Religious Training In Public School?

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

 

[anotherlife]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

 

[Ringtone]

Clearly you are daft about separation of church and state.

If religion was taught in public schools all religions would have to be taught in schools which would devoid time on other studies.

Behold the typically mindless, slogan-speak response of the obtuse leftist.

 

[Ringtone]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

Drooling 'Tard Alert!

 

[Ringtone]

Pay for your own brainwashing. Kids who aren’t christian don’t need to be brainwashed with Christian dogma in school.
Unless if course they’re going to be taught Jewish or Buddhist or other beliefs.

no doubt that would still make christofascisrs happy

View attachment 431119

So now you're admitting that brain washing is taking place in the public schools.

Perhaps it's time to make sure it's only reading, writing, and arithmetic that's taught there since that's all a child really needs.

*****SMILE*****

The very existence of the public education system sans universal academic choice is unconstitutional. Your notion is to impose yet another collective—one size fits all—pedagogic regime on individuals in violation of the imperatives of natural law.

 

[Ringtone]

religion is just a belief/fake/bullshit---like believing Aliens are taking you to the moon
..secularism is not fake--not a belief

Behold the dumbed-down, imbecilic prattle of the state schools and popular culture.

 

[Ringtone]

Fine

Then let’s teach children that God is a myth and there is no proof that Jesus even existed.

yes
..but he might have existed--he just wasn't the son of god/god

Well then let’s teach the little children what we know about whether Jesus really existed or is a parable. Then they can go home and tell their fundamentalist parents what they learned in school today.

I have a better idea. Let's impose the imperatives of natural law on the public education system and let the competition of liberty and the inherent rights of parental consent and authority rule the day. That way dumb-down, statist bootlicking nincompoops like you can only dumb-down your own kids and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Ringtone]

Pay for your own brainwashing. Kids who aren’t christian don’t need to be brainwashed with Christian dogma in school.
Unless if course they’re going to be taught Jewish or Buddhist or other beliefs.

no doubt that would still make christofascisrs happy

View attachment 431119

So now you're admitting that brain washing is taking place in the public schools.

Perhaps it's time to make sure it's only reading, writing, and arithmetic that's taught there since that's all a child really needs.

*****SMILE*****

You would leave out English..

Oh, it looks like we have a critic among the collective educratic theorists!

 

[rightwinger]

Fine

Then let’s teach children that God is a myth and there is no proof that Jesus even existed.

yes
..but he might have existed--he just wasn't the son of god/god

Well then let’s teach the little children what we know about whether Jesus really existed or is a parable. Then they can go home and tell their fundamentalist parents what they learned in school today.

I have a better idea. Let's impose the imperatives of natural law on the public education system and let the competition of liberty and the inherent rights of parental consent and authority rule the day. That way dumb-down, statist bootlicking nincompoops like you can only dumb-down your own kids and leave the rest of us alone.

Open the door to one religious affiliation, then you must open to all or lack of affiliation therein

Want to teach Christian doctrine in our schools, then you must teach Jewish doctrine denying Christ as the savior and allow atheists to teach your children why religion is all made up.

Sounds fair doesn’t it?

 

[Ringtone]

5. “A Democratic group dedicated to representing secular values unveiled a slate of recommendations for President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration on Monday (Nov. 30), outlining a sweeping agenda designed to roll back many of President Trump’s actions involving religion and to “restore a vision of constitutional secularism.”



The 28-page document, crafted by the Secular Democrats of America PAC, is being presented to the incoming administration by Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman — both co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.” Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



Can you imagine how blind and tone-deaf the above posters who denied there membership in the reverse-religion, Militant Secularism, are????



6. Those who read the prescient Orwell novel, ‘1984,’ are familiar with the concept of ‘Newspeak’… propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings (Merriam-Webster) and, so, are not surprised by the Democrat Militant Secularist’s use of the word ‘Freethought’ meaning the very opposite.



It is almost humorous coming from the folks who created the concept of ‘Hate Speech.’

No indoctrination here.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly disastrous for all of us. And all the while leftists are perfectly happy to sacrifice the minds of their children on the altar of Baal.

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

Drooling 'Tard Alert!

Oh, dear. The angry religionist continues to be befuddled by things he doesn’t understand.

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

 

[Ringtone]

Fine

Then let’s teach children that God is a myth and there is no proof that Jesus even existed.

yes
..but he might have existed--he just wasn't the son of god/god

Well then let’s teach the little children what we know about whether Jesus really existed or is a parable. Then they can go home and tell their fundamentalist parents what they learned in school today.

I have a better idea. Let's impose the imperatives of natural law on the public education system and let the competition of liberty and the inherent rights of parental consent and authority rule the day. That way dumb-down, statist bootlicking nincompoops like you can only dumb-down your own kids and leave the rest of us alone.

Open the door to one religious affiliation, then you must open to all or lack of affiliation therein

Want to teach Christian doctrine in our schools, then you must teach Jewish doctrine denying Christ as the savior and allow atheists to teach your children why religion is all made up.

Sounds fair doesn’t it?

LOL! The obtuse is strong in this one.

The tenets of secular humanism—your religion!—are being imposed on our children in the public education system as we speak and have been for decades with increasing vigor. That worldview at the virtual exclusion of all others prevails in the same.

The point of the OP utterly eludes you. Zoom! Right over your head . . . either because you are too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge the reality of it all.

Meanwhile, back to the imperatives of natural law. . . .

How would you impose your atheistic drivel on my children in a publicly funded education system of universal choice, wherein parental consent and authority prevail?

 

[Ringtone]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

Drooling 'Tard Alert!

Oh, dear. The angry religionist continues to be befuddled by things he doesn’t understand.

Oh, dear. The angry religionist continues to be befuddled by things she doesn’t understand.

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

Drooling 'Tard Alert!

Oh, dear. The angry religionist continues to be befuddled by things he doesn’t understand.

Oh, dear. The angry religionist continues to be befuddled by things she doesn’t understand.

I’m never surprised at how easy it is, with just a gentle prodding, to push you into your saliva-slinging tirades.

 

[rightwinger]

The tenets of secular humanism—your religion!—are being imposed on our children in the public education system as we speak and have been for decades with increasing vigor.

No, actually they are not

What is being imposed is religious doctrine is being kept OUT of the classrooms

It is the responsibility of the parents and their religion to indoctrinate the young minds

 

[Ringtone]

Yup.

Facts are facts.



1.Many make the mistake of believing that religion is not allowed to be imparted, imposed, authorized, or even allowed, in public school. There could hardly be a greater misapprehension! Only one religion is strictly forbidden, and punished when observed, and that is the religion of our Founders, the Judeo-Christian faith.
Consulting the Merriam-Webster Dictionary will inform as to the definition of religion, including “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”
Most graduates of government school leave with a deep and abiding faith, one that is infused in school. It is a fairly recent version, Militant Secularism.



2. Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and Faith is the key in understanding what a religion is.
And faith requires no proof or objective explanation. The simple proof that Militant Secularism is such a faith, simply ask any adherent….they will admit that they are if you use the phrase ‘Democrat’ in place of ‘Militant Secularist’…..to explain/defend several of the policies they voted for, and you will quickly ascertain that Democrats vote based on faith.

As questioning ones faith is not encouraged, most Democrats are unaware of their own conversion, and the less perceptive may even deny that they are of the religious cult of Militant Secularism.
Not even certain which of the denominations they belong to: communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism or socialism.

[You may try to suddenly ask “have you accepted the nomenklatura as your lord and savior?”]




3. In any case, the old saying, “reality is defined by actions, not by words” applies. Admitting membership or not, they behave as Militant Secularists.
Let’s see where that takes us. To begin, keep in mind that ‘power over others’ is a sacrament of the faith, and this translates to the need to erase the other religion from the public space.


4. “Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration’s Agenda Trump appointees were harassed for their Christian views — now the Left is looking to actively reverse all the religious freedom gains that Trump’s administration fought for.

Now, they are looking forward to the resumption of duties by the same partisans who fought literal nuns all the way to the Supreme Court over a birth control mandate and fought hard to rescind the religious refugee status granted to the Romeike family.

Believing they now have allies in positions of power, the militant secularists are now on the march, demanding a rollback of that emphasis on religious freedom protections."
Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



It hardly seems fair that only their religion deserves the protections of the Constitution, protections that they have worked assiduously to wear away.
But.....'fair' isn't a requirement of Militant Secularism.

Small catholic towns in the Midwest have been using the public school system for indoctrination for decades.

So what do we do about the collectivist and, therefore, unconstitutional public education system in general, which, overwhelming imposes secular humanism?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Pay for your own brainwashing. Kids who aren’t christian don’t need to be brainwashed with Christian dogma in school.
Unless if course they’re going to be taught Jewish or Buddhist or other beliefs.

no doubt that would still make christofascisrs happy

View attachment 431119

So now you're admitting that brain washing is taking place in the public schools.

Perhaps it's time to make sure it's only reading, writing, and arithmetic that's taught there since that's all a child really needs.

*****SMILE*****

The very existence of the public education system sans universal academic choice is unconstitutional. Your notion is to impose yet another collective—one size fits all—pedagogic regime on individuals in violation of the imperatives of natural law.

Imposing a one sided political theme to their teaching is also a violation of individual rights.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Ringtone]

So do you want all public schools to become Christian schools? Or do you want kids to be able to pray? I'm all for the latter. As a Christian, a lifelong one at that, turni g all public schools into Christian in schools, I have a hard time with that. I guess if all religions are given equal opportunity then somehow it might work. I'm skeptical though.

Sans universal academic freedom, any public system of education is the epicenter of mobocratic rule. a rank violation of natural law.

 

[Ringtone]

2. Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and Faith is the key in understanding what a religion is.
And faith requires no proof or objective explanation. The simple proof that Militant Secularism is such a faith, simply ask any adherent….they will admit that they are if you use the phrase ‘Democrat’ in place of ‘Militant Secularist’…..to explain/defend several of the policies they voted for, and you will quickly ascertain that Democrats vote based on faith.

More nonsensical than usual. You're saying that 'they' vote for policies regardless of what 'phrase' you wish to put in front of it? That sounds like reason and not what you espouse, faith in an ideology.

Faith is an ideology?! What's that supposed to mean?