Obama Attends Church for 1st Time in5 Months.

I don't particularly want religion in the public schools if it is up to the teachers and administration. I am all about chaplains being offered after school and Christian (and Muslim and atheist) clubs having equal access to facilities; I also think any student action, be it against the war, in favor of pot, or fasting and prayer, should be treated equally. If Christian or other religious activity is specifically disfavored, then the government is absolutely taking a stand against it. At the same time, I do not see the value in declaring a school district as Christian (or Muslim) and praying accordingly. If the kids wish to pray let them pray (I resent the concept that teens should leave their faith at home), but I can understand why the irreligious or minority religious don't wish to have the local school district endorse a faith not theirs. Giving Christian clubs equal access to land or facilities is not endorsing their faith, but rather simple fairness.

Cato wrote:You are much like the politicans now running for office, when you don't have a clue, sling mud. That is simply pathetic. First, not once have I ever remotely suggested that any should be forced to particpate in religious items they choose not to. As far as O'Hara goes my views stand. I pretty much used her own words. Thirdly, when you say compelled, I have to question if anyone was truly compelled to do anything or if the issue was more in the line of I want to force my views on others and I will use the law to do it.

It is not slinging mud to point out your previous statements about Madeline Murray O'Hair.

First, not once have I ever remotely suggested that any should be forced to particpate in religious items they choose not to.

You certainly have. You do that when you say that Madeline Murray did not have a bonafide case. You are happy to have the school district engage in religious indoctrination of captive students as long as it is your religion being forced.

Thirdly, when you say compelled, I have to question if anyone was truly compelled to do anything

Students are compelled to attend school up to a certain age. And in the Abingdon PA School District- and in hundreds of other school districts across the country in the 1950s and 1960s- that included daily reigious indoctrination by the school administration and/or teachers. It is disingenious of you to pretend that this does not amount to government operated elemenatry school students being compelled to endure religious indoctrination using the force of government.

I think it's telling as to where we are as a nation that you are forced to go back to the 60's on many of your injustices Ziggy.

It is Cato who has brought up Madeline Murray O'hair- many, many times on this and predecessor foums over the years. He contends that all was fine and well with government and religion before she took her case to the Courts. And now he still argues that both she and the Courts were wrong on Murray v. Curlett and Abington School District v. Schempp. And now he even argues that the absence of religion is a religion.

But I do appreciate that you see the injustices that precipitated these and similar cases over the years- even if Cato can't.

ziggy wrote:It is Cato who has brought up Madeline Murray O'hair- many, many times on this and predecessor foums over the years. He contends that all was fine and well with government and religion before she took her case to the Courts. And now he still argues that both she and the Courts were wrong on Murray v. Curlett and Abington School District v. Schempp. And now he even argues that the absence of religion is a religion.

But I do appreciate that you see the injustices that precipitated these and similar cases over the years- even if Cato can't.

Being a Constitutional originalist of the Clarence Thomas order, I actually fail to see that a problem ever existed. I believe the problem that exists today is with folks who have decided they can twist the US Constitution to push their leftist agenda on folks who want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:It is Cato who has brought up Madeline Murray O'hair- many, many times on this and predecessor foums over the years. He contends that all was fine and well with government and religion before she took her case to the Courts. And now he still argues that both she and the Courts were wrong on Murray v. Curlett and Abington School District v. Schempp. And now he even argues that the absence of religion is a religion.

But I do appreciate that you see the injustices that precipitated these and similar cases over the years- even if Cato can't.

Being a Constitutional originalist of the Clarence Thomas order, I actually fail to see that a problem ever existed. I believe the problem that exists today is with folks who have decided they can twist the US Constitution to push their leftist agenda on folks who want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Why was it OK for the rightists at Abingdon School District and the PA legislature (and many other school districts and several other state legislatures) to push their religious agendas onto folks who wanted nothing to do with it?

Yes, there were problems that needed correcting. The problem I have is the left went too far and as a result, the pendulum swung too far in that direction.

Hopefully we as a nation will get to what our founding fathers intended by the 1st Amendment, which is freedom of ALL religion by ALL people and get away from this crap that one can't pray in school or you can't put a natavity scene up on the courthouse lawn and stuff like that.

The decision in Salazar v. Buono was the right one and is a step in the right direction but if we as a nation are ever going to get to where we need to be, the extremest from both sides are going to have to back off their (incorrect) views.

As far as I know, anyone can pray in school yet today- as long as they do not bother others with their prayers. Being allowed to pray in school is not the same as being compelled to pray or to endure religious indoctrination forced on students by school officials as was happening and spawned Murray v, Curlett.

I mostly agree that putting a nativity scene on the courthouse square is rather innocuous. I am not personally offended by that. But a strict constructionist could make a good argument that for a government agancy to allow that is a violation of strict application of the 14th & 1st Amendments. But I am not making that argument.

The decision in Salazar v. Buono was the right one .............

I agree. And I agree with Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:It is Cato who has brought up Madeline Murray O'hair- many, many times on this and predecessor foums over the years. He contends that all was fine and well with government and religion before she took her case to the Courts. And now he still argues that both she and the Courts were wrong on Murray v. Curlett and Abington School District v. Schempp. And now he even argues that the absence of religion is a religion.

But I do appreciate that you see the injustices that precipitated these and similar cases over the years- even if Cato can't.

Being a Constitutional originalist of the Clarence Thomas order, I actually fail to see that a problem ever existed. I believe the problem that exists today is with folks who have decided they can twist the US Constitution to push their leftist agenda on folks who want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Why was it OK for the rightists at Abingdon School District and the PA legislature (and many other school districts and several other state legislatures) to push their religious agendas onto folks who wanted nothing to do with it?

When I attended school, we said the pledge and Lord's prayer every morning. We also said a prayer at lunch before we ate. I was at the time an agnostic, so I didn't participate. I didn't make an issue of it, when people prayed I just sat quietly and gave them their time. The question to answered is were they pushing their agenda me? The answer is no they weren't. Prayer was something is something many foks did, who was I to disrupt their customs. I wasn't offended by what they did nor was I being forced to particiapte. I imagine the same is true of the Abingdon School District.

The real problem is Ziggy, in reality the one doing the forcing is you and your ilk. You demand one follows your agenda and if they don't you'll use the force of law to make them.

ziggy wrote:As far as I know, anyone can pray in school yet today- as long as they do not bother others with their prayers. Being allowed to pray in school is not the same as being compelled to pray or to endure religious indoctrination forced on students by school officials as was happening and spawned Murray v, Curlett.

The problem with "bothering others" is that so many on the left are easily bothered. For instance, I've seen you argue against a teacher leading a FCA meeting. How is that bothersome to anyone?

ziggy wrote:I mostly agree that putting a nativity scene on the courthouse square is rather innocuous. I am not personally offended by that. But a strict constructionist could make a good argument that for a government agancy to allow that is a violation of strict application of the 14th & 1st Amendments. But I am not making that argument.

Neither you nor a strict constructionist could make that arguement because it cannot be made from the 1st Amendment. If anything, the 1st allows placement of a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn as that is in no way sponsorship of a religion.

Except to maybe those who are easily bothered.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:It is Cato who has brought up Madeline Murray O'hair- many, many times on this and predecessor foums over the years. He contends that all was fine and well with government and religion before she took her case to the Courts. And now he still argues that both she and the Courts were wrong on Murray v. Curlett and Abington School District v. Schempp. And now he even argues that the absence of religion is a religion.

But I do appreciate that you see the injustices that precipitated these and similar cases over the years- even if Cato can't.

Being a Constitutional originalist of the Clarence Thomas order, I actually fail to see that a problem ever existed. I believe the problem that exists today is with folks who have decided they can twist the US Constitution to push their leftist agenda on folks who want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Why was it OK for the rightists at Abingdon School District and the PA legislature (and many other school districts and several other state legislatures) to push their religious agendas onto folks who wanted nothing to do with it?

When I attended school, we said the pledge and Lord's prayer every morning. We also said a prayer at lunch before we ate. I was at the time an agnostic, so I didn't participate. I didn't make an issue of it, when people prayed I just sat quietly and gave them their time. The question to answered is were they pushing their agenda me? The answer is no they weren't. Prayer was something is something many foks did, who was I to disrupt their customs. I wasn't offended by what they did nor was I being forced to particiapte. I imagine the same is true of the Abingdon School District.

According to the trial record, what you "imagine" was true at Abingdon is not the way it was. But if, fifty years later, you presume to know better than the people on the scene there at the time what was happening, then well, whatever Cato can magically devine from the past must be the way it was, case testimony be damned.

The real problem is Ziggy, in reality the one doing the forcing is you and your ilk. You demand one follows your agenda and if they don't you'll use the force of law to make them.

So it was OK for religionists in Pennsylvania to use the force of legislative laws and the administrative powers of school systems to force religion doctrines onto captive students, but it was not OK to challenge that practice in the Courts? Like Stephanie said, you are OK with your religion being crammed down the throats of others through the public schools.

For instance, I've seen you argue against a teacher leading a FCA meeting.

FCA meeting? Sorry, but my ignorance is showing again. What is FCA?

ziggy wrote:

The real problem is Ziggy, in reality the one doing the forcing is you and your ilk. You demand one follows your agenda and if they don't you'll use the force of law to make them.

So it was OK for religionists in Pennsylvania to use the force of legislative laws and the administrative powers of school systems to force religion doctrines onto captive students, but it was not OK to challenge that practice in the Courts? Like Stephanie said, you are OK with your religion being crammed down the throats of others through the public schools.

You won't mind citing the laws would you that required participation?

ziggy wrote:

For instance, I've seen you argue against a teacher leading a FCA meeting.

FCA meeting? Sorry, but my ignorance is showing again.

Somehow I don’t think it is. I believe that you’re looking to twist things around because if you weren’t, all you had to do was Google FCA to find out.

ziggy wrote:What is FCA?

For the recored though it is the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. When I said a teacher sponsor should be able to ask students to join as a basketball or football coach does, you disagreed implying it was state sponsorship of religion.

Does that ring a bell or will we see a flare up of your ignorance again?

History of Education in the US

Harvard University is a private Ivy League university located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in 1636 by the Massachusetts legislature. Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and the first corporation (officially The President and Fellows of Harvard College) chartered in the country.[6]

Harvard was named after its first benefactor, John Harvard. Although it was never formally affiliated with a church, the college primarily trained Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy.

The Churches were instrumental and/or heavily involved in most every school that was founded in the US up through the 19th century and/or until the state governments started taking control, ....... and thus, ..... technically in violation of the Constitution by creating Laws governing said "religion based schools".

You and Terry are fine examples. You worship at the Alter of the Imperial Government Gods. This thread stands as proof. Both of you hate Christainity and seek to have the gods of government grant you that Christainity be destoryed.

Willy, take your meds.

I defy you to provide one cite that states I hate christianity, particularly above other religions.

You can't, but that won't stop you from parading that tired old lie because putting words in my mouth is the only form of argument that you have.

And Obama claims that no one can prove that his Surplus Spending frenzy did not prevent a gawd awful Depression.

TerryRC wrote:
I defy you to provide one cite that states I hate christianity, particularly above other religions.

You can't, but that won't stop you from parading that tired old lie because putting words in my mouth is the only form of argument that you have.

To quote Chruch Lady from Saturday Nite Live, "Well isn't that special".

Am I to take it then you have no problem with religious displays on public property, when the display is paid for by other funds than tax dollars?

SamCogar wrote:History of Education in the US

Harvard University is a private Ivy League university located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in 1636 by the Massachusetts legislature. Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and the first corporation (officially The President and Fellows of Harvard College) chartered in the country.[6]

Harvard was named after its first benefactor, John Harvard. Although it was never formally affiliated with a church, the college primarily trained Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy.

The Churches were instrumental and/or heavily involved in most every school that was founded in the US up through the 19th century and/or until the state governments started taking control, ....... and thus, ..... technically in violation of the Constitution by creating Laws governing said "religion based schools".

There is no constitutional prohibition against "religion based schools" operated and funded by churches.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The real problem is Ziggy, in reality the one doing the forcing is you and your ilk. You demand one follows your agenda and if they don't you'll use the force of law to make them.

So it was OK for religionists in Pennsylvania to use the force of legislative laws and the administrative powers of school systems to force religion doctrines onto captive students, but it was not OK to challenge that practice in the Courts? Like Stephanie said, you are OK with your religion being crammed down the throats of others through the public schools.

You won't mind citing the laws would you that required participation?

There were compulsory school attendance laws in PA and in WV at that time. The PA law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day."

The District Court said, "The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord's Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F. Supp., at 819; quoted in 374 U.S. 203 (1963))".

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

For instance, I've seen you argue against a teacher leading a FCA meeting.

FCA meeting? Sorry, but my ignorance is showing again.

Somehow I don’t think it is. I believe that you’re looking to twist things around because if you weren’t, all you had to do was Google FCA to find out.

ziggy wrote:What is FCA?

For the recored though it is the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. When I said a teacher sponsor should be able to ask students to join as a basketball or football coach does, you disagreed implying it was state sponsorship of religion.

Does that ring a bell or will we see a flare up of your ignorance again?

My ignorance, like everyone else's, is always on "flare up". I do not recall this discussion. But I do not deny that it might have taken place essentially as you describe here.

ziggy wrote:There is no constitutional prohibition against "religion based schools" operated and funded by churches.

No kidding, did you figure that out all by yourself or did you have to ask someone?

ziggy wrote:
There were compulsory school attendance laws in PA and in WV at that time. The PA law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day."

The District Court said, "The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord's Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F. Supp., at 819; quoted in 374 U.S. 203 (1963))".

First, congress didn't make that law, the state did. I do be leive if you and the court that ruled had actually read and understood the 1st amendment, it says congress shall make no law. Congress didn't, the state did as they have the right to do under the 10th amendment.

Secondly, however, and more importantly, is the section that I also increase so you could see, attendance wasn't mandatory. One could be excused if they desired.