Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there are significantly bigger problems with the American school system than whether the kids can pray or not.

Again America: Priorities.

At least god will give them good grades?

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why not satisfy the requirement by reading 15 minutes of heavy goods vehicle tachograph regulations, then?

Not sure there are cases in the congressional record of that being used to open the daily business at the House or Senate. Perhaps you can find some.

There are more historically significant things to read if the true intent of the law was to impart historic/cultural knowledge. I think we all know the real intent of this proposed law. Sadly, I don't think the Alabama legislature is willing to give up the 100's of millions that the state receives in federal education aid not to mention federal school lunch aid in order to push this agenda.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Exactly why do you pledge to the flag everyday? Always confused me.

because the day you don't is the day the commies win

HL has the right of it. Durn commies!


"The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. "

To quote all of my Louisiana kin "fething Alabama."

Alabama, so far from God, so close to Louisiana...

It's closer to Mississippi than Louisiana...

To quote my Louisiana kin "fething Mississippi."

It is, but Louisiana lurks to the West, a dark malevalence like a giant East Texas, watching, waiting.


Watching

Waiting

East Texas is Louisiana...

Yea...it really is. Truthfully whenever I go there to meet the inlaws, its like another world, a long time ago.

I see rebel flags, chicken fried steak, lots of poor folk, and no one speaks Spanish.

You're making me homesick...

*plays dueling banjos*

As long as you two don't start comparing who has the prettier mouth...

I'm the most handsome man on Dakka, so that's no contest! (I'm also the most humble!)


Wait, wut...?

Also, moon pies and RC Cola.

Proper boudin sausage. mmm.

I grew up on RC. Never liked moon pies though; we always had Hostess ding dogs or cupcakes.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

The First Amendment?

Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious

EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.

Sorta messing with ya....

President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he would keep the Government out of the Church... note that he didn't say he'd advocate to keep the Church out of the Government.

People seems to think Prez Jefferson was a raging atheist... he was far from that... even wrote these words in 1781 that now appear on his memorial in D.C.: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" What do you think he meant by that?

The “separation of church and state” originated in that U.S. Supreme Court’s 1947 decision of Everson v. Board of Education. What's funny is that this decision references a private letter Jefferson wrote as President in 1802, where he said:

“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.”

He's refering to Congress and not state legislatures.

As a whole, Jef­ferson was referring to the fact that the establishment clause to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church. The founders obviously didn't want a repeat of the Church of England.

He was also such a "States Rights" guy, he said that the whole matter of religion should (or is) left by the Constitution to the States in one of his inaugural address.

So, when someone says "we're ignoring the 'separation clause' " I'd like to ask where that is... because, I know it doesn't exist in the way people sometime thinks it does.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself religious... as I don't go to church. But, I'm not an atheist either... so, not sure what that makes me. But I find these topics interesting.

Maybe he was referring to an allegorical God?

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. When he wrote about "God" he wasn't talking about the Christian God but the generic concept of God. He wrote the "Jefferson Bible" in his later years by cutting with a razor and pasting sections of the bible. Arguably, Jefferson believed in God but God to him was nature so daedalus is correct, the allegorical God.

When he created his bible, he removed all of the "mysticism" from the bible and made it a natural work about teachers and learning.

"In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense." - Letter from Jefferson to Adams.

Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

 whembly wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

The First Amendment?

Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious

EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.

Sorta messing with ya....

President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he would keep the Government out of the Church... note that he didn't say he'd advocate to keep the Church out of the Government.

...
...

Does that make it all right?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

The First Amendment?

Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious

EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.

Sorta messing with ya....

President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he would keep the Government out of the Church... note that he didn't say he'd advocate to keep the Church out of the Government.

...
...

Does that make it all right?

I think it's morally wrong for these Bakers to refuse good money from gay couples.

Just like I think it's morally wrong for the government to compel the bakers to provide a service they do not wish.

EDIT: wrong thread.


Too many tabs open and already snooker'ed daedalus.

 whembly wrote:

I think it's morally wrong for these Bakers to refuse good money from gay couples.

Just like I think it's morally wrong for the government to compel the bakers to provide a service they do not wish.

It's not a good situation. No one should be compelled to perform a service they don't wish to. On the other hand, for situations where the only pharmacist in 50 miles is a die hard nutter (I think I'm using the term properly) who won't sell people birth control under any circumstances, I feel the opposite way.

Any situation where there's a question of "I hold you to my personal beliefs" vs "I compel you do something in spite of your personal beliefs" sucks.

Agreed, but isn't this in another thread?

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, but isn't this in another thread?

Whoops. This isn't that thread.

Uhh... I blame whembly. He brought it up.

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, but isn't this in another thread?

Not really. If I were a teacher I would not be particularly happy at being forced to recite delusional drivel for 15 minutes that I should be teaching children something worthwhile. You want to put prayer in school? Don't force people who don't believe in your super special imaginary friend to deliver your material to a bunch of children who may not believe in your super special imaginary friend either...

The only time religion should be brought into education is when studying comparative religion, or when it is relevant to a history lesson (where it should be as context to historical discussion, rather than be taught).

Other than that, school should be about learning things that are real, so religion has absolutely no place crossing the threshold.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there are significantly bigger problems with the American school system than whether the kids can pray or not.

Again America: Priorities.

You're conflicting state and national governing policies, HBMC.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, but isn't this in another thread?

Whoops. This isn't that thread.

Uhh... I blame whembly. He brought it up.

and my Powah is growing!

Chaos is begun to grow!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, but isn't this in another thread?

Not really. If I were a teacher I would not be particularly happy at being forced to recite delusional drivel for 15 minutes that I should be teaching children something worthwhile. You want to put prayer in school? Don't force people who don't believe in your super special imaginary friend to deliver your material to a bunch of children who may not believe in your super special imaginary friend either...

The only time religion should be brought into education is when studying comparative religion, or when it is relevant to a history lesson (where it should be as context to historical discussion, rather than be taught).

Other than that, school should be about learning things that are real, so religion has absolutely no place crossing the threshold.

The text of the bill:

Section 1. At the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which such class is held shall, for a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes, instruct the class in the formal procedures followed by the United States Congress. The study shall include, but not be limited to, a reading verbatim of one of the opening prayers given by the House or Senate Chaplain or a guest member of the clergy at the beginning of a meeting of the House of Representatives or the Senate. - See more at: http://openbama.org/bill/9679/text#sthash.mWdjl6Cj.dpuf

Again Silly? Waste of time/resources? Perhaps. Is it forcing children to pray? Not really.

And having an Imam recite a Muslim prayer over the school intercom every morning wouldn't be forcing anybody to pray either, but it would probably shut down a law like this pretty quickly.

 d-usa wrote:
And having an Imam recite a Muslim prayer over the school intercom every morning wouldn't be forcing anybody to pray either, but it would probably shut down a law like this pretty quickly.

It wouldn't be complying with this law either, so it would be hard for that scenario to shut down this law.

I suspect some teacher will find a prayer delivered by an Iman to congress, and if so, should use it as the teaching point for the day.

In fact, here is one they could use:

http://harunyahya.com/en/Returning-to-faith/121607/imam-antepli-delivers-opening-prayer

And may as well use one from this Rabbi the next day:

http://www.jta.org/1930/01/09/archive/rabbi-delivers-prayer-at-session-of-congress

 CptJake wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, but isn't this in another thread?

Not really. If I were a teacher I would not be particularly happy at being forced to recite delusional drivel for 15 minutes that I should be teaching children something worthwhile. You want to put prayer in school? Don't force people who don't believe in your super special imaginary friend to deliver your material to a bunch of children who may not believe in your super special imaginary friend either...

The only time religion should be brought into education is when studying comparative religion, or when it is relevant to a history lesson (where it should be as context to historical discussion, rather than be taught).

Other than that, school should be about learning things that are real, so religion has absolutely no place crossing the threshold.

The text of the bill:

Section 1. At the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which such class is held shall, for a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes, instruct the class in the formal procedures followed by the United States Congress. The study shall include, but not be limited to, a reading verbatim of one of the opening prayers given by the House or Senate Chaplain or a guest member of the clergy at the beginning of a meeting of the House of Representatives or the Senate. - See more at: http://openbama.org/bill/9679/text#sthash.mWdjl6Cj.dpuf

Again Silly? Waste of time/resources? Perhaps. Is it forcing children to pray? Not really.

It is forcing the teacher to read out the prayer, which was my point. The rest of my post was talking about religion in schools, being a slight OT from the original post but certainly well within the bounds of the discussion.

Is it, or is it really saying you can't waste more than 15 minutes doing that?

I notice it dodges the opportunity to incorporate any of the teachings of the Church of Slack or FSM also.