Um… no one is banning children from saying the Lord’s Prayer (assuming they’re not speaking it aloud during a spelling test or something).
It’s the teachers and principles who aren’t allowed to lead children in prayer.
“When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.”
“It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.”
– Justice Black, U.S. Supreme Court, Engel v. Vitale
You’ve got 40 years of case law and untold numbers of constitutional scholars that disagree with you.
Best,
Dev
Razorsharp maybe I need to put this in a different way for you in regards to the “No” prayer in school topic.
…you can’t force a buddhist to say the Lords Prayer. It’s disrespectful. Conversely, a lutheran wouldn’t want to be forced to recite “Ohm mani padme um.”
And maybe someone else pointed this out but we are a Republic, not a democracy. Last I checked anyway…so I don’t quite understand all that about the Pledge. Actually, I don’t understand anyone getting their panties in a bunch about the pledge because anyone can pay lip service. It’s actions that show sincerity.
I stand humbly corrected.
Best,
Dev
Yes, but it is 40 years of corrupted liberal case law and the Constitutional scholars are all in the hip pockets of the dreaded New World Order conspirators.
Oh, Razorsharp agrees that the U.S. is a Republic. It is his odd notion that the reason the Pledge is coming under attack is that infidels supporting the New World Order want to change the concept of the U.S. to that of a democracy and that those democrats are insisting that the Pledge not be recited.
Yea, I guess all those Republicans in power are just a wee bit too “liberal” for you, eh?
You might want to wipe that bit of foam off your chin, there. Looks like you’re getting ready to bite your own kind.
Then I say bring it on the hate. I dare them to put their chains back on people like me.
Simplistic, perhaps. Ignorant, no. What they teach here is much like they teach elsewhere, that Confederate generals were gallant and competent. History as taught today is somewhat revisionist in that modern authors avoid using labels of “right” and “wrong”. However, the South WAS dead wrong and however gallant their generals were, they were still traitors, pure and simple. I am sorry you find that simplistic but it is the truth.
The confederate generals certainly were extremely competent.
On the other hand, I, personally, could out-general McClellan.
What does that have to do with political correctness? Certainly I find Lee’s story to be highly significant and important to understanding the Civil War, a portrait of how it affected America in microcosm, from his West Point days to his fateful decision to the end at the Court House to the fate of his house, Arlington Cemetary. He may have chosen the wrong side, but he fought for what he thought was right, a true American.
Forrest, on the other hand… good special forces commander, started the KKK… Eh.
No, it’s revisionism.
I don’t know if that’s revisionism (changing what actually happened in history) so much as it is offering a value judgment where one isn’t required. You don’t really need a textbook to know that slavery is wrong; that said, I find the near-idolatry afforded some Confederate heroes perplexing and maddening.
OK, by that logic George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin were all traitorous outlaws, and dead wrong for fighting against a government they didn’t feel represented them. If you agree with that, I understand your position. I’m not saying I’m agreeing with the Confederate Cause, but your brushing it off as “dead wrong” is naive. If you think these guys were fighting for the institution of slavery, we need to open another GD to put the facts out there.
Then again, denying that slavery played a key role in what happened is also wrong. There were a lot of factors that led to the Civil War, but I can’t imagine how one would separate Lee, Jackson, et al from slavery.
And to the British the government they were fighting, Washington, Jefferson and company WERE traitorous outlaws.
I agree, I just don’t see how the issue of slavery totally negates the legitimacy of the Confederate issues. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist in 1860. He had spoken against slavery in the territories, but I have never heard anyone suggest he had any intentions of freeing the slaves, northern or southern. It was a states rights Vs federal rights issue. That is a legitimate area of contention, despite the fact that the mitigating circumstances of the debate were centered around a horrid and deplorable practice.
If anyone wants to argue this further we should probably start a new GD, and get back to the OP here.
This so-called “federally mandtrory requirement” is a “power” that the FedGov has usurped through the power of taxation.
Here’s how the scam works.
The FedGov taxes the wages of the citizens of each state. The state, through their representatives, grovel for some of those tax-dollars to be returned to the states to be spent on education. The states then find themselves beholden to FedGov requirements because of the magical transformation of money that was once the money of the citizens of the states, is now the FedGov’s money that is being benevolently returned to the states as long as the states behave in a manner so dictated.
Yes, Razorsharp, that’s entirely accurate. That’s how taxation works.
It’s also how the 55 mph speed limit was created. And the 21 minimum age for drinking.
I just wonder how Mr. Collinsworth would feel if the Pledge of Allegance had cited a nation under a God he didn’t worship.