It's a Public School-Sponsored Baptism Party!

[Modbert]

Honestly, is anyone surprised by this? This is the same state that 49% of people believe that Obama wasn't even born in the U.S.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I love it when constitutional originalists hop between feet.


No, it really doesn't reinforce your argument. In fact, it's a giant crack in your logic.

Then you're more of an idiot than I gave you credit for.

Explain how adding "In God We Trust " on currency in the 1950's lessens my point about separation of church and state.

It's simple, really. NONE of the founding fathers added anything of the sort to ANYTHING we see it on today. Not money. Not the pledge. Not the Anthem. nothing. Instead, such was added almost 150 AFTER the founding fathers signed that little document that you'd otherwise be crying about originalism with. your "point" is laughable at best. Thomas Jefferson was not about to put a nod to god on ANYTHING. Hell, the fucking bible didn't go unscathed from his deep rooted humanism. Yet, apparently, the FFs would have supported some bullshit that happened to get passed 150 years later? bitch, please. If a liberal did the same thing today you'd be crying about original intent.

The Declaration of Independence makes four refences to God, all 50 states preambles mentions God, "Praise be to God" is inscribed on the Washington Monument which was built around 1848, the Supreme Court begins each day with the proclamation "God save the United States and this honorable Court." was adopted because justices in the 1820s actually wanted to call on God to save the US & the Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1892 that “this is a religious nation” [Citing Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 U.S. 457]. It reiterated this holding more recently (1951), when it stated: “We are a Religious People whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” [Citing Zoredi vs. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306].

During the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, the Congress passed the act of April 22, 1864 directing that the inscriptions “In God we Trust” be placed on our coins.

One does not have to look far to find a myriad of public acknowledgements of God which are open and notoriously woven into the fabric of the American Society. Such public acknowledgements of God include, but are not limited to, the following:
The National Motto: “In God We Trust”, inscribed on all United States currency
The Pledge of Allegiance: “One Nation Under God”
The National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner): “And this be our motto: In God is our trust”
National Patriotic Songs: America The Beautiful (America, America, God Shed His Grace On Thee) and My Country ‘Tis of Thee (Long may our land be bright, With freedom’s holy light, Protect us by Thy might, Great God our King).
Oaths administered by public officials: Include the words “So help me God”
National Day of Prayer
National Day of Thanksgiving
National Day Of Christmas Day: Christ’s Birth
National Day Of Easter Sunday: Christ’s Rebirth

A number of court cases clearly support foundation Christian displays in public buildings and properties, such as Lynch vs. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 (1984), Anderson vs. Salt Lake City Corps., 475.2d29 (10th Cin. 1972) and State vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation, 898 p.2d 1013 (Colo. 1995) cert. Denied, 1165.et. 909 (1996), for example, all allowed the display of the Ten Commandments, (the foundation of America and British Law) if they are displayed together with other historic secular depicting items, such as the Magna Carte, The Bill Of Rights, The Declaration Of Independence and The Constitution, etc.,are clearly not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

[Shogun]

The declaration is not the CONSTITUTION. Tell me. what rights and liberties does the declaration grant? How does it define out laws or amendment process?



state preambles, again, are not the CONSTITUTION. State buildings also have Hamurabi and a host of Greeks. what, exactly, do you want to go on the record suggesting that this means? Do you want me to literally SHOW YOU images of the pegan Hamurabi on the fucking supreme court?



Speaking of actual FOUNDING FATHERS, instead of some silly fucking dogma junkie a hundred years later, I can unequivicably show you the Treaty of Tripoli which conveys that the US is not, in fact, any more of a CHRISTIAN nation than it is hindi or muslim. Those are FOUNDING FATHER words, silly guy. Not some ironic bastard from 50 years ago trying to insert Jesus into anything that walked.


Displaying the ten commandments ALONG WITH THE MAGNA CARTA OR HAMMURABIS LAWS is not any kind of validation, stupid. It's a historic timeline of occasions of LAW. This is why you'll see moses hanging out with some pegan from BABYLON on the same damn building, genius.





seriously.. the shit you people try to believe is really no wonder given the range of goofy religious shit you'll fall for.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ringel05]

School busses can be "rented" for non-school activities by just about anyone or group. So again, not knowing the specifics it could have been perfectly legal. To the best of my knowledge none of us here were the proverbial fly on the wall so passing judgement without having all the facts is nothing more than surrendering reason and logic to emotive deduction.

Good point

But I would disagree with renting school buses out to groups. It can cause real problems for the school district. I don't know how many (or if any for that matter) do this - but it's a very bad idea imho. I know schools are looking for money wherever they can - but this is potentially a very big problem.

psst: Most school bus companies are private and the "public" schools are not the only customers that contract their services.

Thanks, that was a piece of info I didn't know (most school bus companies are private).

 

[Ravi]

The fact that a school bus was used proves nothing. However, if it turns out that the rental itself was on the taxpayer's dime, then it's a clear violation of the establishment clause (as it's been interpretted).

According to one of Contessa's links, the coach paid for the gas. But he didn't rent the bus...he didn't pay for the wear and tear on the vehicle, and he didn't pay for liability insurance.

And I don't know where you get this that most school buses are privately owned. Our school system and every public school I've ever dealt with uses buses owned by the county.

 

[Ravi]

Good point

But I would disagree with renting school buses out to groups. It can cause real problems for the school district. I don't know how many (or if any for that matter) do this - but it's a very bad idea imho. I know schools are looking for money wherever they can - but this is potentially a very big problem.

psst: Most school bus companies are private and the "public" schools are not the only customers that contract their services.

Thanks, that was a piece of info I didn't know (most school bus companies are private).

He's wrong.

 

[Gudrid]

Father of the United States Constitution, James Madison had this clause put into the Constitution, in order that the government would never again force citizens to attend a state-controlled church, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia had been.

Public schools are state controlled. When you introduce religion into the mix, they become defacto state controlled churches. Either way, why on earth anyone would want the government screwing up their religion is beyond me. Just plain shortsightedness.

 

[Smartt33]

It's a Public School-Sponsored Baptism Party!
By Brantley Hargrove in Crazy Crap, Hargrove
Tuesday, Sep. 8 2009 @ 2:30PM
​From the state that brought you the Creation Museum comes the latest in religious buffoonery, this time with an un-Constitutional twist!

While the fringe (and even respectable media) work themselves into apoplectic fits of indignation over potential socialist indoctrination of our impressionable school-age youth by the evil Obama, one Kentucky school district is taking it to the next level: Actual indoctrination of impressionable school-age kids! Only it's acceptable, see? Because it's Christian.

A Breckenridge County High School football coach took the school bus and 20 football players to an impromptu religious revival. Nearly half of them were baptized. But it gets better! The freakin' superintendent of the school district was there, praising Jesus right along with them! I hate to resort to barbarous, foreshortened blasphemy, but OMFG.

Of course, the coaches claim everything was kosher because they paid for the gas (that went into the public school bus) and attendance was optional. Right, because a high school-age football player who desperately wants to be part of a cohesive team won't feel pressured at all to participate in a field trip endorsed by the man in the ultimate position of power (the coach) and the superintendent no less.

One parent is already pretty pissed off: "Nobody should push their faith on anybody else," concerned mom Michelle Ammons told the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Because the Breckenridge County School District appears to be clearly violating the principle of the separation of church and state by taking school-sanctioned Jesus field trips, we here at Pith hope Michelle sues the bejesus out of them.

The outcry is alsays about Christians in the Public Schools. However, there is a quiet movement to muslimize some public schools, and nothing is being done. Why is that? If we want to get into each situation, we can, but we will find out that the actual disctimination is against Christians most of the time. The quiet crossing of the C&S line are not being discussed. Never mind, I doubt this audience cares.

 

[dilloduck]

Also keep in mind that children were taught to read using Christian primers and reciting bibilcal passages, when we were closer to what this country was supposed to be and what our forefathers determined it should be.

You mean when whites and blacks went to seperate schools? Drank from seperate water fountains? When black students were not allowed to attend state universities? When women weren't allowed to vote?

You and I obviously have very different visions of what the United States of America is "supposed to be" and I for one am darn glad we are moving away from your vision and closer to mine.

pity---we now have more laws prohibiting us from doing, thinking and saying things than ever. Is that your vision? The loss of individual freedoms ?

 

[manifold]

The fact that a school bus was used proves nothing. However, if it turns out that the rental itself was on the taxpayer's dime, then it's a clear violation of the establishment clause (as it's been interpretted).

According to one of Contessa's links, the coach paid for the gas. But he didn't rent the bus...he didn't pay for the wear and tear on the vehicle, and he didn't pay for liability insurance.

And I don't know where you get this that most school buses are privately owned. Our school system and every public school I've ever dealt with uses buses owned by the county.

Exact opposite around here. Every bus company I have first hand knowledge of (a total of 6) is private and they have to bid for contracts.

 

[bodecea]

The fact that a school bus was used proves nothing. However, if it turns out that the rental itself was on the taxpayer's dime, then it's a clear violation of the establishment clause (as it's been interpretted).

According to one of Contessa's links, the coach paid for the gas. But he didn't rent the bus...he didn't pay for the wear and tear on the vehicle, and he didn't pay for liability insurance.

And I don't know where you get this that most school buses are privately owned. Our school system and every public school I've ever dealt with uses buses owned by the county.

It depends on where you live. Around here, most school districts don't even have busses and have to rent them from private companies for field trips etc.

 

[Ravi]

The fact that a school bus was used proves nothing. However, if it turns out that the rental itself was on the taxpayer's dime, then it's a clear violation of the establishment clause (as it's been interpretted).

According to one of Contessa's links, the coach paid for the gas. But he didn't rent the bus...he didn't pay for the wear and tear on the vehicle, and he didn't pay for liability insurance.

And I don't know where you get this that most school buses are privately owned. Our school system and every public school I've ever dealt with uses buses owned by the county.

It depends on where you live. Around here, most school districts don't even have busses and have to rent them from private companies for field trips etc.

I suppose it is different depending on the state. I live in a "red" state...our buses belong to the county. For balance I searched in a "blue" state...MA...and the jobs I found for bus drivers were county or city jobs.

Maybe for the guy in the OP it is a privately owned company that runs the buses paid for by tax dollars, but from the article I read, he took the bus, paid for the gas, and transported the students to a baptism. That isn't something I would want my tax dollars to support...no matter what the religion.

 

[AllieBaba]

You guys were all for subjugating and continuing a tradition which was already being fought against by abolitionists (Republicans) who saw it for the atrocity it was. Just as you're all for creating a class of citizens who are denied the right to practice their own religion and using the schools to do it. Or subjugating the poor by keeping them poor, encouraging them to have sex, and imploring them to abort themselves out of existence.

To whom are reffering when you say "you guys?"

The United States of America is much closer today of that vision of equality and freedom for all than it ever has been. And that includes the freedom to practice WHATEVER religion you choose - we do not have a state religion - the United States is not a Christian country. It is a country that respects all faiths and the rejection of faith as well.

And a school doesn't "deny" a child access to his faith. Children and their parents have plenty of time to do that outside of school. There is no place for religious activities in public schools - or else they must make arrangements for ALL faiths to be accomodated.

A school denies children access to faith if they refuse to allow children to practice it during school hours. As said before, and eternally, it's exactly what "separation of church and state"....that rallying cry which is rhetoric and not law, was meant to prevent. The state doesn't get to tell kids whether or not they can be baptised, either during school or after it.

All it is meant to prevent is the STATE dictating whether or not said children can do so.

 

[AllieBaba]

Also keep in mind that children were taught to read using Christian primers and reciting bibilcal passages, when we were closer to what this country was supposed to be and what our forefathers determined it should be.

You mean when whites and blacks went to seperate schools? Drank from seperate water fountains? When black students were not allowed to attend state universities? When women weren't allowed to vote?

You and I obviously have very different visions of what the United States of America is "supposed to be" and I for one am darn glad we are moving away from your vision and closer to mine.

pity---we now have more laws prohibiting us from doing, thinking and saying things than ever. Is that your vision? The loss of individual freedoms ?

Yes, it is exactly what lefty extremists want. That's why they keep screaming they're the majority. When obviously and statistically, they aren't.

They're just your usual run of the mill fascists.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The declaration is not the CONSTITUTION. Tell me. what rights and liberties does the declaration grant? How does it define out laws or amendment process?



state preambles, again, are not the CONSTITUTION. State buildings also have Hamurabi and a host of Greeks. what, exactly, do you want to go on the record suggesting that this means? Do you want me to literally SHOW YOU images of the pegan Hamurabi on the fucking supreme court?



Speaking of actual FOUNDING FATHERS, instead of some silly fucking dogma junkie a hundred years later, I can unequivicably show you the Treaty of Tripoli which conveys that the US is not, in fact, any more of a CHRISTIAN nation than it is hindi or muslim. Those are FOUNDING FATHER words, silly guy. Not some ironic bastard from 50 years ago trying to insert Jesus into anything that walked.


Displaying the ten commandments ALONG WITH THE MAGNA CARTA OR HAMMURABIS LAWS is not any kind of validation, stupid. It's a historic timeline of occasions of LAW. This is why you'll see moses hanging out with some pegan from BABYLON on the same damn building, genius.





seriously.. the shit you people try to believe is really no wonder given the range of goofy religious shit you'll fall for.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[strollingbones]

where is the outcry from jent over indoctrination????????

or is it okay as long as they are indoctrinating what she wants?????

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

KY school district official ok with baptizing footballers, but students forced to 'opt-in' for Obama speech

I had a hunch.

As I was writing up a little story this morning about a Kentucky high school football coach who took his players to a Baptist revival where several were baptized -- at least one without parental consent -- I said to myself, I bet they didn't play Obama's speech today.

A quick phone call to the high school got me transferred to the school district's main offices, where a friendly woman answered but did not want to give her name when I identified myself as a reporter.

"Mam'," I began, "I just have one question that's not even related to the baptism thing and the coach. I just want to know if the district's schools played President Obama's speech on education today."

She responded by putting me on hold. Upon returning, she claimed to have no first-hand knowledge but had been told by someone else in the office that ...

"The students who watched the president's speech today had to get a note signed by their parents that said they could watch it."

In other words, students at the school district where a top official -- the superintendent -- does not see anything wrong with taking football players to be baptized at a Christian revival, were forced to get a parent's signature to "opt-in" (instead of out) for the president's speech.

As Johnny Carson used to say, "Weird, wild, wacky stuff."

What's wierd about it? BE specific...

God is after all, the source of and the authority on which your human rights rest. Given that, what could possibly be wrong with guiding one's charges to come to god, overtly accept him into your life and dedicate one's self to loving, respecting and fellowship worship with God?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Father of the United States Constitution, James Madison had this clause put into the Constitution, in order that the government would never again force citizens to attend a state-controlled church, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia had been.

Public schools are state controlled. When you introduce religion into the mix, they become defacto state controlled churches. Either way, why on earth anyone would want the government screwing up their religion is beyond me. Just plain shortsightedness.

Wow? So when Government controlled institutions introduce God into those institutions, by default, they then become communities wherein the people of that institution come to gather and fellowship together with God?

Now that is Fascinating...

So... when such institutions introduce Pizza Hut Pizza into those institutions, by default then, they become a party to that Franchise... and the same would hold true for Gatorade... Pepsi... Classes such as Shop, which introduce GM, Ford and Toyota... naturally this constitutes the government having become defacto GM/ FORD and Toyota dealers..

Wow... we better get ahold of this thing... because it looks like we may be obligating ourselves to some pretty serious stuff.

I mean if we're not careful, we could be looking at setting ourselves up for a situation where we allow Atheists to enter our School systems; wherein, using the above reasoning; the government schools would thus became defacto anti-Religion indoctrination centers, where the fundamental issues center around the humanist agenda; leading to generations of decaying cultural standards and a general malaise of the society which culminates in a fair percentage of the culture failing to understand the conceptual foundation of Americanism; rejecting the existance of the source of our human rights and thus the authority on which those rights rest; inevitably concluding that the highest authority in humanity is human government; devolving from a culture based upon the rights and responsibility of the individual; and the restrictions on the power of government which defends those rights... to a culture which fails to even recognize human rights, except where such rights are said to exist within the ethereal sum of those individuals; otherwise known as "the People"... resulting in an out of control government tyranny and inevitably culminating in an unspeakably violent civil war...

Good thing you brought this up... someone best get on this and QUICK!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The declaration is not the CONSTITUTION. Tell me. what rights and liberties does the declaration grant? How does it define out laws or amendment process?

The US Declaration is the Charter on which the US Constitution founded.... Charters lay out principles, which the entity pledges to be at its core... Constitutions do not discuss principle, they enumerate regulatory guidelines which designate rules which reflect the principles of the charter.

Now what's more, you imply that the US Constitution 'grants rights'... It does not. It enumerates protections for rights which pre-existed the US Constitution and which specifically limits the power of Government from infringing upon the individuals rightful means to exercise those rights...

state preambles, again, are not the CONSTITUTION. State buildings also have Hamurabi and a host of Greeks. what, exactly, do you want to go on the record suggesting that this means? Do you want me to literally SHOW YOU images of the pegan Hamurabi on the fucking supreme court?

The Constitution seems to be the focus of all reason and power for you.

Perhaps we should simply ask you to show us where it is declared, in the US Constitution, that Religious principle shall not influence US Governance...

And be specific here Sis... You have now twice come to dismiss any other source of governance writing; implying that anything BUT the US Constitution is relevant to governance... so again: CITE THE SPECIFIC REGULATION IN THE US CONSTITUTION, WHEREIN IT PRECLUDES RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE FROM GOVERNANCE IN THE US.

I can show you where the US Constitution specifically states otherwise... where the US CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFLUENCING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, with regard to what, where, how and when they may practice their religion; where the US CONSTITUTION PREVENTS THE POWER OF GOVERNEMNT FROM FORMING A RELIGION OF ITS OWN< WHICH WOULD PREVENT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION...

Try this>

From the US Constitution; the very FIRST amendment to that Constitution reads as follows:

"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."

So there MUST be some conflict within the US Constitution; wherein someone managed to ratify an amendment to the Coonstitution, which nullifies this amendment, but failed to strip this rule, which ESTABLISHES THAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS BARRED FROM MAKING ANY LAW WHICH INFRINGES UPON THE MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION...; OR from INFRINGING UPON THE MEANS OF THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO SPEAK FREELY OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; AND OTHERISE PREVENTS THEM FROM REDRESSING THEIR GOVERNMENT, THUS INFLUENCING THAT GOVERNMENT, SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS THE PRINCIPLES OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS... from the document...

So help us out here... where in the US Constitution do we find such that you're representing?

Speaking of actual FOUNDING FATHERS, instead of some silly fucking dogma junkie a hundred years later, I can unequivicably show you the Treaty of Tripoli which conveys that the US is not, in fact, any more of a CHRISTIAN nation than it is hindi or muslim. Those are FOUNDING FATHER words, silly guy. Not some ironic bastard from 50 years ago trying to insert Jesus into anything that walked.

Could you cite the individual post wherein a member asserted that the US is a Christian theocracy; in which the Governance of the United States rests within the doctrinal tenets of a given Church of Christianity?

It seems to me that you've succumbed to the common misnomer that PRINCIPLES common to and inherent in the Christian religion... which incontrovertibly influence not only the structure of the US DECLARATIVE CHARTER and the framing of the US Constitution; but represent the very fabric of the whole of Western Jurisprudence... are the equivilent of the respective and often contradicting TENENTS of the numerous Christian Churches...

But again: CITE THE SPECIFIC POST wherein a member has declared that the US is founded upon and governed through a Christian Theocracy...

seriously.. the shit you people try to believe is really no wonder given the range of goofy religious shit you'll fall for.

ROFLMNAO... Oh that is a deliciously sweet irony... Imagine an anti-theist coming to lament goofy 'beliefs' even as she implies that the US Constitution is wholly distinct from the charter on which it rests and from all other thought which was intrinsic in it's creation... which leads her to conlude that within that Constitution is presented law which simply is not present...

LOL...


Funny stuff...

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/QUOTE]

Ahh... yes... John Adams, a devout, unapologetic, lifelong Christian who left us a lifetime of writing, by which to study his thoughts and reasoning...

Not the least of which was that regarding his comments in the treaty with the Barbary Coast of Africa... the location of a long standing conflict which the MUSLIM PIRATES of that region... Muslim Pirates who could not bring themselves to treat with "Infidels"... or those whose governance was the antithesis to their Muslim Theocracy... and thus resulted in Adams penning the above treaty wherein the merely stated the fact that the US is NOT a Chrisitan theocracy...
thus would never make war with that population based upon the religious distinctions of the two cultures.

Again... That's hardly news... It's not an issue at contest with anyone on this board; and in my 30 years of hyper-active political debate, has never been presented in contest by any of the tens of thousands of particpants to which I have been privy to hear.

Begging the question: WHO IS ASSERTING THAT THE US IS GOVERNED THROUGH SPECIFIC TENETS OF A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY?

Naturally, as always; your failure to produce such an assertion; which would be the only appropriate basis for your above discredited screed... will result in your Conceding to the proposition that your argument is a baseless litanny of inane irrelevance... thus FAILS as a result... and such will be the case, purely by default.

Best of luck...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO...

What?

No snappy comebacks?