American Atheists oppose U.S. Supreme Court review of Utah highway crosses case

[chloe]

SALT LAKE CITY — American Atheists Inc. (http://www.atheists.org/), has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny Utah's request (http://www.debatepolicy.com/V) to decide whether fallen state troopers may be honored with roadside crosses on public land.

The group's attorney, Brian M. Barnard, said there's no reason for the nation's highest court to hear the case because the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled the crosses violate (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12054125) the doctrine of separation of church and state. That court also declined to reconsider the decision in December 2010 and this past April.

"My clients believe the deceased troopers should be honored for their sacrifice," he said. "They should be and can be honored with appropriate memorials that do not emphasize religion and do not promote one faith to the exclusion of all other religions."

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and the Utah Highway Patrol Association this spring asked the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing a three-way split exists between circuit courts on which legal test applies to the passive display of religious imagery.

The state asked the high court to set aside the "endorsement test" in favor of the "coercion test," arguing passive memorials don't coerce anyone to do anything. Utah also argues that no court has held the memorial crosses unconstitutional or that they establish a religion.
Barnard contends in his 68-page brief that the issue has not come up before.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=16534337

[Missileman]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=16534337

A fringe group as whacko as the Middleboro Baptist Church. I really wish they'd both STFU.

[J.T]

What if Jewish troopers get a Star of David, Muslims get a Crescent Moon, and Atheists get a square piece of wood nailed to a pole?

I'd say to use tombstones for everyone, but that'd seem a bit grim.

I know! I have a solution!

Okay, so the State Troopers (as an organization) can't put crosses up, lest anyone think it an endorsement of crucifixion (or whatever). That's fine. What if the troopers and their friends and loved ones (as individuals) put them up on their own time and their own dime, with the aid of personal donations from supporters of the cause? As individuals, they've a right to erects these things, right? S

So they get a PayPal and supporters send a few bucks to help their friends and fellow officers, as individual citizens, erect roadside memorials like those we oft see (a tad smaller, usually) near the sites of automotive accidents. That way, everyone wins and everyone's happy, right?

[chloe]

What if Jewish troopers get a Star of David, Muslims get a Crescent Moon, and Atheists get a square piece of wood nailed to a pole?

I'd say to use tombstones for everyone, but that'd seem a bit grim.

I know! I have a solution!

Okay, so the State Troopers (as an organization) can't put crosses up, lest anyone think it an endorsement of crucifixion (or whatever). That's fine. What if the troopers and their friends and loved ones (as individuals) put them up on their own time and their own dime, with the aid of personal donations from supporters of the cause? As individuals, they've a right to erects these things, right? S

So they get a PayPal and supporters send a few bucks to help their friends and fellow officers, as individual citizens, erect roadside memorials like those we oft see (a tad smaller, usually) near the sites of automotive accidents. That way, everyone wins and everyone's happy, right?


I guess your smart J.T., Mormons don't even beleive in crosses because crosses celebrate Jesus death. But I don't really see why it matters to atheists so much.

[ConHog]

I don't know why people can't just shut up with their hatred towards Christians, and let's be adults here there are many people who just flat hate Christians.

Some people need to read the COTUS to, there is no freedom FROM religion. Only freedom OF religeon.

[chloe]

I don't know why people can't just shut up with their hatred towards Christians, and let's be adults here there are many people who just flat hate Christians.

Some people need to read the COTUS to, there is no freedom FROM religion. Only freedom OF religeon.

Interesting point.

[J.T]

there is no freedom FROM religion

Dude, that's kinda what the whole 'respecting an establishment of religion' thing was about. You know what happened with the Anglican Church and religious doctrine being forced upon people, right? You've a right to practice or not practice religion and to neither have another's religion imposed upon you or be denied your free exercise of your own.

[KartRacerBoy]

I don't know why people can't just shut up with their hatred towards Christians, and let's be adults here there are many people who just flat hate Christians.

Some people need to read the COTUS to, there is no freedom FROM religion. Only freedom OF religeon.


Do you understand the doctrine of separation of church and state? Your post indicates that you don't.

In its simplest terms, the doctrine says that since govt can't choose which religion is right, it shouldn't pick and choose who can use govt resources and who can't. So Scientologists can't put up stuff on govt grounds. Nor can Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus.

If your think about it, its kind of a smart idea. Govt isn't forced to choose a favorite religion. Which was kind of the "original intent" of the establishment clause. Some extreme Christians, however, seem to have a different idea. Silly gits.

[ConHog]

Do you understand the doctrine of separation of church and state? Your post indicates that you don't.

In its simplest terms, the doctrine says that since govt can't choose which religion is right, it shouldn't pick and choose who can use govt resources and who can't. So Scientologists can't put up stuff on govt grounds. Nor can Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus.

If your think about it, its kind of a smart idea. Govt isn't forced to choose a favorite religion. Which was kind of the "original intent" of the establishment clause. Some extreme Christians, however, seem to have a different idea. Silly gits.



I only studied the COTUS for 8 years in college and married an attorney. Nope, I don't understand the document at all.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Show me where that says that you have the right to not be exposed to religion.

[KartRacerBoy]

I only studied the COTUS for 8 years in college and married an attorney. Nope, I don't understand the document at all.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Show me where that says that you have the right to not be exposed to religion.



Wow. Amazing. 8 years? And you're still a little confused?


Guess what? I'm a lawyer and my wife is, too. So I guess that trumps you cz we have more years. Now that you've waved your big dick at me and I've done the same, can we discuss this?

Why do you imagine the separatin doctrine was adopted? Is govt really good at selecting the "correct" religion? Is it the govts business to choose who is telling the "truth" as to god?

As to your inane comment that folks "hate christians," there are plenty of christians who think govt and religion dont mix well.

[ConHog]

Wow. Amazing. 8 years? And you're still a little confused?


Guess what? I'm a lawyer and my wife is, too. So I guess that trumps you cz we have more years. Now that you've waved your big dick at me and I've done the same, can we discuss this?

Why do you imagine the separatin doctrine was adopted? Is govt really good at selecting the "correct" religion? Is it the govts business to choose who is telling the "truth" as to god?

As to your inane comment that folks "hate christians," there are plenty of christians who think govt and religion dont mix well.



Show me where separation of church and state exists in the COTUS..... Oh, oops it doesn't. Which seems to mesh with the fact that the founding fathers blended their religion into the founding of this nation and in the early running of said country. But by all means, please show me where in the document that is the foundation of our government the founding fathers mentioned seperation of church and state. Please bring something stronger than " no law establishing a a religion means separation of church and state" , because no it does not.


Oh and PS I never said that those who think government and religion and government don't mix hate Christians, if however you insist on pretending that there are not people out there who hate Christians and would like to see them relegated to second class citizens who have no say in anything, well then I will consider you to be dishonest and best and conclude this conversation.

[KartRacerBoy]

Show me where separation of church and state exists in the COTUS..... Oh, oops it doesn't. Which seems to mesh with the fact that the founding fathers blended their religion into the founding of this nation and in the early running of said country. But by all means, please show me where in the document that is the foundation of our government the founding fathers mentioned seperation of church and state. Please bring something stronger than " no law establishing a a religion means separation of church and state" , because no it does not.


Oh and PS I never said that those who think government and religion and government don't mix hate Christians, if however you insist on pretending that there are not people out there who hate Christians and would like to see them relegated to second class citizens who have no say in anything, well then I will consider you to be dishonest and best and conclude this conversation.

If your wife is a lawyer, have her explain to you what legal precedent is and how that binds the court in the future. I'm guessing you already know this but you are pretending to be an originalist who thinks legal precedent doesn't bind them. Surprise! It does. Ultimately, if you read the church/state caselaw, you will understand how Jefferson's "separation of church and state" evolved and makes sense as a constitutional doctrine. Really, is govt the right instrument to chose which christian religion is the "right" one? Or Christian vs non christian? How stupid is that?

And if you're one of those idiots who thinks liberals are having a "war on Christmas," thiere is no hope for you. Enjoy your 90% majority Christian persecution complex.

[ConHog]

If your wife is a lawyer, have her explain to you what legal precedent is and how that binds the court in the future. I'm guessing you already know this but you are pretending to be an originalist who thinks legal precedent doesn't bind them. Surprise! It does. Ultimately, if you read the church/state caselaw, you will understand how Jefferson's "separation of church and state" evolved and makes sense as a constitutional doctrine. Really, is govt the right instrument to chose which christian religion is the "right" one? Or Christian vs non christian? How stupid is that?

And if you're one of those idiots who thinks liberals are having a "war on Christmas," thiere is no hope for you. Enjoy your 90% majority Christian persecution complex.

Legal precedent is binding? So courts can NEVER reverse themselves? You really want to go there?

And you're changing the argument anyway. There is a VAST difference between a government allowing religious activities and government establishing an official religion, and THAT is the ONLY thing that TJ was concerned with. He set right in government while prayers were made and God was discussed. Why did he do that if he didn't approve? I suppose you also believe that Obama sat through 20 years of Wright's sermons but he didn't REALLY agree with them.....


As for your other contention. You prove I hit a nerve when you resorted to name calling. Anyone with even a bit of honesty about them will admit that there is a concerted effort to shut Christians up in this country. Now I would certainly debate that it isn't because people are afraid of Christians, but rather it is because people are mean assholes and by and large Christians are the only group who hasn't stood up and said "fucking enough" so people feel safe in "picking on them" , certainly don't see these people making fun of Islam and so forth do you...

[LuLu]

Who even complained about this? How is this effecting anyone?

[J.T]

I only studied the COTUS for 8 years in college and married an attorney. Nope, I don't understand the document at all.

Did you study under obama (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/)?

Why do you have to lie about the premise of the complaint, anyway? Nobody's complaining about the crosses existing. They're complaining about a government agency using the symbolism of a given religion, giving the appearance of an official adoption or endorsement of a given religious institution or doctrine by an arm of the State.

[J.T]

Show me where separation of church and state exists in the COTUS..... Oh, oops it doesn't.

Then what was that you just quoted?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...



Please bring something stronger than " no law establishing a a religion means separation of church and state" , because no it does not.

So the State can impose Sharia law if it wants without violating the First Amendment? :laugh:


Christians would like to see them relegated to second class citizens

You refer to Christian opposition to the equal right to contract between persons of different races or of the same sex?

[ConHog]

Then what was that you just quoted?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...


So the State can impose Sharia law if it wants without violating the First Amendment? :laugh:


You refer to Christian opposition to the equal right to contract between persons of different races or of the same sex?



Sir, not establishing a state religion is NOT the same thing as saying the government can't be involved with religion at all. IF that were the case then how do come we have prayer in Congress and such?

Your Sharia Law comment is indeed laughable. The rest of your post gibberish.

[KartRacerBoy]

Before something called the "incorporation doctrine," states could have imposed sharia law, banned guns, cut off free speech, etc, without violating the constitution. The federal constitution only applied to the federal govt until SCOTUS started applying the bill the of rights to the states through the 14th Amendment (incorporation).

ConHog is right in stating that the 1st Amendment originally stopped the federal govt from creating a favored federal religion. At the time of ratification of the constitution, the states had various favored religions and some even taxed in favor of the state religion. However, when incorporation was applied in the 20th century (md-1940s, I believe) that changed and states could no longer enact or follow such laws. But federal law on separation of chuch/state was well on its way by then.

[ConHog]

Before something called the "incorporation doctrine," states could have imposed sharia law, banned guns, cut off free speech, etc, without violating the constitution. The federal constitution only applied to the federal govt until SCOTUS started applying the bill the of rights to the states through the 14th Amendment (incorporation).

ConHog is right in stating that the 1st Amendment originally stopped the federal govt from creating a favored federal religion. At the time of ratification of the constitution, the states had various favored religions and some even taxed in favor of the state religion. However, when incorporation was applied in the 20th century (md-1940s, I believe) that changed and states could no longer enact or follow such laws. But federal law on separation of chuch/state was well on its way by then.


I actually disagree that incorporation was necessary, I feel that Article VI clause 2 , otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause, clearly gave the COTUS dominion over the states as well as the federal government. One Abraham Lincoln agreed with me, and started a war over it. But by the 40s the Court was well along the path of ignoring the COTUS at its leisure that it continues today.

[Thunderknuckles]

So tired of Atheists. I can't even muster up the will to pose an argument anymore. So going forward my response to Atheists will be this:

:upyours:

[ConHog]

So tired of Atheists. I can't even muster up the will to pose an argument anymore. So going forward my response to Atheists will be this:

:upyours:


I always just remember what my old grand daddy told me "son, there aint no atheists in foxholes."

[KartRacerBoy]

So tired of Atheists. I can't even muster up the will to pose an argument anymore. So going forward my response to Atheists will be this:

:upyours:

Now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

Just as there are militant religious people, there are militant atheists. But guess who gets involved in cases like this? Militants on both sides. You just like one side more than the other. Or perhaps you're a militant on the religious side. I don't know.

But frankly most folks don't give a crap and the law is driven by extremists on each side who have some kind of agenda.


Amd whoever said there are no atheists in foxholes really didn't understand the nature of the beast.

[ConHog]

Now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

Just as there are militant religious people, there are militant atheists. But guess who gets involved in cases like this? Militants on both sides. You just like one side more than the other. Or perhaps you're a militant on the religious side. I don't know.

But frankly most folks don't give a crap and the law is driven by extremists on each side who have some kind of agenda.


Amd whoever said there are no atheists in foxholes really didn't understand the nature of the beast.


I've been in the foxhole. The biggest baddest "i don't beleive in God" men were praying, let me tell you.

[KartRacerBoy]

I've been in the foxhole. The biggest baddest "i don't beleive in God" men were praying, let me tell you.

Hoping is not necessarily praying.

My wife thought the birth of our child would make me believe in god. No such luck. However, having lived 42 years she still thinks there is a god but no longer believes in Jesus as being the son of god. I think she's become more of a deist.

[ConHog]

Hoping is not necessarily praying.

My wife thought the birth of our child would make me believe in god. No such luck. However, having lived 42 years she still thinks there is a god but no longer believes in Jesus as being the son of god. I think she's become more of a deist.



I didn't say they were in the foxhole hoping, I said they were praying.

[KartRacerBoy]

I didn't say they were in the foxhole hoping, I said they were praying.

I know that's what you wrote. I just don't believe you.

[Thunderknuckles]

Now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

Just as there are militant religious people, there are militant atheists. But guess who gets involved in cases like this? Militants on both sides. You just like one side more than the other. Or perhaps you're a militant on the religious side. I don't know.

Sorry KRB, I should have said militant Atheists. And no, I'm not a militant religious type.

[ConHog]

I know that's what you wrote. I just don't believe you.



Independent surveys show that 1 out of 1 ConHogs don't care what you believe.

[KartRacerBoy]

Independent surveys show that 1 out of 1 ConHogs don't care what you believe.

I suspect the surveys weren't as independent as you think. :laugh:

[ConHog]

I suspect the surveys weren't as independent as you think. :laugh:



Probably you are correct. But my dentist does recommend Trident.

[KartRacerBoy]

Probably you are correct. But my dentist does recommend Trident.

Big deal. I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[LuvRPgrl]

Big deal. I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Petty arguing and joking around, expensive for the board to post,
watching you two argue, priceless.

Thanks alot Chloe for starting this mess.
I mean, standing up for someones rights, how dare you!!

"But I don't really see why it matters to atheists so much. "

Because it doesn't. Their real anger & agenda is not about the crosses, but about any practicing of Christianity.

[ConHog]

Petty arguing and joking around, expensive for the board to post,
watching you two argue, priceless.

Thanks alot Chloe for starting this mess.
I mean, standing up for someones rights, how dare you!!

"But I don't really see why it matters to atheists so much. "

Because it doesn't. Their real anger & agenda is not about the crosses, but about any practicing of Christianity.



2271

[KartRacerBoy]

In this case it may be atheists who object, but what about religious groups that object to the mixing of church and state? Why do you think those folks object?

[ConHog]

In this case it may be atheists who object, but what about religious groups that object to the mixing of church and state? Why do you think those folks object?


You're mixing two different ideas and trying to make them injo one. First of all, you're speaking about Christians in particular but are apparently too cowardly to say so. Secondly, yes Christians (most of us anyway) certainly do NOT want to see the US turned into a Christian theocracy, but that is NOT the same thing as supporting allowing religion to "mix" with government. For instance, I am FOR allowing children and school employees to pray, I would be AGAINST forcing them to pray to the Christian God.


Atheists however are FOR never uttering God's name at all in ANYTHING even remotely connected to the government.

[revelarts]

Atheists however are FOR never uttering God's name at all in ANYTHING even remotely connected to the government.
Some Atheist, um many atheist?

Not uttering, no pictures, ceremonies, holidays, icons, or even silent thoughts, with any government affiliation.
Not becuase they like to think it's unconstitutional, but becuase they think religion is offensive... to others.
But i've yet to meet other religious people offended by the Christian religion in public. Practicing Jews didn't complain about Bible clubs in schools, Muslims don't complain if you say merry CHRISTmas in your water bill, Buddhist don't get a lawyer over the mayor's or public High School valedictorian's thanking Jesus for America etc..
Seems that's the atheist are the main ones "protecting" all of the other religions... generally they never asked for their help.

[red states rule]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=16534337


These people have way to much time on their hands. What harm wil looking at a cross do to them?

[ConHog]

These people have way to much time on their hands. What harm wil looking at a cross do to them?



None at all, people just like to bitch.

[red states rule]

None at all, people just like to bitch.

They are probably the same people who bitch about Christmas trees and Nativity scenes in the town square

Or kids having Christmas parties in school

[ConHog]

They are probably the same people who bitch about Christmas trees and Nativity scenes in the town square

Or kids having Christmas parties in school


I'm on a local school board, last year our school was sued by a lady because one of our teachers was reading a Bible to herself in her car while on lunch.

We won, but still. Why would you waste a school's resources by suing over something so stupid?

[red states rule]

I'm on a local school board, last year our school was sued by a lady because one of our teachers was reading a Bible to herself in her car while on lunch.

We won, but still. Why would you waste a school's resources by suing over something so stupid?

I would tell that women simply "If the ignorant were blessed you would be a Saint"

Then I would tell her to get the hell out of here and get over it

[Missileman]

Show me where that says that you have the right to not be exposed to religion.

No objection to your kids being indoctrinated in Islam then I guess.

[Gunny]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=16534337

American Atheists, Inc need to quit trying to force their religion on everyone else. This shit's getting old.

[red states rule]

No objection to your kids being indoctrinated in Islam then I guess.

The liberal media is already doing that along with most on the left

Anything else?

[ConHog]

No objection to your kids being indoctrinated in Islam then I guess.


nice strawman. I'm a Christian and I would object to YOUR children being indoctrinated in Christianity. Asking that we be allowed to openly celebrate our religeon is not the same thing as indoctrinating your children in it.

BTW - Does it strike anyone else as odd that the same assholes who wish to keep their children from being "indoctrinated" into Christianity are absolutely fine with indoctrinating MY children with homosexuality?

[red states rule]

nice strawman. I'm a Christian and I would object to YOUR children being indoctrinated in Christianity. Asking that we be allowed to openly celebrate our religeon is not the same thing as indoctrinating your children in it.

BTW - Does it strike anyone else as odd that the same assholes who wish to keep their children from being "indoctrinated" into Christianity are absolutely fine with indoctrinating MY children with homosexuality?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ConHog again.

[ConHog]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ConHog again.


Thank you. It just aggravates me when people are concerned about rights , as long as it is THEIR rights.

[red states rule]

Thank you. It just aggravates me when people are concerned about rights , as long as it is THEIR rights.

Get use ti it. Liberalism has allowed this crap to fester and grow

and the election is right around the corner

It will only get worse until the folks stand up and go to the polls in 2012 and hopefully send another lound message as they did in 2010

[ConHog]

Get use ti it. Liberalism has allowed this crap to fester and grow

and the election is right around the corner

It will only get worse until the folks stand up and go to the polls in 2012 and hopefully send another lound message as they did in 2010



Oh, people have been selfish assholes for lots of years. I don't expect it to ever change. People only worry about themselves. Doesn't mean I like it.

[red states rule]

Oh, people have been selfish assholes for lots of years. I don't expect it to ever change. People only worry about themselves. Doesn't mean I like it.

That started toi change in 2010. Have we ever had a serious debate over actually cutting spending, reigning in government power, and people saying they are paying enough in taxes until now?

This crap over a bunch of "offended" people over a memorial cross is another example of the minority entitlement mentality. They may be on on the way I out, and it could not happen to nicer people

[Missileman]

nice strawman. I'm a Christian and I would object to YOUR children being indoctrinated in Christianity.

Well don't look now, but you just argued that there is a right to freedom from religion. What there isn't a right to is freedom from ever seeing things of a religious nature. It's a tiny fraction of atheists who are raising a fuss about the matters that they don't really have a right to object to. On the other hand, there's a small fraction of Christians in the US who continually try to marry their faith with the power of government particularly in public schools with crap like moments of silence at the start of the school day and trying to get the Bible added as a science text book...and those are legitimately objectionable.

[ConHog]

Well don't look now, but you just argued that there is a right to freedom from religion. What there isn't a right to is freedom from ever seeing things of a religious nature. It's a tiny fraction of atheists who are raising a fuss about the matters that they don't really have a right to object to. On the other hand, there's a small fraction of Christians in the US who continually try to marry their faith with the power of government particularly in public schools with crap like moments of silence at the start of the school day and trying to get the Bible added as a science text book...and those are legitimately objectionable.



Got news for you my friend. That tiny portion has the right to do so. What you are saying is that you don't want openly Christian people having any power in the government. That's fine, don't vote for them when you have the choice then. BUT those folks absolutely do have the right to try to be part of our government.

[J.T]

I actually disagree that incorporation was necessary, I feel that Article VI clause 2 , otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause, clearly gave the COTUS dominion over the states as well as the federal government.

Only in applicable areas...




One Abraham Lincoln agreed with me, and started a war over it.
:laugh:

Why did Lincoln go to war, now?

[ConHog]

Only in applicable areas...



:laugh:

Why did Lincoln go to war, now?



Only in ALL areas. A state law NEVER supersedes federal law.

Oh, that's right he went to war to save da black man.

[J.T]

I always just remember what my old grand daddy told me "son, there aint no atheists in foxholes."

:rolleyes:

MAAF maintains a roster of Atheists in Foxholes, just in case there are any rumors that we don't exist. The next time you hear someone repeat that old myth, just send them here to see how atheists have served honorably in combat - always have, always will.

http://www.militaryatheists.org/expaif.html

If you're praying in combat you have too much time on your hands. If you're praying while deployed in a staff position you do not know how to do your job well enough and you're hoping something will come along and magic this knowledge into you.
-Army Major Gareth Lintt


Joe Simpson (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Joe_Simpson_%28mountaineer%29), author of the book Touching The Void (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Touching_The_Void), explicitly addresses the issue in the film adaptation of his nearly fatal climb of the Siula Grande (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Siula_Grande) mountain. Referring to the moment he lay at the bottom of a deep crevasse, dehydrated, alone and with a broken leg, he states: '"I was totally convinced I was on my own, that no one was coming to get me. I was brought up as a devout Catholic (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Catholic). I'd long since stopped believing in God (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/God). I always wondered if things really hit the fan, whether I would, under pressure, turn round and say a few Hail Marys and say 'Get me out of here'. It never once occurred to me. It meant that I really don't believe and I really do think that when you die, you die, that's it, there's no afterlife." [19] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes#cite_note-18)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes
:slap:
Tell gramps I said he's an idiot

[J.T]

Only in ALL areas. A state law NEVER supersedes federal law.

True only in those areas where the fed has any authority in the first place.

I guess you never reached the Tenth during those eight years of sleeping in class :laugh:


Oh, that's right he went to war to save da black man.

:slap:

[ConHog]

:rolleyes:

MAAF maintains a roster of Atheists in Foxholes, just in case there are any rumors that we don't exist. The next time you hear someone repeat that old myth, just send them here to see how atheists have served honorably in combat - always have, always will.

http://www.militaryatheists.org/expaif.html

If you're praying in combat you have too much time on your hands. If you're praying while deployed in a staff position you do not know how to do your job well enough and you're hoping something will come along and magic this knowledge into you.
-Army Major Gareth Lintt
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes
:slap:
Tell gramps I said he's an idiot



Gramps is passed away. How childish and pathetic that you would insult someone's grandfather.

[ConHog]

True only in those areas where the fed has any authority in the first place.

I guess you never reached the Tenth during those eight years of sleeping in class :laugh:



:slap:



Give me ONE example of a state law that has conflicted with a federal law and survived judicial review.

[Missileman]

Got news for you my friend. That tiny portion has the right to do so. What you are saying is that you don't want openly Christian people having any power in the government.

I have news for you, friend...I've never said anything remotely like it, nor would I. I would expect a public official to concentrate on the mundane, not the spritual...they're getting paid to concentrate on the mundane.

[ConHog]

I have news for you, friend...I've never said anything remotely like it, nor would I. I would expect a public official to concentrate on the mundane, not the spritual...they're getting paid to concentrate on the mundane.



Which is code for . " Tell them dirty damn Christians to stop practicing their faith if they want to be in office"

Maybe you should save your anger for the Congressmen who is surfing porn and texting his teenage lover while doing the people's business and leave the Christians alone eh?

[chloe]

Petty arguing and joking around, expensive for the board to post,
watching you two argue, priceless.

Thanks alot Chloe for starting this mess.
I mean, standing up for someones rights, how dare you!!

"But I don't really see why it matters to atheists so much. "

Because it doesn't. Their real anger & agenda is not about the crosses, but about any practicing of Christianity.

Your Welcome RP:salute:

[LuvRPgrl]

No objection to your kids being indoctrinated in Islam then I guess.

Not a problem at all if I lived in a Muslim country

[J.T]

Some Atheist, um many atheist?Not uttering, no pictures, ceremonies, holidays, icons, or even silent thoughts, with any government affiliation.Not becuase they like to think it's unconstitutional, but becuase they think religion is offensive... to others.But i've yet to meet other religious people offended by the Christian religion in public. Practicing Jews didn't complain about Bible clubs in schools, Muslims don't complain if you say merry CHRISTmas in your water bill, Buddhist don't get a lawyer over the mayor's or public High School valedictorian's thanking Jesus for America etc.. Seems that's the atheist are the main ones "protecting" all of the other religions... generally they never asked for their help. Try building a Mosque...

[J.T]

indoctrinating MY children with homosexuality?:lol:

[ConHog]

Try building a Mosque...



Bet it would happen faster than you could (re)build a Greek Orthodox Church.

[J.T]

Got news for you my friend. That tiny portion has the right to do so. So you're cool with praying to Allah and incprporating the Koran into the public school curriculem?
What you are saying is that you don't want openly Christian people having any power in the government

Where, exactly, did he say that?


Why do you lie?

[J.T]

In case you missed it before prisonpig decide to flood the thread with lies and paranoid persecutory delusions



Okay, so the State Troopers (as an organization) can't put crosses up, lest anyone think it an endorsement of crucifixion (or whatever). That's fine. What if the troopers and their friends and loved ones (as individuals) put them up on their own time and their own dime, with the aid of personal donations from supporters of the cause? As individuals, they've a right to erects these things, right?

So they get a PayPal and supporters send a few bucks to help their friends and fellow officers, as individual citizens, erect roadside memorials like those we oft see (a tad smaller, usually) near the sites of automotive accidents. That way, everyone wins and everyone's happy, right?

All in favour? I don't got much, but they can have the bit of change I found this morning. Seems like a good enough cause, erecting a memorial to good officers who have fallen in the line if duty and whatnot.

[Missileman]

Maybe you should save your anger for the Congressmen who is surfing porn and texting his teenage lover while doing the people's business and leave the Christians alone eh?

If only they weren't one and the same...:poke:

[ConHog]

So you're cool with praying to Allah and incprporating the Koran into the public school curriculem?

Where, exactly, did he say that?


Why do you lie?


Actually , as any literate person could tell you, I made it clear that I do NOT favor making ANY church part of a school curriculum. I would absolutely defend a teacher's right to read the Koran to herself while on break on school property though. Just as I did with the Bible.

[J.T]

Actually , as any literate person could tell you, I made it clear that I do NOT favor making ANY church part of a school curriculum.

:lol:


It's a tiny fraction of atheists who are raising a fuss about the matters that they don't really have a right to object to. On the other hand, there's a small fraction of Christians in the US who continually try to marry their faith with the power of government particularly in public schools with crap like moments of silence at the start of the school day and trying to get the Bible added as a science text book.


Got news for you my friend. That tiny portion has the right to do so..


:slap:

[ConHog]

:lol:






:slap:



Thanks for going to all the trouble of proving that I did NOT say I favor instituting religion in schools.

[LuvRPgrl]

So you're cool with praying to Allah and incprporating the Koran into the public school curriculem?
?

If they gave us school choice and got the feds out of education completely, where they dont belong anyways, then would be ;fine with that

[chloe]

If we close school and government buildings on christmas then why is it wrong to have crosses as a memorial symbol on the highway patrol? Also why we have "In God we trust" on government money? It just seems liked mixed messages to me.

[LuvRPgrl]

If we close school and government buildings on christmas then why is it wrong to have crosses as a memorial symbol on the highway patrol? Also why we have "In God we trust" on government money? It just seems liked mixed messages to me.

"In God We Trust" wasnt on the coinage during the founding times of our nation.

However, your point about Christmas, as well as a litany of other similar points go unanswered.

[ConHog]

If we close school and government buildings on christmas then why is it wrong to have crosses as a memorial symbol on the highway patrol? Also why we have "In God we trust" on government money? It just seems liked mixed messages to me.



Riddle me this, why has EVERY session of Congress since 1775 opened with a prayer IF mixing religion and government is such a big no no.

[chloe]

Riddle me this, why has EVERY session of Congress since 1775 opened with a prayer IF mixing religion and government is such a big no no.

But I remember when Ronald Reagan was President we were allowed to pray at school.

[LuvRPgrl]

Did you study under obama (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/)?

Why do you have to lie about the premise of the complaint, anyway? Nobody's complaining about the crosses existing. They're complaining about a government agency using the symbolism of a given religion, giving the appearance of an official adoption or endorsement of a given religious institution or doctrine by an arm of the State.

Nowhere in my universe, would people be driving by and see the crosses, and KNOW that they were paid for by government funds. They have no way to know, hence they can't be offended, unless they do some research. If they dont want to be offended, don't do the research.

[J.T]

If they gave us school choice and got the feds out of education completely, where they dont belong anyways, then would be ;fine with that

I've read enough writings by the architects of the current system to know exactly what it is and what it's about. I've no love for it. Save for perhaps grants to invest in our people and maybe setting minimum standards, I've yet yo hear anyone put forth any actual case for the fed being involved in education other than the stated purpose of the Carnegies, the NEA, the DoE, and the rest of the establishment:
[CENTER]
occasional letter number one 1906, rockefeller's general education board:
In our dreams... people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple... we will organize children... and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

[I]The teacher... can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children... At the very top of all the agencies which will assure the coming world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.
-National Education Association's Joy Elmer Morgan

By 1917, the major administrative jobs in American schooling were under the control of a group referred to in the press of that day as "the Education Trust." The first meeting of this trust included representatives of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the National Education Association. The chief end, wrote Benjamin Kidd, the British evolutionist, in 1918, was to "impose on the young the ideal of subordination."


http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2b.htm

http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-sociological-philosophy-of-education-by-ross-l-finney.jsp

[J.T]

Also why we have "In God we trust" on government money?

Because if we didn't the communists would eat your babies


On July 11, 1954, just one month after the phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance,[7] the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 84-140, which required the motto on all coins and currency. The law was approved by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.

[logroller]

Because if we didn't the communists would eat your babies


I suspected as much.

[logroller]

If we close school and government buildings on christmas then why is it wrong to have crosses as a memorial symbol on the highway patrol? ... It just seems liked mixed messages to me.




However, your point about Christmas, as well as a litany of other similar points go unanswered.

Ironically, the time of year we celebrate Christmas has pagan origins.

The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”[3] (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm#_ftn3) Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.[4] (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm#_ftn4) However, Christmas was and still is celebrated by most Christians.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm



Riddle me this, why has EVERY session of Congress since 1775 opened with a prayer IF mixing religion and government is such a big no no.

That's an excellent question. I suppose one has to look at prayer from a non-secular POV; because one person may pray, while another may meditate. It's semantics really, as everyone who endeavors to do something challenging should take the time to focus their efforts; to which prayer or any form of meditation is meant to do. Praise God if you please, but I hope everyone pauses to consider the gravity of their endeavor-- none less so than a public servant. And considering the current state of affairs in Washington, I'd say a little more prayer/meditation/consideration is needed as much now as ever!


But I remember when Ronald Reagan was President we were allowed to pray at school.

What's that quip "so long as there are tests in schools, there will be prayer in schools"



Nowhere in my universe, would people be driving by and see the crosses, and KNOW that they were paid for by government funds. They have no way to know, hence they can't be offended, unless they do some research. If they dont want to be offended, don't do the research.

Ignorance is bliss? Ida know RP; it seems govt has prayed for...err, I mean preyed upon public ignorance for far too long!

[ConHog]

I've read enough writings by the architects of the current system to know exactly what it is and what it's about. I've no love for it. Save for perhaps grants to invest in our people and maybe setting minimum standards, I've yet yo hear anyone put forth any actual case for the fed being involved in education other than the stated purpose of the Carnegies, the NEA, the DoE, and the rest of the establishment:
[CENTER]
occasional letter number one 1906, rockefeller's general education board:
In our dreams... people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple... we will organize children... and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

[I]The teacher... can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children... At the very top of all the agencies which will assure the coming world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.
-National Education Association's Joy Elmer Morgan

By 1917, the major administrative jobs in American schooling were under the control of a group referred to in the press of that day as "the Education Trust." The first meeting of this trust included representatives of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the National Education Association. The chief end, wrote Benjamin Kidd, the British evolutionist, in 1918, was to "impose on the young the ideal of subordination."


http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2b.htm

http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-sociological-philosophy-of-education-by-ross-l-finney.jsp


that's a whole nother topic, but we absolutely need a central national authority imposing standards on schools. Else you would see kids in say Connecticut receiving an education far superior to kids in say Mississippi. There is a gap anyway, removed the federal standards and it would be even worse.

[chloe]

Ironically, the time of year we celebrate Christmas has pagan origins.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm




That's an excellent question. I suppose one has to look at prayer from a non-secular POV; because one person may pray, while another may meditate. It's semantics really, as everyone who endeavors to do something challenging should take the time to focus their efforts; to which prayer or any form of meditation is meant to do. Praise God if you please, but I hope everyone pauses to consider the gravity of their endeavor-- none less so than a public servant. And considering the current state of affairs in Washington, I'd say a little more prayer/meditation/consideration is needed as much now as ever!



What's that quip "so long as there are tests in schools, there will be prayer in schools"




Ignorance is bliss? Ida know RP; it seems govt has prayed for...err, I mean preyed upon public ignorance for far too long!

Ain't paganism a religion ? Whether they closed for that or christmas it still closing for a religion, I just think the government does have religion mixed in and so it's strange to have some things be ok and some not with the atheists. I wonder if that atheist camp for kids where they sing songs and read stories about evolution is non-profit, I think its strange to be so organized that way and so "religiously" active in shutting down religion :laugh2:


Ohhh Yeah Prayer in school well I never thought about the commies, I was too busy daydreaming about my autographed glossy of Ronald Reagan as my prayers were answered he wrote me back;)

[Gunny]

True only in those areas where the fed has any authority in the first place.

I guess you never reached the Tenth during those eight years of sleeping in class :laugh:



:slap:

A separate topic; however, the US Federal Government emasculated the 10th Amendment by force of arms and has had its way with it ever since. All anyone really has to be is "poor, downtrodden", aberrant minority and make it to the Supreme Court and the 10th means nothing.

[Gunny]

I have news for you, friend...I've never said anything remotely like it, nor would I. I would expect a public official to concentrate on the mundane, not the spritual...they're getting paid to concentrate on the mundane.

Right. Because Heaven forbid we continue to use the same symbol in honor of the dead we have for 2000+ years because some ne'er-do-well miscreants want to whine about how offended they are, never giving one second of thought to how offensive THEY are.

[J.T]

we absolutely need a central national authority imposing standards on schools. Else you would see kids in say Connecticut receiving an education far superior to kids in say Mississippi.

Why do you make this assumption? Are Conneticutians smarter than Missourians?

[ConHog]

Why do you make this assumption? Are Conneticutians smarter than Missourians?

It's not an assumption, it's an opinion based on cumulative test scores from various states as well as percentage of students who go onto college. Which CONSISTENTLY show that some states are far ahead of other states in terms of educating children than other states.

Or are you advocating that folks have a right to move to a state that doesn't care that much about education and not be bothered about it by the the federal government if they wish?

[J.T]

It's not an assumption, it's an opinion based on cumulative test scores from various states as well as percentage of students who go onto college. Which CONSISTENTLY show that some states are far ahead of other states in terms of educating children than other states.

If they can't provide better education as is, how would changing the federal standard suddenly change that?


Or are you advocating that folks have a right to move to a state that doesn't care that much about education and not be bothered about it by the the federal government if they wish?
I think States should be required to make a sufficient education available. I don't think we should force people to attend. If you prefer to not possess the basic skills you need to survive, that's your prerogative- but you won't qualify for any government aid if you opt out of school.

[ConHog]

If they can't provide better education as is, how would changing the federal standard suddenly change that?


I think States should be required to make a sufficient education available. I don't think we should force people to attend. If you prefer to not possess the basic skills you need to survive, that's your prerogative- but you won't qualify for any government aid if you opt out of school.

You missed my point. I said there is already a gap, imagine how much that gap would grow if the feds stepped out and each state was allowed to do whatever.

As for non mandatory attendance. That's just dumb, children can't decide for themselves whether they want to attend school, and frankly there are a bunch of dumb shit parents out there who shouldn't be parents who definitely do NOT need the "right" to keep their children out of school. That is frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read. No offense intended.

[J.T]

I always knew you were a big-government leftist, prisonpig. We can't trust parents- we can't have them rearing independent, intelligent citizenry. The government must step in and replace the parent completely, taking over the role of rearing, education, and indoctrinating the next generation. Only we, the NEA, the political elites, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers- the superior race and class- know what is best for your children...

Sad thing is you don't even know whose shit you're parroting... do you?

The Dept of Ed. was founded in 1979. Do tell me how our education has progressed since then, and how our performance compared to other nations has tended.

Your rhetoric is meaningless bullshit, mr piggy.

Results, not rhetoric, must guide policy and Law (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505).

[ConHog]

I always knew you were a big-government leftist, prisonpig. We can't trust parents- we can't have them rearing independent, intelligent citizenry. The government must step in and replace the parent completely, taking over the role of rearing, education, and indoctrinating the next generation. Only we, the NEA, the political elites, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers- the superior race and class- know what is best for your children...

Sad thing is you don't even know whose shit you're parroting... do you?

The Dept of Ed. was founded in 1979. Do tell me how our education has progressed since then, and how our performance compared to other nations has tended.

Your rhetoric is meaningless bullshit, mr piggy.

Results, not rhetoric, must guide policy and Law (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505).


Nice babble. You've ALWAYS known? I've been on the board two days. LOL


Oh and on the subject, you can't compare what happened in the 1960s to what is happening today. People are dumber now then they were then.

And yes, the government SHOULD step in when parents aren't doing their jobs and meeting minimal standards, do you believe the state should step in when a parent isn't feeding their children? That is hardly the same thing as saying government should take over for ALL parents. Cry wolf much?

By the way, my mistake for thinking you were an adult capable of adult conversation, consider this one over.

[J.T]

Nice babble. You've ALWAYS known? I've been on the board two days. LOL

Not very bright, are you, Pinky?

June 2010

Oh and on the subject, you can't compare what happened in the 1960s to what is happening today. People are dumber now then they were then.

A triumph of the Dept. of Education and increased federal meddling in the 'education' system...

You're not helping your case :laugh:


And yes, the government SHOULD step in when parents aren't doing their jobs and meeting minimal standards, do you believe the state should step in when a parent isn't feeding their children? That is hardly the same thing as saying government should take over for ALL parents
And yet here you are, arguing they need to take over the rearing, education, and socialization of all children through compulsory participation in a federally regulated government-run 'education' system...


By the way, my mistake for thinking you were an adult capable of adult conversation, consider this one over.

Yes, run away, piggy. Run away from the facts like you always do.

[Abbey Marie]

...
So the State can impose Sharia law if it wants without violating the First Amendment? :laugh:
...



That's a Grand Canyon-sized leap, going from allowing a religious display (even on government property), to imposing Sharia Law.

Extreme exaggeration rarely works as a debate device. And I can tell you that people here are not going to be fooled by it.

[J.T]

That's a Grand Canyon-sized leap, going from allowing a religious display (even on government property), to imposing Sharia Law.

Extreme exaggeration rarely works as a debate device. And I can tell you that people here are not going to be fooled by it.

:slap:

Are you a liar, a retard, or both?

Read my post again. Read what it was posted in response to. Read what that was responding to. See if you can exercise some critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and follow the discussion.

[KartRacerBoy]

JT, are you the simple, vicious creature known as Vimy on LegacyGT.com?

I'm just asking becz you exhibit the same mean spiritedness, vapid mindedness, and rhetical BS that Vimy did.

And most important, do you treat people the same way in person? If you do, can you post the videos of you getting beat up on a regular basis?

Please?

[Nukeman]

:slap:

Are you a liar, a retard, or both?

Read my post again. Read what it was posted in response to. Read what that was responding to. See if you can exercise some critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and follow the discussion.I'm going to stand by Abby on this... You were responding to something that was NEVER stated. YOU brought up the indoctrination of students no one else did (in fact it was stated repeatedly that they would NOT want ANY children indoctrinated in any religion not even thier own). So whos retarded here......... whos the liar here...... Or are you both?????

[ConHog]

JT, are you the simple, vicious creature known as Vimy on LegacyGT.com?

I'm just asking becz you exhibit the same mean spiritedness, vapid mindedness, and rhetical BS that Vimy did.

And most important, do you treat people the same way in person? If you do, can you post the videos of you getting beat up on a regular basis?

Please?

He's obviously one of the dummies from USMB , just too cowardly to say which one.

[J.T]

I'm going to stand by Abby on this... You were responding to something that was NEVER stated.

O rly? Do cite.


YOU brought up the indoctrination of students no one else did
Let em break this down for your little brain. Try to keep up.

After ConHog voiced support for trying to get religious books included in the curriculum as science books (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31904-American-Atheists-oppose-U.S.-Supreme-Court-review-of-Utah-highway-crosses-case&p=480064#post480064), LuvRPGrl posted


If they gave us school choice and got the feds out of education completely, where they dont belong anyways, then would be ;fine with that
Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I responded by clarifying my position on the current role of the fed in the 'education' system


[CENTER]I've read enough writings by the architects of the current system to know exactly what it is and what it's about. I've no love for it. Save for perhaps grants to invest in our people and maybe setting minimum standards, I've yet to hear anyone put forth any actual case for the fed being involved in education other than the stated purpose of the Carnegies, the NEA, the DoE, and the rest of the establishment...

Too many bog words for you?

[ConHog]

O rly? Do cite.

Let em break this down for your little brain. Try to keep up.

After ConHog voiced support for trying to get religious books included in the curriculum as science books (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31904-American-Atheists-oppose-U.S.-Supreme-Court-review-of-Utah-highway-crosses-case&p=480064#post480064), LuvRPGrl posted


Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I responded by clarifying my position on the current role of the fed in the 'education' system



Too many bog words for you?


Awful early in the morning to be drinking isn't it? Where sir did I voice support for such?

[J.T]

Awful early in the morning to be drinking isn't it? Where sir did I voice support for such?

Click on the blue text, genius. And yes, you should stop drinking so early in the day.

[ConHog]

Click on the blue text, genius. And yes, you should stop drinking so early in the day.



Oh, I seen the link, I just fail to see where it says what you claim it does.

[J.T]

Awful early in the morning to be drinking isn't it? Where sir did I voice support for such?Your functional illiteracy strikes again, i see.
there's a small fraction of Christians in the US who continually try to marry their faith with the power of government... and trying to get the Bible added as a science text boo



Got news for you my friend. That tiny portion has the right to do so.
You said I've a right to try to force public schools to teach, in science class, that the world was created by Enki and Man was created by the gods as a slave race to mine gold.

Then you lied about what missileman said and went on the standard 'I'm a persecuted majority' rant.

[ConHog]

Your functional illiteracy strikes again, i see.



You said I've a right to try to force public schools to teach, in science class, that the world was created by Enki and Man was created by the gods as a slave race to mine gold.

Then you lied about what missileman said and went on the standard 'I'm a persecuted majority' rant.



Damn , you're ignorant. People absolutely do have the right to try to change any law they wish to see changed. Stating that means I support their right to try, it doesn't mean I support their goals. You ignorant sumbitch.

[J.T]

Damn , you're ignorant. People absolutely do have the right to try to change any law they wish to see changed. Stating that means I support their right to try, it doesn't mean I support their goals. You ignorant sumbitch.

So you support the right to try to enforce Sharia law or the Jewish right to rape laws in America and subject the entire nation to OBL's interpretation of the Qu'ran?

[ConHog]

So you support the right to try to enforce Sharia law or the Jewish right to rape laws in America and subject the entire nation to OBL's interpretation of the Qu'ran?



Sure do, even if said proposals violate the COTUS we have a process for amending said document. Now , the process is extraordinarily difficult, and with good reason, so it is unlikely that either of your two ridiculous hypotheticals would EVER come to pass; BUT Americans have the right to try if they wish.

[Nukeman]

O rly? Do cite.

Let em break this down for your little brain. Try to keep up.

After ConHog voiced support for trying to get religious books included in the curriculum as science books (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31904-American-Atheists-oppose-U.S.-Supreme-Court-review-of-Utah-highway-crosses-case&p=480064#post480064), LuvRPGrl posted


Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I responded by clarifying my position on the current role of the fed in the 'education' system



Too many bog words for you?My litttle brain... thats cute coming from you!!! I tried your link... no where does it state what YOU are trying to imply.....

The fed has screwed the educational system forwards and backwards, you my friend are a shinig example of that. Blame others and put words in their mouths.... yep proud product of the federal educational system..

Ohh I hope I didn't use to many "BOG" words for you to wrap your tiny little head around...

[Abbey Marie]

:slap:

Are you a liar, a retard, or both?

Read my post again. Read what it was posted in response to. Read what that was responding to. See if you can exercise some critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and follow the discussion.

I don't need to read anything again. You made the statement- back it up.
Oh wait; you can't.

I believe I have told you before that name-calling is a clear sign that you are not a competent debater. If you think this amateurish display will get a rise out of me, you don't know me.

We have some strong guys on the board- perhaps they can help you lift the rock you crawled out from?

[J.T]

The fed has screwed the educational system forwards and backwards
So all your rant is to say J.T is right (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31904-American-Atheists-oppose-U.S.-Supreme-Court-review-of-Utah-highway-crosses-case&p=480263#post480263)?


I always knew you were a big-government leftist, prisonpig. We can't trust parents- we can't have them rearing independent, intelligent citizenry. The government must step in and replace the parent completely, taking over the role of rearing, education, and indoctrinating the next generation. Only we, the NEA, the political elites, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers- the superior race and class- know what is best for your children...

Sad thing is you don't even know whose shit you're parroting... do you?

The Dept of Ed. was founded in 1979. Do tell me how our education has progressed since then, and how our performance compared to other nations has tended.

Your rhetoric is meaningless bullshit, mr piggy.

Results, not rhetoric, must guide policy and Law (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505).

:slap:



, you my friend are a shinig example of that

And you're about to try to rip on a typo :laugh:

[Nukeman]

So all your rant is to say J.T is right (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31904-American-Atheists-oppose-U.S.-Supreme-Court-review-of-Utah-highway-crosses-case&p=480263#post480263)?



:slap:


And you're about to try to rip on a typo :laugh:you have NOT clarified your point or even given proof of what you stated. Now put up or shut up!!!! who first brought up the indoctrination of students???

[J.T]

you have NOT clarified your point or even given proof of what you stated?

:lol:




I've read enough writings by the architects of the current system to know exactly what it is and what it's about. I've no love for it. Save for perhaps grants to invest in our people and maybe setting minimum standards, I've yet yo hear anyone put forth any actual case for the fed being involved in education other than the stated purpose of the Carnegies, the NEA, the DoE, and the rest of the establishment:
[CENTER]
occasional letter number one 1906, rockefeller's general education board:
In our dreams... people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple... we will organize children... and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

[I]The teacher... can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children... At the very top of all the agencies which will assure the coming world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.
-National Education Association's Joy Elmer Morgan

By 1917, the major administrative jobs in American schooling were under the control of a group referred to in the press of that day as "the Education Trust." The first meeting of this trust included representatives of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the National Education Association. The chief end, wrote Benjamin Kidd, the British evolutionist, in 1918, was to "impose on the young the ideal of subordination."


http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2b.htm

http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-sociological-philosophy-of-education-by-ross-l-finney.jsp


If they can't provide better education as is, how would changing the federal standard suddenly change that?


I think States should be required to make a sufficient education available. I don't think we should force people to attend. If you prefer to not possess the basic skills you need to survive, that's your prerogative- but you won't qualify for any government aid if you opt out of school.



I always knew you were a big-government leftist, prisonpig. We can't trust parents- we can't have them rearing independent, intelligent citizenry. The government must step in and replace the parent completely, taking over the role of rearing, education, and indoctrinating the next generation. Only we, the NEA, the political elites, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers- the superior race and class- know what is best for your children...

Sad thing is you don't even know whose shit you're parroting... do you?

The Dept of Ed. was founded in 1979. Do tell me how our education has progressed since then, and how our performance compared to other nations has tended.

Your rhetoric is meaningless bullshit, mr piggy.

Results, not rhetoric, must guide policy and Law (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505).

[ConHog]

:lol:



I think everyone, and I know I AM, is clamoring for you to prove your claim that I support indoctrinating kids into Christianity in school. You make this claim with NO quote of me saying that AND in spite of the FACT that I posted exactly the opposite. I do NOT condone teaching religion in school.

[LuvRPgrl]

that's a whole nother topic, but we absolutely need a central national authority imposing standards on schools. Else you would see kids in say Connecticut receiving an education far superior to kids in say Mississippi. There is a gap anyway, removed the federal standards and it would be even worse.

I dont think it would create a gap, and even if it did, giving the feds any power at all isnt worth the price. Ultimately, federal power will destory our success.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=J.T;480251 If you prefer to not possess the basic skills you need to survive, that's your prerogative- but you won't qualify for any government aid if you opt out of school.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but that CAN'T happen, its illegal and always will be.

[ConHog]

I dont think it would create a gap, and even if it did, giving the feds any power at all isnt worth the price. Ultimately, federal power will destory our success.


I'm on my third term on a local school board, and it is SCARY what some people want to do if the feds (and to be fair the state) would let them.

Just as one example, do away with the DoE and many states would completely ignore Title IX. Meaning little Janey wouldn't get to play softball because Coach Smith wanted all the money to go towards his football team.

You don't believe that would happen, I got news for you...............

[J.T]

many states would completely ignore Title IX. Meaning little Janey wouldn't get to play softball because Coach Smith wanted all the money to go towards his football team.


Why should I be forced to pay for girls' softball if the I and the rest of the parents don't want girls' softball? We want a football team for our sons. Let's hold a vote on it.

As for title nine- are you familiar with the law of unintended consequences?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaGYYZihSXw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsDwL19SuUc

Thanks to Title 9, cheerleading was deemed not-a-sport (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=easterbrook/100727). The problem is that this decision has had far-reaching and terrible effects for the girls involved by making cheerleading exempt from the same safety rules that apply to sports.

Of course, if cheerleading is deemed a sport, then a school with exactly one boy interested in cheer must have a male cheerleading team and coach or deny the girls a cheerleading team, lest someone cry sexism. So rather than Janey not being able to play softball, she and 18 other girls now lose their cheer squad.

[LuvRPgrl]

:slap:

Are you a liar, a retard, or both?

Read my post again. Read what it was posted in response to. Read what that was responding to. See if you can exercise some critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and follow the discussion.

Chill out on your red horse dude. So easily throwing out insults against almost everyone just goes to show you are out of control and benefits NOBODY.

All you are doing is making enemies. Even those who oppose kartracerboy on everything, applauded when he called you out on your vicousness. If you really want a fight and to make enemies, (not the goal here) them go to Democratunderground.com and allow us adults to have a somewhat civil, sometimes heated conversation.

[ConHog]

Why should I be forced to pay for girls' softball if the I and the rest of the parents don't want girls' softball? We want a football team for our sons. Let's hold a vote on it.

As for title nine- are you familiar with the law of unintended consequences?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaGYYZihSXw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsDwL19SuUc

Thanks to Title 9, cheerleading was deemed not-a-sport (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=easterbrook/100727). The problem is that this decision has had far-reaching and terrible effects for the girls involved by making cheerleading exempt from the same safety rules that apply to sports.

Of course, if cheerleading is deemed a sport, then a school with exactly one boy interested in cheer must have a male cheerleading team and coach or deny the girls a cheerleading team, lest someone cry sexism. So rather than Janey not being able to play softball, she and 18 other girls now lose their cheer squad.


Oh I see, so you are FOR being allowed to deny rights and priveleges based on sex, if the majority agree, but not for doing the same based on sexuality?


What a hypocritical retard you are.

Don't expect further conversation from me in this thread.

[LuvRPgrl]

O rly? , LuvRPGrl posted


Whatever that's supposed to mean.

?

That was a response to a question YOU asked. Now, if anyone is deserving insults .....but I refrain.....

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm on my third term on a local school board, and it is SCARY what some people want to do if the feds (and to be fair the state) would let them.

Just as one example, do away with the DoE and many states would completely ignore Title IX. Meaning little Janey wouldn't get to play softball because Coach Smith wanted all the money to go towards his football team.

You don't believe that would happen, I got news for you...............

Dont pull a JT on me. I didnt say that.
There are other solutions my friend.
The feds are NEVER the best solution.
I don't even think the feds, or the civil war was the answer for ending slavery, racism, and giving equal civil rights to minorities, women and kids.

There are always better solutions.

[J.T]

Oh I see, so you are FOR being allowed to deny rights and priveleges based on sex, if the majority agree, but not for doing the same based on sexuality?

:rolleyes:

:slap:

What rights are being denied anyone by not forcing schools to either get rid of after-school activies for students or waste money on programs in which no students are interested?

[ConHog]

Dont pull a JT on me. I didnt say that.
There are other solutions my friend.
The feds are NEVER the best solution.
I don't even think the feds, or the civil war was the answer for ending slavery, racism, and giving equal civil rights to minorities, women and kids.

There are always better solutions.


I agree that the federal government is seldom, if ever , the ideal solution, BUT they can provide a suitable framework to have a solution. So, yes I do believe the DoE has too much power, and too much control, but destroying it is NOT the best option. Scaling down? You bet; but the federal government is the ONLY entity which can do certain things.

[ConHog]

:rolleyes:

:slap:

What rights are being denied anyone by not forcing schools to either get rid of after-school activies for students or waste money on programs in which no students are interested?


Sir, NO school is forced to field an athletic program that no children are interested in. A waiver can be obtained if a school simply doesn't have enough girls to play enough sports to equal the boy's sports; for example. But THAT is not what you said. Instead you said that you should be allowed to vote to deny girls a softball team if you wanted to. No you should NOT be able to do so.

Thank you for providing evidence of exactly what I was saying. You can't trust idiots to do what is right.

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree that the federal government is seldom, if ever , the ideal solution, BUT they can provide a suitable framework to have a solution. So, yes I do believe the DoE has too much power, and too much control, but destroying it is NOT the best option. Scaling down? You bet; but the federal government is the ONLY entity which can do certain things.

Whether the country sees immediate benefits from actions of the feds, doesnt make it right.
REGARDLESS of the real or potential benefits, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SIMPLY NOT SUPPOSE TO HAVE AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR LIVES, INCLUDING EDUCATION

Every time the feds make a power grab of any type whatsoever, it is one step closer to the abolition of our rights and country. THE END.!!!
.......Any power the federal govt has that isnt absolutely necessary for the country to function, NOT PROSPER, but to function, any such power is a direct antithesis of the principles that the Founding Fathers and American people were willing to die for to create our country.

That is why they are dumbing down our children. The less a generation knows about our history, the easier it is for the feds to grab more power.

[ConHog]

Whether the country sees immediate benefits from actions of the feds, doesnt make it right.
REGARDLESS of the real or potential benefits, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SIMPLY NOT SUPPOSE TO HAVE AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR LIVES, INCLUDING EDUCATION



Meh, that's debatable. I would certainly contend that an educated citizenry is vital to the welfare of our nation. Of course we could debate forever about whether the government provides that.

Are you suggesting that there should in fact be NO federal guidelines?

Oh, here's something to that you may or may not know. Almost every state spends more on education then they themselves collect in revenue targeted for said education. Without federal dollars their intake would be FAR less than it is currently. Now it COULD be argued that if the federal government got out of the equation that education would be far less expensive, but even that is debatable because we simply don't know what states would do.

[J.T]

That is why they are dumbing down our children. The less a generation knows about our history, the easier it is for the feds to grab more power.

As I said,



I've read enough writings by the architects of the current system to know exactly what it is and what it's about. I've no love for it. Save for perhaps grants to invest in our people and maybe setting minimum standards, I've yet yo hear anyone put forth any actual case for the fed being involved in education other than the stated purpose of the Carnegies, the NEA, the DoE, and the rest of the establishment:
[CENTER]
occasional letter number one 1906, rockefeller's general education board:
In our dreams... people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple... we will organize children... and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

[I]The teacher... can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children... At the very top of all the agencies which will assure the coming world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.
-National Education Association's Joy Elmer Morgan

By 1917, the major administrative jobs in American schooling were under the control of a group referred to in the press of that day as "the Education Trust." The first meeting of this trust included representatives of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the National Education Association. The chief end, wrote Benjamin Kidd, the British evolutionist, in 1918, was to "impose on the young the ideal of subordination."


http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2b.htm

http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-sociological-philosophy-of-education-by-ross-l-finney.jsp

[J.T]

Oh, here's something to that you may or may not know. Almost every state spends more on education then they themselves collect in revenue targeted for said education. Without federal dollars their intake would be FAR less than it is currently.

What if the States start collecting some of the taxes the Fed has been taking?

[ConHog]

What if the States start collecting some of the taxes the Fed has been taking?



The last figures I seen, and I seen the actual paperwork so no link, showed that 38 states would absolutely without doubt lose money if the DoE were defunded and each state kept their own money, in other words the other 12 states are paying in enough that the 38 can be funded.

[fj1200]

The last figures I seen, and I seen the actual paperwork so no link, showed that 38 states would absolutely without doubt lose money if the DoE were defunded and each state kept their own money, in other words the other 12 states are paying in enough that the 38 can be funded.

First I'd say you have to show that the spending correlates to achievement.

Our ruling

During her trip to Florida, Rhee said that Americans, in the last 30 years, "have more than doubled the amount of money we are spending per child (on education) … and the results have gotten worse, not better."

Per-pupil education spending has grown significantly over the past 30 years, and the United States spends among the most to educate its K-12 students. But to say that student results have gotten worse is simplifying things a bit.

Maybe the return for the increased spending isn't what people want, but student performance in math and reading has improved slightly over the past 30 years, according to statistics kept by the U.S. Department of Education. Different assessments essentially show that U.S. students have failed to make the gains that other countries have. But they haven't showed U.S. students performing worse. We rate this claim Half True.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/feb/17/michelle-rhee/michelle-rhee-tells-florida-legislators-spending-e/

And from what I can tell the ED budget is slightly less than 10% of total K-12 education spending so their contribution to state expenditures would certainly be less than that after paying for 5,000 staffers. It also reinforces the view that Federal support is actually helpful in maintaining our standards rather than the correct focus of local control.

[ConHog]

First I'd say you have to show that the spending correlates to achievement.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/feb/17/michelle-rhee/michelle-rhee-tells-florida-legislators-spending-e/

And from what I can tell the ED budget is slightly less than 10% of total K-12 education spending so their contribution to state expenditures would certainly be less than that after paying for 5,000 staffers. It also reinforces the view that Federal support is actually helpful in maintaining our standards rather than the correct focus of local control.

Spending does NOT correlate to achievement. THat is one of the frustrating things about being on a school board, people just think that throwing more money, usually someone elses money, at the problem will make things better. Not true.

I'm simply telling you that in MY experience, without some sort of overall framework to work within local people can be downright stupid when it comes to education. We've already seen one person in this thread who would advocate allowing people not to even school their children at all if they wished, we've seen another person advocate being allowed to vote not to allow girl's sports if they wished. Etc, etc, etc.

Please note, that overall framework is not micromanaging, I DO believe that local schools should have a lot more freedom then they currently do in terms of forming curriculum, lesson planning, and things like that. But you can't let some local school board in rural Alabama, for instance, have the ability to decide that their students don't need science classes. Or schools in Texas deciding that football is more important than education. And every single one of us KNOWS that without a doubt those things would happen if local school boards were given autonomy.

[Gunny]

:slap:

Are you a liar, a retard, or both?

Read my post again. Read what it was posted in response to. Read what that was responding to. See if you can exercise some critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and follow the discussion.

I assure you she is neither. She's also not a rude fuck, like.

The fact that most of you Godless/God-hating types like to purposefully overlook is the Constitution says that government cannot form a religion. It does NOT say religion cannot be in government. You semantics-playing types that demand specific rules for each and every occasion are the ones who totally against the words you preach. You would legislate everything.

Not to mention your hypocrisy. You blame religion for trying to force itself on others, but just what the Hell do you think you're doing with YOUR religion of non-belief? Same damned thing. How are you bigger and smarter than "us" when you just do the same damned thing you accuse, with little to no evidence I might add, "us" of doing to you?

Typical progressive, wannabe intellectual smoke and mirrors. The best defense is a good offense right?

[Gunny]

JT, are you the simple, vicious creature known as Vimy on LegacyGT.com?

I'm just asking becz you exhibit the same mean spiritedness, vapid mindedness, and rhetical BS that Vimy did.

And most important, do you treat people the same way in person? If you do, can you post the videos of you getting beat up on a regular basis?

Please?

Thought you were all smart n stuff. If this thread's getting into nothing but personal attacks from here on out, I got a place to put it.

[Gunny]

Allow me to rephrase. Knock off the insults and bring an argument based on the topic or anything it morphed into EXCEPT a thread of personal attacks. Thank you.

[logroller]

First I'd say you have to show that the spending correlates to achievement.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/feb/17/michelle-rhee/michelle-rhee-tells-florida-legislators-spending-e/

And from what I can tell the ED budget is slightly less than 10% of total K-12 education spending so their contribution to state expenditures would certainly be less than that after paying for 5,000 staffers. It also reinforces the view that Federal support is actually helpful in maintaining our standards rather than the correct focus of local control.

"ED". My first thought was "yeah, there were some real dicks where I went to school. Something should be done about their dysfunction.":laugh2:

[KartRacerBoy]

Allow me to rephrase. Knock off the insults and bring an argument based on the topic or anything it morphed into EXCEPT a thread of personal attacks. Thank you.


Message received, but is it ok to just blend in the personal attacks into one's "argument" as JT does in every single post? Should I just use "tone"? Just wondering.

[KartRacerBoy]

Thought you were all smart n stuff. If this thread's getting into nothing but personal attacks from here on out, I got a place to put it.

Nice. A personal attack in a post asking me to stop personal attacks. :laugh:

But nicely rephrased. Good save.

And I am all smart n stuff. Envy me.

[J.T]

Spending does NOT correlate to achievement.

So what was your point with this one?


The last figures I seen, and I seen the actual paperwork so no link, showed that 38 states would absolutely without doubt lose money if the DoE were defunded and each state kept their own money, in other words the other 12 states are paying in enough that the 38 can be funded.

[J.T]

religion of non-belief?

:lol:

Impossible by definition, my illiterate friend.

Religion is, by definition, a set of beliefs.


Definition of RELIGION1
a : the state of a religious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious) <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscientiousness)

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

— re·li·gion·less adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg See religion defined for English-language learners » (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/religion)


See religion defined for kids » (http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=religion)


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion




Don't worry though, friend. It is my moral duty to educate you and make you less stupid, and I shall do my best to make you no longer retarded.

Scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.
-Ludwig von Mises, Socialism

[ConHog]

So what was your point with this one?



Hey someone asked a question about funding, and I answered. That doesn't mean I think money is a cure all.

[ConHog]

:lol:

Impossible by definition, my illiterate friend.

Religion is, by definition, a set of beliefs.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion




Don't worry though, friend. It is my moral duty to educate you and make you less stupid, and I shall do my best to make you no longer retarded.

Scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.
-Ludwig von Mises, Socialism








Oh good grief, he wasn't literally saying atheism is a religion. Not anymore than when someone says "your worship the dollar bill" do they literally mean you're sitting in a chapel praying to a dollar bill.

I HOPE you are smart enough to actually grok that.

I suspect you are, and merely used this as a ruse to avoid the real issue. Why do you feel it's okay to tell me to shut up about my Christianity all the while screaming at the top of your lunges how stupid Christianity is? Don't I have an equal right to not have YOUR beliefs shoved onto me?

[Gunny]

Message received, but is it ok to just blend in the personal attacks into one's "argument" as JT does in every single post? Should I just use "tone"? Just wondering.

The comment wasn't directed at you, personally. As the rules state, it's understood conversations get heated. That's not the same as a flamefest.

[Gunny]

:lol:

Impossible by definition, my illiterate friend.

Religion is, by definition, a set of beliefs.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion




Don't worry though, friend. It is my moral duty to educate you and make you less stupid, and I shall do my best to make you no longer retarded.

Scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.
-Ludwig von Mises, Socialism


Incorrect. For the thousandth time .... What is religion? A belief. What is not believing in religion? A belief in disbelief. But STILL a belief.

Try again.

[Gunny]

Oh good grief, he wasn't literally saying atheism is a religion. Not anymore than when someone says "your worship the dollar bill" do they literally mean you're sitting in a chapel praying to a dollar bill.

I HOPE you are smart enough to actually grok that.

I suspect you are, and merely used this as a ruse to avoid the real issue. Why do you feel it's okay to tell me to shut up about my Christianity all the while screaming at the top of your lunges how stupid Christianity is? Don't I have an equal right to not have YOUR beliefs shoved onto me?

Oh yes I was. Organized atheism is nost definitely a religion. Harken back the OP ... American Atheists Inc ... organized atheism. It's as much a religion by definition as any other.

[ConHog]

Oh yes I was. Organized atheism is nost definitely a religion. Harken back the OP ... American Atheists Inc ... organized atheism. It's as much a religion by definition as any other.



I guess when I think of religeon, I think of an organization that believes in a deity of some sort. That is just my opinion though. Sorry if I stepped on toes.

[logroller]

I guess when I think of religeon, I think of an organization that believes in a deity of some sort. That is just my opinion though. Sorry if I stepped on toes.

It's tough to define anything which is faith based because faith differs among all individuals, let alone groups. I stand by religion involving man's attempts to describe and explain the meaning and purpose of existence. That seems to resound among all historical reference to "religion"-- Fair enough?

[J.T]

Incorrect. For the thousandth time .... What is religion? A belief. What is not believing in religion?

Not believing. A lack of a belief. It's right there in your own words, you illiterate baboon.



A belief in disbelief. But STILL a belief.

Non-belief cannot be belief. They are antonyms (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antonyms).

http://www.homeworkspot.com/high/english/

http://www.amazon.com/Epistemology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0415281091

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Epistemology-Introducing-Philosophy/dp/0631202137

http://www.deepershopping.com/item/michael-williams/problems-of-knowledge-a-critical-introduction-to/160384.html

Care to try again?

[J.T]

Oh yes I was. Organized atheism is nost definitely a religion. Harken back the OP ... American Atheists Inc ... organized atheism. It's as much a religion by definition as any other.

So republicans is a religion? They're organized, they have their own leadership, they have not only shared opiions but a rigid dogma to which members are expected to adhere- they even have a whip (http://majoritywhip.house.gov/) to keep everyone in line if they dare to question the gospel of republican fiscal policy and militarism.

[J.T]

It's tough to define anything which is faith based because faith differs among all individuals

Not really. Faith is intellectual cowardice, plain and simple. 'Belief without evidence'- because thinking is hard.

BionicDance's recent video comes to mind.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgYr1UhtpTA

[fj1200]

Spending does NOT correlate to achievement. THat is one of the frustrating things about being on a school board, people just think that throwing more money, usually someone elses money, at the problem will make things better. Not true.

I'm simply telling you that in MY experience, without some sort of overall framework to work within local people can be downright stupid when it comes to education. We've already seen one person in this thread who would advocate allowing people not to even school their children at all if they wished, we've seen another person advocate being allowed to vote not to allow girl's sports if they wished. Etc, etc, etc.

Please note, that overall framework is not micromanaging, I DO believe that local schools should have a lot more freedom then they currently do in terms of forming curriculum, lesson planning, and things like that. But you can't let some local school board in rural Alabama, for instance, have the ability to decide that their students don't need science classes. Or schools in Texas deciding that football is more important than education. And every single one of us KNOWS that without a doubt those things would happen if local school boards were given autonomy.

I would say that Texas by and large thinks that way. :laugh: I would posit that Federal involvement is counterproductive to progress because its largess only feeds into the current existing systems that are already doing a poor job. Just by taking Federal influence out doesn't dumb down to the lowest denominator, the states are still in a position of control that allows them to set the standards.

[LuvRPgrl]

Message received, but is it ok to just blend in the personal attacks into one's "argument" as JT does in every single post? Should I just use "tone"? Just wondering.

Are you striving to be like JT????

[ConHog]

I would say that Texas by and large thinks that way. :laugh: I would posit that Federal involvement is counterproductive to progress because its largess only feeds into the current existing systems that are already doing a poor job. Just by taking Federal influence out doesn't dumb down to the lowest denominator, the states are still in a position of control that allows them to set the standards.



So it's not controlling the standards you oppose, but rather who controls those standards?

I can assure you that the state is a big of pain in the ass, if not bigger, than the feds when it comes to education; if that is your worry.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not really. Faith is intellectual cowardice, plain and simple. 'Belief without evidence'- because thinking is hard.
o]

Faith is that human trait that allows some of us to do things others claimed was impossible.
It is what seperates us from animals.

Einstein had faith he could come up with the theory of relativity.
Edison has faith he could make a working lightbulb.
Columbus had faith there was another way to India.
George Washington had faith we could win the revolutionary war
AND create a new and better country than ever before.

Without faith, we would all still be huddled in caves, bowing to our great savior and leader of "thinking only" JT.

[ConHog]

Faith is that human trait that allows some of us to do things others claimed was impossible.
It is what seperates us from animals.

Einstein had faith he could come up with the theory of relativity.
Edison has faith he could make a working lightbulb.
Columbus had faith there was another way to India.
George Washington had faith we could win the revolutionary war
AND create a new and better country than ever before.

Without faith, we would all still be huddled in caves, bowing to our great savior and leader of "thinking only" JT.

I suspect JT might still live in a cave. :lol:

[LuvRPgrl]

So it's not controlling the standards you oppose, but rather who controls those standards?

I can assure you that the state is a big of pain in the ass, if not bigger, than the feds when it comes to education; if that is your worry.

You have no clue as to the dangers of the feds getting more involved in education.

[fj1200]

So it's not controlling the standards you oppose, but rather who controls those standards?

I can assure you that the state is a big of pain in the ass, if not bigger, than the feds when it comes to education; if that is your worry.

Local control is superior to Federal control, that's where the accountability should lie. I wish my local would trump state control but in my county, Dekalb, GA, that is clearly not the case. They are not much better than the Atlanta schools which have recently been caught cheating on standardized tests; read teachers/principals having "changing parties" to change student answers on tests.

My highest wish is to break the government monopoly on the delivery of education.

[ConHog]

You have no clue as to the dangers of the feds getting more involved in education.



I don't advocate giving the feds more control. I actually advocate the feds giving locals more freedom; but I am adamantly AGAINST taking the feds out of the education picture altogether.

[logroller]

I don't advocate giving the feds more control. I actually advocate the feds giving locals more freedom; but I am adamantly AGAINST taking the feds out of the education picture altogether.

Aside from the challenges in getting govt to actually relinquishing control once they have it, why? Do you favor Federalism over the Republic?

[ConHog]

Aside from the challenges in getting govt to actually relinquishing control once they have it, why? Do you favor Federalism over the Republic?



I think I have adequately stated my reasons in this thread. It boils down to, I think that kids in Mississippi deserve the same level of education as kids in New York, just as an example. If the feds weren't involved to say "these are the minimums" then many states simply wouldn't rise to the level. That's not saying that everything the federal government does is good, or that everything a state or local government does is bad; BUT someone has to set a national minimum.

I mean what if the USDA shut down and just let every state or locality do whatever they wanted in terms of food safety? It would be scary in areas.

[KartRacerBoy]

Local control is superior to Federal control, that's where the accountability should lie. I wish my local would trump state control but in my county, Dekalb, GA, that is clearly not the case. They are not much better than the Atlanta schools which have recently been caught cheating on standardized tests; read teachers/principals having "changing parties" to change student answers on tests.

My highest wish is to break the government monopoly on the delivery of education.

Don't you love financial teacher incentives for improved class performance?:clap:I hope you remember your Freakonomics.

And I think you overstate the monopoly thing, fj. There are plenty of private schools. Send your kids to one if you don't like public schools.

I think the voucher thing is a bit of a false argument. It's really an argument to get kids with parent that care about education away from kids with parents that don't care (at least in Indiana, charter schools do no better than public schools on performance tests). The kids with parents that care will generally do better than the other kids,, but really the big factor is what is the attitude of family towards education. If they care and have expectations, the kids will be better off.

[ConHog]

Getting back to the OP, I have a serious question. Why are atheists so scared of Christians? The Crusades ended a LONG time ago.

[fj1200]

Don't you love financial teacher incentives for improved class performance?:clap:I hope you remember your Freakonomics.

And I think you overstate the monopoly thing, fj. There are plenty of private schools. Send your kids to one if you don't like public schools.

I think the voucher thing is a bit of a false argument. It's really an argument to get kids with parent that care about education away from kids with parents that don't care (at least in Indiana, charter schools do no better than public schools on performance tests). The kids with parents that care will generally do better than the other kids,, but really the big factor is what is the attitude of family towards education. If they care and have expectations, the kids will be better off.

Those who are most effected by the monopoly thing are those who can least afford to choose other options. And charter schools are treated as the enemy of monopolistic governmental control the local school district and are not given the chance to provide a different education experience. Did I relate our issues with our charter school?

You misunderstand vouchers. It will allow competitors to the monopolistic entity that we are now saddled with. But you're right it is about the family attitude, right now that attitude has zero outlet to be able to make the fundamental changes that are necessary. Sadly, the local school systems are fully accepted of that.

[J.T]

Faith is that human trait that allows some of us to do things others claimed was impossible.

Such as?

Did faith take us to the moon? Or did scientific inquiry, hope, and determination?


It is what seperates us from animals.

No, those of us who are superior to other creatures are set aside by our intellect and capacity for rationality and reason.


Einstein had faith he could come up with the theory of relativity.

Here we go again, changing back and forth between definitions to suit your own dishonest ends. You know damn well what you're doing and I'm not playing that game.


Edison has faith he could make a working lightbulb.

Well, seeing as others already had done so... :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Those who are most effected by the monopoly thing are those who can least afford to choose other options. And charter schools are treated as the enemy of monopolistic governmental control the local school district and are not given the chance to provide a different education experience. Did I relate our issues with our charter school?

You misunderstand vouchers. It will allow competitors to the monopolistic entity that we are now saddled with. But you're right it is about the family attitude, right now that attitude has zero outlet to be able to make the fundamental changes that are necessary. Sadly, the local school systems are fully accepted of that.


In Arkansas we have right to attend. You can send your children to any public school of your choosing. Now in some areas that's not much of an option because the local school might be the only one that is within a reasonable distance. BUT in most areas if you don't like what one school is doing, you do have the option of sending them to another.

We also have charter schools, but only a couple of them.

I dislike the idea of vouchers because all they effectively do is remove the best students from public schools. I'd rather see the entire school strive to rise up to meet the needs of the better students.

My personal opinion is that high schools should be split into two tracks. Career bound and college bound. College isn't for everyone, and those kids who have no desire to attend college don't need to be forced to take classes that hold no appeal for them. I mean does the guy who knows he's going to follow in his father's footsteps and be a farmer REALLY need chemistry? This not only gives them the freedom to take classes that DO appeal to them, it takes what are usually bored students who are likely to cause trouble out of a classroom in which more serious college bound students would actually like to learn without the interruptions. We are working on figuring out a way to do it at our local school.

[J.T]

I dislike the idea of vouchers because all they effectively do is remove the best students from public schools.

And? Shouldn't superior students be allowed to seek out a school in which they achieve the most, just as a better worker should be permitted to seek work someplace where his hard work and natural skills will pay off?


I'd rather see the entire school strive to rise up to meet the needs of the better students.

Why do you treat it as an either-or scenario? Make the schools better and let parents seek out the best schools. Let schools receive funding based on their ability to both attract parents (either through the collection of tuition or as a part of the way we decide what schools to fund) and by the students' ability to perform on independently administered and monitored standardized tests. If you want funding, you need to improve your school and keep your teachers in line so your students succeed and you can attract students.



My personal opinion is that high schools should be split into two tracks. Career bound and college bound. College isn't for everyone, and those kids who have no desire to attend college don't need to be forced to take classes that hold no appeal for them. I mean does the guy who knows he's going to follow in his father's footsteps and be a farmer REALLY need chemistry?

I agree. Ideally, schools should prepare students to succeed in the fields in which they are both capable and interested.

[ConHog]

And? Shouldn't superior students be allowed to seek out a school in which they achieve the most, just as a better worker should be permitted to seek work someplace where his hard work and natural skills will pay off?


Why do you treat it as an either-or scenario? Make the schools better and let parents seek out the best schools. Let schools receive funding based on their ability to both attract parents (either through the collection of tuition or as a part of the way we decide what schools to fund) and by the students' ability to perform on independently administered and monitored standardized tests. If you want funding, you need to improve your school and keep your teachers in line so your students succeed and you can attract students.



I agree. Ideally, schools should prepare students to succeed in the fields in which they are both capable and interested.



Sure they should be allowed to, I just think that generally speaking the kids who WILL take advantage of that are the very last kids schools can afford to lose.

Want to know a secret. Well not so much a secret, but my plan? Ideally I would our local school to no longer exist as a brick and mortar building where kids come to learn everyday within the next 5 years. Sure, the kids who wish to participate in hands on activities , sports, science labs, that sort of thing, will still need to meet but the bulk of studies will be done online from home. Teachers can even teach from home. In fact , teachers won't even have to be employed by our school district. We already have distance learning classes which are taught via the web by teachers who don't even live in Arkansas . How cool would that be, AND how many millions would that save.

Five years I fully plan on having at least half our kids learning at least 1/2 of their studies at home.

[J.T]

Sure they should be allowed to, I just think that generally speaking the kids who WILL take advantage of that are the very last kids schools can afford to lose.

Why? Are they doing the teachers' jobs for them?

[ConHog]

Why? Are they doing the teachers' jobs for them?


Good students boost teacher morale, AND they can provide positive peer pressure to the kids who are less likely to succeed on their own.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't advocate giving the feds more control. I actually advocate the feds giving locals more freedom; but I am adamantly AGAINST taking the feds out of the education picture altogether.

Only problem is, once the feds get their toe in the door, its all over. Its just a matter of time. They will continue to get more & more until they gobble the states up.

.......lIF the states challenge the feds, then it winds up in a federal court, so the feds will be deciding if they get more power or not, not if its rightl or good for the kdis.

Another problem is, once the feds get involved, they start dibursing money but always with strings attatched. Ironically enough, the money they give to the states, was the states money in the first place.
......Then, invariably, I promise you, it will turn into the schools doing what it takes to get more money, NOT BETTER EDUCATION FOR THE KIDS.

[LuvRPgrl]

Such as?

Did faith take us to the moon?
iT Was a component


Or did scientific inquiry, hope, and determination?
both, all three,,,,

[QUOTE=J.T;480658]No, those of us who are superior to other creatures are set aside by our intellect and capacity for rationality and reason.
dolphins??


Here we go again, changing back and forth between definitions to suit your own dishonest ends. You know damn well what you're doing and I'm not playing that game.
Hit A nerve did I??


Well, seeing as others already had done so... :rolleyes:

Then those others had faith also.

You do realize the smartest man who ever lived had faith,,,,

[LuvRPgrl]

Good students boost teacher morale, AND they can provide positive peer pressure to the kids who are less likely to succeed on their own.

So the smarter kids will suffer so the not so smart can do better?

In fifth grade I was tested and wound up going to a special school cuz I was sooo bored in regular class that I didnt wind up listening at all,

[ConHog]

Only problem is, once the feds get their toe in the door, its all over. Its just a matter of time. They will continue to get more & more until they gobble the states up.

.......lIF the states challenge the feds, then it winds up in a federal court, so the feds will be deciding if they get more power or not, not if its rightl or good for the kdis.

Another problem is, once the feds get involved, they start dibursing money but always with strings attatched. Ironically enough, the money they give to the states, was the states money in the first place.
......Then, invariably, I promise you, it will turn into the schools doing what it takes to get more money, NOT BETTER EDUCATION FOR THE KIDS.

What you say about the money is partially true, like I said 12 states receive more money then they pay to the feds in regards to education. But you're right about states end up doing what they need to do to get the money from the feds, not always, but usually. BUT what you are failing to recognize is that by and large the DoE is a group of professionals who sincerely care about kids. At least as much as the state DoE employees do. And of course the feds already have that toe in the door, so I am not advocating giving them anything. I am merely saying kicking them completely out of the room is not a good option either.

[fj1200]

We also have charter schools, but only a couple of them.

I dislike the idea of vouchers because all they effectively do is remove the best students from public schools. I'd rather see the entire school strive to rise up to meet the needs of the better students.

I completely disagree with that rationale because that completely dismisses all faith in a competitive marketplace. Besides the best students, or at least those with the resources, have already removed themselves. Why should we consign everyone else to a second tier system where parents/society needs to hope for a positive outcome which is unlikely based on track records. Unfortunately, the types of voucher programs that are allowed are those that typically provide for half the funds to be spent by the student and also that can't be used in certain schools, etc. It's not even given the chance to succeed so there should be no surprise when it doesn't.

And good luck on your high school experiment, now we also need to get the government from subsidizing college education which only serves to increase the cost.

The FJ education reform plan: ELIMINATE PUBLIC DELIVERY OF EDUCATION

[KartRacerBoy]

Those who are most effected by the monopoly thing are those who can least afford to choose other options. And charter schools are treated as the enemy of monopolistic governmental control the local school district and are not given the chance to provide a different education experience. Did I relate our issues with our charter school?

You misunderstand vouchers. It will allow competitors to the monopolistic entity that we are now saddled with. But you're right it is about the family attitude, right now that attitude has zero outlet to be able to make the fundamental changes that are necessary. Sadly, the local school systems are fully accepted of that.

That whole cross out font thing really amuses you doesn't it? :lol:

I also enjoy your use of the RW lingo, you charter school fanatic. :hide:

[fj1200]

That whole cross out font thing really amuses you doesn't it? :lol:

I love it, I wish I could use it in everyday language you formless blob of human friend. ;)


I also enjoy your use of the RW lingo, you charter school fanatic. :hide:

Charter schools are da' bomb. My pal Barry O. agrees with me.

What RW lingo?

[ConHog]

I completely disagree with that rationale because that completely dismisses all faith in a competitive marketplace. Besides the best students, or at least those with the resources, have already removed themselves. Why should we consign everyone else to a second tier system where parents/society needs to hope for a positive outcome which is unlikely based on track records. Unfortunately, the types of voucher programs that are allowed are those that typically provide for half the funds to be spent by the student and also that can't be used in certain schools, etc. It's not even given the chance to succeed so there should be no surprise when it doesn't.

And good luck on your high school experiment, now we also need to get the government from subsidizing college education which only serves to increase the cost.

The FJ education reform plan: ELIMINATE PUBLIC DELIVERY OF EDUCATION

And I disagree with that. If you start letting people give their children whatever level of education they want to, you WILL have parents choosing to not give them ANY education at all.

As for funding college educations. IMHO the student loans are a joke. What we SHOULD do is offer a simple deal. One year of college free of charge for one year of public service. Be it military, police, teacher, doctor, or even boy scouts, girl scouts, something along those lines. No student loans when you get out of college, you just work the job you agreed to work or you owe the full amount.

[fj1200]

And I disagree with that. If you start letting people give their children whatever level of education they want to, you WILL have parents choosing to not give them ANY education at all.

Not sure which part you disagree with because I didn't say anything about eliminating standards.


As for funding college educations. IMHO the student loans are a joke. What we SHOULD do is offer a simple deal. One year of college free of charge for one year of public service. Be it military, police, teacher, doctor, or even boy scouts, girl scouts, something along those lines. No student loans when you get out of college, you just work the job you agreed to work or you owe the full amount.

How about we just leave loans to the private sector including wiping out student loan non-dischargeability.

[ConHog]

Not sure which part you disagree with because I didn't say anything about eliminating standards.



How about we just leave loans to the private sector including wiping out student loan non-dischargeability.

Because traditional banks are not going to give unsecured loans for college to most students. Unless the government makes them do so. So are you just saying if you can't afford college on your own, tough shit?

[fj1200]

Because traditional banks are not going to give unsecured loans for college to most students. Unless the government makes them do so. So are you just saying if you can't afford college on your own, tough shit?

No, why is it the assumption that we need to make it easy to saddle students with mounds of debt before they are even out and able to earn a living? SLs and other subsidies basically increase the cost of going to school so removing those subsidies would remove the excess cost that is built into the system.

[logroller]

I think I have adequately stated my reasons in this thread. It boils down to, I think that kids in Mississippi deserve the same level of education as kids in New York, just as an example. If the feds weren't involved to say "these are the minimums" then many states simply wouldn't rise to the level. That's not saying that everything the federal government does is good, or that everything a state or local government does is bad; BUT someone has to set a national minimum.

They did, in Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Isn't that a national minimum?


I mean what if the USDA shut down and just let every state or locality do whatever they wanted in terms of food safety? It would be scary in areas.

I thinks there's much stronger arguments for health and commerce-related standards in protecting the rights of individual citizens as being "Necessary and proper". But it's not like states would fail to adopt standards were it not for federal intervention. They'd vary, and if they violated the individual rights of citizens (Separate but Equal, for example), then, and only then IMO, do they have authority to intervene. That's how the federal govt serves as a check upon the state, in determining what CANNOT be done; whereas, in dictating what those standards MUST be, the balance of power between state and federal authority is undermined and states have little recourse for their grievances.

[ConHog]

No, why is it the assumption that we need to make it easy to saddle students with mounds of debt before they are even out and able to earn a living? SLs and other subsidies basically increase the cost of going to school so removing those subsidies would remove the excess cost that is built into the system.


How do they increase the cost of going to school? Explain that one.

[fj1200]

How do they increase the cost of going to school? Explain that one.


What two things do a college education, health care and housing have in common?
One is that the price of these things has been rising at least twice as fast as other prices. The other thing is that they are all subsidized by government.
That is no coincidence. As most economists will admit, the subsidies are deeply implicated in the rapidly rising prices -- so deeply, in fact, that it calls into question whether they do very much for the people they are supposed to help.
...
What all of this suggests is that in a competitive marketplace, government efforts to help people pay for vital services can be self-defeating if they are not properly designed. That's something to consider during what are likely to be heated debates on health care, tax reform and aid to higher education.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23859-2004Nov30.html

With subsidies there is little incentive to continually improve the product and keep costs competitive, rather just keep raising as more and more students keep filling the seats.

[LuvRPgrl]

How do they increase the cost of going to school? Explain that one.
subsidies always suck.
As for the toe in the door, i say kick it out.
Its only a matter of time before they force the door open wider. Guaranteed.
AGAIN, what results you get is speculation and irrelevant anyways. Feds are NOT SUPPOSE to have that power or influence because the Constitution never gave it to them. If you think its a good idea, start an amedndment I know schools were doing fine before any DOE.

[ConHog]

subsidies always suck.
As for the toe in the door, i say kick it out.
Its only a matter of time before they force the door open wider. Guaranteed.
AGAIN, what results you get is speculation and irrelevant anyways. Feds are NOT SUPPOSE to have that power or influence because the Constitution never gave it to them. If you think its a good idea, start an amedndment I know schools were doing fine before any DOE.



I would suggest that at this point it is YOU who would need a constitutional amendment to reach your goals in regards to feds and education.

[LuvRPgrl]

I would suggest that at this point it is YOU who would need a constitutional amendment to reach your goals in regards to feds and education.

The Constitution already clearly states that all powers that are not expressly conferred to the feds, shall by default automatically fall into the hands of the individual States.
Show me in the Constitution where it says the Feds should be involved in primary grade education.

[ConHog]

The Constitution already clearly states that all powers that are not expressly given to the feds, shall by default automatically fall into the hands of the individual States.
Show me in the Constitution where it says the Feds should be involved in primary grade education.



At THIS point that's a moot point.

[chloe]

those dirty rats, those swine:laugh2:



yeah I been watching the turner classic black n white films again, you cads !!!

[J.T]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/27/atheist-group-files-lawsuit-against-display-wtc-cross-at-11-memorial/

Of course, in the middle of a crusade in the middle east and a campaign by the Theocratic Party of Teabaggers, what's one more pronouncement of the religious nature of our struggle against the vile hordes infidels?

[logroller]

The Constitution already clearly states that all powers that are not expressly conferred to the feds, shall by default automatically fall into the hands of the individual States.
Show me in the Constitution where it says the Feds should be involved in primary grade education.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It doesn't say "expressly", though it was considered and not included. Hence the "necessary and proper" clause is cited in support of federal powers in such areas, (especially commerce),but education as well. It's interesting, there seems to be special legal loopholes where the fed doesn't actually enforce federal education law, but rather funds states who follow their guidelines. It's pretty effective coercion, as was done with BAC levels and federal highway funds.

I disagree with conhog that this is a moot point though. Superficially yes, but SCOTUS can overturn precedence if the case is "ripe", and the issue could benefit from a little extra fertilizer and increased light.:thumb:

[LuvRPgrl]

those dirty rats, those swine:laugh2:



yeah I been watching the turner classic black n white films again, you cads !!!

You lost me on that one. Is there suppose to be some kind of a special voice in "those dirty rats, swine"?

[chloe]

You lost me on that one. Is there suppose to be some kind of a special voice in "those dirty rats, swine"?

People just don't talk that way anymore, they just say yo Mo fo piece sh*t, I just like the old ways of slander:rolleyes:

[LuvRPgrl]

People just don't talk that way anymore, they just say yo Mo fo piece sh*t, I just like the old ways of slander:rolleyes:

I was thinking about Cagney in one of those gangster movies.

Redheads always took me to lands as yet unexplored.

[LuvRPgrl]

It doesn't say "expressly", though it was considered and not included. Hence the "necessary and proper" clause is cited in support of federal powers in such areas, (especially commerce),but education as well. It's interesting, there seems to be special legal loopholes where the fed doesn't actually enforce federal education law, but rather funds states who follow their guidelines. It's pretty effective coercion, as was done with BAC levels and federal highway funds.

I disagree with conhog that this is a moot point though. Superficially yes, but SCOTUS can overturn precedence if the case is "ripe", and the issue could benefit from a little extra fertilizer and increased light.:thumb:

I hate to say i t, but I have come to be opposed to the legality of the civil war. I think we could have ended slavery in another way.
..... The civil war paved the way for the 14th amendment whcih was ILLEGAL, and was the biggest power grab in US History. They forced, by military power, many of the states to agree to the 14th amendment, or they wouldnt allow them to be re admitted to the union. Which is stange, cuz originally the war was fought by the north to STOP them from not being part of the union.
..... BUt at this point in time, the destruction of the South was so catastrophic, that those states who opposed the 14th amendment, were physically forced, under the threat of military intervention and violence, to sign on to the 14th amendment.
.....The next power grab was the ILLEGAL instituting of income taxes. SOme of the so called "STATES" that voted to ratify it, weren't even legally states yet.
....Then came social security, and its been all downhill since.
....Now we have double jeopardy, feds can ignore habius corpus, feds get involved in any area of the States business it wants to by circumventing the COTUS simply by imposing rules and regulations from Federal Agencies it has created and by witholding funds to the states unless they comply.
....Anytime the states want to reject the feds authority, they are met with military power and have to sucumb.
...It happened in the 60's when federal troops were sent to a university in a southern state when the governor of that state was refusing a federal order.

...I am dead serioius and am making plans for getting out of this country.

[ConHog]

I hate to say i t, but I have come to be opposed to the legality of the civil war. I think we could have ended slavery in another way.
..... The civil war paved the way for the 14th amendment whcih was ILLEGAL, and was the biggest power grab in US History. They forced, by military power, many of the states to agree to the 14th amendment, or they wouldnt allow them to be re admitted to the union. Which is stange, cuz originally the war was fought by the north to STOP them from not being part of the union.
..... BUt at this point in time, the destruction of the South was so catastrophic, that those states who opposed the 14th amendment, were physically forced, under the threat of military intervention and violence, to sign on to the 14th amendment.
.....The next power grab was the ILLEGAL instituting of income taxes. SOme of the so called "STATES" that voted to ratify it, weren't even legally states yet.
....Then came social security, and its been all downhill since.
....Now we have double jeopardy, feds can ignore habius corpus, feds get involved in any area of the States business it wants to by circumventing the COTUS simply by imposing rules and regulations from Federal Agencies it has created and by witholding funds to the states unless they comply.
....Anytime the states want to reject the feds authority, they are met with military power and have to sucumb.
...It happened in the 60's when federal troops were sent to a university in a southern state when the governor of that state was refusing a federal order.

...I am dead serioius and am making plans for getting out of this country.

That was in 1957 and occurred in Arkansas and you can't really be saying that Eisenhower shouldn't have done so?

[LuvRPgrl]

That was in 1957 and occurred in Arkansas and you can't really be saying that Eisenhower shouldn't have done so?

Nope, Im talking about either Miss, Georgia or Alabama, sometime in the 60's

OK, here it is http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/change-civ rtsb.html

June 11, 1963 George Wallace and ALabama

And I vehemently oppose any such federal actions.

[chloe]

I was thinking about Cagney in one of those gangster movies.

Redheads always took me to lands as yet unexplored.


Well I used to campaign for "movie night" here at Jim's board for people online like me who have no other social life, I thought it would be fun to watch a movie online together. But then as it turns out I'm the only lowly poster with no social life:laugh2:



Just to stay on topic: those rat bastard organized atheists, if they think there gonna get away with it they can think again, the christians got ways of taking care of the likes of those chumps ! :cool:


onward christian soldiers.....lol

[Abbey Marie]

And I disagree with that. If you start letting people give their children whatever level of education they want to, you WILL have parents choosing to not give them ANY education at all.
...


Just think how well the classrooms would function for those still attending who (and their parents) actually want to learn.

[ConHog]

Just think how well the classrooms would function for those still attending who (and their parents) actually want to learn.



This is true, but but must be balanced against the reality that the state would end up supporting even more uneducated fucks then it already is

[DragonStryk72]

Wow. Amazing. 8 years? And you're still a little confused?


Guess what? I'm a lawyer and my wife is, too. So I guess that trumps you cz we have more years. Now that you've waved your big dick at me and I've done the same, can we discuss this?

Why do you imagine the separatin doctrine was adopted? Is govt really good at selecting the "correct" religion? Is it the govts business to choose who is telling the "truth" as to god?

As to your inane comment that folks "hate christians," there are plenty of christians who think govt and religion dont mix well.

Going to the issue at hand, there is no one who is having religion "forced" upon them with the small little roadside memorials. According to that supposition, every single memorial anywhere in the country should be torn down, and I and every other military man and woman should be denied military funerals.

[PostmodernProphet]

What if Jewish troopers get a Star of David, Muslims get a Crescent Moon, and Atheists get a square piece of wood nailed to a pole?


agnostics get a "?" and atheists get a "?" superimposed with the negative "O\"....b
2327

[KartRacerBoy]

Going to the issue at hand, there is no one who is having religion "forced" upon them with the small little roadside memorials. According to that supposition, every single memorial anywhere in the country should be torn down, and I and every other military man and woman should be denied military funerals.

I've never said I'm opposed to the roadside memorials. As long as state money isn't being used to maintain them, let the mourners have at it as long as they don't pose some kind of safety hazard.

Even if this is somehow a state supporting a religion, it's a small enough violation that it isn't worth spending millions on. And I suspect the atheists will lose anyway given last years case regarding a military memorial cross on fed land. Strategically or tactically, given the composition of the current Supreme Court, it strikes me as bad strategy to push this issue to that level even if you had favorable facts.

[LuvRPgrl]

This is true, but but must be balanced against the reality that the state would end up supporting even more uneducated fucks then it already is

Nope, Abby is one 100% right.

Used to be that those who didnt want to learn , were "forced" to get a decent minimum level of education.

Today, ONLY THOSE WHO WANT TO LEARN DO SO.

Fact of the matter is, STATES today have govt's that are bigger than the feds used to be in years gone past.

I dont even think the states should be involved.
The education system has so much money flowing through it today, that those in the posistions to do anything good for it, dont care, all they care about is getting the money. Bigger govt always creates money grubbing officials.

Los Angeles unified school district is the largest in the world. The drop out rate is abhorent.
And those who do graduate high school, over half cant read and write basic english. It quite sickening when ever I see the school administrators saying "they care", Ill tell you what, I would love to stick my fist in their mouth, and my boot up their butt and see if they care then.

Bottom line is they fight anything that threatens their money flow,
AND , it simply cant get worse.
Please, someone give me a scenario how it could get worse.
It used to be you could say, suppose kids start takimg weapons to school, that would be worse,
or, suppose the majority of kids started either dropping out or not learning basic english, that would be worse,
or, suppose drugs became ramant in schools, that would be worse,
or, suppose kids start killing each other in school, that would be worse
SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT CAN GET ANY FUCKING WORSE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW