School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem

[PeterS]

Not exactly and not entirely.

And Jefferson believed that public funds should be used for religious schools. And that public schools should have areas set aside for religious gatherings, texts, etc.

This was because the only schools at the time were religious and this money was to be used for higher education not general education. You also did not mention that he ommitted religion from his 1778 Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge and left religion out of his of 1817 Bill for Establishing a System of Public Education. If Jefferson believed that religion should be ingrained in public schools he had a funny way of showing it...

Jefferson also believed that only males should attend school.

Your point?

[Generation Why?]

Huh? What is a anti-theist?

An anti-theist is someone who, on top of not believeing in any gods, are also opposed to the idea of theism. I am an atheist, more specifically, a non-theist. I don't believe in god but I don't care if anyone else does.

[PeterS]

An anti-theist is someone who, on top of not believeing in any gods, are also opposed to the idea of theism. I am an atheist, more specifically, a non-theist. I don't believe in god but I don't care if anyone else does.

And you believe that 'anti-theism' is behind the desire to have religious objects and beliefs removed from the public sphere? Isn't the question begged: what is purpose for placing those beliefs in the public sphere? In this case here I think the purpose innocent but what if a court found otherwise? I also believe in the rule of law and so differ to it without sinister belief. Radicalism is a two way street and Christians so offended that they become radicalized are no different than the anti-theist of your definition...

[Generation Why?]

And you believe that 'anti-theism' is behind the desire to have religious objects and beliefs removed from the public sphere? Isn't the question begged: what is purpose for placing those beliefs in the public sphere? In this case here I think the purpose innocent but what if a court found otherwise? I also believe in the rule of law and so differ to it without sinister belief. Radicalism is a two way street and Christians so offended that they become radicalized are no different than the anti-theist of your definition...

No. I personally don't care who puts what up. Constitutionally I do care who puts what up. Anti-theists tend to be more outspoken in regards to these situtations. That was the point I was trying to make.

[PeterS]

No. I personally don't care who puts what up. Constitutionally I do care who puts what up. Anti-theists tend to be more outspoken in regards to these situtations. That was the point I was trying to make.

To me they sound no more outspoken then the radicals from the Christian right who go into hysterics with every perceived infringement and, as was exemplified with the discussion on the ten commandments, they have no clue when the line is crossed. This is the problem and why if not for those voices of the anti-theist there would be no voice to squelch the radical theist who has no clue when a line is crossed...

[JB]

...they have no clue when the line is crossed...

The line is crossed when you are forced to go to church each week or when we have a Church of America. That's what the establishment clause is all about stupid, you're just too stupid to realize it.

[PeterS]

The line is crossed when you are forced to go to church each week or when we have a Church of America. That's what the establishment clause is all about stupid, you're just too stupid to realize it.

But that isn't how the Supreme Court saw it nor any number of courts and thier rulings: Stone v. Graham (Supreme Court, 1980) :Posting the Ten Commandments in Schools; DiLotero v. Downey Unified School District (9th Circuit Court, 1999); Books v. Elkhart (7th Circuit Court, 2000): Ten Commandments Monument; O’Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union (7th Circuit Court, 2001); Glassroth v. Moore (2002): Judge Roy Moore & His Ten Commandments Monument; Van Orden v. Perry (Supreme Court, 2005): Ten Commandments Monument in Texas; ACLU v. McCreary County (Supreme Court, 2005): Ten Commandments Displays...to name a few.

The rulings against display are nothing new and have come from both left and right leaning courts...

[txradioguy]

And you believe that 'anti-theism' is behind the desire to have religious objects and beliefs removed from the public sphere? .

Yes. that's exactly what's going on. Garden variety Atheists like you have turned your non belief into a religion of it's own...worshipping at the altar of madeline Murray O'Haire.

People like GW...don't believe...but they aren't going to try and persicute or prosicute those that do belive...like you and others would be eager to do.

[txradioguy]

But that isn't how the Supreme Court saw it nor any number of courts and thier rulings: Stone v. Graham (Supreme Court, 1980) :Posting the Ten Commandments in Schools; DiLotero v. Downey Unified School District (9th Circuit Court, 1999); Books v. Elkhart (7th Circuit Court, 2000): Ten Commandments Monument; O’Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union (7th Circuit Court, 2001); Glassroth v. Moore (2002): Judge Roy Moore & His Ten Commandments Monument; Van Orden v. Perry (Supreme Court, 2005): Ten Commandments Monument in Texas; ACLU v. McCreary County (Supreme Court, 2005): Ten Commandments Displays...to name a few.

The rulings against display are nothing new and have come from both left and right leaning courts...

And their interpretation of the 1st Amendment is wrong.

[txradioguy]

The line is crossed when you are forced to go to church each week or when we have a Church of America. That's what the establishment clause is all about stupid, you're just too stupid to realize it.

Ding ding ding we have teh winnah!!!!