Texas wants to rewrite the US History books

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well I'd counter that the bill of rights, through the right to worship freely, pretty much sets the stage for the separation of church and state. I mean think about it, if the citizens are free to worship whoever and whatever they want, how can you legislate based on one set of beliefs vs another?

Yes. While the phrase, "separation of church and state," does not exist in founding documents, this is clearly what the Bill of Rights had in mind when it said that government will neither establish nor prohibit the establishment of religion.

The idea that the founding fathers were strict Christians is bunk. The words "God" or "Jesus" do not appear in the Constitution, as they would if the founding fathers had considered us to be a Christian country. Further, the first treaty entered into by the United States, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, expressly claims that the US government is not based on religion.

Excising Jefferson as an intellectual influence but touting the influence of Aquinas and Calvin is deplorable.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Excising Jefferson as an intellectual influence but touting the influence of Aquinas and Calvin is deplorable.

Exactly, I was going to comment on this as well.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yes. While the phrase, "separation of church and state," does not exist in founding documents, this is clearly what the Bill of Rights had in mind when it said that government will neither establish nor prohibit the establishment of religion.

The idea that the founding fathers were strict Christians is bunk. The words "God" or "Jesus" do not appear in the Constitution, as they would if the founding fathers had considered us to be a Christian country. Further, the first treaty entered into by the United States, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, expressly claims that the US government is not based on religion.

Excising Jefferson as an intellectual influence but touting the influence of Aquinas and Calvin is deplorable.

Let's not forget why a lot of people left Europe for the Americas....to get away from the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and whatever other bloody church there was.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well I'd counter that the bill of rights, through the right to worship freely, pretty much sets the stage for the separation of church and state. I mean think about it, if the citizens are free to worship whoever and whatever they want, how can you legislate based on one set of beliefs vs another?

This was to protect the churches FROM the Government more than to keep religion out of Government. Look at the times it was written and the Church of England being controlled by the Government and forced upon the citizenry.

The Founders were primarily Christians and there are citations of God all throughout written laws, on Government buildings and on currency. They never had any intention to separate Church from State, only to keep the "State" our of churches and let people worship as they choose to or not at all. They didn't say that beliefs had to be censored or hidden at all. They had their very public beliefs BUT the also did not want to prevent others from having and displaying theirs even if different.

The whole concept has been twisted in attempts to silence religious practices completely. The Founders intended on Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion as many push today.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Buster

This was to protect the churches FROM the Government more than to keep religion out of Government. Look at the times it was written and the Church of England being controlled by the Government and forced upon the citizenry.

The Founders were primarily Christians and there are citations of God all throughout written laws, on Government buildings and on currency. They never had any intention to separate Church from State, only to keep the "State" our of churches and let people worship as they choose to or not at all. They didn't say that beliefs had to be censored or hidden at all. They had their very public beliefs BUT the also did not want to prevent others from having and displaying theirs even if different.

The whole concept has been twisted in attempts to silence religious practices completely. The Founders intended on Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion as many push today.

do you think that freedom from religion is important?

I do

man I've met a lot of home schooled kids and it freaks me out how little they actually know about things.. history, the real world, etc

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Buster

This was to protect the churches FROM the Government more than to keep religion out of Government. Look at the times it was written and the Church of England being controlled by the Government and forced upon the citizenry.

The Founders were primarily Christians and there are citations of God all throughout written laws, on Government buildings and on currency. They never had any intention to separate Church from State, only to keep the "State" our of churches and let people worship as they choose to or not at all. They didn't say that beliefs had to be censored or hidden at all. They had their very public beliefs BUT the also did not want to prevent others from having and displaying theirs even if different.

The whole concept has been twisted in attempts to silence religious practices completely. The Founders intended on Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion as many push today.

Six to one half dozen. If you legislate based on a set of religious beliefs, then I'm stuck abiding to a set of laws consistent with someone else's beliefs, not my own.

Your line of thinking is devoid of logic.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Buster

Maybe this is a result of your school's textbook, but do you realize that Separation of Church and State does not exist in law or founding documents? Jefferson ONLY mentioned it in private correspondence.

It's a giant misconception.

It was more to keep the state out of the church than the church out of the state. However the framers of the constitution, notably Jefferson and Madison did offer their thoughts on it and pretty much stated that an exclusive separation was best. That's when you catch the "spirit" of the law. Whether it is actually in the laws or not does not matter, it is very important that they remain separate and it is not, by ANY degree, the major point of Jefferson's philosophies on the creation of this nation, so to focus on that alone is unfair to the legwork that he did. So as I said, legally or not, it's for the better of the people to keep them separate.

How can you offer a freedom to exercise and allow laws that prohibit such? Sure there are some on the books (polygamy, to counter the cult Mormons), but not too many.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah the Thomas Jefferson point was especially troubling. The separation between church and state is one of the things that separates us from fallen empires (Rome, etc.) of yesteryear.

I don't know you justify removing the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. Also, how do you tell kids about the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis and Clark Expedition without mentioning JT?

[tryfuhl]

I don't know, when I went to school plenty of what they want was gone over. I'd like to see the textbooks that you refer to.

It's not dropping rap education, it's promoting country and western and dropping rap. I'd like to say one probably had more of a profound effect on today and that's important to learn, whether you say that the impact of it was positive or negative, just like every other history subject. If you ignore everything that had a negative outcome you won't be learning much in class. Country and western was more of a genre.. hip hop was more of a lifestyle, I don't recall learning much about either, but I've been out of school for awhile.

This is merely a way for them to control stuff to their liking. Nobody's praising McCarthy in the textbooks, just mentioning him, which these people want more of a hush hush or a "HE WAS THE DEVIL" tone attached to.

What they want is too much molding and shaping in my opinion.

[Daseal]

Buster,

I think it's a stretch to say that there is no separation of church and state in law or founding documents. If you use that logic, there's very little in founding documents. They're very ambiguous, and were created that way for a reason. These laws are very open to interpretation which is what has made them so flexible to this day.

The correspondance you're speaking of was Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists which is said:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I think he makes his idea of what that law should stand for relatively obvious here.

Also, to say it's not in law is a fallacy as well. The Supreme Court used that exact phrase in one of their rulings.

Originally Posted by Supreme Court

The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), where the court examined Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning.

Source: <3 Wikipedia.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Buster,

I think it's a stretch to say that there is no separation of church and state in law or founding documents. If you use that logic, there's very little in founding documents. They're very ambiguous, and were created that way for a reason. These laws are very open to interpretation which is what has made them so flexible to this day.

The correspondance you're speaking of was Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists which is said:


I think he makes his idea of what that law should stand for relatively obvious here.

Also, to say it's not in law is a fallacy as well. The Supreme Court used that exact phrase in one of their rulings.


Source: <3 Wikipedia.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well there are plenty of other supreme court rulings and/or mentions of it, mostly for separation but some not

either way it's hard to agree that the separation wouldn't be for the best

[hooskins]

Ok Buster, but exclude TJ simply because of that? I think you can note all of that in textbooks AND note TJ's contributions as well.

This is BS. I am all for more information, but not excluding certain facts because of personal beliefs. If you truly feel like that, be active in your kids studies, inform them of your perspective or even home school.

The concept of education itself is liberal in nature. Not liberal in the political sense. Liberal in that sense that it isnt close minded, restricted in scope, open to questioning, etc. Its great to put a different perspective but a responsible teacher, parent, etc. should always note the counter argument and not portray things as black and white.

That is education, and some of the points(not all) that these people want simply don't mesh with the concept of knowledge.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Ok Buster, but exclude TJ simply because of that? I think you can note all of that in textbooks AND note TJ's contributions as well.

This is BS. I am all for more information, but not excluding certain facts because of personal beliefs. If you truly feel like that, be active in your kids studies, inform them of your perspective or even home school.

The concept of education itself is liberal in nature. Not liberal in the political sense. Liberal in that sense that it isnt close minded, restricted in scope, open to questioning, etc. Its great to put a different perspective but a responsible teacher, parent, etc. should always note the counter argument and not portray things as black and white.

That is education, and some of the points(not all) that these people want simply don't mesh with the concept of knowledge.

Agreed.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Ok Buster, but exclude TJ simply because of that? I think you can note all of that in textbooks AND note TJ's contributions as well.

This is BS. I am all for more information, but not excluding certain facts because of personal beliefs. If you truly feel like that, be active in your kids studies, inform them of your perspective or even home school.

The concept of education itself is liberal in nature. Not liberal in the political sense. Liberal in that sense that it isnt close minded, restricted in scope, open to questioning, etc. Its great to put a different perspective but a responsible teacher, parent, etc. should always note the counter argument and not portray things as black and white.

That is education, and some of the points(not all) that these people want simply don't mesh with the concept of knowledge.

I said I disagreed with Jefferson's exclusion. I think you just wanted to say "OK, Buster".

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Buster

I said I disagreed with Jefferson's exclusion. I think you just wanted to say "OK, Buster".

My bad, i kinda got to ranting.