids.

David

You have no argument at all because you are doing as most liberals do contradicting yourself.

Earlier in a posting you said that your child chose to go to the FCA function, and basically you badgered her to the point that she decided going to the FCA function was not worth dealing with you over. She did not decide not to go she decided not to deal with you about the issue.

Now you are saying it is mandated liking it to Communist China.

When it is given, as a choice it is not state sponsored and there for is not and establishment of religion by the state. That would mean that your state would pass a law making you and your child have to be Catholic or some other specific religion.

Sounds like you would be happier living in France.

Darrell, requiring students to attend the school and then exposing them to only one religion’s activity, inviting and bribing them to attend without parental consent or notification is just the kind of Right Wing thinking that presupposes they know what is best for every one else’s children.

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with tax paying individuals have the freedom to raise their children as they choose, not the way some government institution in conjunction with one religious organization believes is best for others kids. It has to do with the Constitution, the fact that public schools are part of the government, mandated and controlled by government laws, and the government may not establish relgion, which is what FCA is doing in my daugther’s school.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the federal government can impose an Income tax on the people.

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You either haven’t read your Constitution, or you’re using a version that doesn’t give women the right to vote…

David

I agree with you on the part that the parents need to be notified and give permission. I just don’t agree with you on the tax argument. I also do not agree that the students are required to attend that would be illegal.

I also disagree with you on the fact that you are arguing with support of the Constitution. In fact you are distorting the Constitution for you bias mind set. There is nothing-illegal going on at your daughter’s school because they are not requiring her to attend just allowing an organization to utilize the facilities. Enticing her to do so, but you made it unpleasant for your daughter to attend so she decided not to. It should be your daughter’s decision as to attend or not if she is of age to make that kind of a decision along with your input if you are as tolerant as you try to portray yourself to be.

ceejayoz

I was mistaken in the way I said it I meant in the original constitution prior to the amendments.

Although I do think this is splitting hairs this is the way the Supreme Court looks at the Sixteenth Amendment. Also I think this is the way they look at the Church and State issue also. It is a distortion of the facts and there is a conflict with Article I, Section 2, and Clause 3 of the original Articles, and the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or modify its existing power.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution? Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax

An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.

When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal income tax is not a tax on income.

It is a privilege tax measured by income. In other words, Congress is taxing some government-defined privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege.

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax.

“Written by Robert Greenslade”

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm

Darrell said: In fact you are distorting the Constitution for you bias mind set. There is nothing-illegal going on at your daughter’s school because they are not requiring her to attend just allowing an organization to utilize the facilities.

Darrell, I disagree. The public schools of Texas receive federal money, and state tax monies, and huge sums of county taxes. That makes the schools an arm of the government. When an arm of the government permits one religion to offer students incentives to attend that relgious activity during the school day which begins when children arrive on the buses to the school, the government is involved in establishing one relgion over others in the minds of students who have not yet arrived at the age of consent.

The Constitution states the government shall not establish any religion. Religion exists not in buildings, but in the minds and hearts of human beings. The FCA is complicit with the Comal County school system to establish their form of religion in the minds and hearts of students and they are offering currency to those students to attend. Free juice and donuts for breakfast accompanied by games and entertainment as well as prayer, is a form of bribery to get students to attend, where the alternative is to attend the gymnasium in an unstructured environment where breakfast is paid for with money and organized games and entertainment are absent. For young students that constitutes a form of currency just as if they were offering free MP3 players and music to students who attend. Most students would jump at that opportunity.

Look, this is not a complicated argument. Just put the shoe on the other foot. Would you argue that a fundamentalist Islamist Mosque should have the same access to our students during school and be allowed to offer freebie incentives to get students to attend? If you answer yes, I would have to say up front I would not believe you. If you answer no, the fundamentalist Islamic Mosque should not have the same access, then you are arguing that the school system as an arm of government should have the right to establish only some kinds of religions to sponsor activities in the schools and not others. And that the Constitution prohibits.

Jarin,
You seem to be telling me that even though the Pilgrims had a festival for the purpose of giving thanks, it was not a thanksgiving, simply because they didn’t call it a thanksgiving. And you’re basing your argument on a History Channel show.
I’ll continue to get my history from books and take what I see on TV with a grain of salt. And I’ll continue to believe that, even though it was not a formal “thanksgiving,” the Pilgrims had their feast for the purpose of thanking God, since that seems to be the consensus among historians.

David and Darrell,
As much as I believe that any prohibition of student organized religious activity in school would be a violation of their freedom of religion, I find it disturbing that an outside organization is being allowed to hold religious services of any kind. This smacks very much of an establishment of religion.
I believe students should have the right to organize religious services as long as it does not interfere with their schoolwork. It his case, though, the service is not student organized.
Darrell, even though you are not paying for it, it’s still state sponsored by the very fact that the school is allowing it and that a teacher is involved.
Religion, as it relates to history, should be thought in schools because it has had an enormous impact on the shaping of our country, from the Declaration of Independence to 911. However, religion should not be taught as fact or fiction, but as the viewpoints and motivations of the historical figures involved.

Re FCA: To my mind, the litmus test is whether the schools would be equally tolerant of other religions. If they are willing to allow some goth kids to host Donuts with Satan*, then they can welcome the Christian athletes. That may sound to some like hostility to organized religion, but my point is that this country is about the free exchange of ideas. If JC can’t hold His own against the Lord of Darkness in a public school, then there are private venues.

*Wiccan Waffles also has a nice ring.

I understand how David feels. I have to battle my local school district every year concerning the kwanzaa crap.

There is nowhere in the constitution that states separation of church and state. It says that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Darrell is perpetuating The Myth of the Explicit Constitution.

Of course, constitutional principles such as the “separation of powers” and “a system of checks and balances” do not appear by name in either document either, yet all legal scholars would agree that these concepts are part and parcel of the Constitution. In writing that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the Founders believed these words contained the idea of “separation of church and state.” Thomas Jefferson used the “wall of separation” imagery to describe the meaning of the First Amendment religion clauses. He is joined by James Madison, drafter of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, who passed Jefferson’s religious freedom statute in Virginia, and whose “Memorial and Remonstrance” explicated the reasons for the wall. Older than the Framers, but with influence on the nation’s ideals of religious freedom - Roger Williams, Baptist preacher and founder of Rhode Island, actually originated the “wall of separation” metaphor.

Wow, nice spin. The fact that this teacher was using “excerpts” from these documents is rather telling, and making it seem as if he’s being prohibited from using the documents at all is some incredibly self-serving information handling.

Look, it’s like this: There are very few people who would argue against teaching the historical significance of religion. I wouldn’t, and I’m an atheist. There is, however, a huge difference between teaching the significance of religion and proselytizing, which it certainly sounds as like this teacher was doing. And even those of you who THINK proselytizing in school is okay only think so if it’s YOUR religion.

To my way of thinking, if we are going to teach anything about any religion, we should also teach the horrors of what has been done to non belivers in the name of religion.

Rocky, good point, like the mass skewering of Muslim babies, children, women, old people by the Christians in a revenge attack on Jerusalem during the Crusades. This historical fact will give students some insight as to why it is so easy for extremists to spin American actions today to other Muslims and turn them against us, with our bombings of babies, children, women and old people in Iraq.

One historical fact has nothing to do with the other and justifications are entirely different, but, it does explain why the spin is successful in Islamic nations. If one is to teach religious history, it should be relevant and truthful and whole. And I do support teaching history in high school which incorporates religious history as it relates to understanding the world we live in today.

David, I think that 5th grade is a little early to be teaching civics.
I attended Catholic parochial grade school and high school. The Spanish Inquisition was a mere footnote in the teaching of religious history.

Traveller:

Exactly what historians would you be referring to that have a consensus of the harvest feast of 1621 being for the purpose of giving thanks to god?

The history channel was one source which put the matter plainly, I did not feel the need to provide a multitude for something you could easily verify yourself had you chosen to. Here, then, are others:

The Pilgrims “First Thanksgiving” occured sometime in October, and was not a religious holiday or observance, but rather more like a fair or public festival. �Source: Of Plymouth Plantation, by William Bradford (written 1630-1654).

The Pilgrims would not have called the event of 1621 a “Thanksgiving.”� The Separatist Puritans recognized three kinds of holidays as sanctioned by the Bible : the Sabbath, days of thanksgiving, and fast days.� Unlike the Sabbath, days of thanksgiving and fast days were not part of the established calendar.� They were proclaimed by the governor only in response to a specific situation.� A religious day of fasting could be invoked by a drought or war.� A religious day of thanksgiving could be called to celebrate a particularly good harvest or providential rainfall.� Although the event of 1621 is known today as the “First Thanksgiving,” that harvest feast had many secular elements and would not have been considered a religious day of thanksgiving by the Pilgrims. Source:Pilgrim Hall Museum

The event we now know as “the First Thanksgiving” was in fact neither the first occurrence of our modern American holiday, nor was it even a ‘Thanksgiving” in the eyes of the Pilgrims who celebrated it. It was instead a traditional English harvest celebration to which the colonists invited Massasoit, the most important sachem among the Wamapanoag. It was only in the nineteenth century that this event became identified with the American Thanksgiving holiday. Source:Plymoth Plantation, Inc

Even the website cited in the article at journalism.umd.edu that Eric quoted, “Plimoth.org”, does not in fact say that secular thanksgiving are counter to the original premise of the holiday!

While the harvest celebration held in Plymouth Colony in 1621 has been mistakenly referred to as the �First Thanksgiving� since the 1800s, the first Thanksgiving Day as the Separatists understood it occurred in 1623. As with many later New England Days of Thanksgiving, it followed a Day of Humiliation. The events of that summer, described in colonist Edward Winslow�s Good Newes from New England, show clearly how the Separatists saw their relationship with God and used these two holidays to reconcile and affirm that relationship. […] This, then, was the first Thanksgiving Day held in Plymouth Colony. It occurred most likely at the end of July and consisted of a lengthy church service. Probably, there was no feasting. Bradford lamented in his history, that when the new colonists arrived soon after, the �best they could present their friends with was a lobster or a piece of fish without bread or anything else but a cup of fair water.�5 Descriptions of later observances in surviving church records provide more details of the probable structure of the services. Source:Plymoth.org

David

I said I agree about the parentally notification, but regardless what you say and the others this is not state sponsored. There would have to be a LAW stating that there will be one RELIGION and you will comply with it and like it. That is state sponsored religion. Not letting an organization us public facilities. When it is voluntary for the student to attend. The donuts do not make is mandatory.

Joseph Briggs

Darrell is perpetuating The Myth of the Explicit Constitution this is not a Myth. The Myth is Separation of Church and State. This is a distortion of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” This means no LAW will be allowed that approves one religion, as the religion of the country. The lack of tolerance from the liberal we tolerate everything crowd distorting the second part “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This is the part that is being allowed that is unconstitutional. The repression of the free exercises of ones religion because a few that claim to be tolerant are really intolerant.

Darrell,

“I said I agree about the parentally notification, but regardless what you say and the others this is not state sponsored.”

I personally don’t think that a 13 year old child is capable of making decisions that are based on doughnuts and juice. If this were any other religion you would be screaming “indoctrination”.
Regardless if was state sponsored or not it isn’t right.
If this is such a good thing why weren’t the parents invited to participate?

“The lack of tolerance from the liberal we tolerate everything crowd distorting the second part “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.”

I am so tired of this line. When will the fundamentelists get over this? You have the right to the free exercise thereof. Who is stopping you? Does the right so need to push things in peoples faces that if I don’t let them stand on my front lawn and worship they’re going to bitch?
Sheeeeeeeeech!

Does the right so need to push things in peoples faces that if I don’t let them stand on my front lawn and worship they’re going to bitch?

Yes. It’s called evangelizing and it’s a requirement in some Christian sects.

I think they get points for conversions, redeemable on judgement day. It may even be some sort of pyramid scheme where you get partial credit for conversions made by those whom you convert. :)

[…] this is not a Myth. The Myth is Separation of Church and State. This is a distortion of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” This means no LAW will be allowed that approves one religion, as the religion of the country. The lack of tolerance from the liberal we tolerate ev […]

Blah blah blah. Sure, don’t read any of the quote. It’s not like this issue requires any thought or anything, right? They teach constitutional law in the third grade these days, don’t they?

Darrell said : “The lack of tolerance from the, liberal we tolerate everything crowd, distorting the second part “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Get real. Pray all you want on public streets, in your cubicle at work, at home or in your church. Just don’t do it on my tax dollar in public schools and in a manner that prevents my impressionable daughter from turning away from it. I am a liberal on this issue and I have no desire whatsoever to impede your ability to worship Christ, Bush, or Hitler if you want. Just don’t do it on my dime and in front of my daughter when the law says she must be where she is, at school.

I am a Christian, but I have not always been. I see ignorance flowing out of the mouths of those that “knock it before they have tried it”. You know what, this may sound strange, but I think this whole situation with the declaration being banned in the school is great. It follows the idea of their being no such thing as bad publcity. This seems to be a way that God may be using to change the way things are going in the schools. I am a college student, and I recently wrote a paper on a passage of the Bible. I was given a lower grade because my teacher did not see things the way I did. i pray for a day that is obsolete. AM I the only one that sees the profound decline in the quality of life since we took religion out of the schools in the 60’s. Crime has risen immensely and everyone wonders why, take away standards and morals and watch what happens. Put them back and things will swing the other way.

Michelle,
I hate to be the one to tell you, but the problem hasn’t been with the schools since the 60’s.
The problem has been with the “keep up with the Jones’”. Moms have gone to work insted of staying home to raise the kids. Parents just aren’t as involved as they were before then.
You might as well say that the profound decline in the quality of life happened since segregation, and that would be just as wrong.

Michelle, I was born to a Catholic father and Methodist mother. I was raised, baptized, and took communion as a Christian. At the age of 17 I rejected it for Buddhism. So, please, do not assume that those who have no affinity with Christianity being taught in the schools are ignorant or haven’t tried it. Bottom line is, you want to argue that Christians should have unfettered access to convert eveyone else’s children in the public school systems. To that I respond, consider living in Iran where church and state are one and the same. In America, freedom of choice still has meaning. It still means I can raise my daughter without the state taking charge of her religious education via the school system.

Michelle,
I was raised a Catholic, went to 11 years of Catholic school and rejected it when I graduated. I was appalled by the attitude of Christians. Yes, I adhere to some “Christian” tenents, but overall, “Christians” are the least “Christ-like” of all the people I have ever met.

I agree with Rocky on the Non-Christian like Christians.

Rocky and Juiceman,

You do what you’ve said…

Rocky, you went to a Catholic school (Catholics representing the shrinking portion of the Christian community) and based upon your experience at a Catholic school it is your assertion that Christians are the least Christ-like people you have ever met.

WOW! Could it be that you haven’t met too many people? Or is it that you have been offended to the extent that you are unable to control your use of superlative expression?

Some respectful advice… you seem young to me…that’s a compliment…don’t limit yourself by imposing such strict standards of prejudice upon yourself. You have your whole life to develop bitterness and build walls. Open your eyes and see that humanity is comprised of so many beautiful and interesting elements, many of which we misunderstand.

By the way, my experience in Catholic school was much like yours. Fortunately, I have learned that Catholic and Christian are not the same thing.

~Fu2

I’m sorry, my opening comment in the last entry should’ve read…

You do know what you said…

Oh, great. Now Catholics aren’t Christians. Could “organized” religion get any dumber.

Fu2,

I attended shool in the 50’s and 60’s. I am 52 years old. I have been been around the world and have met literaly thousands of people, of all ethnicities, in my life.

I stand by my statement. I belive the definition of Christian is to be like Christ. I belive that is pretty clear.

Most of the “Christians” I have met are the most prejudiced, most closed minded, least likely to turn the other cheek, the least likely to help out another in need, least thoughtfull of others, most spitefull, and the most likely to impose their will on others.

Does this sound like Christ to you?

Clearly this is not Christ-like. Your stance seems more reasonable when you say most christians. I know very many Christians who are altruists in the truest sense. I am familiar with many non-Christians who are overwhelmingly giving people. It would be difficult for me to determine whether one group is more like Christ than the other. In fact, I don’t believe you would be able to formulate statistics that would support one or the other.

It disturbs me that you’ve had this experience with Christians. I am truly sorry.

I should clarify for A. Pund … What I should have said was “Not all Catholics are Christians.” If I need to substantiate that claim with any historical data, I believe it’s painfully obvious that there would be no shortage.

~Fu2

Fu2,
I might mention that my family are still Catholic and are, for the most part good Christians.

Look I hold no grudge, people are people.
What’s really silly about the Christians I have met, is that the least Christ-like are the most vocal about their Christianity.
Wierd huh?

Eric, I agree that many of these schools stupidly interpret separation of church and state. There will always be morons in the world.

The case regarding the Declaration of Independence, however, had a history of this teacher injecting his religious views into the classroom, which of course, is convenienently not included in the 30 second blurbs that most news organizations focus on.

I did note that a low temperature record was set in your locale today. I’m awaiting the headline, “Hell Freezes Over”

Fu2:

I know very many Christians who are altruists in the truest sense. I am familiar with many non-Christians who are overwhelmingly giving people. It would be difficult for me to determine whether one group is more like Christ than the other.

I would agree with that — however, isn’t reasonable to expect that Christians should be more Christ-like, seeing as how Christianity is supposed to be a way of life? I’ve had the same sort of experience with religious people that Rocky has, and while I would never condemn anyone as a group I would say that many of the Christians I’ve known are the biggest hypocrites I’ve met. Although I wasn’t raised in a religious household, when I was in my early teens I attended nearly every church my area had to offer, and the message I came away with was, “We’re right, everyone else is wrong and is going to Hell.” Even at 13 I knew that wasn’t loving thy neighbor.

Alejo and Rocky,

I would be foolish to tell you you’re wrong. As a Christian (or someone who supposes himself to be) I am often frustrated by the people who call themselves religious.

I remember years ago working in a restaurant and having to work the Sunday shift. People would come in from a nearby church after their services and our staff was treated with such impatience and rudeness. I was ashamed that they called themselves Christians.

If we lived in a predominantly Muslim society I’m sure we’d be having the same conversation.

—many good…many not so good.

~Fu2

Fu2,
I am afraid we may just have to put it down to human nature and leave it at that.

Rocky —

Now what fun would that be?

Alejo,
the problem as I see it is that “Christians” see themselves as our moral(?) watchdogs. Placing their ideas of right and wrong above all else. It is the hypocracy of their actions that bothers me.
This do as I say, not as I do attitude is what is really wrong with this country.
Can I get an Amen?

Oh, amen to that. But I read somewhere once (and have been trying to find it ever since) that the notion of hypocrisy being a bad thing is a relatively recent phenomenon. The author claimed that idealists will always be hypocrites no matter how ardently they strive to uphold their principles, and that the label of “hypocrite” is how their opponents try to diminish the idealists’ message.

While I think there is something to that, I still find it brain-smashingly ironic that the Catholic church can hand down edicts about how people can’t have abortions and can’t get divorced while at the same time conducting massive coverups about how its priests are molesting children.

I guess maybe there needs to be a distinction made between natural human hypocrisy and outright lying.

I believe that church and state should not be separated. This is just because I am a religious person. I mean our founding fathers based just about everything on religion, so why can’t we have religion in our government now? If people complain they should just not listen to the different stuff. Or another way is that teachers could teach all the religions so that everyone is happy.
-James

james- now how can you say that chuch and state shouldnt be seperated? thats the whole point of our government. we have to keep both serperated because if not we could have a chance where people in the govewrnment can base their decisions on their religious beliefs and not on how they think it would be safer for the citizens of the U.S.

Separation of school and state is becoming to complicated of an issue. People are too concerned about getting rid of religion in schools. You can’t keep your child from not knowing about religion. Eventually they’re going to find out that some people believe in God, Jesus or Buddha. You can’t shadow them from the world of religion forever. It’s going to come up sometime. We shouldn’t be so worried about making sure the teacher doesn’t use the word God. We should focus more on the education going on in the schools and making sure they don’t say words that might offend people.

Guys,
If you want to have your children taught religion send them to a religious school, or better yet home school them.

The separation of church and state was proposed and adopted by the best minds of that time, some of whom came from a country with a state sponsored religion.
Read your history folks!