Randman's call for nonSecular education...

No one is asking that students be taught they have to believe, but ignoring theology and religion is just a recipe for ignorance in education.As far as the Enlightenment, I mentioned other ideologies/theology such as Deism, and in no way want to claim the Enlightenment was not also in the mix. The problem is leaving out the truth of all of history teaches a lie, such as claiming the Enlightenment is the mix.For example, most people actually believe that the Enlightenment is where the idea of separation of Church and State came from. They have no idea that for centuries this was a rallying cry among one of the main camps so to speak within Christianity, and so in a large sense are basically ignorant of history, and really ignorant of the concept too.The concept is based on a different view of the Church compared to the Catholic and early Protestant view. The idea is that soceity consists of both those following Christ and born-again, and the world which is not. Therefore, it's wrong to think the government can regulate and impose religion because Jesus taught society would be a mix of the world and the believers.Why is this important?Well one reason is so people can understand the Bill of Rights and what the nation is founded on. The nation is founded upon factionalism not that a unifying ideology such as secular humanism or one brand of religion should predominate.Secularists have turned this on it's head, and try to make their own ideology the de facto state religion by excluding anything but that. So they teach the Enlightenment was essentially the religion of the nation, and that secular humanism is therefore really what we should all be.But the reality is otherwise, and not just the Enlightenment but the various theologies I mentioned are all part of what founded this nation.

You fail to realize that private evangelism or stuff like that has no bearing in the discussion. What secularists have done is reinterpret the 1st amendment that suppossed to guarantee the state passes no laws respecting religion and does not prohibit any religious expression, and that includes public expression, into a law that prohibits and bans religious expression, declaring de facto secularism as the official religion/ideology of the nation, and that is something you believe, contrary to what you have claimed.

Can you rephrase your question to make it relevant to the topic? If not, I see absolutely no reason to consider your posts worth responding to and may respond to some or may ignore others.The simple fact is "randman" is not listed as an entity in the Constitution.If are asking where religious expression has been prohibited, I think I already answered that, and you know of examples yourself such as banning Christmas displays, prayers at public events, etc,...

OK, prove that. Name the evangelists that want to use government agencies to help evangelize and name exactly how they want to use government agencies to evangelize, please.The simple fact is, by what you guys claim, Christians ought not to be able to use the highways because it's public land, and heaven knows those Christians are travelling to churches, prayer meetings, etc,...trying to convert people, and we can't have the Dept. of Transportation subsidizing religion.And speaking of that, utilities are quasi-governmental in the sense of the government is entagled with them via regulations, and so really we can't have phone lines and power going to churches, or Christian homes.This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 04:35 PM

Can you explain the relevance to your question?Let me put it this way. Jim Crow laws did not affect my freedoms, but they were still wrong.This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 05:14 PM

Religious expression is prohibited, period, and the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The courts have interpreted the Constitution to mean the free exercise of religion is prohibited if it includes public officials.How much clearer can it be?

Religious expression is prohibited. How can you argue that? Take the 10 Commandments thing. Personally, I don't even think of that as religious expression, but more as cultural expression, but the reasoning behind banning it is that it is a religious expression.Same with opening high school football games with prayer, or prayer at governmental functions, Christmas displays on public property, etc, etc,...

OK, just name who and when or what they said. I have never heard one televangelist state that Christianity should be imposed by the government. Now, I have heard them say they want to get government officials saved, but they want everyone to be saved, but that's not the same as wanting Christianity to be enforced with laws, and in fact, it seems incredible that you claim that.

Ah, so what you really object to is Christians being able to participate as equals in the political process. JUst wanted to make that clear because no Christians I know of want to use the government to impose Christianity. It's just that Christians and Christian values are as equal as anyone else's person and values in trying to influence the law.What you favor is religious discrimination such, for example, nonfaith-based charities can obtain taxpayer money regardless of their beliefs, but religious charities should be discriminated against even if they offer the same services.Just want to be clear here....

The Constitution forbids the restricting of religious expression, period. The fact I am not an elected official or serving in a public position is not germane to the discussion.Why is that so hard for you to grasp?To reinterpret the Constitution as stating that all public participation with any religious act, symbol, or worship is wrong, the courts have thus made secularism the de facto religiou of the US government, and that's wrong.The problem is once you interpret the Constitution to create hostility towards religion, you have moved away from religious neutrality, and that's what the courts have done.Let me ask you this. Why should tax dollars pay for roads that church buses can drive on? Is that public funding of religion?

I have answered all of that already. If you have something new to add, then let's discuss it. If not, then move on.If you don't understand something I have written, then please quote it and ask for an explanation, and I will be glad to clarify.

So maybe the idea the state cannot in anyway "fund" religion is not correct?The Constitution basically just bans the government from legislating or restricting religion. It is very pro-religion, not anti-religion, as some think. The idea is religious expression cannot be prohibited by the government. That's the purpose.

It bans any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. That's about as pro-religion as you can get.

The Courts in the 20th century reinterpreted the establishment clause to refer to acts of public participation in religious expression rather than just banning laws referencing religion and so created, imo, a contradiction within the first amendment.

Same thing, but I suspect this ground has been covered before. I'll point to things like Congress opening with prayer to illustrate the fact they didn't mean to prohibit things like Congress from opening with prayer, much less Christmas displays, and you'll come up with some quotes that even back as far as the 19th century, there were some arguing for a more forceful "separation."But regardless, the interpretation was now law until the 20th century, and as it stands, it is hard to imagine how they can claim Congress having a chaplain open with prayer in the name of Jesus fits with current rulings.