School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem

[PeterS]

You are proceeding from a completely false premise. The religious beliefs of one individual cannot be legislated over another.
That's impossible in a democratic republic

The majority of the electorate is prevented from imposing, via their elected representatives, a state-sanctioned religion, period.
That's prohibited by the First Amendment.

The majority of the electorate is prevented from passing laws interfering in the free exercise of religion, period.
That's prohibited by the First Amendment.

An electorate is free to be guided by their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the drafting of legislation, up to the point where those laws either establish a state religion, or prevent free exercise of religion.

You don't need to establish a state religion to impose religious beliefs over another; attempts to ban gay marriage are an example as are attempts to ban abortions. No state religion is being attempted here but both are centered around religious belief.

[PeterS]

Please find me where in our founding documents where the Founders intended this country to be secular. I'll wait.

Show me where we are a theoracy? I'll wait.

[PeterS]

Let me flip this around. The little girl is being forced to remove God from her poem because one asshole got offended. OK. That is fact. We can all agree on that, right? OK, let's move on. And Pete here doesn't see a problem with it. In fact, he responded to my post about what I perceive to be the liberal mind set by saying that it's OK to offend the 99 but not OK to offend the 1. But let me ask you, Pete. Why were we told to shut up and take ti whenever Christianity is shit on in so called art. Piss Christ is allowed to be shown based on the 1st amendment. The depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung or vaginas because it's protected by the 1st amendment. So what you're saying, Peter, that it's OK to offend the religious by mocking and blaspheming their religious symbols and icons and yet one person who isn't religious can't be offended by the uttering of a word that the person doesn't believe in in the first place. No, it's censorship and the trodding on the 1st amendment rights of one by claiming to be standing up for their own rights. This is undeniable.

I really have no idea what you are talking about...where did elephant dung and vaganas come into this?

[SarasotaRepub]

See, this is why there will be no religion forum. You guys would be
flaying each other next...

[Rockntractor]

See, this is why there will be no religion forum. You guys would be
flaying each other next...

At least they cleaned up all the bodies before morning.

[ReinMan]

You don't need to establish a state religion to impose religious beliefs over another; attempts to ban gay marriage are an example as are attempts to ban abortions. No state religion is being attempted here but both are centered around religious belief.

Are you one of these 'religion is the root of all evil' nutbags?

There are completely secular reasons to oppose both abortion and gay marriage. The fact that most opposition is based upon religious belief neither invalidates that opposition, nor does it indicate an attempt to impose religious belief. But referencing attempts to legislate against abortion and gay marriage is a ludicrous extension of the consequences of tolerating free practice and expression of religion.

Answer two questions for me.

How does the inclusion of the word 'God' in a poem, in a third person narrative usage, no less, impose religious beliefs upon any one?

Does, or does not, the unconstitutional suppression of free religious expression, as occurred in the OP, in fact impose the secularist belief of the supposed atheist/agnostic onto those who believe in God?

In the case of the OP, it is not the rights of the secularist that are being trampled, but the rights of the student.

[ReinMan]

Show me where we are a theoracy? I'll wait.

False dichotomy.

A secularist/atheist society and theocracy are not the only two options. They are simply extremes at either end of a spectrum.

To suggest that if we are not one, we must be the other, is either intellectually lazy or dishonest.

You pick.

(See, I can do that, too!)

[Novaheart]

The Mayflower compact , Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence , Bill of rights.

You certainly have a list there. But to what degree is it in support of your premise?

I don't think that anyone (other than perhaps on DU) would seriously claim that the Founding Fathers were not culturally Christian and that their ranks didn't include some who were actually devout.

What do you think is uniquely Christian about the Bill Of Rights? I see it as a natural, predictable, and inevitable outgrowth of several hundred years of advancements in the rights of the individual and limitations on government which started well before this country was founded.

There is nothing more central to Christianity than the Ten Commandments. How many of them are expressed in the law? Three at most? And is the First Amendment not precisely in conflict, a complete opposite of the First Commandment?

[Zeus]

You certainly have a list there. But to what degree is it in support of your premise?

I don't think that anyone (other than perhaps on DU) would seriously claim that the Founding Fathers were not culturally Christian and that their ranks didn't include some who were actually devout.

What do you think is uniquely Christian about the Bill Of Rights? I see it as a natural, predictable, and inevitable outgrowth of several hundred years of advancements in the rights of the individual and limitations on government which started well before this country was founded.

There is nothing more central to Christianity than the Ten Commandments. How many of them are expressed in the law? Three at most? And is the First Amendment not precisely in conflict, a complete opposite of the First Commandment?

Why you keep implying someone is saying the USA was founded on "uniquely" Christian principles. The USA was founded on Christian principles & Ideals. Religious freedoms are not contrary to Christian Ideals or the first Commandment.

The scriptures teach us that Christ gave:

“…some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:11-14).”

Here we find that the purpose of ministers is not to separate and segregate into little empires around pet doctrines, nor is it to create denominations. The purpose of ministry is to bring about unity – unity in the body of Christ as a whole, not to just those that follow us. If your ministry is not moving toward this type of unity, then are you truly part of the ministry of Christ?

Many pastors attempt to justify their divisive function in the body of Christ by claiming that their own little group is moving toward “unity.” But if God had this in mind, then He would have said here the purpose of ministry is to bring each individual church group into unity. He would not have spoken of the body of Christ as a whole.

When we separate according to our systems of belief (doctrine), we are acting on the false belief that we are right and all others are wrong. We make the assumption that we have all of “the truth.” In this respect, truth is relegated to the position of being nothing more than intellectual knowledge. This is where many Christian leaders go astray. Truth is not knowledge. In fact, truth is not your system of beliefs or your doctrine. Truth is alive because the truth is Christ (“I am the way, the truth…”). Your doctrine is, at best, dogma.

Test yourself to see if you are walking and growing in truth: have you or do you separate yourself from others who do not believe as you do? If your answer is yes, then you do not know what the truth is. Man’s truth separates, whereas Christ’s truth brings unity.

Truth does not divide God’s people. It draws us to God and therefore draws us together around Him. Many Christian leaders miss this and rally around certain scriptures (what they perceive as truth) rather than the One who wrote them. This is from whence division comes. Without Christ at the center, we have only our dogma. But when we lift up Christ, our doctrine falls into the background, and that which divides us fades away.

Unity is not when we all believe the same thing. Unity occurs when we all love the same God. Unity transcends our systems of beliefs (systems based on our partial understanding) because unity is spiritual. Unity is therefore the creation of God in the hearts of those who love Him. Only those who love Him can love one another and know unity (truth). As a result, those who refuse to love and embrace unity can never know truth.

The United States is a federal republic, not a theocracy. Fashioned to keep the Govt out of the Church not to keep the Church out of Govt as some mistakenly believe.

[FlaGator]

There is no majority rule over individual rights...which was my point...and god should be removed from the public forum. We are a secular country after all...

As for being the night owl. Nope, try again...

Where do your individual rights come from?