Full Version: Public Schools perform just as well as private schools
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 28 2006, 02:03 PM) 
QUOTE(BoF)
I will say this, however. I spent twelve years teaching in my last two schools. There was no religious instruction in either school, which is what the establishment clause is about. I’m not saying Christian schools are illegal, but tax support for religious instruction falls under the establishment clause.
I spent nine years in the first of these schools. We had a mandate from the administration to develop a five year plan with a mission statement. I remember discussing the teaching of values from a sectarian viewpoint. I was not on the subcommittee that tackled this question, so I don’t know what they decided
I spent nine years in the first of these schools. We had a mandate from the administration to develop a five year plan with a mission statement. I remember discussing the teaching of values from a sectarian viewpoint. I was not on the subcommittee that tackled this question, so I don’t know what they decided
Thanks for sharing how this really works. I would hope that the subcommittee met with parents and community leaders (even religious ones!) to agree on what / how to teach our children in terms of values. In any case, when that committee finally decided what its values were, would they not put a plan together to teach those values? And wouldn't that be indoctrinating children into those sectarian values? Isn't that what schools do? This is what I'm asking.
There were a number of subcommittees working on the five year plan. There was community input, chiefly from the business community - as future employers - and parent input. I'm not sure about clergy per se, but if some of the parents were clerics or lay people then they had access to the process.
There may well be indoctrination, particularly from an indivudial teacher, but it wasn't religious indoctrination. Several years ago a woman, whose husband attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, taught at a nearby school. One morning when the kids were being difficult she told them they were "devil possessed." she didn't lose her job, but several parents complaned - had I been a parent I would have lodged a complaint - and it did take much work on the part of the teacher's union to save her job.
Because of the pluralism of our society, I don't think any thing but essential values, such as complying with law can be taught in public schools. True, some of the values - based perhaps on law - will have counterparts in religion. Murder is against the law and also frowned upon in the Decalogue. But there is a difference in emphasis. Murder is taboo in the Decalogue because it displesed "god." It is unlawful because nobody would be safe if murder is permitted and teachers actually like to see their students and former students stay out of jail.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Aug 28 2006, 10:41 AM)
Oh I agree. It's also perfectly outrageous that public tax-supported fire departments will actually put out a fire in a church. Will this madness never end?
Trick question.... The public good of stopping a fire from spreading outweighs the public good of allowing a church to burn down.
1) Given the super uber ultra peer review this report was vetted through- why do you think private schools do no better than public schools?
There are a few serious flaws with this study.
First off, the participation of private schools was voluntary. Because of this, only 80% of private schools were accounted for in this study. We have no way of knowing what impact these schools may have had (if any). Since "the data are obtained from an observational study rather than a randomized experiment, so
the estimated effects should not be interpreted in terms of causal relationships."
Even the authors of the study caution against interpreting the results on a causal basis.
Second, the study cites that it had 550 private elementary schools participating and it claims this represents 80% participation (as I cited above). However, the NCES says there are over 25,000 private schools in the US that teach elementary school. NCES: Notice Table 1 I'm not sure if the discrepancy is definition or something else. Note, however, that while private schools educate 10.4% of the kids in America, this study's ratio of public to private is 191,400 to 7,500 or about 3.7%. Not sure what happened there, but it is certainly not representative.
Notice also that the study begins by giving us an idea about previous studies and their conclusions:
QUOTE
A previous National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report on the achievement of students in private schools (Perie, Vanneman, and Goldstein 2005) compared the NAEP reading and mathematics performance of fourth-, eighth-, and (for some findings) twelfth-grade students attending public and private schools. Results were also presented disaggregated by type of private school. In general, the average scores in reading and mathematics of students in private schools were found to be higher than those of students in public schools.
A natural question is whether these differences can be accounted for by differences in the populations of
students attending the various kinds of schools. The previous NAEP report also presented results disaggregated both by school type and by a single student characteristic such as race/ethnicity, gender, or studentreported parents’ highest level of education. Generally, the differences between public and private school student performance were diminished somewhat in these disaggregated analyses, but the average scores of private school students remained higher than those of comparable public school students; for example, students of the same race/ethnicity. The further question remains, however, as to whether these observed differences would persist if the comparisons were made between subgroups of private school and public school students who were similar with respect to several characteristics at once, for example, race/ethnicity, gender, and parents’ education.
A natural question is whether these differences can be accounted for by differences in the populations of
students attending the various kinds of schools. The previous NAEP report also presented results disaggregated both by school type and by a single student characteristic such as race/ethnicity, gender, or studentreported parents’ highest level of education. Generally, the differences between public and private school student performance were diminished somewhat in these disaggregated analyses, but the average scores of private school students remained higher than those of comparable public school students; for example, students of the same race/ethnicity. The further question remains, however, as to whether these observed differences would persist if the comparisons were made between subgroups of private school and public school students who were similar with respect to several characteristics at once, for example, race/ethnicity, gender, and parents’ education.
So previous studies showed that on single student characteristic comparisons, private schools were still better. But if we dig deeper (and deeper, and deeper) we can find that...wait!!....private schools are actually worse. Yes, they are better for black children, and better for children with similar parental education, and better for children of parents with similar income...but if we combine these characteristics, we can succeed in finding categories where private schools are actually on equal to public schools.
Still, that does not mean that the conclusions are flawed. Let's look at the technique used in this study--hierarchical linear modeling. This type of statistical approach is designed to look at data as nested sets. As this site explains:
QUOTE
The problem of independence of observations. This discussion could be applied to any level of nesting, such as the family, the school district, county, state, or even country. Based on this discussion, we can assert that individuals who are drawn from an institution, such as a classroom, school, business, or health care unit, will be more homogeneous than if individuals were randomly sampled from a larger population. Herein lies the first issue for analysis of this sort of data. Because these individuals tend to share certain characteristics (environmental, background, experiential, demographic, or otherwise), observations based on these individuals are not fully independent. However, most analytic techniques require independence of observations as a primary assumption for the analysis. Because this assumption is violated in the presence of hierarchical data, ordinary least squares regression produces standard errors that are too small (unless these so-called design effects are incorporated into the analysis). In turn, this leads to a higher probability of rejection of a null hypothesis than if: (a) an appropriate statistical analysis were performed, or (
the data included truly independent observations.
the data included truly independent observations.The question here is whether or not the HLM technique is appropriate. The technique seems to helpful in eliminating sampling error due to homogeneity of the data. But isn't that what we are trying to discern here?
2) If better education is the reason for private school vouchers, and given that conservative christian schools are the worst educated of all schools- should a stake finally be driven through the heart of this whole "voucher" concept-OR
3) Is the school voucher idea more of a back door way for the christian church to be able to indoctrinate new followers, rather than actual education being the motive?
A word about vouchers, at least in Cleveland Ohio: the voucher amount is significantly less than the per student expenditure in the district. In Cleveland, the voucher maximum is $4250 and is limited to a percentage of the school's tuition (90% or 75% depending on the income group the parents fall into). The Cleveland district spends over $11,000 per pupil. This program actually means there is more money (per pupil) available for kids that attend Cleveland public schools.
Study on Cleveland voucher program
The study shows that the voucher recipients are better off in language, science and social
studies, overall, than public school kids, although curiously they lag in mathematics. It should be noted that the per pupil expenditures are lower in private schools, the student:teacher ratio is higher, and teachers generally have a lower education level. Curious results, indeed.
As for my anecdotal evidence, the school my kids attend (in Cleveland) is a Catholic school and pointedly does not indoctrinate. In fact, although they do stress values and being "Christ-like" being Catholic is not a requirement for attending.
Ok, establishment clause, no law for or against, pretty plain, basically means no law around religion, for or against, just like the right to bear arms, its a finitely worded phrase.
So in this case, the point being argued is tax money is being spent on families that would choose to send there children to private schools, and in which a percent of these private schools happen to be religious in design. So to me it comes off as an ethical question, in the respect of the establishment clause and why it exists, is it ok to take government funds and give them to an religious institution? Now I doubt you could win that case simply because its not worded I imagine into this voucher program that the private schools have to be religious, the point you would have to take I guess would to be to show how much of the private school system overall is basically religious in design, and then the percentage of such vouchers that happen to be used for such institutions. Personally to me it makes sense, I mean bush is a person under the guidance of the CC will tell china they are wrong for the birth control policies they have and then come out under another leaf and call china a foe that must be defeated economically, I guess he wants a nation of starving children, though I imagine such social pressure could force china into having to make various decisions internationally, talk about tranquility in the jungle.
I still do not see this as anything that will work, with this voucher system in place its basically a move to replace public schools, being it will take away from the funds they have and of course the idea of sending your child to some private school may have its own allure just from the title associated. So then I guess public school in time will become private school, tax funded with no stipulations, and then in that you would have basically religious schools funded by the government teaching children whatever, though I guess that would be no breech of the establishment clause.
So in this case, the point being argued is tax money is being spent on families that would choose to send there children to private schools, and in which a percent of these private schools happen to be religious in design. So to me it comes off as an ethical question, in the respect of the establishment clause and why it exists, is it ok to take government funds and give them to an religious institution? Now I doubt you could win that case simply because its not worded I imagine into this voucher program that the private schools have to be religious, the point you would have to take I guess would to be to show how much of the private school system overall is basically religious in design, and then the percentage of such vouchers that happen to be used for such institutions. Personally to me it makes sense, I mean bush is a person under the guidance of the CC will tell china they are wrong for the birth control policies they have and then come out under another leaf and call china a foe that must be defeated economically, I guess he wants a nation of starving children, though I imagine such social pressure could force china into having to make various decisions internationally, talk about tranquility in the jungle.
I still do not see this as anything that will work, with this voucher system in place its basically a move to replace public schools, being it will take away from the funds they have and of course the idea of sending your child to some private school may have its own allure just from the title associated. So then I guess public school in time will become private school, tax funded with no stipulations, and then in that you would have basically religious schools funded by the government teaching children whatever, though I guess that would be no breech of the establishment clause.
QUOTE(BoF @ Aug 28 2006, 02:32 PM)
There were a number of subcommittees working on the five year plan. There was community input, chiefly from the business community - as future employers - and parent input. I'm not sure about clergy per se, but if some of the parents were clerics or lay people then they had access to the process.
There may well be indoctrination, particularly from an indivudial teacher, but it wasn't religious indoctrination.
<snip>
Because of the pluralism of our society, I don't think any thing but essential values, such as complying with law can be taught in public schools. True, some of the values - based perhaps on law - will have counterparts in religion. Murder is against the law and also frowned upon in the Decalogue. But there is a difference in emphasis. Murder is taboo in the Decalogue because it displesed "god." It is unlawful because nobody would be safe if murder is permitted and teachers actually like to see their students and former students stay out of jail.
Thanks for answering. Now, do you think that it is possible that your idea of ‘essential values,’ such as complying with the law, might be different from mine? Or those of a ‘conservative’ Christian?
What if your idea of ‘essential values’ includes violating a law that you consider unjust? Should you be permitted to teach that value system in public schools? This one is tricky - schools have recently dismissed students so that they may take part in pro – “immigrant” rallies during the school day. What if my values say that immigration should be strictly of the legal variety, and communist front groups like ANSWER shouldn’t take my kids out of school to say otherwise?
The libertarians here must be wondering what the federal government is doing in the education business anyway. I don’t disagree, but suffice it to say that our founding fathers had a better idea from whence to teach our children values:
The Northwest Ordinance (…”Arguably the single most important piece of legislation passed by the Continental Congress other than the Declaration of Independence” per wikipedia)
QUOTE(Art. 3)
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
Do I advocate teaching strictly Christian values in our schools? Of course not.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet. To do otherwise is to erode the fabric of our society.
And indoctrinating children into a moral-relevatism, a secular view of the world, a lack of right or wrong, a respect for equality over liberty, well, I just find that offensive. To pay for that with my tax dollars is criminal.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 29 2006, 01:43 PM)
Now, do you think that it is possible that your idea of ‘essential values,’ such as complying with the law, might be different from mine? Or those of a ‘conservative’ Christian?
Yes, I have already said that there is overlap between Christian and sectarian values, but there is also an overlap between "Christian" values and those of other religious traditions. Perhaps the greatest Christian value is "do unto others," but wait. Confucius stated this negatively five hundred years before Jesus and there are other statements that said about the same thing. So, is "do unto others" an exclusively a "Christian" value? Is our system built exclusively on Judeo-Christian values, or is historically much more complicated than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Non-violent passive resistance has a long history. It can be traced from Tolstoy to Thoreau to Gandhi to King and others. There have been a plethora of books on this subject. See link below
http://books.google.com/books?q=Non+Violen...=1&oi=spell
Personally, I believe that people have a right to break what they consider an unjust law, but with the caveat that they must be willing to accept punishment for their actions. Otherwise, the action has less meaning.
I can illustrate this with a story. I taught high school government in a small town near Fort Worth in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was well known that I hung out at a coffee shop called the HOP in those years. One night a young man appeared in the HOP. He sat down at my table. I could tell he ws upset. He had received a draft notice. He wanted to know whether he should report for duty, go to Canada or refuse induction. Advising someone to duck the draft was illegal, so I explained the consequences of each action to him and old him he would have to make his own decision. I haven't seen him since and have no idea what he did.
I personally respect what Muhammad Ali did in refusing induction. Although he was originally sentenced to five years, his sentence was later vacated. The point is, that he was willing to accept the consequences of his action.
I apologize, but I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post now.
Do I advocate teaching strictly Christian values in our schools? Of course not.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet. To do otherwise is to erode the fabric of our society.
And indoctrinating children into a moral-relevatism, a secular view of the world, a lack of right or wrong, a respect for equality over liberty, well, I just find that offensive. To pay for that with my tax dollars is criminal.
Quoted from carlitoswhey.
Would you open yourself up to teaching a large variety of personal philosophies in public schools then? Would you take offense if your kid had to take a class every day in paganism?
Its not only this, but is the fabric of our society really derived from Christians, what is the evolution of our culture with all things considered, can it be summed up so easily. As for the forefathers of our fair nation, they were the ones that developed and emplaced the establishment clause, so for all the talk about there religious fervor and so forth, they made the establishment clause.
Public school I think has to be secular because its not a private school, as the debate is pointing out. Being public school is federal it takes its money from taxes, just like how W bush gets paid, I think that man is an ignorant criminal, so I do not agree with my tax money going towards his paycheck. If we get into taxes like that I think pretty soon the entire system would fall apart. I really don’t care about a great majority of things this admin does with my tax money, like give it to religious warfare education centers, but I have to pay for the vouchers none the less.
My point still exists that as more people use private schools under this system, its going to draw tax money from other places, and the fact is private schools can cost a nice sum of money, so where would that money come from, what about the money requirements of public school. If we are going to put both on the same level in regards to obtaining funds from the government for educational purposes, we really then should put them both on that same level. So if I want to send my child to private school, I only want certain things taught to them, but I want the school to be responsible for it all because I do not parent, this is why I am so hard on schools because they should parent instead. Its not only that but I am scared that my worldview may come into confliction with reality, and therefore everything I do not agree with should be destroyed, because its the moral and American thing to do.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet. To do otherwise is to erode the fabric of our society.
And indoctrinating children into a moral-relevatism, a secular view of the world, a lack of right or wrong, a respect for equality over liberty, well, I just find that offensive. To pay for that with my tax dollars is criminal.
Quoted from carlitoswhey.
Would you open yourself up to teaching a large variety of personal philosophies in public schools then? Would you take offense if your kid had to take a class every day in paganism?
Its not only this, but is the fabric of our society really derived from Christians, what is the evolution of our culture with all things considered, can it be summed up so easily. As for the forefathers of our fair nation, they were the ones that developed and emplaced the establishment clause, so for all the talk about there religious fervor and so forth, they made the establishment clause.
Public school I think has to be secular because its not a private school, as the debate is pointing out. Being public school is federal it takes its money from taxes, just like how W bush gets paid, I think that man is an ignorant criminal, so I do not agree with my tax money going towards his paycheck. If we get into taxes like that I think pretty soon the entire system would fall apart. I really don’t care about a great majority of things this admin does with my tax money, like give it to religious warfare education centers, but I have to pay for the vouchers none the less.
My point still exists that as more people use private schools under this system, its going to draw tax money from other places, and the fact is private schools can cost a nice sum of money, so where would that money come from, what about the money requirements of public school. If we are going to put both on the same level in regards to obtaining funds from the government for educational purposes, we really then should put them both on that same level. So if I want to send my child to private school, I only want certain things taught to them, but I want the school to be responsible for it all because I do not parent, this is why I am so hard on schools because they should parent instead. Its not only that but I am scared that my worldview may come into confliction with reality, and therefore everything I do not agree with should be destroyed, because its the moral and American thing to do.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 29 2006, 01:43 PM)
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
I wanted to respond to this part of your post, but I ran out of time a couple of days ago. Benjamin Franklin is my absolute favorite of all the founding fathers. Yet like all mortals he wasn’t perfect. Franklin had a way of masking his true feelings about religion in order not to alienate customers for his printing and newspaper business.
You did not provide a link for the Franklin statement above. I have no doubt that he said it, but I am not sure how much of it he meant. During his long life, Franklin was all over the map on religion.
Writing as Silence Dogood he wrote:
QUOTE
It has been for some time a question for me, whether a commonwealth suffers more by hypocritical pretenders to religion or the openly profane? H. W. Brands, The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, page 30.
Here is a link to Brands’ book:
http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Times...TF8&s=books
Soon after writing anonymously as Dogood for his brother’s paper, Franklin fled Boston for New York and the Pennsylvania. His motives were probably two pronged. First, to escape the puritan element in Boston, led by Cotton Mather. Second, to dodge an apprenticeship he was serving under his brother.
One of the funnier stories Brands tells involves Franklin and a Presbyterian minister named Jedediah Andrews. According to Brands:
QUOTE
Andrews got Franklin to agree to come to services for five successive Sundays. If Franklin remained disinclined to join the church after that time, presumably Andrews would bother him no more.
…Franklin served out his time, then left in disappointment and disgust. Page142
…Franklin served out his time, then left in disappointment and disgust. Page142
Franklin also went through an anticlerical period.
He wrote:
QUOTE
A virtuous heretic shall be saved before a wicked Christian. Page 144
QUOTE
Frankin’s outburst of anticlericalism was unlike him—or rather, the side he preferred to present to the world. The sweet reasonableness with which he normally clocked his actions withered before his anger at the suppression of dissenting voice in the Presbyterian pulpit. Page 145
Later, when the question of defending the colony came up, Brands writes of Franklin:
QUOTE
Though Franklin did not believe that God took sides in human quarrels, he was not above an appeal to Providence if such seemed necessary to solidify public opinion behind the defense effort. Page 186
My point is that the words of Franklin are important, but often contradictory. The quotation from Franklin you provided must be taken with a large grain of salt in the context of his many other statements about religion. I have only scratched the surface.
QUOTE(gordo @ Aug 29 2006, 07:29 PM)
Do I advocate teaching strictly Christian values in our schools? Of course not.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet. To do otherwise is to erode the fabric of our society.
And indoctrinating children into a moral-relevatism, a secular view of the world, a lack of right or wrong, a respect for equality over liberty, well, I just find that offensive. To pay for that with my tax dollars is criminal.
Quoted from carlitoswhey.
Would you open yourself up to teaching a large variety of personal philosophies in public schools then?
Well, no. I think that one general personal philosophy will do. This is still one country, right?
QUOTE(gordo)
Would you take offense if your kid had to take a class every day in paganism?
QUOTE(gordo)
Its not only this, but is the fabric of our society really derived from Christians, what is the evolution of our culture with all things considered, can it be summed up so easily.
(I can't remember where I heard this, so apologies to the original author)Grab a coin. Any coin. I'm looking at a nickel here.
On the front:
- Liberty. Not equality, not equal rights, but liberty. The only country in the world founded on this tenet is right here in the USA.
- In God we trust. We are a Godly society. We put our trust in God. It's right there on the money.
On the back:
- e pluribus unum. From many, one. Not hyphenated-Americans, but Americans. Wherever you come from, we expect you to be part of America.
So, that is my general philosophy. Where a public school's secular philosophy conflicts with the above three tenets, it is failing in its mission to indoctrinate children with real American values.
QUOTE(gordo)
As for the forefathers of our fair nation, they were the ones that developed and emplaced the establishment clause, so for all the talk about there religious fervor and so forth, they made the establishment clause.
You are referring to the first part of the first amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When the founding fathers were founding, education was never seen as part of the federal government, so it had nothing to do with Congress. Until the 14th Amendment passed in 1868, most protections of the Bill of Rights were interpreted just that way -- "Congress" means "Congress." Those protections mostly did not apply to state governments. Prayer in public schools was the norm until the 1950's. Your point about the wisdom of the founders excluding religion from schools just isn't there.
The rest of your post is beyond me, so I shall not respond.
QUOTE(BoF @ Aug 31 2006, 04:39 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 29 2006, 01:43 PM)
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
I wanted to respond to this part of your post, but I ran out of time a couple of days ago. Benjamin Franklin is my absolute favorite of all the founding fathers. Yet like all mortals he wasn’t perfect. Franklin had a way of masking is true feelings about religion in order not to alienate customers for his printing and newspaper business.
You did not provide a link for the Franklin statement above. I have no doubt that he said it, but I am not sure how much of it he meant. During his long life, Franklin was all over the map on religion.
Fair points on Franklin, and he's one of my favorites too. Of course, I could list dozens of quotes from John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Quincy Adams, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, etc.
What is your take on the Northwest Ordinance?
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 31 2006, 06:00 PM)
What is your take on the Northwest Ordinance?
QUOTE
And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
ART. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
ART. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/5.htm
I assume this is the portion of the Northwest Ordinance you are asking about. Originally the 1st amendment
applied only to the central or federal government.
When the bill of rights started being applied to the states under Amendment XIV, I think the parts dealing with establishment became null and void.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
I think it is somewhat of a stretch to argue current questions based on the Northwest Ordinance—legislation passed by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
Edited to add information from article from about
QUOTE
Those who spread the myth that the Northwest Ordinance has anything to say about the First Amendment or that it indicates that the first Congress intended the First Amendment to allow for government support of religion are either ignorant of the actual history behind the Ordinance, or they are deliberately distorting it for their own ends.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_gov_northwest
Well, no. I think that one general personal philosophy will do. This is still one country, right?
Yes, and they should all be Christians according to you.
Of course I would. What does paganism have to do with this? Do we live in a pagan society and I missed it?
That’s right, I am sorry, we are just some homogenous culture, I must have been living in a cave hiding from fascists.
(I can't remember where I heard this, so apologies to the original author)
Grab a coin. Any coin. I'm looking at a nickel here.
So your evidence is a coin, wow, I guess history is really not that long chronologically speaking, where did the idea of the supernatural come from, or the bible, or is it just an American thing, it must be the only thing that impacted our culture to, being the constitution also goes on about your perception of it and even states that congress shall make laws in accordance with religion.
- Liberty. Not equality, not equal rights, but liberty. The only country in the world founded on this tenet is right here in the USA.
- In God we trust. We are a Godly society. We put our trust in God. It's right there on the money.
No, some people are, they also happen to want to force that on everyone because else the sky god will punish there money.
- e pluribus unum. From many, one. Not hyphenated-Americans, but Americans. Wherever you come from, we expect you to be part of America.
I know, one where freedom from government based coercion does not exist.
So, that is my general philosophy. Where a public school's secular philosophy conflicts with the above three tenets, it is failing in its mission to indoctrinate children with real American values.
No, those are your values, which I guess you accept being force on everyone via public school where the children at large of America are to go to for education, like learning how to read and write.
Quotes in italic taking from carlitoswhey.
Yes, and they should all be Christians according to you.
Of course I would. What does paganism have to do with this? Do we live in a pagan society and I missed it?
That’s right, I am sorry, we are just some homogenous culture, I must have been living in a cave hiding from fascists.
(I can't remember where I heard this, so apologies to the original author)
Grab a coin. Any coin. I'm looking at a nickel here.
So your evidence is a coin, wow, I guess history is really not that long chronologically speaking, where did the idea of the supernatural come from, or the bible, or is it just an American thing, it must be the only thing that impacted our culture to, being the constitution also goes on about your perception of it and even states that congress shall make laws in accordance with religion.
- Liberty. Not equality, not equal rights, but liberty. The only country in the world founded on this tenet is right here in the USA.
- In God we trust. We are a Godly society. We put our trust in God. It's right there on the money.
No, some people are, they also happen to want to force that on everyone because else the sky god will punish there money.
- e pluribus unum. From many, one. Not hyphenated-Americans, but Americans. Wherever you come from, we expect you to be part of America.
I know, one where freedom from government based coercion does not exist.
So, that is my general philosophy. Where a public school's secular philosophy conflicts with the above three tenets, it is failing in its mission to indoctrinate children with real American values.
No, those are your values, which I guess you accept being force on everyone via public school where the children at large of America are to go to for education, like learning how to read and write.
Quotes in italic taking from carlitoswhey.
QUOTE(BoF @ Aug 31 2006, 06:31 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 31 2006, 06:00 PM)
What is your take on the Northwest Ordinance?
QUOTE
And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
ART. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
ART. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/5.htm
I assume this is the portion of the Northwest Ordinance you are asking about. Originally the 1st amendment
applied only to the central or federal government.
No, I was referring to this part of Article 3 that I posted earlier. Our topic here is education, so I cited this phrase which describes the role of government in educating our children.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 29 2006, 01:43 PM)
The Northwest Ordinance (…”Arguably the single most important piece of legislation passed by the Continental Congress other than the Declaration of Independence” per wikipedia)
QUOTE(Art. 3)
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
QUOTE
When the bill of rights started being applied to the states under Amendment XIV, I think the parts dealing with establishment became null and void.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
I think it is somewhat of a stretch to argue current questions based on the Northwest Ordinance—legislation passed by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
QUOTE(BoF)
Edited to add information from article from about
QUOTE
Those who spread the myth that the Northwest Ordinance has anything to say about the First Amendment or that it indicates that the first Congress intended the First Amendment to allow for government support of religion are either ignorant of the actual history behind the Ordinance, or they are deliberately distorting it for their own ends.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_gov_northwest
I can't find what you cited on your link, so I can't evaluate who's opinion you are giving me here.
QUOTE(gordo @ Aug 31 2006, 06:38 PM)
Well, no. I think that one general personal philosophy will do. This is still one country, right?
Yes, and they should all be Christians according to you.
QUOTE(gordo)
Of course I would. What does paganism have to do with this? Do we live in a pagan society and I missed it?
QUOTE
That’s right, I am sorry, we are just some homogenous culture, I must have been living in a cave hiding from fascists.
QUOTE(gordo)
(I can't remember where I heard this, so apologies to the original author)
Grab a coin. Any coin. I'm looking at a nickel here.
So your evidence is a coin, wow, I guess history is really not that long chronologically speaking, where did the idea of the supernatural come from, or the bible, or is it just an American thing, it must be the only thing that impacted our culture to, being the constitution also goes on about your perception of it and even states that congress shall make laws in accordance with religion.
Did you even take a moment to ask why those words are on the money we spend, or do you deny those words are there? Why don't you tell us we the people through our elected government decided to put those words which you mock on our currency? Why?
QUOTE(gordo)
So, that is my general philosophy. Where a public school's secular philosophy conflicts with the above three tenets, it is failing in its mission to indoctrinate children with real American values.
No, those are your values, which I guess you accept being force on everyone via public school where the children at large of America are to go to for education, like learning how to read and write.
No, the United States did not ring me up and ask 'carlito, what are your values' and then print them on the money. I am identifying American values here.
Do you deny that a country can have a core set of values? As for education, what good is learning to read and write if you have no values? The worst tyrants in history have written books.
Of course, I never said that. I did intimate that we are a Christian nation. Do you disagree?
By saying that public education should only teach Christian values to children you don’t by extension see yourself saying that only Christian values should be taught to all America youth, thus you would say they should be Christian, because its a Christian perception you would have passed onto them.
Does America even have the right to have a culture? Is there a French culture? A German culture?
Its not a matter of it having a right to have one, its the fact that it does, and its not homogenous as you would suggest that it is, from protestant to catholic, to African Americans to European Americans, America has a lot of difference to its cultural face. To suggest that everyone is on the same page of music when its come to spirituality is a completely false position to take in every regard.
Did you even take a moment to ask why those words are on the money we spend, or do you deny those words are there? Why don't you tell us we the people through our elected government decided to put those words which you mock on our currency? Why?
Because some people feel that the wall of separation does not need to exist and would commit such acts of treason. I am also sorry to mock such, I forget that America is not about freedom or respect of our constitution as much as its about following our fascist masters, its that moral and intellectual confusion you will have to pardon me.
No, the United States did not ring me up and ask 'carlito, what are your values' and then print them on the money. I am identifying American values here.
No, you said they are American values, I said they are your values.
Do you deny that a country can have a core set of values? As for education, what good is learning to read and write if you have no values? The worst tyrants in history have written books.
It does, its called the constitution. What does books writing by tyrants have to do with this in all actuality, such moves will not help my moral and intellectual confusion.
Quotes in italic are taken from carlitoswhey.
By saying that public education should only teach Christian values to children you don’t by extension see yourself saying that only Christian values should be taught to all America youth, thus you would say they should be Christian, because its a Christian perception you would have passed onto them.
Does America even have the right to have a culture? Is there a French culture? A German culture?
Its not a matter of it having a right to have one, its the fact that it does, and its not homogenous as you would suggest that it is, from protestant to catholic, to African Americans to European Americans, America has a lot of difference to its cultural face. To suggest that everyone is on the same page of music when its come to spirituality is a completely false position to take in every regard.
Did you even take a moment to ask why those words are on the money we spend, or do you deny those words are there? Why don't you tell us we the people through our elected government decided to put those words which you mock on our currency? Why?
Because some people feel that the wall of separation does not need to exist and would commit such acts of treason. I am also sorry to mock such, I forget that America is not about freedom or respect of our constitution as much as its about following our fascist masters, its that moral and intellectual confusion you will have to pardon me.
No, the United States did not ring me up and ask 'carlito, what are your values' and then print them on the money. I am identifying American values here.
No, you said they are American values, I said they are your values.
Do you deny that a country can have a core set of values? As for education, what good is learning to read and write if you have no values? The worst tyrants in history have written books.
It does, its called the constitution. What does books writing by tyrants have to do with this in all actuality, such moves will not help my moral and intellectual confusion.
Quotes in italic are taken from carlitoswhey.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
I did intimate that we are a Christian nation. Do you disagree?
Even defining Christianity is difficult. I would wager that if you asked 100 people from the same church to define the word, you would get a hundred different answers. Much of "Christianity" is little more than lip service.
We are a culturally diverse, pluralistic nation - not a Christian nation.
QUOTE(gordo @ Sep 1 2006, 04:13 PM)
Of course, I never said that. I did intimate that we are a Christian nation. Do you disagree?
By saying that public education should only teach Christian values to children you don’t by extension see yourself saying that only Christian values should be taught to all America youth, thus you would say they should be Christian, because its a Christian perception you would have passed onto them.
I highlighted a word in red above. Perhaps you could glance at my numerous posts and show me where I said this.
QUOTE(gordo)
Does America even have the right to have a culture? Is there a French culture? A German culture?
Its not a matter of it having a right to have one, its the fact that it does, and its not homogenous as you would suggest that it is, from protestant to catholic, to African Americans to European Americans, America has a lot of difference to its cultural face. To suggest that everyone is on the same page of music when its come to spirituality is a completely false position to take in every regard.
What nice thoughts. So, should there be an American culture or should we have 10,000 different ones? And what exactly will hold this nation together if the latter?
QUOTE(gordo)
Did you even take a moment to ask why those words are on the money we spend, or do you deny those words are there? Why don't you tell us we the people through our elected government decided to put those words which you mock on our currency? Why?
Because some people feel that the wall of separation does not need to exist and would commit such acts of treason. I am also sorry to mock such, I forget that America is not about freedom or respect of our constitution as much as its about following our fascist masters, its that moral and intellectual confusion you will have to pardon me.
QUOTE
No, the United States did not ring me up and ask 'carlito, what are your values' and then print them on the money. I am identifying American values here.
No, you said they are American values, I said they are your values.
No, you said they are American values, I said they are your values.
gordo, stay with me. How did my values get on the money? Before you answer, remember that the money had these words on it before I was born.
QUOTE(gordo)
Do you deny that a country can have a core set of values? As for education, what good is learning to read and write if you have no values? The worst tyrants in history have written books.
It does, its called the constitution. What does books writing by tyrants have to do with this in all actuality, such moves will not help my moral and intellectual confusion.
It does, its called the constitution. What does books writing by tyrants have to do with this in all actuality, such moves will not help my moral and intellectual confusion.
You want children to be able to read and write. I want this, plus a set of values. Hitler and Stalin could read and write. Is this getting clearer?
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 1 2006, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
I did intimate that we are a Christian nation. Do you disagree?
Even defining Christianity is difficult. I would wager that if you asked 100 people from the same church to define the word, you would get a hundred different answers. Much of "Christianity" is little more than lip service.
We are a culturally diverse, pluralistic nation - not a Christian nation
According to the Supreme Court we are.
QUOTE(holy trinity church v. USA)
'It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, 'In the name of God, amen;' the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, 'In the name of God, amen;' the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
Do I advocate teaching strictly Christian values in our schools? Of course not.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet. To do otherwise is to erode the fabric of our society.
And indoctrinating children into a moral-relevatism, a secular view of the world, a lack of right or wrong, a respect for equality over liberty, well, I just find that offensive. To pay for that with my tax dollars is criminal.
Quoted from carlitoswhey.
Would you open yourself up to teaching a large variety of personal philosophies in public schools then?--ME
Well, no. I think that one general personal philosophy will do. This is still one country, right?
So, now do you still not remember that you would only accept Christianity being taught in public school, which children of the public at large attend, regardless of Childs faith, or faith of the Childs family. By extension then you would be saying that for the youth at large, which happen to become adults.
What nice thoughts. So, should there be an American culture or should we have 10,000 different ones? And what exactly will hold this nation together if the latter?
You cant honestly think Americas culture is some perfect example of harmony and in all rights is homogenous do you? Does everyone like the same kind of music? Dress the same? Use the same words? Vote for the same politician? The amount of variation in our culture is far and wide, because U.S citizens are individuals, something you must not like.
You are rambling here. Stay focused and answer the question please.\
No I am not actually. Its not America at large that wanted that on the coin, it was some people, and being its federally establishing religion its against the establishment clause that our very religious nation somehow added into our glowing religious constitution as you would have it.
So, that is my general philosophy. Where a public school's secular philosophy conflicts with the above three tenets, it is failing in its mission to indoctrinate children with real American values.
These are your words, that Christian values are American values and if that school does not teach them its failing.
gordo, stay with me. How did my values get on the money? Before you answer, remember that the money had these words on it before I was born.
Thank you for letting me know this.
You want children to be able to read and write. I want this, plus a set of values. Hitler and Stalin could read and write. Is this getting clearer?
As I am sure most Americas would like, save the problem is what should that be in relation to what should be instructed in public school, do you think people of different faiths would like yours put on there kids from having to go to public education, would you like your kids to have to take a class in pagan beliefs everyday, you already said no, but felt inclined that everyone else’s kids should have to learn Christian values, which of course there is only 27,000 denominations of such belief.
'It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'
That’s very nice for the state of Pennsylvania.
Listen, if you take a look at any theocratic government in the past and present they are nothing like America. Simply put America may have come from a culture that had certain religious beliefs, being its western society I really doubted for them to be Taoist, but on that note our constitution does not reflect a theocracy, it actually goes as far as to bar congress from making laws that have to do with religion. SO you can talk all day about how religions our nation is, but for the simple reality of it, I do not think our constitution would have the separation clause, or for that matter grant liberty to people, even if they happen to be Satan worshippers.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet. To do otherwise is to erode the fabric of our society.
And indoctrinating children into a moral-relevatism, a secular view of the world, a lack of right or wrong, a respect for equality over liberty, well, I just find that offensive. To pay for that with my tax dollars is criminal.
Quoted from carlitoswhey.
Would you open yourself up to teaching a large variety of personal philosophies in public schools then?--ME
Well, no. I think that one general personal philosophy will do. This is still one country, right?
So, now do you still not remember that you would only accept Christianity being taught in public school, which children of the public at large attend, regardless of Childs faith, or faith of the Childs family. By extension then you would be saying that for the youth at large, which happen to become adults.
What nice thoughts. So, should there be an American culture or should we have 10,000 different ones? And what exactly will hold this nation together if the latter?
You cant honestly think Americas culture is some perfect example of harmony and in all rights is homogenous do you? Does everyone like the same kind of music? Dress the same? Use the same words? Vote for the same politician? The amount of variation in our culture is far and wide, because U.S citizens are individuals, something you must not like.
You are rambling here. Stay focused and answer the question please.\
No I am not actually. Its not America at large that wanted that on the coin, it was some people, and being its federally establishing religion its against the establishment clause that our very religious nation somehow added into our glowing religious constitution as you would have it.
So, that is my general philosophy. Where a public school's secular philosophy conflicts with the above three tenets, it is failing in its mission to indoctrinate children with real American values.
These are your words, that Christian values are American values and if that school does not teach them its failing.
gordo, stay with me. How did my values get on the money? Before you answer, remember that the money had these words on it before I was born.
Thank you for letting me know this.
You want children to be able to read and write. I want this, plus a set of values. Hitler and Stalin could read and write. Is this getting clearer?
As I am sure most Americas would like, save the problem is what should that be in relation to what should be instructed in public school, do you think people of different faiths would like yours put on there kids from having to go to public education, would you like your kids to have to take a class in pagan beliefs everyday, you already said no, but felt inclined that everyone else’s kids should have to learn Christian values, which of course there is only 27,000 denominations of such belief.
'It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'
That’s very nice for the state of Pennsylvania.
Listen, if you take a look at any theocratic government in the past and present they are nothing like America. Simply put America may have come from a culture that had certain religious beliefs, being its western society I really doubted for them to be Taoist, but on that note our constitution does not reflect a theocracy, it actually goes as far as to bar congress from making laws that have to do with religion. SO you can talk all day about how religions our nation is, but for the simple reality of it, I do not think our constitution would have the separation clause, or for that matter grant liberty to people, even if they happen to be Satan worshippers.
QUOTE(Bof)
Even defining Christianity is difficult. I would wager that if you asked 100 people from the same church to define the word, you would get a hundred different answers. Much of "Christianity" is little more than lip service.
We are a culturally diverse, pluralistic nation - not a Christian nation
We are a culturally diverse, pluralistic nation - not a Christian nation
QUOTE
According to the Supreme Court we are
Those words from the 1892 decision Rector, Etc, of Holy Trinity Church v. U. S., are grossly overplayed.
In 1905, Associate Justice David A. Brewer, who penned the decision 13 years earlier, published a book entitled The United States a Christian Nation. He qualified his meaning of the statement in his decision.
The United States is a Christian nation only in the sense that a majority of people lay claim to it—regardless of how deep or shallow that allegiance may be. It not “Christian” socially, governmentally (public schools?
) or politically.Please not highlighted areas indicating points of cultural diversity and pluralism Justice Brewer supported.
QUOTE
But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On, the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of. Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that profession of Christianity is a condition for holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Page 12 PDF File
http://books.google.com/books?id=f7pMJk_cm...hristian+Nation
Note: This is a PDF file.
QUOTE(gordo @ Sep 2 2006, 01:04 AM)
Do I advocate teaching strictly Christian values in our schools? Of course not.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet. To do otherwise is to erode the fabric of our society.
And indoctrinating children into a moral-relevatism, a secular view of the world, a lack of right or wrong, a respect for equality over liberty, well, I just find that offensive. To pay for that with my tax dollars is criminal.
Quoted from carlitoswhey.
Would you open yourself up to teaching a large variety of personal philosophies in public schools then?--ME
Well, no. I think that one general personal philosophy will do. This is still one country, right?
So, now do you still not remember that you would only accept Christianity being taught in public school, which children of the public at large attend, regardless of Childs faith, or faith of the Childs family. By extension then you would be saying that for the youth at large, which happen to become adults.
Can you please reconcile saying that I would "only accept Christianity being taught in public school" when above in your post you quote me saying exactly the opposite? I am starting to see a pattern here.
And I beg you, please try the 'quote' button. Just highlight the text and click "quote" - works in every browser I've tried. If you want to get fancy, you can then go in and type "=carlitoorsomeothername" to show who you are quoting.
QUOTE(gordo)
QUOTE(carlito)
What nice thoughts. So, should there be an American culture or should we have 10,000 different ones? And what exactly will hold this nation together if the latter?
You cant honestly think Americas culture is some perfect example of harmony and in all rights is homogenous do you? Does everyone like the same kind of music? Dress the same? Use the same words? Vote for the same politician? The amount of variation in our culture is far and wide, because U.S citizens are individuals, something you must not like.
Perhaps you can do a quick google search on logical fallacies before you answer this. Again, where did I use words like "perfect harmony" or "homogeneous" above? Is my asking that we all be "americans" somehow controversial, here in America?
QUOTE
You are rambling here. Stay focused and answer the question please.\
No I am not actually. Its not America at large that wanted that on the coin, it was some people, and being its federally establishing religion its against the establishment clause that our very religious nation somehow added into our glowing religious constitution as you would have it.
No I am not actually. Its not America at large that wanted that on the coin, it was some people, and being its federally establishing religion its against the establishment clause that our very religious nation somehow added into our glowing religious constitution as you would have it.
Now, I am going to challenge you again. This is a debate site, and you are asked to provide sources for factual assertions. Please show me where "America at large" did not want those phrases on the money. Also show me where 'In God We Trust' violates the Establishment Clause. Should be easy - start with the ACLU and work down from there.
QUOTE
So, that is my general philosophy. Where a public school's secular philosophy conflicts with the above three tenets, it is failing in its mission to indoctrinate children with real American values.
These are your words, that Christian values are American values and if that school does not teach them its failing.
My words, which you kindly quoted above are:These are your words, that Christian values are American values and if that school does not teach them its failing.
Do I advocate teaching traditional, Judeo-Christian values in our schools? You bet.
BoF has correctly noted that some of those values go back to Confucius so I don't see where they are exclusively "Christian" values.
QUOTE(gordo)
As I am sure most Americas would like, save the problem is what should that be in relation to what should be instructed in public school, do you think people of different faiths would like yours put on there kids from having to go to public education, would you like your kids to have to take a class in pagan beliefs everyday, you already said no, but felt inclined that everyone else’s kids should have to learn Christian values, which of course there is only 27,000 denominations of such belief.
Another strawman erected, another tumbles down. bravo!
QUOTE(gordo)
Listen, if you take a look at any theocratic government in the past and present they are nothing like America. Simply put America may have come from a culture that had certain religious beliefs, being its western society I really doubted for them to be Taoist, but on that note our constitution does not reflect a theocracy, it actually goes as far as to bar congress from making laws that have to do with religion. SO you can talk all day about how religions our nation is, but for the simple reality of it, I do not think our constitution would have the separation clause, or for that matter grant liberty to people, even if they happen to be Satan worshippers.
Our constitution does not have a "separation clause" nor is it prohibited from making laws that "have to do with religion." I believe you are expanding the Establishment Clause right here in front of our eyes.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 2 2006, 01:35 AM)
QUOTE(Bof)
Even defining Christianity is difficult. I would wager that if you asked 100 people from the same church to define the word, you would get a hundred different answers. Much of "Christianity" is little more than lip service.
We are a culturally diverse, pluralistic nation - not a Christian nation
We are a culturally diverse, pluralistic nation - not a Christian nation
QUOTE(BoF)
QUOTE
According to the Supreme Court we are
Those words from the 1892 decision Rector, Etc, of Holy Trinity Church v. U. S., are grossly overplayed.
In 1905, Associate Justice David A. Brewer, who penned the decision 13 years earlier, published a book entitled The United States a Christian Nation. He qualified his meaning of the statement in his decision.
The United States is a Christian nation only in the sense that a majority of people lay claim to it—regardless of how deep or shallow that allegiance may be. It not “Christian” socially, governmentally (public schools?
) or politically.Please not highlighted areas indicating points of cultural diversity and pluralism Justice Brewer supported.
QUOTE
But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On, the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of. Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that profession of Christianity is a condition for holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Page 12 PDF File
http://books.google.com/books?id=f7pMJk_cm...hristian+Nation
Note: This is a PDF file.
With all due respect, you must not have read this book. This guy was a quaker and wrote 100+ pages urging America to become a more Christian nation. You quoted the set up and there are dozens of pages filled with evidence that this is indeed a Christian nation. I can't cut/paste from PDFs so can't quote here, but I could literally quote the entire book, except the first paragraph that you lifted.
QUOTE
But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On, the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of. Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that profession of Christianity is a condition for holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Page 12 PDF File
http://books.google.com/books?id=f7pMJk_cm...hristian+Nation
Note: This is a PDF file.
QUOTE
With all due respect, you must not have read this book. This guy was a quaker and wrote 100+ pages urging America to become a more Christian nation. You quoted the set up and there are dozens of pages filled with evidence that this is indeed a Christian nation. I can't cut/paste from PDFs so can't quote here, but I could literally quote the entire book, except the first paragraph that you liftedBrewer was conceeding that the U. S. was not a Christian nation socially, politically or governmentally.
Sounds to me as if Brewer might have been one of those damanable activist judges we hear conservatives whine about so much, that is, if we accept your interpretation.
Christianity does and has enjoyed at least nominal support of the majority of people - perhaps predominately Christian would be more accurate.
Why is it so Important to you that this be a "Christian" rather than religiously neutral country?
I think religious neutrality has pretty well been established, since the school prayer cases of the 1960s.
The topic of this thread appears to be more of a slamming of Christianity than a discussion of education options. The wording of the questions appear to be biased, and force the advocates of vouchers or private schools into a defensive position from the start. I do not believe that a constructive or informative debate can result with the way the questions and discussion are currently framed. 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.