School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem

[PeterS]

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

I'm agnostic, I could give a flip about religion.

There are completely secular reasons to oppose both abortion and gay marriage.

Lets hear em.

The fact that most opposition is based upon religious belief neither invalidates that opposition, nor does it indicate an attempt to impose religious belief.

So explain how you can oppose something based on your religious beliefs yet you are not trying to impose your beliefs? That makes no sense, what are you trying to do?

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?

It doesn't I stated earlier the opposition was rediculous.

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.

Yep.

[PeterS]

So if the government decides to kill all the jews they can get their hands on then that would be OK because it is the government who gives them their right to exist?

Why the Jews? Why not exterminate Christians for a change. The question to be asked is whether government gives rights or defines rights and enforces based on that definition. Wasn't that the rational for the Bill of Rights?

[FlaGator]

Why the Jews? Why not exterminate Christians for a change. The question to be asked is whether government gives rights or defines rights and enforces based on that definition. Wasn't that the rational for the Bill of Rights?

Christians work in the example. Following your logic the government seems to define the right to exist.

Was the Bill of Rights designed to grant rights or to define rights?

[PeterS]

Christians work in the example. Following your logic the government seems to define the right to exist.

Was the Bill of Rights designed to grant rights or to define rights?

Both define and enforce; you cannot grant what pre-exists. I think the real qestion to ask is what is the value of our rights if there can be no enforcement?

[FlaGator]

Both define and enforce; you cannot grant what pre-exists. I think the real qestion to ask is what is the value of our rights if there can be no enforcement?

OK.. back to my original question. If your rights pre-exist then where did they come from? What granted you those rights that the Bill of Rights defined for you?

[PeterS]

OK.. back to my original question. If your rights pre-exist then where did they come from? What granted you those rights that the Bill of Rights defined for you?

In rationalism rights are the tenets derived from logical thought...given that this nation was birthed at the end of the Age of Reason my best guess would be rational logic.

[JB]

If not then why have a Bill of Rights?

Did you know that among the FFs there were (some, maybe many) that didn't want the rights under the 1st Amendment even put on paper. They knew that they were rights granted by God and that making them a part of the Constitution might give the false impression that the rights were granted by the government...which they are not.

They capitulated and put them in to show that the government didn't have control over those rights. Although that gets chipped away more and more everyday.

[RobJohnson]

The only time I object is when gods are actually forced on people. It shouldn't surprise anyone that children believe in imaginary protector beings. I doubt seriously that a poetic reference to the Tooth Faerie would be cause for argument in the school.

All works of fiction should be removed from the Library of Congress, how dare they allow children to read this stuff?

[Novaheart]

All works of fiction should be removed from the Library of Congress, how dare they allow children to read this stuff?

No one has, to my knowledge , been killed for believing in the wrong version of wood nymphs.

[Novaheart]

So you would say that without the Government you have no rights?

Without the government, the law of the jungle prevails. You can maintain that your rights are inherent and inalienable, but history stands in disagreement. The Founding Fathers wrapped their actions in religion for the same reason religion exists in the first place.