Debating Church and State in Texas
by Ken KlukowskiA battle is raging in Texas over our children’s minds. One of the focal points is the “wall of separation” between church and state. It’s a wall based on a false assumption, one that has distorted religious freedom in this country.
The Texas Board of Education must approve textbooks taught in Texan public schools. Its members are the gatekeepers who determine whether a textbook meets curriculum requirements. That board recently met to approve the next generation of books.
But as goes Texas, so goes the nation, because Texan standards are then adopted for textbooks sold all over America. So publishers take drafts to Texas for consultation and approval, making changes as necessary.
One of the changes that conservatives are pushing is for these textbooks to include a discussion of the “wall of separation between church and state.” More specifically, they are pushing for a discussion of what the Founding Fathers thought of this wall.
That is a worthwhile classroom discussion, because the Founding Fathers never created such a wall. That’s why it’s not mentioned in the Constitution.
On January 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, in response to their congratulations upon his winning the presidency. In it, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” He wrote this in the context of perceived threats the Baptists felt were coming from the state, not the other way around.
After writing that letter, Jefferson went on attending church, at services held in the House chamber of the U.S. Congress. (On Sundays, the Capitol was a church building.) He also went on to approve legislation for the federal government to undertake the construction of churches in the frontier regions, and helping pay pastors to preach in these churches, to carry the Christian faith to the native peoples there.
Clearly, what Jefferson was describing was not a rigid barrier between faith and public policy, but denominational allegiance by the state. As the Constitution says, the federal government was not to “establish religion,” that is, to select a particular denomination as a national church.
That’s all the wall is. And Jefferson was among the most secular of the Founding Fathers, who did not believe in miracles, such as the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The wall of separation nowhere appears in American law until the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court considered whether a New Jersey law allowing school districts to arrange daily transportation for children to religious schools was constitutional. Although declaring the wall, the Court went on to say that school boards expending public funds getting students to and from religious schools wasn’t unconstitutional—such accommodations were fine.
Later in 1952, the Supreme Court clarified itself in Zorach v. Clauson, saying Americans, “are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being …. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities … it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”
But in recent decades, this wall has become a hammer used to bludgeon people of faith in a concerted effort to purge the public square of references to faith, silencing those who express faith in a public setting.
With the resurgent interest in the original meaning of the Constitution that began in the 1980s and continues today, using this “wall” as the basis for applying the First Amendment has increasingly been criticized.
One such example came from Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Writing in dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree while still an associate justice, Renhquist wrote, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the… Bill of rights [was] passed in Congress and ratified by the states. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.”
America got along just fine without this wall for 158 years, and even afterwards. It’s only been in recent years that it has been twisted into a secularizing influence in our society.
These are historical facts. Children should be taught facts in history class.
Ken Klukowski is special counsel with the Family Research Council and coauthor of the bestselling book The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
158 Comments
"These are historical facts. Children should be taught facts in history class."
I totally agree. However, since when have facts been necessary to the PC libs?
You can't let children know this kind of stuff!
They might not vote for liberals.
Being in Houston, and seeing the blatant lies and mis-truths about those on the board and those putting for their cases for FOLLOWING the Constitutional MEANING of what our Founders meant by the Constitution (religious zealots, crusaders etc. and not just parents who wanted the TRUTH taught) – it would be a hoot if it weren't for the fact that this is what we SHOULD have been teaching our kids for 200+ years. I went to grade school / high school in the 70's and 80's and we NEVER went further than learning the Preamble to the Constitution. But just memorizing it – not even going into what it meant. And anything beyond that – zip, nadda, nothing.
Good, let's not have that wall so Sharia Law will have an easier time.
Here is what you are up against……..The church is being taken over by the government.
No separation here, and all left wing causes….were is the outrage from the media, I guess this is just another crazy conspiracy, nothing here no need for the media to look into this either.
No problem with the government taking over the church, no problem with tax dollars being funneled into this movement to spread the "word" of the government.
Jim Wallis, Obama faith based adviser, close friend and political adviser. http://blog.sojo.net/2010/05/20/glenn-beck-attack...
NYT article
New York Times…….
Mr. Wallis, the antipoverty advocate who calls himself a “progressive evangelical,” first met Mr. Obama 10 years ago when both participated in traveling seminars on American civic life. On bus rides, Mr. Wallis and Mr. Obama would huddle, away from company like George Stephanopoulos and Ralph Reed, to plot building a coalition of progressive and religious voters.
“The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect 10 point plan,” Mr. Obama says in one of his standard campaign lines. “They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness — in the imperfections of man.”
He often makes reference to the civil rights movement, when liberals used Christian rhetoric to win change. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30o...
More on Wallis
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca...
don't confuze 'em with facts their minds(?) are made up…
It will be interesting to see how far the pendulum swings in the Texas Board of Education. If the original documents of our country were taught there would be the potential to kill the progressive serpent in this nation. My prayer is that Texas will be able to start the restoration of this country in the curriculum of the next decade. If we are successful in winning the war waged by the proglodytes for our countries children….we must remember that their tenacious nature will rear its ugly head again in the next decade with a vengeance….
There is a growing segment of the population that is tired of the liberal assault on religion. They are tired of being mocked for having religious beliefs. The liberal answer is generally "don't force your religious views on me!" or more frequently just open mockery of religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is a right in our country. Every person is free to believe or not believe as they wish. Those that do believe are tired of being dictated what they can believe and where they can believe it. You cannot even tell someone Merry Christmas due to the PC assault. It is time to end all of the PC garbage that weakening the country. Let people worship, or not worship as they see fit. It's an individual choice, not something the enlightened liberals should feel obligated to correct.
….with the blood of tyrants…
Ahhh yes! The other ugly side to the progressive serpents head! Interesting that they are actually using the angle that Jefferson feared….
Thank you Ken.
Conservatives love history (and read it). To Liberals, history is like Playdough. Something you can mold into whatever they like. And since they don't really "know" history (they do not read), the sky's their oyster.
I spoke to one my childs friend and asked if he had, had history in High School he said yes. We talked about what he learned and he said, "well communism isn't bad really if you look at it." I explained to him that loosing freedom of choice is bad and only the wealthy elite get rewarded in communism. He said yeah, yeah.
Children naturaly want to support something. They just need to know the truth. If you read a child scripture without interpreting it, they will figure it out by themselves. God made man and man's intellegence comes from God.
Excellent article! The only thing I would add is that the separation of church and state is a Biblical concept taught in both the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament the kings (state) came from the tribe of Judah and the priests (church) from the Levi. Only one king tried to cross the boundary and offer sacrifices directly. God struck him with leprosy. Jesus and Paul also spoke of the separation.
I would also add that those who scream most for the "separation of church and state" really mean the "separation of the state from God" and any sense of moral absolutes. Hence they condemn and abhor even personal but public expressions of faith which originate from an individual person and not from a church. Scripture is quite clear that to separate the state from God is the fast and surest way to a brutal dictatorship. As Francis Schaeffer argued (and I paraphrase), "When the state rejects absolutes, it become absolute in itself."
definition: HATE SPEECH
Truthful words that people of the evil left "hate" to hear!
For a great read about the founding principles of this nation, I highly recommend "The 5000 Year Leap" by W. Cleon Skousen. It is an easy, eye opening read. It is available on Amazon and through Kindle. You will have an epiphany on every page. If only schools would adopt this book as part of study of the Constitution we would be a long way to returning America to her roots. We can thank Glenn Beck for bringing this up. He is the best book salesman on the planet.
By the way, repeal both the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.
Comment removed by user, in favor of letting fuzzy thinkers be what they naturally will be.
I'm wondering when they will get around to separating the religion of 'enviromentalism'. I am personally sick of having that religion preached on every corner, show, and even in the products I purchase. I say that we need a separation for the religion of the environment if we're going to separate Christianity.
Here is more of Obama/Jim Wallis faith based initiative;
Taking over the church with our tax dollars, using the church for political propaganda from the pulpit.
nuclear disarmament, comprehensive immigration reform, climate change reform, wall street reform, cut military spending ….and they don't like Glennhttp://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.home
Ironic that the new push for environmentalism and climate control is now coming out of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us with the real quote from the Constitution.
My daughter learned about the Cold War and Ronald Reagan wasn't even mentioned. Yeah, the pendulum has swung way too far to the left. Let the swinging back commence!
Yes. Without the acknowledgment of a divine Creator morals and ethics have no meaning. They become rooted in nothing, blown about by the winds of feelings.
People like you either say stupid things knowing they are stupid (for what ever twisted reason you might have) or you actually believe the stupid things you say… and I can't figure out which is more dangerous.
If you bothered to understand the author's point, which is the Constitution's point BTW, that the "establishment clause" was not intended to remove all religious iconography from public places but to INCLUDE ALL RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY IN PUBLIC PLACES while not elevating one religion over the others.
Proof: religious references are in EVERYTHING the founding fathers did, wrote, designed, constructed and discussed.
The author wrote: "As the Constitution says, the federal government was not to 'establish religion,' that is, to select a particular denomination as a national church."
Show me where the Constitution says this. Then I'll show you what it actually says. By the way, there are copies of the text of the Constitution all over the Internet.
It's not ironic, or even coincidental. What one President does to enrich the members of his own faith, another President is likely to do, to benefit himself and/or his friends.
It's a natural outgrowth; one follows the other. I abhor it, but Bush had no business starting down this particular road.
wow…really hard, the FIRST Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
So you're trying to argue it DOESN'T say that?
Even more of a reason to separate it– if the government is considering it a faith based initiative then why can't we go there? I mean lets just define it for what it is: pagan religious view (not really based in science but more on the assumption that maybe in the future this might happen. Sound familiar? Revelations anyone?) and then let's go around forcing schools, governments and even the federal government to stop pushing their religion on us. This would be an easy way to get rid of mandatory recycling programs. Keep your religion off my front lawn.
You’re a potato, but with no eyes, just buried in the ground, rotting. So, I dub thee ‘Spud.’
So, Spud, you didn’t actually read the article, internalize it and think about it. You can’t have possibly read anything, except the crayon scrawls you doddle on a touch screen.
There is a Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Judeo-Christian culture on which it is based. The whole is self-contained. If the congress and the president only utilized this self-contained whole, there would be no problem. We would not have the corruption from the Left and no concerns about foreign, anti-constitutional systems of governance or law.
Until you understand this—you should go away for the rest of the day.
It absolutely says what you quoted. It doesn't say what the author claimed.
Liberalism IS A RELIGION!
It is the freedom to practice religion, preventing congress from establishing a state religion. Teaching children about the facts of our country's founding does not in any way force the state to endorse a religion. The argument is spurious. This is the problem with public schools, which should be eradicated. As taxpayers we are funding this nonsense.
Huh? Did you even READ the article?? I think you are responding to another story about something different and you got your tab's mixed up, because you sure have NO idea what you are talking about.
Yes, thanks for pointing out that the author paraphrased rather than making a verbatim quote. Nonetheless, the meaning is the same. Now do you have any issues of substance to discuss?
The meaning isn't nearly the same.
Huh? Did you even READ my comment?
The phrases are different in verbiage and meaning.
If not for their patented ability to reconstruct history to suit their needs, they would run out of political steam. I would love to see what the historical accounts of the failure of european socialism say in 50 years or so.
Firstly, freedom of religion does not include freedom from religion, in the sense that we are not obligated to keep the public sphere sterilized of any religious content for fear of offending someone's delicate sensibilities, neither are we obligated to condemn politicians merely for having religious opinions. Certain people may find the whole idea of religion completely irrational and fantasize about a day when the human race throws off such superstition once and for all, but that is a sort of religious viewpoint that is no less prohibited from being established by force of law than Lutheranism.
There are certain important principles that we cannot allow to be blurred out by an obsession over "the wall of separation". First is the idea that whatever one's individual beliefs regarding God are, we must all be able to agree that the government is not God. The government does not have final, absolute moral authority; such authority can only be placed in universal absolute principles that stand above any human will. The origin of these absolute principles is usually attributed to God, but don't make the mistake of assuming Objectivists are just like other atheists. This can and does mean that the law of the land is not always right, that in certain circumstances it may even be a moral duty to disobey the law, which terrifies the crap out of legalists and statists. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to protect these principles from government infringement. And make no mistake, the true ultimate law reads more like a bill of rights than an exhaustive code of conduct like the Sharia.
The second item is that we must discard the notion that protection of the freedom of religion somehow prohibits us, the public, from raising concerns about particular religions, particularly the relationship between the theology of a particular religion and the conduct of its adherents toward the rest of society, that if anything bad happens we must couch our condemnation in blanket terms of denouncing "extremism" and "radicalism". Utterly deceptive twaddlespeak, says I. It is absolutely appropriate to examine the fundamental doctrines of a religion before making inane statements like "No faith condones these acts" in response to the Ft. Hood shooting. No faith whatsoever anywhere? Obviously Maj. Hasan's did. The question is to what extent his beliefs are the mainstream or not, and that question justifies a deeper investigation into Islamic theology and the opinions of Muslim theologians than most of our talking heads have been willing to carry out.
Your public school ejumacation is showing.
The phrases are different in verbiage, but the SAME in meaning.
The leftists who teach in our schools outnumber conservatives, and the curriculum reflects that lopsidedness.
While I taught, I observed the axing of civics and debate classes, the increasing use of revisionist history books, and the shunning of classic Western literature in favor of multicultural novels that usually espoused some anti-religion or anti-social message that's so vogue with the left.
All I know is my kids are going to know how to recognize leftist indoctrination for what it is – Godless, statist, elitist, and false.
Sorry, but no. The info is out there. It's up to you whether you'd like to stay cozy and snug in your lack of understanding.
Angela, my finger slipped – I gave you a thumbs down, despite your great post. Can someone make up for me?
Reading this right now. And I agree, all kids (starting with my own) ought to have this on their reading lists to counterbalance the leftist garbage that flows through the public education pipelines.
Then post it! YOU keep claiming something, POST it!!
The REST of us are talking about the article above and what it means. We have no idea what you are talking about.
Dave,
I went to grade school in the 50's and from there through 12th grade, zip, nada, zilch on anything constitutional, even during desegregation in the 50's to Viet Nam in the 60's in high school AND college. The "education" took place over beer and pizza and at protest marches.
No way our schools have been performing as they should for DECADES. I don't see suddenly changing all that.
Add to this problem the SHEER VOLUME OF NEW SCIENCE and even new historical (anthropological) discoveries in just the past 20 years and our kids would have to be in school till they are 30 just to get it all.
I'm rather in favor of RETRACTING CIRRICULUM. Hear me out….
Give them BASIC AND ADVANCED READING, MATH, LOGIC, ECONOMIC, AND LANGUAGE skills. With these, they can read, comprehend, and figure out EVERYTHING ELSE for themselves. Give them the means and forget trying to give them the desire or the information.
We don't have time or money to teach them everything from the revolution forward in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. But give them the skills to read and reason these out for themselves, and give them the access to information and let them take it from there.
That's what many home school parents have and are doing. Just like we do here. We read, we reason, we discuss, we decide how we feel about things. But we do it WITH SOLID SKILLS AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE TO LOOK IF OUR SKILLS ARE LACKING OR OUR KNOWLEDGE INCOMPLETE.
Just my take. But I really don't see ANY way to teach our kids about LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING in just 12 years. Especially when they don't start out already skilled in any basics at all. Until they're in about the 6th grade, they aren't able to even read well enough to get the words, and they certainly cannot use logic and reasoning skills they haven't been taught yet to know when they're being given slanted views and skewed numbers.
Yes–we all know that the highly religious people who founded the USA and continue to be the majority had the muslim sharia law in mind when they settled this continent.. After all–just look at the US constitution–pure sharia! And remember that Abigail Adamns wore a Burka.
And all those church-goers who preached and pressed for the end of slavery–pure fundametalist kooks.
Just in case you don't get it, whatreallyhappened, this is called sarcasm.
I know you believe that the huge critical mass (90%+) of religious people–especially Christians and Jews who lived here–had NOTHING to do with the rocket-like advancement of the nation to the top of the world. Or the advancement of Western Euope, for that matter.
That's what happens when you learn "social studies" in public schools instead of real history.
Sad
It is ironic in the sense that environmentalists and MMGW supporters claim it as indisputable science – hard fact that cannot be denied.
You are right that Bush opened a door that should have remained closed. He did not forsee the implications but it will lead to the government extending its control over the churches and other institutions.
I believe the key phrase in dispute here is "to select a particular denomination as a national church" — and I think HumanPersonJr may be right.
Stop playing games and make your point. Otherwise we should consider this thread closed.
This power struggle over textbook content shows where the real power for liberals lie- in the minds of our children. They use the content of textbooks to control the narrative in every public school classroom. Even if a freedom-loving teacher is aware, as my US history teacher was, he still has to spend time debunking and deprogramming the propaganda the kids have already been fed.
This has been going on longer than most people realize. Read John Taylor Gatto's tome "The Underground History of American Education" or Charlotte Iserbyt's "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America". Both these books are available for free online. They are well-documented studies of how social engineers have been playing god with the minds of American children.
For the love of Uncle Sam, pull your kids out of school this summer! Show them that they can take your money, but they can't have your kids! When you hand your kids over to Caesar for their education, don't be shocked when they come home as Romans.
Oh for the sake of the Arab world,……….. there georgeguy
when is this analysis it going to start.
Maybe, just maybe the cancer will still be able to be contained and then eliminated.
Never.
And the article states CORRECTLY that is what the people here in Texas WANT to our kids, because THAT'S what the Founding Fathers meant.
If that's what he "means" – they why is he arguing AGAINST the rest of us??? (maybe because that's NOT what he means? And if he does mean that, then he has a HUGE disconnect because that's what the rest of us are saying too – we are agreeing with the article.)
It's closed, and should never have been opened.
We believe in limited government, but we also believe that an agent of the state should lead our child in prayers? And that the texts approved by the state should indoctrinate young minds to accept that either religion in general is good, or that a specifc religion or group of religions are good? Or that lack of a religion is bad?
Make no mistake: The people who want religion, in any form they can get it, introduced or re-introduced into the schools, aren't doing it to benefit their kids. They already have access to their own kids, and can shape their minds as they wish. No, it's my kid they want to influence, because, once school is done for the day, they can't come to my house and teach my kid to pray or believe in a religion, or a group of religions.
The thread is closed. Enjoy!
I went to Catholic schools in Tucson, Arizona during the fifties and early sixties and heard all about it. The Nuns taught classes in civics.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would say the First Sentence of the First Amendment counts as "appearing in American law." As the culture becomes more secular, it stands to reason the law will become more secular. I marvel at how conservo/libertarians lament the engine of the state driving the affairs of private citizens, but then they turn around and say the Government isn't doing enough to ensure that private citizens are dutifully religious. If people want to be religious they can be, if they don't they don't have to be. Just because religious believers can't abide other people not sharing their views and practices, that doesn't mean they get to dictate public policy, simply by virtue of their need to be louder and more disagreeable on the topic. Why don't we just skip over the hogwash and leave it at that?
I am just wondering why can't we use their terms to define "environmentalism" as a religious belief? Bush opened the door and Obama has rammed his ideas through it but isn't there a way to turn those ideas around. For example, rather than arguing whether Environmentalism is real or not argue from the point that people are pushing their religious beliefs. I've done this before with some "environmentally" conscious friends and they don't know what to do when presented with the idea that their "belief" is basically religious in nature. And they really don't like the idea that they are zealots but in a sense that's exactly what they are. Even more so than most religions because they are pushing their ideology in schools, businesses, restaurants, through musicians, actors…the list goes on.
Please describe how you would prevent groups from trying to impose Shariah or other such fundamentalism (like the fundamentalism driving the text book controversy) if separation of church and state are relaxed. As Rand Paul said, anti-segregation laws are "settled." So are the issues attendant to keeping the State cleansed from attempts to prefer or promote certain religions over others.
Now we all see your disconnect.
This isn't about teaching kids RELIGION in school.
It's about teaching the CORRECT and TRUE History of the founding of our country and the Constitution and what it means. PERIOD.
You sound just like all the whiners down here protesting this, "OMG, we can't teach our kids that a bunch of our Founders BELIEVED in God and molded the Constitution after the 10 Commandments (which we have to take down off EVERY Public Building)."
You know – I studied the Koran – and guess what, I didn't have to "become" a Muslim to do it. GASP!!! Ya know you can teach and learn about something WITHOUT "conversion".
??? Go ahead and say Merry Christmas all you want, but when the object of your sobriquet turns out to be Jewish or Hindu or Chinese or Muslim, it is you who will have egg on your face and all the Government intervention (which you so desperately seem to crave) won't help you from looking like a jackass in those cases.
Who you gonna start with tough guy? And who's gonna show up with your bail money once your killing spree has played itself out?
That, good sir, is why vigilance must always be maintained to protect our Constitution. And where does that begin? It begins in the classroom where truth must be taught. If memory serves, Franklin stated that we have given you a Republic if you have the guts to keep it.
Yeah, all that hoodoo about "God's creatures" is just a load of mendacious twaddle when all is said and done.
Clean up the text books that our children are exposed to and,……………………
all future elections will be debated within an acceptable political philosophical swing.
You have made my point. What part of my post was confusing to you that you would think I am looking for government intervention? I would like the government to be neutral. Not favoring one religion over another. So all are free worship or not as they wish. Additionally, most people are not as closed minded and spiteful as you liberals are and would not take good natured merry Christmas as an offense. It's just the bitter and angry left that resorts to anger and insults. Get help…
Which is more "statist?" Exercising one's freedom to eschew religion in all forms, or the State determining which religions will get preferred status in mandatory textbooks?
That's right…homeschool like your hero John Kane and his witless killing machine of a son.
Amen, brother, or sister, as the case may be!
"Eschewing religion in all forms" by judicial fiat or executive (non-representative) edict is about as statist as it gets.
It's not statist to relay the proper historical role of religion in our country – that's just being intellectually honest. Leaving religion out entirely is not only disingenuous, it's elitist.
When parents and other educators stand up for their right to determine a balanced curriculum as those in Texas are doing, that opens up the process of text selection and allows healthy and democratic competition within the marketplace of ideas. Leftists fear competition because their ideas simply can't compete on their own merits.
Why are they so afraid? What possible reason could "the left" have for fearing historical fact to be taught in a history class? Ignoring the origins of Jefferson's words doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. Since (in the minds of many others) God does not exist or has no power to act on our behalf, what does it matter if American children study the ideas that shaped the minds and thoughts of many of the "founding fathers" ? If we are so confused and hopelessly wrong in our thoughts and understandings, why are they afraid to let kids learn about the Constitution and what it actually says (rather than what "they" think it should say)?
I don't have an answer. I just know that it seems folks in Texas are trying to do the right thing with these academic standards and content structures. We need to stand with them. One-third to one-half of the nation's K-12 textbooks will be impacted by the decisions made in coming days; may the facts win over the fear.
This article is anti-conservative trash. The goal should to privatize the schools and/or issue vouchers, not to control the public schools and teach our own propaganda about this being a religious nation. The reason why my family came here was for religious freedom. The God-loving morons who want a theocracy can move to Uganda or Iran.
Um…there are many different types of divine Creator in which people believe. The law prohibits the State from preferring one over another, even the Judeo-Christian ones…
How about you? No sane person wants to go there, but it IS the last resort. As long as the American people are represented by their leaders, and we have the power of the ballot box, transitions of power will always be peaceful as our founders intended. Now, if some jug-eared Kenyan wants to turn us into a banana republic, well, that will not happen while I still draw breath.
Church is state should be separated so future religious groups with power, like Muslims, won't be able to impose Sharia law. It's one thing when your petty religion is in charge but another when Islam comes around seeking to impose its religious will. If you don't understand the purpose of separating church and state then you're going to find out the hard way LIKE EVERY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD HAS.
Huh? Check the crime stats for publicly educated morons, chump.
I would not begin to describe America as a religious (or "Christian") nation. We are far from that, in fact, because the laws of this land have been misinterpreted to mean that America must be kept free from religion. Should school vouchers be issued? Should the public school system be changed or disbanded? Neither strategy will really make a difference if we don't get back to the idea that there IS absolute, objective truth to guide one's actions.
Nothing at all wrong with being God-loving; the nation you chose for yourself and your family was started by folks looking for ways to worship, work, and live freely under the constraints of their God-fearing, God-loving religion.
It can be done. Perhaps is the teachers got out of the political/sex ed mode. They waste more time than they actually teach.
I'll tell you why they are so afraid. If kids find out about what inspired the founding fathers, the Bible and its precepts, they will not be able to control the narrative any longer. You cannot control a population that is not dependent on you for hope and purpose. They are petrified that their carefully crafted mirage of America's past will be shattered. They've been working on this little social engineering project since the Wilson era, and they don't want any slip ups.
Also heard that they are changing "Democracy" to "Constitutional Republic", which I think is great! All Democracies lead to Totalitarianism's
Meh, no problem with religion being practiced in the US as long as it's not a bludgeon against other theists or atheists.
I believe it's called the Constitution. An amazing document designed to prevent the imposition of any kind of tyranny through a systen of checks and balances by recognizing that individual citizens should never be coerced.
Our country is a Christian nation in the way it is structured, not in the number of Christian citizens. The three branches of government model the three forms of church governance, apostolic, Presbyterian, and congregational. If our rights do not come from God, then they are subject to man's whims, which is a dangerous situation. Read the founder's original writings, not books about them, but read their own words and you will see that you are the propagandist, not I. I fully support school privatization and vouchers to kill the public school beast, there is no reform of such a horribly broken system. I'll leave you with the words of John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
If there are ever enough Islamo-Fascists to establish Sharia Law in this country, then no "wall of separation" will stop them from doing it.
You are ignorant as to our history, so I will first address your point on the first amendment. The words "respecting an establishment" referred to a national church very much like the Anglican Church in the day. This phrase does not empower the federal government to abolish all signs of religious practice in public areas nor does it license the federal government to prescribe correct forms of "non-religious" free speech.
Unless you had problems with your parents I doubt that anyone has tried to force a religious belief on you, more likely you are afraid to engage in any such conversation. That is your choice and you a more than welcome to determine your view.
However you are off the tracks with your flawed logic regarding secularization of America and why "secularizing" the First Amendment is therefore reasonable. That is like saying that murder rates have risen and therefore it must be popular amongst the voters, let's just legalize it. The first amendment says what it says, not what we wish it might say and murder is still murder.
You neglected to mention, that at the time, quite a few of the states had an established, organized religion. This more then anything suggests that while they meant for this to apply to the Federal government, they certainly did not expect it to be pushed onto their states. Had they considered this, they would have tightened the restrictions on the Federal Government even further.
The Texas Board of Education wouldn't know a fact if bit them on the nose.
Um…I said nothing about Judeo-Christian or any other divine Creator. I purposely left that statement open-ended so that it includes all religions. Think that is why Jefferson chose that wording for the Declaration of Independence. So whether you worship God, Jehovah, Buddha, science, or an earth goddess doesn't really matter.
The point I am trying to make is that morals have to be rooted in something, some absolute prescriptions or prohibitions of conduct from which a moral code can be derived. Ethics is the observance of those moral codes. The Founders, because they were Christians and practiced those beliefs, took their moral/ethical codes from those beliefs in writing the Constitution. There was much more that went into it, but that's the basics. May I be so humble as to suggest that you pick up the book \”The 5000 Year Leap\” and read it. It is available on Amazon and through Kindle.
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it ABOLISHES ALL RELIGION, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
Courtesy of Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto Chapter II…Coming to our country (the citizens of the United States of America) faster than ever.
VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
The answer here is to homeschool or put your kids in private school. Public school is a vast waste land. i should know my husband is a teacher and we have put our kids in private school. My 4th grader has memorized parts of the consitution. The bill of rights, the Declaration of Indepence, learned about the great Awakening, The civil War, Robert E Lee's strong Christian faith, How we are rights are given by God. How important the Bible was to the Founding Fathers. The evils of slavery and the Christians who lead the fight against it. and so forth… Our History has a stong reglious backbone begining with the Pilgrims. The liberals and progressives have changed our history.
To repeal the 16th Amendment would definetly kill the beast that our government has become. To repeal the 17th would return more power to the states. I support the repeal of both.
…there is only one 'creator', but it manifests in infinite number of ways and is related to in different ways by different people. You don't have to be a member of anything to be religious.
So is Conservatism it would seem.
Heh. Separation of church and state? That'll happen when the church gives up the 501(c)3 government teat. It'll happen when social conservatives and liberal progressives actually read and understand The Constitution.
As for the article? The Founders had something to say about state sponsored religions, too. Seems that was the whole point of that letter which mentioned the 'wall' between church and state.
At the moment, ideologues from both sides are in control of the public discussion. …and ideologues actually don't give a rip about the truth…or about history.
What is religion ?! Christainity ? As far as I can see those who profess to be Christians in the halls of power, including the Texas administration, are using their idea of what it is in order to create a better society. Isn't that just what Obama's doing ?
Religiousness is an innate human phenomena, the labels we useto describe our endeavour to understand that phenomena are undoubtably going to be percieved as threatening to someone who percieves theirself as being outside the retraints of the 'all men are created equal' dictum.
Biblical morality was the intended Limit to our Rights. We had to separate from the European Religious & Political Powers, therefore the Requirement for The Declaration of Independence.
Truth can only be felt. Any attempt at expressing it will always be coloured by human inadequateness. Without Humility mankind cannot know truth, and that humility can only be wrought in others through example.
Neither the past nor the future exist, what is in the here and now from the past is only here in the here and now, what is happening now is what matters, referring to the reason why things were said and done in the past must take into account new understanding of the reality of the human condition, as we learn from experience. The common goal of all good people is to bring about the harmonious prosperty and continued appreciation of creation, however what was created was created.
It is a travesty to claim that 'God', that word and concept ALL PEOPLE FROM EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD use, belongs to any one particular doctrine or the other, any one race or the other. The ABSOLUTE TRUTH (God ) reveals itself to all people at any time they so choose to open their hearts and minds to tha fact that human beings did not create themselves. Different people relate to that revelation of absoluteness in different ways depending upon their language and ability to express themselves. A book in itself is not the Truth. The truth is a phenomena which acts according to it's own laws, not the laws and whims of mankind.
Great post, Georgeguy. We are in complete agreement. I am gratified that people like us still exist and continue to speak out. This issue, which you have defined so well, is at the very heart of all this nation's problems. Win or lose, we must continue to stand on the right side of it and fight.
Be well, my friend.
"Why don't we just skip over the hogwash and leave it at that?"
Typical Proglib response to being proven wrong. You do not have the right to force people to abstain from a religion simply because you do not agree with it. That includes elected officials as well as common citizens. Our country would be in far better shape if all of our elected officials were Bible-believing Christians. It worked very well for the first hundred years. It would work again if not for the likes of people like you.
"Why don't we just skip over the hogwash and leave it at that?"
Typical Proglib response to being proven wrong. You do not have the right to force people to abstain from a religion simply because you do not agree with it. That includes elected officials as well as common citizens. Our country would be in far better shape if all of our elected officials were Bible-believing Christians. It worked very well for the first hundred years. It would work again if not for the likes of people like you.
"they turn around and say the Government isn't doing enough to ensure that private citizens are dutifully religious."
Who's saying that? No one I know. Let's see some citation for that quote! No Church I've ever sat in has this in their doctrine. This is just a lie of convenience you have concocted to bolster your very weak point.
You must be logged in to post a comment.