Should The Federal Government Be Involved In Public Education?

"... attempting to impose their views on those who have a different perspective..."

Isn't this all the special interest groups do? It seems to me they are narrow minded to the point of being selfish. PETA, NOW, La Raza, CAIR, NAACP, ACLU and a host of others. They represent a small group of citizens but when they lobby, the resulting laws affect everyone.

I say keep government out of religion...how 'bout you?

I'm fine with keeping government out of religion, but I feel it is at least as important to keep religion out of government. Whad'ya say to that, Socrates?

Also... What is the pledge of allegiance??? Is it government??? Is it religion??? Is it something else??? Is reciting this pledge mandatory??? Should it be???

I don't see anywhere where religion was to be kept out of government...

There are a lot of things you don't see, Socrates... I sure don't want to open that First Amendment discussion again... We've beaten that poor dead horse enough.

Got any answers to the other questions I asked???

The First Amendment ensures that individual practice of religion, within one's own self, own family, own home, own church, etc., is not to be interfered with by government, and that the government shall not inflict anyone's religious beliefs and values on other people who don't subscribe to those beliefs and values. Some people like to deny this - they seem to enjoy the denial viscerally - yet it doesn't obviate the fact that that is exactly what the constitutional requirement is. I know we would all love to live in a world that arrayed itself around our preferences, but that's simply an unreasonable expectation.

It's only a dead horse because you have been unable to prove your point

No, it's a dead horse because he has, and others have, proven his point, and you repeatedly deny that fact.

Considering what passes for an "education" in texas and kansas and other republican states, I'd say yes.

Or, the rest of us in the KNOWLEDGEABLE and EDUCATED states should be able to REQUIRE ANY citizen from a republican dominated state to pass a SERIES of exams in math and science and history and literature and so on, to PROVE basic competence in those subjects based on REAL information generally recognized by RESPECTABLE and well educated authority, and NOT be a bunch of ignorant, raving, fly by night diploma mill christian preachers who don't even know their OWN beliefs or voodoo book, much less anything else.

I don't see anywhere where religion was to be kept out of government, I do see where government was to be kept out of religion.

'make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

If a religious law is passed, it violates the 1st amendment.

In the first place, public schooling, as we know it, could simply be eliminated and we could return to what we had in the past. Similarly to eliminating the "Under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, based on "what used to be", the same argument could be made here.

You are implying the reason for the changes were the same. They were not. In one, a need of the society was addressed, in the other a religious law was passed without a legitimate basis.

Parents and students would be free to choose the school most in line with their value systems and organize their communities around their religious institutions and schools, much like the original founders intended.

Religious schools exist, they just require a tuition. However, under the system of removing public schools, you'd be paying tuition anyway.

On the other hand, I have yet to find schooling to be a right found anywhere in that august document. Surely those who are constantly complaining about having religion thrown in their faces will be the first to jump on this bandwagon.....unless it is they who wish to force their belief system on others...

It's not a right, under the Constitution (though I'd be in favor of making it one). Since we are no longer an agricultural society, a public education system becomes a necessity for a prosperous industrialized nation. Do I think the feds should be involved? I wish they didn't have to be, however in practice states have shown they are incapable of providing minimum standards (e.g. segregated schools, religion in the science class, etc) without the intervention of the federal government.

Honestly though, I really can't see how your analogy is valid. You're talking about 2 different concepts/laws, passed for 2 different reasons, that have 2 different effects on the society. The only analogy you draw is that in both someone's will is being imposed on another. However, you could make that argument about murder laws as long as you leave out the same points you did here.

Concerned,

Please see #10.4... I agree with your points... But I'm just sayin'... This isn't going anywhere... Maybe other reasonable people will read your reasonable comments and that would be a good reason to make them... But I guarantee nothing you say will penetrate Socrates' fortress of twisted logic.

Strictly speaking, denial is not "logical". It is intransigence.

Citizen, I don't see where "making no laws respecting an establishment of religion" is to be taken as avoiding any and all references to God.

...the problem with my "twisted logic" is that you cannot answer it because it is logical. As I said you don't like it because it proves your world view to be wrong...and illogical.

As I said below Socrates, your position on just about everything can be summarized as...

"I'm right... you're wrong."

Actually Socrates, I CAN answer your assertions... but I have learned through many interactions with you that making any effort to do that only provides you an opportunity to "toy" with me or whoever may try to engage you. You have fortified yourself with the most amazing barrier of self-righteousness I have ever seen. Being "right" is too important to you... so you do whatever may be necessary to uphold your righteousness. You and I can sit here saying "I know you are, but what am I?" all day long... What's the point in that??? Do you really enjoy that??? It kinda looks like you do...

Citizen, I don't see where "making no laws respecting an establishment of religion" is to be taken as avoiding any and all references to God.

The Supreme Court explained it like this:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” 530 U.S. 290, 309-10, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 2279

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy. 505 U.S. 592, 112 S.Ct. at 2658.

Then it must be some sort of violation to have a "Christmas vacation" or ANY possible reference thereto. Maybe the time away from school (if continued at all) should be changed to a nondescript time in mid January, to avoid any reference to the day Christians celebrate? BTW, isn't Halloween some vague sort of religious reference? Should then any references to same, be forthwith prohibited?

Concerned Citizen...and as you agree...schooling is not a right...but religious freedom is. I ask you, considering that fact, which takes priority under our system of constitutional law?

You're still asking that question under the assumption that you're analogy is valid. You can have both a secular public education as well as freedom of religion. In fact, we have one now. A student should be able to state their religious opinion, but a school as a government institution (state or federal) can not.

Citizen, I don't see where "making no laws respecting an establishment of religion" is to be taken as avoiding any and all references to God.

Really? You can't see how god is a religious figure? You can't see that creating a LAW in which the official pledge of allegiance ESTABLISHES both the existence and authority of a RELIGIOUS figure can possibly violate the separation of church and state? Please.

So Socrates, you make the point that we should give people a choice. Then why should there be an official pledge if it's different for everyone? Perhaps we should just do away with it entirely and let everyone create their own pledge.

Then it must be some sort of violation to have a "Christmas vacation" or ANY possible reference thereto.

Probably, but similar to how I feel about the BSA, there are so many more grievious offenses against constitutional requirements for separation of church and state, that Christmas isn't worth the bother.

Maybe the time away from school (if continued at all) should be changed to a nondescript time in mid January, to avoid any reference to the day Christians celebrate?

It would make more sense to put intersession mid-way between the start of the school year and the end, or perhaps move it to Thanksgiving week (a harvest festival is pretty secular, even if some people choose to practice Thanksgiving in a more religious manner, themselves). That way, paired with a Spring break, the two big weeks off can be more evenly spaced through the school year. However, it's really a trivial consideration.

BTW, isn't Halloween some vague sort of religious reference? Should then any references to same, be forthwith prohibited?

In schools? Sure, though that's even more trivial and therefore even less worth bothering with.

how do you explain ignoring a Constitutional Right for no right at all?

There is no need for explanation for the pointless things you make up to rationalize your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth of the matter I was referring to.

each article you respond to you say the same things

Fair enough... and that is rude... I've had my say...so I should just leave you in peace... at least on that point.

...placed in a corner from which you could not escape.

That is what I meant when I used the word "toy"... That is what you think you are doing... and it seems to give you some kind of pleasure pleasure... I hope you're havin' fun.

This.."You're wrong and I'm right" thing is getting a bit old...

With that point I must agree... As I said, it was rude of me to make that point over and over. I apologize.

I provide my reasoning for all to see. I can't help being right...

I know you can't Socrates...

...your foundational premise is that there is no "right" or "wrong" which in itself I disagree with.

Hang on a minute there buster!!! Where did I lay out that "foundational premise"?????

And yet you cannot have what you term as a "secular" school system because, based on your own definition, it denies the freedom of religious expression.

No, it does not. It denies the government from religious expression, not an individual. The individual teachers/principles are barred from religious expression in so far as they are acting in a government capacity.

Should a judge be free to exercise his/her religion in his/her court decision?

Waltdis....amusing...when you come up against something you cannot refute, you dismiss it. It should be easy.

You're posting as if you don't have a posting history. Ridiculous.

Religious Freedom is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Yet no constitutional rights are unlimited.

Public Education is not.

Yet it isn't precluded, despite your dogged attempts to claim it is.

Which one, considering our system of Constitutional Law, should be supreme?

Liberty and justice for all should be supreme. The world is not black and white as you seem to prefer it was. All things are balanced against each other, in light of what's fair, just and in the best interests of all.

I think you'll pass because the ridiculousness is in the fact that you cannot answer it.

I think you post pointlessly self-serving statements like this because you know that your inquisition relies on fallacy. You want to control the question and restrict the possible answers to the two answers that you yourself get to dictate. That rhetorical tactic (false dichotomy) very clearly highlights the vacuous nature of what you're advocating for.

I beg your pardon...

No constitutional rights are unlimited.

First..once again you make a claim unsupported by any evidence.

Wrong. My claim was specific: It isn't precluded. True.

enumerated rights take precedence over those which are not.

"Once again you make a claim unsupported by any evidence."

Ah, the old, "I know better than the Constitution ploy, and thus I should be able to change it as will". Sorry, I reject such nonsense, or there is no point in having a Constitution at all.

Here we see you back to your old tricks. It isn't me saying that I know the Constitution better than you - it is the Supreme Court that knows the Constitution better than you.

Sorry, I reject such nonsense, or there is no point in having a Constitution at all.

I know you reject the fact that the Supreme Court know the Constitution better than you. That's what we've been saying!

Sorry, no fallacies here

Bull.

Can there be a discussion where one person is right and the other wrong?

Of course.

Unfortunately I don't make a habit of saving each and every instance of your pearls of wisdom...

Well then... I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth.

For the record... it is entirely possible for you and I to have a discussion in which I am wrong and you are right. Of course, who is right and who is wrong will depend on what is used as the basis for determining right and wrong.

My interest in engaging you in conversation comes from my fascination with what I see as your fortress of self-righteousness. I wonder to myself... WHY does Socrates make these assertions??? Is it only because he enjoys a dialogue with someone he can place in a corner from which he thinks they cannot escape??? Is there any other reason??? Does he understand that even if he is "right" his self-righteous way of expressing his views destroys his credibility???

The simplest way is the one I've already suggested.

Religious Freedom is guaranteed.

Education is not.

Which, based on our system of law, should take precedence?

Socrates,

Okay, if we follow your logic, then people should be able to practice polgamy, slavery (yes some Southern religions had it as a stated belief), honor killings, giving women no rights, call to prayer being heard throughout US cities, and let family keep their children from getting transfusions to save their lives since these are religious believes and we have religious freedom. Am I correct? I am using your line of reasoning here.

Have a good day.

I'm sorry, but you must break free of your chains before you can hope to understand the issue.

Pretentious nonsense; not you, the statement.

The simplest way is the one I've already suggested.

Yes, it is a very simple way, I agree. It is also immaterial. As I've stated, with reasons, and as you have yet to refute any, you're using a false analogy, a false choice, and a limited (or 'simple' if you'd prefer) basis for your argument without giving a reason as to why you limit your scope in such a glaring manner and without accepting other premises or giving a reason to reject them.

This inability to consider the thoughts of others will be the subject of my next article

I would really love to see what you have to say on this subject. Let me know if/when you complete it.

Citizen, I still don't see how "making no laws respecting an establishment of religion" means that any reference in school to something which some may take as relgious, should now be regarded as no difference from uttering various epithets and obscene words. It's almost like nonbelievers have this nervous feeling that their position might not be right, so they must force it into the national light.

I'll be brave and answer Socrates' question straight out. The question is:

Religious Freedom is guaranteed.

Education is not.

Which, based on our system of law, should take precedence?

The Constitution is the founding document from which all else flows. From it we establish individual rights, State's rights, etc. The Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion should take precedence over education based on our system of law.

As far as people pulling honor killings and things out of their ass as a rebuttal.....did you miss the part where the question said "under of system of law"? Last I checked murder is against the law so please try to stay out of the "drama pool".

No. To the question- should the Federal Government be involved in public education.

Citizen, I still don't see how "making no laws respecting an establishment of religion" means that any reference in school to something which some may take as relgious, should now be regarded as no difference from uttering various epithets and obscene words

It isn't. Nor should it. It being in the official pledge of allegiance however...

1) Does not have a secular purpose.
2) Has a primary effect which promotes religion
3) Creates an entanglement of church and state

Generally if a law/act does any of these actions, it is deemed unconstitutional. This violates all 3. Lemon test

It's almost like nonbelievers have this nervous feeling that their position might not be right, so they must force it into the national light.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I am a devout believer. Having religion in government means you have government in religion. The government has no right to dictate or define faith, religion, God, or His will. It is a very deep and personal affront that individuals, even in masses, believe they have the right to define my personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ.

Keep religion out of government. No exceptions. Government is a tool that we as individuals use to help create a stable and functional society, it has no business being in our personal lives. An individual has the right to express and exercise their beliefs, but not when specifically acting in the official capacity of this government.

I hope that was a good "wow", LOL.

We don't always agree on things so not sure if that wow was a pat on the back or a kick in the ass, LOL.

No belief systems should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to learn a belief system, send them to private school, take them to a religious center, home school, or whatever. The government is not permitted to promote any specific religion, and by teaching one belief system in a school, it would have to teach them all. Are you OK with your kids spending equal time learning about Satanism, Scientology, etc. (and having each treated as equally valid) as with whatever your belief system may be?

I don't have a religious belief system, and if I did, I wouldn't think it should be taught in school. The constitution prohibits the government from promoting any specific religion over others. I grew up as a Christian in a predominantly Christian neighborhood - would it have been fair to the Jews and others if our schools taught Christianity, simply because we were in the majority? Of course it wouldn't have been. We went to church, the Jewish kids went to synagogue, and we all learned actual facts in school.

Belief and participation in a particular religion is based on each person's individual beliefs. Those bel;iefs have no place in a public school. However, a alarge part of the problem here is that we continue to call ourselves a nation that was based on jude-christian beliefs. What does that mean? It certainly did not apply to everyone that was here, whether they were brought here or were already here. Then, we came up with the concept of "manifest destiny". Although loosely defined and not attributable to a single source, it was the zeitgeist at the time for the divine inspiration that was guiding our expansion activities. That has created a religious underpinning to our country ever since. No matter how much we claim that church and state are separate, there are constant contradictions either officially in the government or coming out of the mouths of politicians.

Now, many religions have become tantamount to giant corporations with their own particular agendas. Because they often enter the secular world through businesses they operate, there is a connection. This contraception issue is a classic case in point. The catholic church operates universites and hospitals with many employees who are not Catholic. In that realm, they are bound by the same laws as any other employer as long as their employees are not strictly employees of the church. Now, the church wants to act like a church while operating in the secular world. Who controls the issues that arise?

Personally, I do not think that providing an insurance plan to a non-religious employee where that employe may choose to use provisions of that plan to obtain contraceptives suggests any way, shape or form that the church endorses contraception. What teh church is doing in that case is rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to the Lord what is the Lord's. In fact, the church's recognition that there are people with different beliefs in this case would seem to be the more christian view, if you will.

Conversely, I think that the government should get out of the gay marriage issue and simply issue designations of civil unions to everyone and let marriage become a religious designation. If a gay couple can find a religion that will marry them, then they are married according to that religion. That is both consistent with freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

The problem is probably deeper than this cursory examination though. To the extent that governments are expected to be moral, we do have to ask the question fromn whence does that concept of morality emanate? And, does it not tie us inextricably to some sort of relgious belief? Does anyone have an answer?

And you keep stating your opinion and trying to enforce it on others. You're not dumb, Soc, despite your trying to pretend you are at times. You're also not way above everone else intellectually, as you try to pretend at other times. You play atheist or Christian on various threads, and try to stir the pot. You're good at it, I have to admit. You pretend you can't understand the Constitution.

My question is - what do you get out of doing this?

Looks like the collapse brigade got to your other article, Soc. If you were smart you would have waited until Monday to seed it. Those certain few often collapse things they dislike on a Friday evening etc because they know the mods won't be back until Monday. And I bet I could tell you what side of the political isle the collapsers were too.

There seems to be a need for some communities to insert religion into the school system and it boils down to this ugly little fact that a lot of Christians deny. The first amendment to the Constitution is double edged so to speak. It recognizes that our union is secular, has no official national religion, and seeks to build a wall of separation regarding church and state. The Bill of Rights is a contract with the people of the United States. The amendments to our Constitution are in spirit designed to protect minorities from the domination of majorities rule. I will readily admit that the majority of Americans consider themselves Christian however this is NOT a Christian nation. It is a secular nation. There tends to be an errant notion that this union was founded on Christian principals. It is not. The treaty of Tripoli (Which is a ratified treaty and is therefore by definition the law of the land) sums up the founding father's opinion on the place that Christianity plays in our society.

This treaty that was commissioned by George Washington, ratified in a unanimous vote by the Senate, signed in to law by John Adams and went into to effect on June 10, 1797

Article XI in its entirety states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The federal government’s involvement in the public educations serves a number of purposes and is a stark interest of the federal government. The federal government should be involved so that the education provided to a child in Podunk Texas is meeting certain standards and is comparable to the education of a student that attends school in Dayton Ohio. There has to be a set of standards that translates across the nation and in each classroom. This is in the best interest of the government. As the Bill of Rights and many of the subsequent amendments are safeguards to protect the personal liberties of the minority the government must see that these liberties are assured. The interjection of religion into the classroom must be denied in a public setting. Intelligent design in science class is an example of how religion creeps it way into a public school.

Basically the first amendment allows the practice of religion without interference from the government unless there is attached to it some type criminal activity. All religions have a home in the United States conversely it protects the individual from the practice of religion in the public setting. In other words the government does not interfere with religion and as such the practice of religion should not be imposed on an individual in a public setting or a class room. This is the complete intent of the first amendment in regards to the place of religion in our nation.

Socrates1

I enjoy the fashion in which you dismiss argument by placing your opinion as the final arbiter of fact. Your opinion is just that opinion; no better or no worse than mine. The first amendment is double edged as I said before. In the public forum there is no place for it. The first amendment protects those of us who are not Christian from those who seek to infiltrate the public sector with their beliefs. The free exercise of religion ends where public institutions began. My oldest daughter came to me asking a question regarding sex. She wanted to know if oral sex was indeed sex. I replied what is the second word in oral sex. She had the answer to her question. Public institutions are that public. When people are gathered in a classroom then the last thing that should enter into it is religious doctrine that is unless it is a course dedicated to religious doctrine. The problem is an old one. When you introduce religion whose religion do you use the majority, minority or all of them. The only reasonable course of action is to leave religion to the parents and or church. There is no room for religion in the public sector and or classroom.

Imagine that Islam was the majority religion and your children were Christian. Would you want them praying five times a day just because that is what the majority wants? I believe in all honesty that you would not but this is what you advocate. I have a much more reasonable course leave religion to the parents and clergy. The classroom is for teaching fact not religion.

The first amendment does say that you have freedom of worship until that freedom infringes on my rights. Interjection of god, religion, and dogma into public schools is not you expressing your Constitutional rights but is forcing me to conform to your ideology. That is wrong.

I would be interested as to how you "debunked" article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli? I have not seen your take on it and I am curious as to how you deal with it.

In closing I appreciate your thoughtful discourse and I hope to broaden my perspective as to Article XI.

Rad

The first amendment has been ingnored to the detriment of the idea of a secular nation. The presence of military chaplains, the Chaplin of Congress and other incursion of religion in the government have reduced the first amendment to a state where the right screams that by not letting them inject Christian ideology into the public sphere is discrimination and/or an attack on religious freedom.

Many pieces of legislation are borrowed from the Magna Charta to the Ten Commandments. In governmental affairs (The presence and support of a public schooling) no one’s religion should enter the picture. At this point I would like to point out that atheism is not a religion. It does not have a dogma, a church, and or a clergy. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying that off on your TV set is a channel. The reference to oral sex was ineptly convened. The intent was the irony of asking if oral sex was sex when the presence of the term is included in its salutation. The tie in was that public school is that public and by fact supported by the government and as such has no business in the propitiation of any religion. I apologize for my failure to convey the message and the irony adequately.

When the public sphere is accessed there are safeguards that ensure all citizens are treated fairly (That their rights are recognized and preserved---The Bill of Rights). The first amendment has historically been illustrated as a wall of separation between church and state (Thomas Jefferson). The government cannot show a preference for any religion period. I said before the notion that this is a Christian nation is wrong and delusional. Our nation has a secular government that does not recognize officially any religion. To free the public from the intrusion of religion into the government and onto the people is but one phase of the first amendment. The second is that religion will be preserved from the intrusion of government (No state supported or official religion). Public education which is supported by the state government and subordinate to local politics must and cannot disregard either side of the first amendment. The Constitution is supreme in this.

The most common intrusion in education is intelligent design. This pseudoscience is based in and espouses Christian dogma and is contrary to all scientific knowledge. Many school districts are now either teaching it or considering teaching it. This is an intrusion and a violation of the first amendment. In this case when the local and state government encroaches in such a manner it is the federal government who must protect the rights of EACH citizen. The absence of religion or religious dogma in government is not a violation of the first amendment but is in all reality an expression of it. If the government told you what to think, how to worship or that this is a Christian nation would be a blatant violation of the first amendment. The majority of citizens identify themselves as Christian. Does this make the United States a Christian nation? No, it does not; the Constitution created a secular government. The United States is a secular nation that has a lot of Christians in it but it is not a Christian nation. The insistence that religious trappings be eliminated from the public sphere is not an attack on religious freedom but is preserving the secular nature of government (Federal, state, and local). No governmental agency or entity may interfere with religion and religion must not enter into the government. No one has a problem with the first half of the equation (government intrusion onto religion) but when you apply the second half (Religion's intrusion into government) they get testy. The whole concept seems to the proponents of religion an attack on religion's foundations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Religion has no place in government and government has no place in religion.

I think we can both agree that the above is your opinion.

And I think we can all agree that what you say is your own opinion. You're debating the wrong things. You bring up specific issues, then ignore them when someone responds. Unless someone was bored enough to document everything you say, you're a Christian, and an atheist, and who knows what else, and whatever stirs up the most muck.

So, let's say I suddenly agree with you, and the majority of 'viners do. What will your argument be then?

Oh, and don't think for one minute that you get our of our drink, if we're ever in the same vicinity.

Unless someone was bored enough to document everything you say, you're a Christian, and an atheist, and who knows what else, and whatever stirs up the most muck.

I'd have no argument. How can you argue with someone who just likes to stir up muck, to see where the silt drifts? And how many viners would remember your past positions? You like to play devil's advocate, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't bet anyone a dollar on any of your specific stances. Heh, maybe I should - because I think a lot of people think you adhere to ideals that you don't. And I think you encourage that.

Regarding the drinking, surely we could discuss music, or books, or movies, or boats, or roller coasters, or something. Talking about things other than religion and politics can be quite fun.

>>At this point I would like to point out that atheism is not a religion.<<

Sure, and thus is not protected by the First Amendment.

Free exercise of religion necessarily includes free exercise of irreligion; one cannot enshrine the right to found one's views on any set of metaphysical precepts one sees plausible without including to the right to found one's views on no metaphysical precepts whatsoever.

There can be no restrictions on the practice of religion by the government, particularly in governmental institutions.

Perhaps, but if governmental institutions are not limited as to what they can regulate, then the moral self-determination that represents the only linguistically defensible definition of "freedom of religion" no longer applies; that is, so long as any level of government has jurisdiction over moral behavior or, say, prayer (or metaphysically loaded loyalty oaths), then the free exercise of the individual is impeded.

At this point I would like to point out that atheism is not a religion.

Sure, and thus is not protected by the First Amendment.

LOL. Atheism is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. And it's not a religion. Exactly where were you educated on the Constitution and the First Amendment, Soc? That's a rhetorical statement, not intended as a question. So, no need to answer. You've totally misunderstood and misrepresented "self-evident truths" (and the rights that accrue from them) in another discussion, and now this? Your credibility is suffering, my friend, when it comes to your favorite topic, I'm afraid. :)

Socrates1

I need to digress into some history to adequately address your points please bear with me.

The American Revolution had largely been a secular affair. The Founding Fathers clearly demonstrated their opposition to the intermingling of politics and religion by establishing the separation of church and state in the first amendment to the Constitution.

During the 1790 and on into the 1830s there was a religious revival that swept through the nation which has been termed as the Second Great Awakening. This was a resurgence of spiritual fundamentalism that change the character of America’s religious communities. At the start of the Revolution the largest denominations were Congregationalists (the 18th-century descendants of Puritan churches), Anglicans (known after the Revolution as Episcopalians), and Quakers. But by 1800, Evangelical Methodism and Baptists were becoming the fasting-growing religions in the nation. This resurgence was characterized by large evangelical and emotional camp meetings (the forerunner of tent evangelist). The Second Great Awakening marked a fundamental transition in American religious life. Many early American religious groups in the Calvinist tradition had emphasized the deep depravity of human beings and believed they could only be saved through the grace of God. The new evangelical movement, however, placed greater emphasis on humans' ability to change their situation for the better. By stressing that individuals could assert their "free will" in choosing to be saved and by suggesting that salvation was open to all human beings, the Second Great Awakening embraced a more optimistic view of the human condition. The repeated and varied revivals of these several decades helped make the United States a much more deeply Protestant nation than it had been before.

The Second Great Awakening also included greater public roles for white women and much higher African-American participation in Christianity than ever before.

The Second Great Awaking's basic philosophy began to differ with that of Calvinism in that man was a depraved and sinful creature to one where individual piety was the “best” definition of faith.

In response that curtailing the place of religion in the public sphere I wish to refer you to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Thomas Jefferson was president at the time and was mindful that this letter was of great importance the reassuring the Baptist Association. I post Thomas Jefferson’s remarks:

"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or rohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Moving on to the interruption of the first amendment. The first time the concept of separation of church and state appeared in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) The Supreme Court considered the question of how this applied to the states and all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state. This is the basis that provides neutrality of religion in the public sphere.

James Madision the author of the Bill of rights maintained in a letter to Edward Livingston.

"We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments. Do better without Kings and Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."

Then President Kenndey was confroted where his alligence laid as a catholic; was it to the Pope or to The United States. He eloquently addressed this and further refined the separation of church and state in his speech to Greater Houston Ministerial Association.

On 12 September 1960:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. [...] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

This is a brief look at the separation of church and state. When I speak of the double edged sword of the first amendment there are two phases of it the establishment clause and the free excise clause. In the establishment clause the National, State, or Local (as interrupted by the Supreme Court) cannot establish a religion or in the vulgar the government may not establish, support, or create a religion.

In the free exercise part government cannot prohibit religion as long as the religion is subordinate to the establishment clause or in the vulgar government stays out of religions business and religion stays out of governments business.

What you propose is that your free exercise is limited by the establishment clause. Your freedom of religious exercise ends where my freedom begins.

In closing Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated,

“The right to swing your fist ends at my nose.”

You have the right of religious freedom as long as it does not impact the neutrality of the separation of church and state.

Socrates1

I am preparing a suitable response and I do think the founding fathers and the rulings of the Supreme Court are very germane. Rulings by the high court are as binding as the Construction. It is their job to interpret both the motivations of the founding fathers and the how as to Constitutional law.

I considered adding this bit of history in my first response but did not so I will include it here:

In 1790, one year before the Bill of Rights was adopted, members of Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI, wrote to President George Washington to express their support for complete religious freedom. Washington’s reply is a classic statement of religious liberty. He didn’t say that America was a “Christian nation.” He didn’t tell the Jews that they could expect toleration but little else. Instead, Washington assured the members of the synagogue that they need have no fears, and he assured them that they were valued members in the American experiment of freedom of conscience. Washington stated:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

The Religious Right believe that Washington favored an officially Christian America and this letter must be troubling to them. They have a vision of a nation that favors Christianity by law. The father of our country explicitly rejected this vision.

My opinion is simple in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education the court ruled that the first amendment must be applied at the state and local level. Prior to that in about the 1870s there were two Constructional Amendments that tried to make the state and local governments responsible for the first amendment. Both failed. The ruling in 1947 established the state and local government’s submission to the first amendment was required. The first Supreme Court ruling that recognized the wall of separation between religion and government was the case of Reynolds vs. United States in 1879 was the first appearance of the phrase of a wall of separation. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." This ruling set up an aura of neturallity that supports the seperation of church and state.

The Supreme Court holds the charge of interpreting the Constitution and their rulings become the law of the land and carry the same weight as the Construction.

The neutrality of government that creates the wall of separation of church and state must not be violated by any group be it Atheist, Christian, Hindu, or Muslim. If you find the neutrality of government suppression of your free exercise of religion the I direct to this case Law:

In Epperson v. Arkansas, 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.

The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."

If you find it distasteful that you can’t practice or exercise your religion at the expense of the government or ther prople's rights, if you seek special status of Christianity in the federal, state, or local government, if you seek to have government institutions espouse the philosophy of Christ, or if you seek to exercise your rights at the expense of others then I am sorry it will not happen here. There are six concepts that I hope you come away with.

Govermental neutrality builds the wall of separation between church and state.

Government has no business in any religion.

Religious dogma or doctrine has no place in government.

The right to free exercise of religion ends when it violates the neutrality of the government.

The right to free exercise of religion ends when it comes in conflict with another’s rights.

The right to free exercise of religion ends where the exercise of government begins.

Our country has been working towards a more perfect union in terms of religion. If we have learned anything from this struggle it should be that the proliferation and the importance of religion in America was created when the government stepped back and left religion it to its own resources. I think it is time that religion practices the same principals in regard to government.

I'm afraid that the paradigm shift required is simply too much for you to handle. Nothing to worry about, you have a lot of company.

Lesson here, for those who want to skirt the CoH line. Here is how you do it. Learn from a master. Soc is very intelligent and a good teacher.

And Soc ... thank goodness for seeing "paradigm" used in a way that didn't make me want to puke! For a while, it was one of those Bull@!$%# Bingo terms that were laughable.

Socrates1

I enjoy exchanging opinions with you. It is an exercise in banging my head against the wall. We are both firmly entrenched in our own ideas in many thing and not so much in others. As always my encounters with you leave me feeling just a little bit violated and a whole lot reaffirmed. You see we are pretty much cut from the same mold. Opinionated, slow to change our minds, and both well educated. Talking with you always seems to satisfy my masochistic instincts. Again sir I enjoyed the exchange until next time then.

RAD

I need to feast on any crumbs you decide to throw my way...

No, neither of us has any interest in crumbs. But can you honestly say that quote I posted from you was not intended as a putdown, even though it wasn't a CoH violation? You were calling someone else stupid.

And I'm serious about the "paradigm" comment. At one point, I wanted to go to a meeting, tell all my managers we needed to leverage the paradigm just to make a point ... crap, now it's all about agility. Bull@!$%# bingo with new terms..

Socrates !

I disagree not with your paradigm but with your methods of debate. I dislike using your paradigms and opinion as the basic arbiter of the truth when in all reality it is just YOUR opinion and nothing else. I would entertain your ideas if they were not so well WRONG. I tend to base my opinions and conjectures upon historical and allegorical truths while your is based on your pomposity. I feel violated when you use my ideas as a backdrop for your truths when in all reality neither of us has the true perception or portrayal of reality or the ultimate truth. The primary difference between us is simple I look at your opinion and glean what truth I can from them and learn where you play your little adversarial game and learn nothing. Sorry if this is seems like a personal attack but I think no one has ever told you that Socrates’ 1 opinions are not the only truth (You sir indeed fired the first shot at me in 1.75 and I am kindly returning the favor). I really dislike being violated in this matter but I am will to submit to hoping that somewhere sometime you will develop some intellectual honesty.

Imagine that that my world view and even my thought processes is influenced by what I was taught. That is why we have teachers. Also dear sir I have seen others who have the same concerns with your honesty as I. One of greatest teachers my father once taught me if one person tells you are an idiot ignore it. If two consider their point. If the third tells you accept it. Your ability to obfuscate and deflect is only surpassed by your scurrilous use of logic. You are really a little too self-important and it is only the anonymity of this forum that allows for your existence.

Sir I am capable of independent thought but the act of brevity and my physical handicap prevents the fullness of my argument. The question before us is this is religion appropriate in a governmental organization specifically schools. I argue no that government even in the forum of school must be neutral or allow for the multiplicity of religious expression. This is a concept that drives the Lemon Test which was part of the SCOTUS decision which came up with the test. In the United States SCOTUS decisions carry the same weight as the Construction thus that is the way things have been mandated by SCOTUS. There are principally three ways around A SCOTUS decision. The legislative branch can introduce legislation that nullifies the decision, the executive branch can decide to not enforce the ruling or the SCOTUS can reverse itself. The law that we live under (The SCOTUS ruling) has created the present neutrality. It has not been challenged or vacated yet. It is in the act of public discussion (Our conversation) therefore it is in the act of be contested. Personally I see no reason for religion to be cast out of public schools (And I am an atheist) it has its place. But, I do see a problem with favoritism of one particular brand (Christianity) if you have religion in school it must address the multiplicity of sects. Everything from neo-paganism to Wicca to Buddhism to Islam and Christianity with all the various mutilations and permutations should be offered. This is the present law as defined by SCOTUS. Expediency and simplicity is why the public schools have embraced the concept of neutrality. To allow religion in schools brings up a logistical nightmare. I have no problem with religion in school as along as the multiplicity of sects is respected. This is an unreasonable and unpalatable concept to many (mainly Christians) who would violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. To represent each sect in the community would bring about government entanglement that would be unimaginable. I see an administrator that would have to be dedicated (in each school district) to the logistic of this implementation. This would fail the Lemon Test. This is the basic reason for our present situation. Christianity cannot be the exclusive religion in a public school under the present SCOTUS ruling. Each religion would need equal time or you would be favoring one religion over the other which violates the Establishment Clause. There are at present two ways to change this through the legislative branch (New law) or work a case through the courts to the SCOTUS and hope they overturn this pervious ruling. The present SCOTUS is rather conservative and populated by mostly by Catholics so if the proper case came up it probably be overturned. I here will reintegrate my opinion; I have no problem with religion in school as long as Satanist is included as well as Christians.

Sir I am only relaying to you the point as it stands if you had read in my personal opinion that religion should be a part of school in its plethora of mutations all of it. But, the SCOTUS painted the implementation of that in a corner with the Lemon Test? Do you know of what I speak? The first two percepts are satisfied by equal sharing of time but the third prevents the implementation. No undue government entanglement. I personally do not agree with the Lemon Test however it is what the SCOTUS gave us and until it is legislated against or overturned it is the law. To keep Christianity in check (While holding up the Establishment clause) you would need government entanglement. This is why the government has elected neutrality. I do not particularly agree with it but at this time we are stuck with it.

Can we agree on this point that religion should be in public school in all it incarnations and that there be some check and balance to maintain that the multiplicity of sects are respected?

This is no so much a discussion about religion in school as it is a discussion of state and local rights. We fought a civil war over this and it was one of our bloodiest conflicts. I am all for the state and local government being in control of education but I believe that the federal government such be a partner in it. It is the federal government who should ensure that a student in Texas should get an equivalent education as on in Montana. This should be the only role of the federal government. In other words a uniform set of standards that apply equally to everyone. Forced desegregation, I really have no opinion on since I was never a part of that system. I grew up and went to as community school as did my daughters but I think a school should reflect the character of the neighborhood it serves. It should mirror its ethnic makeup and its core values. It should also expose children to values outside the community. If I may I will build a school for you hypothetically so to speak. We will start at the end; the high school. I will list the minimum standards and the proposed religious standards.

Each mooring there is a meditation about 3 to 5 minutes in length. Each week a religious leader from the community it serves takes part in an invocation. I as atheist would request one week and share thoughts and inspirational stories. The Baptist preacher, Catholic priest, Rabbi, Mullah, Wiccan High Priestess and Buddhist Monk would also take a part. This is Constitutional and is not done because presently because of the logistics of it. Academic standards in this high school are intense. Four years of English, math, science, and history to include a course on the world religions. This type of school I could support and this type of religious structure as an atheist I would be glad to take part in. The state and local government in my estimation should be capable and responsible to run a school within a set of standards set by the federal government. I believe that the federal government should get out of the business of running schools and return that responsibility to the people. My experience is from a small rural Texas school the elementary school that taught Pre-K through eighth grade had about eighty students and most classes averaged between 5-10 students. The community was greatly involved. I was a well-known atheist in my community. No one even questioned my morals and ethics. I was born and grew up in that community and went to the same schools as my daughters did. Our school had school prayer and it was led by the various religious leaders from the community from the local catholic priest to the rabbi and me as an atheist. The multiplicity of sects was respected. Equal time in this instance was preserved. I as an atheist had no problem with this arrangement. But, when my children were sent to the county high school the Morning Prayer was not done. They choose the neutrality route which was expedient. I believe that the control of education should rest with the local system under a set of federal standards. This is in the best interest of each student. I think that schools should reflect the ethic make up and core values of that community. I also think that prayer should be allowed in that same fashion as long as it respects the multiplicity of sects of the community. This has never been done on a wide scale as it was too hard a proposition for most schools to carry out. So imposed neutrality exist. If this untenable for you, you have no one to blame for it but yourself. Why do you just post about it you should DO something about it.

To lighten things up, I'm just going to jump in and say "pblblltt."

I was tempted to ask whether anything could be a "right" which requires taking something from another, but then I thought ... to get mixed up into this right now .. nope. Dang, I actually want to go back and read all of this when I have a little more time. #1.83 threw me, wish that happened more often; I found that quite interesting. So, my comment right now is still:

phbblltt

This gives me a placeholder, I'm not doing that just to be obnoxious.

No worries it fits in to my diabolical plan.

My masterful stroke of genius is this simply. It is not an argument of governmental involvement in school; it is not whether public schools should be managed either locally by the state or the federal government. It is three factors that influence the mess that we see in public education. It is the rise of professional administration in the control and management of schools. Most school districts have swelled to the point that the local school boards have ceased managing schools and have become a political springboard. Leaving a vacuum that is passed up the food chain. The second is the abdication of parents to this professional administration. The parents of public school children have dis-involved themselves with the education process either from apathy to there is just not enough time in the day to do so. This is spurred on by single parenting and two career households. Finally, the community has stepped back from public education and has put very little into the schools again surrendering to the professional administrators. When my youngest daughter went into to high school I was offered a position at the University Of Texas at EL Paso which I accepted. My children went to a high school in the Yesleta School District (the second largest in Texas) One of my requirements in my daughter's education was that they be multilingual. Both of my daughters speak Latin, Spanish, German, and English. German was taught by their grandfather, Spanish by their mother, Latin by me and English by the school system. The school district they transferred into did not know how to handle them they did not fit in the mold so they were put in all AP classes and that particular school threw its hardest courses at them and they were not challenged and boredom set in. I met with the principal and began working out a curriculum that would challenge them they were sent to a magnet school that set them up with a program that would earn them their Associate’s Degree by the time they graduated from high school. Now what is the point here? Professional administrators reap the most benefit when their students are successful but just barely. They need to create a need for themselves. The Yesleta District is low preforming and it has an extensive administration. Its administration has more employees then all of its high school's teaching staffs combined. The superintendent of the school was the third highest paid individual in El Paso and he only had a master's degree. I brought my daughter's experience in the district to illustrate that the school district could do it right when pushed. The professional administration phenomenon is actually the greatest impediment to localized community based education not the federal government. Parent’s apathy and dis-involvement are the next, followed by the lack of supervision, vision, commitment, and service of local school boards. Public school is beyond saving and unless a parent is willing to get involved on almost a daily basis the education received will be mediocre at best. I lay the blame of this squarely on the backs of the monsters that we as a society created the professional bureaucratic administrator.

The point that we both were seeking. Let me relay you to the community school where my children were educated for the first nine years of their education. The computers that the school was using were out dated and really not capable of what the teachers wanted. There was a large commercial dairy that fell within the school district's tax base. The principal who was also the superintendent went to this business and talked to them. Four days later 100 computers were donated by this dairy. To whit my children received their education in a system you advocate. The school board, the administration (of one person), and a school board of five individuals, along with the children's parents controlled the school district. It works but it requires the decentralization of schools with the power taken from many hands and placed in a few.

When my children moved to a large school district there were problems. First books they had no personal books all of the books were kept in the classroom. Second they quality of instruction, the teacher (because of no child left behind) taught to the dumbest most disinterested student. And finally, it was not until I intervened that my children were taught at their capacity. I had extensive run ins with the administration over the instruction and treatment of my children. The school system expected me to only show up at open house and leave the rest to them. Concerning this type of philosophy I have but two words. Yeah Right. So what do you think of my evil plan???

It seems our only point of disagreement is the only point of contention. You propose Christianity and I propose respecting the multiplicity of sects.

I was given equal time in that situation. I was on the school board and I insisted that an atheist viewpoint be added and funny only a few parents were concerned.

Pretty much localized schooling with perhaps a federal minimum standard of education and religion can be a part of the school as long as it respects the multiplicity of sects of the community. I enjoyed our exchanges and the best way to test someone’s integrity is to insult them. I have seen you debating before and the complaints of your opponents and I decided to see if they were correct. Sir you have integrity and honor. I look forward to our next encounter.

^{My thoughts exactly sir. I enjoy occasional enjoy engaging in a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed but I enjoy even more having fun with someone who is an equal or perhaps my superior.}

Each mooring there is a meditation about 3 to 5 minutes in length. Each week a religious leader from the community it serves takes part in an invocation. I as atheist would request one week and share thoughts and inspirational stories. The Baptist preacher, Catholic priest, Rabbi, Mullah, Wiccan High Priestess and Buddhist Monk would also take a part. This is Constitutional and is not done because presently because of the logistics of it.

"The problem with me simply giving blanket approval is that the devil is in the details. In other words, as long as all of them were saying the same thing, I could almost certainly support it."

OK, not sure how to blockquote this to make it clear who said what. The stuff in "" quotes is Soc. The stuff in blockquotes is A Radical Idea.

So Soc, you'd only be willing to allow different religious leaders in if .. they all said what you believe? If they can't all say what they think, then it's a violation of the Constitution to have any of them talking about faith or religion in schools. Of course they won't all say the same thing; their faiths are all different. Religion shouldn't even be taught in public schools; we need our kids to learn math, English, science, and things that actually might get them jobs and have evidence to support them. But if one religion's belief is supported, then all of them need equal time to promote their beliefs.

So, you just said that you won't support equality for all religions in public schools - rather, just the religion you may or may not belong to, but apparently support. For someone who claims to know the Constitution better than SCOTUS, that's a pretty major fail on your part.

katrix

I was using an example from a school in Northeast Texas We were an independent school district with about 85 students (pre-K-8) total as of this year. Our Administration was one professional superintendent/principal (it still is today) and five elected school board members. I run for and was elected to the school board when my oldest daughter began pre-K. I and three other broad members' ended corporal punishment, started a program teaching Spanish as a second language. My wife was an unpaid volunteer teacher for this. We considered it a pilot program for two years after which a full time Spanish teacher was hired. This was 26 years ago. Today this community school has been recognized by both the federal government and by the state. We passed ordinances that the children must live within the tax base to attend the school or pay tuition and because it is a small community school, a few students that attend on tuition but not very many. They still have a devotional that is done by the community and believe it or not one this year is a Wiccan. The only requirement for participation in this is that it cannot be a negative message. This is the only incursion of religion in the school day other than what is taught with state history in the eighth grade. I resigned the school board when my youngest daughter completed the eighth grade. It is a tradition in the district that you must have children in the school to be on the board. The parents and community are deeply involved in the school and has been since it was built almost 100 years ago. I was educated at this school and my father was on the school board.

When my daughters began school, there was only Christian prayer that was done by the principal and I disagreed with this. I am an atheist (this was a well-known fact) and not a very passive one and I began to work to abolish this but as with anything we reached a compromise with the board and the parents of the school. We invited community religious leaders to write devotionals for each sect in the community and it could either be delivered by the principal or if the religious leader wanted to do it themselves. I think it is significant that we got no fire and brimstone no begging for god to do things they were for the most part inspirational. I as an atheist was given equal time. I returned the favor I did not say god did not exist I just did not mention him. It worked. It worked well for the ten years I was on the board. It still works today 18 years later. Although there are no longer any atheists living in the community at this point they still use the devotions that I authored when my children were attending school. My daughters (both are atheist) talk about returning when their children are ready to go to school. We still own property there. In a small system with a high level of commitment and respect where the school board are directly responsible to parents and the administration is one of service rather the professional management it works. But, in your usual city public school implementation of this would be impossible.

Constitutional this works. The main objections by the SCOTUS to Christian Payer was that it did not respect the multiplicity of sects and that of irreligion this system does.

Socrates there is an old saying if you can't get in throught the front door go throught the back or as in FDR's case appoint more members to the Supreme court and stack it.

I do not ascribe any right or wrong to it but with the rise of judicial activism the constitution is more evenly and equitably applied throughout the union. I have a faith in the people that a lot of politicians do not. The judiciary became activist when the legislature became more concerned with reelection the legislation. I believe in order to solve these problems that term limits should be universal in the legislature and the judiciary. That there be a legislation introduced that making it illegal to lobby congress and that there a system of public finance for political campaigns with a limit of a 100 dollar political contribution for individuals businesses and committees. It is a good set of ideas has not been tried yet and it just might work. Return government to the people before they take it back.

I was stating that judicial activism began as a pragmatic approach to fill the gap of the legislature. It really took off with the election of FDR when he stacked the Supreme Court to push through the New Deal. Read about it; an interesting story. When public service became a career instead of a duty there was whole sale buying and selling of politicians. Graft has always been a problem with all political systems but the idea of politics as a career happened during WWII. We saved the world to sell it to the military industrial complex and corporations. I am not an OWS but just read the history from that era. We have a warped philosophy from the Puritans which is called a sense of mission. Basically it is the mistaken impression that we have to show the rest of the world how to live. This sense of mission manifest in the present problems with Iran, Syria, and also at home in the contraception and abortion fiasco. Not all countries want or would be able to exercise any type of democracy and the rights of an individual should never be curtailed because of someone else’s religious beliefs. The constitution is a living breathing document. Original intent is kind of screwy. The founders had no idea of cell phones, computers, instant communication, and the fight for personal equality. Some parts of the constitution such as the 3/5 compromise is outdated and irrelevant. The founders would have never considered that women and blacks would ever vote. The Constitution has to be interpreted to the time. This is the function of the legislature and the judiciary. The founders would have never considered a standing army. A standing navy yes but not an army. The navy and marine corps was the only federal protection that stood or was needed. If an army was need the federal government would draw on the state militias, conscripts (draft), and volunteers. The federal government was supposed to be limited in scope but just as with public education when the military complex and professional politicians entered the picture it got very complicated and personally I do not see it changing short of a new revolution. If revolution happens I am not sure I would want to live here is because we would probably end up with a theocracy.

Sir many times the Ideas I express are many times not what I believe as much as what I observe to be. If it comes right down to it I am a constitutional fundamentalist a literalist so to speak. There are forces in our society that come from both the left and the right that threatens the liberty that our country was founded on. From Santorium’s religious demagoguery to the left pushing religion to the fringe of society. I have some very conservative ideas usually in the area of the Constitution and mostly moderate ideas and some very liberal ideas (guaranteed healthcare). I am in no way comparing myself to Jonathan Swift but a lot of what I write is in the spirit of A Modest Proposal.

A radical idea - what you posted in #1.103 made sense to me. It didn't put one belief, or lack thereof, over another. And that's what I think the point is. We either have to support everthing equally when it comes to beliefs, or not support anything. What I believe should get no more support from the government than what you, or anyone else, believes - or doesn't.