Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court bans religious gifts to classmates
The Washington Times ^ | September 21, 2003 | Julia Duin

Posted on 09/21/2003 10:44:56 AM PDT by yonif

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:08:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Kindergartners and first-graders may not distribute to their classmates gifts that bear a religious message, according to a ruling by a federal appeals court.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a New Jersey elementary school in forbidding a boy from giving out pencils with the message "Jesus loves the little children" with a heart symbol substituted for the word love.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: 1stammendment; 3rdcircuit; aclu; alcuignoresthis; antichristian; ban; catholiclist; christianity; control; court; doublestandard; firstamendment; firstammendment; freedomfromreligion; freespeech; gifts; hypocrisy; jesus; kindergarten; power; purge; religion; religiousintolerance; rutherfordinstitute; school
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-240 next last
To: middie
The Third Circuit is absolutely correct.

Hardly.

This sort of prostelization has never been permitted in my knowledge. I always resented and tossed those little tracts that some self-indulged student would put on my desk in public school. Public school is no place for this activity.

Oh, now I get it. You and the third circuit are penumbraists who have found a right not to be offended or exposed to religion in the Constitution.

121 posted on 09/21/2003 5:04:11 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Your 'counterpoints' are more on the order of a sermon than being debateable, so I'll pass on further comment.
Since you could not comprehend glory's post, I'll give you the gist. To accomadate Muslim, Buddhist, and athiestic beliefs and practices is to accomadate Christian beliefs and practices too. This means that Christian symbols should be fine if condoms and are OK and studying Islamic culture is OK (a lot of schools do that and no one was sued yet). The constitution protects this sort of expression. And you are falsely assuming that we object "other" religious symbols being shown to our kids by their bearers. Waring scarfs and head towels comes to mind - it is a common practice.
122 posted on 09/21/2003 5:07:07 PM PDT by singsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: INVAR
“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”31 Fisher Ames, primary author of the First Amendment
123 posted on 09/21/2003 5:09:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
What makes you think you have a god given right to promote your religion to my kid at a public grade school? Get out of my kids face, and we'll get along fine..
Oh, so you have the right to tell who should and who shouldn't appear before your kid? As soon as this precious kid appears on the street, all concervatives should take immediate cover and beg for your permission to show up? You are a very funny fellow!
124 posted on 09/21/2003 5:22:58 PM PDT by singsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; All
   
   

 


Press Release by Congressman Ron Paul
Take Action Now


H.R. 4922 -- First Amendment Restoration Act


      
HR 4922 IH

107th CONGRESS, 2d Session

H. R. 4922

To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2002

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `First Amendment Restoration Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals.

(2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government.

(3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State'.

(4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60's, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state' in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.

(5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases:

(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.' (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)

(B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional.' (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.)

(C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.' (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.)

(D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.' (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)

(E) `The Ten Commandments, despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse.' (Harvey v. Cobb County. 1993.)

(F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer.' (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.)

(G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court necessarily violates the free speech clause of the very same first amendment.  These rulings of the Court constitute de facto legislation or Constitution-amending. This is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as all legislative authority bestowed by the people through the Constitution is bestowed upon the Congress and the Congress alone.

(6) A fundamental maxim of law is, whenever the intent of a statute or a constitution is in question, to refer to the words of its framers to determine their intent and use this intent as the true intent of the law.

(7) The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion, the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog.

(8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution.

(9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion.

(10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. `It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'

(12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . ' It is necessary to review not only Jefferson's intent in his use of this `wall', but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.

(13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jefferson's admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823).

(14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut and William Paterson of New Jersey and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.)

(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights', submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)

(16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.' (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.)

(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted.

(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)

(19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the First Amendment did not intend for the Federal Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in religious matters in civic dialog is found in various statements by George Washington, who was President when the Congress adopted the First Amendment. The following is found in his `Farewell Address': ` . . . of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.' (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp. 22-23.

(20) James Wilson was a very active member of the Convention and was later appointed by President George Washington as an original Justice on the United States Supreme Court where he coauthored America's first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson never mentioned a `separation of church and state'. To the contrary, he declared the correlation between religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia; Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104-106.)

(21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final wording for the First Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should be considered the foremost authority on the intent of the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.)

(22) Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the government, when usurpations and the exercise of excesses of power are evident. The Congress must, then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious problem.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.

SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

END

Take Action Now


 

Privacy Statement

© 2003  The Liberty Committee

125 posted on 09/21/2003 5:39:59 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
THANK YOU!

Please note that the very same afternoon that the Congress passed the 1st Amendment, they later passed a resolution calling for a national day of Fasting and Prayer to God.

So much for the 1st Amendment being intended as a 'separation' clause.

But sadly we forgot our history - maybe because we no longer teach it.
126 posted on 09/21/2003 5:56:39 PM PDT by INVAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Give money as gifts and tell the recipients that it stands for In God We Trust. See if the courts will then ban all the money in the country.
127 posted on 09/21/2003 6:48:23 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PurVirgo
Among other options:
If a law clearly interferes with your constitutional rights, or is used beyond its constitutional grounds, or was enacted unconstitutionally, AND you can afford to pay the consequences of standing up - you will get treated to the hammer in many cases - then break the damned law, politely and peacefully and respectfully and in the course of your normal business, but publicly and flagrantly nonetheless. Serve as an example, take your lumps, make a huge stink, become a rallying point, force change.
Before you ask: yes, I do this very thing.
Or, more accurately, I try, but... that is basically meaningless as a reference: I live in a very small South Georgia town, am highly respected by the local powers in my own right, and am close kin to some of the most respected (not wealthy, mind, nor powerful: RESPECTED) private citizens around. I'd have to do something involving wanton violence to get arrested anywhere within 50 miles of home.
OTOH - when I lived in large cities I did the same. I somehow managed to never turn into a martyr for the cause. I honestly do not understand why not, but suspect that most police officers are still able to know a law-abiding citizen when they meet one.
128 posted on 09/21/2003 6:57:42 PM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
Sure thing 'runner'; -- I supposedly have the reading & writing 'problem', yet you can't counter my actual points.

Get some new lines, and drop the straw man hype.
129 posted on 09/21/2003 7:40:29 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: singsong
What makes you think you have a god given right to promote your religion to my kid at a public grade school? Get out of my kids face, and we'll get along fine..
-tpaine-



Oh, so you have the right to tell who should and who shouldn't appear before your kid? As soon as this precious kid appears on the street, all concervatives should take immediate cover and beg for your permission to show up? You are a very funny fellow!
-ss-

You got it kiddo. -- That parents have an exclusive right to see to their childrens religious upbringing is an accepted precept, imo..

But, by all means, tell us why this isn't so.. Please.

130 posted on 09/21/2003 7:51:41 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
That parents have an exclusive right to see to their childrens religious upbringing is an accepted precept, imo..

Absolutely. And for the better part of 200 years, it was also a precept to expect such religious upbringing upheld by the public schools and institutions by which our Liberty was dependant; a religious and moral people. To prohibit such religious exercise infringes on liberty, lowers community standards and relegates our people to the vices of tyranny imposed by men.

131 posted on 09/21/2003 8:09:38 PM PDT by INVAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: yonif
It's true. The inmates ARE finally running the asylum.
132 posted on 09/21/2003 8:12:06 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Oh brother. People make federal cases out of the stupidest things. A Constitutional right to pass out pencils in public school? Give me a break.
133 posted on 09/21/2003 8:14:13 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; INVAR; tpaine; All
Surely we can agree that McGuffey READERS were used in public schools.... 
Here's just a small sample of one:
 
 
 

 

McGuffey Reader Menu

Reading levels and grade levels are not easily defined, especially with our rapidly advancing home schooled children. These sample stories from the menu below are to help you determine which book is appropriate for your child. These stories were written in 1879, are not copyright protected, but are public domain and available to print and use at your leisure. They may also be printed and used for copy work.

Primer
52 Lessons. Short-easy, large print. Fully illustrated. Full pages of Alphabet in upper, lower case, and pre-cursive at the end. One syllable slate exercises (copy work). New letters and words at the beginning of each lesson. Includes diacritical marks--(pronunciation symbols) on all new words before each story. Suggestions for teacher also included.$9.95
Lesson 4--The Lad and the Man
Lesson 32--Bess in her Goat pulled cart.

First Reader
63 Lessons- Short and easy. Includes Phonics charts, Diacritical Marks on all new words, suggestions for teaching. Large print, fully illustrated. $9.95
Lesson 5--Ann and Her Dog
Lesson 58--A Poem about being conscious of the Lord.

Second Reader
71 Short, easy lessons. Seven stories or poems are slate work (cursive copy work). Each lesson contains an illustration. Diacritical marks, larger print. $9.95
Lesson 41 - The Fishhawk--Nature/informative type story
Lesson 55 - God is Great and Good--A poem

Third Reader
79 Lessons. Teachers suggestions, illustrated, expanded phonics charts, punctuation, emphasis, drills in articulation. Latter half of book introduces the definitions for vocabulary. Smaller print than previous readers--but perfect reading size. $10.95
Lesson 9 - The Beaver--Nonfiction.
Lesson 36 - Finding The Owner--Finders Keepers?
A good story about doing the right thing.

Lesson 76 - A Child's Hymn--A lovely, short poem.

Fourth Reader
90 Lessons. Illustrated but fewer illustrations. Definitions included with words at the end of each story or poem. Most lessons include exercises, which are discussion questions and many times ask the student to relate the story in his/her own words. Includes a short bio/history about the author of the stories before each story. The print/font size starts getting smaller with this reader. $10.95
Lesson 37 - Susie's Composition--A story to encourage essay writing through nature, with ease and joy.
Lesson 56 - Knowledge is Power--Wisdom from an older man to a younger one.
Lesson 72 - The Old Oaken Bucket--A poem about things that are dear.


Fifth Reader
117 Lessons. 34 pages at the beginning of articulation, inflection, accent, emphasis, modulation, poetic pauses and exercises. Only 15 wood-cut type illustrations. Includes more depth of author's backgrounds and notes. Vocabulary for more difficult words in each lesson. Includes excerpts from the Bible. Various known and unknown authors; Whittier, O. Goldsmith, Hawthorne, Alcott, Bryant, Cowper, Dickens, Tennyson, Audubon, Shakespeare, etc. $12.95
Lesson 8 - Work--A poem by Eliza Cook.
Lesson 64 - Speech of John Adams--By Washington Irving.
Lesson 117 - My Mother's Bible--A poem by George P. Morris.
 

Sixth Reader
138 Lessons. Alphabetical list of authors, 55 pages of articulation, inflection, accent and emphasis, instructions for reading verse, the voice and gesture including exercises. More thorough notes-- background and history on the authors and the people they are writing about. Notes also include history of the time periods. 111 different authors--mostly known authors. $12.95
Lesson 47 - Character of Columbus--By Washington Irving.
Lesson 79 - The Song of the Potter--A poem by Longfellow.  <-- read in HERE Biblical verses!
Lesson 92 - Studies--Short writing by Sir Francis Bacon on the importance of reading and studying.

Boxed Set of Seven Readers (Primer through Sixth Reader), does not include the 1879 Speller--$12.95ea.

A savings of $17.66 when you purchase the boxed set at -->$59.99.

 

 
 
After this sample, can one REALLY say that the BIBLE was NOT valued in schools?

134 posted on 09/21/2003 8:25:47 PM PDT by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Can they hand out pencils that say "Islam means peace"? Nope. That's the point.

I wouldn't bet the ranch on your answer.

In New York City a few years ago, public schools set aside special rooms for Muslim students to pray in during the school day. Muslim students were excused from class so they could pray at their appointed times. The schools also prepared special meals for them.

As far as I know, there has been no legal challenge to this taxpayer funded special treatment for Muslims, so it's likely still going on.

Bet you it's perfectly OK for Muslim kids in NYC to hand out 'Islam means peace' pencils in NYC public schools.

135 posted on 09/21/2003 8:29:42 PM PDT by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"The courts declared the kid couldn't because they are sworn to uphold both the public peace, and our constitutional laws."

Didn't the court actually say that the teacher had a right to say the kid couldn't? That's different from saying that the court said that kid's everywhere can't do it.
136 posted on 09/21/2003 8:34:39 PM PDT by mongrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
It DOES sound like Mom is a bit over-zealous in this case.

That's putting it mildly. She's spent 5 years fighting this crap, but she hasn't bothered to get her kid out of that school. The woman's an idiot.

137 posted on 09/21/2003 8:38:07 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: INVAR
That parents have an exclusive right to see to their childrens religious upbringing is an accepted precept, imo..
-tpaine-


Absolutely. And for the better part of 200 years, it was also a precept to expect such religious upbringing upheld by the public schools and institutions by which our Liberty was dependant; a religious and moral people.
To prohibit such religious exercise infringes on liberty, lowers community standards and relegates our people to the vices of tyranny imposed by men.
-invar-

No one is trying to prohibit your religious rights.
You teach your kids, -- I teach mine..
NO ONE gets to play religious games at school under the guise of handing out "free" pencils with religious slogans on them.
Simple rule? -- Apparently not, to the zealots among us..
138 posted on 09/21/2003 8:44:20 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: mongrel
What? Are you a nitpicking lawyer?

You want parents at each others throats at the PTA meeting?
Keep your religion out of my kids face.
139 posted on 09/21/2003 8:49:02 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No reason to get annoyed at me, I wasn't involved in the flame wars. In fact, I have sympathy for your position.

I still think its more than nitpicking to clarify the difference. There's a substantive difference between a court prohibiting something and a court saying a school teacher can prohibit something.
140 posted on 09/21/2003 9:06:03 PM PDT by mongrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-240 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson