What is Digg?22 Comments
- appleann1, on 01/12/2008, -1/+13But the ACLU is silent on Muslim foot baths installed in our schools AND at taxpayer expense and Common meditation rooms being turned into mini mosques.
Hypocrisy at it's best, they don't even hide it anymore. - inactive, on 01/12/2008, -1/+13Can anyone answer me this? How is the handing out of Bibles in public school by Gideons International, a private non-profit organization, unconstitutional?
- Navigator7, on 01/12/2008, -0/+11No..I can't.
But!......Its a wound that should be picked and picked until its infected or resolved.. - inactive, on 01/12/2008, -1/+12It's not unconstitutional. These radical leftist Marxist judges are in cahoots with the ACLU (Against Christ, Licentious Ungodliness) as they spew the false idea that "the separation of church and state" is somewhere in our Constitution (guess what...IT ISN'T!) The school needs to take action against such deliberate religious intolerance. I suggest that they contact the Alliance Defense Fund. If you're not familiar with them, it is a Christian-based law firm that has had astounding court wins over the ACLU ever since it came into being.
I just watched a documentary called, "A Nation Adrift." It was highly educational and reiterated the fact that our Founding Fathers believed in Jesus Christ and promoted our founding as a Christian nation. Seeing what the likes of the secular humanists and atheists have done to our nation is absolutely sickening. - inactive, on 01/12/2008, -1/+11Let me re-ask my question to the 'living breathing document', or leftist crowd; Can anyone answer me this? How is the handing out of Bibles in public school by Gideons International, a private non-profit organization, unconstitutional? I know the answer. Do you?
- inactive, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5Absolutely. We are at war with the wahabbists, and this nation is not a nation based on the principles of Islam. I have a huge problem with muslims trying to hand their literature out in American schools.
- inactive, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4I was unaware that a public building had the ability to pass a bill prohibiting or authorizing a religion.
Is a child allowed to bring a Koran or Bible onto campus? Is that shild allowed to discuss his faith or the contents of his holy book? Is that child allowed to bring his holy book to show and tell, and to share who is discussed inside that book? - nukethewhales, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5Well there you have. It's either all or none and you chose none. Well done.
- PappyPapillon, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Foot baths? I thought those things were urinals. Whoops!
- PappyPapillon, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3By your interpretation Thomas Jefferson didn't understand the first amendment when he provided, at this own expense, Bibles for schools. The religion clause of the first amendment simply prevents congress from passing laws forcing a particular religious view on you... as the English did with the Church of England. Judges are currently violating the first amendment by putting restrictions on the free exercise of religion.
- ingenium21, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Oh and by the way, our founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, this is why we cannot have christian propaganda in our public schools.
- nukethewhales, on 01/13/2008, -4/+5Because my atheist kids have the right to not be bothered by Christian propaganda when he's trying to learn.
- ingenium21, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1"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."
Its the very first amendment you dumbass. - btdub, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3"These radical leftist Marxist judges are in cahoots with the ACLU (Against Christ, Licentious Ungodliness) as they spew the false idea that "the separation of church and state" is somewhere in our Constitution (guess what...IT ISN'T!)"
Very good... in the midst of all that anger you took some time to read. You're right, the idea of "the seperation of church and state" is a figurative comment made by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Dansbury Baptists that said -
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
"I just watched a documentary called, "A Nation Adrift." It was highly educational and reiterated the fact that our Founding Fathers believed in Jesus Christ and promoted our founding as a Christian nation. Seeing what the likes of the secular humanists and atheists have done to our nation is absolutely sickening."
As a Christian myself, this is what saddens me. People would rather watch a low budget documentary with distorted information than study factual history - again, the Treaty of Tripoli
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - btdub, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2buried for being the most ridiculous thing I've read all morning.
- btdub, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2the term "equality" doesn't mean much to you, does it?
- doowod, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1As long as you let any other private, non-profit organization to hand out their literature, it shouldn't be a problem. Would you object to a Muslim group handing out copies of the Koran?
- dlbfromLA, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2Well there would be no problem here if they were passing out the koran or some gay/transvestite pamphlet! The ACLU would be all for it then!! But since it is a Bible, they are considered to be infringing on the Satanist,Gay and Atheist rights!!!
- btdub, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1"By your interpretation Thomas Jefferson didn't understand the first amendment when he provided, at this own expense, Bibles for schools." - Poorly misinformed. Jefferson never "provided bibles for schools", nor did he suggest such a thing. Honestly you guys http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg6.htm. Specifically -
On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D. C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city. Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in which:
...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin language.
As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency (check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point). There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an answer to that question.
In 1812 the board of trustees established a school that used a curriculum developed by the British educator Joseph Landcaster, who's system of education was becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Wilson describes Landcaster as an "enthusiastic but somewhat visionary schoolmaster, who adopted an inexpensive method of educating, especially the masses of the poor. The curriculum of his schools included reading, writing, arithmetic, and the Bible." In an 1813 report to the board of trustees, Henry Ould, the principle of the Landcasterian school, related the progress his students had made in reading and spelling:
55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are learning words of four and five letters. Of 509 out of the whole number admitted that did not know a single letter, 20 can now read the Bible and spell words of three, four, and five syllables, 29 read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables, and 10 words of four and five letters.
In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the school board for retirement in Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied claim, Jefferson was not president of the school board when the Bible was being used for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want his readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion that his own source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or dishonest in his use of evidence. Either alternative should cause the reader to question the soundness of Barton's scholarship. - btdub, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1Umm... it's not "prohibiting or authorizing a religion". It's simply stating that a member of a religious group may not infringe upon the peace of other citizens on state, or government property.
Of course a child is allowed to bring a Koran or bible to school. Promoting it can, and is oftentimes offensive to other people that have different religious beliefs, so the state would rather avoid those kind of conflicts and keep religion out of school altogether. That SHOULD go without saying....
"Is that child allowed to bring his holy book to show and tell, and to share who is discussed inside that book?"
Good question, and as I'm sure you know in reality, that decision remains to the disciplinary figure at the school. I don't believe it is a "crime" to "show and tell" something you believe in. Especially if one plans on making a living from religion (i.e. priesthood, etc). In the context of the presentation, one would hope that our children are smart enough to believe that this is a free country and individuals are free to believe in whatever religion they would like. Since it is not being taught by a public "teacher", and as a presentation by a student as a class activity, I don't think it would be any different than wearing a cross on your neck, or a star of David. - inactive, on 01/13/2008, -4/+1Well if you know it's unconstitutional then you shouldn't have a problem... or are you a promoter of lies like Satan.
- inactive, on 01/13/2008, -6/+2"Bill of Rights: Amendment I
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."
It can be interpreted as a public (State) building can not promote (establish) religion. Real Americans know and understand this. Keep your mythology out of my schools.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is