Public Schools And The Decline Of Christianity In America - video

[holston]

I KNOW that YOU PEOPLE, haven't had time to examine, much less read the responses I have made already. This means either you have no intentions to, or you know already that what I am saying is true.
In the first case, one can only assume that your questions are merely rhetorical and posited only to push the relevant information I have posted, out of sight of any visitor who may not be aware of such things.

I would be happy to engage in a "food fight" with any of you, but surely you know as well that one person cannot possibly work fast enough to respond to 6 or 7 at a time. So if I fail to answer each and every one of your jives, digs, and insults it's either because I don't have time, or they are so inept they don't merit a response.

XXXXXXX

There is material contained in the following link which IS relevant to the decline, or rather, the removal of the mention of Christ from the public schools.

HOW THE JEWS USE POWER

 

[MHunterB]

Sorry to break this to you, Holston, but the people that put the 10 year old child "up" to the suit, would no doubt be the persons responsible for his upbringing, those pesky things called parents. For some strange reason, they have the right to determine what their "minor" children are allowed to hear.
I'm pretty sure that if that same school led off each morning with religious readings only from the Hindu's Bhagavad Gita, you and other parents would be squawking to the school authorities ("ooooh principal, that's not our belief and we don't want our precious children becoming Hindus").
Bottom line, it all stays out.
Once they're in high school, they can have a "voluntary" class, on the worlds religions, with no preference given to any one of them.

I am sure that you are right about THAT!

This country was not founded by Hindus and frankly I wish they would all just keep their Hinduism to themselves.

Unfortunately and thanks to people like YOU, the descendents of this nations founders ARE being exposed to Buddhism and a host of other false doctrines and this exposure is not entirely voluntary.

Ah, you appear to have some ridiculous belief that 'descendents of this nations (sic) founders' constitute some Constitutionally-protected privileged category of 'citizen'. I do not see any support for such a view in the actual Constitution: can you point me to the legal support for such a 'class system' as you appear to suppose?

Oh, and you also appear to have the erroneous belief that the Constitution should somehow protect or promote your version of Christianity above the religious views (or lack thereof) of any of your fellow citizens?


That is very interesting: it seems to me Jesus taught a parable about the vineyard owner who chose to pay the workers *equally* no matter when they arrived, early or late? I'm thinking there might be some relevance in that to the current discussion. Certainly the Constitution doesn't hand out rights based on 'years in residence' or 'generations of citizenship' - nor should it do so.

In fact, it won't be long until ALL of them will be demanding equal time and space as well as umpteen accommodations for them which everyone else, Christian or not, are going to have to tippy toe around.

Keep up the good work. I hope you get your pluralistic nightmare.

.

 

[MHunterB]

I KNOW that YOU PEOPLE,


STOP right there. I've already explained that that language is defamatory, derogatory and disruptive. There is no reason for any self-respecting individual to continue to tolerate such outright rudeness from anyone. If you refuse to be civil, there is no reason for anyone else to entertain the fantasy that you yourself are interested in any discussion of the actual facts and legal history involved here.

haven't had time to examine, much less read the responses I have made already. This means either you have no intentions to, or you know already that what I am saying is true.
Too limited: it might also mean that each of us pefers to stay with the original topic and facts. And/or that each of us has scanned the material and found it irrelevant to what we - individually - wish to discuss here. It might also indicate that individually we have already read such material as you have presented - since none of it has been originally yours.


In the first case, one can only assume that your questions are merely rhetorical and posited only to push the relevant information I have posted, out of sight of any visitor who may not be aware of such things.

Yes, that assumption does tend to be rather limited - and therefore incomplete and hence incorrect.


I would be happy to engage in a "food fight" with any of you, but surely you know as well that one person cannot possibly work fast enough to respond to 6 or 7 at a time. So if I fail to answer each and every one of your jives, digs, and insults it's either because I don't have time, or they are so inept they don't merit a response.

Well, then - since I haven't delivered any gibes, digs or insults - there should be no difficulty in you responding to my posts. Of course, it's necessary for you to refrain from 'jives' , digs or insults yourself if you desire me to read them and continue the discussion : ))

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Arrogance is a human condition.

So is religion.

It's completely manmade.

And so, is the universe man made as well, Your Satanic Majesty?

What exactly does this post have to do with the post I made?

Unless you're falling victim to the logical fallacy of, "You can't prove there isn't a god, so there must be one."

Also, if you wish to discuss something rationally with me, please leave the juvenile ad hominems at the door.

 

[Intense]

Arrogance and religion are synonomous.

Arrogance is a human condition.

In this case, the PA state legislature mandated a reading from a Protestant religious text to ALL public school students.

If that wasn't arrogance, them what else would you call it? My use of the word had nothing to do with 'religion' per se: I was taking issue with a government body promoting one *particular* iteration of 'religion' over ALL others to children of ALL citizens.

What you are not taking into consideration, is the time frame. It was conceived in a time where it would have been the norm. Catholics had Catholic Schools, Jews has Shiva's, Protestants would have been the Super Majority then. Arrogance? I doubt it had anything to do with the decision, when the law was first implemented. Values and Ideals? Definitely. We are too much, looking back on the past, with a current day perspective, which, in truth, can blind us to the true intent, at the time.

 

[Intense]

So is religion.

It's completely manmade.

And so, is the universe man made as well, Your Satanic Majesty?

What exactly does this post have to do with the post I made?

Unless you're falling victim to the logical fallacy of, "You can't prove there isn't a god, so there must be one."

Also, if you wish to discuss something rationally with me, please leave the juvenile ad hominems at the door.

Can you prove time exists? If you can't, does that mean that Time does not exist?

I choose to Believe in God, and see God as more than the sum total of all we can imagine. So what. My experience confirms God's existence beyond any doubt. So what. You want to war with, or ignore the Forces of Creation, It's Author? That's between You and Him. My prayers go with you.

 

[Wiseacre]

This is the Education forum; it is not the place for diatribes against the Jews or Islamists. Youmay post those in the USMB Badlands at your convenience. But not here.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

And so, is the universe man made as well, Your Satanic Majesty?

What exactly does this post have to do with the post I made?

Unless you're falling victim to the logical fallacy of, "You can't prove there isn't a god, so there must be one."

Also, if you wish to discuss something rationally with me, please leave the juvenile ad hominems at the door.

Can you prove time exists? If you can't, does that mean that Time does not exist?

I choose to Believe in God, and see God as more than the sum total of all we can imagine. So what. My experience confirms God's existence beyond any doubt. So what. You want to war with, or ignore the Forces of Creation, It's Author? That's between You and Him. My prayers go with you.

As I stated previously, you're certainly free in this country to believe what you will and worship any deity you so desire.

However, don't try to "prove" to me that your god exists, because "I believe" isn't any sort of proof.

 

[MHunterB]

Arrogance is a human condition.

In this case, the PA state legislature mandated a reading from a Protestant religious text to ALL public school students.

If that wasn't arrogance, them what else would you call it? My use of the word had nothing to do with 'religion' per se: I was taking issue with a government body promoting one *particular* iteration of 'religion' over ALL others to children of ALL citizens.

What you are not taking into consideration, is the time frame. It was conceived in a time where it would have been the norm. Catholics had Catholic Schools, Jews has Shiva's, Protestants would have been the Super Majority then. Arrogance? I doubt it had anything to do with the decision, when the law was first implemented. Values and Ideals? Definitely. We are too much, looking back on the past, with a current day perspective, which, in truth, can blind us to the true intent, at the time.

O Great Spotted One, the benighted PA state legislature passed this law during the Cold War. It's interesting that you should mention the diocesan Catholic school system: that was initiated immediately after the Civil War, which saw anti-Catholic riots in most of the major Northern cities. Like my hometown of Philadephia: it's why the Cathedral of SS Peter& Paul (ca1867) has got NO windows on the first floor and medieval-style fortresslike doors. They were afraid it'd happen again. The 'public schools' of that day (1850's) were unabashedly Protestant-promoting: Catholic children were routinely ridiculed and attacks upon them routinely ignored. So the Catholic day schools were a direct response to abuse.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but a 'shiva' is a Jewish 'wake' (comes from 'sheva', the number 7, indicating a week of deeper mourning....). If you meant an equivalent to the Catholic diocesan system, no such thing existed that I know of - there simply weren't enough Jews who could agree on enough details to provide support on a 'community' level. Not even in the Greater Philadelphia area, which had about 350,000 Jews in the '50's and '60's.....

What did the Jewish parents do? Told their kids to keep their heads down at school - and funded 'after school' programs of Hebrew education and Jewish learning which tended to be 'congregational' in nature. There were a couple of 'citywide' programs in Philly, at the Jewish 'Y' and at Simeon Gratz school. In Cleveland, the Jewish community came together to establish a number of Jewish 'day schools' which taught all academic subjects and Jewish studies. In the greater Boston area, a few Jewish day schools were established.....

I think that by and large, Jewish parents wished their children to NOT be 'insulated' nor 'ghettoized' away from all Christians. My great-grandparents' generation were intent on becoming as American as possible, and wanted their children to embrace American values as much as possible. When I spoke to my fellow students at the 'citywide' high school - the Mongolian, Greek, Ukrainian and Chinese as well as other 'immigrant' children informed me that such was the pattern of their families as well. We ALL thought of ourselves as 'American' first. I honestly do not think the kids sent to 'Catholic school' thought any differently than did we: I don't think the 'separate' Catholic schooling was begun to isolate their children.

Most 'ethnic' communities established some form of 'after-school' program to educate their children in the 'ethnic' culture - whether that was Polish or Chinese or whatever. They kept their children in the public schools because they wanted them to be as American as possible. It does not seem that the majority of Catholics who supported the diocesan system did so out of malice towards anyone else: indeed, their doors have been open to ANY other students who wished to attend AND they have respected those others' religions. There have been any number of Protestant or Jewish or other children whose parents found the diocesan schools a positive alternative to unruly public school classrooms or snobbish private schools.

Back to my initial point: What was seen as impossible to contest in the 1850's was regarded as necessary to contest in the 1950's. It doesn't mean that those abused in the interim didn't recognize it as abuse, or that it (religious discrimination in public schools) was ever truly supported by the Constitution in the first place

 

[MHunterB]

And so, is the universe man made as well, Your Satanic Majesty?

What exactly does this post have to do with the post I made?

Unless you're falling victim to the logical fallacy of, "You can't prove there isn't a god, so there must be one."

Also, if you wish to discuss something rationally with me, please leave the juvenile ad hominems at the door.

Can you prove time exists? If you can't, does that mean that Time does not exist?

I choose to Believe in God, and see God as more than the sum total of all we can imagine. So what. My experience confirms God's existence beyond any doubt. So what. You want to war with, or ignore the Forces of Creation, It's Author? That's between You and Him. My prayers go with you.

Exactly: it's between GOD and the individual. Which is why the schools or the government have no right to be establishing nor promoting any one 'religious' POV.

'Secular' is not the same thing as 'atheist'. Because it is for ALL children, the public school system must be as independent of religious doctrine as is humanly possible - to give each parent their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to guide their own children in this matter without any input from the government at any level.

I cannot understand why that would be problematic for any religious person.

 

[holston]

The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas

The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas
Published: 12/17/2004 at 1:00 AM
author-image by Burt Prelutsky Email | Archive
rss feed Subscribe to feed
Burt Prelutsky has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times, a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine and a freelance writer for TV Guide, Modern Maturity, the New York Times and Sports Illustrated. His latest book is entitled ""Barack Obama, You're Fired! (And Don't Bother Asking for a Recommendation).


Editor’s note: Get the book that made Joseph Farah laugh for six straight hours. Burt Prelutsky is America’s favorite humorist – the man who invented political incorrectness. “Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco,” is available now in WND’s online store, ShopNetDaily.

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn’t? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear it will offend?

Schools are being forced to replace “Christmas vacation” with “winter break” in their printed schedules. At Macy’s, the word is verboten even though they’ve made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, “Miracle on 34th Street.” Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and roughly 90 percent of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn’t, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn’t a threat to anyone – it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world’s melting pot was our nickname. It didn’t mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.

Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two-week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, “It’s a Wonderful Life” was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.

But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that’s just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.

My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26 percent of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we’ve ever had in the Oval Office.

It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase “separation of church and state” actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a “Merry Christmas” will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver’s license.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority. I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They’re the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They’re the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, “In God we trust” or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital “C.” By this time, I’m only surprised that they haven’t begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it’s only for religious reasons – Christian reasons – that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Merry Christmas.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

MHunterB,
It's problematic for the religious because (especially the Evangelicals, etc.) they want the children who have not been exposed to their religious ideology, exposed to it, in the hope that the children might adopt their religious beliefs.
Thus, as you say, it must be kept out of the schools.

 

[holston]

MHunterB,
It's problematic for the religious because (especially the Evangelicals, etc.) they want the children who have not been exposed to their religious ideology, exposed to it, in the hope that the children might adopt their religious beliefs.
Thus, as you say, it must be kept out of the schools.

Not exactly. They're tired of their children being indoctrinated by Marxists and resent being told what they may do by Jewish Supremacists.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is a phrase in US law 'tyranny of the majority': religion being a matter of personal conscience, it is one area where a exception must be maintained to the 'majority rule' of democracy.

Actually, this "tyranny of the majority" that you speak of? The founders of the nation, and the framers of the constitution worked very hard on the constitution, that is why there are so many checks and balances, and why the nation was originally intended to be a republic, not a democracy.

Each and every one of the original ten amendments to the constitution was known as "The Bill of Rights." The amendments were meant to protect sovereign individuals from the will of the majority, whether the rest of the nation liked it or not.

Don't like what somebody else says? Too bad, if you are a patriotic American, you support their Right to speak. Don't like guns? Too bad, if you are patriotic American, you support their right to own any gun they like. Think they committed a crime? Well, you can't force them to testify against themselves and they need a quick fair trial. . . . (no lynchings. lol )

Anyway, one by one, we seem to becoming a more intolerant nation, unable or unwilling to listen to each other. But you are very correct, the tyranny of the majority does seem to be encroaching on every one. . . . If we don't like what someone has to say, we tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up, right?

This then is why we no longer have "Christian" public schools. However, tyranny of the majority still does reign in our schools. Because the majority of our citizens have elected representatives to our national government which have passed laws mandating that compulsory schooling is now the law of the land. Since the philosophical leaning of public schools is secular humanism, the tyranny of the majority violates the human rights of the average christian, or any person that has strong spiritual, moral or ethical beliefs based on an immortal soul. The government doesn't care about that though. Secular Humanism, if you study philosophy, stands opposed to the concept of an "immortal soul."

Why is this concept important? Because all of our fundamental rights, as posited by the empiricists, come from "natural rights," not from man. If governments gave the citizenry rights, they would not then be rights, would they? No indeed, they would be "privileges." And any government that can give citizens such so called "rights", can just as easily take them away, can't they? The empiricists posited this is not true if "rights" are natural, if they are endowed by a creator. They can unjustly be denied by tyrants, just as we can lock up animals and slaughter our livestock, but this does not make it "just." If we accept that there is moral injustice to killing, thieving, deception, than denial of natural rights to those who posses a consciousness endowed by creation, is also immoral. This then, is what will no longer be taught in schools of a secular humanist philosophy, but is the basis for the entire government of this once great nation. YOU TELL ME IF THIS MAKES SENSE?

Thirty years ago, if we had this forum, we would be discussing and arguing over issues of law and policy, but nearly everyone would be in agreement on the fundamentals of what it means to be an American, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Unfortunately, since the elites have taken the soul out of American schools and "conditioned" children to not know what their natural rights are, the Bill of Rights has been shredded, and now we have actual arguments that the government has a legitimate right to do this??! They have the right to change the fundamental structure of what it is to be an American? This is what happens when you take the soul out of humanity and god out of a child's education. Does it matter if that god is a "Jewish God" or a "Christian God" or a "Muslim God?" Not really. But, this is what happens when you force poor parents to have their children educated by a godless state, you get soulless zombie children whose only love is feeling good and mimicking what they see on TV.

 

[Saigon]

Not exactly. They're tired of their children being indoctrinated by Marxists and resent being told what they may do by Jewish Supremacists.

And again - why do you link Judaism with Marxism when we know that not only is there no connection, but Jews were viciously oppressed by communists for the last 50 years of Soviet rule?

 

[MHunterB]

Mr Beale: The framers of our Constitution did not posit that the 'Creator' to Whom they referred was 'the Christian God' - nor did they posit that the human soul was immortal. It DOES NOT MATTER whether one believes in either: the Constitution still guarantees one's civil rights as 'inalienable' and specifically eschews 'ownership' of such by the state.

Simply because one *believes* a thing - no matter how strongly! - does not make it fact. And yet our laws must be based on something, so they are based on fact insofar as that is possible.

The government's proper concern regarding its citizens' collective & individual welfare, is NOT for their souls but their minds and bodies. Further, it is the doctrine of many faiths that each individual is responsible for their own soul's welfare.

If one studies philosophy, one realizes that it's not necessary to posit either a Creator OR a soul of any type in order to make compelling arguments for ethical and moral behavior by individuals in a community of whatever size.

It appears that your 'case' boils down to some version of 'special pleading' for a particular subset of Christianity. Which appears to be exactly the sort of situation the Constitution was expressly crafted to *prevent* - and I cry 'GOD Bless our Founding Fathers!' for that!

 

[Unkotare]

MHunterB,
It's problematic for the religious because (especially the Evangelicals, etc.) they want the children who have not been exposed to their religious ideology, exposed to it, in the hope that the children might adopt their religious beliefs.
Thus, as you say, it must be kept out of the schools.

Not exactly. They're tired of their children being indoctrinated by Marxists and resent being told what they may do by Jewish Supremacists.

Bigoted idiots like this jackass will try to make any and every topic about their pet fear. Pathetic fools.

 

[SAYIT]

I KNOW that YOU PEOPLE, haven't had time to examine, much less read the responses I have made already. This means either you have no intentions to, or you know already that what I am saying is true.

Or perhaps they've had enough of racist slugs and don't want to waste their time with the NNOTB.

 

[Esmeralda]

I don't think that public schools should be teaching Christianity or any other religion, but the great importance of religious belief in our history and institutions should be included in their curricula.

Hate the gays.

Anti science.

Mystical beliefs.

Anti women's rights.

Yea, religion has taught us so much.

It is not the job of public schools to teach or reinforce Christian ideas. Separation of Church and State. The US is a secular government. Public schools are supported by the government. However, even those godless secularists do not promote sexual activity among students, not students of any age. They certainly don't allow it in school. If 5 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, this is down to family influence/supervision not what the schools are teaching or promoting.

 

[Katzndogz]

That's why parents should not send their children to public schools. Or at the very least, send children to supplemental schools where they will get some kind of education.