TOPICS:
DEC 20, 2007 11:21 AM
joker_ said:
grazing_cattle said:
Next time a Jehovah's witness comes to your door tell him you don't want to hear the "cherry picked" versus he has and instead have him sit down and read the entire thing to you.
Wait.(laughing very hard)
Did you do this?
I can't help thinking, that you did.
No,
he took the 3 page pamphlet and said " thanks for the edited version. 
"
DEC 20, 2007 11:27 AM
Uncognitive said:
grazing_cattle said:
cohiba357
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction... That these liberties are the gift of God? The bible is the cornerstone for American liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
Is this the quote that Uncognitive was saying I misquoted? Because I didn't say it. By the looks of it I just clicked reply to the wrong comment when replying Uncognitive correcting him about the edited version of the bible by Jefferson.
Sorry, my apologies. It was some other dominionism apologist who misquoted Jefferson.
You've merely misquoted John Jay, been complete wrong about the ruling of Vidal v. Girard, claimed that Fisher Ames wrote the language of the First Amendment when he didn't, wildly misinterpreted both the depiction of Moses on the Supreme Court building and the nature of the Jeffersonian Bible, and made completely contradictory and unsupported claims about the Constitution and the First Amendment.
My point on Vidal v. Girard is that it was a ruling on having the bible in schools not about clergymen you just tried attacking from an angle that had nothing to do with the original point. Why is there a more then one person involved when writing the amendments if Madison just walked in and said "here it is lets go home now" He had help and did not write the actual language used. You're the one that brought up Jefferson's bible and misinterpreted it. I said it was not suppose to be a revised bible. It was not. I gave you a link and quote supporting that less then ten minutes ago. You know what I'll give you Moses though. Even though the ACLU would flip out if we did something like that today I'll give you that point. Somebody else quoted and gave a link to the first amendment look it up if you want. It just keeps the government from setting up an established religion. Again you are unable to bring up this misquote of John Jay.
You misinterpreted Jefferson's bible and letter containing "wall of seperation" misused Reynolds v. US and can't seem to get past that the constitution doesn't have the establishment of god or the denial of him in it and look at anything else
DEC 20, 2007 11:31 AM
Uncognitive said:
grazing_cattle said:
"Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania.
Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the court, that the decree of the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill, ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly affirmed with costs."
Wait, so banning clergymen from is not "inconsistent with the christian religion,"? Oddly I never seen church with the "no clergymen allowed" sign out front.
Apparently, you don't really even bother to read the shit you reference.
Having the government of Philadelphia set up a SECULAR SCHOOL that refused to employ any clergymen as teachers, and barred them from setting foot on the campus grounds, was ruled by the Supreme Court to not be inconsistent with the Christian religion, common law, the laws of Pennsylvania, or the U.S Constitution.
Girard, the wacky rich Deist clergy-hating French philanthropic bastard won. The Jesus-freaks who contested his will lost.
The ruling had fuck-all to do with churches. Hey, move one more goalpost and you've got a job with the NFL.
You're the one moving the goal posts on this one as it was brought up to say that it did rule in favor of having bibles in schools.
The City virtually guaranteed that the Bible would be taught in the school.
DEC 20, 2007 11:32 AM
grazing_cattle said:
Thomas Jefferson also petitioned to have the bible read in schools. Not his edited version Which was written six years before his death not as a revised bible but "It is a statement of Christian morality." which was distributed to congress under the title "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" begianing the tradition of destributing a bible to them every other year. A tradition that continued for about 50 years.
When looking up what people did it is generally important to find out why and not just spew out edited versions of the facts.
YOU did in fact bring up the Jefferson "Bible" and completely mis-represent it.
Here is another little tidbit for you, how did he give it to congress and start such a tradition when it WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN HIS LIFETIME ?
DEC 20, 2007 11:35 AM
Chainlink said:
joker_ said:
grazing_cattle said:
Next time a Jehovah's witness comes to your door tell him you don't want to hear the "cherry picked" versus he has and instead have him sit down and read the entire thing to you.
Wait.(laughing very hard)
Did you do this?
I can't help thinking, that you did.
No,
he took the 3 page pamphlet and said " thanks for the edited version. "
Well reading the entire bible is the other option to listening to what they want to tell you about what it teaches. Anyway this is getting so far away from the original topic.
DEC 20, 2007 11:39 AM
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
Thomas Jefferson also petitioned to have the bible read in schools. Not his edited version Which was written six years before his death not as a revised bible but "It is a statement of Christian morality." which was distributed to congress under the title "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" begianing the tradition of destributing a bible to them every other year. A tradition that continued for about 50 years.
When looking up what people did it is generally important to find out why and not just spew out edited versions of the facts.
YOU did in fact bring up the Jefferson "Bible" and completely mis-represent it.
Here is another little tidbit for you, how was it given to congress and start such a tradition when it WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN HIS LIFETIME ?
This was in reply to something Uncognitive had said
Uncognitive said:
Thomas Jefferson also edited his own version of the New Testament that removed all references to Jesus being the son of God, coming back from the dead, or having any divine powers whatsoever.
The Deist beliefs of many of the Founding Fathers can really only be described as "Christianity" if you cast a really wide net.
Also, Christmas didn't become a federal holiday until 1870, and is the only federal holiday with any specific religious connotation
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be. It does not need to be widely published on a large scale to be distributed to congress. The date it was published refers to the date it became available to the public.
DEC 20, 2007 11:44 AM
grazing_cattle said:
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
Thomas Jefferson also petitioned to have the bible read in schools. Not his edited version Which was written six years before his death not as a revised bible but "It is a statement of Christian morality." which was distributed to congress under the title "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" begianing the tradition of destributing a bible to them every other year. A tradition that continued for about 50 years.
When looking up what people did it is generally important to find out why and not just spew out edited versions of the facts.
YOU did in fact bring up the Jefferson "Bible" and completely mis-represent it.
Here is another little tidbit for you, how was it given to congress and start such a tradition when it WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN HIS LIFETIME ?
This was in reply to something Uncognitive had said
Uncognitive said:
Thomas Jefferson also edited his own version of the New Testament that removed all references to Jesus being the son of God, coming back from the dead, or having any divine powers whatsoever.
The Deist beliefs of many of the Founding Fathers can really only be described as "Christianity" if you cast a really wide net.
Also, Christmas didn't become a federal holiday until 1870, and is the only federal holiday with any specific religious connotation
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be.
No, it wasn't.
It was a reply to me and a blatantly fallacious attempt to show that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian who supported reading the bible in school. Which btw, you never showed anything remotely close to evidence for either.
oh and you referred to it as
his edited version
then insisted
grazing_cattle said:
It is the edited bible
eat a bag.
DEC 20, 2007 11:56 AM
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
Thomas Jefferson also petitioned to have the bible read in schools. Not his edited version Which was written six years before his death not as a revised bible but "It is a statement of Christian morality." which was distributed to congress under the title "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" begianing the tradition of destributing a bible to them every other year. A tradition that continued for about 50 years.
When looking up what people did it is generally important to find out why and not just spew out edited versions of the facts.
YOU did in fact bring up the Jefferson "Bible" and completely mis-represent it.
Here is another little tidbit for you, how was it given to congress and start such a tradition when it WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN HIS LIFETIME ?
This was in reply to something Uncognitive had said
Uncognitive said:
Thomas Jefferson also edited his own version of the New Testament that removed all references to Jesus being the son of God, coming back from the dead, or having any divine powers whatsoever.
The Deist beliefs of many of the Founding Fathers can really only be described as "Christianity" if you cast a really wide net.
Also, Christmas didn't become a federal holiday until 1870, and is the only federal holiday with any specific religious connotation
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be.
No, it wasn't. It was a reply to me and a blatantly fallacious attempt to show that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian who supported reading the bible in school. Which btw, you never showed anything remotely close to evidence for either.
oh and
grazing_cattle said:
It is the edited bible
eat a bag.
The comment it was in reponce to didn't make sence after it. You said that somebody missquoted Jefferson and they did. If Jefferson is a christian, a pagen, or muslim, doesn't change that he never said that . I just click respond to the wrong comment and didn't think it mattered enough to go back and correct it. I am sorry for the inconviniance this has caused you.
Your arguments are very strong in supporting your viewpoints
eat a bag
Strongest argument I've seen on this thread
DEC 20, 2007 11:58 AM
grazing_cattle said:
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be. It does not need to be widely published on a large scale to be distributed to congress. The date it was published refers to the date it became available to the public.
Stop making shit up
After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime. His reluctance appears to be based upon his conviction that religion was a private matter as well as his desire to avoid slander and criticism.
DEC 20, 2007 12:14 PM
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be. It does not need to be widely published on a large scale to be distributed to congress. The date it was published refers to the date it became available to the public.
Stop making shit up
After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime. His reluctance appears to be based upon his conviction that religion was a private matter as well as his desire to avoid slander and criticism.
Could the number of friends be members of congress as I have said? Also when it was publishe it was published by congress
DEC 20, 2007 08:29 PM
grazing_cattle said:
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be. It does not need to be widely published on a large scale to be distributed to congress. The date it was published refers to the date it became available to the public.
Stop making shit up
After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime. His reluctance appears to be based upon his conviction that religion was a private matter as well as his desire to avoid slander and criticism.
Could the number of friends be members of congress as I have said? Also when it was publishe it was published by congress
From your source:
Congress published posthumously, in 1904, his collation of extracts from the Gospels, now known as the "Jefferson Bible."
I bold 1904 becuase every time the Supreme Court cases were brought up, you kept saying they have nothing to do with our "heritage", which, based on your other arguments, I assume to mean the founding of the country. Yet, you are using an example from over a century-and-a-half later. Not exactly heritage, in your sense of the word.
DEC 20, 2007 09:17 PM
grazing_cattle said:
Uncognitive said:
grazing_cattle said:
"Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania.
Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the court, that the decree of the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill, ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly affirmed with costs."
Wait, so banning clergymen from is not "inconsistent with the christian religion,"? Oddly I never seen church with the "no clergymen allowed" sign out front.
Apparently, you don't really even bother to read the shit you reference.
Having the government of Philadelphia set up a SECULAR SCHOOL that refused to employ any clergymen as teachers, and barred them from setting foot on the campus grounds, was ruled by the Supreme Court to not be inconsistent with the Christian religion, common law, the laws of Pennsylvania, or the U.S Constitution.
Girard, the wacky rich Deist clergy-hating French philanthropic bastard won. The Jesus-freaks who contested his will lost.
The ruling had fuck-all to do with churches. Hey, move one more goalpost and you've got a job with the NFL.
You're the one moving the goal posts on this one as it was brought up to say that it did rule in favor of having bibles in schools.
The City virtually guaranteed that the Bible would be taught in the school.
From the actual ruling:
What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay-teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the will, that proscribes such studies. Above all, the testator positively enjoins, "that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instil into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that on their entrance into active life they may from inclination and habit evince benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer." Now, it may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively [**193] enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of Christianity? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more?
and later:
The testator has not said how these great principles are to be taught, or by whom, except it be by laymen, nor what books are to be used to explain or enforce them. All that we can gather from his language is, that he desired to exclude sectarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, by all apropriate means; and of course including the best, the surest, and the most impressive.
And later still:
The objection, then, in this view, goes to this, -- either that the testator has totally omitted to provide for religious instruction in his [*201] scheme of education, (which, from what has been already said, is an inadmissible interpretation,) or that it includes but partial and imperfect instruction in those [**194] truths.
In either view can it be truly said that it contravenes the known law of Pennsylvania upon the subject of charities, or is not allowable under the article of the bill of rights already cited? Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christinanity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it assording to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal?
These questions are propounded, because we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity? Hitherto it has been supposed, that a charity for the instruction of the poor might be good and valid in England even if it did not go beyond the establishment of a grammar-school. And in America, it has been thought, in [**195] the absence of any express legal prohibitions, that the donor might select the studies, as well as the classes of persons, who were to receive his bounty without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies.
The last paragraph is very important. The phrase "without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies" is a far cry from saying, "We're in favor of Bibles in school."
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but after reading the whole opinion of the court, I came away thinking that, because the will had not defined HOW the students were to be taught, there was no violation of Christian principles. Further, it says that NOT teaching religion is not necessarily teaching against Christian principles. There is also this statement: "we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal," which tore to shreds the argument that not teaching the Bible would be harmful.
My own conclusion from my reading: the ruling doesn't actually say anything about the legality of Bibles in school, but did rule in favor of the establishing of a secular institute.
DEC 20, 2007 10:15 PM
Which speaks volumes about your capacity for logical cognition.
DEC 20, 2007 10:24 PM
Ascanius said:
Which speaks volumes about your capacity for logical cognition.
DEC 20, 2007 11:54 PM
we3_pirate said:
grazing_cattle said:
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be. It does not need to be widely published on a large scale to be distributed to congress. The date it was published refers to the date it became available to the public.
Stop making shit up
After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime. His reluctance appears to be based upon his conviction that religion was a private matter as well as his desire to avoid slander and criticism.
Could the number of friends be members of congress as I have said? Also when it was publishe it was published by congress
From your source:
Congress published posthumously, in 1904, his collation of extracts from the Gospels, now known as the "Jefferson Bible."
I bold 1904 becuase every time the Supreme Court cases were brought up, you kept saying they have nothing to do with our "heritage", which, based on your other arguments, I assume to mean the founding of the country. Yet, you are using an example from over a century-and-a-half later. Not exactly heritage, in your sense of the word.
Again, I was not the one that brought up the issue of Jefferson's edited bible. Uncognitive brought it up and I was correcting him on how he used it as an example. I was not using this as an example of our heritage.
DEC 21, 2007 12:56 AM
we3_pirate said:
The last paragraph is very important. The phrase "without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies" is a far cry from saying, "We're in favor of Bibles in school."
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but after reading the whole opinion of the court, I came away thinking that, because the will had not defined HOW the students were to be taught, there was no violation of Christian principles. Further, it says that NOT teaching religion is not necessarily teaching against Christian principles. There is also this statement: "we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal," which tore to shreds the argument that not teaching the Bible would be harmful.
My own conclusion from my reading: the ruling doesn't actually say anything about the legality of Bibles in school, but did rule in favor of the establishing of a secular institute.
This opinion could not have been written if the Supreme Court had been interpreting the Constitution in the same way Court did when it banned Bible reading and prayer from the public schools. The Court saw no reason to rule that the City must NOT teach Christianity in the school. The Court took great pains to see if the charity contained anything that was "inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania," which was undergirded by the Christian common law. No court today, dominated by the religion of Secular Humanism, would worry about any inconsistencies with Christianity.
By today's standards and interpretations of the constitution, most the arguments would be thrown out. The fact they are so careful not to be inconsistent with Christianity shows that they except it and want to encourage it. Most the arguments have to do with it being ok for a layman to teach religion or not. The issue was not if the can take Christianity out of schools but who can teach it. Though it does not directly require the bible it is requiring religion/Christianity in the school so, "The City virtually guaranteed that the Bible would be taught in the school. "
The Court, speaking through Justice Story, agreed with both sides, that Christianity must be taught in the school, but disagreed with Daniel Webster, that clergy alone could do so.
It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country...
Now, in the present case, there is no pretence to say that any such positive or express provisions exist, or are even shadowed forth in the will. The testator does not say that Christianity shall not be taught in the college. But only that no ecclesiastic of any sect shall hold or exercise any station or duty in the college. Suppose, instead of this, he had said that no person but a layman shall be an instructor or officer or visitor in the college, [**190] what legal objection could have been made to such a restriction?
DEC 21, 2007 10:43 AM
The Baby Jesus cries because this argument is still going. 
I, however, giggle.
DEC 21, 2007 11:10 AM
Well, at least somebody is taking a learning journey through "The United States Constitution: A Living Document."
...and nobody has even mentioned that those oh-so-concrete Founding Fathers largely expected the Constitution to be re-visited by lawmakers on a regular basis. I'm always torn as to whether or not I think that should have happened and whether I'm glad it didn't.
DEC 22, 2007 05:48 AM
grazing_cattle said:
we3_pirate said:
grazing_cattle said:
Chainlink said:
grazing_cattle said:
I also made it a point to say it is not an edited version of the bible which it is not intended to be. It does not need to be widely published on a large scale to be distributed to congress. The date it was published refers to the date it became available to the public.
Stop making shit up
After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime. His reluctance appears to be based upon his conviction that religion was a private matter as well as his desire to avoid slander and criticism.
Could the number of friends be members of congress as I have said? Also when it was publishe it was published by congress
From your source:
Congress published posthumously, in 1904, his collation of extracts from the Gospels, now known as the "Jefferson Bible."
I bold 1904 becuase every time the Supreme Court cases were brought up, you kept saying they have nothing to do with our "heritage", which, based on your other arguments, I assume to mean the founding of the country. Yet, you are using an example from over a century-and-a-half later. Not exactly heritage, in your sense of the word.
Again, I was not the one that brought up the issue of Jefferson's edited bible. Uncognitive brought it up and I was correcting him on how he used it as an example. I was not using this as an example of our heritage.
You did mention that it was published by Congress, and by doing so implying that it was evidence that the Founding Fathers were intending for Christianity to be part of American government, right?
DEC 22, 2007 06:08 AM
grazing_cattle said:
we3_pirate said:
The last paragraph is very important. The phrase "without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies" is a far cry from saying, "We're in favor of Bibles in school."
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but after reading the whole opinion of the court, I came away thinking that, because the will had not defined HOW the students were to be taught, there was no violation of Christian principles. Further, it says that NOT teaching religion is not necessarily teaching against Christian principles. There is also this statement: "we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal," which tore to shreds the argument that not teaching the Bible would be harmful.
My own conclusion from my reading: the ruling doesn't actually say anything about the legality of Bibles in school, but did rule in favor of the establishing of a secular institute.
This opinion could not have been written if the Supreme Court had been interpreting the Constitution in the same way Court did when it banned Bible reading and prayer from the public schools. The Court saw no reason to rule that the City must NOT teach Christianity in the school. The Court took great pains to see if the charity contained anything that was "inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania," which was undergirded by the Christian common law. No court today, dominated by the religion of Secular Humanism, would worry about any inconsistencies with Christianity.
By today's standards and interpretations of the constitution, most the arguments would be thrown out. The fact they are so careful not to be inconsistent with Christianity shows that they except it and want to encourage it. Most the arguments have to do with it being ok for a layman to teach religion or not. The issue was not if the can take Christianity out of schools but who can teach it. Though it does not directly require the bible it is requiring religion/Christianity in the school so, "The City virtually guaranteed that the Bible would be taught in the school. "
The Court, speaking through Justice Story, agreed with both sides, that Christianity must be taught in the school, but disagreed with Daniel Webster, that clergy alone could do so.
It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country...
Now, in the present case, there is no pretence to say that any such positive or express provisions exist, or are even shadowed forth in the will. The testator does not say that Christianity shall not be taught in the college. But only that no ecclesiastic of any sect shall hold or exercise any station or duty in the college. Suppose, instead of this, he had said that no person but a layman shall be an instructor or officer or visitor in the college, [**190] what legal objection could have been made to such a restriction?
Where in the decision was there a guarantee, virtual or otherwise, that the Bible would be taught in the school? Your source bolds phrases that don't even imply that Bibles will be taught in schools, just that it is not inconsistent with the laws. The Bible being taught in schools is tangential to the case, at best, and your use of it continues to baffle me. It doesn't require religion, either. Again, from the decision:
These questions are propounded, because we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity? Hitherto it has been supposed, that a charity for the instruction of the poor might be good and valid in England even if it did not go beyond the establishment of a grammar-school. And in America, it has been thought, in [**195] the absence of any express legal prohibitions, that the donor might select the studies, as well as the classes of persons, who were to receive his bounty without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies.
This whole paragraph EXPLICITLY states that religion doesn't even need to be taught in class.
And, as far as the case being about whether it's laymen teaching or clergy teaching: My entire response is based around that simple fact, so you restating the point is not needed. Where did I say that this was about taking Christianity out of schooll?
On a final note: encouraging and accepting religion is not proof that the country was intended to be Christian in nature. Have I not pointed out pages ago that people, of any level of genius, are flawed, and will do things that contradict what they say? People in authority, even if intended to be neutral, have preferences based on their own beliefs.
DEC 26, 2007 10:56 PM
Seriously, how do these folks make it into office? With all the other problem's we have to deal with these days, the best they can vote on is wether to make Xmas our official holiday or whatever? Sad....I need a joint.
DEC 27, 2007 03:03 AM
Toku666 said:
Well, at least somebody is taking a learning journey through "The United States Constitution: A Living Document."
...and nobody has even mentioned that those oh-so-concrete Founding Fathers largely expected the Constitution to be re-visited by lawmakers on a regular basis. I'm always torn as to whether or not I think that should have happened and whether I'm glad it didn't.
I don't know. . . if we kept revisiting it, at least then people might be more actively involved in things, you know?
We've been apathetic too long, which is another thing the Founding Fathers would have gnashed their teeth about.
DEC 27, 2007 06:51 AM
PantherNesmith said:
Toku666 said:
Well, at least somebody is taking a learning journey through "The United States Constitution: A Living Document."
...and nobody has even mentioned that those oh-so-concrete Founding Fathers largely expected the Constitution to be re-visited by lawmakers on a regular basis. I'm always torn as to whether or not I think that should have happened and whether I'm glad it didn't.
I don't know. . . if we kept revisiting it, at least then people might be more actively involved in things, you know?
We've been apathetic too long, which is another thing the Founding Fathers would have gnashed their teeth about.
I certainly see where you're coming from, but the original plan was to have a Constitutional Congress doing the re-visiting. It potentially could have given the voting public more impact because of voting based on those meetings, but it is unlikely that we hoi polloi could have had more impact than that. I feel that it ultimately would have become yet another system for those in power, regardless of leanings, to become still more powerful.
Hence my lack of surety on whether I think it would have been good for the US or not.
Uncognitive
Brooklyn, NY
May 2003
DEC 20, 2007 11:18 AM