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 ...
This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!
Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.
Secular Humanism
With that case, a whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. In 1997, 40 prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a position paper entitled, "We Hold These Truths," in which they stated, "This is the very ... antithesis --- of the ordered liberty affirmed by the Founders. Liberty in this debased sense is utterly disengaged from the concept of responsibility and community and is pitted against the ‘laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God. Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.
Your statements are over the top, too. Didn't you see where the child is allowed to distribute whatever he wants to during non-instructional time ? Do you really want to have a class that can be stopped whenever a child gets the whim that they want to circulate or pass out something ? Do you want the teacher to be in charge of instructional time or the children and their parents ?
I think you misread the article (its not hard because it burried the facts in it).
That's just your silly opinion, and hardly empty rhetoric. Let's review Koestler's quote to understand why it is false excrement in the application to this discussion shall we?
"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause........"
If being identified with a tribe engenders disaster, what disaster did the tribe of Puritans who made up the Mayflower Compact contribute to?
If being identified with a nation engenders disaster, what disaster did the 13 Colonies and their desire to become a nation contribute to?
If being identified with a church engenders disaster, what disaster did the Christian Churches at our Founding and 223 years hence contribute to?
If being identified with a cause engenders disaster, what disaster did the cause of liberty and independence did our Founders contribute to?
Ludicrous empty rhetoric? Hardly. My charge against that quote stands boldly since you have provided no proof beyond your own opinion that my charge is invalid.
Prove what I said otherwise please, historical examples and Quotations from the Founders to back your point would be helpful.
I suggest you get some new lines of your own.
Why should I when the Founders words themselves speak more wisdom than I myself am capable? And if I get 'lines of my own', would you not then charge me with simple opinion rather than fact? Of course you would - I know your type.
Years ago I learned that 'quote wars' are futile. Anyone can search & find, and 'prove' virtually anything with the written words of our founders.
So discount them wholesale and make factual points based upon your own interpretations and opinion? Not a chance bub. Nice try to get us to ignore the plain words of the men who established this Republic. What they said establishes the very points of fact I am making, and you thusfar have provided ZILCH to back-up or make any point to refute what I've argued or said aside from your own hubris postulation.
They corresponded a lot, and unless their words are read in context, can easily be misconstrued.
Yes, absolutely.
Now I invite you to look up all the quotations I provided in this discussion, read them in the context by which they were originally given and PROVE them misapplied to this argument. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.
Now PROVE your points have any validity outside of your own opinion.
Are they? Can you honestly look at the state of our culture, the crime, the debauchery, the profane, and the fruits of that culture - and honestly tell me that We as a People HAVE NOT forgotten God?
How many infringements on liberty have we endured? How many prohibitions of freedom do we readily accept?
Patrick Henry's quote and warning certainly apply here, that "When a People forget God, tyrants forge their chains"
If freedom and liberty is equated by how much money and stuff you have - then your understanding of liberty and freedom is as shallow as those who will gladly surrender it for a morsel of bread and a promise of safety.
I also have NOT misread the article that started this discussion. The child and the mother were not demanding the kid be able to pass out religious gifts whenever they felt like it. Please note from the article:
The case began in April 1998 when Daniel, then 4, and his pre-kindergarten classmates attended a party at school. All of the children brought treats to share. Daniel came with the pencils, which the teacher confiscated.
It was a party. ALL THE CHILDREN brought treats to share. Daniel's treat was confiscated and he was told he could only pass them out "during noninstructional time because they did not want the school to be held responsible for endorsing Christianity."
Tell me that a kid wouldn't be crushed because the 'treat' (a pencil) he brought was considered 'inappropriate' when I'd bet dollars to donuts that the same school has no problem with Kwanzaa lesons and/or treats being distributed and taught to the kiddies, or free condoms distributed
If the teacher is having a party during "instructional time", and the kids are encouraged to share gifts and treats - to deny any gift or treat because it has a benign religious message is not only absurd - but another example of the downward spiral to tyranny America is riding, and the outright open hostility to Religious exercise in our nation.
Yeah, it's called B.S.; Barbara Streisand; Bovine excrement etc., etc. The fact you keep dishing it out as some kind of truthful wisdom when it is utter crap when applied to this subject is why it yanks my chain.
B.S. and lies I cut down to size. I don't let stand lies and attempts to demean or deny our cultural and spiritual history.
Seeing that your previous rant was again too incoherant to decipher, I guess we'll have to just chalk it off to the outrage of overblown zealotry, -- struck down by the blinding truth of Koestlers simple words.
Oh that's rich. "Blinding truth", Koestler's words....if it wasn't so absurd I'd die laughing. Koestler's words are not blinding or truthful in regards to religion and faith in America. In-fact, they are without question - HORSECRAP in use upon this discussion.
Seeing that you cannot comprehend the truth of our Founding, or the plain words of our Establishment Documents, nor answer any charge I have made to your posts or your points, it is no wonder you wave it off as whatever demonizing attribute you assign it.
I find it typical that you seek the tried-and-true Liberal/Socialist routine of denouncing truthful accusations of your postitions as some kind of psychiatric problem needing restraint or condemnation.
Says alot about you.
While I don't know the answer I'd bet against.
I only wish you would call me a Nazi to my face and give me the opportunity to, shall we say respond.
Now I know what the "f" in your name stands for.
You call me a Nazi and now you run and hide. Nice fellow. Hide behind the word "christian" and everything is okay, eh?
Don't cower. I'm not threatening you. I'm just exposing your ignorance.
Yeah, it's called B.S.; Barbara Streisand; Bovine excrement etc., etc. The fact you keep dishing it out as some kind of truthful wisdom when it is utter crap when applied to this subject is why it yanks my chain.
Down boy! You call Koestlers critique BS, yet you can't say what is BS about it.. Why is that?
B.S. and lies I cut down to size. I don't let stand lies and attempts to demean or deny our cultural and spiritual history.
Post these lies or denials.. You can't.
--------------------------------
Seeing that your previous rant was again too incoherant to decipher, I guess we'll have to just chalk it off to the outrage of overblown zealotry, -- struck down by the blinding truth of Koestlers simple words.
Oh that's rich. "Blinding truth", Koestler's words....if it wasn't so absurd I'd die laughing. Koestler's words are not blinding or truthful in regards to religion and faith in America. In-fact, they are without question - HORSECRAP in use upon this discussion.
More amusing hype, bub, -- but no substance.. Where's the beef?
Seeing that you cannot comprehend the truth of our Founding, or the plain words of our Establishment Documents,
More unsubstantiated bull. Post your proofs. -- I know/understand those documents far better that you.
nor answer any charge I have made to your posts or your points, it is no wonder you wave it off as whatever demonizing attribute you assign it. I find it typical that you seek the tried-and-true Liberal/Socialist routine of denouncing truthful accusations of your postitions as some kind of psychiatric problem needing restraint or condemnation. Says alot about you.
Ahh yes, -- the old tar-baby ploy.. -- I'm doing the "Liberal/Socialist routine", -- you're our defender of mom, truth & apple pie.
Get off it.
You're incoherant with your zealotry one minute, and hiding behind our flag the next..
Stop assigning opinions to other people so you can then dispute these imaginations of yours.
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.