Current Adminstration

[Lakumi]

Lakumi... Canada has government provided Health CARE. America has government mandated Health INSURANCE.

Know the difference my young padawan... :)

Its ensign, I like Star Trek better

and my bias to my home still stands, even with the whole Rob Ford thing because... no one really liked Toronto before that:lol:

(I even lived there and it was so-so, abit better then where I live now)

Our mayor needs a scandal lol

[LittleWyvern]

I love Islam.

It's a beautiful religion.

State sponsored religion is bad enough.

The perversion of Islam which has permeated so many countries is even worse.

But it's natural (look at history) that its the perversions of religion which come to political power.

I'll take a nation that allows its citizens to make their own spiritual choices above a "godly nation" any second of any day.

And thus you've illustrated beautifully why I think separation of Church and State is a main protection of religious liberty in the United States. Any religion that is state sponsored becomes corrupted and deviates from its principles and teachings, and I believe what is happening to Islam in Saudi Arabia will also happen to Christianity in the USA if it becomes a state sponsored religion. State-sponsored religions also drive out all other religions in that state, and those who would establish Christianity as the official religion of the United States would not establish a kind of Christianity that would be at all friendly to Mormonism.

[Traveler]

Without going into all the painful details - I was once a Republican and active in the party working (paid) on campaigns and other activities (Nixon era) - mostly at the state level. As I rose in the party I became aware of criminal activities and corruption within the party and tried to do something about it. I left the Republican Party disillusioned and much worse off for the experience and convinced that the Republican Party had been taken over by a modern day secret society. I believe that if the truth was known that no one would ever even consider voting for a Republican Party candidate.

It is my humble opinion that the Democratic Party is even more corrupt. For a long time I doubted that it was even possible (knowing the Republican Party from the inside). I do not believe in making choices based on the lesser of 2 evils. Such choices are always a no win scenario and a satanic method used to misdirect good meaning people.

The Book of Mormon gives detains of how a secret society rises to power in a country of free people. It is interesting that it is easier for a secret society to rise to power in a free country rather than other forms of government. Other than the fall of the Nephite civilization we also have the example of Nazi Germany. It is interesting to me how little history is taught concerning such matters - the word interesting here is not a positive reference. There are 3 pillars for control of a secret society in a government - Control of information, control of the appointment of judges (including the justice department to control what cases go before judges and which cases go before what judges and finely the ability to secretly put citizens under surveillance.

Because of how advance our government is in a open take over by a secret society I disagree with PC that the best option is to pray for our leaders - Rather I would suggest that we pray to G-d for mercy and deliverance. The question in my mind is if deliverance is possible before the Savior returns or if we are entering the era (one of the final signs) of great difficulty for the saints (Disciples of Christ).

The Traveler

[yjacket]

Movies are pretty tame. 1:1 gunfights are nuthin'.

LOL... Actually, most of the people I know who operate in Afghanistan CALL it the Wild West.

I don't particularly care to argue, so I'll give you some reading assignments:

You can start with the Western Historical Quarterly:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

then:

Violence and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier

Old West violence mostly myth | PERC – The Property and Environment Research Center

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute

The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics and Finance): Terry L. Anderson, Peter J. Hill: 9780804748544: Amazon.com: Books

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Suffice it to say there is enough evidence and research to really question exactly how violent the west really was.

Yes people call Afghan the Wild West because the term Wild West doesn't really refer to any historical accuracy, just a notion of lawlessness and violence. Whether the West was really so lawless and violent can be investigated by reading. As for different powers, Mexico was pretty much out of the way with the Texas Independence, which was an extremely small war (3-4 major battles, 3500 killed). Most of the violence committed was committed by US military engagements against the Indian nations.

Perception is often much different than actual reality.

Finally, our perception of the West is skewed by time compression. We think all the various factors occurred at the same time when in reality the events happened over a span of decades (50+ years). Think how much has occurred in the last 50 years and how your great-grandkids will think of this time period when they are given all the facts of what occurred in 50 years in the span of a couple of hours.

[yjacket]

I have the right to live & love God as I choose.

To raise my children as I choose.

Yes and no. In many ways, we are much freer now than at any other point in history, in many ways no.

I live between a catholic school & a Jewish school & several homeschoolers & homeschool Co-op & a public school & 2 private schools. No one can tell me religion is banned from schools. Government schools are not allowed to sanctify any religion over any other. Huzzah! That's a GREAT thing.

I'm curious if you have school-age children. I do and I'm not sure if you know what you are talking about. There is a government sanctioned religion: it is called atheism and the age of intellect. In the struggle to make sure no one is offended, we end up teaching a belief system. As I've mentioned before, the belief in nothing is a belief system.

The beautiful thing about school system, or it used to be, was the concept of local control. The parents and/or taxpayers of the local system determined what was taught. This is only right since they are the ones paying for it out of their pocket. This is no longer the case, Common Core anyone?

Homeschooling and private school are great, if a child either lives in a household that has enough money to send their child to private school or lives in a two-parent household where one parent is willing and able to homeschool. That is a very small percentage of the population. I guess everyone else is up a creek.

There is a difference between sanctifying a religion and having a state-sponsored religion (which the Bill of Rights was intended for). Not allowing public prayer in school is endorsement of a religious belief, in a religious belief that God is not necessary in our public endeavors. The simple act of praying does not put a stamp of approval on one religion over another as long as anyone of any faith if they so desired has the opportunity to pray publicly.

The belief in and worship of God in this country is on the downswing. Intellect is held as the standard of goodness and those who are intelligent don't believe in a God. Science is our Religion.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't particularly care to argue, so I'll give you some reading assignments:

You can start with the Western Historical Quarterly:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

then:

Violence and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier

Old West violence mostly myth | PERC – The Property and Environment Research Center

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute

The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics and Finance): Terry L. Anderson, Peter J. Hill: 9780804748544: Amazon.com: Books

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Suffice it to say there is enough evidence and research to really question exactly how violent the west really was.

Yes people call Afghan the Wild West because the term Wild West doesn't really refer to any historical accuracy, just a notion of lawlessness and violence. Whether the West was really so lawless and violent can be investigated by reading. As for different powers, Mexico was pretty much out of the way with the Texas Independence, which was an extremely small war (3-4 major battles, 3500 killed). Most of the violence committed was committed by US military engagements against the Indian nations.

Perception is often much different than actual reality.

Finally, our perception of the West is skewed by time compression. We think all the various factors occurred at the same time when in reality the events happened over a span of decades (50+ years). Think how much has occurred in the last 50 years and how your great-grandkids will think of this time period when they are given all the facts of what occurred in 50 years in the span of a couple of hours.

I don't know enough to weigh in on the merit of the above-mentioned claims; but it's probably worth noting that the ability of Hollywood to (rightly or wrongly) define our history for us is simply astounding. And functional/harmonious/safe/equitable historical settings don't make for good cinema.

[LittleWyvern]

There is a difference between sanctifying a religion and having a state-sponsored religion (which the Bill of Rights was intended for). Not allowing public prayer in school is endorsement of a religious belief, in a religious belief that God is not necessary in our public endeavors. The simple act of praying does not put a stamp of approval on one religion over another as long as anyone of any faith if they so desired has the opportunity to pray publicly.

Of course it does. Before I explain why, let's remember that the bill of rights uses the word "establish:"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This can mean both a state-sanctioned religion and establishing one religion above another, i.e. showing preference to one religion at the expense of another. Because the act of prayer differs widely between the many religions in this country, any prayer must necessarily preference one group of religions above another. Who will do these prayers? Who will we all pray to? What will we pray for? The only way school prayer would not be an establishment of religion is if all people in the school were of the same religion, but that's not true anymore, even in Utah. Thus, school sponsored prayer must necessarily be disallowed in order to fulfill the requirements of the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment.

Besides, a "belief that God is not necessary in our public endeavors" isn't a religious belief, it's the absence of one (you try telling agnostic people that they're religious!).

The belief in and worship of God in this country is on the downswing. Intellect is held as the standard of goodness and those who are intelligent don't believe in a God. Science is our Religion.

The only people who think science is a religion are those who try to use it to prove things in the realm of metaphysics (which is ridiculous) and those who make it an "-ism" (which is also ridiculous).

[yjacket]

Of course it does. Before I explain why, let's remember that the bill of rights uses the word "establish:"

This can mean both a state-sanctioned religion and establishing one religion above another, i.e. showing preference to one religion at the expense of another.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Bill of Rights today does not mean the same thing it did back when it was established. If one reads the historical documents of the time the Founders specifically had in mind the following.

1) The didn't want a religious test being applied to be involved in government.

2) The didn't want special privileges of one denomination over another.

3) They wanted individuals to be free to worship however they might choose.

There only possible way that someone can conceive that a prayer is establishing one religion over another is if it is given preferential treatment over other religion. Right now, the preferential treatment is to a belief in no God.

You do realize that Congress still has prayer.

Opening Prayer Archive, Office of the Chaplain

Congressional Prayer Caucus

So prayer in Congress has been going on since the foundation of the US, but it is unconstitutional to have prayer in public schools??

Besides, a "belief that God is not necessary in our public endeavors" isn't a religious belief, it's the absence of one. . . .

My point exactly, the preferential treatment is to an absence of belief. We have this sick idea in modern society that we shouldn't discriminate. I've got news for you, every time we make a choice we discriminate, whether that is a good discrimination or a bad discrimination depends on the choice. The absence in the belief of God is a belief system. The absence of the ability to have prayer in schools systems is discriminating, it is picking a side, it is choosing to have preferential treatment of one belief over another.

It is an insidious, creeping, destruction of the fabric of society. By catering to the former 3-4% of individuals who don't believe in God and by stripping that out of school systems (the more formative years of a persons life), by giving the impression that the most important thing in life is not to offend someone, by removing the thought that God is needed in all aspects of our lives, we teach young people that God is not needed. We teach young people that God is only private, that there is no need for Him in the greater struggles of society. We teach them to become agnostic and atheists. So over time that 3-4% grows to 8%, then further until and entire generation lacks the understanding of a God-fearing society.

Edited November 24, 2013 by yjacket

[yjacket]

As I rose in the party I became aware of criminal activities and corruption within the party and tried to do something about it. I left the Republican Party disillusioned and much worse off for the experience and convinced that the Republican Party had been taken over by a modern day secret society.

I understand; I was involved for a couple of years recently. By attending meetings and conventions, I have seen more personal attacks, more disgusting lies and tricks, more corruption than I thought possible.

It is twisted, sick, and God-less. Those in power claim to be God-fearing but their actions demonstrate they are far, far from Him. Both parties are absolutely corrupt to their very core. Shoot, when John McCain was up for President someone at a State Convention said "John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the Cross".

It is all about Power, Money, Influence.

Rather I would suggest that we pray to G-d for mercy and deliverance. The question in my mind is if deliverance is possible before the Savior returns or if we are entering the era (one of the final signs) of great difficulty for the saints (Disciples of Christ).

+1. It is only through Him that we will obtain deliverance. I don't think it will occur before the Savior's return, so I pray for His return.

[LittleWyvern]

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Bill of Rights today does not mean the same thing it did back when it was established. If one reads the historical documents of the time the Founders specifically had in mind the following.

So I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't know exactly what the Founders were thinking when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Yeah, I'll forget 200+ subsequent years of law and court cases and instead participate in reading the minds of dead people.

...I have no idea how to respond to that, so I'm not going to.

The absence in the belief of God is a belief system. The absence of the ability to have prayer in schools systems is discriminating, it is picking a side, it is choosing to have preferential treatment of one belief over another.

Logical fallacies aside (the absence of X is also X), not having prayer in schools is purposefully not picking a side. Having prayer in schools would be picking a side (in this case, the side of whomever is doing the prayer). Sure, ensuring a NPOV by refusing to make a choice is kinda silly, but that's what the Establishment Clause says. Choosing nothing isn't a choice at all, it's the absence of a choice.

It is an insidious, creeping, destruction of the fabric of society. By catering to the former 3-4% of individuals who don't believe in God and by stripping that out of school systems (the more formative years of a persons life), by giving the impression that the most important thing in life is not to offend someone, by removing the thought that God is needed in all aspects of our lives, we teach young people that God is not needed. We teach young people that God is only private, that there is no need for Him in the greater struggles of society. We teach them to become agnostic and atheists. So over time that 3-4% grows to 8%, then further until and entire generation lacks the understanding of a God-fearing society.

Look, you may not believe it but I value the role of religion in private and public life as much as you do. But there are various lines that must not be crossed in order to protect religious liberty, and the Establishment Clause is one of them. Students are free to establish student groups, such as bible study and before/after school prayers. Parents are allowed to teach their children whatever they want about religion. People are free to converse among themselves about religion and what it means to them. Even people in public government positions are free to publicly declare the religious reasons supporting their actions. Your argument that a school without religion will necessarily lead children to be agnostic/atheists ignores all the other wonderful religious freedoms we possess. Schools aren't teaching children "to become atheists," they aren't teaching anything about religion whatsoever (except in a historical pursuit). If you're depending on public school to teach children religion, I think you're doing it wrong. That responsibility falls on the family unit, not schools.

[Roseslipper]

Read the book of mormon!!!!!!!!!!!

[yjacket]

So I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't know exactly what the Founders were thinking when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Yeah, I'll forget 200+ subsequent years of law and court cases and instead participate in reading the minds of dead people.

200+ subsequent years of law that outlaws prayer in school? Are you serious?

2013 - 1963 = 200+ years. Interesting math there.

Logical fallacies aside (the absence of X is also X), not having prayer in schools is purposefully not picking a side.

A logical fallacy. Not having prayer in school is the endorsement of having no religion. We are completely brainwashed in our culture that we can "not pick sides" by abstaining from "choosing".

Choosing nothing isn't a choice at all, it's the absence of a choice.

No it's not. The words, choosing nothing implies a choice. The problem is one must choose. Let's put a different context. One sees a fellow citizen being robbed, I choose not to get involved. I choose to do nothing. By your logic, because I haven't "chosen" I really can't be held responsible for my actions. Yet this doesn't apply, everyone knows that to watch a passerby being mugged is wrong.

Look, you may not believe it but I value the role of religion in private and public life as much as you do. But there are various lines that must not be crossed in order to protect religious liberty, and the Establishment Clause is one of them.

I do not doubt your sincerity in the role of religion. However, we as a culture have been brainwashed into believing things that are not really true. The Establishment Clause is one of those, it has come to mean something 180 degree different than it's original intention. The original intention was that the colonist didn't want the Anglican Church nor the Catholic Church being established as the official religion of the States. Each of the states were to a large extent had their own "unofficial" state religion. Mass was Congregationalist, the South Baptists. They had no problem with this.

Your argument that a school without religion will necessarily lead children to be agnostic/atheists ignores all the other wonderful religious freedoms we possess. Schools aren't teaching children "to become atheists," they aren't teaching anything about religion whatsoever (except in a historical pursuit). If you're depending on public school to teach children religion, I think you're doing it wrong. That responsibility falls on the family unit, not schools.

If only it were true. I agree that the responsibility falls to the family. However, kids go to public school, roughly 8 hours a day from when they are 5 to 18 (okay it's like 5 hours when they are little), 5 days a week. Yes, schools teach religion as a historical incident, it is in the past not the here and the now. The now is science, intellect, the age of man. During the formative years of a person, and during the majority of their time God is not a part of their life, in fact it is in a large measure discarded and treated as uneducated.

As a parent, as a father fighting that uphill battle against secularism that is being taught everyday from commercials, to TV, to school, etc from the time my children are 5 until they are 18 is an extremely difficult battle. I've seen polls that say up to 30% of the youth are atheists. It is not cool to believe in God.

Unfortunately, our culture will reap what it sows. We believe we are doing the next generation a favor by claiming to not choose, by keeping religion out of certain areas of our lives. It will come back to bite the next generation.

Edited November 24, 2013 by yjacket

[LittleWyvern]

200+ subsequent years of law that outlaws prayer in school? Are you serious?

2013 - 1963 = 200+ years. Interesting math there.

Nice try attempting to make me look stupid. You knew I was talking about the 1st Amendment. I'll let you do the math on that one.

A logical fallacy. Not having prayer in school is the endorsement of having no religion. We are completely brainwashed in our culture that we can "not pick sides" by abstaining from "choosing". The words, choosing nothing implies a choice. The problem is one must choose. Let's put a different context. One sees a fellow citizen being robbed, I choose not to get involved. I choose to do nothing. By your logic, because I haven't "chosen" I really can't be held responsible for my actions. Yet this doesn't apply, everyone knows that to watch a passerby being mugged is wrong.

This isn't a reaction to an event, this is a matter of policy. Your example has nothing to do with anything here. If you don't know how the matter of choice is different between reactions and policy decisions, then I have nothing else to say about this.

I do not doubt your sincerity in the role of religion. However, we as a culture have been brainwashed into believing things that are not really true. The Establishment Clause is one of those, it has come to mean something 180 degree different than it's original intention. The original intention was that the colonist didn't want the Anglican Church nor the Catholic Church being established as the official religion of the States. Each of the states were to a large extent had their own "unofficial" state religion. Mass was Congregationalist, the South Baptists. They had no problem with this.

Brainwashed? Please. I learned much of what I know about the 1st Amendment from BYU's American Heritage class. Maybe you'll have to take this up with the professors there.

Something I don't understand about your argument is why we keep going back to "original intention." I could talk about the Lemon Test all day (another product of my BYU brainwashing), but if the only arguments you'll accept are mind reading adventures, then trying to talk with you is pointless.

As a parent, as a father fighting that uphill battle against secularism that is being taught everyday from commercials, to TV, to school, etc from the time my children are 5 until they are 18 is an extremely difficult battle. I've seen polls that say up to 30% of the youth are atheists. It is not cool to believe in God.

Unfortunately, our culture will reap what it sows. We believe we are doing the next generation a favor by claiming to not choose, by keeping religion out of certain areas of our lives. It will come back to bite the next generation.

So what kind of prayers do you want in schools? Mormon prayers? Baptist prayers? Jewish prayers? Muslim prayers? I don't understand exactly what you want that somehow won't be unconstitutional via the Establishment Clause.

And why are we so concerned about whether or not religion is "cool?" The battle for faith can be won in the home even if being religious isn't popular.

[yjacket]

Nice try attempting to make me look stupid. You knew I was talking about the 1st Amendment. I'll let you do the math on that one.

I thought we were talking about prayer in school. Prayer in school was constitutional before 1963. You claimed that 200+ years of constitutional law and case study means that prayer in school should be prohibited. I demonstrated you were wrong. Only 50 years of constitutional law and case study claims that prayer in school is unconstitutional.

50 != 200.

Your example has nothing to do with anything here. If you don't know how the matter of choice is different between reactions and policy decisions, then I have nothing else to say about this.

Policy is action, we choose everyday by the things we say or don't say what behaviors to reinforce. By not including God in school, we reinforce the behavior that God is not necessary in school.

Brainwashed? Please. I learned much of what I know about the 1st Amendment from BYU's American Heritage class. Maybe you'll have to take this up with the professors there.

Interesting what you learned, considering when I go to their webpage the 1st thing is a quote by John Adams "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people". A constitution made for a religious people that ends up taking out religion in schools? A little paradoxical.

So what kind of prayers do you want in schools? Mormon prayers? Baptist prayers? Jewish prayers? Muslim prayers? I don't understand exactly what you want that somehow won't be unconstitutional via the Establishment Clause.

Okay, it has only been "unconstitutional", since 1963. I think there are lots of solutions, have a rotation of prayers. If there is a Muslim, let there be a Muslim prayer one day, if there is an agnostic, let there be a moment of silence one day; it's not that hard to find an adequate solution.

Besides the fact, that a significant part of the Establishment of religion was about financial assistance. What does an Establishment of Religion mean . . . and more importantly what did it mean to the Founders. From their perspective it meant, simply the government cannot force someone to be of one religion or another, the government cannot provide financial backing to one religion or another.

Read from the writings of the Founders, their writing public/private/scholastic is littered with references to God, to Christ. They specifically did not want taxpayer dollars going to building church buildings, paying expenses, etc. Saying prayers in school provides financial assistance to a church? Does having the 10 commandments on the courthouse provide financial assistance? Does doing either force someone to be of one religion or another. Showing a preference for is not and can never be force.

I'll refer again to my comment at the beginning that you so carefully ignored. Congress has a chaplain and has had public, Christian prayers for over 200 years. It is unconstitutional for school to have prayer, but it is not unconstitutional for Congress to have prayers.

Edited November 25, 2013 by yjacket

[LittleWyvern]

I thought we were talking about prayer in school. Prayer in school was constitutional before 1963. You claimed that 200+ years of constitutional law and case study means that prayer in school should be prohibited. I demonstrated you were wrong. Only 50 years of constitutional law and case study claims that prayer in school is unconstitutional.

50 != 200.

Policy is action, we choose everyday by the things we say or don't say what behaviors to reinforce. By not including God in school, we reinforce the behavior that God is not necessary in school.

But we're not choosing any-

No, wait. ...Never mind, I'll regret this post later, so I shouldn't write it to begin with. You keep on arguing against what you misread me to say and about how you know exactly what the founders thought, and I'm going to do other more enjoyable things.

[yjacket]

I could talk about the Lemon Test all day (another product of my BYU brainwashing), but if the only arguments you'll accept are mind reading adventures, then trying to talk with you is pointless.

Mind-reading?? It's not that hard, the founder's left a plethora of documentation. Ever try reading the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalists Papers?

It is extremely important to understand what the original intent is/was. The whole point of a Constitution and Law is to have fixed reference points that do not change. If the Constitution or Law changes depending on one's interpretation that it is not fixed.

Fixed is important so individuals know how to act and it provides the framework with which to work if the law needs to be changed. If one doesn't like the original intent, pass an amendment to the Constitution.

Funny, not less than 100 years ago, individuals saw this need for changing the constitution by passing an amendment on banning Alcohol and then ended up passing another to repeal that amendment.

Today no one thinks about doing that . . . just find a lawyer that is skilled enough to convince a Judge that something is or is not constitutional, find a Judge(s) who have an agenda to pass and so it is. 9 men cloaked in black robes that determine the fate of a nation, which was again so far completely removed from the actual system of government created.

[yjacket]

and I'm going to do other more enjoyable things

Reading might do some good :-). Plenty of great books to read on philosophy (Hobbs, Kant, Montesque, Bastiat), great books on liberty (Federalist, Anti-Federalist). I think I need to finish a good one I'm reading right now. The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories, good stuff.

My rock-bottom personal opinion on the entire matter that solves the problem is just to get rid of public school. Get rid of it, let me keep my tax dollars and educate my children however I want.

Edited November 25, 2013 by yjacket

[Vort]

My rock-bottom personal opinion on the entire matter that solves the problem is just to get rid of public school. Get rid of it, let me keep my tax dollars and educate my children however I want.

The problem with this is that far, far too many people, perhaps even a majority but certainly at least a large minority, will not accept the responsibility to educate their children. We as a society have effectively trained people to look to the government and government-sponsored schools to shoulder the burden of child education. Sad? Yes. Pathetic? Perhaps. But it's our reality. Doing away with public education would probably destroy the foundations of our society.

For the record, I homeschool my children, so I'm predisposed to agree with the idea of educating your own kids.

[bytebear]

I tend to agree with yjacket. The Bill of Rights were not rights to protect the individual, but to protect the states from Federal intervention. Freedom of Religion only meant the Feds couldn't declare a national religion. But states had no such restriction, and in fact many did have state sanctioned religions. From Wikipedia:

some state legislatures required all citizens in those states to be members of a church, and some had official churches, such as Congregationalism in some New England states such as Massachusetts. This eventually ended in 1833 when Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its church.

Also, prayer in school was never a Federal issue because education was a State right. The Civil Rights movement and desegregation got the Feds involved in school related issues, and later the creation of the Dept of Education, and now we have Feds practically taking over the curriculum, let alone the general practice of prayer in schools. Prior to the 1960s, schools could do whatever they wanted.

Constitutionally, the current state of affairs would never have been tolerated by the states who demanded the Bill of Rights to restrict the very actions we are discussing.

[yjacket]

Doing away with public education would probably destroy the foundations of our society.

Unfortunately, I agree. I believe there are many things that we do in the US that we shouldn't do and that are so far removed from any semblance of the principles upon which it was founded.

That doesn't mean one can't know what the right thing to do should be or what the end goal should be. I'm a long-term optimist and a short-term pessimist.

Too many things occur in society today for things to continue in a steady, progressive trend. From my reading of things, great societal change almost always has an economic start. I think things will start to get real interesting when the bond market blows up. From then until the Savior comes it's going to be a hold on tight 'cuz things will be a little bumpy.

If that actually happens or not I don't know, I just know that the glide-path this country is on is not sustainable and it will eventually crash. Hopefully, I can lead my family well, teach my kids well and make it out okay.

[LittleWyvern]

Freedom of Religion only meant the Feds couldn't declare a national religion. But states had no such restriction, and in fact many did have state sanctioned religions.

Just fyi, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Now and ever since then, the Bill of Rights applies as equally to the states as it does to the federal government. See Twining v. New Jersey, Everson v. Board of Education, etc.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just fyi, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Now and ever since then, the Bill of Rights applies as equally to the states as it does to the federal government. See Twining v. New Jersey, Everson v. Board of Education, etc.

FWIW, it wasn't one fell swoop. It was done amendment by amendment (the legal doctrine is called "incorporation"). The most recent amended to be incorporated was the 2nd (just in the last 5 years), and arguably one or two of them (the provision about quartering troops comes to mind) still haven't been incorporated and therefore don't bind the state governments.

[Traveler]

The problem with this is that far, far too many people, perhaps even a majority but certainly at least a large minority, will not accept the responsibility to educate their children. We as a society have effectively trained people to look to the government and government-sponsored schools to shoulder the burden of child education. Sad? Yes. Pathetic? Perhaps. But it's our reality. Doing away with public education would probably destroy the foundations of our society.

For the record, I homeschool my children, so I'm predisposed to agree with the idea of educating your own kids.

I would add something to this thought. I would say free public education is essential to a free society or free people. However, one of the problems I see with my thought is that many misuse the definition of free and think of it only in terms of money and not freedom in general. In order for education to flourish there must be freedom in public education. Our founding fathers intended that in order that freedom exist in public education that the power of education not be regulated beyond the powers of individual states.

I believe that federalization of education as a sinister plot hatched from the hearts of vial and evil politicians plotting to destroy freedoms of individuals and subject them to a bondage - that the first step towards making slaves of free men is to gain power over (dictation) the education of their children. I believe home schooling to be a failing short term solution that will do nothing more than delay an uneatable conclusion of society in bondage.

It has been the argument (lie) of Satan since the per-exastance that it is better to limit freedom in order to prevent evil from having some small possible influence. Thus it is argued in our society that a community should not have influence in education especially if religion is an integral part of such a community. That the minority view or belief must be protected. Thus regulation replaces freedom.

The Traveler

[LittleWyvern]

FWIW, it wasn't one fell swoop. It was done amendment by amendment (the legal doctrine is called "incorporation"). The most recent amended to be incorporated was the 2nd (just in the last 5 years), and arguably one or two of them (the provision about quartering troops comes to mind) still haven't been incorporated and therefore don't bind the state governments.

I was trying to keep my post short