More Indoctrination

Socrtease said:
The problem with you is IF it was mandatory you don't care. You don't care because it is your beliefs that the school MIGHT be forcing kids to listen to. If this was a school forcing kids to listen to a Muslim Imam you and a million other conservative christians would be shitting down both legs to fill their shoes about it. No problem with forced indoctrination so long as it is Christian.
Click to expand...

no....the problem with me is that I get tired of the jackoff atheists who jump on a thread complaining about what Christians have been alleged to have done.....then by the time the facts show up and none of it was true we for some reason never see the same folks admitting they were wrong.....again.....
 
Steelplate said:
No...but you only seem to deal in absolutes....so...if in your eyes, I support "people killing their kids" then obviously by the same token...us men are fucking selfish pricks who don't want to raise our kids that we helped to create.

So....you ever hear of many men making that deal with the woman carrying Hus child? "I'll raise it...you just carry it...you'll never have to see it again"

No....it's almost always the other way around.
Click to expand...

do you think I haven't helped raise my children?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you think I haven't helped raise my children?.....
Click to expand...

I doubt it. You probably bitched and moaned every time you saw your paycheck and saw the child support deduction. Truthfully....I don't know you...for all I know, you're a great Dad.

But this isn't about YOU, is it? This is about women who don't want to raise a child....but are forced to...or will be if you get your way...All by themselves.

But then again....I am talking to someone so warped on this issue that he thinks abortion is the #1 method of birth control.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....the problem with me is that I get tired of the jackoff atheists who jump on a thread complaining about what Christians have been alleged to have done.....then by the time the facts show up and none of it was true we for some reason never see the same folks admitting they were wrong.....again.....
Click to expand...

What facts have you presented on this case? Are you referring to the one paragraph you "discovered" and that was part of the originally posted article?

It's not likely I will admit I am wrong since I made my position conditional. That is, I reserve judgment on the basis of the facts. If the truancy officer did what was alleged and the school made the assembly mandatory or gave the impression that it was mandatory then the action violates the first amendment. The fact that it happened during the school day, which does not seem to be disputed, does lead me to doubt the claim that it was completely student lead.

Now that is quite different than the right wing dumbasses who went on a rampage about how a teacher had dictated to schoolchildren that they should be willing to give up their rights for security and then said nothing when it turned out the teacher had no part in it and that the children had only been asked whether they supported the statement or not.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
let me refresh your memory...


that would be the pro-abortion position on what the New American Standard version says........
Click to expand...

Let me refresh your memory...

PostmodernProphet said:
the NAS translation you cited does not say that, the NIV translation does not say that, the KJV does not say that.....in fact, no translation out there says that.....instead, a footnote about a translation that no Bible DID use says "miscarriage".....
Click to expand...


The source provided proves you are wrong. The NAS did say that. Further, your own source at biblegateway proves you wrong, as many currently used translations say that.

You are wrong and there are no two ways about it. But instead of manning up and admitting it, you evade and continue to accuse me.
 
Steelplate said:
So....the old Testament isn't the word of God? Inspired writings? Why if that's the case, could it be that the word of God in the New Testament was bastardized by Roman influence at the Nicene Council?

How many laws did they write in? According to Gnostic Gospels, Mary Magdalene was the disciple on which the church was to be built(not Peter) and Judas Iscariot was not a traitor...but chosen by Christ himself to turn him over...

But the "church" portrayed Mary as a whore and Judas as an evil betrayor of Jesus.

Who's right? Who's wrong? God knows...us? Not so much.

Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

Never said the new testament wasn't inspired by God, not once. 613 separate laws
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the fact that the first amendment permits you to say what you want about my beliefs doesn't change the fact its an attack on my beliefs......or did that slip your mind.....
Click to expand...

You are really a scatterbrained nitwit. This all goes back to...

PostmodernProphet said:
the intent was to protect religion from government....ironically, it is being used to attack religion THROUGH the government....
Click to expand...

That is the context, peabrain. You claimed there was an attack on religion and when I said there was not, you referred to my posts.
 
patriot66 said:
Never said the new testament wasn't inspired by God, not once. 613 separate laws
Click to expand...

No....I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in your thought process. First...you say the OT is invalid because the Pharisees created new laws. Then to "prove" that God disagrees with me you used Psalms as a reference.

Then I bring up the Nicene Council and the fact that some of the Apostles' Gospels didn't make the cut, but were included in the Gnostic Gospels. Gnostics, who believe that getting closer to God comes not from ritual and organized churches, but from Gnosis....or knowledge...flew in the face of the Orthodoxy....who the Romans also supported. The Gospels of the apostles that were more in line with the Gnostics were tossed and Gnostics were labeled as Heretics and hunted down.

Have you ever read the Gnostic Gospels....at least what remains of them? They are incomplete, because most of them were destroyed and the ones that were found were in bad shape.

Now....I'm not making the claim that Gnosticism is the "true" Christian religion or anything like that....I'm just saying that the New Testament, as we know it...may have been augmented by man for political reasons by the Roman establishment and the newly formed Catholic Church.

I mean, if you feel that way about the Old Testament, you have to at least be curious about the possibility of the New Testament.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Your premise is flawed and based on ignorance of what the establishment clause means. If it "respects the ESTABLISHED religion" then it is prohibited. Establishment is a noun. The clause does not simply prohibit the act of establishing a religion.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...

No where are Church and State mentioned.

The Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789 contain what the founders truly wanted - "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

So what law has made that you're complaining about?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...

No where are Church and State mentioned.

The Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789 contain what the founders truly wanted - "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

So what law has made that you're complaining about?
Click to expand...

We have already been over this. The state cannot get around the first amendment by arguing that it only prohibits laws explicitly referring to religion. Schools are funded and attendance made mandatory through legislative acts. Schools cannot compel religious practices anymore than a judge can.
 
Professor Baxter said:
We have already been over this. The state cannot get around the first amendment by arguing that it only prohibits laws explicitly referring to religion. Schools are funded and attendance made mandatory through legislative acts. Schools cannot compel religious practices anymore than a judge can.
Click to expand...

I never suggested that I was in favor of anyone compelling any kind of religious practice; so what do you intend to complain about now?
 
Steelplate said:
I doubt it. You probably bitched and moaned every time you saw your paycheck and saw the child support deduction. Truthfully....I don't know you...for all I know, you're a great Dad.

But this isn't about YOU, is it? This is about women who don't want to raise a child....but are forced to...or will be if you get your way...All by themselves.

But then again....I am talking to someone so warped on this issue that he thinks abortion is the #1 method of birth control.
Click to expand...

Well, I happen to be a member of a church which considers abortion to be wrong, but I don't think it requires a church to view a grave evil as wrong.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I never suggested that I was in favor of anyone compelling any kind of religious practice; so what do you intend to complain about now?
Click to expand...

I don't care what you favor. The complaint is in the op.

You can squirm all you want, actions such as the ones alleged are prohibited by the first.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet it wasn't what our discussion was about and you are the one who made the accusation, towards me. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was. What are you talking about accusation? I was responding to patriot666's question about how the first was a reason to keep prayer, like that in the op, out of school and you butted in with your misunderstanding of the establishment clause. Then you brought up the old chestnut that the practice was permitted because it was not "a law."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top