Fulton County, GA, public schools to eliminate good church/state policy?

I am shocked, I say, shocked son to see this happen in the south.

/Foghorn Leghorn voice

Can you say "Dover trap"?

Doesn't Federal law supersede all this anyway... provided that they follow it and don't interpret it.

America has lived hundreds of years with no problems, pretty much, between the state and the church!
What's the problem now?
Is the state teaching the church is wrong on some of its main doctrines to the kids??
If so which doctrines are wrong ?
It seems unreasonable the state would do this/!
Either the state should stop teaching the church is wrong on its doctrines or allow rebuttal worthy of the word.
This might please everyone.
Perhaps these are subjects that just can't help but cross lines normally solid.

OgreMkV said: Doesn't Federal law supersede all this anyway... provided that they follow it and don't interpret it.

JimNorth, I believe FogHorn would say; 'boy, I say boy, now pay attention boy, you might learn something'.

Dear Mr Byers I am not a member of your club (country) but I know enough to say that the statement, 'America has lived hundreds of years with no problems, pretty much, between the state and church!' is so monumentally stupid as to make most honest Americans blush!

The Salem witch burnings? Admittedly the 1690's and before independence, but a theme was woven. Of course the British were far more scientific in their evaluations of witch burning, and refused most accusations; the colonials were just nuts and burned everyone. The 1960s and the 'freedom train'? Black oppression, no state-church problem. Your 'schoolboy' history is tiring and dull; grow up; read, you numbskull!

Sir! You are of that tribe that refuses to read. That peculiar animal that can reside in a civilisation (of sorts) and not use that civilisations gifts; libraries, learning institutions, books etc. Your tiny existance revolves around the ever diminishing hope that somewhere, someone can actually give you some remedial piece, of a tiny glimmer of non-existant fluff, to put in the face of intelligent people, and say, 'look, a rabbit in the cambriam!'
Rob.

kk, (such an unfortunate moniker, so open to abuse) 1.)Jefferson was not a god, he was a man, a great man true, but a man none the less, sorry to say, capable of error; he owned, and shagged black women. 2.) The constitution is a great document but in need of renovation. Not the 'freedom of speech' bits, or the 'seperation' bits, but the bits that made sense in the late 1700s, but make no sense today. Which bits? Have a debate! A debate is acivilized argument; don't involve Fox.

I'm pretty sure that the teaching of religion in public-funded schools is illegal according to the constitution.

Although that document has more value as a paper airplane than as a fundamental principle of the US... at least if you look at how the government is ignoring it.

Actually, Robert, nobody was burned during the Salem witch hunts. They were all hanged or crushed beneath large stones.

Robert Byers said: America has lived hundreds of years with no problems, pretty much, between the state and the church!

Everybody,

I'm convinced that Robert Byers has an organic problem, and deserves sympathy and consideration.

He's no FL.

Skraal, you sound like SIL #1. Did you ever write a note to the British Museum correcting their display on Joan of Arc?
;^) ;^) ;^)

fusilier
James 2:24

This may be something innocent, but if so, it is coincidentally similar to the way creationists like to operate.

Cravenly, sneakily trying to sneak themselves into place to set off a big expensive mess bomb.

School board elections and activities are extremely under-publicized, so that's how they like to operate.

That's how they do it. That's how they did it in Kansas, Ohio, Texas (*yes, remember, for all his loudness and media exposure later, McLeroy snuck in as a school board member*) and Dover.

This could be nothing, or it could be that there is a school board member or few who are harboring some creationist plans, or who may even be aware of an active Freshwater type.

I will be forwarding the link to someone I know at Emory University School of Medicine. I do not know offhand if that person lives in Fulton County.

fusilier said: Everybody, I'm convinced that Robert Byers has an organic problem, and deserves sympathy and consideration. He's no FL. Skraal, you sound like SIL #1. Did you ever write a note to the British Museum correcting their display on Joan of Arc? ;^) ;^) ;^) fusilier James 2:24

I am a Fulton Co Georgia resident and I have two children in Fulton Co schools. I will be writing a letter to all school board members. I am open to your suggestions for what to write.

Points I will make. Even though there are state and Federal duplicate laws to these policy statements, it very well may take hundreds of thousands of scarce school budget dollars to get to state or Federal enforcement of those laws. Just remember Cobb Co School's (adjacent to Fulton Co) fiasco with biology book disclaimer stickers a $400,000 legal fee liability and the recent classic $1,000,000 fiasco in Dover PA. Fulton Co schools are not immune to this kind of inane diversions from proper and appropriate public education. It is prudent for you to continue to protect our limited school resources from these kinds of unproductive folly.

Interesting note. Fulton Co Schools has just transitioned school superintendents. The new one starts July 1. This may have been the opportunistic break the rubes have been waiting for to begin setting the stage for their assault.

Thanks folks.

bobsie said: I am a Fulton Co Georgia resident and I have two children in Fulton Co schools. I will be writing a letter to all school board members. I am open to your suggestions for what to write. Points I will make. Even though there are state and Federal duplicate laws to these policy statements, it very well may take hundreds of thousands of scarce school budget dollars to get to state or Federal enforcement of those laws. Just remember Cobb Co School's (adjacent to Fulton Co) fiasco with biology book disclaimer stickers a $400,000 legal fee liability and the recent classic $1,000,000 fiasco in Dover PA. Fulton Co schools are not immune to this kind of inane diversions from proper and appropriate public education. It is prudent for you to continue to protect our limited school resources from these kinds of unproductive folly. Interesting note. Fulton Co Schools has just transitioned school superintendents. The new one starts July 1. This may have been the opportunistic break the rubes have been waiting for to begin setting the stage for their assault. Thanks folks.

Bobsie - you might also ask the simple question, "which state law covers it?"

If the school board cannot tell you, that is a prima facie reason to keep the district policy. And if they can, you can read it for yourself and see whether they are right about the local policy being redundant or not.

kk said:

OgreMkV said: Doesn't Federal law supersede all this anyway... provided that they follow it and don't interpret it.

According to Jefferson the federal government has no authority in this area.

robert van bakel said: Dear Mr Byers I am not a member of your club (country) but I know enough to say that the statement, 'America has lived hundreds of years with no problems, pretty much, between the state and church!' is so monumentally stupid as to make most honest Americans blush! The Salem witch burnings? Admittedly the 1690's and before independence, but a theme was woven. Of course the British were far more scientific in their evaluations of witch burning, and refused most accusations; the colonials were just nuts and burned everyone. The 1960s and the 'freedom train'? Black oppression, no state-church problem. Your 'schoolboy' history is tiring and dull; grow up; read, you numbskull! Sir! You are of that tribe that refuses to read. That peculiar animal that can reside in a civilisation (of sorts) and not use that civilisations gifts; libraries, learning institutions, books etc. Your tiny existance revolves around the ever diminishing hope that somewhere, someone can actually give you some remedial piece, of a tiny glimmer of non-existant fluff, to put in the face of intelligent people, and say, 'look, a rabbit in the cambriam!' Rob.

robert van bakel said: ... is so monumentally stupid ...

harold,

My SIL#1 has a MA in medieval history from Boston Univ., and missed out on his doctoral work because he got caught in the middle of some academic politics. His financial burden was overwhelming so he couldn't go on. :^( Skraal's comment on the Salem witch trials is nearly identical to many this young man has made to me.

And he DID send a note to the British Museum about errors in the display on Joan of Arc!

fusilier

James 2:24

I’m pretty sure that the teaching of religion in public-funded schools is illegal according to the constitution.

Depending on what you mean by "teaching of religion," it could be perfectly legal. It would be perfectly legal to teach about religion, for example, teaching that there are X major religions and Y minor ones in the world, major religion A started around xxxx date, and its principal teachings are a,b, and c. Or you can legally teach about the influence of religion in history or litertaure or art. What you can't do is teach that X religion (or the religious hypothesis in general) is true.
But nobody wants to do that. Putting together academically-respectable, doctrinally neutral material about religion or its influence is hard work and some people are lazy. The godbots wouldn't want such a course because it would expose their children to other religions without privileging their own. The non-religious, though they might approve in principle of academically-respectable courses involving religion, haven't fallen off the turnip truck and don't believe that teachers in Armpit Mississippi will hew to the straight and narrow path of academic honesty. Which is too bad.

fusilier said: harold, (My SIL#1) DID send a note to the British Museum about errors in the display on Joan of Arc! fusilier James 2:24

overheard at a barbeque in Medieval France "Joan of Arc burnt my steak." "Don't talk with your mouth full, dear. That's how rumors start."

The large transsexual presence in the city of Atlanta has much to do with the forcing of the Gospel out of Fulton County schools.

Hygaboo Andersen said: The large transsexual presence in the city of Atlanta has much to do with the forcing of the Gospel out of Fulton County schools.

RBH wrote:

Second, he makes a recommendation that I’m going to follow up on:

If you are in a district that has been embroiled in church/state messes, you might drop a note to tell my district how helpful clear policy can be. It means less head-butting, fewer lawsuits, and fewer distractions from the education of our kids.

I will surely do that, given the Freshwater affair in my own district.

*********************************************************

Hi Richard,

Any chance that you will copy your letter to the comments section here?

bobsie said: I am a Fulton Co Georgia resident and I have two children in Fulton Co schools. I will be writing a letter to all school board members. I am open to your suggestions for what to write.

CMB said: Any chance that you will copy your letter to the comments section here?

robert van bakel said: JimNorth, I believe FogHorn would say; 'boy, I say boy, now pay attention boy, you might learn something'.

Dear Ms. X: I have learned that the Fulton County Board of Education intends to eliminate its policies on Teaching of Religion and Separation of Church and State and its procedure concerning Separation of Church and State. I strongly urge you not to do so. I have read those policies and the procedure, and they provide essential guidance to teachers and administrators. In their absence the District will be exposed to significant risk, particularly litigation risk. My own local public school district, Mt. Vernon City Schools in Knox County, Ohio, recently spent on the order of $1,000,000 dollars in legal fees defending its actions in a church/state situation. That does not count in-kind costs of teacher and administrator time, which were also considerable. That is a terrible waste of public resources. In these hard economic times those resources are better spent on the education of children. Having appropriate policies and procedures in place and effectively administering them go a long way toward eliminating those kinds of costly and legally risky situations. Yours, RBH, Ph.D.

JimNorth, thank you, I stand corrected. My childhood memories of Foghorn, ElmerFudd,Yoeseminite(?)Sam, and the greatest cartoon characters ever devised are sloppy. I'm sure when Foghorn was teaching the poindexter chick, of the flirtatious chicken he would always say, 'now pay attention boy'.
The cartoons of today are so, well, childish.:)

Activity update. I contacted the education beat reporter at the Atlanta paper, AJC, and shared links to Pandas and McGowen's blog. I suggested this topic would be of interest to the local public and outlined the problems this action would bring. Can't tell at this time if the paper has any interest in the issue.

Unfortunately I'm leaving town early tomorrow for a family trip to Yosemite. Maybe I'll be on top of Half Dome when the board meets. Otherwise I would put my name on the speaker list for the meeting.

Members of the FCSS Board: I am a parent of two FCSS students at Elkins Pointe MS and Roswell HS. I have been pleased that our school system has not been rocked like many with divisive and destructive church/state controversies. However, I understand that the board is poised to eliminate long standing school policy and procedures that have been a solid first stop to neutralize and disarm any nascent church/state problems. The reasoning as I understand is that these policies are redundant to existing Federal and State laws. Before you make a hasty decision, please consider the following: - Has legal counsel specifically enumerated the redundant Federal and State statues you believe will protect the school system? Can you be assured they will stand as first line deterrent? - FCSS board clearly has authority to enforce their stated and approved school policies. What school resources will be required, if need arises, to enforce a Federal or State statutes. - The recent fiasco with Cobb Co schools and their disclaimer stickers cost over $400,000 in legal fees is all too common occurrence. Fulton Co schools are not immune from this kind of inane diversion from proper and appropriate public education. It is prudent for you to continue to protect our limited school resources from these kinds of unproductive folly. - It is the board’s fiduciary responsibility to protect the school’s financial resources with clear firm policy and procedure such as what is currently in place for this sensitive issue. I ask that these policies remain in place as an effective and prudent protection measure for our increasingly stretched school financial resources. Thank you.

kk said:

OgreMkV said: Doesn't Federal law supersede all this anyway... provided that they follow it and don't interpret it.

According to Jefferson the federal government has no authority in this area.

robert van bakel said: kk, (such an unfortunate moniker, so open to abuse) 1.)Jefferson was not a god, he was a man, a great man true, but a man none the less, sorry to say, capable of error; he owned, and shagged black women. 2.) The constitution is a great document but in need of renovation. Not the 'freedom of speech' bits, or the 'seperation' bits, but the bits that made sense in the late 1700s, but make no sense today. Which bits? Have a debate! A debate is acivilized argument; don't involve Fox.

TL:DR

Nonimus said:

kk said:

OgreMkV said: Doesn't Federal law supersede all this anyway... provided that they follow it and don't interpret it.

According to Jefferson the federal government has no authority in this area.

I think Jefferson might revise that opinion after he read the 14th Amendment, were he alive, of course.

OK. Let's see if anyone's silly enough to argue.

kk said: Robert: A leftist judge on the the SCOTUS invented new law by reversing the intent of Jefferson in his wall of separation letter to the Danbury Baptists. Thomas told then that he had no power to help them from paying taxes in support of another religion, the official state religion at the time. So he is the authority the left uses to get the federal government to violate the US Constitution. Do a scan of the Constitution, the rules we live by, and there is no mention of it there. What is says is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So what we have now is the exact opposite where the religious values of Pandas Thumb people is our official state religion. Congress is not supposed to take sides from the federal level and the states and all of us are supposed to organize society as we see fit - which means no favoritism for your beliefs over mine at the federal level. It was legal for a state to have an official state religion and thus still is. So at the state level you are free to pass laws making Darwinism or Humanism and the official state religion. This is in opposition Darwinism or Humanism imposed from the top as the de facto state religion by the federal government. As noted above, imposition from the top at the federal level is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Leftists like Pandas Thumb people and the judges who invented the wall of separation argument are results oriented. They want to impose their will on others which in turn means violating the law. So Hugo Black 60 years ago had to deliver a head fake by saying he was tapping into original intent of Jefferson even as he lied and turned the 1st Amendment on its head. As Judge Scalia says about the living Constitution (the means by which Black/American leftists/the ALCU got away with breaking the law) ie. the law can mean whatever leftist say it means: Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm Even though Judge Hugo Black had to pay homage to Jefferson this now is no longer true. The law now is no law. It is a poll of opinion of people here on the Panda's Thumb. 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. IOW ... any state has the right to make Buddhism their official state religion. The federal government has no role to say right or wrong. Not their call and the 14th Amendment never replaced the 10th - go look at the arguments of the time.

kk said:

Nonimus said:

kk said:

OgreMkV said: Doesn't Federal law supersede all this anyway... provided that they follow it and don't interpret it.

According to Jefferson the federal government has no authority in this area.

I think Jefferson might revise that opinion after he read the 14th Amendment, were he alive, of course.

Jefferson wanted power distributed throughout society. He opposed concentrating power at the top in the federal government. So if he had a pass at creating the 14th Amendment and finally fully agreed that slavery was a done deal and history then he would see that it that the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship equally to all citizens. He would have seen that it should not be the mean to end of the rule of law. Jefferson would never support the end of freedom via the unlimited growth for power in the central government. Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Panda Thumbers reject a Creator and replace his authority with the authority of the state (the 14th Amendment means unlimited power has been granted to the federal government - when the power of the state goes up the power of the individual goes down). When your rights flow from the Creator then this is the source of your freedom and the state can't be its source. The belief in a Creator is why the founders figured that they had the right to break away from King George. Inscripted at the Jefferson Memorial - his words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Darwinism being a tyranny over the mind of man that is a good reason to oppose it right there. Panda Thumbers are would be tyrants.

Dale Husband said: You are a liar and a fraud, kk!

Dale, kk isn't a liar and a fraud, she's just desperate to say literally anything to convince us that we're all evil, wrong and anti-American for assuming that science is right, and not worshiping her personal interpretation of the Bible.

That she comes off as a lying, crazed bigot is of absolutely no concern of hers.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: You are a liar and a fraud, kk!

And you're silly, or at least hopelessly bored, to snap at the bait being dangled by an obvious nutjob.

Stanton said: Dale, kk isn't a liar and a fraud, she's just desperate to say literally anything to convince us that we're all evil, wrong and anti-American for assuming that science is right, and not worshiping her personal interpretation of the Bible. That she comes off as a lying, crazed bigot is of absolutely no concern of hers.

Dale Husband said: We ignore such evil dogmas at our peril.

Dale Husband said:

kk said: Robert: A leftist judge on the the SCOTUS invented new law by reversing the intent of Jefferson in his wall of separation letter to the Danbury Baptists. Thomas told then that he had no power to help them from paying taxes in support of another religion, the official state religion at the time. So he is the authority the left uses to get the federal government to violate the US Constitution. Do a scan of the Constitution, the rules we live by, and there is no mention of it there. What is says is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So what we have now is the exact opposite where the religious values of Pandas Thumb people is our official state religion. Congress is not supposed to take sides from the federal level and the states and all of us are supposed to organize society as we see fit - which means no favoritism for your beliefs over mine at the federal level. It was legal for a state to have an official state religion and thus still is. So at the state level you are free to pass laws making Darwinism or Humanism and the official state religion. This is in opposition Darwinism or Humanism imposed from the top as the de facto state religion by the federal government. As noted above, imposition from the top at the federal level is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Leftists like Pandas Thumb people and the judges who invented the wall of separation argument are results oriented. They want to impose their will on others which in turn means violating the law. So Hugo Black 60 years ago had to deliver a head fake by saying he was tapping into original intent of Jefferson even as he lied and turned the 1st Amendment on its head. As Judge Scalia says about the living Constitution (the means by which Black/American leftists/the ALCU got away with breaking the law) ie. the law can mean whatever leftist say it means: Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm Even though Judge Hugo Black had to pay homage to Jefferson this now is no longer true. The law now is no law. It is a poll of opinion of people here on the Panda's Thumb. 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. IOW ... any state has the right to make Buddhism their official state religion. The federal government has no role to say right or wrong. Not their call and the 14th Amendment never replaced the 10th - go look at the arguments of the time.

Wow! When this guy lies, he lies BIG, doesn't he? So, you wouldn't object to Mormonism being the state religion of Utah? If the Utah mandated that only Mormons could serve in the Utah state government, you would think that Constitutional? That's exactly what the 14th Amendment was designed to prevent! Utah was only admitted to the Union when it was made to ban polygamy. I guess you want to scream about that too! How can anyone be so stupid as to think that religious favoritism by an individual state is any more acceptable than that by the federal government?

kk said:

Nonimus said:

kk said:

OgreMkV said: Doesn't Federal law supersede all this anyway... provided that they follow it and don't interpret it.

According to Jefferson the federal government has no authority in this area.

I think Jefferson might revise that opinion after he read the 14th Amendment, were he alive, of course.

Jefferson wanted power distributed throughout society. He opposed concentrating power at the top in the federal government. So if he had a pass at creating the 14th Amendment and finally fully agreed that slavery was a done deal and history then he would see that it that the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship equally to all citizens. He would have seen that it should not be the mean to end of the rule of law. Jefferson would never support the end of freedom via the unlimited growth for power in the central government. Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Panda Thumbers reject a Creator and replace his authority with the authority of the state (the 14th Amendment means unlimited power has been granted to the federal government - when the power of the state goes up the power of the individual goes down). When your rights flow from the Creator then this is the source of your freedom and the state can't be its source. The belief in a Creator is why the founders figured that they had the right to break away from King George. Inscripted at the Jefferson Memorial - his words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Darwinism being a tyranny over the mind of man that is a good reason to oppose it right there. Panda Thumbers are would be tyrants.

In the 1950's and 60's, the federal government, including the Supreme Court, made rulings and passed laws to end the racist caste system that dominated the states of the South. How the hell can you sit there and say that the southern states have any right to oppress blacks and that the federal government has no right to liberate them?! You are a liar and a fraud, kk!

delusional moron: Robert Byers said: America has lived hundreds of years with no problems, pretty much, between the state and the church!

So, you wouldn’t object to Mormonism being the state religion of Utah?

If the Utah mandated that only Mormons could serve in the Utah state government, you would think that Constitutional?

Stanton said: Dale, kk isn't a liar and a fraud, she's just desperate to say literally anything to convince us that we're all evil, wrong and anti-American for assuming that science is right, and not worshiping her personal interpretation of the Bible. That she comes off as a lying, crazed bigot is of absolutely no concern of hers.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: We ignore such evil dogmas at our peril.

Oh, jeez, you're a regular comic-book superhero, aren't you?

Stanton said: Please be aware that Dale is the inspiration for the Green Lantern Guy Gardner.

kk said:

Stanton said: Dale, kk isn't a liar and a fraud, she's just desperate to say literally anything to convince us that we're all evil, wrong and anti-American for assuming that science is right, and not worshiping her personal interpretation of the Bible. That she comes off as a lying, crazed bigot is of absolutely no concern of hers.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from supporting a state religion (yours AND mine). Tyrants believe that their religious world view ought to be the official state religion and thus we will always have tyrants who love taking freedom away from others. Your religious world view is the official state religion of the USA where I don't want mine or yours to be THE ONE RELIGION for all Americans to have to bow down to and pledge their faith to it.

*nonsense snipped* Here it is again ... eat your heart out ... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" All the nasty language directed at me is witness to the fact that Panda Thumbers love 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion while at the same time forcing others to bow down to theirs on tax payer dollars via a monopoly.

mrg said:

Stanton said: Please be aware that Dale is the inspiration for the Green Lantern Guy Gardner.

Obviously not John Stewart, who is a black conservative ex-Marine.

KK the troll lying: Your religious world view is the official state religion of the USA where I don’t want mine or yours to be THE ONE RELIGION for all Americans to have to bow down to and pledge their faith to it.

Stanton said: If you talk like a crazy child, you will be treated accordingly.

delusional moron: Robert Byers said: America has lived hundreds of years with no problems, pretty much, between the state and the church!

wikipedia Mountain Meadows massacre: Intending to leave no witnesses of complicity by Mormons (members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church) in the attacks, and to prevent reprisals that would further complicate the Utah War, the perpetrators killed all the adults and older children (totaling about 120 men, women, and children). Seventeen children, all younger than seven, were spared.

As to Mormonism being the official state religion of Utah, it is up to people who live in Utah and not you.

kk said: As to Mormonism being the official state religion of Utah, it is up to people who live in Utah and not you. But if you and Panda Thumbers wanted to make that illegal there is a way to amend the US Constitution. That is how to change the law - there is a process to do it.

The 14th Amendment gave former slaves full citizenship as Americans. it did not make it illegal for people in Utah to have an official state religion. Check out the discussion of the intent of the people who created the 14th Amendment. They never once discussed any principle that could remotely grant the federal government power over religious issues associated with the 1st Amendment. You want to make things up as you go along and control people you don't like without any restraint by the actual law.

Scalia informs us of the actual law and not the imaginary law Panda Thumbers subscribe to. Scalia: The following exchange appears in the January 2011 issue of California Lawyer Magazine: [Question:]In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? [Scalia:] "Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society."

Imposing Darwinism on society is what leftist judges have decided to do. Panda Thumbers love to force their ideas down the throats of others and care not a wit about the law - in fact they show they are vastly ignorant in all matters related to law. They just see it as a club to spread their religious world view while suppressing the views of others. As I say ... incipient tyrants in the making. The 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from supporting a state religion (yours AND mine). Tyrants believe that their religious world view ought to be the official state religion and thus we will always have tyrants who love taking freedom away from others. Your religious world view is the official state religion of the USA where I don't want mine or yours to be THE ONE RELIGION for all Americans to have to bow down to and pledge their faith to it. The federal government does not have the right to make rulings about religious issues in our society, it is contrary to the 1st Amendment for Congress (the federal government) to get involved in religion. The words of the 1st Amendment are so clear that even Panda Thumbers ought to be able to understand them (even as they clearly hate the 1st Amendment and love the idea of the federal government taking sides and establishing theirs as the official religion of the USA. Here it is again ... eat your heart out ... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" All the nasty language directed at me is witness to the fact that Panda Thumbers love 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion while at the same time forcing others to bow down to theirs on tax payer dollars via a monopoly.

Imposing Darwinism on society is what leftist judges have decided to do.

My dealings over the years with religious fanatics and bigots have shown me that delusions based on extremist religions tend to also propagate themselves over all sorts of subjects and fields of study. That's because once you start having blind faith in what religious leaders say about their own religion, they can then make claims about other issues that do not actually relate to the religion. That was certainly the case with me. As a teenager and a Southern Baptist, I was under the impression that because Christians were expected to tell the truth, any claims made by people for the cause of Christianity must also be true. But as a college student, my eyes were opened and I realized that nearly everything I'd been told about the Bible, about the Christian churches, about evolution, about American history, about other religions and about atheists were distortions, half-truths, and even occasional outright lies. When I could see with my own eyes that certain statements in the Bible contradict others, and then saw Christians claiming those contradictions are not so, that opened the floodgates to investigating other claims. And most of them fell like a row of dominos, until there was no reason left to take Christianity seriously at all. I finally knew it was a false religion.

raven said:

As to Mormonism being the official state religion of Utah, it is up to people who live in Utah and not you.

No it's not. Utah is part of the USA and subject to the US constitution. Utah would need to secede first. Which they already tried. They fought a war with us. The Mormons lost.

kk said: According to the US Constitution it is 100% legal for Mormonism to be the official state religion of Utah.

Liberal judges changed the law but at the start of the country many states had official state religions and that remained the case for decades after we adopted the 1st Amendment.

The ethos driving this country from the start is that our rights come to us from THE CREATOR.

Dale Husband said:

The ethos driving this country from the start is that our rights come to us from THE CREATOR.

That's a reference to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In any case, that is illogical. The Biblical God is by nature an absolute monarch, and he condemns to hell anyone who rejects and opposes his rule, like any tyrant would. So unless you are referring to some other Creator, you have stated another falsehood. Rights only exist when both governments and the people recognize and enforce them; they are not natural nor are they derived from any religion.

Re: church/state conflict

Wasn't it the Southern Christian churches that said it was God's will that the Black Man be a slave? Is Mr. Byers or "kk" saying that it was "unreasonable" for the State to teach children that some of the main doctrines of Southern churches were wrong?

kk said: According to the US Constitution it is 100% legal for Mormonism to be the official state religion of Utah.

Robert Byers said: Is the state teaching the church is wrong on some of its main doctrines to the kids?? If so which doctrines are wrong ? It seems unreasonable the state would do this/! Either the state should stop teaching the church is wrong on its doctrines or allow rebuttal worthy of the word.

Robert Byers said: Is the state teaching the church is wrong on some of its main doctrines to the kids?? If so which doctrines are wrong ?

kk the delusional Constitutional wingnut barfed: Panda Thumbers reject a Creator and replace his authority with the authority of the state (the 14th Amendment means unlimited power has been granted to the federal government - when the power of the state goes up the power of the individual goes down). When your rights flow from the Creator then this is the source of your freedom and the state can't be its source. The belief in a Creator is why the founders figured that they had the right to break away from King George. Inscripted at the Jefferson Memorial - his words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Darwinism being a tyranny over the mind of man that is a good reason to oppose it right there. Panda Thumbers are would be tyrants.

mrg said:

Stanton said: Please be aware that Dale is the inspiration for the Green Lantern Guy Gardner.

Obviously not John Stewart, who is a black conservative ex-Marine.

raven said:

delusional moron: Robert Byers said: America has lived hundreds of years with no problems, pretty much, between the state and the church!

Not even close. Fundie xian terrorism is a serious problem in the USA today and has been for decades. 8 MD's or people standing near them have been assassinated. There have been 17 attempted murders and 200 people wounded. Cthulhu knows how many family planning clinics have been bombed or hit by arson. During the Bush catastrophe it was around 1 a month. Then there was the Hutaree xian militia whose brilliant plan involved killing cops. Not to mention Reverend Jim Jones, an Assembly of God minister and his equally brilliant plan that involved 900 people committing suicide. Toss in the Mormon theocracy of Utah as well. This list could go on for pages and pages. The reason why the writers of the constitution put in separation of church and state is well known. After The Dark Ages, the Reformation wars which killed tens of millions, the witch hunts which killed maybe 100.000, the Spanish Inquisition, miscellaneous crusades, some against other xian groups, people were sick and tired of religion. A lot of people still are. What's different today is obvious. We simply don't let the religions run around loose today torturing and murdering whoever they want and fighting wars among themselves.

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

The ethos driving this country from the start is that our rights come to us from THE CREATOR.

That's a reference to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In any case, that is illogical. The Biblical God is by nature an absolute monarch, and he condemns to hell anyone who rejects and opposes his rule, like any tyrant would. So unless you are referring to some other Creator, you have stated another falsehood. Rights only exist when both governments and the people recognize and enforce them; they are not natural nor are they derived from any religion.

Your rebuttal to kk's insane inanity deserves repeating. If kk actually bothered to learn about the US Founding Fathers, she would know that many of them had a profound distaste for God as described in the Bible, as they tended to see Him as being a three-headed, man-eating monster who was used to empower tyrants.

John Kwok said:

kk the delusional Constitutional wingnut barfed: Panda Thumbers reject a Creator and replace his authority with the authority of the state (the 14th Amendment means unlimited power has been granted to the federal government - when the power of the state goes up the power of the individual goes down). When your rights flow from the Creator then this is the source of your freedom and the state can't be its source. The belief in a Creator is why the founders figured that they had the right to break away from King George. Inscripted at the Jefferson Memorial - his words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Darwinism being a tyranny over the mind of man that is a good reason to oppose it right there. Panda Thumbers are would be tyrants.

In case you haven't noticed kk, there are a few "Panda's Thumbers" who aren't evil Leftists intent on disavowing the existence of a Creator(s), such as yours truly, who has, more than once, identified himself as a Deist and a Conservative. But of course you are so mentally impaired that you insist on standing by your pathetic breathtaking inanity. Of course I concur with Stanton, Dale and raven's retorts of your mendacious intellectual pornography which you've often to post here.

Scott F said:

kk said: According to the US Constitution it is 100% legal for Mormonism to be the official state religion of Utah.

Please cite the specific article(s) in the US Constitution that support(s) this statement.

Scott F said: Re: church/state conflict Wasn't it the Southern Christian churches that said it was God's will that the Black Man be a slave? Is Mr. Byers or "kk" saying that it was "unreasonable" for the State to teach children that some of the main doctrines of Southern churches were wrong?

Scott F said: Re: church/state conflict Wasn't it the Southern Christian churches that said it was God's will that the Black Man be a slave? Is Mr. Byers or "kk" saying that it was "unreasonable" for the State to teach children that some of the main doctrines of Southern churches were wrong?

kk said: Jefferson wanted power distributed throughout society. He opposed concentrating power at the top in the federal government. ... Inscripted at the Jefferson Memorial - his words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Darwinism being a tyranny over the mind of man that is a good reason to oppose it right there. Panda Thumbers are would be tyrants.

Kk the delusional moron: Socialism is the main threat to America, not the Christian faith. For a reality check look at the unemployment rate.

Marxists don’t have babies.

KK delusional and lying: So via demographics your world view is going to vanish down the toilet of history and be forgotten in 50 to 60 years.

National Council of Churches: Total church membership reported in the 2011 Yearbook is 145,838,339 members, down 1.05 percent over 2010.

kk, you need to throw away your little barton book of lies and crack open a textbook, or read the original letters of our founding fathers available to every United Statsian, on-line even.

My face and my palm both hurt badly. Should I sue?

JimNirth said: kk, you need to throw away your little barton book of lies and crack open a textbook ...

kk the delusional rightwing creationist nutjob barked:

John Kwok said:

kk the delusional Constitutional wingnut barfed: Panda Thumbers reject a Creator and replace his authority with the authority of the state (the 14th Amendment means unlimited power has been granted to the federal government - when the power of the state goes up the power of the individual goes down). When your rights flow from the Creator then this is the source of your freedom and the state can't be its source. The belief in a Creator is why the founders figured that they had the right to break away from King George. Inscripted at the Jefferson Memorial - his words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Darwinism being a tyranny over the mind of man that is a good reason to oppose it right there. Panda Thumbers are would be tyrants.

In case you haven't noticed kk, there are a few "Panda's Thumbers" who aren't evil Leftists intent on disavowing the existence of a Creator(s), such as yours truly, who has, more than once, identified himself as a Deist and a Conservative. But of course you are so mentally impaired that you insist on standing by your pathetic breathtaking inanity. Of course I concur with Stanton, Dale and raven's retorts of your mendacious intellectual pornography which you've often to post here.

This offense being reference to law and the actual words and beliefs of the founders.

kk said: I also consider Washington a founder: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. George Washington

RBH said: Fake quotation.

kk said:

Scott F said: Re: church/state conflict Wasn't it the Southern Christian churches that said it was God's will that the Black Man be a slave? Is Mr. Byers or "kk" saying that it was "unreasonable" for the State to teach children that some of the main doctrines of Southern churches were wrong?

[...much off-topic blather...]

kk said:

Scott F said:

kk said: According to the US Constitution it is 100% legal for Mormonism to be the official state religion of Utah.

Please cite the specific article(s) in the US Constitution that support(s) this statement.

[ ... blather unrelated to the question ... ]

Nonimus said:

kk said: Jefferson wanted power distributed throughout society. He opposed concentrating power at the top in the federal government. ... Inscripted at the Jefferson Memorial - his words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Darwinism being a tyranny over the mind of man that is a good reason to oppose it right there. Panda Thumbers are would be tyrants.

My intent was to point out that the Constitution was changed, by the process laid out in the Constitution itself, in such a way that the citizens of all states had equal protection under the law, which is just an extension of the intent of the Fifth Amendement, which in turn is an extension of Article 6 and parts of Article 4. Basically, I think Jefferson would agree that the current situation is valid, regardless of whether he agreed with it. On the Jefferson Memorial: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." However, I think, in church/state issues he would have agreed, based on his own idea of the "wall." You bring up the tyranny quote, but wasn't Jefferson actually talking about the tyranny of the Church in the original letter? "...but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god [sic], eternal..." And, of course, his epitaph which he wrote: "HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA." The STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM being the precursor to the establishment and expression clauses, I believe. Lastly, you speak of where the rights and authority flow from, the state or god. Personally, I prefer the way the Constitution put it: "We the people..."

This thread is degenerating into a spew of marginally relevant B.S. from kk. I'll let it go a while longer, but it's getting close to the end.

raven said:

Kk the delusional moron: Socialism is the main threat to America, not the Christian faith. For a reality check look at the unemployment rate.

Socialism doesn't even exist in the USA. The unemployment rate and the Great Recession was Bush's fault. The fundie xian president who nearly wrecked the country.

Marxists don’t have babies.

Oh really? The country with the most people is Red China, the Commie one at 1.3 billion. They had to put the brakes on their population growth or end up in big trouble. Not much of one for facts or reason, are you. The reality is the exact opposite of your claim.

KK delusional and lying: So via demographics your world view is going to vanish down the toilet of history and be forgotten in 50 to 60 years.

What a delusional moron. Ignoring the fact that we aren't Marxists or Socialists, ignoring that these are political labels who can and do breed like rabbits, what will disappear is your fundie xian death cults.

National Council of Churches: Total church membership reported in the 2011 Yearbook is 145,838,339 members, down 1.05 percent over 2010.

Last year, 1.5 million people left US xianity. This source is the National Council of Churches, a xian source. The fundies are killing it off quite rapidly. They are the reason why I dropped xianity after nearly 5 decades. When xian became synonymous with liar, hater, ignorant, moron, and sometimes killer, a lot of people didn't want to be one any more. Breed all you want, delusional moron. Your kids will take one look at your toxic perversion of xianity and leave for a better life. Millions of Americans do that every year. KK seems to be so far out of touch with reality as to earn the label mentally ill, crazy, insane. Not unusual among the fundies who have attracted the worst our society can produce.

RBH, she will keep right on spewing ...

Scott F said:

kk said:

Scott F said:

kk said: According to the US Constitution it is 100% legal for Mormonism to be the official state religion of Utah.

Please cite the specific article(s) in the US Constitution that support(s) this statement.

[ ... blather unrelated to the question ... ]

The question had nothing to do with Lincoln, slavery, or any other Southern history. You stated that it is 100% constitutional for Utah to have an official state religion. Your response to the question did not address that issue in the slightest. My presumption is that you either don't believe what you first stated, or you could not defend it with a specific Article from the Constitution that supports your assertion, as requested. Or perhaps you were simply confused by my multiple posts, and were answering the wrong question. Please re-read the question and try again. Thank you for your participation.

Socialism is the main threat to America, not the Christian faith.

kk, why do you keep citing Scalia, ONE justice on the Supreme Court, as if he is better in his judgement than the nine Supreme Court justices as a group? Would you prefer Scalia be the ONLY Supreme Court justice? How about we make him the next President? How about we make him a DICTATOR over us all?

Because in essence, that is what you are advocating. You don't believe in freedom for anyone who is different from you. You and other Religious Right hypocrites are the threat to democracy and social justice in America and always have been. The day we rid ourselves for good of social conservatives' corrosive influence over our politics is the day America becomes a genuinely free country.

kk said: It is 100% legal for the people of the state of Utah to vote in Mormonism as the official state religion.

I'm thinking it's BW time for the delusional piece of shit troll. What say ye?

I add my yea. Well past time.

Dale Husband said: kk, why should we believe anything you copy and paste here from extremist websites? Why should we believe anything you post at all? If you dismiss what we believe as "leftist propaganda" then we have the right to question what you post as "rightist propaganda". I will note one outright lie you posted, to punch a gaping hole in your claims:

Socialism is the main threat to America, not the Christian faith.

Socialism is when the workers have common ownership of the means of production. Not capitalist shareholders, which take most of the profits for themselves rather than share them with the workers. Not the government (that's Communism, a perversion of socialism that actually defeats its purpose). People who see socialism as a threat are either delusional, being brainwashed by the false assumption that Communism = socialism, or they are cynical manipulators, the very parasites that make so-called free market capitalism unjust by nature. In a truly just and rational economy, every worker in a corporation would be a stockholder, and there would be NO stockholders that would not be workers. Thus, the corporate executives would be elected to serve the interests of the workers, never themselves or anyone not actually employed by the corporation. Corporate bailouts and mergers should be banned. Instead, any corporation that falls into bankruptcy should be bought out by the government (NOT OTHER CORPORATIONS) which then would break up the dead corporation's properties and sell them at auction to individual investors which then can use them to start their own small businesses. With millions of small business owners in the economy instead of a dozen or so giant corporations, people will value their freedom more and defend their rights in all aspects, rather than be content to take orders from those higher in rank without question. Private corporations under the corporatist system America has now are actually more like fascist dictatorships than like democracies. By contrast, real socialism is economic democracy. Dale Husband, social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.

kk said: The point of Obama preventing GM and Chrysler from going under was to keep the expensive union contract in place - which in turn adds way to much in price to their cars.

Thus I will never buy a car from either of them. If they failed their assets could have been purchased and their contract with labor renegotiated. This would allow their cars to cost less ... same car but with a lower sticker price.

Scalia knows the law, that is why I quote him but Clarence Thomas is my favorite justice.

He has figured how to destroy the commerce clause that has allowed unchecked growth of the central government.

Who are you to break up ownership or tell others what to do with the property that they own? Pure example of socialism right there when you assume you have that right.

Jefferson life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from John Locke who showed that the Creator gives us life liberty and property. Denying property rights to others is how socialism works. Very evil.

Dale Husband said:

kk said: The point of Obama preventing GM and Chrysler from going under was to keep the expensive union contract in place - which in turn adds way to much in price to their cars.

Did Obama actually say that, or are you merely jumping to that unfounded conclusion because your extremist ideology leads you to? How about preventing more unemployement and keeping Detroit from becoming even more poverty striken and crime ridden? Also, didn't Bush Jr also seek to do bailouts like that? Why not yell at him?

Thus I will never buy a car from either of them. If they failed their assets could have been purchased and their contract with labor renegotiated. This would allow their cars to cost less ... same car but with a lower sticker price.

And probably lower quality too, due to the hiring of less experienced workers willing to be paid less. And those assets could have been purchased by foreign investors. I don't like seeing more and more parts of the American economy being taken over by non-Americans. Do you? If so, I would accuse you of economic treason.

Scalia knows the law, that is why I quote him but Clarence Thomas is my favorite justice.

I remember when Clarence Thomas was appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall. Both were blacks. Prior to that, Bush Sr said he was against racial quotas when it came to hiring for jobs, but he sure found them useful when it served his interests, the hypocrite! And this was even before the Anita Hill blowup that should have prevented Thomas from being confirmed. You don't think other justices know the law? Of course they do. Interpretations of the law imply knowledge of it.

He has figured how to destroy the commerce clause that has allowed unchecked growth of the central government.

What commerce clause? If this is part of the actual Constitution, who are you to reject it while claiming to be loyal to the Constitution?

Who are you to break up ownership or tell others what to do with the property that they own? Pure example of socialism right there when you assume you have that right.

Not me, liar. The government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Jefferson life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from John Locke who showed that the Creator gives us life liberty and property. Denying property rights to others is how socialism works. Very evil.

No, not evil at all, except in your delusional mind. Property rights cannot be absolute, because it takes force to gain them from nature or others and more force to keep them from others, plus property can be used by their owners to harm others or deprive them of their livelihood, directly or indirectly. And socialism is NOT about denying the property rights of those companies that are run by the workers as long as that property is not used to harm others. So that's another falsehood of yours. Why can you not attack something you dislike without distorting it first?

Can we please put this thread out of its misery? If DH is so fond of arguing with nutjobs, he can go find one pushing a shopping cart on a streetcorner and have a shouting match there.

kk said: Socialism is the main threat to America, not the Christian faith. For a reality check look at the unemployment rate.

Time to pack this thread in.