NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489591,00.html

When I was in school, I always wished they would quit teaching environmental lessons because it was repetitive and annoying.

Could environmental education be crossing into environmental indoctrination? Some critics say yes, as schools boast that such curricula simply is teaching children ways of caring for the earth.

Being a "good" student at Western Avenue Elementary School in Flossmoor, Ill., means more than just doing reading, writing and arithmetic well. It also means trying to save the planet.

"It's really important to help the earth and save the polar bears," 9-year-old Duree Everett said, as she colored a "go green" sign at her desk.

The students are taking part in what's called "National Green Week," organized by the Green Education Foundation. Schools across the country are encouraged to teach children about recycling, global warming and carbon footprints.

"It's important to start creating habits now, while children are young, because it can add up over a lifetime to make huge monumental consequences to the environment," said Victoria Waters, president of the Green Education Foundation.

Children as young as 5 years old are told to avoid plastic water bottles, carry lunches in reusable containers, to conserve water and reduce their trash, both at school and at home. They're also taught that planet earth is in trouble and animals' lives could be in danger.

While that may seem politically correct to many people, all the talk of "green" is making some people see red. Critics say using public schools as a means to change habits and opinions on things such as ecology and global warming, amounts to environmental religion, because the beliefs of some are being forced on all children. The kids are then pressured to bring that information home and impose it on their families.

Angela Logomasini, from a free-market environmental policy group called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says it's political indoctrination.

"I think children should not be forced to take one set of values over another," Logomasini said. "This isn't simply about controlling litter, like we had in the '70s. It's more about recycling, living organically — it's a lifestyle choice that is being forced on students whether they like it or not, whether parents like it or not."

Logomasini said this type of teaching doesn't belong in taxpayer funded schools — students should be "learning science and they should be learning different perspectives from which they can make a critical analysis," rather than being taught that there's only one viewpoint.

Many school districts across the country are now offering teacher's lesson plans on environmental issues. Students in Los Angeles, Ohio and Texas are all practicing waste reduction in the classroom.

Western Avenue Elementary School principal Jennifer Camilleri insists students aren't pressured to make changes, just taught information that makes them want to change.

"They really weren't aware of the amount of trash they were producing based upon their snacks and their lunch, until we had the experiment where we weighed all the trash we collected from the classrooms and the kids," she said. "It was as if a light went on in their heads."

She said for these kids, the lessons will last much longer than just the seven days of National Green Week because teachers talk about environmental issues all year long.

Several parents at the elementary school say they support the program and have learned "green" measures from their children. They've even formed a "green team" to educate other parents and children about their environmental concerns.

Teachers say they hope the lessons from National Green Week will keep being recycled, as students pass along the information to others, forming habits they claim will lead to greener pastures for planet earth in the future.

Article. Bolded a term I have never heard before in life.

Children as young as 5 years old are told to avoid plastic water bottles, carry lunches in reusable containers, to conserve water and reduce their trash, both at school and at home.
What the hell!

Children are being taught good environmental practice that could improve the lives of themselves and others! MADNESS! This must be stopped at once! We cannot have innocent children being indoctrinated with facts!

Next you'll be saying that children are being taught how to cook food properly and avoid food poisoning...

INDOCTRINATION, I tells ye!

I fail to see the problem.

What the hell!

Children are being taught good environmental practice that could improve the lives of themselves and others! MADNESS! This must be stopped at once! We cannot have innocent children being indoctrinated with facts!

Next you'll be saying that children are being taught how to cook food properly and avoid food poisoning...

INDOCTRINATION, I tells ye!

Next thing you know we'll be teaching children NOT TO TALK TO STRANGERS! Do we really want these liberal bastards teaching our children how to live their lives???? That's the job of parents!

....I am just amazed at how blindly dogmatic people can be. "LIBERALS LIKE RECYCLING, SO IT MUST BE EVIL! GRAAAAAAGH!"

Other ways kids are indoctrinated at school:

Golden Rule
Washing Hands After Using Toilet
Proper English
Base Ten Number System

Other ways kids are indoctrinated at school:

Golden Rule
Washing Hands After Using Toilet
Proper English
Base Ten Number System

Indeed! What if I wanted to teach my kids that they should eat crayons and punch smaller children, and the teacher tells them not to! HOW DARE THEY?

not base ten! go 0110 0010 0110 0001 0111 0011 0110 0101 0010 0000 0011 0010!

I hate the way Fox News presents its ignorant and stupid views in the format "well, some people think thats not acceptable" as if not being honest in that they identify with that opinion means that they are being 'fair and balanced', even though the general tone of the article makes it clear to anyone reading it which side they fall upon.

They use meaningless political buzzwords such as 'political correctness' as if their deployment seals the argument, and make ludicrous, unsupported claims that its 'environmental religion', when I'm sure they'd have no problem with schools indoctrinating children into Christian religion and hatred of minority groups.

Meh. It has long been one of the purposes of public schools to teach students to be good citizens. Conservatives only seem to complain about this when it is "liberal" values like tolerance or environmentalism that are being taught -- even though these are actually non-partisan ideas.

The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[Public] education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation." .

....

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers -- and indeed the older students -- demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models.

This quote is from the majority opinion in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=675), 478 U.S. 675 (1986), written by Chief Justice Burger and joined by Justices White, Powell, Rehnquist and O'Connor. Concurrences by Justices Brennan and Blackmun.

Children as young as 5 years old are told to avoid plastic water bottles, carry lunches in reusable containers, to conserve water and reduce their trash, both at school and at home. They're also taught that planet earth is in trouble and animals' lives could be in danger.

I wonder how many papers the school sends home and/or uses, printed on only one side.... our school sends home at least 3 dozen a week between our 2 kids, many of which are duplicates of the same information!!

Children as young as 5 years old are told to avoid plastic water bottles, carry lunches in reusable containers, to conserve water and reduce their trash, both at school and at home. They're also taught that planet earth is in trouble and animals' lives could be in danger.

While that may seem politically correct to many people, all the talk of "green" is making some people see red. Critics say using public schools as a means to change habits and opinions on things such as ecology and global warming, amounts to environmental religion, because the beliefs of some are being forced on all children. The kids are then pressured to bring that information home and impose it on their families.

Dude... Please kill me now.

Tsk tsk... next they will be teaching these kids extremist Islamic theology...

Tsk tsk... next they will be teaching these kids extremist Islamic theology...

that's not even funny, as a joke.

No "extremist" theology is funny.

No "extremist" theology is funny.
I don't know, the inherent absurdities of Stalinism, Qutb-style extremist Islam, etc., are rather morbidly humorous.

here is what industry should do. Open private schools that surpasses the public education system allow free admission(write it off as tax deductible donations). The only place lacking should be in the environmental science department as they will refute environmental stuff.
This way the kids have a better education as far as getting into universities and the industry has future generations wanting to appeal the environmental laws.

What the hell!

Children are being taught good environmental practice that could improve the lives of themselves and others! MADNESS! This must be stopped at once! We cannot have innocent children being indoctrinated with facts!

Next you'll be saying that children are being taught how to cook food properly and avoid food poisoning...

INDOCTRINATION, I tells ye!

I most certainly did not "L.O.L." at this. Eating cooked meats is a lifestyle choice that was forced upon me by society. A choice that I DO NOT WANT!

</tongue-in-cheek>

They could at least show the kids the other side of the argument.

They could at least show the kids the other side of the argument.
Like what? "You should litter, refuse to recycle and waste resources."?

I don't see why children should be educated to practice harmful, wasteful actions, all in the name of some bullshit impartiality.

Like what? "You should litter, refuse to recycle and waste resources."?

^ this.

What other side of the argument is there?

Like what? "You should litter, refuse to recycle and waste resources."?

I don't see why children should be educated to practice harmful, wasteful actions, all in the name of some bullshit impartiality.

I'm talking Global Warming wise.

They could at least show the kids the other side of the argument.

Like what? "You should litter, refuse to recycle and waste resources."?

I don't see why children should be educated to practice harmful, wasteful actions, all in the name of some bullshit impartiality.

Yes. You know, just like they should teach the "other side of the argument" about evolution. The "other side of the argument" being that some people like to pick and choose which scientific data they're going to pay attention to based on religion/political positions.

I'm talking Global Warming wise.

They aren't being taught about global warming. They're being taught that it's a good idea to reduce and recycle trash, otherwise the earth and therefore we and other living things may suffer for it. OMG liberal values! Only liberals enjoy living, after all!

They aren't being taught about global warming. They're being taught that it's a good idea to reduce and recycle trash, otherwise the earth and therefore we and other living things may suffer for it. OMG liberal values! Only liberals enjoy living, after all!

Environmentalism includes global warming, right? And one of the kids mentioned saving polar bears, so that must be global warming related.

Article. Bolded a term I have never heard before in life.Yeah, that's when I stopped reading. 'Environmental religion?' Gimme a break.

Environmentalism includes global warming, right? And one of the kids mentioned saving polar bears, so that must be global warming related.

Does it?

Seems to me that wanting to reduce landfill by recycling has more to do with pollution/litter than it does climate change. I don't recycle because I believe me doing it prevents climate change (I believe some of that to be inevitably cyclical, but that's another thread), I recycle because I'd like to do my part to reduce overall waste and pollution.

Environmentalism includes global warming, right? And one of the kids mentioned saving polar bears, so that must be global warming related.
The evil that is Captain Planet rears it's ugly head again...

Won't anyone think of the children?

Environmentalism includes global warming, right?

Not necessarily.

And one of the kids mentioned saving polar bears, so that must be global warming related.

Again, not necessarily. The polar bears were mentioned as a species that is dying out due to habitat destruction. This could apply equally to deforestation in the Amazon, caused by huge demand for wood and little care about organisms living there.

They could at least show the kids the other side of the argument.

DESTROY ALL NATURE

DEATH TO EVERYTHING

INJECT POISON DIRECTLY INTO YOUR NUTSACK

That's basically it.

DESTROY ALL NATURE

DEATH TO EVERYTHING

INJECT POISON DIRECTLY INTO YOUR NUTSACK

That's basically it.

And Vote Republican. *scurries away*

ffs. I dont really care what happens 2 the earth personaly. Either way were all gonna blow it up someday, and i personaly would like to see that in my life time, just so i can say in the next life (i belive in reincarnation) i helped blow up Earth! If i can remember it...

Recycling tho? In Britain its a theoracy over here for recylcing! They have 'food police' who raid your bins, and if you dont recylce they can fine you. Screw em all! Were like big brother over here.

ffs. I dont really care what happens 2 the earth persanoly. Either way were all gonna blow it upp someday, and i persanolly would like to see that in my life time, just so i can say in the next life (i belive in reincarncation) i helped blow up earth! If i can remember it...

Recycling tho? In ritain its a theoracy over here for recylcing! They have 'food police' who aid your bins, and if you dont ecylce they can fine you. Screw em! Were like big brother over here.

I long for the day "ritain" hires typing police. If you don't give your post even the most cursory review before submitting it they can fine you.

dude i just corrected it, and so what if there are typo's? type too fast for myself no need to ridicule me.

dude i just corrected it, and so what if there are typo's? type too fast for myself no need to ridicule me.

Over the years this forum has been here, it's become fairly evident that if a poster can't put their thoughts into words accurately and coherently, they are not likely to be providing useful contributions*. Bad spelling and grammar is a very good sign of this.

If nothing else, most people simply don't bother reading posts that they have to decipher.

I did bother to decipher your post, and don't think it was worth the time. Sources for your claims, please.

*There are exceptions, of course.

Dude, I just corrected it, and so what if there are typos? I type too fast for myself. No need to ridicule me.
See me after class.

On topic:
Oh noes! Librulz are teaching our kids not to be wasteful and needlessly damage the environment! Indoctrination! To be fair and balanced, we should also present the view that trashing the planet will have no negative consequences whatsoever!

DESTROY ALL NATURE

DEATH TO EVERYTHING

INJECT POISON DIRECTLY INTO YOUR NUTSACK

That's basically it.

For some reason, I read this as if it were being delivered by an evil robot.

It made it that much more hilarious. :D

Seriously, though. I used to think the villains on Captain Planet were just silly strawmen. Now I'm not so sure...

dude i just corrected it, and so what if there are typo's? type too fast for myself no need to ridicule me.

The content of your post, and I use the most generous possible definition of the word "content", was ridiculous and uninspired, adding absolutely nothing to the discussion and failing to even score as humor. It was also so poorly written that the mere reading of it induced mental pain and anguish for which I will have to seek the services of a professional therapist.

I could "ridicule" you about either part--I chose the form rather than the content to be nice.

They have 'food police' who raid your bins, and if you dont recylce they can fine you. Screw em all! Were like big brother over here.

Lolwut?

For some reason, I read this as if it were being delivered by an evil robot.

It made it that much more hilarious. :D

Dick Cheney makes everything funny.

Like what? "You should litter, refuse to recycle and waste resources."?

Yeah ! It's the American dream baby !

Teaching kids to be environmentally friendly is one thing but then there is also teaching exaggerated claims that will occur due to climate change and the so called effects of it. For example a teacher saying that throw your paper and plastic bottles in the recycling bin is good, teaching kids that unless something is done now and humans are stopped from burning coal the our town will be completely under water except for the tops of the skyscrapers is another.

The evil that is Captain Planet rears it's ugly head again...

Won't anyone think of the children?

No. I'm too busy paying worship to the alter of truth, Faux News by commandeering several dump trucks and emptying their contents as offerings in front of their offices.

:p

I'm seriously failing to see what the problem is with this... its not like they are teaching kids that the world will end The Day After Tomorow style are they?

I'm seriously failing to see what the problem is with this... its not like they are teaching kids that the world will end The Day After Tomorow style are they?

But... that's such a cool way for the world to end! It's how I want to go.

But... that's such a cool way for the world to end! It's how I want to go.

You forgot the smilies, someone might think you were serious.

You forgot the smilies, someone might think you were serious.

Good sarcasm gives no clue except the statement itself.

omg, parents are upset that their children are coming home and trying to get them to save money at the cost of a little bit of time?

I mean really, the price of baggies, juice boxes, granola bars and other snack foods in tiny packages over time is greater than the price of a lunchbox with containers and a thermos filled with juice that came from a can with some homemade cookies on the side in their own container or a piece of fruit. Kids not wasting water = lower water bills. Kid wearing sweater indoors = lower heating bills. Kid not wasting stuff = lower everything bills.

I mean, the average amount of conservation efforts (reducing usage, reusing and recycling) one can save a lot of money compared to not doing this. Hell, even doing things like getting rainwater/grey water collectors to water the yard and putting a compost heap out in the back is saving money. It only starts getting more expensive when you start getting into solar panels and hybrid vehicles (although those save you money in the long run and blah blah blah).

omg, parents are upset that their children are coming home and trying to get them to save money at the cost of a little bit of time?


Well, that and the implication that us humans could be causing our demise and that we should care about such things. That after all contradicts the whole apocalypse idea where the supreme powers fight, devastate the world and then judge us and take us to a better (or worse) place.

Caring about our world is heresy ! Heresy !

As is suggesting that driving a gas guzzler, commuting vast distances daily, using the airconditioning instead of opening a window instead and so on are not nice things to do. That is what America is all about after all !

Heresy AND Commieloving Treason !

The sad thing is that far too many people deep down really think this way.

It's nice that facts are taught in school. I mean, one of the lessons is "waste not - want not" - very good. I'm just confused by people wanting children to be taught the other side of facts.

It's nice that facts are taught in school. I mean, one of the lessons is "waste not - want not" - very good. I'm just confused by people wanting children to be taught the other side of facts.

They can't teach reality; it has a liberal bias.

The evil that is Captain Planet rears it's ugly head again...

Won't anyone think of the children?
Captain Planet was horrible. The writers' idea of a serious political statement was, "Can't we all just get along," or "People who deploy Nuclear Deathrays in National Parks are very mean."
DESTROY ALL NATURE

DEATH TO EVERYTHING

INJECT POISON DIRECTLY INTO YOUR NUTSACK

That's basically it.
"Cancer patients can be cured through doses of radiation, therefore a global, nuclear holocaust will end all cancer and make the world 187% more healthy."

Captain Planet was horrible. The writers' idea of a serious political statement was, "Can't we all just get along," or "People who deploy Nuclear Deathrays in National Parks are very mean."

But... that's why I never deployed a nuclear death ray in a natural park.

I built a Space Station for it instead...

i dont get whats so bad about them being taught how to save the enviroment, gayfuckingstupid fox news... all it is is celebrity bull shit and crack pot theories...

They can't teach reality; it has a liberal bias.

I wish anti-liberals would just get their own dimension.

i dont get whats so bad about them being taught how to save the enviroment, gayfuckingstupid fox news... all it is is celebrity bull shit and crack pot theories...

Stupid gay fuck fox.

Base Ten Number System

That's not a good thing.

Good sarcasm gives no clue except the statement itself.

The internets isn't ready for good sarcasms.

Stupid gay fuck fox.

Why do I have a feeling that this is going to replace "Faux News"...?

So...somehow it's okay to preach creationism instead of evolution in schools, but teaching environmentally-friendly habits is over the line? Interesting..

Why do I have a feeling that this is going to replace "Faux News"...?

Because Faux News does not have a cute cartoon mascot.

^ this.

What other side of the argument is there?

Pragmatism.

For example: many African nations can't afford to industrialize using "clean energy" but international regulations won't let them use "dirty" energy, so they can't industrialize.

To give a different perspective, imagine all the religious parents out there sarcastically saying "Oh, sure, let's not teach them about avoiding sin, hellfire, and damnation. Let's just let them go about their business and make bad choices that will damn them for eternity just so those crazy religious conservatives can't indoctrinate the children with their crazy ideas of salvation..."

Pragmatism.

For example: many African nations can't afford to industrialize using "clean energy" but international regulations won't let them use "dirty" energy, so they can't industrialize.

To give a different perspective, imagine all the religious parents out there sarcastically saying "Oh, sure, let's not teach them about avoiding sin, hellfire, and damnation. Let's just let them go about their business and make bad choices that will damn them for eternity just so those crazy religious conservatives can't indoctrinate the children with their crazy ideas of salvation..."

I hardly think environmental regulations are what's keeping african nations from industrializing. But naive, simplistic viewpoints are fun.

I hardly think environmental regulations are what's keeping african nations from industrializing. But naive, simplistic viewpoints are fun.

Aren't they?

Pragmatism.

For example: many African nations can't afford to industrialize using "clean energy" but international regulations won't let them use "dirty" energy, so they can't industrialize.

Which is why I think all regulation should to some extent take into account ability, with nations more able to afford the regulation doing a bit more until other nations can start to pick up some of the slack.


To give a different perspective, imagine all the religious parents out there sarcastically saying "Oh, sure, let's not teach them about avoiding sin, hellfire, and damnation. Let's just let them go about their business and make bad choices that will damn them for eternity just so those crazy religious conservatives can't indoctrinate the children with their crazy ideas of salvation..."

The key difference, of course, is that our ability to damage the environment is empirically demonstrable, whereas religious belief has nothing to back it up but faith.


I realize that you aren't supporting those arguments, but I don't see why we should take them seriously when they're so trivially refutable.

Aren't they?

Given that things like the Kyoto protocol are relatively new, and African nations have been increasingly poor for a relatively long time, don't you think that perhaps there's something else at work?

And what do african nation's ability to protect the environment exactly have to do with teaching Westerners (you know, the people producing most of the pollution) to not litter or reduce their carbon outputs? Seems pretty pragmatic to me...

For some reason, I read this as if it were being delivered by an evil robot.

It made it that much more hilarious. :D

Really? That works too. I was thinking death metal/hardcore punk singer, though...

Given that things like the Kyoto protocol are relatively new, and African nations have been increasingly poor for a relatively long time, don't you think that perhaps there's something else at work?

The US used to be poor for a relatively long time. So was China. And Japan. And many parts of the Middle East...

The US used to be poor for a relatively long time. So was China. And Japan. And many parts of the Middle East...

So you're admitting environmental regulations aren't what's holding them back?

Which is why I think all regulation should to some extent take into account ability, with nations more able to afford the regulation doing a bit more until other nations can start to pick up some of the slack.

Compromise. Wonderful. Why can't more people be like that?

The key difference, of course, is that our ability to damage the environment is empirically demonstrable, whereas religious belief has nothing to back it up but faith.

Review the epistemological skeptics.

I realize that you aren't supporting those arguments, but I don't see why we should take them seriously when they're so trivially refutable.

I bring them up to point out the perspective. They say the same thing.

I'm really glad to see this, because it's astonishingly difficult to get people to actually change their habits and conserve resources better.

Even my parents, who are allegedly environmentalists, find it hard to actually conserve at times. They'll do things like leave lights or televisions on, or leave the water running while washing dishes when not directly using it, or opting for plastic Ziploc bags over using our reusable containers(I once caught them putting leftover SPAGHETTI into such a bag!)

So you're admitting environmental regulations aren't what's holding them back?

I pointing out that the US, China, Japan, etc. didn't have environmental regulations in place when they industrialized.

To give a different perspective, imagine all the religious parents out there sarcastically saying "Oh, sure, let's not teach them about avoiding sin, hellfire, and damnation. Let's just let them go about their business and make bad choices that will damn them for eternity just so those crazy religious conservatives can't indoctrinate the children with their crazy ideas of salvation..."

Um. Really, really bad example.

We have a little thing called separation of Church and State and most religious people recognize that it is a good thing that public schools don't seek to teach religious ideals.

Um. Really, really bad example.

We have a little thing called separation of Church and State and most religious people recognize that it is a good thing that public schools don't seek to teach religious ideals.

Why is there a distinction of Church and State but not separation of and State?

For example: We teach in school that raping, killing, stealing, etc. are all wrong, and yet there are those who would disagree with that set of ideologies. These people are generally criminally insane, but the point remains nonetheless: people disagree. Why is one set of ideologies valued above the other?

Let me say it this way: We [I]can empirically prove that environmentalism is beneficial to many forms of life on earth, including humans, in many ways. You cannot empirically prove that this is an inherently good thing. Why should we do what is beneficial to other animals if humans can persist without them? Why should we care particularly about any human welfare other than our own? Why should we care about human welfare in general? These things cannot be empirically proven because these things delve into realms of morality and subjective value. And so, if this set of values is subjective, and religious values are subjective, why do we make a national distinction to say that defining the former is within the scope of public education, but the latter is not?

Why is there a distinction of Church and State but not separation of [Insert non-religious but significant ideology here] and State?

I could say "because the fucking Constitution says so."

I don't currently have the time or energy to explain to you the history of and/or the history and philosophy behind the separation of Church and State. You might start your education by reading this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14485690&postcount=1).

I could say "because the fucking Constitution says so."

No it doesn't.

I don't currently have the time or energy to explain to you the history of and/or the history and philosophy behind the separation of Church and State. You might start your education by reading this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14485690&postcount=1).

You completely missed the point I was trying to make altogether.

No it doesn't.

Um, don't be silly. Yes, it does. Try the First Amendment (emphasis added):

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.

You completely missed the point I was trying to make altogether.

No. I understood it. And I gave an answer. Apparently you failed to understand that answer.

Um, don't be silly. Yes, it does. Try the First Amendment (emphasis added):

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.

I don't see the words "Separation of Church and State in there."

No. I understood it. And I gave an answer. Apparently you failed to understand that answer.

It was my point. How can you say better than I that you understood my point and responded satisfactorily to it?

I don't see the words "Separation of Church and State in there."

Generic stupid arguments get generic answers, so I'll copy and paste:

1. Don't worry about the "Congress shall make no law ...." language as a limitation on the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to all "state action'--in other words any government action. So the whole federal government is covered. Further, the First Amendment applies to the states through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)); Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion applies to states); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause applies to states).

EDIT: Just in case someone thinks this is a liberal trick, here is an article on incorporation from the National Rifle Association (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).

2. As for the phrase, "separation of Church and State" it is both a well-established concept enshrined in the First Amendment AND is a shorthand for the Establishment Clause that SCOTUS has adopted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. This the Court first explained 130 years ago in Reynolds v United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145, 162-164 (1878) (emphasis added):

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

3. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

4. Finally, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers (and as my other post cited was used by some of the Puritans). James Madison (the author of the First Amendment), in particular, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

It was my point. How can you say better than I that you understood my point and responded satisfactorily to it?

Silliness. I could just as well say it was my answer and how can you say better than I that you understood it?

So if my religion says I am obligated to smoke crack the US government (assuming I live there) can't stop me?

I pointing out that the US, China, Japan, etc. didn't have environmental regulations in place when they industrialized.

The reason why many African nations cannot industrialize is because of the internet. US, China, Japan, etc. didn't have the internet in place when they industrialized.

Silliness. I could just as well say it was my answer and how can you say better than I that you understood it?

Whether or not I understood your answer is irrelevant to your understanding of my point. If I do not understand your answer and, as a consequence, fail to see how it answers the point I was making, then it is your failing, as you failed to adequately answer the point in a manner that is acceptable as a suitable answer.

So if my religion says I am obligated to smoke crack the US government (assuming I live there) can't stop me?

Yeah. That's exactly what I said and is a pithy summary of First Amendment law. :headbang:

(If you actually want a serious answer, read Employment Division v. Smith (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=872), 494 U.S. 872 (1990)).

Whether or not I understood your answer is irrelevant to your understanding of my point. If I do not understand your answer and, as a consequence, fail to see how it answers the point I was making, then it is your failing, as you failed to adequately answer the point in a manner that is acceptable as a suitable answer.

We could ping-pong on this inane side-track for pages.

If you think my answer was inadequate, state how and why. Or is actual discussion against your religious convictions? :wink:

The reason why many African nations cannot industrialize is because of the internet. US, China, Japan, etc. didn't have the internet in place when they industrialized.

An important thing to note when instead of learning to recycle, grade-school students are asked to set international policy concerning third-world development. :D

Yeah. That's exactly what I said and is a pithy summary of First Amendment law. :headbang:

I thought so.

We could ping-pong on this inane side-track for pages.

One-love.

If you think my answer was inadequate, state how and why. Or is actual discussion against your religious convictions? :wink:

I already stated how and why: You missed the point entirely.

Yes. My religious convictions require me to smoke crack. And also to burn many trees daily, and throw the little plastic rings that hold six-packs together all over the place.

RhynoD, if you hate recycling all that much you could just keep all your garbage, you know. Most people who do that can fit an amazing amount in the average house. Even the average apartment can manage decent capacity.

Fox is just getting more and more crazy as time goes on......

Fox is just getting more and more crazy as time goes on......

A lot like the rest of the conservatives.

RhynoD, if you hate recycling all that much you could just keep all your garbage, you know. Most people who do that can fit an amazing amount in the average house. Even the average apartment can manage decent capacity.

I tried that, but my roommates started complaining (not that they generally clean their shit, but that's how it is).

My car, however, has a great deal of space.


And I don't hate recycling. I'm a pragmatist. I only hate recycling that comes at the cost of sanity and unreasonable financial expenses.

Following Fox's suit, the Northern Ireland Enviroment Minister, Sammy Wilson, has prevented environmental ads (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/environment--minister-sammy-wilson-bans-adverts-warning-of-the-effects-of-climate-change-14180104.html) to be shown on NI television, due to his scepticism (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html) over man-made climate change.

Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has banned government television adverts in Northern Ireland warning of the effects of climate change, it emerged today.

The DUP man said he was not prepared to allow “insidious New Labour propaganda” about the impact of climate change which would have been screened on UTV.

...

Mr Wilson said the adverts attempted to tell people that simple measures like changing their lightbulbs and turning off TVs from stand-by mode could help prevent them “wrecking the world”.

He told the Belfast Telegraph: “The vast majority of people are not prepared to accept this view of life any more and are certainly not prepared to bear the massive financial consequences.”

[Source (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/environment--minister-sammy-wilson-bans-adverts-warning-of-the-effects-of-climate-change-14180104.html)]

Dearie me...

Jesus green?

No man he was sorta brown coloured!

Jesus green?

No man he was sorta brown coloured!

Yeah, but he drove an electric car.

Wasting resources and mortgaging the future are the American way and I'll be damned if some pinko-commie-leftist environazi is going to take away my right to recklessly consume and erode America's long-term economic potential! Thank God we had eight years of President Bush...never has there been so long a respite from bullshit like "prosperity" and "clean water" and now it's all going to the wayside again.

Wasting resources and mortgaging the future are the American way and I'll be damned if some pinko-commie-leftist environazi is going to take away my right to recklessly consume and erode America's long-term economic potential! Thank God we had eight years of President Bush...never has there been so long a respite from bullshit like "prosperity" and "clean water" and now it's all going to the wayside again.

Normally I'd think this is sarcastic, but you have had a tendency to sound quite conservative lately, so I just want to be sure...

Normally I'd think this is sarcastic, but you have had a tendency to sound quite conservative lately, so I just want to be sure...

I might be economically conservative, but there's no way in hell it makes sense not to encourage efficient use of resources. The past eight years were devastating to our country's long-term economic health, and this current crisis is only a taste of what will happen if things don't change. Ideology can't get in the way of common sense.

Ideology can't get in the way of common sense.

What?!! That's exactly what ideology is for! :D

What?!! That's exactly what ideology is for! :D

Yeah, that's true...

"Cancer patients can be cured through doses of radiation, therefore a global, nuclear holocaust will end all cancer and make the world 187% more healthy."

Hey, that's technically true.