| Are you DISGUSTED with this decision? |
| OH YEAH. This is HORRIFYING. |
|
50% |
[ 5 ] |
| Yes. |
|
10% |
[ 1 ] |
| Somewhat. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No. It's a GOOD decision. |
|
40% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
| Author |
Message |
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
 Mon May 02, 2005 4:53 pm |
|
I would not be offended by people who chose not to say the pledge because of religious reasons. But if they changed it to where it would be "your belief system" and people still chose to not say it, then it would be disrespecting your country. That I do not like. Even though I disagree with most of what our current president does, I am still proud to be an American, and soooo damn thankful too.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon May 02, 2005 11:00 pm |
|
| Quote: | If you follow your history, the separation of church and state was to keep the STATE from controlling the CHURCH.
It had happened in England when their government told them that they could only go to the Church of England and practice it's doctrines.
That is where the term "Separatists" was coined. They were 'separating' themselves from England and it's established church.
In order to prevent this from happening in America, it was written and sealed in the Constitution that it would be unlawful for the government of the United States of America to support one religion over another, forcing it's citizens to attend one and only one church. That is where you get your freedom to believe whatever doctrine you wish. It was not, however, to keep the influence of the church out of the government.
|
| Quote: | The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.
Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.
1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.
2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.
3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.
4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.
|
Thought this was interesting. It may not perfectly fit here, but it does have some relevance to the conversation at hand.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Mon May 02, 2005 11:09 pm |
|
At least secular humanism is based on scientific evidence instead of an ancient book. I don't know if a god or gods exist or not, but I do know, as an agnostic, that the concept of God has much less hard evidence to support it than most "secular humanist" beliefs. A balanced education should include information on a variety of belief systems, with open discussions to encourage free exchange of ideas. Its substance must be scientific, however. Science is the only reason we are able to live as we do today. It is real, tangible, visible. Religion, while I cannot prove it as true or false, cannot say as much.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:00 pm |
|
"Under your belief system" still would refer to "god" if you're a Christian. No biggie, IMO.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:11 pm |
|
Theresa, thanks for posting that. It's so true.
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | At least secular humanism is based on scientific evidence instead of an ancient book. I don't know if a god or gods exist or not, but I do know, as an agnostic, that the concept of God has much less hard evidence to support it than most "secular humanist" beliefs. A balanced education should include information on a variety of belief systems, with open discussions to encourage free exchange of ideas. Its substance must be scientific, however. Science is the only reason we are able to live as we do today. It is real, tangible, visible. Religion, while I cannot prove it as true or false, cannot say as much. |
So we have to shut out religion because it can't be proven to those who don't believe? Right. That's a good idea 
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | "Under your belief system" still would refer to "god" if you're a Christian. No biggie, IMO. |
Maybe so (the application), but you DON'T NEED to, NOR SHOULD you, change it! It IS a big deal.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:15 pm |
|
Just because the non christians, do not want God in schools doesn't mean they have to punish those who are christians. Those who don't believe in God just simply don't say the words
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:15 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | It IS a big deal. |
No, it's not a big deal. As long as both sides continue to pettily squabble about it, it's going to seem like a big deal.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:17 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | "Under your belief system" still would refer to "god" if you're a Christian. No biggie, IMO. |
Maybe so (the application), but you DON'T NEED to, NOR SHOULD you, change it! It IS a big deal. |
Well, as you said before, you yourself don't have to say it, if you don't agree with it? 
This way, it's all-inclusive and nobody is left out.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:27 pm |
|
| Rbgirl wrote: | | Just because the non christians, do not want God in schools doesn't mean they have to punish those who are christians. Those who don't believe in God just simply don't say the words |
Ok that post made no sense, you are being a hypocrit. Why punish those people who don't believe in god by making them hear about it? It has to be equal.. not one way or the other.
Last edited by zero on Tue May 03, 2005 4:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:29 pm |
|
No I am not a hyocrite. You don't have the right to call me that cause you don't know me.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:34 pm |
|
| zero wrote: | | Rbgirl wrote: | | Just because the non christians, do not want God in schools doesn't mean they have to punish those who are christians. Those who don't believe in God just simply don't say the words |
Ok that post made no sense, you are being a hypocrit. Why punish those people who don't believe in god by making them hear about it? It has to be equal.. not one way or the other. |
Actually, she is RIGHT. You do NOT force this politically-correct belief that God can't be referenced at all in schools upon those who are Christians, and disrupt the moral values of those who are.
And Intrepid, it IS a big deal because they are CHANING THE PLEDGE on students! You don't DO this horrible thing, and force God out of it. You just don't do it! Besides, I don't WANT to not say the pledge, but I want to keep it the way it is. We don't need to shut out the 80+% majority for a 20-% minority.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:43 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | And Intrepid, it IS a big deal because they are CHANING THE PLEDGE on students! You don't DO this horrible thing, and force God out of it. You just don't do it! Besides, I don't WANT to not say the pledge, but I want to keep it the way it is. We don't need to shut out the 80+% majority for a 20-% minority. |
I just think it's silly for people to be debating this where there are so many more important issues: school dropout rates, curriculum inadequacy, et cetera.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:49 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | And Intrepid, it IS a big deal because they are CHANING THE PLEDGE on students! You don't DO this horrible thing, and force God out of it. You just don't do it! Besides, I don't WANT to not say the pledge, but I want to keep it the way it is. We don't need to shut out the 80+% majority for a 20-% minority. |
I just think it's silly for people to be debating this where there are so many more important issues: school dropout rates, curriculum inadequacy, et cetera. |
The rise of secularism is equally, if not MORE, important.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 5:01 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | zero wrote: | | Rbgirl wrote: | | Just because the non christians, do not want God in schools doesn't mean they have to punish those who are christians. Those who don't believe in God just simply don't say the words |
Ok that post made no sense, you are being a hypocrit. Why punish those people who don't believe in god by making them hear about it? It has to be equal.. not one way or the other. |
Actually, she is RIGHT. You do NOT force this politically-correct belief that God can't be referenced at all in schools upon those who are Christians, and disrupt the moral values of those who are. |
Times are changing. I don't think we should follow the same thing forever and ever... There are a lot more people "today" who do not believe in god then there were "back then". I feel it should be equal and have respect for all people no matter what their belief is.
An example is sending a christian to school to hear them talk or mention Satan. It does not matter what the percentage rate is, or what the stats are. This country should treat everyone equal.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 5:16 pm |
|
| zero wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | zero wrote: | | Rbgirl wrote: | | Just because the non christians, do not want God in schools doesn't mean they have to punish those who are christians. Those who don't believe in God just simply don't say the words |
Ok that post made no sense, you are being a hypocrit. Why punish those people who don't believe in god by making them hear about it? It has to be equal.. not one way or the other. |
Actually, she is RIGHT. You do NOT force this politically-correct belief that God can't be referenced at all in schools upon those who are Christians, and disrupt the moral values of those who are. |
Times are changing. I don't think we should follow the same thing forever and ever... There are a lot more people "today" who do not believe in god then there were "back then". I feel it should be equal and have respect for all people no matter what their belief is.
An example is sending a christian to school to hear them talk or mention Satan. It does not matter what the percentage rate is, or what the stats are. This country should treat everyone equal. |
Yeah, and push this nation's history aside. Right.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 5:40 pm |
|
^ No, not push it aside. More like revise it, But we should not live "in" the past. If we continue to live that way.. there would be no other history and how are we supposed to continue to move foward if we can not let go of something like this.. that is so small?
does that make sense? haha
in my little world it does.. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 5:45 pm |
|
| zero wrote: | ^ No, not push it aside. More like revise it, But we should not live "in" the past. If we continue to live that way.. there would be no other history and how are we supposed to continue to move foward if we can not let go of something like this.. that is so small?
does that make sense? haha
in my little world it does.. |
Then do you believe something like, say, the Constitution to be a LIVING document in the sense that it should be changed to accomodate for the times? And that we should change the Declaration of Independence? And that we CHANGE our history so that we LOSE it? Yes, it seems that you do.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 9:05 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Then do you believe something like, say, the Constitution to be a LIVING document in the sense that it should be changed to accomodate for the times? And that we should change the Declaration of Independence? And that we CHANGE our history so that we LOSE it? Yes, it seems that you do. |
Do you support the patriot act, RM?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 9:36 pm |
|
Can we keep on topic? I really think we can.
BTW, I looked it up, in America's schools, you cannot be punished for refusing to say the pledge.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 9:39 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | Can we keep on topic? I really think we can.
BTW, I looked it up, in America's schools, you cannot be punished for refusing to say the pledge. |
Exactly. Therefore, no reason to change it.
And yes, I do support the Patriot Act.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 7:57 am |
|
I have a gut negative reaction to things like this. But when I really think about it, what's wrong with having our public institutions (schools, hospitals, courthouses, etc.) and our government secular? It's actually is a way of not discriminating based on religion or creed.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 12:57 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | I have a gut negative reaction to things like this. But when I really think about it, what's wrong with having our public institutions (schools, hospitals, courthouses, etc.) and our government secular? It's actually is a way of not discriminating based on religion or creed. |
It discriminates against those who do have a Religion.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 1:22 pm |
|
^ How so?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 1:30 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | BTW, I looked it up, in America's schools, you cannot be punished for refusing to say the pledge. |
I know it is not legal to punish students for not saying it. But some schools still do it. Mine did.
Detention
Lunch detention
no recess
stuff like that.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 3:39 pm |
|
| zero wrote: | I know it is not legal to punish students for not saying it. But some schools still do it. Mine did.
Detention
Lunch detention
no recess
stuff like that. |
Challenge them on it. 
If you go to a certain university in California, you could even get a scholarship! 
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
