Middle America's creeping theocracy

I read quite well, but apparently you don't, or you wouldn't have attempted to claim as significant something which is palid indeed in comparison to offering courses in christianity.

0 Replies

Well okay next time I won't bring personal experience into play rather than articles written by x website, since you all eitehr don't believe it or pass it off and move on. My apologies sincerely.

0 Replies

You can evade the point to your heart's content, but the point remains that the topic of discussion is a significant imposition of religious dogma into a secular school system. Your personal experience is not being dismissed because it didn't come from a website, but because it doesn't represent a significant imposition of religious dogma. However, you are free to pout if that's what will please you.

0 Replies

Whatever is taught in school, whose responsibility should it be to see to the education and upbringing of their children?

I'm a bible thumping Christian. If creationism or ID was taught in my children's school I would still want them to hear the argument for evolution taught by someone who reasonably understood it. Then I would, from time to time often, talk with my kids about what they had learned, read their work, and try to provide what I believed to be lacking. (Sadly, I have often found what is lacking is in subjects such as spelling and grammar)

0 Replies

Quote:

Your personal experience is not being dismissed because it didn't come from a website, but because it doesn't represent a significant imposition of religious dogma.

:rolleyes: I understand that. I never said it was a big deal. You're right though it probably is not even applicable since it does not compare to what goes on elsewhere with Christian doctorine.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

And i still don't believe you.

Atta boy, Setanta. Keep those blinders up there.

0 Replies

Boy is hardly a form address to which a child like you is entitled when addressing someone so much older than you. You apparently lack reading skills, as El-Diablo has since acknowledged that it was an isolated incident and does not constitute an attempt at religious indoctrination--something which can be said about the Texas school district. You keep trying to shove your religious idiocy down people's throats, though, that's what religionist fanatics are good at.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Boy is hardly a form address to which a child like you is entitled when addressing someone so much older than you. You apparently lack reading skills, as El-Diablo has since acknowledged that it was an isolated incident and does not constitute an attempt at religious indoctrination--something which can be said about the Texas school district. You keep trying to shove your religious idiocy down people's throats, though, that's what religionist fanatics are good at.

Really? How old am I? Are you psychic, too?

Why don't you read the articles describing, not isolated incidents, but organized curricula including role plays as jihadis, Muslim prayers and more. All this in American public schools.

My statement stands. Your paranoia where Christianity is concerned seems to blind you to all else.

0 Replies

I'm not paranoid about christians, i know they want to push their religion in public schools. Your paranoia, however, suffers from the statistical fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. Tell me how many public schools there are, and how many of them offer courses in Islam. If you can demonstrate that any significant fraction of all public schools are offering courses in Islam, and your source is something other than a ranting religionist site, you will have made a case. So far, you haven't.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm not paranoid about christians, i know they want to push their religion in public schools.

You can't deny this statement real. Almost every protestant church/religion education class I've ever been in thought Christianity should be brought back into school. I even had a public speaker come to one of my religious classes (sad that my parents made me go until last year) telling us TO WRITE TO BUSH to reinstate Christianity back into public schools.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'm not paranoid about christians, i know they want to push their religion in public schools. Your paranoia, however, suffers from the statistical fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. Tell me how many public schools there are, and how many of them offer courses in Islam. If you can demonstrate that any significant fraction of all public schools are offering courses in Islam, and your source is something other than a ranting religionist site, you will have made a case. So far, you haven't.

If something is illegal, as you are stating regarding religious indoctrination, then is it only illegal if it happens more times than some other illegal act?

BTW-- how old am I, Setanta ? Come on. Show us your stuff. How old am I ?

0 Replies

There is no mention of legality in anything i wrote. The point is whether you can demonstrate that there is a significant amount Muslim indoctrination being practiced in America's public schools. Your stupid "blinders" remark inferentially suggests that there is. Prove it, it should be a simple matter if true.

As for your age, you demonstrate the language and thinking processes of the young and callow, so your chronological age is of no importance to me. The point there is that you are in no position to call a man over fifty years of age "boy." Do you claim to have been born before 1916? That was the year my father was born, and i'd likely not take being called "boy" by him, for that matter. But it never bothers me to see you make a fool of yourself, you seem to do it with such ease.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There is no mention of legality in anything i wrote.

SHAZZAM !! LOOKEE HERE

Setanta wrote:

I don't understand what it is about Congress shall make no law respecing an establishment of religion that relgionists find so difficult to understand. In 1948, the Supremes held in McCollum v. Board of Education that because public schools have compulsory education requirements, this plan created a situation where students were forced to participate in religious instruction or risk being ostracized by teachers and peers. The Court found the plan did violate the establishment clause. The present Court might find differently in this case if it is challenged, but in so doing, they will fly in the face of the separation principle in operation in this country for two hundred years.

Boy, you must not think we read your posts.

0 Replies

You must not understand them when you read them. I did not state that the course offering at the Texas school is illegal. I did point out that religionists find the separation of church and state either hard to understand, or they are unwilling to accept it. I also wrote: "The present Court might find differently in this case if it is challenged, but in so doing, they will fly in the face of the separation principle in operation in this country for two hundred years." Which sentence acknowledges that the Supremes may find in favor of the school's decision if it is challenged in court. I would consider that a bad thing, but it is the legal system which determines legality, not me . . . and not you.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You must not understand them when you read them. I did not state that the course offering at the Texas school is illegal. I did point out that religionists find the separation of church and state either hard to understand, or they are unwilling to accept it. I also wrote: "The present Court might find differently in this case if it is challenged, but in so doing, they will fly in the face of the separation principle in operation in this country for two hundred years." Which sentence acknowledges that the Supremes may find in favor of the school's decision if it is challenged in court. I would consider that a bad thing, but it is the legal system which determines legality, not me . . . and not you.

Boy, oh boy. The Clintonisms are thick tonight.

Of course, I did not state that you said the Texas course was illegal.

You denied that you mentioned legality in anything you wrote.

Clearly that is a falsehood. Your entire point in the post I quoted from the early portion of this same thread was focused on the law and how it may or may not be applied. So why don't you just admit it?

0 Replies

Quote:

You must not understand them when you read them. I did not state that the course offering at the Texas school is illegal. I did point out that religionists find the separation of church and state either hard to understand, or they are unwilling to accept it. I also wrote: "The present Court might find differently in this case if it is challenged, but in so doing, they will fly in the face of the separation principle in operation in this country for two hundred years." Which sentence acknowledges that the Supremes may find in favor of the school's decision if it is challenged in court. I would consider that a bad thing, but it is the legal system which determines legality, not me . . . and not you.

Even I'm bewildered by that rebuttal...

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Boy, oh boy. The Clintonisms are thick tonight.

Nice attempt at a partisan slur there, how typical of the religionist lunatic fringe. I knew about Clinton as Governor of Arkansas long before he ran for President. When he did run, i didn't vote for him because i had my doubts. As always in such cases of no good choice (i sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Pappy Bush), i demanded a paper ballot and wrote in my own name. I did the same thing in '96, because i wasn't going to vote for Dole, and after four years, i was more certain i wouldn't vote for Clinton. But you just cherish your illusions.

Quote:

Of course, I did not state that you said the Texas course was illegal.

Which was exactly my point.

Quote:

You denied that you mentioned legality in anything you wrote.

Once again, that was my point. I observed that the Supremes threw out such a course in 1948 because they considered it unconstitutional. I also observed that the current Court might well uphold such a course. As i said, it is not for me to decide the legality of such an issue, and i haven't done what you accused me of, to wit: "If something is illegal, as you are stating regarding religious indoctrination . . . " I categorically deny ever having stated that religious indoctrination is illegal. I believe it ought to be, but i have not said that it is.

Quote:

Clearly that is a falsehood. Your entire point in the post I quoted from the early portion of this same thread was focused on the law and how it may or may not be applied. So why don't you just admit it?

What is clear is that you are engaged in falsehood. I did not state that religious indoctrination is or is not illegal. Your attempt to make it seem so is a blatant attempt to erect a strawman so you can knock it down. You take notice yourself that it "was focused on the law and how it may or may not be applied (emphasis added)"--so one must assume that either you are willfully engaged in retailing a falsehood, or you are incapable of understanding the use of the conditional.

I have not at any time in this thread stated as fact that religious indoctrination is illegal.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have not at any time in this thread stated as fact that religious indoctrination is illegal.

ok. It's YOU who don't read your posts.

Setanta wrote:

In 1948, the Supremes held in McCollum v. Board of Education that because public schools have compulsory education requirements, this plan created a situation where students were forced to participate in religious instruction or risk being ostracized by teachers and peers. The Court found the plan did violate the establishment clause.

Oh, boy.

0 Replies

That is not a statement that religious indoctrination is illegal. It is an observation about the finding of the Supremes more than fifty years ago. Your inability to comprehend the distinction, or your unwillingness to do so, in no way authorizes your attempt to contend that i have stated that religious indoctrination is illegal. I think it ought to be, but i have not at any time in this thread stated that it is.

0 Replies

Middle America's creeping theocracy is wider than the schools, and it scare the bejesus out of me. Beyond schools we have creeping theocracy in our laws and state Constitutions via laws and amendments imposing religious interpretations on marriage. We have it in national, state, and local elections with Fundamentalists running for every position from Village Trustee to President of the US and using their theology as part of their campaign.

I'm afraid it's going to get much worse before it gets better.

Back to public schools.... Our local population is religiously diverse between Christianity and Judaism. Our 8th grade social studies curriculum includes a unit on comparing "The Three Religions of Abraham". It does not include any discussion of the other major religions of the world or delve into the differences among Christian beliefs. It's strictly an effort to include a surface level understanding of the major tenets of each of the three religions. It is not optional and is not discussed with the parents. I'm fine with it as my kids get this and much more on each of the world's religions through their UU Sunday School, but some folks have expressed concerns.

0 Replies

Middle America's creeping theocracy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know