Posted on 02/01/2002 7:13:38 AM PST by Sir Gawain
The key to America’s ability to return to a state of political stability is dependent on her citizens being willing to accept the responsibility of judging good from bad, just from unjust, and right from wrong. America’s founders were grounded in morality. Not only did they define unalienable rights, they also recognized unalienable duties. All of these have to do with preservation of common decency and a commitment to preserve justice. Moral judgment stood at the helm of the Good Ship America as it set out on the uncharted waters of freedom, the likes of which has never been equaled. Somewhere along the way, we have gotten off that moral course politically. For that reason, the ship is being tossed about and is in real danger of sinking or breaking apart. All for the want of commitment to judging right from wrong – that is why this great ship is in peril today.
Socialism has so advanced in today’s society that moral judgment is not allowed any more. The irrational judgment of inconvenience and irritation has taken its place. If a large enough body of citizens feels irritated or inconvenienced, they will successfully put forth a demand for judgment against the abuses of their sensitivities. We now have a labyrinth of stifling laws based not on morality, but other petty grievances. How can there be justice in such a system? Our politicians continue to supply the demand for an inequitable “equality” while ignoring morality and the edicts of limited government. Political correctness bends over backwards to condone immoral behavior, while limiting individual freedoms. In other words, society would accept my choice to abort an unwanted child and become an outspoken advocate for homosexual “rights,” but I would be deemed irresponsible to drive without a seatbelt or smoke a cigarette in a public, (what does that mean anyway?) building. In fact, I would be breaking the law to do these things. It’s okay to teach school children tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle and acceptance for abortion, but they must also be taught that guns are bad, premarital sex is okay, and prayers are not allowed in school. With the vast majority of our educators, especially those on college campuses, holding a socialist philosophy, how do we expect these things to change? There is no morality in socialism – only a demand for conformity.
There is no true religious freedom in a government that has taken the reins away from the people. This has been illustrated many times over in recent history. Any religious group in America today that thinks it is “protected” is sorely mistaken. Those who would attack the foundations of this country and expect to preserve any semblance of the right to worship as he sees fit does not truly understand what made America work in the first place. It was not founded on the concept of freedom from religion, as many would have us believe, but rather freedom from fear of persecution because of religion. As the Judeo Christian values used to found this country are continually attacked and deemed unnecessary, we can fully expect that eventually the words “freedom” and “religion” will not be uttered in the same sentence nor even tolerated within this non-distinct culture we are becoming. If one doesn’t see that, one knows little of the nature of man and government.
Our Founders realized that it was important for hard work and strong moral character to reap rewards. In a system that punishes hard work and success, by taking more from such individuals to distribute to the economically and morally poor we find less freedom for all – not even more for some. The elites above it all are few in number and cannot safely man the Ship Of State in rough waters. America was never meant to be a status quo nation of poor, weak moral character – it was designed to be a shining example of just the opposite.
Finally, the Founders understood that the preservation of our liberty would depend on the virtue of our leaders. They never intended for people in the public service of government to demand high payment for their labors. In the beginning of this country, it was the leaders who led by example, some even refusing compensation for their service, who inspired and modeled the American Spirit. They loved the land of freedom they had founded and knew the only thing that would preserve it was a moral society and virtuous leaders. How do current politicians with their expectations of large expense accounts and even larger hordes of power compare? Is morality and virtue their mainstay?
Recent events that have threatened our security have opened up a whole new debate on morality as it applies to our basic laws and freedoms. The need for clarity of judgment has never been greater, the challenge of facing our unalienable duties never more important. We must set the example that we wish our representatives to follow. They must know that we expect them to represent America’s citizens as a society that can recognize moral good and reward it as surely as it punishes inexcusable bad. America is not a Democracy – it is a Constitutional Representative Republic. The people who must ultimately prescribe the course for their representatives to follow retain the power of direction the country will take, but we must be willing to model the character we want represented. Too few are willing to make the hard moral judgments while defending individual sovereignty. It is a difficult philosophy to maintain and has lost its way in both major political parties.
Our current president enjoys a popularity that leaves many scratching their heads. Perhaps it is easier to understand if we compare the man himself to his predecessor. Undoubtedly George W. Bush is more the embodiment of accepted morality than was Bill Clinton. Even his enemies would be hard pressed to argue that point, though they continually look for moral corruption. His greatest sin may actually be one of excess in moderation. In an attempt to “bring the country together” the Bush philosophy is soft on judgment in some key areas. Those areas may prove to be the foundations that need moral fortitude instead of temperate acceptance. Perhaps this leader and others like him are simply mirroring the people they represent after all.
The one thing that we must not lose sight of is that years of immorality have resulted in a society that has given over too much power and demanded only too much conformity and acceptance of its “sensibilities.” The model of the America that worked exists only in our true history. Socialism has rewritten even that. If the philosophy of morality cannot be re-instituted and our own culture rediscovered, America may never work again. The ship is in very rough waters and most on board have probably even forgotten how to swim.
I strongly disagree. I have read the Old Testament several times and do not get that picture of G-d at all.
You assume he is all knowing and all loving, and it justifies in your own mind that you can trust his judgment.
I assume nothing. I know this to be true.
That's fine. But try to go the other way around. Look at his judgment (in the Old Testament) and then try to conclude that he is all knowing and all loving.
Works for me.
It doesn't work for me.
Do you want to deal in examples?
Moreover, I am not the kind of person that would forego a ride on my scoot through the mountains of Wyoming, with all the dangers that accompany it, because someone with knowledge of the mountains of Wyoming tells me exactly how beautiful they are.
A more apt analogy - you want to ride through a pass and someone with perfect understanding of weather tells you it will blizzard and you will be trapped in an avalanche unless you wait a week. Will you wait?
I'm going to presume that you actually check the weather first, and they are only right 50% of the time at best. Am I wrong? And is it wrong for you to check the weather before hopping on the Hog?
The joy of life is not receiving answers. The joy is the journey getting to them.
I disagree. The joy is living in the light so you can bear fruit. You prefer to live in the dark searching for the light. That doesn't bear fruit. It can give you the impression of purpose, but not its reality.
God as the Great Palm Pilot in the Sky is of no value to me, although I can see how he can be of value to others.
Value? What does value have to do with it? G-d simply is. You can share a relationship with Him or not, but it's not about value. It's about reality.
Shalom.
I do know when I went from the cynical, "Prove it" to the more inquisitive, "I really want to know. If it's there, show me." But you and I may be arguing semantics.
Shalom.
Well done. I commend your skill if not your position. Yours is an especially subtle deception, most cleverly disguised. Clinton might have improved on his "definition of is is" sophistry if you had advised him.
Where do you get your ideas? For whom do you work?
Whether I value your scoot or not, I need to deal with it, because it exists and you exist and I may find myself in a reality with you and your scoot. Actually, I am a big supporter of educating drivers about the needs of bikes - don't follow too closely, don't cut them off, look twice for a bike, etc. We all need to learn as much as we can about bikes and bikers, even if we believe they shouldn't be on the road (not me), because the bike is a reality we must deal with eventually.
So is G-d.
Shalom.
The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools "religion-free zones" or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong. And as to the latter, while there are some difficult issues, much has been settled. It is also unfortunately true that public school officials, due to their busy schedules, may not be as fully aware of this body of law as they could be. As a result, in some school districts some of these rights are not being observed.
The organizations whose names appear below span the ideological, religious and political spectrum. They nevertheless share a commitment both to the freedom of religious practice and to the separation of church and state such freedom requires. In that spirit, we offer this statement of consensus on current law as an aid to parents, educators and students.
Many of the organizations listed below are actively involved in litigation about religion in the schools. On some of the issues discussed in this summary, some of the organizations have urged the courts to reach positions different than they did. Though there are signatories on both sides which have and will press for different constitutional treatments of some of the topics discussed below, they all agree that the following is an accurate statement of what the law currently is.
Student Prayers
1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.
Graduation Prayer and Baccalaureates
2. School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation, nor may they organize a religious baccalaureate ceremony. If the school generally rents out its facilities to private groups, it must rent them out on the same terms, and on a first- come first-served basis, to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate services, provided that the school does not extend preferential treatment to the baccalaureate ceremony and the school disclaims official endorsement of the program.
3. The courts have reached conflicting conclusions under the federal Constitution on student-initiated prayer at graduation. Until the issue is authoritatively resolved, schools should ask their lawyers what rules apply in their area.
Official Participation or Encouragement
of Religious Activity4. Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.
Teaching About Religion
5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "[i]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.
The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and others have been subject to persecution or that many of those participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements had religious motivations.
6. These same rules apply to the recurring controversy surrounding theories of evolution. Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth.
Student Assignments and Religion
7. Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are constitutionally protected. Teachers may not reject or correct such submissions simply because they include a religious symbol or address religious themes. Likewise, teachers may not require students to modify, include or excise religious views in their assignments, if germane. These assignments should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance, appearance and grammar.
8. Somewhat more problematic from a legal point of view are other public expressions of religious views in the classroom. Unfortunately for school officials, there are traps on either side of this issue, and it is possible that litigation will result no matter what course is taken. It is easier to describe the settled cases than to state clear rules of law. Schools must carefully steer between the claims of student speakers who assert a right to express themselves on religious subjects and the asserted rights of student listeners to be free of unwelcome religious persuasion in a public school classroom.
a. Religious or anti-religious remarks made in the ordinary course of classroom discussion or student presentations are permissible and constitute a protected right. If in a sex education class a student remarks that abortion should be illegal because God has prohibited it, a teacher should not silence the remark, ridicule it, rule it out of bounds or endorse it, any more than a teacher may silence a student's religiously-based comment in favor of choice.b. If a class assignment calls for an oral presentation on a subject of the student's choosing, and, for example, the student responds by conducting a religious service, the school has the right -- as well as the duty -- to prevent itself from being used as a church. Other students are not voluntarily in attendance and cannot be forced to become an unwilling congregation.
c. Teachers may rule out-of-order religious remarks that are irrelevant to the subject at hand. In a discussion of Hamlet's sanity, for example, a student may not interject views on creationism.
Distribution of Religious Literature
9. Students have the right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates, subject to those reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutionally- acceptable restrictions imposed on the distribution of all non-school literature. Thus, a school may confine distribution of all literature to a particular table at particular times. It may not single out religious literature for burdensome regulation.
10. Outsiders may not be given access to the classroom to distribute religious or anti-religious literature. No court has yet considered whether, if all other community groups are permitted to distribute literature in common areas of public schools, religious groups must be allowed to do so on equal terms subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
"See You at the Pole"
11. Student participation in before- or after-school events, such as "see you at the pole," is permissible. School officials, acting in an official capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event.
Religious Persuasion Versus Religious Harassment
12. Students have the right to speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. But school officials should intercede to stop student religious speech if it turns into religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of students. While it is constitutionally permissible for a student to approach another and issue an invitation to attend church, repeated invitations in the face of a request to stop constitute harassment. Where this line is to be drawn in particular cases will depend on the age of the students and other circumstances.
Equal Access Act
13. Student religious clubs in secondary schools must be permitted to meet and to have equal access to campus media to announce their meetings, if a school receives federal funds and permits any student non-curricular club to meet during non-instructional time. This is the command of the Equal Access Act. A non-curricular club is any club not related directly to a subject taught or soon-to-be taught in the school. Although schools have the right to ban all non-curriculum clubs, they may not dodge the law's requirement by the expedient of declaring all clubs curriculum-related. On the other hand, teachers may not actively participate in club activities and "non-school persons" may not control or regularly attend club meeting.
The Act's constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting claims that the Act violates the Establishment Clause. The Act's requirements are described in more detail in The Equal Access Act and the Public Schools: Questions and Answers on the Equal Access Act*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups.
Religious Holidays
14. Generally, public schools may teach about religious holidays, and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holiday and objectively teach about their religious aspects. They may not observe the holidays as religious events. Schools should generally excuse students who do not wish to participate in holiday events. Those interested in further details should see Religious Holidays in the Public Schools: Questions and Answers*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups.
Excusal From Religiously-Objectionable Lessons
15. Schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students from lessons which are objectionable to that student or to his or her parent on the basis of religion. Schools can exercise that authority in ways which would defuse many conflicts over curriculum content. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the student.
Teaching Values
16. Schools may teach civic virtues, including honesty, good citizenship, sportsmanship, courage, respect for the rights and freedoms of others, respect for persons and their property, civility, the dual virtues of moral conviction and tolerance and hard work. Subject to whatever rights of excusal exist (see #15 above) under the federal Constitution and state law, schools may teach sexual abstinence and contraception; whether and how schools teach these sensitive subjects is a matter of educational policy. However, these may not be taught as religious tenets. The mere fact that most, if not all, religions also teach these values does not make it unlawful to teach them.
Student Garb
17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest.
Released Time
18. Schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend. 20. Schools may not allow religious instruction by outsiders on premises during the school day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.