- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This isn't about yelling "Fire, Fire."
It's about individuals AND their communities having the right to free speech, that your Neo-Com friends in the courts took away.
For course local schools and courthouses and state captials had the right to pray and to have religious displays for over a hundred years before these rights were stripped away.
If a boss or business owner wants to preach Jesus or Buddah or Mohammad---let them. A worker can go elsewhere, and the public can boycott their products or services.
This kind of freedom folks such as you can never accept or tolerate.
We can't have injuns discriminated against---cause I'm 1/64th injun myself.
If so, then your president is supporting criminal behavior by decline to enforce whatever federal criminal statutes he doesn't like. Isn't it Comrade Obama and his lackey of an Attorney General who are always singing the praises of prosecutorial discretion?
In their own businesses, they can do whatever they want and anyone who wants to go find somewhere else to shop is welcome to. Nobody is required by law to go to those shops. School is a different thing, kids aren't there by choice, they can't just opt to go somewhere else, they have to go to school and therefore, people can't do whatever they want.
And I'm about the farthest thing from a neo-con as you can get. Don't be an ass.
Our kids have a choice. One likes private Christian school, and the other like public. Many people choose to homeschool or have small community schools among their friends. I just hate that 1/2 my property taxes go to schools I don't have full use of---but I deal with it.
Too bad. An educated populace benefits society, it isn't all about you, it's about the betterment of society overall, from which you personally benefit.
Keeping the Feds out of public education would be the greatest benefit.
This would require each community themselves to fund and run and be accountable for their children's schooling.
What is the problem with "letting people teach whatever the hell they want to teach"?And how is that? Please explain how letting people teach whatever the hell they want to teach is a benefit to society as a whole? You don't want to spend money paying for schools you don't use, apparently you have no problem spending money for social services for people who never got any useful education at all or learned any worthwhile job skills.
Our kids have a choice. One likes private Christian school, and the other like public. Many people choose to homeschool or have small community schools among their friends. I just hate that 1/2 my property taxes go to schools I don't have full use of---but I deal with it.
IMO: she was only doing what the state should have never allowed to be put up to start with--regardless of the religion.Woman arrested after damaging Satanic display at Florida Capitol | Fox News
Tolerence folks ... Tolerence
Keeping the Feds out of public education would be the greatest benefit.
This would require each community themselves to fund and run and be accountable for their children's schooling.
My issue with this is that we would end up in a "race to the bottom" in many cases. If communities aren't held to a base standard, they will short-change the schools and kids won't get a good education. There are some very poor communities that need state and federal money.
Or in some communities, they wouldn't be taught science or art or some other subject, based on the biases of that community.
Local school boards have a lot of control as is; but we need feds to ensure fairness across the country, at least at a base level.
IOW, you're opposed to criminal behavior when the President (or someone else you don't like) does it but you're OK with criminal behavior when you don't dislike the criminal
And that refutes what I said....how?
Are you suggesting that prosecutorial discretion is somehow criminal?
Since when?
Are you suggesting that prosecutorial discretion is somehow criminal? Since when? Or do you only think it's criminal when someone other than the Marxist liar who is disgracing the White House uses it? He and his Attoney General are great proponents of prosecutorial discretion.
Oh--and may all devil worshippers go straight to hell, where they belong. I hope more people do just what that lady did, and get themselves arrested. And then we will see if any prosecutor's office is willing to bring charges, and if it does, if any jury will convict.
Guess what, they are. So much for your knowledge of the topic.If our own government in Congress is allowed to pray, then so should local institutions like public shcools.
How would you know other than repeating some talking point?Liberal court rulings are an insane interpretation of seperation of church and state and the 14th due process clause.
You don't expect a real answer do you?What exactly is bad about (you already discussed section 1)
2. the right to vote
3. senators only having one job
4. the country's credit rating
?
Kids aren't getting a good education now. So your solution is to maintain the status quo?
Kids in my town are getting a good education. Many kids in many public schools are getting a good education.
There are places where kids aren't getting a good education. That has nothing to do with the federal government. It's a combination of a lot of factors.
And how is that? Please explain how letting people teach whatever the hell they want to teach is a benefit to society as a whole? You don't want to spend money paying for schools you don't use, apparently you have no problem spending money for social services for people who never got any useful education at all or learned any worthwhile job skills.
My issue with this is that we would end up in a "race to the bottom" in many cases. If communities aren't held to a base standard, they will short-change the schools and kids won't get a good education. There are some very poor communities that need state and federal money.
Or in some communities, they wouldn't be taught science or art or some other subject, based on the biases of that community.
Local school boards have a lot of control as is; but we need feds to ensure fairness across the country, at least at a base level.
Guess what, they are. So much for your knowledge of the topic.
How would you know other than repeating some talking point?
Yet you did just that and now are attempting to cover it up. How intellectually honest of you...Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Yea after all the goal is to produce more ignorant religious zealots, yes?From an economic standpoint, how foolish would it be waste tax funds and resources on a school in a ghostown? By the same measure why pump in tax money into an economically depressed area such as an inner city wasteland if the locals there do not properly care for and maintain the structures, or allow the funds to be mismanaged? The billions of tax monies dumped into such places has not made them better than they were 50 years ago. Forcing the residents of each school district to be fully accountable is the only was to bring about positive change.
As far as cirriculum goes, the majority rules. If our leaders want more and more Muslims in the country, then there should be more Islamic controlled neighborhoods and cities that can rightfully teach Islamic doctrine to the children. (Isn't multiculturalism great!?) Same thing for majority Christian areas, if the majority want school prayer and intelligent design allowed in their schools---so be it. Same thing goes for Godless areas populated by atheists and pagans (San Fransciso, Greenwich Village, etc.)---they can righfully expunge all religion and teach only socialistic views.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools. While the Engel decision held that the promulgation of an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (thus overruling the New York Courts’ decisions), Abington held that Bible readings and other (state) school-sponsored religious activities were prohibited.[7] Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a ruling that established the Lemon test for religious activities within schools. The Lemon test states that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment any practice sponsored within state run schools (or other public, state sponsored activities) must adhere to the following three criteria:[8]
1.Have a secular purpose;
2.Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3.Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.
School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?