Texas Schools Board Rewriting US History

Originally Posted by exvor . The men who created this document really were IMHO smarter then most people living today.

They were definitely more rational.

Originally Posted by onebuck What part of; doesn't represent my view? The first three words 'In my understanding' should indicate or point to my view that the '1st states that the government shall not favor a religion, regulate, restrict or interfere with religious expression'. Is this not understandable? My original point is that the modern court has misinterpreted the 1st when the court used a portion of a personal letter to base the modern statement 'separation of church and state'. In my opinion it was wrong to do that as the U.S. Constitution 1st amendment does not state anything about 'separation of church and state'.

So when the state says that a woman can have an abortion because it is her body and the only foundation for objecting that a non-viable fetus is a religous one, you're jake with that, right?

And when the government says "No, wacko-sect-branch mormon, you can't rape that 12-year-old girl even if you really think you'll not ascend to the highest levels of heaven if she doesn't get pregnant by you," that's fine, right?

And when the government saya that we can tax (or impose 'impact fees') church lands, well, that's just an objective monetary levy that is content free and therefore has nothing to do with the First Amendment, right?

Just so's we're clear.

Originally Posted by onebuck Thomas Jefferson was a Christen in every since, an intellectual person who happen to select verses from the bible relative to the life of Jesus. Too bad you don't get his reasoning.

Oh, but I do get his reasoning. Jefferson's reasoning was "This Is what I think. You find your own way, as my ideas are irrelevant to you, and government will not be around to help one religion, or any religion, tilt the playing field in your search."

You think Jefferson -- or the other founding fathers -- meant something else? Show your proof. Innuendo shall be found wanting, so don't deal in stereotypes.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 And when the government saya that we can tax (or impose 'impact fees') church lands, well, that's just an objective monetary levy that is content free and therefore has nothing to do with the First Amendment, right? Just so's we're clear.

The government doesn't tax non-profits either. Church (in theory)=non-profit.

Quote: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world ROTFL. They cannot be serious! Back to The Dark Ages.

I don't get the joke?

Originally Posted by damgar I don't get the joke?

I suppose brianL is connecting the whole 'ordained by god' (King from the Middle Ages), to the same idea here. In this case the United States is somehow 'chosen' by God as a shining example for all to marvel over and emulate.

Originally Posted by Jeebizz I suppose brianL is connecting the whole 'ordained by god' (King from the Middle Ages), to the same idea here. In this case the United States is somehow 'chosen' by God as a shining example for all to marvel over and emulate.

Yeah, I just like what brianL can do with a little sarcasm. He's a true artist.

If there were no separation - and I believe that the current state of play is simply and rational following through of the original words - you would have a situation where the US government is a theocracy. Let's say that there was no amendment, firstly, the government would be Christian and would feel correct in persecuting all non-Christians. Secondly, it would have to pick a branch of Christianity - be it Anglican, Catholic, Fundamentalist, Rapturist, Snake Handlerist, Presbyterianist and so on. All other branches of Christianity would be shut down and/or persecuted.

If any Church wishes to dabble in politics all they have to do is to give up the entry fee - pay their taxes.

Originally Posted by damgar Yeah, I just like what brianL can do with a little sarcasm. He's a true artist.

Thanks, but I'm far too modest to agree with you.

Originally Posted by XavierP If any Church wishes to dabble in politics all they have to do is to give up the entry fee - pay their taxes.

You just stumbled onto something you didn't mean to. The churches here in the states are beginning to cross the line into politics if they haven't already, or the line has completely been blurred. Catholic churches along with Baptist had their preachers/priests OUTRIGHT tell their congregations whom to vote and not to vote for. At this point I say they should pay up, yet of course then they hide behind their holy book and their preachers/priests continue their politics indoctrination behind the pulpit.

Taxes? Oh gee, I do apologize for AGAIN invoking George Carlin but:

Mr. Carlin Religion pays none of the taxes, and they always need a little more don't they?

Well, what you need to do is kick off some sort of lawsuit. The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) and the ACLU have some experience of this. If the church is established and wealthy then they have the most to lose. Get some evidence and contact the two organisations and they can start action.

George Carlin, by dint of his long career, somehow fits most situations

Originally Posted by damgar The government doesn't tax non-profits either. Church (in theory)=non-profit.

True, but the First Amendment is not implicated in the decision to tax other nonprofits. That's simply a question of forebearance by the sovereign.

Originally Posted by Jeebizz You just stumbled onto something you didn't mean to. The churches here in the states are beginning to cross the line into politics if they haven't already, or the line has completely been blurred. Catholic churches along with Baptist had their preachers/priests OUTRIGHT tell their congregations whom to vote and not to vote for. At this point I say they should pay up, yet of course then they hide behind their holy book and their preachers/priests continue their politics indoctrination behind the pulpit. Taxes? Oh gee, I do apologize for AGAIN invoking George Carlin but:

Churches have been involved in telling congregants who and what to vote for since God was a boy. When there was no federal tax law nobody cared. When the feds started the income tax, religious involvement was ignored until it became so egregious that something had to be done (just like the tax exemption had to be limited to property used in religious practice). The line has always been blurred.

While I agree that governments are becoming overly sensitive to demonstrations of faith, I think that's a useful counterweight to the religious bigots who would deny the rest of us the same use of public property.

I am reminded of the case of Loving vs. Virginia, which the Supreme Court used in 1967 to strike down laws regulating interracial marriage. It took about 8 years for that case to reach the Court and be ruled on. The record in that case shows that when the county sheriff knocked on the door of Mr and Mrs Loving to charge them with the crime of being a white man married to a black woman, Mr. Loving answered the door. The sheriff identified himself and said:

"I'm here to enforce God's law."

So maybe governments aren't overly sensitive about displays of religious faith after all.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 I am reminded of the case of Loving vs. Virginia, which the Supreme Court used in 1967 to strike down laws regulating interracial marriage. It took about 8 years for that case to reach the Court and be ruled on. The record in that case shows that when the county sheriff knocked on the door of Mr and Mrs Loving to charge them with the crime of being a white man married to a black woman, Mr. Loving answered the door. The sheriff identified himself and said: "I'm here to enforce God's law." So maybe governments aren't overly sensitive about displays of religious faith after all.

Except that idiot of a sheriff neglected to realize that according to 'God's Law', they technically did NOT violate his law, because the marriage was between a man and a woman, and no passage that I can think of states that a white should only marry a white. Thats not to say that perhaps in some HISTORICAL ONLY context (usually meaning the Hebrews were supposed to keep themselves 'racially pure'), but I still don't see anywhere in the Bible that a white man cannot marry a black woman, or a black man cannot marry a white woman, or (insert_differnt_race + other_different_race_here), if so, then I guess [southern accent] I'm goin' ta hell[/southern accent] because I am a white married to a 'Chinese heathen', and our kid is going to be an 'abomination' against God!

This is where the racist bigots have essentially hijacked the Christian religion to meet their own twisted needs. If they are so concerned about 'keeping their race pure', then they should take a hint from those who inbreed. That WILL keep their race quite pure, and they would be doing the rest of us a favor, by inbreeding themselves out of existence!

Originally Posted by Jeebizz Except that idiot of a sheriff neglected to realize that according to 'God's Law', they technically did NOT violate his law, because the marriage was between a man and a woman, and no passage that I can think of states that a white should only marry a white. Thats not to say that perhaps in some HISTORICAL ONLY context (usually meaning the Hebrews were supposed to keep themselves 'racially pure'), but I still don't see anywhere in the Bible that a white man cannot marry a black woman, or a black man cannot marry a white woman, or (insert_differnt_race + other_different_race_here), if so, then I guess [southern accent] I'm goin' ta hell[/southern accent] because I am a white married to a 'Chinese heathen', and our kid is going to be an 'abomination' against God! This is where the racist bigots have essentially hijacked the Christian religion to meet their own twisted needs. If they are so concerned about 'keeping their race pure', then they should take a hint from those who inbreed. That WILL keep their race quite pure, and they would be doing the rest of us a favor, by inbreeding themselves out of existence!

Who knows, maybe if they do a good enough job of it they'll end up controlling the world.