Conservative VS Liberal

[BJean 16]

btreiger are you trying to say that the Republican's packages are bigger than the presidents?

[btrieger 21]

btreiger are you trying to say that the Republican's packages are bigger than the presidents?

I don't know about their complete package but sometimes it seem like they have a lot of balls. :wink2:

[LeighaMason 19]

:wink2::lol:Bob:lol::crying::lol:You:lol::mad2::lol:make:lol::sad::lol:me:lol::lol:laugh:lol::lol:

[BJean 16]

They certainly do!

[Devana 0]

Too funny, guys!

What do you think of this Texas curriculum change?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Too funny, guys!

What do you think of this Texas curriculum change?

Great reason to homeschool my kids if I lived there.

[BJean 16]

I don't have children in the system but my little GD is here. What do I need to worry about?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I don't have children in the system but my little GD is here. What do I need to worry about?

Much like the neocons who are trying to rewrite the history of the bush administration to say that 9/11 didn't happen under his watch, the neocons in texas are rewriting history in the school's curriculum to eliminate all the great things the liberals and progressives did for this country, for working people and the middle class and instead stack the deck in favor of the conservative movement, the contract with america, phyllis schlafly, the heritage foundation, the moral majority, the NRA and the religious right. :wub:

They don't want the students to learn about unions, the ACLU, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, Moveon.org, Michael Moore, civil rights, worker's rights the women's movement, anti-discrimination laws, social security, medicare, etc..

[pattygreen 5]

It's critical that our students understand the role of faith in shaping our nation. It's also critical that students understand that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principal of our nation's founding; it's part of what makes us unique. Rather than indoctrinating students and telling them what to think, we must teach them how to think. The liberals would love to continue to indoctrinate the American children toward their way of thinking. But there way is wrong. We can't let that happen. I think it's about time that Christians in this nation took a stand and fought for keeping Americas heritage from being forgotten. After all, the liberals and unbelievers in this country are fighting hard to keep God out of the schools and to keep children from learning about him, we need to fight also, and harder to keep them from being pulled left.

If you think about it. It's almost like Satan trying to keep the kids from learning anything about God, so that their fate will be the same as his in the end.

[LeighaMason 19]

It's also critical that students understand that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principal of our nation's founding; it's part of what makes us unique.

After all, the liberals and unbelievers in this country are fighting hard to keep God out of the schools and to keep children from learning about him, we need to fight also, and harder to keep them from being pulled left.

Patty,

You either have to be either for separation of church and state or against it you cant be both. This is what confuses me about the Republicans platform, if you believe and support the constitution you can not include "God" in the schools (ANY God + State supported Schools= Combined church and state). Separation of church and state is what guarantees your right to be a Christian no matter what the current government leaning is. It is too dangerous to set a precedent of ANY religion being accepted into the state, history has shown that official religions of the government change and this is why we must protect our freedom of religion by total separation. So maybe it God who wants separation from the schools to protect our rights to worship him? I cant think of where it is, but I know the bible states that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids about the bible.

And teaching actual historical facts is not indoctrinating. Omitting actual historical facts to support your position is.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It's critical that our students understand the role of faith in shaping our nation. It's also critical that students understand that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principal of our nation's founding; it's part of what makes us unique. Rather than indoctrinating students and telling them what to think, we must teach them how to think. The liberals would love to continue to indoctrinate the American children toward their way of thinking. But there way is wrong. We can't let that happen. I think it's about time that Christians in this nation took a stand and fought for keeping Americas heritage from being forgotten. After all, the liberals and unbelievers in this country are fighting hard to keep God out of the schools and to keep children from learning about him, we need to fight also, and harder to keep them from being pulled left.

If you think about it. It's almost like Satan trying to keep the kids from learning anything about God, so that their fate will be the same as his in the end.

Public, tax-payer supported schools are NOT the place for children to learn about religion. That is up to the parents and religious institutions. If your child's learning of religion is dependent on the public schools, then as a parent you are not doing your job.

Then of course you had to throw in that old fear factor (a big part of the extremist right wing's tactics) by invoking satan. If parents and religious institutions abdicate their responsibility to teach children religion, don't blame satan, blame them.

[pattygreen 5]

The Leftist social liberals supported by the Godless ACLU continue to hang on the "separation of church and state" as justification for eliminating religious issues from public view.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" has been talked about for so long that many Americans believe that it is actually in the Constitution. In fact, those three words appear nowhere in the Constitution.

It was never the purpose of the Constitution to give religious content to the nation, rather, the Constitution was an instrument whereby already existing religious values of the nation could be protected and perpetuated.

• In response to a request that all reference to religion be removed from government, the House Judiciary Committee Report March 3, 1854 said:
  

"Had the people, during the Revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, the Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great vital and conservative element in our system is the doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

• John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States, said:
  

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

The assault on America's religious underpinnings is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the

First Amendment

.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words.

This had always meant that

Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination, that Congress could not require that all Americans become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination.

This understanding of "separation of church and state" was applied not only during the time of the Founders, but for 170 years afterwards. James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because

"The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."

The complete and radical disassociation between Christianity and the State that is sometimes advocated now is not what they had in mind. It's clear that they had seen entirely too many religious wars and religious tyrannies in Europe, and thus that they did want to make sure that no specific church or creed had authority over the State.

[pattygreen 5]

When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.

1. There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
   
2. The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.
   

In the current debate over the separation of church and state, the choices sometimes lean too extreme on both sides. At one extreme are those who want to use the State as a vehicle to enforce their brand of Christian ideas on everyone. At the other extreme are those who say the Founding Fathers would have wanted a situation where one can't mention God in any publicly sponsored forum, for fear of having the State appear to support religion. Somehow, between alternating volleys of quotations from devout Founding Fathers and anti-clerical quotations from Tom Paine, we've got to find a better approach.

[pattygreen 5]

The founding fathers did not include the First Amendment in the Constitution to disallow Christianity from influencing state-established institutions; on the contrary, America's founding fathers expected our nation to be (on the whole) Christian, and our government to reflect that bias.

This appears to be a reasonable understanding of the First Amendment - far more reasonable than asserting that it erected an impenetrable wall of separation. And it becomes even more reasonable when one considers the words and actions of America's settlers, founders and leaders.

The first act of the United States Congress was to authorize the printing of 20,000 Bibles for the Indians. Further,

"When our first President, under the new Constitution, received the request of both Houses of Congress concerning a national declaration of a public day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, 'George Washington...issued a National Thanksgiving Proclamation' without any apparent concern that he might be mixing government and religion."

The men who founded our country clearly wedded it to Christian principles. "By today's standards," as syndicated columnist Don Feder says, "the founding fathers were the religious right."

Author Tim LaHaye says that...

"This Christian consensus is easily verified by the fact that prior to 1789 (the year that eleven of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution), many of the states still had constitutional requirements that a man must be a Christian in order to hold public office."

This Christian consensus was understood by leaders long after the American Revolution, as well. Abraham Lincoln, in 1863, called for a “National Fast Day,” citing the fact that...

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven ...But we have forgotten God."

When one examines history, one cannot avoid the conclusion that America was founded on Christian principles and the assumption that her citizenry would adhere to those same principles.

Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of the First Amendment ignores historical fact. Instead, it provides a convenient vehicle for Secular Humanism to achieve control over the public square.

The reason for this is simple: there is no such thing as a value-free society or institution - someone's values must prevail. Some worldview must “fill the vacuum” left by the eradication of the Christian worldview from public education, social services, courtrooms, etc. By distorting the First Amendment, the United States government has allowed Humanist values to prevail. As LaHaye points out,

"The true meaning of the first amendment has been turned on its head during the past fifty years: In this decade, those who practice the religion of secular humanism are able to use the power of the federal government to impose their religion on the vast majority of the population."

The danger of Secular Humanism prevailing in our society is quite simply, the oldest danger recorded in the Bible: men setting themselves up as God. The moral framework of our universe guarantees terrible consequences for the country that grants sovereignty to something other than God - because in such circumstances sovereignty ultimately becomes the property of the state.

"Man is a spiritual being;" says Benjamin Hart, "when one faith is eliminated, a new god will rush in to fill the spiritual void. Through out history, there has been a man-made god called the state." When the state holds ultimate authority, government officials may commit whatever atrocities they like, because only the state may determine what is right and wrong.

America must choose. Either we ignore the intentions of our founding fathers and grant sovereignty to the state (clearing the way for Hitlers and Stalins to reign once again), or we bow humbly before the one true God, and - without establishing Christianity as the mandatory religion for all citizens - obey God's principles for justice.

True freedom can only exist in a land governed according to the principles set forth in Romans 13:3-4:

"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong-doer."

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Pattygreen: If you open up public schools to the teaching of religion, then you have to open it up to the teaching of all religions, despite whatever selective historic data you provide to support your case.

If christian religion were introduced in school only in a historic context along with the emergence of other religions in this country, I have no problem with that. But to teach and/or support only christian religion and their viewpoints, well, I have a big problem with that. If people want that choice, then they should send their kids to religious schools.