Please don't put words in my mouth (or in my posts) that aren't mine. I never claimed that God in schools was a more serious problem than discrimination. I said that the issues were analagous because they are both practices that are not right and should be banned. The Constitution is VERY clear about separation of church and state. Since the state is running the public schools, they are included in said separation and as such, the judges were absolutely correct in removing those influences. You said something to the effect that this system worked for hundreds of years and now it has changed. That is what brought up my analogy with slavery, discrimination, and suffrage, all practices that are wrong and yet were practiced in America for hundreds of years. By the way, I did touch on the specific points brought up in the original post, and you simply ignored me.
Suffrage is wrong, andy? Remember that old Tom Green show where he went around with a microphone shouting "STOP WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE!" And people were agreeing with him. Easy mistake to make, sorry you had to make it, moon. By the way, quit using the word "said" as an adjective. You are not a lawyer. One thing that the liberals *love* to do is to twist the separation of church and state angle. They totally do a 180 on it. The separation of church and state was established with the intent of the *state* not interfering with our religious choice. Now the liberals are using the separation angle to accomplish just the opposite -- preventing religion from influencing all things related to the state. It is a subtle distortion, but a distortion nonetheless. It's intellectually dishonest. There is no quesion whatsoever that religion did in fact influence many parts of the founding fathers' plans for government. Many of these influences are evident in our daily lives today. Nothing like attacking Christianity on Christmas, eh libs? WOW.
Oh this is very, very sig worthy. Yes, Suffrage is WRONG and has been practiced in America for hundreds of years! Ahhhhhahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Thanks for this gift of humor on Christmas day!
Let it hereby be known that andymoon resents the fact that we can vote. I hate you, andymoon. My thanks to big_Jorge and tradertexxx for alerting me to what a horrible, freedom hating person that andymoon is.
OK, can't sleep so I'll point one thing out. This quoted example is in line with what I was talking about earlier. I said it was absurd for you to posit that I feel my positions are unassailable and you respond directly (even repeating "absurd") by talking about something else that is unrelated. What do you being argumentative and andymoon's supposed views on God have to do with you insinuating I am intellectually fragile? You claim I intentionally write in an obtuse manner (which is stupid) and then you give me this? I am too stupid to crack your code, giddy.
Here's what I wrote and what you wrote: "giddyup: Garbage is in the eye of the beholder. Those Godly principles in our institutions survived for almost two hundred years-- now all of a sudden they were unconstitutional. andymoon: Just like slavery survived for four hundred years in this country. Just like women were denied the right to vote for a hundred and fifty years. Those things were wrong so they had to change. Just like God in schools." So you didn't say "more serious." I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Isn't that what your language implies though-- a more rooted problem that just took longer to dig out and remove? BTW, I don't believe that the constitution even mentions the words "separation of church and state." Don't put words in the Constitutions' mouth!
rimbaud, you really just play with people here. I remember one of my very first direct exchanges with you some 3 or 4 years ago. I don't remember the topic, but I remember my reply to you: "Why are you so dismissive?" It hasn't changed. The discussion of andymoon's position was too illustrate the glaring problem I have with the "liberal" attack dogs (of which I count you one). andymoon "analogized" the installation of civil rights with the "de-installation" of God in our public institutions. That's a red state red flag. Yes, you didn't say it, but one of your "cohorts" did!! I'm surprised that someone of your intellect couldn't follow that. I was only illlustrating the kind of thing that gives me a bulldog attitude in here sometime. "Your" group considers me over the top. I consider "your" group over the top, but only"your" group suggests to me that I have no business posting the things I do. I think they teach it at PC Academy.
I am glad to see that you and your moron brother take pleasure at a misstatement, and what makes it deliciously ironic is the lengths to which both of you will defend, clarify, or just rewrite the misstatements of the cabal in power. Most people get a Merry Xmas from me today, you and your twin get my unconditional derision. Way to prove that you are both couple of idjits.
I don't hate YOU, nor do I hate your brother. I hate the mindless vitriol that continually spews from your keyboards.
It is very analagous if you are not blinded by some inability to see facts. Those other things were things that were not the way things should have been done and as such, they have changed. America was founded on religious freedom and as America has become somewhat more diverse religiously, it has come closer and closer to it being time to remove the Christian faith from our public institutions. As this country grows, its judges must take into account where we are as a people and base their judgements on how times have changed. You can call them "activists" if you want, but these judges are doing what is right for America. I truly hate that we have to talk about politics through this us versus them, black versus white, left versus right filter that is IMO destroying America. You can believe me or not, but I lean slightly right and very libertarian. I am nowhere near a flaming liberal (I should know, my father is the prototypical one), nor am I a right-wing nutjob (again, I should know because my mother and stepfather are dittoheads all the way). My mother got one of the satellite radios so that she could listen to Rush or O'Liely and my father's favorite author is Molly Ivans. We have much bigger problems in this country and we should be concentrating on those issues, but instead we get "red state red flag(s)."
Andy: While I'll respect your opinion, I'm really not getting why you think removing "all" religion from "all" of society is necessarily a good thing? Freedom of religion is here. Always has been. However, we are still a country, by and large, that is Christian. I don't want the country breathing it down our throats, but that isn't happening, at all. Your stance is to remove its ideals everywhere. That is a dumb idea. As a philosopher once wrote: if their weren't a God, we would have to invent him. Society needs boundaries and rules dictated to it. If you think removing all religion is a sign of progression, you are sorely mistaken. And I feel sorry for you.
Actually, the ideal for me would be organizations formed to represent all of the religions in their own right. If there were just as many Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu organizations and if Muslims were allowed to worship as they see fit alongside Christians and Wiccans, then we might be on the right path. Unfortunately, that is a very idealistic view that I don't think is realistic. We simply do not have the resources to assure that all of the religions are adequately represented and as such, I think that means we must remove that from our schools and encourage parents to teach their kids about spirituality. Those teachings belong in the home and at church anyway. EDIT: Besides, I do not want to remove religion from all of life (as you characterized as my position) I want to remove it from our public funding structure, by which I mean the government in all its different guises. Since public funds pay for public schools, those schools cannot promote one religion over another. If you want a religious education, I hear some of the best schools are privately funded Catholic schools and my sources say Strake Jesuit is top notch. Religion just doesn't need to be promoted by the government. That is really the gist of what the framers said.
Andymoon: To an extent, we are in agreement. My point is there should always be some sense of responsibility higher than Gov., police, et.al. It should always be God, or whomever you may want to deify. The idea of a Country with no "holy power" may work for you, but the masses need something more...
And those masses are free to find that "something more" at any of the innumerable churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and metaphysical book stores that exist in this country. For hundreds of years, America has been a near homogeneous Christian society and during that time, having religion in the schools was acceptable. As we have become more heterogeneous, we have had to adapt and become more inclusive of other religions. This means that public entities should not be engaged in promoting one religion over another.
.... and it is at this point that i realize that i have wasted about 30 mins. of my life and have become significantly stupider for reading your posts. may God have mercy on your soul.
