Government Should Teach Traditional Values

[Foxfyre]

And so much for the God factor.
Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive' | World news | The Observer

And so much for teaching the Christian God is wrong:
Teaching religion and the Bible in U.S. public schools

The fact is over the decades, school children have been increasingly indoctrinated with the concept that their God and their religion is not welcome in the public schools. A teacher is discouraged from including ANY religious music in a school concert which means the children will not be exposed to many works of great masters such as Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohn. Even if one or two traditional Christmas carols is included, a teacher can be fire for including one too many. In fact Christmas is no longer tolerated in most places. The traditional student led generic prayers at school assemblies, football games, and other events have disappeared from most of the American scene. Schools no longer have a Baccalaureate service which was a highlight of graduation for most of us in my day--the first chance we had to wear our cap and gown.

This is one of various ways that government is imposing its own form of social engineering on the school kids. The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves and crying out that this is happening.

I'm reading through the stuff on your last post-she says jokingly.

I'm sorry that the first amendment is bothersome. We have Christmas carols at my sons school, in fact, no one is left out. Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohnn have a greater chance of being known if the parent knows them. We grew up with that and, therefore, my son grows up with it. However, if the parent does not care for it or does not like this music then you actually have to wait for the kids to be old enough to be in a school with band. If you have a school that removes music then I guess they are doomed. Doomed, I say. Music is usually the first thing on the chopping block.

The Founders most definitely would not be rolling over in their graves. Their history, or their most recent history compared to those of us today, was the religious bloodshed in Europe. Elizabeth, Mary, William and Mary--the whole nine yards. Proselytizing is not allowed. Pray in the hallway and by the flag pole but not in the classroom. No, we aren't going to promote any one Christian sect over all others nor over students that do not believe in Christianity. If you want something more than you can always teach kids at home or take them into a private religious institution. You can teach about religion but you cannot teach religion. No, creationism is not a valid theory.
Christians are NOT persecuted in this country.

Sorry but your education re the Founders' beliefs seem to be woefully inadequate or misguided.

Not a single person who signed the original Constitution would have agreed that the Constitution was intended to give the federal government power to order municipal schools to remove The Ten Commandments and the Bible. Or would have suggested that traditional Christmas carols, including the religious ones, would be inappropriate during a federally recognized national holiday.

The Founders' opinion of the Bible, and of its use in schools, was clear among the documents and writings that we still have at our disposal. Not only did they approve but promoted Bible reading and/or prayer in the classroom. What they would not have approved was the requirement that any child (or adult for that matter) be required to pay attention to the reading or the prayer or to agree with it or comment on it in any way nor should any child be disallowed from appropriately doing so.

 

[Jackson]

I never expected to get the interesting answers that I did. Thank you! By traditional values, I certainly meant integrity, honesty and hard work. just as Foxfyre mentioned. Certainly not ever changing PC or social engineering.

If we could come to the society where families worked together with the nearly same set of values of hard work and wanting our children to excel instead of making excuses for them....that would be an enormous achievement. Somewhere along the line, we gave too much or took too much without the the sacrifice and hard work until it finally became the game plan and people lost their sense of responsibility.

That's what I was trying to force us back to. And at that point the learning would be unlimited. Foreign languages would be taught in middle school and subjects once regarded as college level would be common place in high school. Trades could be taught in high school and kids could be on their way to skilled tradesmen with the amount of money we throw at education these days.

Instead, remedial reading classes are offered in college. We dropped the ball somewhere.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The problem is you may have to define "traditional values" to some. I doubt if we all come up with the same answers.

Astute observation.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False.

But please keep pacifying yourself with that type of reasoning if it helps.

A perfect example of being close minded. Just because you disagree with what the poll indicated you reject the fact that many young people think differently.

 

[Disir]

The fact is over the decades, school children have been increasingly indoctrinated with the concept that their God and their religion is not welcome in the public schools. A teacher is discouraged from including ANY religious music in a school concert which means the children will not be exposed to many works of great masters such as Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohn. Even if one or two traditional Christmas carols is included, a teacher can be fire for including one too many. In fact Christmas is no longer tolerated in most places. The traditional student led generic prayers at school assemblies, football games, and other events have disappeared from most of the American scene. Schools no longer have a Baccalaureate service which was a highlight of graduation for most of us in my day--the first chance we had to wear our cap and gown.

This is one of various ways that government is imposing its own form of social engineering on the school kids. The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves and crying out that this is happening.

I'm reading through the stuff on your last post-she says jokingly.

I'm sorry that the first amendment is bothersome. We have Christmas carols at my sons school, in fact, no one is left out. Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohnn have a greater chance of being known if the parent knows them. We grew up with that and, therefore, my son grows up with it. However, if the parent does not care for it or does not like this music then you actually have to wait for the kids to be old enough to be in a school with band. If you have a school that removes music then I guess they are doomed. Doomed, I say. Music is usually the first thing on the chopping block.

The Founders most definitely would not be rolling over in their graves. Their history, or their most recent history compared to those of us today, was the religious bloodshed in Europe. Elizabeth, Mary, William and Mary--the whole nine yards. Proselytizing is not allowed. Pray in the hallway and by the flag pole but not in the classroom. No, we aren't going to promote any one Christian sect over all others nor over students that do not believe in Christianity. If you want something more than you can always teach kids at home or take them into a private religious institution. You can teach about religion but you cannot teach religion. No, creationism is not a valid theory.
Christians are NOT persecuted in this country.

Sorry but your education re the Founders' beliefs seem to be woefully inadequate or misguided.

Not a single person who signed the original Constitution would have agreed that the Constitution was intended to give the federal government power to order municipal schools to remove The Ten Commandments and the Bible. Or would have suggested that traditional Christmas carols, including the religious ones, would be inappropriate during a federally recognized national holiday.

The Founders' opinion of the Bible, and of its use in schools, was clear among the documents and writings that we still have at our disposal. Not only did they approve but promoted Bible reading and/or prayer in the classroom. What they would not have approved was the requirement that any child (or adult for that matter) be required to pay attention to the reading or the prayer or to agree with it or comment on it in any way nor should any child be disallowed from appropriately doing so.

Which documents would those be?

 

[Disir]

@ Foxfyre,

I am going to hold off on responding to Hackland's findings. There are several points that I agree with in that study. That said, I want to read through it a couple more times. But, bring on the other documents.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

An another poster said, "traditional values" is a nebulous term that means different things to different people. To some it means absolutley no sex before marriage, marriage between a man and a woman only, and homosexuals are barred from military service (all traditional), and there are probably some that want to return to making sodomy type sex between consenting adults criminal.

So when you look at the Gallup results on the traditional values question, remember that Gallup also shows that the trend has been to be MORE accepting in some areas that may conflict with an individuals definition of "traditional values".

For example, since there has been a trend to being more accepting of homosexual relationships. In 1996 68% opposed Same-sex Civil Marriage and 27% approved, today the numbers are 45% opposed and 53% approve. You can also look at homosexuals being able to serve under the same conditions in the military. In 2004 support for the repeal of DADT was at 63% and by 2009/2010 had risen to between 67%-70% (with increases in all demographics measured: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, Republican, Independent, Democrats, Weekly Religious Attendance, Monthly Religious Attendance, Seldom Religious Attendance.



Do I think traditional values should be taught in school? Sure do, things like acceptance of diversity, citizens have the right of equal treatment by the government, things like honesty, respect for others, hard word leads to success, etc.



>>>>

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm reading through the stuff on your last post-she says jokingly.

I'm sorry that the first amendment is bothersome. We have Christmas carols at my sons school, in fact, no one is left out. Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohnn have a greater chance of being known if the parent knows them. We grew up with that and, therefore, my son grows up with it. However, if the parent does not care for it or does not like this music then you actually have to wait for the kids to be old enough to be in a school with band. If you have a school that removes music then I guess they are doomed. Doomed, I say. Music is usually the first thing on the chopping block.

The Founders most definitely would not be rolling over in their graves. Their history, or their most recent history compared to those of us today, was the religious bloodshed in Europe. Elizabeth, Mary, William and Mary--the whole nine yards. Proselytizing is not allowed. Pray in the hallway and by the flag pole but not in the classroom. No, we aren't going to promote any one Christian sect over all others nor over students that do not believe in Christianity. If you want something more than you can always teach kids at home or take them into a private religious institution. You can teach about religion but you cannot teach religion. No, creationism is not a valid theory.
Christians are NOT persecuted in this country.

Sorry but your education re the Founders' beliefs seem to be woefully inadequate or misguided.

Not a single person who signed the original Constitution would have agreed that the Constitution was intended to give the federal government power to order municipal schools to remove The Ten Commandments and the Bible. Or would have suggested that traditional Christmas carols, including the religious ones, would be inappropriate during a federally recognized national holiday.

The Founders' opinion of the Bible, and of its use in schools, was clear among the documents and writings that we still have at our disposal. Not only did they approve but promoted Bible reading and/or prayer in the classroom. What they would not have approved was the requirement that any child (or adult for that matter) be required to pay attention to the reading or the prayer or to agree with it or comment on it in any way nor should any child be disallowed from appropriately doing so.

Which documents would those be?

Here you go:
Founding and Founders

If not included here, you also have to go over the notes, letters, speeches, and similar items that we have retained of the Founders. Most are on display at the Smithsonian and Library of Congress but most are available on line if you hunt for them.

 

[Disir]

I'm familiar with those documents are there any of them that you would like to pull out or would you like me to pull them out?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm familiar with those documents are there any of them that you would like to pull out or would you like me to pull them out?

No need on my part. I've read and been 'cross examined' on most. But you'll be hard put to pull out anything in context written by any of those who signed the Constitution that would not support God being welcome in any public school. The first Congress, following ratification of the Constitution, was still holding church services in the House and Senate chambers. Their intent was separation of Church and State--neither would have any power over the other--but it was never to separate religion and government.

 

[hortysir]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

I wasn't aware that it was my government's place to teach me anything :shrug:

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

I'm running off to work in a few minutes, don't have time to read through the thread, just the OP. Few times I disagree with your POV. This is one though, government's purpose should be to protect our rights and the homeland, not be 'model' in anything else. Most politicians are the most amoral folks around, which is their right in the private lives, but playing role model is not in the best interests of any of us. Nor should they pontificate how others should live their lives.

Keep government to its purpose, not in the bedrooms of the US.

I don't mind disagreement.

Sometimes, as in this case, I think the difficulty is in defining the problem.

First, education is part of the job of government...just not the federal government. Every state contains an education provision.

Someof the values which I do not want in public schools include the Left-wing view of business, especially free market. Did you see "The Story of Stuff"?

I want children to be encouraged to be on time, to honor and respect their elders....the exact opposite of the Woodrow Wilson- Progressive view of education.

No global warming 'theory,' no Earth Day.

No deprecating references to religion.

I want to see excellence rewarded, competition encouraged and poor efforts and lack of attendance be treated correctly, not ignored. I want children to learn to stand up for their views, and for themselves.

I want calculators and educrats out and content-rich subject matter restored.

And the motto taught in every classroom should be the words of Calvin Coolidge:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

That, for a start.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were. Teach the basics. Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.

Stop with the calculators. Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.

Expect parent involvement. Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS. Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade. A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school. Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.

Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.

If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.

Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.

No more foolishess.

Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.

Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.

Make public schools as good as the private schools. That's what we want.

All I am reading here is a bunch of authoritarian fluff with no practical application.

 

[Jackson]

Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were. Teach the basics. Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.

Stop with the calculators. Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.

2.)Expect parent involvement. Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS. Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade. A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school. Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.

Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.

If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.

Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.

No more foolishess.

Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.

Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.

Make public schools as good as the private schools. That's what we want.

All I am reading here is a bunch of authoritarian fluff with no practical application.

I disagree. The problem we have now is 1) not allowing the children to master the foundational subjects in elementary school. Parents don't want their children held back. Teachers don't want to damage the child's self concept (except they let them go on to be the stand out failure in the following grade). Principals often want to get the "problem students" out of the building as soon as they can.

Let them have another turn in their present grade and give them a chance to excel and master the reading and math skills to be a success in the next grade. They won't have another chance anywhere else.

2.)Expect the parents to be part of the child's education. Parent conferences must be kept and if the student is not performing to what the teacher feels is the best to their ability, she must meet with the [parent to discuss what they can do together to motivate the child.

3)The principal shouild be meeting with every teacher every quarter and talk about "at risk" students. The teacher should be documenting all communications she has had with ther parents and what accommodations they have created to ensure the students success.

This isn't fluff, nor is teaching just a job. This is a concerted effort on the part of the parent , the teacher and the administration to mold this youngster into an educated successful student.

Everyone should be held accountable as briefed in my earlier post.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the motto taught in every classroom should be the words of Calvin Coolidge:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

That, for a start.

I would making sure that each and every child in this country understand what TANSTAAFL means.





>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Survey question:

Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?

How can one respond without defining what constitutes ‘traditional values’?

Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

What an idiotic extrapolation given there’s no criteria as to what ‘traditional values’ are.

Younger folks catching on to the Left-wing drivel that government schools teach, is that false?

The survey question above says nothing about schools, much less ‘left’ or ‘right’ teaching, whatever that’s supposed to be.

In your blind lust to make the ‘left’ look bad, you only succeed in looking ignorant and foolish.

 

[Disir]

Actually, I'm going to use all of the documents that were used for the founding of this country. These documents I obtained from your own link.

This country was founded on the social contract theory. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government provided the basis of the DOl. The social contract theory says we have consented to a government for the betterment of society. This means that you decide not to be your own vigilante and appeal to a higher authority to have your case heard.
Look here:

Sec. 13. To this strange doctrine, viz. That in the state of nature
every one has the executive power of the law of nature, I doubt not but
it will be objected, that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in
their own cases, that selflove will make men partial to themselves and
their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and
revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing
but confusion and disorder will follow, and that therefore God hath
certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence
of men. I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for
the inconveniencies of the state of nature, which must certainly be
great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be
imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will
scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it: but I shall desire those
who make this objection, to remember, that absolute monarchs are but
men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which
necessarily follow from men's being judges in their own cases, and the
state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what
kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of
nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be
judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he
pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or controul
those who execute his pleasure and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by
reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to. Much better it is in
the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust
will of another. And if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any
other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.

Sec. 14. It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were
there any men in such a state of nature? To which it may suffice as an
answer at present, that since all princes and rulers of independent
governments all through the world, are in a state of nature, it is plain the
world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state. I
have named all governors of independent communities, whether they are, or
are not, in league with others: for it is not every compact that puts an end
to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together
mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic; other
promises, and compacts, men may make one with another, and yet still be in
the state of nature. The promises and bargains for truck, &c. between the
two men in the desert island, mentioned by Garcilasso de la Vega, in his
history of Peru; or between a Swiss and an Indian, in the woods of America,
are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature, in
reference to one another: for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as
men, and not as members of society.

Sec. 15. To those that say, there were never any men in the state of nature,
I will not only oppose the authority of the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol.
lib. i. sect. 10, where he says, The laws which have been hitherto
mentioned, i.e. the laws of nature, do bind men absolutely, even as they are
men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn
agreement amongst themselves what to do, or not to do: but forasmuch as we
are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of
things, needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for
the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections
which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally
induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of
men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. But I moreover
affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till by
their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and
I doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.txt

This was actually a response to Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and his state of nature and views that the state of war was constant. Hobbes says people are born evil.
The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes


What does Locke say? Locke says, you may dissolve the government when the legislative is altered. Chapter XIX:

Sec. 214. First, That when such a single person, or prince, sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws, which are the will of the society, declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed: for that being in effect the legislative, whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed; when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended, and inforced, than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

Sec. 215. Secondly, When the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered: for it is not a certain number of men, no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating, and leisure of perfecting, what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists: when these are taken away or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered; for it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he, who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.

Sec. 216. Thirdly, When, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered: for, if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto, do chuse, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

Sec. 217. Fourthly, The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19


The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future security.— Such has been the
patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which
constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of
the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a
candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation
till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he
has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of
large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish
the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right
inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into
compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the
people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to
cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers,
incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large
for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time
exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of
new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing
his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the
tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their
salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither
swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their
substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies
without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for
any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of
these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by
Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable
Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our
Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and
tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the
most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties
of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have
been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold
them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and
that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,
they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which
Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this
Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
Honor.


They are dissolving themselves from a monarchy with state religion. Are they not? They are utilizing the contract theory to create a new government. They have listed usurpations and abuses that are found in the Second Treatise, you will find them if you read it. And in this we have the basis of the what we desire in society. God is great for men but not in the public sphere.

I'm not done. But, I am hungry. So, I am going to take a break and be back in a bit.

 

[Disir]

One last thing before I stop for a second:
John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

Thomas Jefferson did not sign the constitution but I am going to use him anyway.


Thomas Jefferson

Draft For A Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom, 1779
*** Quote ***

SECTION I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; 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 falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; 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; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
SECT. II.
WE the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
SECT. III.
AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Draft For A Bill 1779

 

[Foxfyre]

Disir, you're going to really annoy people or kill the thread if you continue along those lines as what you are posting has zero to do with either traditional values or religious activity of any sort in the schools. All you are doing is cluttering up the thread with a lot of irrelevent material however relevant it might be to other issues.

I think we are all in agreement that the Founders had no intention of allowing the Church or any religious entity to be the government or any component of government. Why? Because they saw a person's religious beliefs and convictions as an unalienable right not to be touched, influenced, or regulated by any government entity.

But there is a profound difference between the Church being the state or a ruling authority within the State and allowing religion to be a part of government, education, or any other aspect of society. Absolutely the government should not be promoting or favoring any religious belief or doctrine of any kind. But in my opinion, the Founders were of one accord that neither should the government prohibit the free exercise of religion wherever it is exercised unless it is infringing on somebody else's unalienable rights.

You can post every syllable designated as a founding document and it won't change that fact on whit.

 

[Cuyo]

The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching any kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nationaand our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.

But they do.


1. Here, from the NYTimes:
Which is one reason “The Story of Stuff,” a 20-minute video about the effects of human consumption, has become a sleeper hit in classrooms across the nation.
Video Warning of Pitfalls of Consumption Is a Hit in Schools - NYTimes.com

2. You should take a look at what is being shown in classrooms:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM]The Story of Stuff - YouTube[/ame]


Anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-prosperity.....
"some people in this system matter a little more than others"
....sure isn't traditional values being taught...


...which brings me to #3:

Proof that they've won over some 'kids'?
Occupy Wall Street.


And that's why the Gallup poll in the OP is such amazing good news.

Question. Have you been keeping track of how many times you've posted that video?

Do you think it's more profound this time around?