School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem

[PeterS]

Because they are the first authority you will face in life.
Read the bible, it's all there.

I don't have the time to raise you Joe.

That someone exerts authority doesn't predicate respect for that authority. You know that as well as I.

[Rockntractor]

That someone exerts authority doesn't not predicate respect for that authority. You know that as well as I.

You are a complete waste of time and an example of what is wrong with this country and our education system.

[PeterS]

You are a complete waste of time and an example of what is wrong with this country and our education system.

Your inability to address my questons only represents your short comings not what's wrong with me, this country, or educational system.

[Rockntractor]

Your inability to address my questons only represents your short comings not what's wrong with me, this country, or educational system.

[PeterS]

Do you feel better?

[txradioguy]

The first four violate my freedom to worship and, infact, all but three are valid US law so for what reason should these stand alone on the steps of a courthouse...or any public square for that matter?

Because dieplaying them does not violate the 1st Amendment. Nor is displaying them on a courthouse in a school or anywhere else a violation of the seperation of Church and State.

*Sigh* Am I going to have to educate you on this as well?

[Novaheart]

Because dieplaying them does not violate the 1st Amendment. Nor is displaying them on a courthouse in a school or anywhere else a violation of the seperation of Church and State.

*Sigh* Am I going to have to educate you on this as well?

I'd say that all depends on when they were installed and the reason for the install. The Supreme Court gingerbread including the 10 commandments was consistent with art and culture of the day. The Ten Commandments were included not so much as to make a religious statement, but because they were viewed as "ancient law". I have never read anything to suggest that the artwork was intended to thumb its nose at court rulings or the Separation of Church and State. The recent cases in which a judge here or a group there have deliberately installed the Ten Commandment to pick a fight is both a political and religious statement and is unacceptable.

If you don't think it's unacceptable, it's probably because of your comfort and security in your belief that you belong to an unshakeable majority. Let the court house in Dearborn Michigan carve Koran verses in the wall and see how that goes over.

[Odysseus]

Owning a child doens't guarantee a perfect match and the question posed was that you WERE the perfect match! Does my right to life give me a right to one of your kidneys to save my life? What do our values absent logic give us? ...and ducking a question does not eauate to logic.

Remember the bolded part when you duck my response.

There are those who would view such a situation as an obligation on my part. Their logic is that by not sharing, I am guaranteeing the death of someone else. I don't agree with that logic, and neither do you, but it is the basis of much of our tax policy, which treats those who have a resource as having an obligation to share it so that those who lack it will not be left without. The most extreme example of this is the Soviet response to food hoarders during Stalin's famine, which entailed confiscation and execution (as opposed to just confiscation). The Soviets thought that they were being perfectly logical, and given their values, they were. That's the problem. Values are not universal. Different cultures inculcate different values, and even within a culture, different groups will espouse different values, based on philosophical differences. Your logic may not be compelling to a socialist or a member of an Afghan tribe.

And eugenics were also logically viewed as coercive and/or restrictive and in violation of any number of natural laws...am I not correct? You are assuming that logic, if it strays, cannot correct itself. You are mistaken. This is not said for values which cannot be argued as predicated through religion can it...

On the contrary, the Progressives thought that eugenics was consistent with natual laws of evolution, and to an extent, they were correct. One can select for specific traits and breed out those members of a species that lack them. Our history of animal domestication proves this. The science of eliminating traits that were deemed undesirable was not illogical, but when you apply the practices of culling and selective breeding to people, you get evil on a massive scale. Logic only works in that context if you value freedom over coercion and see life as having value in and of itself, rather than only being of value if it advances the species as a whole.

Correct, which is why it was required to be removed when heald as a stand alone monumnet.

How does placing the monument make them the law of the land, any more than having a statue of Justicia makes the Roman legal code the law of the land?

This wasn't how the Supreme Court ruled.

The Supreme Court often interprets laws in ways that leave sane people in shock. They have interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause to be applicable to grain grown for personal consumption on a family farm. They have interpreted language in a Civil Rights Act that specifically bans racial discrimination to permit it, provided the right race is discriminated against. They have banned capital punishment as unconstitutional, even though the Constitution specifically mentions it in the context of legally sanctioned punishments, and then subsequently reversed themselves. They interpreted the 14th Amendment as permitting segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson) and then reversed themselves in Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court, in a massive usurpation of power.

How so? The central argument is whether a single religious text on law belongs in ANY US court house. You can type all you like but the answer continues to be no and this was upheld by the US Supreme Court. I am not cherry picking, simply cutting to the chase of the argument...

It was Arroyo Doble who I was answering in that part of the response, not you. He picked one part of my argument in order to claim that I was attempting to present the Ten Commandments as not being religious in origin, where I was arguing that while it was religious, it was also historically significant, even absent any belief. He tends to do that when he cannot answer an argument.

For me, honor must be earned. The mere combining of sperm and egg does not do that...

One would hope that your parents did more than provide the biological material that produced you.

Why does my affection for my parents matter?

In the case of the Ten Commandments, which applied to the tribal culture of the Hebrews, a child was presumed to know his/her parents. They had obligations towards their children, and the children had obligations to their parents. Given several generations of slavery in Egypt, those obligations had been eroded. Children could be separated from parents at the whim of the slave owner and the elderly were not provided for when they were no longer of value as slaves. Thus, the basic family structures were destroyed and needed restoration. That is the basis of the Commandment.

By what definition? How does biological happenstance form the basis of all respect?

Parenthood is far more than biological happenstance. Parents raise children, nurture them, see them to adulthood and provide love, protection and guidance as long as they are able to do so. In return for that, children provide for their parents as they age. If that is not your experience, you have my deepest sympathy, but it is the norm for most of us.

[txradioguy]

I'd say that all depends on when they were installed and the reason for the install. The Supreme Court gingerbread including the 10 commandments was consistent with art and culture of the day. The Ten Commandments were included not so much as to make a religious statement, but because they were viewed as "ancient law". I have never read anything to suggest that the artwork was intended to thumb its nose at court rulings or the Separation of Church and State. The recent cases in which a judge here or a group there have deliberately installed the Ten Commandment to pick a fight is both a political and religious statement and is unacceptable.

You're going way far afield of the argument at hand to try and sound relavent.

You should stop.

If you don't think it's unacceptable, it's probably because of your comfort and security in your belief that you belong to an unshakeable majority.

No it's because I believe in the 1st Amendment the way it was written...espeially in this area..not how you Libtards have twisted it.

Let the court house in Dearborn Michigan carve Koran verses in the wall and see how that goes over.

Given the large amount of Muslims in Dearbornistan I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

[NJCardFan]

I'm still trying to find in our founding documents the part that mentions the separation fo church and state.