should christmas carols be allowed in schools? - Page 6
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 82

Thread: should christmas carols be allowed in schools?

  1. #51
    I heard him on t.v. He is a very smart man and this is right on. Thanks for posting it.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bonneau & Goose Creek, SC
    Posts
    441

    Congress shall make no LAW!

    The article isn't about one's ability to practice or worship, its about establishing a government funded religious practices in schools. The article has a picture and caption saying "Merry Hyatt collects signatures for her ballot initiative during a meeting of the Redding Tea Party Patriots in Redding, Calif."

    And YES, the 1st amendment isn't literally the separation of Church and State, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    A ballot to introduce religious Christmas carols is a law that respects the establishment of Christianity.
    For the government, passing a budget is establishing a law and if teaching about Christ, buying Christmas decorations is part of that budget, it is respecting an establishment of religion.

    The introduction of "In God we trust"on US Currency was a conservatives ratification of their religion.
    The introduction of "Under God" in the Pledge was conservatives push for all US Citizens to indoctrinate their beliefs.

    So sounds to me, if a Conservative is a believer, they pass laws backed by tax payer dollars to respect the establishment of their religion?

    Since I'm not a Liberal but Libertarian,
    if a Libertarian is a believer, they oppose all government actions to favor or attack any religion or lack thereof.
    if a Libertarian is a non-believer, they oppose all government actions to favor or attack any religion or lack thereof.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by melloyello View Post
    The article isn't about one's ability to practice or worship, its about establishing a government funded religious practices in schools. The article has a picture and caption saying "Merry Hyatt collects signatures for her ballot initiative during a meeting of the Redding Tea Party Patriots in Redding, Calif."

    And YES, the 1st amendment isn't literally the separation of Church and State, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    A ballot to introduce religious Christmas carols is a law that respects the establishment of Christianity.
    For the government, passing a budget is establishing a law and if teaching about Christ, buying Christmas decorations is part of that budget, it is respecting an establishment of religion.

    The introduction of "In God we trust"on US Currency was a conservatives ratification of their religion.
    The introduction of "Under God" in the Pledge was conservatives push for all US Citizens to indoctrinate their beliefs.

    So sounds to me, if a Conservative is a believer, they pass laws backed by tax payer dollars to respect the establishment of their religion?

    Since I'm not a Liberal but Libertarian,
    if a Libertarian is a believer, they oppose all government actions to favor or attack any religion or lack thereof.
    if a Libertarian is a non-believer, they oppose all government actions to favor or attack any religion or lack thereof.

    Good post....
    Quick to the gun, Sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. - Chris Costa

  5. #54
    We're gonna have to go back in time and history to see what the intent of the Framers was:

    In England, the gov't had established the Church of England as THE official church of the land and demanded that taxes be used to prop up this church. Furthermore, this church would be the only church where practicing Christians would worship.

    The intent of the framers was that, get this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". That is, they were not going to have another "official" gov't church.

    I see nothing to suggest that the people, using their own tax dollars, in their own schools could not celebrate their Christian faith. In fact, get this, Congress was not to be "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Period. It's kinda like that no "infringing" that we all like in the 2A. It means what it says. For elected officials or their beaurocratic minions to pass any mandate negating the public expression of faith anywhere and at any time, by the citizenry, is PROHIBITED.

    There is NOTHING about the separation of church and state. In fact, many of the framers believed that WITHOUT this foundation, the new democratic republic would fail (hmmm...).

    Stripping God from the public place and government was NOT what was intended. Read the documents; start with the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

    So, just as we read the ancillary writings of the Founders as per the 2A which we're all so fond of, so must we read the ancillary writings surrounding the 1A. When one does so, I fail to see how the Judeo-Christian ethos of the Founders is not appreciated nor how it can be argued that God has no place in the governance of this country.

    I have no problems with atheists, per se. Their choice. And I will grant that if they have a problem with their own tax dollars being used for a public expression of faith in God (like schoolkids singing carols), they can certainly lobby to change that through constitutional amendment or to engage in civil disobedience (like say withholding a portion of their tax payments, like I will do, for example, should my tax dollars be used for abortion). But to claim that the Founders meant for the complete elimination of God from public and governmental discourse is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst.

  6. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    There's a difference between "promoting" a particular religion and "permitting" one. Allowing Christmas carols (for example) to take place in a public forum is not "promoting"...it's "permitting". As long as it's not done to the exclusion of any other religious exhibit, display or demonstration, I don't see the harm.

    On the other hand, ANY involvement with religion by Government . . . the promotion, the prohibition, or any other ruling over it . . . is contradictory to the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make NO Law...!!" None! So any prohibition (or requirement!), for any religion for any display, is Unconstitutional.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Addendum:

    I would add the following, with respect to legislation which prohibits 'religious' display...

    "The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it....

    Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void....

    It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
    " –John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  7. Public funded institutions have no need for religion. It is an undue distraction. Just keep the caroling for church or after school. If I were to recite the song "Baby Got Back" in a classroom, I highly doubt it would be allowed.

    So its not prohibiting religion, its prohibiting UNDUE distractions from the academic setting.
    Quick to the gun, Sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. - Chris Costa

  8. YouTube - Should Christmas Caroling Be Mandatory In Schools?

    This is B.S and unconstitutional, cmon...
    Quick to the gun, Sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. - Chris Costa

  9. #58
    If a bill is being proposed to make caroling MANDATORY, I would agree this is Unconstitutional...

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ClearSightTactical View Post
    This is B.S and unconstitutional, cmon...
    I agree, CST, this effort IS B.S. But all sides have their extremists, both right and wrong, which doesn't diminish the basic fact that any involvement by Government in religion is unconstitutional.
    Also, you have to factor in that this effort represents a way for some attorney to make a few bucks...you KNOW it'll be given it's 15 minutes! Besides...it's California!
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  11. #60
    Alright, guys, hang on a minute...Suppose the people of a particular locale (city or state, for ex.) pass a law requiring, I don't know, the placing of the 10 Commandments outside the courthouse. Is this not their "free expression"? Congress was not involved. Furthermore, it seems to me to be where true governance of the country should occur, i.e., locally. It also occurs to me that the local arena is where dissenters would have the most impact, in trying to get this law changed (vs. mandates from the aristocracy in Wash D.C.). I'm attempting to follow the letter of the 1A just like we do for the 2A.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast