Education is a joke yes because one party has decided that teachers are sub human and shouldn't be paid. And slot of idiots fell for it. As a lifelong practicing christian who prays often, school prayer has zero to do with it.while you see education being cut and unions being taken away, you see union jobs being replaced by Walmart $10 jobs and blame fellow working class folk. While the rich laugh at you that you have bought into the propaganda, while they cash in. Amazing.
Would you support requiring all Americans to be religious
- Thread starter Davros
- Start date
Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
You're describing two different things.
And going about your school day without praying in the classroom won't harm anyone.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
Yeah, because it has worked out well since it was banned.
Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
What harm do you perceive it's caused?
blackhawk
Diamond Member
No.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
Look at schools today compared to the schools of the past. My gosh kids today have to have safety zones if they get offended.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
What should happen to the kids who refuse to pray?[/QUOTE]
They don't have to pray. Just letting God back in school would work wonders.[/QUOTE]
Do they have to bow their heads?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the food we eat,
Thank you for the world so sweet,
Thank you for the birds that sing,
Thank you God for everything. Amen.
Truly bonechilling, eh?[/QUOTE]
If you can't find God without being bombarded by pro-God propaganda in school all day, then maybe you aren't doing your part.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Will Allah be 'let back' into the schools, too?
jknowgood
Diamond Member
They don't have to pray. Just letting God back in school would work wonders.[/QUOTE]
Do they have to bow their heads?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the food we eat,
Thank you for the world so sweet,
Thank you for the birds that sing,
Thank you God for everything. Amen.
Truly bonechilling, eh?[/QUOTE]
If you can't find God without being bombarded by pro-God propaganda in school all day, then maybe you aren't doing your part.[/QUOTE]
Starting the day with a prayer won't bombard them all day.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
People like you have made it a joke.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Do they have to bow their heads?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the food we eat,
Thank you for the world so sweet,
Thank you for the birds that sing,
Thank you God for everything. Amen.
Truly bonechilling, eh?[/QUOTE]
If you can't find God without being bombarded by pro-God propaganda in school all day, then maybe you aren't doing your part.[/QUOTE]
Starting the day with a prayer won't bombard them all day.[/QUOTE]
Go to a private school.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
People like yourself has made public education a joke.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
Thank you for the food we eat,
Thank you for the world so sweet,
Thank you for the birds that sing,
Thank you God for everything. Amen.
Truly bonechilling, eh?[/QUOTE]
If you can't find God without being bombarded by pro-God propaganda in school all day, then maybe you aren't doing your part.[/QUOTE]
Starting the day with a prayer won't bombard them all day.[/QUOTE]
Go to a private school.[/QUOTE]
With school vouchers they could.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
I've never seen a Christian support laws making religion mandatory. Scalia's questionable notion of "favoring" is not the same thing as "requiring".
That would be as crazy as a Regressive Leftist wanting a law fining people for not being PC.
New York Becomes First City to Fine People for Using Wrong Gender Pronouns
Oops. Maybe not a good example.
.
Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
That's not a function of prayer/no prayer, and I don't see how prayer would fix it.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
Well you don't have faith. Anyway look at schools before prayer was banned and after.
Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
Which schools, in what era? There are over 13,000 school districts with a multiplicity of factors determining the quality of the individual schools within those districts.
IIRC, mandatory prayer in publicly funded schools also corresponded with segregation.
Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,209
- 245
Our government already favors religion. That's why these money-making enterprises are given tax-exempt status. Anyone who would go further in breaching the wall between church and state is no better than our terrorist enemies.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.
No one ever said it did.
The Establishment Clause prohibits government endorsing religion, compelling religious observance, or favoring one religion over another. The Free Exercise Clause safeguards the right of citizens to practice whatever religion they so desire, or no religion at all, where government may not seek to disadvantage any manner of religious expression, or no expression at all.
He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.
Wrong.
First Amendment jurisprudence is consistent with the original intent of the Framing Generation, that church and state remain separate. It was never the intent of the Framers that there should be no religion at all in government, and current Establishment Clause case law reflects that intent – the Constitution recognizes times when government involvement with religion is appropriate, and times when it is not; it's incumbent upon lawmakers to abide by this Constitutional dictate.
He also said there is "nothing wrong" with presidents and others invoking God in speeches
Again, no one ever said there was.
If Americans want to the government to be non-religious, he said, they should vote on it instead of courts deciding.
Nonsense.
Citizens' rights and protected liberties are not subject to 'majority rule.'
The issue is not whether government should be 'non-religious' or not, this issue is that the right of the people to practice their faith as they see fit – or to be free from faith altogether – is of no concern of government, where each individual is free to decide how to believe in accordance with his own good conscience, and where citizens may not seek to compel religious conformity through force of law by codifying religious doctrine and dogma into secular statutes all must obey.
Don't cram it down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it
More nonsense.
Nothing is being 'crammed down the throats' of the American people.
When the people err and enact measures repugnant to the First Amendment, such as seeking to disadvantage a given faith, promoting a given religion by act of government, or compelling adherence to religious dogma as a matter of government statutory policy, then the courts must appropriately and correctly invalidate such measures in accordance with the First Amendment, where the people are not being denied freedom of religious expression or liberty, and government is in no way 'mandating' non-religion.
Scalia's 'argument' fails as a straw man fallacy, he contrives this ridiculous non-issue of 'non-religion' in government and attacks that non-issue as if it were an actual concern.
Scalia's is an inane fabrication, a myth devoid of substance or merit.
No one ever said it did.
The Establishment Clause prohibits government endorsing religion, compelling religious observance, or favoring one religion over another. The Free Exercise Clause safeguards the right of citizens to practice whatever religion they so desire, or no religion at all, where government may not seek to disadvantage any manner of religious expression, or no expression at all.
He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.
Wrong.
First Amendment jurisprudence is consistent with the original intent of the Framing Generation, that church and state remain separate. It was never the intent of the Framers that there should be no religion at all in government, and current Establishment Clause case law reflects that intent – the Constitution recognizes times when government involvement with religion is appropriate, and times when it is not; it's incumbent upon lawmakers to abide by this Constitutional dictate.
He also said there is "nothing wrong" with presidents and others invoking God in speeches
Again, no one ever said there was.
If Americans want to the government to be non-religious, he said, they should vote on it instead of courts deciding.
Nonsense.
Citizens' rights and protected liberties are not subject to 'majority rule.'
The issue is not whether government should be 'non-religious' or not, this issue is that the right of the people to practice their faith as they see fit – or to be free from faith altogether – is of no concern of government, where each individual is free to decide how to believe in accordance with his own good conscience, and where citizens may not seek to compel religious conformity through force of law by codifying religious doctrine and dogma into secular statutes all must obey.
Don't cram it down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it
More nonsense.
Nothing is being 'crammed down the throats' of the American people.
When the people err and enact measures repugnant to the First Amendment, such as seeking to disadvantage a given faith, promoting a given religion by act of government, or compelling adherence to religious dogma as a matter of government statutory policy, then the courts must appropriately and correctly invalidate such measures in accordance with the First Amendment, where the people are not being denied freedom of religious expression or liberty, and government is in no way 'mandating' non-religion.
Scalia's 'argument' fails as a straw man fallacy, he contrives this ridiculous non-issue of 'non-religion' in government and attacks that non-issue as if it were an actual concern.
Scalia's is an inane fabrication, a myth devoid of substance or merit.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump Wants To Rename Gaza The Riviera Try Srebrenica!
- Started by JimofPennsylvan
- Replies: 1
-
-
Before becoming pontiff, Pope Leo levied criticism at Trump and Vance- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 15
