OK Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed From Capitol

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: SubTruth
Let me make my point clearer.......Progressives will point at this and say we should follow the constitution and than say we should ban guns........Floating in the wind.

Progressives want to PROGRESS as a society, regardless of outdated opinions written on a piece of paper a damn long time ago.

The Constitution is a great historical document, but it's not a guidebook for eternity, evolution and progress be damned.

Society moves on, attitudes change, the physical world alters, you cannot possibly expect one document to be adhered to absolutely and forever unchanged.

Wow........OK this is why progressive ideals fail. Liberty is a thought.......The constitution puts that thought into law........Do you see it now........You are born free........Your individual right.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I was taught religious history in secular school also.

However, how old are you?

30

That is no longer allowed and hasn't been allowed in secular schools for a very long time.

Very long time? How long is that? I took high school history in 2001 and I took that college history class in 2010.

My daughter and sister have openly said they would be fired for teaching anything at all about religion in the classroom, even in the context of a history lesson.

Then they either don't understand the rules or their schools have gone fascist on them.

Religion in the Public Schools

General Rule:

Public schools may not teach religion, although teaching about religion in a secular context is permitted. 25 The Bible may be taught in a school, but only for its historical, cultural or literary value and never in a devotional, celebratory or doctrinal manner, or in such a way that encourages acceptance of the Bible as a religious document.

I too would have been fired from the University or censured if I had spoken of the religious history of marriage or parenting in the classroom.

That's likely because you don't understand the difference between teaching religion and teaching ABOUT religion which is apparent from the way you word your posts.

What distinguishes "teaching religion" from "teaching about religion"?

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations. These programs should instill understanding, tolerance and respect for a pluralistic society. When discussing religion in this context, religion must be discussed in a neutral, objective, balanced and factual manner. Such programs should educate students about the principle of religious liberty as one of the fundamental elements of freedom and democracy in the United States.

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination and practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal. Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief. A teacher must not interject personal views or advocate those of certain students. Teachers must be extremely sensitive to respect, and not interfere with, a student's religious beliefs and practices. Students must not be encouraged to accept or conform to specific religious beliefs or practices.

A program intended to teach religion, disguised as teaching about religion, will be found unconstitutional. 26

In sum, there is a critical difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion. While it is constitutionally permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is unconstitutional for public schools and their employees to observe religious holidays, promote religious belief, or practice religion. School officials and parents must be extremely careful not to cross the line between "the laudable educational goal of promoting a student's knowledge of and appreciation for this nation's cultural and religious diversity, and the impermissible endorsement of religion forbidden by the Establishment Clause." 27

Your experience is outdated from what is going on today.

No it isn't. That link is from the Anti-Defamation League. They are DEFINITELY up-to-date on these things.

The history of religion can only be taught in a university class clearly labeled the history of religion, other than that, it can not be taught in secular schools, according to my currently teaching daughter and sister who are teachers in public schools, in Texas no less.

If that is true then those schools have gone fascist on you and you should sue them.

Your experience is past history, pun intended.

You make yourself look uninformed and ignorant when you base your assumptions on your own personal past experience, which is not longer relevant in today's world.

Says the person basing their whole argument on personal anecdote.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SubTruth

What you just described is exactly what the "progressives" are asking for. Keep you religion out of my face and I will stay out of yours.

Conservatives need to look at the bigger issue in this debate............Religion is personal not public. It really is that simple.

Ok, so you agree that religion should be completely scrubbed from the public arena?

Remove the entire facade of SCOTUS that has religious writings on it?
Remove the goddess who was part of a religion and worshiped (lady Justice) from all courthouses?

That would be the only fair, just, and equal thing to do.
Remove all references to any religion, or any statue of any religious figure from all public places.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Wow, this thread has truly gone off topic big time.

Everyone just bashing each other for the fun of it, guns, progressivism, media, propaganda etc.

Except for me, when was the last post that even mentioned the topic? Talk about thread drift, since I was here last the thread has gone off the cliff.

How?
These are all part of the same issue, this is about a state deciding to detach itself from a religious symbol, and that religious symbol is generally supported by the Conservatives who seem to want a religious government.

I don't think this is at all off topic as it pertains to politics and the clear left/right divide, and what motivates each side.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Yep............Religion is a personal belief.......That means to have equal protection under the law it all needs to be removed. Also taking under God out of the pledge......It was added in the 1950s.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no subject more fascinating, in my opinion, than propaganda and it's effects on a population. I've studied as much as I can get my hands on and I have become very sensitive to it. What we see today would have to be one of the worst periods in history where an entire section of a population has become it's victim.

Yea, I'm pretty well versed in various propaganda techniques. I'm just not as well versed in the historical usage of them. I know of some notable examples though (like Nazi Germany or the anti-Marijuana campaign in the 30's).

It needs to stop, and soon. Nothing good will come of this nation if we do not wake people up to the lies and deceit they are being fed.

Too true. This is why I educated myself on propaganda techniques. Once you know how to spot them, it becomes rather easy to see them on the regular. And you are right, the Right Wing is FAR more guilty of it than the Left.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Kromlech

It isn't enforcing belief in anything. There are plenty of things that could be removed from American societies under such rules, like advertising, tv shows, statues.

Silly PC nonsense, it will bite them back. I have written plenty about my opinions on Christianity but it is the basis of American laws, and America is a Christian nation.

Christian nation?....you have the freedom of religion in America...NOT the freedom of Christian religion

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No it isn't. That link is from the Anti-Defamation League. They are DEFINITELY up-to-date on these things.

The history of religion can only be taught in a university class clearly labeled the history of religion, other than that, it can not be taught in secular schools, according to my currently teaching daughter and sister who are teachers in public schools, in Texas no less.

If that is true then those schools have gone fascist on you and you should sue them.

Your experience is past history, pun intended.

You make yourself look uninformed and ignorant when you base your assumptions on your own personal past experience, which is not longer relevant in today's world.

Says the person basing their whole argument on personal anecdote.

I disagree with you completely.

Any mention of, any at all mention of Christianity is forbidden in schools.
You may say it is not, but it is. It is not by law, it is by practice and through extreme fear of lawsuits.

The schools have not gone fascist on my sister and daughter, they are scared to death of being sued by the atheists and so have instructed the teachers not to do anything or say anything about Christianity in the classroom for fear of
law suits, which are so rapid and abundant in this day and age. They have been scared into keeping quiet in the classroom. So to avoid lawsuits, principals and districts have forbidden even the slightest mention of Christianity in the classroom. That may not be the law, but it is the reality.

My college department was staffed by a large number of Christians. They told me the exact same thing. To avoid a lawsuit from atheists, refrain from mentioning religion altogether, no matter how it relates to the subject. The fear of a lawsuit is not the law, but it has the same effect.

You just can't refrain from adding an insult to all of your posts at the end. By repeating your insult back to you I thought you'd get the message that it is juvenile and the sign of a weak mind to add an insult at the end of all your posts. This is my last insult, but I know you can't refrain from insults so I'll expect the juvenile additions to the end of all your posts as per your modis operandi when you disagree with someone.


I won't expect that kind of maturity from you.

originally posted by: SubTruth
Progressive follow the breeze.............Progressives at the bottom just follow what they are told to follow. I follow the constitution and so should the masses......Life would be much better.

Pretty sure that the Progressives are following the Constitution in regards to the issue in the OP. So clearly you are being overly biased for no reason here.

Let me make my point clearer.......Progressives will point at this and say we should follow the constitution and than say we should ban guns in the next breath........Floating in the wind. Conservatives it seems are not much better.........Look at the bigger issues guys.

Most progressives don't want to ban guns, but in any case, pointing out hypocrisy on the opposing political viewpoint isn't exactly an OUTSTANDING revelation. There are plenty of conservatives guilty of their own versions of hypocrisy.

Supremely dumb court .....
The real reason you must remove God's word ,
is because it burns your eyes every time you look at it.
Also you look a little hypocritical , having to stand next to those words ,
when they mean NOTHING to you .

Sad case America
you are run by gangs/mafia

a reply to: Krazysh0t

newbies can start with hitler's Mein Kampf, and the writings of Karl Marx....

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SubTruth

What you just described is exactly what the "progressives" are asking for. Keep you religion out of my face and I will stay out of yours.

Conservatives need to look at the bigger issue in this debate............Religion is personal not public. It really is that simple.

Certainly religion should be personal. In this case, it was decided by Oklahoma so no federal interference so that's good. In this case it was placed in 2012 so no one can claim cultural or historical significance.

OTOH, there is a rather mean spirited attempt to destroy anything that resembles a Christian icon from the public arena. Examples include a 90 year old memorial to WWI dead in the shape of a cross in a national park and the "Pendleton Cross" that Marines, of their own volition, carried and put together on one of the mountains on camp Pendleton where they go to remember their fallen comrades. The FF obviously did not intend to have things like that removed from public property and having such things is not a violation of church and state except in the eyes of a few hateful fanatics.

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

OK, but Christianity's roots are in Judaism which roots are in the Canaanite religion. What's your point? Are we a Canaanite country?

The U.S.A. is not a Christian country. If so everyone would have to be Christian and there would be punishable laws against doing non-Christian things. And those barbaric punishments would be straight out of the Christian Bible...right? What should be the sentence for those found guilty of working on a Sunday? A fine, jail time, or death? That sounds pretty close to what ISIS wants/is making. Do you really want to live in that sort of place? I don't.

So, yes we should take the universal no-brianer/sane parts of Christianity (like: don't murder people) and ignore the barbaric, voodoo stuff.

Well seeing as how MODERN CHRISTIANS are GENTILES we dont have to stone people for adultry or do any of the punishments specific to the HEBREW/JEWs. The OT law is for them specifically. GENTILES are under GRACE and only have to do 3 things(funny thing is if you do those 3 you are doing the 10 commandments) but thats the only thing expected of modern christians.

Its funny most churches (catholic especially)are trying to be hebrews since they preach the OT.

Truth is right though. Its not a christian nation,BUT OUR LAWS ARE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF IT. Someone said our laws came from britan and rome. Where did ROME get theirs from? Could it had been a certain christian believing emperor in rome?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you look close enough, you can see that the same techniques used in Nazi Germany are being used by the Right today. The similarities are frightening.

One of the most famous techniques is to invoke the name of God, or appeal to one's religion. I wonder how much that has had an effect on the very topic we are discussing now?

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I disagree with you completely.

Any mention of, any at all mention of Christianity is forbidden in schools.
You may say it is not, but it is.

Post the rules from your daughters' schools then that stipulate this. Let's all read them to make sure they say EXACTLY what you are insinuating. If they are on paper, then type them out word for word.

The schools have not gone fascist on my sister and daughter, they are scared to death of being sued by the atheists and so have instructed the teachers not to do anything or say anything about Christianity in the classroom for fear of
law suits, which are so rapid and abundant in this day and age. They have been scared into keeping quiet in the classroom. So to avoid lawsuits, principals and districts have forbidden even the slightest mention of Christianity in the classroom. That may not be the law, but it is the reality.

Well if the school fires them for teaching the history of religion, the school can be sued for discrimination anyways. So it's a moot point. Like I said, you are wrong. You are likely just not understanding what the schools want from the teachers.

My college department was staffed by a large number of Christians. They told me the exact same thing. To avoid a lawsuit from atheists, refrain from mentioning religion altogether, no matter how it relates to the subject. The fear of a lawsuit is not the law, but it has the same effect.

Telling you to refrain from teaching about religion isn't the same as having the threat of being fired for teaching about it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Ya this is a hard subject for me.........I am wrestling with military and other memorials....Hmm. Separation is separation........This is a hard one.



I need to think about this one........Very good point poster.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There are some that want PC to go right into the church sanctuary. Get certain off the radio that talk about certain issues from a christian perspective.

www.breitbart.com...


ACLU: ‘WE CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT FEDERAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW’

Holy taken out of context batman!

True breitbart form though, totally missing the point and making up a head line.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Except for me, when was the last post that even mentioned the topic? Talk about thread drift, since I was here last the thread has gone off the cliff.

So let's get back on topic

Bruce Prescott, an ordained Baptist minister who was one of the plaintiffs in the case against the statue, said that the statue is “unavoidable” to people walking near the Capitol building, and it gives the impression that the state endorses Christianity as an official religion.

“I’m not opposed to Ten Commandment monuments; I’m opposed to them on government property,” he told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “How do you take a covenant between God and his people and make it a secular monument?”

Prescott added that Baptists have historically defended the separation of church and state and have insisted that religious texts continue to be interpreted in a religious context.

“If you’re saying that it’s no longer religious, what have you done to religion?” he said. “They’ve just completely destroyed the significance and value of the words.”

The emphasis is mine. An interesting position - how do you feel about it?

I actually agree with him. It's religious - posting it in front of government buildings changes it's meaning. For everyone

I'm not Christian. Should the government building that I look to to be the seat of power for my state - and which should above all else represent all it's constituents - be using the bible for anything at all?

That piece of religious art wasn't there historically. It was placed there specifically by a few people in 2012

Article II, Section V of the state constitution specifies that “no public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”

It’s probably good for them to have an open and honest conversation instead of playing games

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I disagree with you completely.

Any mention of, any at all mention of Christianity is forbidden in schools.
You may say it is not, but it is.

Post the rules from your daughters' schools then that stipulate this. Let's all read them to make sure they say EXACTLY what you are insinuating. If they are on paper, then type them out word for word.

The schools have not gone fascist on my sister and daughter, they are scared to death of being sued by the atheists and so have instructed the teachers not to do anything or say anything about Christianity in the classroom for fear of
law suits, which are so rapid and abundant in this day and age. They have been scared into keeping quiet in the classroom. So to avoid lawsuits, principals and districts have forbidden even the slightest mention of Christianity in the classroom. That may not be the law, but it is the reality.

Well if the school fires them for teaching the history of religion, the school can be sued for discrimination anyways. So it's a moot point. Like I said, you are wrong. You are likely just not understanding what the schools want from the teachers.

My college department was staffed by a large number of Christians. They told me the exact same thing. To avoid a lawsuit from atheists, refrain from mentioning religion altogether, no matter how it relates to the subject. The fear of a lawsuit is not the law, but it has the same effect.

Telling you to refrain from teaching about religion isn't the same as having the threat of being fired for teaching about it.

Oh, but as an adjunct faculty if a lawsuit had developed because I said anything at all religious in the classroom, I would have been fired.

I understand that schools are scared to death of being sued by atheists,
they have thus instituted policies that are draconian to keep teachers
from even whispering a word about religion in the classroom.
This is not law, it is reality and what is happening today in the classroom.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you look close enough, you can see that the same techniques used in Nazi Germany are being used by the Right today. The similarities are frightening.

Yea, I've noticed it myself.

One of the most famous techniques is to invoke the name of God, or appeal to one's religion. I wonder how much that has had an effect on the very topic we are discussing now?

Or appeal to one's Patriotism.