House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

Just because they didn't want to promote a national religion didn't mean they did not believe in God Jehovah. Jefferson, for all of his writing, was a Christian at the core. He just believed that was between him and his God and was no one else’s business.

Yet Jefferson was a unitarian Christian- not a trinitarian Christian. And if you don't know the difference, you need to read up on theological history.

As to Jefferson being a "Christian at the core", that is not inconsistent with a Natural God- which he and the signers of the Declaration affirmed. And as Jefferson wrote his own Bible, in which the supernatural God Jehovah does not appear, your statement that he believed in a supernatural "God Jehovah" is mere unfounded speculation- contradicted by his specific writings about Nature's God.

I'd like to know why you get your hackles up over children being forced to listen to a prayer but you don't seem to be the least perturbed at the thought of children being forced into labor.

Stephanie wrote:I'd like to know why you get your hackles up over children being forced to listen to a prayer but you don't seem to be the least perturbed at the thought of children being forced into labor.

Are children in America being forced into labor by their government?

Stephanie wrote:I'd like to know why you get your hackles up over children being forced to listen to a prayer but you don't seem to be the least perturbed at the thought of children being forced into labor.

Cato was complaining about using government to enforce our views, ones onto others. I was pointing out the inconsistency of him complaining about that- but also complaining about citizens appealing to the Courts and the Courts using their Consrtitutional authority to deter that very thing.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I'd like to know why you get your hackles up over children being forced to listen to a prayer but you don't seem to be the least perturbed at the thought of children being forced into labor.

Are children in America being forced into labor by their government?

Not yet, that is the plan though. Have you read GIVE?

Someone needs to explain to the idiots running this government that mandatory volunteerism is an oxymoron.

ziggy wrote:

Well, at least your conscience has been piqued, Cato.

But I can remeber here when you raised 9 kinds of hell because the Courts told school districts and school employees that they could not use the schools to force their religious views onto students.

You have cited case after case to lambast the Courts for putting the Bill of Rights ahead of someone or other using the government- especially government schools- to force his or her views onto other people

That's quite correct I did and I still do. It is one thing for a public school to REQUIRE a student to participate in a religious class MANDATED by the school and quite another to deny a child the right of free speach to say a prayer at graduation or during a speach. Of Course you wouldn't understand that, especially since yo have no problem at all REQUIRING a child to participate in the religion of secular humanistism and MANDATING child and parents accept secualr humanism above all else.

ziggy wrote:You were OK with the schools proselytizing to students, but you expressed outrage that parents would appeal to the Courts to stop such proselytzing and that the Courts would agree.

If by proselytizing you mean honoring free speach, yes, I'm quite OK with it.

ziggy wrote:You are OK with the heavy hand of the law being used to force some things- just not the things you disagree with.

And you dare to call me a hypocrit. Hypocrit, heal thyself first.

Actually, Ziggy, the heavy hand of the law has no bearing. Two of the God given rights are that one has the right to the free exercise of their religion and one has the right of free speach. The heavy hand of the law comes into play when anyone child or otherwise chooses to exercise the right to the free exercise of their religion and they are prevented by the law.

Oh, by the way, your doing a good job of proving yourself more of a hypocrit every time you post.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I'd like to know why you get your hackles up over children being forced to listen to a prayer but you don't seem to be the least perturbed at the thought of children being forced into labor.

Are children in America being forced into labor by their government?

If GIVE is passed by both houses and is signed by Obama, then the answer is Yes.

The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

I oppose such mandatory "service" requirements for children- or for anyone else.

But I am not going to get my shorts in a wad about it just because some partisan political spinmeister says that it could mean so and so.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I'd like to know why you get your hackles up over children being forced to listen to a prayer but you don't seem to be the least perturbed at the thought of children being forced into labor.

Are children in America being forced into labor by their government?

If GIVE is passed by both houses and is signed by Obama, then the answer is Yes.

No, that is not what GIVE says. But the political spinmeisters will try mightily to have it appear that way. You have already bought into their spiel, though. Why are we not surprised?

So the government spending billions of dollars on "mandatory volunteer programs" that will indoctrinate our youth into socialism is of no concern to you. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

Stephanie wrote:So the government spending billions of dollars on "mandatory volunteer programs" that will indoctrinate our youth into socialism is of no concern to you. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

Well, a few minutes ago you said GIVE would mean forced child labor. Does it or doesn't it?

As to "socialism", we have all been forced fed the doctrine of socialsim- corporate socialism- all our lives. But for the authority vested in corporations by government- corporations would not exist- nor would we be burdened with their greater and greater demands for government blessed powers and now which include powers to dip virtually at will from the public treasury.

Actually, Ziggy, the heavy hand of the law has no bearing. Two of the God given rights are that one has the right to the free exercise of their religion and one has the right of free speach. The heavy hand of the law comes into play when anyone child or otherwise chooses to exercise the right to the free exercise of their religion and they are prevented by the law.

So it is OK for government schools to engage in religious indoctrination, but wrong for citizens to appeal to the Courts to stop it?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You were OK with the schools proselytizing to students, but you expressed outrage that parents would appeal to the Courts to stop such proselytzing and that the Courts would agree.

If by proselytizing you mean honoring free speach, yes, I'm quite OK with it.

Calling religious proselytizing by public school authorities over captive students "free speech" is like calling a beheading "brain surgery".

You are just as big a hypocrit as there is anywhere.

And equating religious neutrality with "secularism humanism" tells us that you know nothing about either religion or secularism humanism.

ziggy wrote:

Actually, Ziggy, the heavy hand of the law has no bearing. Two of the God given rights are that one has the right to the free exercise of their religion and one has the right of free speach. The heavy hand of the law comes into play when anyone child or otherwise chooses to exercise the right to the free exercise of their religion and they are prevented by the law.

So it is OK for government schools to engage in religious indoctrination, but wrong for citizens to appeal to the Courts to stop it?

Obviously you can't read.

It is wrong for the government to engage in any religious indoctrination, be it christainity, islam, wicca, or secular humanism, your religion du joir. It is also wrong for the government to interfere in the free execrice of religion or to limit free speach. In fact, that's tyranny. It is further wrong for the people to use the force of government to stiffle the free exercise of religion or free speach, no matter what how offended they may get. Further, it is wrong for the courts to be stacked with politican judges who use the courts to further their humanistic agenda.

Worst of all however, it is tyranny to require a person to particiapte in policy to which they abhore. However, as long as the government does not require participation, then what a person does, no matter how offensive to others, is quite frankly NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You were OK with the schools proselytizing to students, but you expressed outrage that parents would appeal to the Courts to stop such proselytzing and that the Courts would agree.

If by proselytizing you mean honoring free speach, yes, I'm quite OK with it.

Calling religious proselytizing by public school authorities over captive students "free speech" is like calling a beheading "brain surgery".

And preventing a kid from invoking the name of God during a graduation speach because some fool likeyou don't want the hear the name God, is tyranny.

ziggy wrote:You are just as big a hypocrit as there is anywhere.

I'm not the one using the force of government to limit free speach or the free exercise of religion. The difference between you and me is that I recognize and respect that others may have differing views from me and they have every right to express themin the public forum. You don't.

ziggy wrote:And equating religious neutrality with "secularism humanism" tells us that you know nothing about either religion or secularism humanism.

Well, one man's secular humanism is another's religion, buddy. Secular Humanism is as much a religion as christainity or islam.

Because of the length you go to limit a christain's right to free speach, it seems to me that you fear christainity.

Worst of all however, it is tyranny to require a person to particiapte in policy to which they abhore. However, as long as the government does not require participation, then what a person does, no matter how offensive to others, is quite frankly NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

But the government, via compulsory attendance laws, does require participation in public school activities. And so what public school officials say about religion in the schools IS the business of everyone.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You are just as big a hypocrit as there is anywhere.

I'm not the one using the force of government to limit free speach or the free exercise of religion.

You are when you advocate to allow the public schools be used as a forum for religious indoctrination.

Well, one man's secular humanism is another's religion, buddy. Secular Humanism is as much a religion as christainity or islam.

So who and how is anyone using public schools to indoctrinate anyone in the "religion" of secular humanism?

Because of the length you go to limit a christain's right to free speach, it seems to me that you fear christainity.

I am as much a Christian as you or anyone else. So I do not fear Christianity- despite the efforts of the chest beating self-annointed "Christian" evangelizers- in public schools and elsewhere- to use Christianity to scare the hell out of everyone they can.

GIVE is an outrage. The intent if crystal clear....to force our youth into labor. In the case of minors, it will be without any sort of monetary compensation. In the case of our young adults, there will be some pay, but the goal is to make it mandatory. In both cases the intent is to further indoctrinate our youngsters.

To make matters worse the government seeks to take children from their parents at a surprisingly young age. Headstart is making way for universal preschool and birth to 3 programs are now poised to be rammed down the throats of parents.

Once these "programs" are unleased, we all know they will never go away. So much for liberty of any kind. Cradle to grave care is what they promise, forced indoctrination is what we're going to get.

And my father told us about hearing similar outrage and of all the dire consequences of mandating school attendance from age 5 or 6 up to age 16- that the atheists and agnostics would be indoctrinating the populace into Soddom and Gemmoriah (sp?) immorality.

Our fears are often more destructive to us than the things we are afraid of.

ziggy wrote:

You are when you advocate to allow the public schools be used as a forum for religious indoctrination.

You need to take that up with those that avocate the use of the public schools as religious forum. As I have said for the umteenth time and you just don't seem to be able to grasp, if a kid desire to invoke the name of God in a speach or paper and someone like you whines and they are prevented from doing so, then that is tyranny. YOU have denied them their God given right ot free speach and the free exercise of religion.

ziggy wrote:So who and how is anyone using public schools to indoctrinate anyone in the "religion" of secular humanism?

When one is shown preference over another then it becoem indoctrination. When you show a preference for secular humanism at the expense of any other religion you are indoctrinating.

ziggy wrote:I am as much a Christian as you or anyone else. So I do not fear Christianity- despite the efforts of the chest beating self-annointed "Christian" evangelizers- in public schools and elsewhere- to use Christianity to scare the hell out of everyone they can.

You own words condemn you, Ziggy. Evanglism is a basic part of Christainity as is confessing that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Speaking for myself, I won't deny Jesus Christ, just so you or anyone else on this board or in this nation for that matter feels confortable. As far as scaring the hell out of people, people do that to themselves, by guilt usually. I know the scriptures well enough and I have yet to find where they do anything other than point out the consequences for one's choices. However, choices is a part of living as is facing the consequences for those choices.

Ziggy,

There is a word for compelled work without compensation, that is slavery. There is another word for compelled service with some compensation, that is conscription.

They should at least use the correct words, instead of "volunteerism" and "community service". The fact they don't is proof their intentions are less than noble.

ziggy wrote:But for the authority vested in corporations by government- corporations would not exist-

So tell me Ziggy, in your ever ending quest to put an end to the corporate world, why don't you take a minute and tell us, exactly what would you replace corporations with?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:But for the authority vested in corporations by government- corporations would not exist-

So tell me Ziggy, in your ever ending quest to put an end to the corporate world, why don't you take a minute and tell us, exactly what would you replace corporations with?

My quest is not to end the corporate world. It is to tame it- and to tame its servant government . But until we are honest enough admit that corporations are creatures of the government, and that they feed on each other in one grand socialistic enterprize, we cannot tame either corporations or goverrnment.

How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

Aaron wrote:How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

Ah, so telling- your bemoaning of the need to be honest.

What we should do is let real people, not the artificial entities we call corporations- control the government. But the past several decades have seen corporations increasingly being the head turners of government, and which has accelerated in the past 30 years or so, and snowballed under Bush II and now Obama.

One place to start might be with public financing of election campaigns for candidates who are willing to forego corporate and other private campaign cash other than in set small, nominal amounts.