Texan throwbacks demote Jefferson!

It's LONE STAR not Long Star...Bet.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
"(March 12) -- Widely regarded as one of the most important of all the founding fathers of the United States, Thomas Jefferson received a demotion of sorts Friday thanks to the Texas Board of Education.

The board voted to enact new teaching standards for history and social studies that will alter which material gets included in school textbooks. It decided to drop Jefferson from a world history section devoted to great political thinkers."

"By dropping mention of revolution, and substituting figures such as Aquinas and Calvin for Jefferson, Texas Freedom Network argues, the board had chosen to embrace religious teachings over those of Jefferson, the man who coined the phrase "separation between church and state."

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...ng-standard/19397481

At a Presidential dinner for Nobel laureates, President Jouhn F. Kennedy observed that there might not have ever been such an assemblage of talent in that place except for times when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

There has seldom,if ever, been as repugnant an assemblage of dunderheaded revisionist wingnuts as the coterie of Long Star Lunatics seeking to use the textbook approval system to promote their Christian Nationist agenda!

I think it was a committee instead of a "coterie"...

Coterie is valid but like bitter old men who watch too much Doberman it's completely unnecessary. However "Christian Nationist agenda!" should be christian nationalist agenda.

I guess you can chalk it up to senility.

This is what you get when you allow religious right wing nuts to get in charge.

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
"(March 12) -- Widely regarded as one of the most important of all the founding fathers of the United States, Thomas Jefferson received a demotion of sorts Friday thanks to the Texas Board of Education.

The board voted to enact new teaching standards for history and social studies that will alter which material gets included in school textbooks. It decided to drop Jefferson from a world history section devoted to great political thinkers."

"By dropping mention of revolution, and substituting figures such as Aquinas and Calvin for Jefferson, Texas Freedom Network argues, the board had chosen to embrace religious teachings over those of Jefferson, the man who coined the phrase "separation between church and state."

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...ng-standard/19397481

At a Presidential dinner for Nobel laureates, President Jouhn F. Kennedy observed that there might not have ever been such an assemblage of talent in that place except for times when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

There has seldom,if ever, been as repugnant an assemblage of dunderheaded revisionist wingnuts as the coterie of Long Star Lunatics seeking to use the textbook approval system to promote their Christian Nationist agenda!

I think it was a committee instead of a "coterie"...

I think it was indeed a "coterie," irrespective of whether it was organized as a committee:

"coterie-an exclusive circle of people with a common purpose."

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/coterie/en-en/

Those bubbatocious ideologues in Texas are a bunch of folks dedicated and organized around the common purpose of distorting American history to serve their common and nefarious Christian Nationist, jingoist agenda!

I see a lot of hysteria about Jefferson being cut from the world history book. But, nothing as to whether he was cur from any American history books.

The authors substituted appear to be those of the
Scottish Enlightenment, which reconciled religion with rational thought. Unlike the French Enlightenment which tried to substitute man for god and ended up with Government by Permanent Terror.

While Jefferson appreciated the initial French revolution, he abhorred the bloody spectacle it became.

It sounds like the left had lifted it skirts and worked itself into a high dudgeon for nothing. Or, as a propaganda effort!

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: There has seldom, if ever, been as repugnant an assemblage of dunderheaded revisionist wingnuts as the coterie of Long Star Lunatics seeking to use the textbook approval system to promote their Christian Nationist agenda!

Hi Beter,

But, you would not be complaining if they were promoting Darwin, Darwinian Evolution, and Obama Socialism -- right?

If it is Extreme Liberal Left, it is right; if it contains a hint of Christian belief -- it is "Christian Nationist agenda" -- whatever that is. Beter, as I have often said; you will argue with a mirror if you can find no one else as an "argue target." Relax!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: There has seldom, if ever, been as repugnant an assemblage of dunderheaded revisionist wingnuts as the coterie of Long Star Lunatics seeking to use the textbook approval system to promote their Christian Nationist agenda!

Hi Beter,

But, you would not be complaining if they were promoting Darwin, Darwinian Evolution, and Obama Socialism -- right?

If it is Extreme Liberal Left, it is right; if it contains a hint of Christian belief -- it is "Christian Nationist agenda" -- whatever that is. Beter, as I have often said; you will argue with a mirror if you can find no one else as an "argue target." Relax!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill[/QUOTE]

Relax, yourself. To posit that this issue is one of such low profile that there are no "argue targets" upon which to sound out one's views is outrageously irrational, Bill. This is one of the most hotly-argued issues in this country right now.

Ye do err, also, in assuming that I am sympathetic with the promotion of Darwinian evolution. I find all kinds of holes in classical Darwinism. I believe in microevolution, but I contend that macroevolution is by no means proven and that much of what is advanced in support of it is critically flawed. I find much to agree with in the intelligent design concept. I think Stephen Meyer and Michael Dembski have powerfully challenged the dug-in Darwinian establishment. I hold with Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinge, two of the most outstanding scientists of our time, who argue with great persuasiveness that the mathematical odds of life on earth developing from non-life and then progressing to vastly more complex forms is a mathematical impossibility. I do not hold with Wickramasinge's "panspermia" theory--that life on earth originally arrived on materials that arrived on earth from somewhere outside our solar system.

Don't try to put me in some convenient box with those you stereotype, Bill. I don't fit there. I have been a successful practicing propfessional biologist for over 45 years but I have never been taken by Darwinism. That in itself proves that belief in that particular faith system is not essential to my discipline.

As to “Obama Socialism”, I dispute your basic characterization. When you obtain services under Medicare, Bill, do you have nagging pangs of conscience for participating in a "socialist" system?

The "Christian Nationist" agenda is the religio-political philosophy embraced by that particular sect of unpatriotic agitators who strongly support and would be highly satisfied with the return to our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer. In this, the Christian Nationists are among the more egregious enemies of the U.S. Constitution. You should oppose them also!

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: There has seldom, if ever, been as repugnant an assemblage of dunderheaded revisionist wingnuts as the coterie of Long Star Lunatics seeking to use the textbook approval system to promote their Christian Nationist agenda!

Hi Beter,

But, you would not be complaining if they were promoting Darwin, Darwinian Evolution, and Obama Socialism -- right?

If it is Extreme Liberal Left, it is right; if it contains a hint of Christian belief -- it is "Christian Nationist agenda" -- whatever that is. Beter, as I have often said; you will argue with a mirror if you can find no one else as an "argue target." Relax!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill

Relax, yourself. To posit that this issue is one of such low profile that there are no "argue targets" upon which to sound out one's views is outrageously irrational, Bill. This is one of the most hotly-argued issues in this country right now.

Ye do err, also, in assuming that I am sympathetic with the promotion of Darwinian evolution. I find all kinds of holes in classical Darwinism. I believe in microevolution, but I contend that macroevolution is by no means proven and that much of what is advanced in support of it is critically flawed. I find much to agree with in the intelligent design concept. I think Stephen Meyer and Michael Dembski have powerfully challenged the dug-in Darwinian establishment. I hold with Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinge, two of the most outstanding scientists of our time, who argue with great persuasiveness that the mathematical odds of life on earth developing from non-life and then progressing to vastly more complex forms is a mathematical impossibility. I do not hold with Wickramasinge's "panspermia" theory--that life on earth originally arrived on materials that arrived on earth from somewhere outside our solar system.

Don't try to put me in some convenient box with those you stereotype, Bill. I don't fit there. I have been a successful practicing propfessional biologist for over 45 years but I have never been taken by Darwinism. That in itself proves that belief in that particular faith system is not essential to my discipline.

As to “Obama Socialism”, I dispute your basic characterization. When you obtain services under Medicare, Bill, do you have nagging pangs of conscience for participating in a "socialist" system?

The "Christian Nationist" agenda is the religio-political philosophy embraced by that particular sect of unpatriotic agitators who strongly support and would be highly satisfied with the return to our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer. In this, the Christian Nationists are among the more egregious enemies of the U.S. Constitution. You should oppose them also![/QUOTE]


betern nuttin,

Having lived thru the years when much of what you disdain in the last paragraph happened, I find your statements completely without foundation.

Yes, we had prayer in school. However, the worse violence I ever saw was a couple of fist fights. My senior class had two unwed mothers. One was a rather sad case, she was rather mentally slow. So was the father. The other girl married the father. And, they are still married. Teachers didn't seduce students. The prayers were state approved. Each day a student read a selection he made from his own version of the bible. We had prayers at some athletic events and graduations, usually delivered by a local pastor. My father and all my uncles contributed to WWII. Most of the male members of my class served in the military. The only unpatriotic agitators were left wingers.

The only sin, and it was a sin, was segregation and racism. Even the black students pretty much reflected the same behavior my classmates did.

You really should curb your own version of bigotry. Its unbecoming and just nasty. I shall not say unpatriotic.

elinterventor croaks:

quote:

betern nuttin,

Having lived thru the years when much of what you disdain in the last paragraph happened, I find your statements completely without foundation.

Yes, we had prayer in school. However, the worse violence I ever saw was a couple of fist fights. My senior class had two unwed mothers. One was a rather sad case, she was rather mentally slow. So was the father. The other girl married the father. And, they are still married. Teachers didn't seduce students. The prayers were state approved. Each day a student read a selection he made from his own version of the bible. We had prayers at some athletic events and graduations, usually delivered by a local pastor. My father and all my uncles contributed to WWII. Most of the male members of my class served in the military. The only unpatriotic agitators were left wingers.

The only sin, and it was a sin, was segregation and racism. Even the black students pretty much reflected the same behavior my classmates did.

You really should curb your own version of bigotry. Its unbecoming and just nasty. I shall not say unpatriotic.

From what you have posted above, I can only conclude that you are among those who would have no objection to the re-institution, in our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer.

You say "The prayers were state-approved," as though that made them Constitutionally legitimate. Really, are you that simplistic and naive? I continue to contend, without reservation, that it is indeed both unconstitutional and unpatriotic to urge a return to the imposition of state-composed prayers administered and/or overseen by agents of civil government.

The anecdotal fluff you posted about behaviour of students and teachers in your era and the other information about your family's history of military service is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. Your aunts and uncles might have been kind to their dogs and cats also and kept their shrubbery nicely trimmed, but that has nothing to do with interpretation of the First Amendment.

What I posted is not "bigotry," except in your disordered sense of things. It is respect for the law of the land and in particular the Constitution, the highest law of the land.

This should not be a problem. Education in the humanities and educated teachers can easily take care of this. The problem is that schools of education are turning out zombies who can barely read the book - much less have any background in the humanities. I assure you my students would hear about Jefferson as well as Calvin and Aquinas! They would also hear about Christ who perhaps did as much for the status of women as anyone who ever lived! There is more to education than what is in the book.

quote:

Originally posted by earthmomma:
This should not be a problem. Education in the humanities and educated teachers can easily take care of this. The problem is that schools of education are turning out zombies who can barely read the book - much less have any background in the humanities. I assure you my students would hear about Jefferson as well as Calvin and Aquinas! They would also hear about Christ who perhaps did as much for the status of women as anyone who ever lived! There is more to education than what is in the book.

Not all schools of education are turning out those zombies you describe. My daughter has a master's degree from one of those schools, after having obtained a bachelor's degree in biological sciences. She gutted out the graduateeducation degree, all the while sensitive to the silliness of some of the "educationalist" pap peddled by such programs.

It IS a problem when the wingers and Christian Nationists slither into curriculum building and infest it with their particular biases. What is "in the book" is taught by default, since most teachers lazily just follow the book. I would hope, though, that there are a few more enlightened teachers who recognize the kind of propaganda these Texans are pushing and who do not let it poison the curriculum. There are easy ways around it, but all too many teachers either agree with the Christian Nationist line, don't have the initiative to teach around it, or are intimidated by community ignorance and just don't want to risk being assailed by winger parents for such things as insufficient attention to (heaven help us!) the insufferable Phyllis Schlafly!.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
elinterventor croaks:

quote:

betern nuttin,

Having lived thru the years when much of what you disdain in the last paragraph happened, I find your statements completely without foundation.

Yes, we had prayer in school. However, the worse violence I ever saw was a couple of fist fights. My senior class had two unwed mothers. One was a rather sad case, she was rather mentally slow. So was the father. The other girl married the father. And, they are still married. Teachers didn't seduce students. The prayers were state approved. Each day a student read a selection he made from his own version of the bible. We had prayers at some athletic events and graduations, usually delivered by a local pastor. My father and all my uncles contributed to WWII. Most of the male members of my class served in the military. The only unpatriotic agitators were left wingers.

The only sin, and it was a sin, was segregation and racism. Even the black students pretty much reflected the same behavior my classmates did.

You really should curb your own version of bigotry. Its unbecoming and just nasty. I shall not say unpatriotic.

From what you have posted above, I can only conclude that you are among those who would have no objection to the re-institution, in our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer.

You say "The prayers were state-approved," as though that made them Constitutionally legitimate. Really, are you that simplistic and naive? I continue to contend, without reservation, that it is indeed both unconstitutional and unpatriotic to urge a return to the imposition of state-composed prayers administered and/or overseen by agents of civil government.

The anecdotal fluff you posted about behaviour of students and teachers in your era and the other information about your family's history of military service is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. Your aunts and uncles might have been kind to their dogs and cats also and kept their shrubbery nicely trimmed, but that has nothing to do with interpretation of the First Amendment.

What I posted is not "bigotry," except in your disordered sense of things. It is respect for the law of the land and in particular the Constitution, the highest law of the land.

I never stated that there were state approved prayers. It was usually chosen by each student, in turn, as was the Bible reading. I find it enlightening that you consider the high number of teen pregnancies fluff. That schools require armed security guards in schools as fluff. That students gun each other down and make plans for blowing their fellow students and themselves up as fluff. That is truly a disordered sense of things. It wasn't always that way. The fact that an alternate and more peaceful way of life existed is proof that it can exist.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
elinterventor croaks:

quote:

betern nuttin,

Having lived thru the years when much of what you disdain in the last paragraph happened, I find your statements completely without foundation.

Yes, we had prayer in school. However, the worse violence I ever saw was a couple of fist fights. My senior class had two unwed mothers. One was a rather sad case, she was rather mentally slow. So was the father. The other girl married the father. And, they are still married. Teachers didn't seduce students. The prayers were state approved. Each day a student read a selection he made from his own version of the bible. We had prayers at some athletic events and graduations, usually delivered by a local pastor. My father and all my uncles contributed to WWII. Most of the male members of my class served in the military. The only unpatriotic agitators were left wingers.

The only sin, and it was a sin, was segregation and racism. Even the black students pretty much reflected the same behavior my classmates did.

You really should curb your own version of bigotry. Its unbecoming and just nasty. I shall not say unpatriotic.

From what you have posted above, I can only conclude that you are among those who would have no objection to the re-institution, in our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer.

You say "The prayers were state-approved," as though that made them Constitutionally legitimate. Really, are you that simplistic and naive? I continue to contend, without reservation, that it is indeed both unconstitutional and unpatriotic to urge a return to the imposition of state-composed prayers administered and/or overseen by agents of civil government.

The anecdotal fluff you posted about behaviour of students and teachers in your era and the other information about your family's history of military service is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. Your aunts and uncles might have been kind to their dogs and cats also and kept their shrubbery nicely trimmed, but that has nothing to do with interpretation of the First Amendment.

What I posted is not "bigotry," except in your disordered sense of things. It is respect for the law of the land and in particular the Constitution, the highest law of the land.

I never stated that there were state approved prayers. It was usually chosen by each student, in turn, as was the Bible reading. I find it enlightening that you consider the high number of teen pregnancies fluff. That schools require armed security guards in schools as fluff. That students gun each other down and make plans for blowing their fellow students and themselves up as fluff. That is truly a disordered sense of things. It wasn't always that way. The fact that an alternate and more peaceful way of life existed is proof that it can exist.

Your stuff was fluffy stuff because of its irrelevance to the topic. The antisocial behavior of some students today or three decades ago has had no demonstrated linkage with school-sanctioned, school-directed religious activity.

It is irrelevant also that in the circumstances you describe, the prayer "was usually chosen by each student, in turn, as was the Bible reading." The very notion that there was to be a standardized religious exercise prescribed and overseen in the classroom by school (governmental) authorities, consisting of Bible reading (irrespective of the passage chosen or the student doing the reading) and a prayer (very likely one closed "in Jesus' name"--irrespective of the presence of Jewish or atheist children) is enough to flat out constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. The courts of this land have so held and the courts are right and YOU are all muddled up about the matter and disordered as well.

My guess is that maybe you were spending so much time in those exotic foreign places you like to drop into your posts that you did not have enough time and opportunity to stay abreast of what was happening in the courts back home. You need to get caught up on Constitutional law and then perhaps you will not offer simplistic and wrongheaded examples of what is and what is not State-approved or State-directed.

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
It's LONE STAR not Long Star...Bet.

Good catch shel, I love it when someone gives bitter one a taste of his own medicine.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
This is what you get when you allow religious right wing nuts to get in charge.

As apposed to what you get when left wing progressives are in charge. That hopey changey stuff isn't working to swell.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
elinterventor croaks:

quote:

betern nuttin,

Having lived thru the years when much of what you disdain in the last paragraph happened, I find your statements completely without foundation.

Yes, we had prayer in school. However, the worse violence I ever saw was a couple of fist fights. My senior class had two unwed mothers. One was a rather sad case, she was rather mentally slow. So was the father. The other girl married the father. And, they are still married. Teachers didn't seduce students. The prayers were state approved. Each day a student read a selection he made from his own version of the bible. We had prayers at some athletic events and graduations, usually delivered by a local pastor. My father and all my uncles contributed to WWII. Most of the male members of my class served in the military. The only unpatriotic agitators were left wingers.

The only sin, and it was a sin, was segregation and racism. Even the black students pretty much reflected the same behavior my classmates did.

You really should curb your own version of bigotry. Its unbecoming and just nasty. I shall not say unpatriotic.

From what you have posted above, I can only conclude that you are among those who would have no objection to the re-institution, in our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer.

You say "The prayers were state-approved," as though that made them Constitutionally legitimate. Really, are you that simplistic and naive? I continue to contend, without reservation, that it is indeed both unconstitutional and unpatriotic to urge a return to the imposition of state-composed prayers administered and/or overseen by agents of civil government.

The anecdotal fluff you posted about behaviour of students and teachers in your era and the other information about your family's history of military service is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. Your aunts and uncles might have been kind to their dogs and cats also and kept their shrubbery nicely trimmed, but that has nothing to do with interpretation of the First Amendment.

What I posted is not "bigotry," except in your disordered sense of things. It is respect for the law of the land and in particular the Constitution, the highest law of the land.

I never stated that there were state approved prayers. It was usually chosen by each student, in turn, as was the Bible reading. I find it enlightening that you consider the high number of teen pregnancies fluff. That schools require armed security guards in schools as fluff. That students gun each other down and make plans for blowing their fellow students and themselves up as fluff. That is truly a disordered sense of things. It wasn't always that way. The fact that an alternate and more peaceful way of life existed is proof that it can exist.

Your stuff was fluffy stuff because of its irrelevance to the topic. The antisocial behavior of some students today or three decades ago has had no demonstrated linkage with school-sanctioned, school-directed religious activity.

It is irrelevant also that in the circumstances you describe, the prayer "was usually chosen by each student, in turn, as was the Bible reading." The very notion that there was to be a standardized religious exercise prescribed and overseen in the classroom by school (governmental) authorities, consisting of Bible reading (irrespective of the passage chosen or the student doing the reading) and a prayer (very likely one closed "in Jesus' name"--irrespective of the presence of Jewish or atheist children) is enough to flat out constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. The courts of this land have so held and the courts are right and YOU are all muddled up about the matter and disordered as well.

My guess is that maybe you were spending so much time in those exotic foreign places you like to drop into your posts that you did not have enough time and opportunity to stay abreast of what was happening in the courts back home. You need to get caught up on Constitutional law and then perhaps you will not offer simplistic and wrongheaded examples of what is and what is not State-approved or State-directed.

betern nuttin,

Quite the opposite, the anti-social behavior, or rather, the increasing anti-social behavior of students is directly correlated with the changes directed by the liberal establishment for the last fifty years. The portion I commented on is but one facet of a multi-faceted problem. Of course, with one track, small gauge mindsets, most of the liberal/left establishment cannot discern the inter-connections of the problem. I saw the same lack of comprehension among those inexperienced of my own profession. As, during the latter years of my career with the government, I involved in planning the movement of old deteriorating chemical weapons (some from WWI) to their final resting place until destruction, and tactical nukes, aren't you glad I and a few others had the experience to move such items safely. A number of them went to Anniston.

In 1962 and 1963, the Warren SCOTUS, made the school prayer decisions. Changing what was considered constitutional for almost 150 years. Too bad, as Governor of California, he considered the internment of over 100,000 of his state's residents in desert camps constitutional. President Eisenhower stated that Earl Warren was his biggest dammed mistake. Considering that Ike approved Operation Market Garden, that's a bold statement.

Now, to return to the thread, the breakdown and dumbing down in education curricula were a results of efforts by the liberal/left establishment. It was accomplished in increments, usually for nobly stated reasons. Unfortunately, the results were not what was envisioned. At least, I hope it wasn't what was envisioned. Now, that portions of the establishment are conservative, you complain.

You walked into a Malay gate on this!

elinterventor once more croaks:

[QUOTE]betern nuttin,

Quite the opposite, the anti-social behavior, or rather, the increasing anti-social behavior of students is directly correlated with the changes directed by the liberal establishment for the last fifty years. The portion I commented on is but one facet of a multi-faceted problem. Of course, with one track, small gauge mindsets, most of the liberal/left establishment cannot discern the inter-connections of the problem. I saw the same lack of comprehension among those inexperienced of my own profession. As, during the latter years of my career with the government, I involved in planning the movement of old deteriorating chemical weapons (some from WWI) to their final resting place until destruction, and tactical nukes, aren't you glad I and a few others had the experience to move such items safely. A number of them went to Anniston.

In 1962 and 1963, the Warren SCOTUS, made the school prayer decisions. Changing what was considered constitutional for almost 150 years. Too bad, as Governor of California, he considered the internment of over 100,000 of his state's residents in desert camps constitutional. President Eisenhower stated that Earl Warren was his biggest dammed mistake. Considering that Ike approved Operation Market Garden, that's a bold statement.

Now, to return to the thread, the breakdown and dumbing down in education curricula were a results of efforts by the liberal/left establishment. It was accomplished in increments, usually for nobly stated reasons. Unfortunately, the results were not what was envisioned. At least, I hope it wasn't what was envisioned. Now, that portions of the establishment are conservative, you complain.

You walked into a Malay gate on this![QUOTE]

More fluff and stuff from your domain of diversion, deflection and digression!

I was not addressing the issue of the totality of scope and impact of societal evolution in the 50s and 60s, elinterventor. My objection was to State-prescribed and State-directed religious exercises in the public schools. I said, "The antisocial behavior of some students today or three decades ago has had no demonstrated linkage with school-sanctioned, school-directed religious activity." You did not respond to that. Instead you ventured off into a sweeping assessment and tirade about the spectrum of liberal interventionist influence on breaking down and dumbing down of public education.

Once more you overlay the subject matter with a heavy layer of peripheral and irrelevant fluff. If you want to rebut my contention, then you should address it head-on.

I observed, "From what you have posted above, I can only conclude that you are among those who would have no objection to the re-institution, in our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer."

You chose not to provide a straightforward answer to that, elinterventor. Would you now simply state whether you would or would not object to "the re-institution, in our public schools and other public forums, systems and venues of such things as state-endorsed, state-prescribed, state-administered prayer." THAT is the issue I raised.

It might surprise you that I, too, object to a great many of the curricular innovations foisted upon the American primary/secondary school systems by educationalist theorists and plotters, but that is also beside the point. We are dealing here with school prayer.

As to Earl Warren and school prayer decisions, I seem to remember that a Chief Justice has only one vote on the SCOTUS. Warren did not unilaterally decide those school prayer cases. As you correctly observed, it was the "Warren SCOTUS" that did so. In Engel v, Vitale (New York Regents prayer case and the dispositive case on school prayer), the decision was 6-1. Justice Black wwrote the majority opinion. Consider:

"To support the Court's finding, Black referred to the following ideas of the Framers: 'To those who may subscribe to the view that because the Regents' official prayer is so brief and general [it] can be no danger to religious freedom…, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:… 'Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?'”

The Court's decision was not, Black pointed out, antireligious. It sought, rather, only to affirm the separation between church and state. 'It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers…' Thereafter, State governments could not “prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.”

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/us/s...ourt/cases/ar10.html

Here is a the full decision:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/370/421/case.html

Once more, you try to defend a small facet of a multi-faceted evolution of education's changes. You think you've identified the problem without noticing that you've only isolated one small stick in the entire i-ching stack.

Whether your smoking the joss stick or just smelling the wafting smoke, I could care less!

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Once more, you try to defend a small facet of a multi-faceted evolution of education's changes. You think you've identified the problem without noticing that you've only isolated one small stick in the entire i-ching stack.

Whether your smoking the joss stick or just smelling the wafting smoke, I could care less!

What you care nothing about is addressing the very telling point I have been making about the un-Constitutionality of government-directed school prayer. It is obvious that you are weaseling away from that. Your performance places you way up in the running for the Mustelid of the Month award!

quote:

Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
Coterie is valid but like bitter old men who watch too much Doberman it's completely unnecessary. However "Christian Nationist agenda!" should be christian nationalist agenda.

I guess you can chalk it up to senility.

Then to what do you "chalk up" your de-capitalization of "Christian"? Premature senility?

<<<"The word "Christian" should be capitalized whether you're talking about a person, the group as a whole, or the Christian beliefs."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Shou...ways_be_capitalized.">>>

<<>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
Coterie is valid but like bitter old men who watch too much Doberman it's completely unnecessary. However "Christian Nationist agenda!" should be christian nationalist agenda.

I guess you can chalk it up to senility.

Then to what do you "chalk up" your de-capitalization of "Christian"? Premature senility?

<<<"The word "Christian" should be capitalized whether you're talking about a person, the group as a whole, or the Christian beliefs."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Shou...ways_be_capitalized.">>>

<<>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization

As to "Nationist" versus "Nationalist," I purposely used the former because I do not wish to imply an association between the Texas textbook revisionists and the Christian Nationalist Crusade, a heinous anti-semitic group that bears that name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._Nationalist_Crusade


My term of choice, "Christian Nationist" refers to those misguided persons, in Texas and elsewhere, who continue to insist that the United States is a "Christian nation." Although some of them lean toward formation of an actual theocracy, most do not, and thus they are not positioned at the extreme occupied by the Christian Nationist Crusade--which, blessedly, is no longer active, though remembered by many for its racist inanities. Christian Nationists, however, assuiduously continue to promote such things as government-sanctioned school prayer and by this unconstitutional means would use the power of government to sanction one belief system over others. That is why the Supreme Court ruled such prayers unlawful. Right wingers who want government out of almost every other area of society for some reason are content to let government intrude into the sacred area of personal religious belief. Go figure.

the last line of your post,beter, misspelled religious.

quote:

Originally posted by leo:
the last line of your post,beter, misspelled religious.

Thank you. Correction has been made!

BeternU you are a dolt.

quote:

Originally posted by rexkwondo72:
BeternU you are a dolt.

Tut-tut! Rules of the forum do not permit name-calling, you syphilitic drooling fool!

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Once more, you try to defend a small facet of a multi-faceted evolution of education's changes. You think you've identified the problem without noticing that you've only isolated one small stick in the entire i-ching stack.

Whether your smoking the joss stick or just smelling the wafting smoke, I could care less!

What you care nothing about is addressing the very telling point I have been making about the un-Constitutionality of government-directed school prayer. It is obvious that you are weaseling away from that. Your performance places you way up in the running for the Mustelid of the Month award!

You just weren't paying attention. I stated:

"In 1962 and 1963, the Warren SCOTUS, made the school prayer decisions. Changing what was considered constitutional for almost 150 years. Too bad, as Governor of California, he considered the internment of over 100,000 of his state's residents in desert camps constitutional."

To re-state, I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision, which swept away 150 years of previous practice. Interesting that Warren had no problem locking up his own fellow Californians. The way the federal law was written, they would only be interred with the approval of state governors.

No weasel, thank you!

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Once more, you try to defend a small facet of a multi-faceted evolution of education's changes. You think you've identified the problem without noticing that you've only isolated one small stick in the entire i-ching stack.

Whether your smoking the joss stick or just smelling the wafting smoke, I could care less!

What you care nothing about is addressing the very telling point I have been making about the un-Constitutionality of government-directed school prayer. It is obvious that you are weaseling away from that. Your performance places you way up in the running for the Mustelid of the Month award!

You just weren't paying attention. I stated:

"In 1962 and 1963, the Warren SCOTUS, made the school prayer decisions. Changing what was considered constitutional for almost 150 years. Too bad, as Governor of California, he considered the internment of over 100,000 of his state's residents in desert camps constitutional."

To re-state, I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision, which swept away 150 years of previous practice. Interesting that Warren had no problem locking up his own fellow Californians. The way the federal law was written, they would only be interred [Horrors, no! They were not "interred," since they were not dead. They were "interned."] with the approval of state governors.

No weasel, thank you!

Thus, since you disagree with the SCOTUS decision in Engel v. Vitale, it is now clear that you indeed DO support the concept of agents of civil government prescribing the content of prayers to be recited in public school classrooms and determining which scriptures (Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.)are to be used in classroom devotionals in public schools. The situation I describe here is precisely what the court was considering when it ruled against such meddling by gummint!

If this is not correct, please explain why.

Okay then you are a dunce.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Once more, you try to defend a small facet of a multi-faceted evolution of education's changes. You think you've identified the problem without noticing that you've only isolated one small stick in the entire i-ching stack.

Whether your smoking the joss stick or just smelling the wafting smoke, I could care less!

What you care nothing about is addressing the very telling point I have been making about the un-Constitutionality of government-directed school prayer. It is obvious that you are weaseling away from that. Your performance places you way up in the running for the Mustelid of the Month award!

You just weren't paying attention. I stated:

"In 1962 and 1963, the Warren SCOTUS, made the school prayer decisions. Changing what was considered constitutional for almost 150 years. Too bad, as Governor of California, he considered the internment of over 100,000 of his state's residents in desert camps constitutional."

To re-state, I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision, which swept away 150 years of previous practice. Interesting that Warren had no problem locking up his own fellow Californians. The way the federal law was written, they would only be interred [Horrors, no! They were not "interred," since they were not dead. They were "interned."] with the approval of state governors.

No weasel, thank you!

Thus, since you disagree with the SCOTUS decision in Engel v. Vitale, it is now clear that you indeed DO support the concept of agents of civil government prescribing the content of prayers to be recited in public school classrooms and determining which scriptures (Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.)are to be used in classroom devotionals in public schools. The situation I describe here is precisely what the court was considering when it ruled against such meddling by gummint!

If this is not correct, please explain why.

Big whoop I typed a "r" instead of an "n." At least, I know how to post links.

Actually, I remember reading from several versions of the Bible, the Torah and the Ramayana.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Big whoop I typed a "r" instead of an "n." At least, I know how to post links.

Actually, I remember reading from several versions of the Bible, the Torah and the Ramayana.

If you read from the Ramayana in an Alabama schoolroom and some conservative Protestant parents found out, there likely would have been an uproar about that--assuming they understood the nature of what was read.

Seriously, elinterventor, do you really want government prescribing the nature and content of religious activities in public school classrooms? I sense between the lines that you entertain at least some reservations on this.

Kids in public schools are free to voluntarily organize and conduct their own religious clubs and activities on their own initiatives and to use school space and resources to the same extent that students are permitted to carry out other extracurricular activities on school property using school space and resources. I heartily endorse that as fully constitutional. It is the intrusion of public school officialdom that concerns me.

betern nuttin,

Either, your reading comprehension is lacking, or your suffering from a senior moment. Earlier, I stated that students took turns reading from their own selections. When I went to school in the Shoals, we had a number of Indians, several were research scientists. Their children went to the public schools.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Once more, you try to defend a small facet of a multi-faceted evolution of education's changes. You think you've identified the problem without noticing that you've only isolated one small stick in the entire i-ching stack.

Whether your smoking the joss stick or just smelling the wafting smoke, I could care less!

What you care nothing about is addressing the very telling point I have been making about the un-Constitutionality of government-directed school prayer. It is obvious that you are weaseling away from that. Your performance places you way up in the running for the Mustelid of the Month award!

You just weren't paying attention. I stated:

"In 1962 and 1963, the Warren SCOTUS, made the school prayer decisions. Changing what was considered constitutional for almost 150 years. Too bad, as Governor of California, he considered the internment of over 100,000 of his state's residents in desert camps constitutional."

To re-state, I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision, which swept away 150 years of previous practice. Interesting that Warren had no problem locking up his own fellow Californians. The way the federal law was written, they would only be interred [Horrors, no! They were not "interred," since they were not dead. They were "interned."] with the approval of state governors.

No weasel, thank you!

Thus, since you disagree with the SCOTUS decision in Engel v. Vitale, it is now clear that you indeed DO support the concept of agents of civil government prescribing the content of prayers to be recited in public school classrooms and determining which scriptures (Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.)are to be used in classroom devotionals in public schools. The situation I describe here is precisely what the court was considering when it ruled against such meddling by gummint!

If this is not correct, please explain why.

Big whoop I typed a "r" instead of an "n." At least, I know how to post links.

Actually, I remember reading from several versions of the Bible, the Torah and the Ramayana.

When responding to beternobody's posts please limit yourself to words with less than three syllables. By the time he finds them in his dictionary he's forgotten what he's reading about,so he will attack your grammer or puntuation because thats what he thinks he's good at. Thanks your cooperation is appreciated.

Too true! Communicating with those with old timer's disease is a trip!

leo

I do offer my services in aid of those who, like yourself, are strongly challenged in their applications of English usage, your most recent post being a prime example of this deficiency. Help is provided below:

When responding to beternobody's posts, [COMMA] please limit yourself to words with less FEWER than three syllables. By the time he finds them in his dictionary [COMMA] he's forgotten what he's reading about,so he will attack your grammer GRAMMAR or puntuation PUNCTUATION, because thats THAT'S what he thinks he's good at. Thanks. your YOUR cooperation is appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
betern nuttin,

Either, your reading comprehension is lacking, or your suffering from a senior moment. Earlier, I stated that students took turns reading from their own selections. When I went to school in the Shoals, we had a number of Indians, several were research scientists. Their children went to the public schools.

I do not question that students had opportunity to select what to read. What got government involved in your scenario is that school officialdom established the time, place and format for the observance and that, in the first place, they determined to implement a period of worship under their direction and control. Government established the nature of the religious observance in the classroom and supervised its conduct. That is the kind of thing the courts have found unconstitutional.

As a practical matter, the historical conduct of prayer, scripture reading and allied activity in public school classrooms in the past dominantly followed what can fairly be described as a generalized Protestant model. Usually in my public school (in Davidson County , Tennessee in the 1940s and 1950s) there would be from 2 to 5 Jewish children in each classroom. They were were great kids--one of them my best friend. We had no idea what anti-semitism was. No one contirved to implement any kind of devotional exercise in the classroom that would be inconsistent with their beliefs.

Nevertheless, these Jewish public school children had to sit stoically through daily readings of the New Testament and bow their heads as their teachers closed prayers "in Jesus' name. They never complained about the particular religious atmosphere created in the classroom because they did not want to make waves. Kids that age just hate to do things that would call that kind of attention to them. As far as I know, we did not have any atheist kids who would presumably would have been offended by any kind of religious activity in the classroom.

That does not resemble the eclectic--and atypical--model you described from your cosmopolitan youth, but that is just the way it was over much of this nation in the public schools. And it was this kind of situation that energized opponents of school prayer/ school Bible reading, etc. to successfully litigate to get government out of the business of prescribing and controlling religious exercises in public school classrooms.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
betern nuttin,

Either, your reading comprehension is lacking, or your suffering from a senior moment. Earlier, I stated that students took turns reading from their own selections. When I went to school in the Shoals, we had a number of Indians, several were research scientists. Their children went to the public schools.

I do not question that students had opportunity to select what to read. What got government involved in your scenario is that school officialdom established the time, place and format for the observance and that, in the first place, they determined to implement a period of worship under their direction and control. Government established the nature of the religious observance in the classroom and supervised its conduct. That is the kind of thing the courts have found unconstitutional.

As a practical matter, the historical conduct of prayer, scripture reading and allied activity in public school classrooms in the past dominantly followed what can fairly be described as a generalized Protestant model. Usually in my public school (in Davidson County , Tennessee in the 1940s and 1950s) there would be from 2 to 5 Jewish children in each classroom. They were were great kids--one of them my best friend. We had no idea what anti-semitism was. No one contirved to implement any kind of devotional exercise in the classroom that would be inconsistent with their beliefs.

Nevertheless, these Jewish public school children had to sit stoically through daily readings of the New Testament and bow their heads as their teachers closed prayers "in Jesus' name. They never complained about the particular religious atmosphere created in the classroom because they did not want to make waves. Kids that age just hate to do things that would call that kind of attention to them. As far as I know, we did not have any atheist kids who would presumably would have been offended by any kind of religious activity in the classroom.

That does not resemble the eclectic--and atypical--model you described from your cosmopolitan youth, but that is just the way it was over much of this nation in the public schools. And it was this kind of situation that energized opponents of school prayer/ school Bible reading, etc. to successfully litigate to get government out of the business of prescribing and controlling religious exercises in public school classrooms.

third paragraph, last sentence, redundant usage of the word would.

quote:

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
betern nuttin,

Either, your reading comprehension is lacking, or your suffering from a senior moment. Earlier, I stated that students took turns reading from their own selections. When I went to school in the Shoals, we had a number of Indians, several were research scientists. Their children went to the public schools.

I do not question that students had opportunity to select what to read. What got government involved in your scenario is that school officialdom established the time, place and format for the observance and that, in the first place, they determined to implement a period of worship under their direction and control. Government established the nature of the religious observance in the classroom and supervised its conduct. That is the kind of thing the courts have found unconstitutional.

As a practical matter, the historical conduct of prayer, scripture reading and allied activity in public school classrooms in the past dominantly followed what can fairly be described as a generalized Protestant model. Usually in my public school (in Davidson County , Tennessee in the 1940s and 1950s) there would be from 2 to 5 Jewish children in each classroom. They were were great kids--one of them my best friend. We had no idea what anti-semitism was. No one contirved to implement any kind of devotional exercise in the classroom that would be inconsistent with their beliefs.

Nevertheless, these Jewish public school children had to sit stoically through daily readings of the New Testament and bow their heads as their teachers closed prayers "in Jesus' name. They never complained about the particular religious atmosphere created in the classroom because they did not want to make waves. Kids that age just hate to do things that would call that kind of attention to them. As far as I know, we did not have any atheist kids who would presumably would have been offended by any kind of religious activity in the classroom.

That does not resemble the eclectic--and atypical--model you described from your cosmopolitan youth, but that is just the way it was over much of this nation in the public schools. And it was this kind of situation that energized opponents of school prayer/ school Bible reading, etc. to successfully litigate to get government out of the business of prescribing and controlling religious exercises in public school classrooms.

third paragraph, last sentence, redundant usage of the word would.

You missed one, leo. See marked text above. Your eyes must be getting less beady, what with all the strain you put on them ferreting out my errors!

good catch beter. I'll go wash my eyes. See none of us are perfect. I'll leave you alone for a while. No malice intended, just having a little fun.