Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum

[ADK_Forever]

Wrong again. Jefferson never EVER said that religion as a general practice should be universally excluded from all government. He was very very specific in pointing out that an establishment of religion endorsed by the state was the reason for the 1st amendment.

You are making interpretations for wording that does not exist.

If religion was to be completely excluded from all government you would never have religion in any text or wording in the founding papers and we all know that is false.

Really

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson made clear that the purpose of the First Amendment was to establish a "wall of separation" between Church and State in order to protect individuals' right of conscience.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Well, that certainly seems pretty clear where Jefferson stood on this issue, doncha think?

In addition, the U.S. constitution says:

Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Constitution says, re: taking the Oath of Office:

Article II Section I: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Hmm... no mention of any... "God", only the Constitution.

Also, the Bill Of Rights was quickly amended to the Constitution in order to protect the rights of citizens because the original Constitution primarily just defined the powers of government. The third Article of the Bill of Rights (which became the first amendment) states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There are four references to a "deity" found in the Declaration of Independence: "Nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence." That's it.

There was a reference to Christianity in Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence, which was not positive at all. Jefferson's rough draft said:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium [disgrace] of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

So, claims that references to a deity in the Declaration of Independence prove that America was founded on Christianity are dubious at best. The Declaration is clearly deistic when read in its own historical context and it was co-authored by America's two most strongly deistic founders.

Jefferson's intent was clear. And now it is accepted law: gov't and religion should not be combined!

 

[Black Dog]

Really

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson made clear that the purpose of the First Amendment was to establish a "wall of separation" between Church and State in order to protect individuals' right of conscience.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Well, that certainly seems pretty clear where Jefferson stood on this issue, doncha think?

In addition, the U.S. constitution says:

The Constitution says, re: taking the Oath of Office:

Hmm... no mention of any... "God", only the Constitution.

Also, the Bill Of Rights was quickly amended to the Constitution in order to protect the rights of citizens because the original Constitution primarily just defined the powers of government. The third Article of the Bill of Rights (which became the first amendment) states:

There are four references to a "deity" found in the Declaration of Independence: "Nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence." That's it.

There was a reference to Christianity in Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence, which was not positive at all. Jefferson's rough draft said:

So, claims that references to a deity in the Declaration of Independence prove that America was founded on Christianity are dubious at best. The Declaration is clearly deistic when read in its own historical context and it was co-authored by America's two most strongly deistic founders.

Jefferson's intent was clear. And now it is accepted law: gov't and religion should not be combined!

#1 No one has said America was founded on Christianity, not a soul.

#2 The letter was to convince a Muslim government we did not care about the religion they followed. This so they would sign the treaty of Tripoli.

The wording of the Constitution does not in any way back up the hog wash you have put forth.

#3 Yes, that's it; 4 times. :lol:

You are trying to ignore the history behind the choices and accuse people of saying things they did not say.

Yea for silliness.

 

[texmaster]

The only ones revising history are the 5 members of the TX Board of Education so it will fit their political leanings.

Actually its 10. There are 5 that are democrats. So in effect you are correct.

The best examples are the UN and Thomas Jefferson. If you teach that the UN is a threat to US sovereignty, then you're automatically injecting your opinion. What you should be doing is teaching about the UN and its function, you could ASK students if THEY think it's a threat to US sovereignty as part of a paper.[/quote]

Once again you aren't reading carefully.

They also required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

McLeroy offered the amendment requiring students to evaluate efforts by global organizations including the U.N. to undermine U.S. sovereignty, saying they threatened individual liberty and freedom.

You are the one who wants to shut down independent thought by shutting down any talk that might paint the UN in a bad light. What's next for you, book burnings?

If you wanted to talk about Jefferson, you would have students read his work and then ask them to write about Jefferson and his take on the Separation of Church and State. Ignoring his writings is lying by omission.

That's called teaching critical thinking.

The only lying is on your side.

Jefferson was not an agnostic or deist that your side continually lies about.

His own words prove he is a Christian.

Jefferson wrote, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others. ... I am a real Christian -- that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

Once again the liberal lies are exposed. You want to read Jefferson's writings? Then read that. He never EVER said he was a deist or agnostic. That is the lies we are trying to expose from your side.

What the TX Board of Education has done has turned their political opinion into FACT.

If you were truly for proper education you wouldn't fight liberal bias by inserting conservative bias in its place. You and the TX BoE simply want your views to become facts to young people.

This is a bigger bastardization to education than anything I sat through (and I grew up in a VERY conservative school district; where slavery was pretty much ignored and WW2 was taught with patriotic songs).

The funny thing about you and most of the other liberals on here is you keep claiming their is a bias but I'm the only one giving you concrete examples of the liberal lies specific in history.

 

[Redress]

They also required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

That is making a judgment that those organizations are trying to undermine US sovereignty.

 

[texmaster]

That is making a judgment that those organizations are trying to undermine US sovereignty.

Based on fact.

Try looking up the UN's effort's to force the US to participate in a global court for its soldiers.

And that is but one example. Your side wants to repress open debate on the UN. Why is that?

 

[Black Dog]

That is making a judgment that those organizations are trying to undermine US sovereignty.

I have to agree Red, that is exactly what the UN is trying to do.

 

[Redress]

I have to agree Red, that is exactly what the UN is trying to do.

I don't think it is something that is so much factual as interpretive, if you follow what I am saying. The UN is trying to insert a set of international rules. Whether that is undermining US sovereignty is more of an opinion. If I was designing the coursework, I would I think present what the UN is doing, and ask the students to judge if they think it is undermining US sovereignty.

By the way, "sovereignty" is a pain in the ass word to spell and type.

 

[Morality Games]

Besides that, "undermining U.S. sovereignty" is misleading claim. It makes it sound as though the United Nations is gunning for the United States when it is laying down a heavier hammer on other countries.

A more realistic claim is that the Security Council is undermining the United Nations.

By the way, "sovereignty" is a pain in the ass word to spell and type.

Not so bad. Just break it up into sove-reign-ty.

 

[Black Dog]

I don't think it is something that is so much factual as interpretive, if you follow what I am saying. The UN is trying to insert a set of international rules. Whether that is undermining US sovereignty is more of an opinion. If I was designing the coursework, I would I think present what the UN is doing, and ask the students to judge if they think it is undermining US sovereignty.

By the way, "sovereignty" is a pain in the ass word to spell and type.

You could be right, but from where I am sitting that is what it looks like they are doing.

As for letting them judge. I would not really have a problem with that.

 

[ADK_Forever]

#1 No one has said America was founded on Christianity, not a soul.

I guess you haven't been paying attention then. :roll:

#2 The letter was to convince a Muslim government we did not care about the religion they followed. This so they would sign the treaty of Tripoli.

The wording of the Constitution does not in any way back up the hog wash you have put forth.

Sure it does. But, you have to read it to see that subtle point.

#3 Yes, that's it; 4 times.

Yep, only 4... in the Declaration of Independence. NONE in the Constitution, which is... law. :mrgreen:

You are trying to ignore the history behind the choices and accuse people of saying things they did not say.

Yes, I know you think that what people actually say shouldn't be used as evidence of their intentions but, you would be wrong on that thought also.

 

[Deuce]

Since when is signing a treaty willingly having our sovereignty undermined?

 

[RyrineaHaruno]

Blackdog

So you actually believe that the founding fathers wanted a Christan nation when in fact they have a law that dictates that we aren't a Christan nation.

I have read the Declaration of Independence, and the fact is I couldn't find were they wanted a Christan nation. :roll: I have also read the US continuation, and their is no law that suggest that they wanted a theocracy

Funny, that I couldn't find any thing related too having this country as a theocracy. Black dog, I just suggest some reading material for you, and them, since they are advancing this idea that Separation of church, and state is a myth. The First Amendment sates that the government will not make any law "respecting an establishment of religion

The free exercise clause is in there for a reason which means we aren't a Christan nation, nor did they want a theocracy.

 

[digsbe]

What Texas is doing is nothing short of trying to instill conservative social values in the minds of children.

Shouldn't parents be the ones instructing their kids?

It seems as if they are taking snippets of history that support their views and presenting them to learning children as the only facts out there.

This is nothing short of silently propogating children.

 

[Black Dog]

I guess you haven't been paying attention then. :roll:

Obviously you weren't. Please point out where someone said anything even close.

Sure it does. But, you have to read it to see that subtle point.

Oh now it is a "subtle point" LMAO!

Yep, only 4... in the Declaration of Independence. NONE in the Constitution, which is... law. :mrgreen:

You brought it up not me. Nice fallacy though. :mrgreen:

Yes, I know you think that what people actually say shouldn't be used as evidence of their intentions but, you would be wrong on that thought also.

Yea you are correct we should completely ignore the intent and the why of it.

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

 

[Black Dog]

What Texas is doing is nothing short of trying to instill conservative social values in the minds of children.

You mean just like our public schools have been doing with liberalism for years? Yea pretty much.

Shouldn't parents be the ones instructing their kids?

Not necessarily.

It seems as if they are taking snippets of history that support their views and presenting them to learning children as the only facts out there.

Like they have been doing in a more liberal way for years. Yes they are.

This is nothing short of silently propogating children.

Glad you see it the way conservatives have for years.

 

[Black Dog]

Blackdog

So you actually believe that the founding fathers wanted a Christan nation when in fact they have a law that dictates that we aren't a Christan nation.

Do you actually read anyones post?

A serious question. Because so far you have replied to my statements and have no clue what so ever of anything I even remotely said in almost every case.

Please point out where I said or even implied such nonsense.

I have read the Declaration of Independence, and the fact is I couldn't find were they wanted a Christan nation. :roll: I have also read the US continuation, and their is no law that suggest that they wanted a theocracy

Please point out where I have said anything so stupid?

Funny, that I couldn't find any thing related too having this country as a theocracy. Black dog, I just suggest some reading material for you, and them, since they are advancing this idea that Separation of church, and state is a myth. The First Amendment sates that the government will not make any law "respecting an establishment of religion

Here we go again with the "reading material" I noticed you did not bother responding the last time I put you in your place about such nonsense.

The free exercise clause is in there for a reason which means we aren't a Christan nation, nor did they want a theocracy.

Please AGAIN point out where I said anything even close to this.

I know you can't because I have said nothing even CLOSE.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth and actually UNDERSTAND what you read. Otherwise you end up looking pretty stupid.

 

[Black Dog]

Since when is signing a treaty willingly having our sovereignty undermined?

:roll:

123456789

 

[RyrineaHaruno]

So just because ADK FORVER is going against you she is a partisan ahahahaha that is a good one Blackdog.


Yes I have read everything in your post about that what I was replying too I just got on, and saw the reply.
The fact is you said I need to read the declaration of Independence to get what the founding fathers wanted, and put me in my place ahahahhahahaha another good one. Blackdog you are being the partisan Christan here, since I know what the founding fathers based it on was mason teachings not Christan notions.

Hell half of the things that are in the Constitution is based on Freemasonry Teachings.
Other sources for your educational needs

I can be nice, and I can be an asshat as well when people say they put me in my place which you didn't.

 

[Black Dog]

So just because ADK FORVER is going against you she is a partisan ahahahaha that is a good one Blackdog.

HE is partisan because I have debated HIM for over a year and HIS debate practices with fallacy and trying to twist and turn are well known by most here.

Now why don't you go about responding to my post at the top. :2wave:

 

[tryreading]

I'm not confusing anything.

Your interpretation claiming that Jefferson wished exclusion of all religion from government is a false premise.

Either produce the exact quote that supports you or retract the claim.

And please stop ignoring the context. It was about the establishment of religion not the exclusion of it.

Ever respond to anything without twisting everything you've just read? And now name calling? Weak. Very weak.


I used Jefferson's exact quote from the Danbury letter to make my point, you used some unrelated wording to make yours. If you read over our posts again, you'll see I talked about any 'alliance' between church and state.

I was responding to a poster who was ridiculing someone on this site, and who said that Jefferson's letter referred only to the establishment of a national religion. I showed that the Danbury response obviously goes much further than that, by posting the letter requesting advice Jefferson sent to Levi Lincoln together with the Danbury letter.

This is all pretty straightforward. You know of the Danbury letter, and I've shown you the Lincoln letter which explains the purpose of it. There is background and context there that you can see and interpret for yourself.

Another lie.

My God man, are you going to be that transparent? Do you have any evidence of his declaration of atheism?

Of course you don't because its just another revision of history.

Jefferson wrote, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others. ... I am a real Christian -- that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

There is my direct evidence. Where is yours?

Nobody anywhere said Jefferson made a personal declaration of atheism. What in the hell are you reading? Who is the liar here?

What I said was there were claims made that Jefferson was an atheist. These claims were made by the Federalists.

 

[RyrineaHaruno]

Yes I have read everything in your post about that what I was replying too I just got on, and saw the reply.
The fact is you said I need to read the declaration of Independence to get what the founding fathers wanted, and put me in my place ahahahhahahaha another good one. Blackdog you are being the partisan Christan here, since I know what the founding fathers based it on was mason teachings not Christan notions.

Hell half of the things that are in the Constitution is based on Freemasonry Teachings.
Other sources for your educational needs

I can be nice, and I can be an asshat as well when people say they put me in my place which you didn't.


The thing is from you posting is that you said I need to read the declaration of independence to find out what the founding fathers wanted, and posted some stupid ass books about how Speartion of Church and state were lies ect. calming THAT The Danbury letter was written too tell a lie which I doubt you really know that it was lie in fact I highly doubt it was a lie.


Edit: Too replace the conspiracy nut link with a normal link I have found.

 

[tryreading]

#1 No one has said America was founded on Christianity, not a soul.

#2 The letter was to convince a Muslim government we did not care about the religion they followed. This so they would sign the treaty of Tripoli.

The wording of the Constitution does not in any way back up the hog wash you have put forth.

#3 Yes, that's it; 4 times. :lol:

You are trying to ignore the history behind the choices and accuse people of saying things they did not say.

Yea for silliness.

-my emphasis-

The Danbury letter was written for this purpose, you claim?

For which Treaty of Tripoli was this letter written?

 

[tryreading]

Just so we get this straight...
Do you or do you not hold the position that "original intent" - that is, the arguments and positions held by those that wrote the Constitution as to what the clauses used in the Constituton are supposed to mean - should be the guiding principle in the judicial interpreation of the Constitution?

Yes, original intent should be the guiding principal.

 

[upsideguy]

Yet another reason never to move to Texas!

How is that succession thing going? Is there anything we can do to help the process?

 

[RyrineaHaruno]

How is that succession thing going? Is there anything we can do to help the process?

Why is it that when a person said he wanted to succeed that meant every one wanted to succeed from the union?