NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes it’s true. The Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of America, has been banned from some California classrooms. The basic gist is that a district banned these documents in the name of the separation of Church and State because they referred to God. Get the full story here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6578096/

To send an email to the school district go here:

http://cupertino.ca.campusgrid.net/home/About+our+District/Contact+Us/District

I personally find this very disturbing and as such sent an email myself.

OH MY GOD YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! WHO COULD POSSIBLY GET OFFENDED BY THAT?!?! JESUS CHRIST!

if the above statement offended anyone because of the use of the name 'Jesus Christ' ...too bad.

That's actually unconstitutional. Religion mentioned in nonreligious context is perfectly legal. They aren't asking you to believe in a god, like the Pledge does.

O.O;;....I see whats going on they just want to hid the truth from the young minds of tomarrow.....like Disney....

Congrats. You liberals have officially ruined America.

Now where am I going to raise my children?

I knew it would happen sooner or later.

The fact that it actually happened doesn’t make it any less of an abomination.

Im definately writing them about this.

...wow...that's unbelievable.

I think it's because they don't want any students to accidentally stumble upon the treasure map on the back.

But, really, that's ridiculous. I am against teaching religion in the science classroom, but religion is an inextricable part of human history, and you can not teach anything but science or math without hitting religion at some point or another.

does anyone still wonder why W was elected?

does anyone still wonder why W was elected?
Yes. And the answers still don't make my brain feel any better.

does anyone still wonder why W was elected?

I know the answer!
1. We wanted an above average economy
2. We wanted to be protected from terrorists (God Bless our troops)
3. We wanted to protect morality
4. We should have banned the ACLU a long time ago. (Don't try to tell me they aren't playing a part in this.)

Yes. And the answers still don't make my brain feel any better.

come on, even after all the things he messed up (and yes, even I conceed he screwed a few things up) Americans are much more willing to accept those mistakes than put up with this anti-Christian BS

I know the answer!
1. We wanted an above average economy
2. We wanted to be protected from terrorists (God Bless our troops)
3. We wanted to protect morality
4. We should have banned the ACLU a long time ago. (Don't try to tell me they aren't playing a part in this.)
I'm still wondering, and the answers are now making me even more depressed. But let's not turn this into a "Bush vs. Kerry" thread. We've exhausted everything already. Let's discuss the issue at hand. And pronounce "issue" the really cool way Britons do!

Congrats. You liberals have officially ruined America.

Now where am I going to raise my children?
go fuck yourself, its not liberals doing this shit, its the same nutcases that sue for mcdonalds making them fat.

First, I hate the brits. All they have going for them are their accents.

Second, you're right. This shouldn't be a BushVKerry thread. It should be about liberals and their asinine ways of banning one of our countries most sacred documents.

go fuck yourself, its not liberals doing this shit, its the same nutcases that sue for mcdonalds making them fat.

Oh. You're talking about liberals. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. The people that sue McDonalds/doctors/veterinarians are liberals.

3. We wanted to protect morality
And Kerry is immoral?

4. We should have banned the ACLU a long time ago. (Don't try to tell me they aren't playing a part in this.)
So we should ban a group devoted to protecting American freedoms (yes, they do go overboard some times, but so does every other group in this country), but let groups like the KKK exist? I don't understand your reasoning there.

Edit:
Second, you're right. This shouldn't be a BushVKerry thread. It should be about liberals and their asinine ways of banning one of our countries most sacred documents.
You can't just uniformily blame "liberals" for this. That'd be like me calling all arabs terrorists...it's just not true. Yes, there are those who go waaaay overboard (I personally find political correctness obsurd in almost every use), but this one principle in this one school district is not representative of liberals or their ideals. It's one crazy ass person being an idiot.

First, I hate the brits. All they have going for them are their accents.

Second, you're right. This shouldn't be a BushVKerry thread. It should be about liberals and their asinine ways of banning one of our countries most sacred documents.
listen you ignorant little twit, its not liberals banning this for the sake of liberalism, its the same dipshits getting cases won ongetting fat from fastfood and coffee being called black.

ooh ooh i know, lets say those damned cosnervatives are ruining america by putting god into the pledge, ooh ooh or by censoring the american media

Everyone should post the letters they send them here.

I sent them this (it was the best I could come up with on the spot and still being fairly upset):

--------------------------
In regards to the MSN article at the following URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6578096/

Assuming that the article is accurate:

That is ludicrous to ban documents pertaining to the founding of our country from school because of references to God. I am seriously so shocked by this outrage that I find it hard to even come up with the words to adequately describe my feelings.

What sense of national honor do you have to ban of all things the Declaration of Independence from being used in a class room? If that sort of logic is followed then you might as well skip the Reformation, not to mention why the pilgrims came over to America - or upon what basis this country was founded.

If this e-mail can in anyway convince your School District to turn away from such a practice, then let it be so.

I think it's because they don't want any students to accidentally stumble upon the treasure map on the back.

But, really, that's ridiculous. I am against teaching religion in the science classroom, but religion is an inextricable part of human history, and you can not teach anything but science or math without hitting religion at some point or another.

You can't teach science without alluding to religion, because religion fills in the gaps in science.

First, I hate the brits. All they have going for them are their accents.
Isn't that enough? Isn't it?

Second, you're right. This shouldn't be a BushVKerry thread. It should be about liberals and their asinine ways of banning one of our countries most sacred documents.
Well, I'm a liberal and I do not want any documents of any kind banned. I am a strong advocate of free speech and am adamantly against censorship. I just don't want to be paying for children to learn creationism is veracious in public school. But I certainly don't want the Declaration of Independence banned from schools. Also, I wouldn't call it a "sacred document", per se. Perhaps "revered" would work if you want worshipful connotations.

Everyone should post the letters they send them here.

I sent them this (it was the best I could come up with on the spot and still being fairly upset):

--------------------------
In regards to the MSN article at the following URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6578096/

Assuming that the article is accurate:

That is ludicrous to ban documents pertaining to the founding of our country from school because of references to God. I am seriously so shocked by this outrage that I find it hard to even come up with the words to adequately describe my feelings.

What sense of national honor do you have to ban of all things the Declaration of Independence from being used in a class room? If that sort of logic is followed then you might as well skip the Reformation, not to mention why the pilgrims came over to America - or upon what basis this country was founded.

If this e-mail can in anyway convince your School District to turn away from such a practice, then let it be so.
i blame it on being california, they are always trying to pull shit like this

You can't teach science without alluding to religion, because religion fills in the gaps in science.
Aye, evolution and religion are inexorably linked. Whichever you prefer, you can't deny that they are related ;)

As a resident of a California city, I definetly take offense to that. Didn't mean the sci thing.

does it seem to anyone else that what is going on here is some guy preaching christianity under the guise of a history lesson? cause i sure as hell don't remember reading excerpts from george washington's journal or samuel adams' 'the rights of the colonists' in 5th grade.

going out of your way to use material that talks about "the rights of the colonists as christians" in 5th grade looks a bit suspicious to me.

listen you ignorant little twit, its not liberals banning this for the sake of liberalism, its the same dipshits getting cases won ongetting fat from fastfood and coffee being called black.

ooh ooh i know, lets say those damned cosnervatives are ruining america by putting god into the pledge, ooh ooh or by censoring the american media

Conservatives aren't ruining america by making you say under god. I am against censorship though. I'm right down the middle. Every survey I've ever taken has come out exactly centrist.

Lets look at the facts:
1. They banned the Dec. because it refers to God
2. The ACLU is against any form of religion in a public area

(Since you want to make this personal) Can you connect the two points, you whiny bitch, or is you PMS getting in your eyes. There are no dots that connect people that sue and the Dec. being banned. You're a fucking moron. Don't reply to me.

I just don't want to be paying for children to learn creationism is veracious in public school.

I don't want to be forced to learn about the big bang theory, or pay for my children to learn about it.

How are you right and i'm wrong in this case?

I know the answer!
2. We wanted to be protected from terrorists (God Bless our troops)


We all know the "War on Terror" is great idea, just like the "War on Drugs."
GOTT MIT UNS, am i rite guys?


3. We wanted to protect morality


... because you know what's right and wrong for all of us.
Dang gays and their ... ummm ... errr .... you know ...


4. We should have banned the ACLU a long time ago. (Don't try to tell me they aren't playing a part in this.)

... because we all know civil liberties are bad!

Anyway, to the topic at hand, sounds like sensationalist bullshit to me. We haven't really gotten the whole story yet. We'll have to see how the trail goes down.

That said, don't mistake me for trying to justify the supposed actions taken here, I'm as rabid anti-censorship as you can get. I just can't help rolling my eyes at the hacks who are already jumping on this as ZOMG GODLESS COMMUNIST LIBERALS HATE AMERICA, DUBYA SAVE US! or other such drivel based on the actions of one person. Maybe I should start conflating the actions of Ann Colutier, Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson with only person remotely right-wing?

Aye, evolution and religion are inexorably linked. Whichever you prefer, you can't deny that they are related ;)

No-




Wait a minute. Did someone just agree with me? On THESE forums???

does it seem to anyone else that what is going on here is some guy preaching christianity under the guise of a history lesson? cause i sure as hell don't remember reading excerpts from george washington's journal or samuel adams' 'the rights of the colonists' in 5th grade.
It is suspicious in that to be banned from showing the Declaration of Independence, he must have been preaching Christianity through it. The other possibility is that his principle is insane, and hates America. :P

Conservatives aren't ruining america by making you say under god. I am against censorship though. I'm right down the middle. Every survey I've ever taken has come out exactly centrist.

Lets look at the facts:
1. They banned the Dec. because it refers to God
2. The ACLU is against any form of religion in a public area

(Since you want to make this personal) Can you connect the two points, you whiny bitch, or is you PMS getting in your eyes. There are no dots that connect people that sue and the Dec. being banned. You're a fucking moron. Don't reply to me.
go eat a stray goat

does it seem to anyone else that what is going on here is some guy preaching christianity under the guise of a history lesson? cause i sure as hell don't remember reading excerpts from george washington's journal or samuel adams' 'the rights of the colonists' in 5th grade.

I think you're right. Since you didn't have the chance to read them, nobody should.

does it seem to anyone else that what is going on here is some guy preaching christianity under the guise of a history lesson? cause i sure as hell don't remember reading excerpts from george washington's journal or samuel adams' 'the rights of the colonists' in 5th grade.

going out of your way to use material that talks about "the rights of the colonists as christians" in 5th grade looks a bit suspicious to me.

It's history, whether you like it or not, my friend.

No-




Wait a minute. Did someone just agree with me? On THESE forums???
I could always edit that, if you'd like. ;)

I think you're right. Since you didn't have the chance to read them, nobody should.

Of course you have the chance to read them. Go to a library. Find them online.

Wait- were you being sarcastic?

Congrats. You liberals have officially ruined America.

Now where am I going to raise my children?

Because liberals advocate censorship.

Of course you have the chance to read them. Go to a library. Find them online.

Wait- were you being sarcastic?

yeah

You can't teach science without alluding to religion, because religion fills in the gaps in science.Aye, evolution and religion are inexorably linked. Whichever you prefer, you can't deny that they are related ;)
That's all bullsh*t. I can think of no term that is not an expletive that can explain my feelings against that. Perchance "poppycock" would work? But it's just not strong enough...

Anywho, evolution and religion are "inexorably linked" only if one's religion believes in it. Religion does not fill in the gaps for science, science points out the gaps in religion. I know sure as hell that I'm an agnostic deist, and that I need no religion to understand evolution.

TRY LEARNING SOME GODDAMNED BIOLOGY, YOU B*STARDS!. It's really amazing how it is that they manage to not put any religion in it at all. Some geology or palæontology wouldn't hurt either.

""It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson."

and THAT is the problem, if he wants to teach they were "religious" men, maybe he should teach facts, there is a difference between political correctness and factual correctness, teacher doesnt seem to be leaning to the latter.

and since when the hell are those materials on a 5th grade agenda, i dont recall learning about ANY of that shit until senior level ap government. and rom that i know john adams is thrown around like rice at a wedding by pro-religious wackos and george washington is easily misconstrued

I don't want to be forced to learn about the big bang theory, or pay for my children to learn about it.
How are you right and i'm wrong in this case?

One is a scientific theory, the other is a practise in question-begging with some ad hoc hypotheses thrown in to try to patch up the leaking ship.
One is science, the other is religion.

Guess which is which.

Because liberals advocate censorship.
Censorship is for hippies.

To all you hippies out there: I hate you because you don't bathe.

Because liberals advocate censorship.

I think advocating the censorship of the document that introduced the United States as a soverign nation is going a bit far.

Besides, certain insane dictators simly love/loved censorship.

Should anyone care - after a quick search I found these e-mail addresses. I would suggest e-mailing them as well:

e-mail address for the Elementry School where this took place
block_leann@cupertino.k12.ca.us

The Cupertino School District Board
board@cupertino.k12.ca.us

e-mail address for the Superindendent of the Cupertino School District, William E. Bragg
bragg_bill@cupertino.k12.ca.us

Because liberals advocate censorship.

Sorry to break up your black and white world but there is more than one plane in the political spectrum. There are conversatives who advocate censorship too. They're all morons regardless.

Conservatives aren't ruining america by making you say under god. I am against censorship though. I'm right down the middle. Every survey I've ever taken has come out exactly centrist.

He was mocking you by being a generalizing ass...just like you're being.

Lets look at the facts:
1. They banned the Dec. because it refers to God

"They"? You better not be referring to liberals, because any liberal (and this IS a fair generalization as it refers to the actual definition of the god damn political leaning) would be against banning, well, pretty much anything.

2. The ACLU is against any form of religion in a public area

How about the case where they sued a city who wanted to ban baptisms in a public park? Or their defense of countless 'extremist' Christian organizations? Their constant defense of Muslims? Jews?

The ACLU defends EVERYBODY, whether they agree with what they're doing/saying or not.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'd give my life to defend your right to say it"

One is a scientific theory, the other is a practise in question-begging with some ad hoc hypotheses thrown in to try to patch up the leaking ship.
One is science, the other is religion.

Guess which is which.

I'll try to ignore the flaming... but I hope the mods note it.

In any event, the big bang theory is just that, a theory.

Let me know when it becomes a law.

And Kerry is immoral?

well......yeah, the man walks into Church on sunday and proclaims his faith to the Lord then walking into the senate on monday and votes against the partical-birth abortion ban

So we should ban a group devoted to protecting American freedoms (yes, they do go overboard some times, but so does every other group in this country), but let groups like the KKK exist? I don't understand your reasoning there.

we allow groups like the KKK to exist because they're harmless (now anyway) the ACLU on the otherhand presses frequent lawsuites against government and privet orginizations

You can't just uniformily blame "liberals" for this. That'd be like me calling all arabs terrorists...it's just not true. Yes, there are those who go waaaay overboard (I personally find political correctness obsurd in almost every use), but this one principle in this one school district is not representative of liberals or their ideals. It's one crazy ass person being an idiot.

But that one crazy ass person has the support of a signifigant faction of Americans, namely the ACLU and its constituents

That's all bullsh*t. I can think of no term that is not an expletive that can explain my feelings against that. Perchance "poppycock" would work? But it's just not strong enough...

Anywho, evolution and religion are "inexorably linked" only if one's religion believes in it. Religion does not fill in the gaps for science, science points out the gaps in religion. I know sure as hell that I'm an agnostic deist, and that I need no religion to understand evolution.

TRY LEARNING SOME GODDAMNED BIOLOGY, YOU B*STARDS!. It's really amazing how it is that they manage to not put any religion in it at all. Some geology or palæontology wouldn't hurt either.
Thank you for your colorful response.

Whether you'll admit it or not, religion and evolution both deal with the same issue. In that way, they are linked. Extremely pious people may completely disregard evolution, and hardline athiests may do the same for the religious explanation.

Evolution is just a theory. It may make more sense to you than the six day creation thing, but that doesn't make it right.

If I may?

Click here to read about a group whose First Amendment rights the ACLU actuallyopposes (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005946).

...I was being sarcastic about the liberals banning things, idiots.

Actually, I think the thing you guys ought to be looking at is this article you're citing obviously isn't telling the entire story. You all immediately go into "OMFGWTFBBQ [insert opposing political party here] IS RUINING THE COUNTRY!!1111" before realizing that your source, frankly, sucks.

Find more articles about this, because it sounds to me like a technicality that some wired service is reporting about without telling you all of the facts.

Dear Californians,

Now that you have all gotten past that little independence malarky, welcome back into the British Empire. We are very glad to have you and though you rank below Gibraltor and the Falklands in seniority, We feel sure that you will soon raise yourselves to their levels. Hence forth history lessons will consist of the detailing of the mighty Britsh Empire. God will have his place in society and a delighfully gay Anglican bishop will be over soon to intruct you.

Kindest Regards

Elizabeth R.



PS We will be dispatching a new Governor shortly, please tell that Austrian twit to sod off back to Europe.

we allow groups like the KKK to exist because they're harmless (now anyway) the ACLU on the otherhand presses frequent lawsuites against government and privet orginizations
That's what a nifty little thing I like to call the Constitution gives them the right to do.

But that one crazy ass person has the support of a signifigant faction of Americans, namely the ACLU and its constituents
I find it very hard to believe that the ACLU would support a ban of the Declaration of Independence...

As I've said before, the ACLU does go overboard at times, but if they didn't fight for people's rights, who would? I don't always agree with them, but I prefer a world with such organizations to a world devoid of them.

That's all bullsh*t. I can think of no term that is not an expletive that can explain my feelings against that. Perchance "poppycock" would work? But it's just not strong enough...

Anywho, evolution and religion are "inexorably linked" only if one's religion believes in it. Religion does not fill in the gaps for science, science points out the gaps in religion. I know sure as hell that I'm an agnostic deist, and that I need no religion to understand evolution.

TRY LEARNING SOME GODDAMNED BIOLOGY, YOU B*STARDS!. It's really amazing how it is that they manage to not put any religion in it at all. Some geology or palæontology wouldn't hurt either.

I know plenty of biology, and I will admit that it is an incredibly smooth and complex mechanism.

The more I learn, the more awed I become at the complexity of the divine plan... it all runs so smoothly...

My main problem with some "science" is the big bang theory. I really don't understand how it explains how the universe began. I know that matter can be created from pure energy. I like to refer to that initial energy as "God".

That's all bullsh*t. I can think of no term that is not an expletive that can explain my feelings against that. Perchance "poppycock" would work? But it's just not strong enough...

Anywho, evolution and religion are "inexorably linked" only if one's religion believes in it. Religion does not fill in the gaps for science, science points out the gaps in religion. I know sure as hell that I'm an agnostic deist, and that I need no religion to understand evolution.

TRY LEARNING SOME GODDAMNED BIOLOGY, YOU B*STARDS!. It's really amazing how it is that they manage to not put any religion in it at all. Some geology or palæontology wouldn't hurt either.

ok johhny, if man came from evolution and evolution came from the big bag tell me where the big bang came from?

hmm.....maybe religion can come in handy

I'm surprised the hardcore religeous people (or wackos, or whatever ya'll call yourselves) should try to get "evolutionism" recognized as a religeon. Then it couldn't be taught in schools!

Then you could throw your ever-so-righteous finger in a liberal's face and yell HAHAHAHA! GOOCHED!

or whatever that is in Latin, whatever floats yer ark.

That's what a nifty little thing I like to call the Constitution gives them the right to do.

I hate to call you out on this but where in the consitution are you alotted the right to sue your child's school district over the reading of government documents?

Congrats. You liberals have officially ruined America.

Now where am I going to raise my children?

YES! I win.

It took me a while to find the truth on this one.

As usual the religious right are only giving a censored version of the actual events.

The teacher wasn't presenting the full declaration, only passages of it along with other religious documents from that era, all presented out of context.

The problem began with a discusion of the why the words 'under god' were in the pledge and escalated over time with the fundie. teacher presenting his 'evidence' of America's christian origin during his lessons. It became so exclusive as to prompt parent complaints. Finally the principle stepped in and ordered him to summit a lesson plan for approval and not deviate.

Nice try guys, but there's always more to the story.

It took me a while to find the truth on this one.

As usual the religious right are only giving a censored version of the actual events.

The teacher wasn't presenting the full declaration, only passages of it along with other religious documents from that era, all presented out of context.

The problem began with a discusion of the why the words 'under god' were in the pledge and escalated over time with the fundie. teacher presenting his 'evidence' of America's christian origin during his lessons. It became so esclusive as to prompt parent complaints. Finally the principle stepped in and ordered him to summit a lesson plan for approval and not deviate.

Nice try guys, but there's always more to the story.

Shouldn't a class devoted to US history spend atleast one class discussing the major religions that have been shapping it and its people from its inception?

It's history, whether you like it or not, my friend.

the question is over how it is being taught. and, since i highly doubt that it is a vitally important part of the 5th grade history syllabus to talk about how important christianity was to the origin of the country, why it is being taught.

It took me a while to find the truth on this one.

As usual the religious right are only giving a censored version of the actual events.

The teacher wasn't presenting the full declaration, only passages of it along with other religious documents from that era, all presented out of context.

The problem began with a discusion of the why the words 'under god' were in the pledge and escalated over time with the fundie. teacher presenting his 'evidence' of America's christian origin during his lessons. It became so exclusive as to prompt parent complaints. Finally the principle stepped in and ordered him to summit a lesson plan for approval and not deviate.

Nice try guys, but there's always more to the story.

See, that makes significantly more sense. Got any sources to back yourself up with, though?

See, that makes significantly more sense. Got any sources to back yourself up with, though?Cupertino newspaper, sorry don't have time to find the link. gotta work.

It took me a while to find the truth on this one.

As usual the religious right are only giving a censored version of the actual events.

The teacher wasn't presenting the full declaration, only passages of it along with other religious documents from that era, all presented out of context.

The problem began with a discusion of the why the words 'under god' were in the pledge and escalated over time with the fundie. teacher presenting his 'evidence' of America's christian origin during his lessons. It became so exclusive as to prompt parent complaints. Finally the principle stepped in and ordered him to summit a lesson plan for approval and not deviate.

Nice try guys, but there's always more to the story.

woo! i called back on page 2 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7586772&postcount=24). go me!

See, that makes significantly more sense. Got any sources to back yourself up with, though?

Sources would be nice. Its also worth pointing out that the "under god" in the pledge discussion was started by a student, not the teacher.

I'll try to ignore the flaming... but I hope the mods note it.


Flaming? What? Saying Creationists assume their conclusion? Saying they use Ad Hoc hypotheses when their views don't mesh too well with reality?

Does someone being critical of your beliefs frighten you that much?


In any event, the big bang theory is just that, a theory.
Let me know when it becomes a law.



Evolution is just a theory. It may make more sense to you than the six day creation thing, but that doesn't make it right.

Scientific theory, big difference. This isn't "HAY GUYZ WOULDNT IT BE NIFTY IF ..." They're the best explanations we have so far.

Cupertino newspaper, sorry don't have time to find the link. gotta work.

well thats an independent source. :rolleyes:

the question is over how it is being taught. and, since i highly doubt that it is a vitally important part of the 5th grade history syllabus to talk about how important christianity was to the origin of the country, why it is being taught.

this brings up the big question

Christianity and the history of our nation (aswell as its present and future) are linked, so shouldn't our history classes spend some time on religion (I'm talking a class or two)

ok johhny, if man came from evolution and evolution came from the big bag tell me where the big bang came from?

hmm.....maybe religion can come in handy

You see, this is pure genius right here. God doesn't have to actually come from anywhere, because he created himself or some such shit.

Religion has to be open to the same questions as Science. You can't full well ask us what caused the Big Bang, then tell us it was God, then ignore the fact that you must also ask yourself the same question surrounding the origin of God.

You can't just assume that wherever there's a gap in scientific knowledge, that's where God comes in and automatically fills that gap.

I don't think time should be specifically set aside for religion- I think history should be taught as we know it happened, and it should not be skirted around- but it's a shitty history class where they stop for a moment and say "Look, out founding fathers were religious- let's talk about Christianity for a day!" It has to be done as it comes up- my history class, a very, very good one, has touched on the subject of religion and how it played into chains of events- you can't cover subjects like the Great Awakening without talking about religion. However, there is a line between teaching the importance of religion in history and teaching religion.

I'm surprised the hardcore religeous people (or wackos, or whatever ya'll call yourselves) should try to get "evolutionism" recognized as a religeon. Then it couldn't be taught in schools!

Then you could throw your ever-so-righteous finger in a liberal's face and yell HAHAHAHA! GOOCHED!

or whatever that is in Latin, whatever floats yer ark.

:sniper: :gundge: :headbang: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

You jerk. God is everywhere, and who are you to laugh at him...or her (Don't wanna piss off the feminists) He is in the sky, the trees...probaby an all female prep school, starting a sexy pillow fight.....mmmmm....pillow fight.

So to Hell with you.....to HELL!!!! If god wanted you to make fun of him, he would have done something really stupid, like have some guy write in the bible that it was a sin for a man to have long hair, and not make his son go get his hair cut. Oh....wait...

I hate to call you out on this but where in the consitution are you alotted the right to sue your child's school district over the reading of government documents?
I'm sorry, I should have clarified what I meant by that...

Because it is not specifically mentioned does not mean it isn't a right. If that were the case, then it could be argued that you don't possess the right to go outside, or to sit on a public bench. It would also mean that no one has the right to sue anyone about anything. As for specific protection in the Consitution, it's really open to interpretation of the various amendments.

For instance, the First Amendment protects your rights to file complaint with the Government, which could be interpreted as legal action...

A better example, though, is the Ninth Amendment. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.

The first eight Amendments are not exclusive.

Scientific theory, big difference. This isn't "HAY GUYZ WOULDNT IT BE NIFTY IF ..." They're the best explanations we have so far.

Scientific, schmientific. It was once widely accepted "Scientific" theory that animals were spontaneously generated, like rotting meat becoming flies and poorly stored straw becoming mice.

After all, it was "the best explanation we have so far".

Besides, doesn't saying it's the "best" explanation imply that it's better than any religious explanation?

Also, the big bang theory, as I have stated before, does not provide information about the moment of creation.

You see, this is pure genius right here. God doesn't have to actually come from anywhere, because he created himself or some such shit.

Religion has to be open to the same questions as Science. You can't full well ask us what caused the Big Bang, then tell us it was God, then ignore the fact that you must also ask yourself the same question surrounding the origin of God.

You can't just assume that wherever there's a gap in scientific knowledge, that's where God comes in and automatically fills that gap.

did religion ever claim to understand who God is or where he comes from?

hell no, we surrender ourselves to the fact that we will probobly never know till we die

you on the other hand say you have a scientific explination and then leave and unGodly (get it?) gap in your theory and chastise us for not having a full explination

sheer hipocracy

You see, this is pure genius right here. God doesn't have to actually come from anywhere, because he created himself or some such shit.

Religion has to be open to the same questions as Science. You can't full well ask us what caused the Big Bang, then tell us it was God, then ignore the fact that you must also ask yourself the same question surrounding the origin of God.

You can't just assume that wherever there's a gap in scientific knowledge, that's where God comes in and automatically fills that gap.

Sure you can. Religion does not limit itself by saying that everything MUST be proven. In fact, most religions mandate that some things CANNOT be proven.

Science has backed itself into a corner. Too bad for it.

Flaming? What? Saying Creationists assume their conclusion? Saying they use Ad Hoc hypotheses when their views don't mesh too well with reality?

Does someone being critical of your beliefs frighten you that much?





Scientific theory, big difference. This isn't "HAY GUYZ WOULDNT IT BE NIFTY IF ..." They're the best explanations we have so far.
A scientific theory is still just a theory. When it becomes a law (read: gravity), then I'll be totally onboard. Until then, I'm open to all possibilites.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified what I meant by that...

Because it is not specifically mentioned does not mean it isn't a right. If that were the case, then it could be argued that you don't possess the right to go outside, or to sit on a public bench. It would also mean that no one has the right to sue anyone about anything. As for specific protection in the Consitution, it's really open to interpretation of the various amendments.

For instance, the First Amendment protects your rights to file complaint with the Government, which could be interpreted as legal action...

A better example, though, is the Ninth Amendment. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.

The first eight Amendments are not exclusive.

fair enough, but just don't call it a constitutional right if its not it the constitution, I really hate it when people do that - I allways get these bitchy old pro-abortion ladies telling me I can't take away their constitutional right to abortion

You see, this is pure genius right here. God doesn't have to actually come from anywhere, because he created himself or some such shit.

Reminds me of a question I got in a philosophy test a few years ago ["Where does God come from?"]. I 'argued' that time was cyclical and God had no beginning (as well as no end). I got exactly zero marks since apparently the right answer was Aquinas's 'prime mover' theorum.

Sure you can. Religion does not limit itself by saying that everything MUST be proven. In fact, most religions mandate that some things CANNOT be proven.

Science has backed itself into a corner. Too bad for it.
Well, I personally don't believe that there is anything that absolutely cannot be proven to some extent. Science has so far proven almost all of the earliest teachings of the church (Catholic, seeing as how they were really the only major Western religion for centuries) inaccurate. Aristotle had some interesting ideas, but as we all know now...there are more than four elements :P

Don't know if anyone here has considered the possibility that they might only be getting one side of the story, but the blogger Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_21_digbysblog_archive.html#110135260393385662) has, and here's what he has to say not only about this "incident," but about previous incidents and the idea of religion and the Founding Fathers. Here's a taste:

Perhaps the facts are just as the lawsuit alleges in which case the principal has some explaining to do. But before we make that judgment it might be worth our while to find out if what this teacher is saying IS ACTUALLY TRUE. Nobody from the other side has commented and nobody knows the whole story. Anybody can file a lawsuit and call the press. It doesn't make it a fact. Indeed, somebody really ought to ask themselves if an attorney making the statement "there is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence," isn't just a little bit too cute.

Certainly, it's a stretch to evoke the founding fathers on this religiosity issue, particularly Jefferson. He wasn't a Christian, he was a Deist. I know that's inconvenient, but it's true. Back in those days you didn't have to pass a religious test to be in government like you do today. Why, they even put it in the constitution.

snip

Please spare us the rewiting of history. There were Christians, Deists and atheists among the founders. But they were all products of the Enlightenment which the current Christians seem determined to reject. The founders are rolling in their graves, all right.

Update: Seeing The Forest informs me that this is one of those tiresome bogus lawsuits brought forth by the Alliance Defense Fund whose founders are:

Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ

Larry Burkett, founder of Christian Financial Concepts

Rev. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family

Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries

Marlin Maddoux, President of International Christian Media

Don Wildmon, founder of American Family Association
(And 25+ other ministries)


That's the best case for lawsuit reform I've ever heard, right there.

STF points out that this is coordinated to come out the day before Thanksgiving so that they can pound it over the holiday week-end without anybody being able to properly respond. These precious little stories are becoming commonplace these days. I remember the one about the teacher who was allegedly discriminated against because she put a picture of Bush on the bulletin board. It turned out that she had a fucking shrine up there and was insulting 12 year old kids whose parents were voting for Kerry. All the wingnuts keened and wailed about the unfairness of it all, always being the first to claim victimhood. As each tale is debunked they just move to the next.

So all you Freeper types out there--I know you just looooooooooove to think the worst of us liberals, but you really ought to pull your heads out of your asses and smell the fresh, clean air (while it lasts) once in a while and admit that maybe we're not the demons you've been brainwashed into thinking we are.

Scientific, schmientific. It was once widely accepted "Scientific" theory that animals were spontaneously generated, like rotting meat becoming flies and poorly stored straw becoming mice.

Religion, smeligion. It was once accepted religious theory that some fossils had upturned noses due to trying to breath during the flood.

See, I can play this game to.

New theories are created and old theories changed as new evidence arises.

After all, it was "the best explanation we have so far".

Besides, doesn't saying it's the "best" explanation imply that it's better than any religious explanation?

Don't pretend religion doesn't do the same thing, eg Earth being the centre on the universe and planets moving in perfect circles.

Also, the big bang theory, as I have stated before, does not provide information about the moment of creation.
Doesn't claim to either.

I read the story about your district banning the Declaration of Independence because of references to God with absolute disgust. Referring to God in the context of studying our nation's history does not "establish" a religion or "prohibit the free exercise thereof," if you are considering the First Amendment whatsoever. The great history of our country includes a large measure of Judeo-Christian references and values and attempting to whitewash those values from our children's education is shameful.

I rest my case.

Scientific, schmientific.


Don't knock it, you religious types developed it.


It was once widely accepted "Scientific" theory that animals were spontaneously generated, like rotting meat becoming flies and poorly stored straw becoming mice.
After all, it was "the best explanation we have so far".


... and it was wrong so we had to change our ideas and we did. Science marches on. Thank you for wonderfully displaying the scientific method at work.


Besides, doesn't saying it's the "best" explanation imply that it's better than any religious explanation?


Evidence helps. Being subject to scientific scrutiny and critical analysis does too.


Also, the big bang theory, as I have stated before, does not provide information about the moment of creation.

Of course it doesn't. That was never the purpose of it in the first place.
Especially seeing as we don't even know if this "moment of creation" is a possiblity let alone if it happened.

did religion ever claim to understand who God is or where he comes from?

hell no, we surrender ourselves to the fact that we will probobly never know till we die

you on the other hand say you have a scientific explination and then leave and unGodly (get it?) gap in your theory and chastise us for not having a full explination

sheer hipocracy

How is it hypocrisy to find it ironic that you can talk about God being un-understandable and unfalsifiable, then try and jam him into science (which is purely understandable and falsifiable) and claiming that he can fill in any gaps in scientific theory simply because he can?

Religion, smeligion. It was once accepted religious theory that some fossils had upturned noses due to trying to breath during the flood.

See, I can play this game to.

New theories are created and old theories changed as new evidence arises.



Don't pretend religion doesn't do the same thing, eg Earth being the centre on the universe and planets moving in perfect circles.


Doesn't claim to either.
I think that's exactly what Hesparia was getting at... because it doesn't provide any explanation for the moment of creation, it's easy to assume that something greater had to start it, i.e. God.

I'm definitely not a religious person, but I don't find the idea of a supreme being of some sort any more obsurd than the notion that the universe sprang from a tiny ball of energy, for which no one can provide an origin.

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to this evening regarding the highly disturbing information that Principal Patricia Vidmar banned several documents from her school including the Declaration of Indepence. Although I am, mature enough to recognize Ms. Vidmar's belief as being necessary for the continued process of democracy but I am deeply disturbed that she would allow her personal opinions to color the instruction of our children.

The importance of the Declaration of Indepence to the history of the United States cannot be understated. This document ushered in the true beginnings of the United States of America as an independent nation of free peoples dedicated to the cause of liberty. To deny American school children this most important document is a grave mistake that will only lead to the instruction of uninformed children. To allow a person's mistaken judgment to cloud the objective instruction of children is in my opinion, a grave crime against the spirit of our forefathers in this great nation. I hope that the appropriate actions are taken swiftly to correct this mistake.

Sincerely,

did religion ever claim to understand who God is or where he comes from?
Yes.

Yes it’s true. The Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of America, has been banned from some California classrooms. The basic gist is that a district banned these documents in the name of the separation of Church and State because they referred to God.
Now let's go for that damned flag.

[QUOTE=
Of course it doesn't. That was never the purpose of it in the first place.
Especially seeing as we don't even know if this "moment of creation" is a possiblity let alone if it happened.[/QUOTE]

All of your explanations seemed fairly lucid until your last one.

OBVIOUSLY, CREATION OCCURED. It logically follows that there was a time when it occured, a "moment of creation".

How is it hypocrisy to find it ironic that you can talk about God being un-understandable and unfalsifiable, then try and jam him into science (which is purely understandable and falsifiable) and claiming that he can fill in any gaps in scientific theory simply because he can?

cause the two quarilate, we do it all the time in science

we don't know what quarks are made up of or where they came from but we do know some of their properties and we still use them

Yes.

when/where?

Of course it doesn't. That was never the purpose of it in the first place.
Especially seeing as we don't even know if this "moment of creation" is a possiblity let alone if it happened.
So...if we don't know that a "moment of creation" is possible, then how could there be a big bang? There must have been some moment when it all happened/started, right?

why is it soo hard for liberals to accept that our american culture was founded by WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANTS.... AND THEY BELIEVED IN GOD!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!

I think that's exactly what Hesparia was getting at... because it doesn't provide any explanation for the moment of creation, it's easy to assume that something greater had to start it, i.e. God.

And that is what many physicists believe. However they don't think of it as scientific fact.

I'm definitely not a religious person, but I don't find the idea of a supreme being of some sort any more obsurd than the notion that the universe sprang from a tiny ball of energy, for which no one can provide an origin.

Same here. But I don't lose sleep over it since I personally believe it is one of those things we shall never know.

This is insane! This is ludicrous! This is absolutely unthinkable! Only in a screwed-up state like California could something like this happen - a state filled to the brim with liberal suck-ups and activist twits . . . it's certainly not what it once was. I can't believe this; I just can't. It really is awful.

What next, I wonder . . .

our american culture
:D :D :D

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to this evening regarding the highly disturbing information that Principal Patricia Vidmar banned several documents from her school including the Declaration of Indepence. Although I am, mature enough to recognize Ms. Vidmar's belief as being necessary for the continued process of democracy but I am deeply disturbed that she would allow her personal opinions to color the instruction of our children.

now wouldn't you feel silly if she hadn't in fact banned the doi, but rather stopped some teacher from scoring religious points by passing out handouts of one tiny part of it that mentions 'their creator' in the context of pretending that all of the major architects of the american government were christians instead of the deists they actually were?

This is insane! This is ludicrous! This is absolutely unthinkable! Only a screwed-up state like California could something like this happen - a state filled to the brim with liberal suck-ups and activist twits . . . it's certainly not what it once was. I can't believe this; I just can't. It really is awful.

What next, I wonder . . .
A state with an ultra liberal governator.
And the stars and stripes will be next. Mwuahahahaha...... :D

why is it soo hard for liberals to accept that our american culture was founded by WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANTS.... AND THEY BELIEVED IN GOD!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!
Not only. There were also Gaelic-Catholics and Mediterranean Catholics. Even one of the FFs was a Catholic.

This is insane! This is ludicrous! This is absolutely unthinkable! Only a screwed-up state like California could something like this happen - a state filled to the brim with liberal suck-ups and activist twits . . . it's certainly not what it once was. I can't believe this; I just can't. It really is awful.

What next, I wonder . . .

man, do they ever know how to make you guys dance like their little puppets

This is insane! This is ludicrous! This is absolutely unthinkable! Only a screwed-up state like California could something like this happen - a state filled to the brim with liberal suck-ups and activist twits . . . it's certainly not what it once was. I can't believe this; I just can't. It really is awful.

What next, I wonder . . .

That is an extreme case of generalization and I take great offense to it. I know many Conservative Californians (myself being one of them). George Bush received around 40% of the California vote in the last election. Not a majority but most certainly enough to not warrant a generalization like the one above.

Wow. This thread actually seems to have gone back on topic. Amazing. :P

Not only. There were also Gaelic-Catholics and Mediterranean Catholics. Even one of the FFs was a Catholic.

and don't forget the whole pile of deists who sometimes played christian to appease the 'ignorant masses'

:D :D :D

? what's so funny?
its true

? what's so funny?
American culture.

why is it soo hard for liberals to accept that our american culture was founded by WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANTS.... AND THEY BELIEVED IN GOD!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!

Because they very specifically did not make us a nation that would only give rights to white anglo saxon protestants.

And they weren't all Protestants, anyway. Jefferson wasn't. Or does he not count?

I'm sorry Sons of Freedom . . . I like California, just not the politics that it seems to be famous for; you're right, there are many conservative Californians, and I didn't mean to cause offense.

It happens Xanterra . . . rarely, but it happens. :p

American culture.

oh... yeah

when/where?
Well, for starters. I'd already mentioned one, Thomas Aquinas. Those early Church Fathers really put quite a lot of effort into that subject. Of course others came later (eg St. Anselm). And since you used the general word 'religion' you must also include the Religion of the Greek, Romans etc who all had stories of where their Gods came from.

and don't forget the whole pile of deists who sometimes played christian to appease the 'ignorant masses'
Of course, my mistake. :D

Because they very specifically did not make us a nation that would only give rights to white anglo saxon protestants.

And they weren't all Protestants, anyway. Jefferson wasn't. Or does he not count?

of course jefferson counts
but the core set of values that this country was founded on
came from tight assed pilgrims

of course jefferson counts
but the core set of values that this country was founded on
came from tight assed pilgrims

values that were set in place before the time of the founding fathers

One does not need to believe in a supreme entity simply because it is pointed out in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other document, for that matter! The entire debate is silly when the answer is obvious.

Why play word games? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler (and more straightforward and correct) to accept our cultural heritage instead of trying to shove this "one size fits all" universalist liberal garbage down our throats? People have a lot of different ideas about a wide array of things - this does not change cold, hard, historical fact.

Congrats. You liberals have officially ruined America.

Now where am I going to raise my children?
Congrats. You're a dumbass.

Kill some Christians.

So...if we don't know that a "moment of creation" is possible, then how could there be a big bang? There must have been some moment when it all happened/started, right?

The theory assumes the matter/energy is already there.

Now Einstien comes into the picture and we learn space and time are part of the same thing. Time, as we know it, began at the big bang.

We cannot just assume that three dimensional space and time as we experience them exist "outside" the confines of our universe.

well thats an independent source. :rolleyes:Since you knew it was a student that brought up the under god discussion, I suspect you know the source is accurate. It is hard to find independant analysis of this, the teachers lawyer is making a lot of noise and the wackos are eating it up. The school district is following the wise advice of their attorneys however and refuse to comment. I had to wade through pages of cutnpaste articles giving the same story to glean this little bit of info. Clues can be found when the more detailed stories cite 'excerpts from the declaration' not the declaration itself. The article I refer to lists some of the material the teacher was using, it wasn't the usual things you'd expect for 5th grade history. It included among other things 'Washington's prayer diary'. I'm still on call, I'll look up the link when I find the time and post it.

man, do they ever know how to make you guys dance like their little puppets
No kidding. It's a wonder they remember to breathe on their own.

I'll say it again for all you mouth-breathers out there who actually believe this story--You've been had. You're being played for a sucker. You're a chump if you take this guy's story at face value.

of course jefferson counts
but the core set of values that this country was founded on
came from tight assed pilgrims

could have fooled me. always looked like the parts of the american project that were worthwhile were based on the enlightenment and earlier english history.

The theories of Creation and Evolution both assume the two same basic principles - but hey! [Shakes head repeatedly] Can't get started on that.

I'm afraid I can't agree entirely - liberals will soon wreck this nation, but it isn't a total loss, as yet.

No kidding. It's a wonder they remember to breathe on their own.

I'll say it again for all you mouth-breathers out there who actually believe this story--You've been had. You're being played for a sucker. You're a chump if you take this guy's story at face value.

what specific story are you refering to?

could have fooled me. always looked like the parts of the american project that were worthwhile were based on the enlightenment and earlier english history.

well i live here and trust me i can still feel their presence

of course jefferson counts
but the core set of values that this country was founded on
came from tight assed pilgrims

The core set of values that this country was founded on also came mostly from British people- not entirely, but mostly- but they were trying to break away from the British (hence why the Declaration of Independence exists). That doesn't mean that we should go by everything the British said at the time, does it?

The Founding Fathers of this country made a country that was possible to amend to the morals of the time, because moral values change, and they didn't make it to be for people of one specific race, gender, color, sexual orientation, etc. because they came from a country that was made for a specific people like that, and they didn't like it. They made it so that there wouldn't ever be an oppressed- not so that they could shift the title of "opressed" onto someone other than themselves.

did religion ever claim to understand who God is or where he comes from?

hell no, we surrender ourselves to the fact that we will probobly never know till we die

you on the other hand say you have a scientific explination and then leave and unGodly (get it?) gap in your theory and chastise us for not having a full explination

sheer hipocracy

A fine example of what I like to call "Adam's Salmon of Doubt Statement." It basically involves proving a faith based religion. REad the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it explains it when talking about the Babel Fish.

The core set of values that this country was founded on also came mostly from British people- not entirely, but mostly- but they were trying to break away from the British (hence why the Declaration of Independence exists). That doesn't mean that we should go by everything the British said at the time, does it?

The Founding Fathers of this country made a country that was possible to amend to the morals of the time, because moral values change, and they didn't make it to be for people of one specific race, gender, color, sexual orientation, etc. because they came from a country that was made for a specific people like that, and they didn't like it. They made it so that there wouldn't ever be an oppressed- not so that they could shift the title of "opressed" onto someone other than themselves.

i don't disagree
but changing peoples cultural beliefs is a slow process
look at how the amreican public deals with sex and nudity
(regardless of whether you think the two are the same)

While I normally disagree with christian revisionism; it is impossible to teach the historical backdrop of the founding of this nation without refference to the many christian sects which took part in it's establishment and formation (and the necessary extension existing in the 1st Amendment's principle of religious liberty).

A good portion of the Colonies were formed specifically by certain sects: most of whom were fleeing religious persecution in Europe, and subsequently granted freedom of worship in conscience within their various colonial charters...

Providence Plantation (Rhode Island) by the Baptists.
Pennsylvania by the Anabaptists and Quakers.
Maryland by the Catholics.
Virginia by both the evangelical and reformed methodists, Epsicopalians, and Presbyterians.

With the exception of the Puritans in Mass. most others had learned from the mistakes which occured inEurope, and we have their great colonial work in charter for the descent of our principles of religious liberty.

To abandon the teaching of the views these great men held, in the establishment of this nation; is to abandon the very foundation of this nation; and a consession and an abandonment of your own inherant rights... given that they exist by the argument of these mens views.

Certainly the nation was not souly founded upon christianity (many of the founders were deists, and we have much wisdom of that religion and its philosophy in our texts) but you cannot divorce the heritage of christianity, and the colonial ideals, from the history and foundation of this nation...

The said principle should have all of her educational degrees nullified, and be forever removed from administration of schools or students.

Yes, that is true, but as 'twas earlier pointed out, cultural and moral values take a long time to change - sometimes there is a bold, swift movement, but that is anything but the average.

For politicos to attempt a forced change on their fellow citizens is absolutely . . . evil. I had to stop and think whether I wanted to use that word, since it implies a great deal, and I don't use it unless I really mean it, which I do.

You can't force your ideas on people, like the liberal scums do - if you are bent on making a change because you believe it would be good for the majority, then you try to convince the people of its being worthy - it's called democracy.

While I normally disagree with christian revisionism; it is impossible to teach the historical backdrop of the founding of this nation without refference to the many christian sects which took part in it's establishment and formation (and the necessary extension existing in the 1st Amendment's principle of religious liberty).

A good portion of the Colonies were formed specifically by certain sects: most of whom were fleeing religious persecution in Europe, and subsequently granted freedom of worship in conscience within their various colonial charters...

Providence Plantation (Rhode Island) by the Baptists.
Pennsylvania by the Anabaptists and Quakers.
Maryland by the Catholics.
Virginia by both the evangelical and reformed methodists, Epsicopalians, and Presbyterians.

With the exception of the Puritans in Mass. most others had learned from the mistakes which occured inEurope, and we have their great colonial work in charter for the descent of our principles of religious liberty.

To abandon the teaching of the views these great men held, in the establishment of this nation; is to abandon the very foundation of this nation; and a consession and an abandonment of your own inherant rights... given that they exist by the argument of these mens views.

Certainly the nation was not souly founded upon christianity (many of the founders were deists, and we have much wisdom of that religion and its philosophy in our texts) but you cannot divorce the heritage of christianity, and the colonial ideals, from the history and foundation of this nation...

The said principle should have all of her educational degrees nullified, and be forever removed from administration of schools or students.

i agree with your final statement fully

And through my many intense historical studies, I seem to have discovered that the majority of modern-day revisionist history has not been done with the goal of promoting the Christian religion . . .

Yes, that is true, but as 'twas earlier pointed out, cultural and moral values take a long time to change - sometimes there is a bold, swift movement, but that is anything but the average.

For politicos to attempt a forced change on their fellow citizens is absolutely . . . evil. I had to stop and think whether I wanted to use that word, since it implies a great deal, and I don't use it unless I really mean it, which I do.

You can't force your ideas on people, like the liberal scums do - if you are bent on making a change because you believe it would be good for the majority, then you try to convince the people of its being worthy - it's called democracy.

yes

i don't disagree
but changing peoples cultural beliefs is a slow process
look at how the amreican public deals with sex and nudity
(regardless of whether you think the two are the same)

But it still happens. People's cultural beliefs still change over time. I actually only really figured this out recently when I was reading the Bible, and EVERYONE married their cousins and sisters and half-sisters and relatives in general (I'm thinking Genesis here). They prefered to keep their bloodlines closed. And that's so out of sync with today's standards, it's considered ammoral now.

OK here's (http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_2474161) a link to a more balanced version of this story, it actually lists some of the material the teacher was using. You can see it's not your usual 5th grade history stuff. This is a classic case of the teachers lawyer trying this case through the media, since the school district is keeping mum he's having a field day with the religious right just lapping this stuff up.

My main problem is that both sides of the spectrum are intolerant of the other. I think it is fine to bring up the fact that many of the Founding Fathers believed in God, but you also have to bring up the fact that Jefferson was a deist.

The vitriol that is springing forth from this little bumble is surprising to me on so many levels, yet I find it strangely interesting. How the US has so many extremists on both wings.

We really need to learn to be tolerant of other's political and religious beliefs (God, I sound like a liberal of some sort, might as well just say "Cant we alll just, get along?")

So yeah...uh-hum *clears throat* R-E-S-P-E-C-T Ah'll tell ya what it means to me!

My main problem is that both sides of the spectrum are intolerant of the other. I think it is fine to bring up the fact that many of the Founding Fathers believed in God, but you also have to bring up the fact that Jefferson was a deist.

The vitriol that is springing forth from this little bumble is surprising to me on so many levels, yet I find it strangely interesting. How the US has so many extremists on both wings.

We really need to learn to be tolerant of other's political and religious beliefs (God, I sound like a liberal of some sort, might as well just say "Cant we alll just, get along?")

So yeah...uh-hum *clears throat* R-E-S-P-E-C-T Ah'll tell ya what it means to me!

LOL

For the love of...

Is it possible to have a civil discussion in this forum? Thread locked.

Chess Squares: You are on very thin ice. Shape up or be shipped out.