|
Post by swampdog on Jun 23, 2024 10:46:42 GMT -5
I’m a Christian. I do not believe we need to legislate religion into the classroom, as some group will sue to have every man-made religion have equal standing in that classroom. The parents should be responsible for their child’s beliefs. Like some of you probably, my family exposed me to a belief in God, gave me a King James Bible (difficult to read) though only a few attended church regularly. The school system should teach children to read, write, do mathematics and science. We don’t need grooming whether it’s religion, or the pursuit of the “alphabet” sexuality. Leaving church and religion out of your thoughts is entirely up to you. People are free to worship God or if they don’t believe in God, that’s entirely up to them. Believe it or not, everyone is not destined to believe in God and will receive what’s their due. There’s a biblical belief of predestination that does say you’re gonna be selected or you may not be. In any case the acceptance of Christ and following his teachings is all that’s required. You don’t have to spend a single day in organized religion to enter His kingdom. So go on with your arguments or rants. God is still in control of all of us, and allows us to have free will to choose our own lifestyle. Peace and blessings to ya’.
|
|
|
Post by swampdog on Jun 23, 2024 11:24:34 GMT -5
Another thing. When I was a kid in my early public education life, our school day began with a pledge of allegiance to our country and the Lord’s Prayer. For the most part that was all the grooming we got. The rest of the school day was spent “learning”. We celebrated Christmas and even recited Bible verses for the school play. We could do all that without being swamped in “religion”.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Jun 23, 2024 12:07:08 GMT -5
I believe you can be a Christian, a good moral person, without being a member of an organized religion. 100% agree with ferris , now being a christian and voting for todays democrat party thats another story. I'm sure there will be "Christians" voting for both candidates. Its not up to me to determine who is "Christian" or not. I'll leave that up to themselves and a higher authority.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 23, 2024 12:34:50 GMT -5
That doesn’t mean that religion has to be hidden from government. It only means that no religion should be state sponsored or endorsed. I agree, we don’t need another Church of England. If having religious references in government was unconstitutional, why would they have people swear on the Bible in some government ceremonies and proceedings? They wouldn’t. If having visible references to something equates to sponsorship of that thing, then you would have to say that the government sponsors the gay community. We know that’s not the case. They recognize them but that’s not the same as endorsing them. Same with religions. Recognizing them can’t reasonably be equated with sponsorship or endorsement. All religions should be recognized and the diversity of perspectives they bring to a nation should be celebrated in a tolerant society. A president meeting with the pope or any other prominent religious figure shouldn’t be seen as a bad or prohibited thing. There isn’t anything unconstitutional about anything of the sort. There is no requirement to use a Bible at a swearing in ceremony. That is more tradition. Several Presidents did not use bibles. The Constitution does not require it. The person being sworn in can choose any book or no book. Teddy Roosevelt took his with no book.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 23, 2024 12:38:02 GMT -5
1. You shall have no other gods before me. 2. You shall make no idols. Well the Buddhists and Hindus are screwed. well was the country founded on buddhist and hindus beliefs. asking for cad. It was not founded on any one religion. The constitution forbids a religious test for office. The Founding Fathers were all different beliefs. They had seen the problems of religion controlling government and wanted to ensure that was not the case for the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 23, 2024 13:20:20 GMT -5
That doesn’t mean that religion has to be hidden from government. It only means that no religion should be state sponsored or endorsed. I agree, we don’t need another Church of England. If having religious references in government was unconstitutional, why would they have people swear on the Bible in some government ceremonies and proceedings? They wouldn’t. If having visible references to something equates to sponsorship of that thing, then you would have to say that the government sponsors the gay community. We know that’s not the case. They recognize them but that’s not the same as endorsing them. Same with religions. Recognizing them can’t reasonably be equated with sponsorship or endorsement. All religions should be recognized and the diversity of perspectives they bring to a nation should be celebrated in a tolerant society. A president meeting with the pope or any other prominent religious figure shouldn’t be seen as a bad or prohibited thing. There isn’t anything unconstitutional about anything of the sort. There is no requirement to use a Bible at a swearing in ceremony. That is more tradition. Several Presidents did not use bibles. The Constitution does not require it. The person being sworn in can choose any book or no book. Teddy Roosevelt took his with no book. Obtusing again, I see. Let’s dumb it down some more and see if it clicks this time. I didn’t say or even infer that it was required. I said that it was used. If it wasn’t constitutional to use them, they wouldn’t be being used. The implication is that it must be constitutional. Repeat the last sentence, until it finally sinks in.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 23, 2024 14:52:44 GMT -5
There is no requirement to use a Bible at a swearing in ceremony. That is more tradition. Several Presidents did not use bibles. The Constitution does not require it. The person being sworn in can choose any book or no book. Teddy Roosevelt took his with no book. Obtusing again, I see. Let’s dumb it down some more and see if it clicks this time. I didn’t say or even infer that it was required. I said that it was used. If it wasn’t constitutional to use them, they wouldn’t be being used. The implication is that it must be constitutional. Repeat the last sentence, until it finally sinks in. Since it is the individual's choice, why wouldn't it be? You make no sense sometimes. One is the government passing a law REQUIRING it. The other is an individual choosing it and it has nothing to do with the government.
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on Jun 23, 2024 15:01:28 GMT -5
I don’t mind keeping religion out of schools just as I don’t want woke agendas in schools. There would be nothing wrong with schools posting daily messages about being kind and respectful to others though. Even teaching manners to young children would be a good idea as some parents don’t seem to instill them at home.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jun 23, 2024 16:00:18 GMT -5
Geesh having children look at and reflect on a solid list of simple ways to grow into a good human is a travesty....
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 23, 2024 16:02:54 GMT -5
Obtusing again, I see. Let’s dumb it down some more and see if it clicks this time. I didn’t say or even infer that it was required. I said that it was used. If it wasn’t constitutional to use them, they wouldn’t be being used. The implication is that it must be constitutional. Repeat the last sentence, until it finally sinks in. Since it is the individual's choice, why wouldn't it be? You make no sense sometimes. One is the government passing a law REQUIRING it. The other is an individual choosing it and it has nothing to do with the government. Apparently I do make sense. At least to you.🤪 You just made the same argument I made that the use of religious symbols or references in government is not unconstitutional though the requirement of it is. Thats quite different from what some were calling for several years back where they wanted any religious references expunged from government buildings, monuments, etc.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jun 23, 2024 17:39:38 GMT -5
The United States would be such a better place if we continue teaching children how to give blowjobs and telling boys how to be girls and girls to be boys. Who needs a safety prayer before football games anyway. That's disgusting
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 23, 2024 18:03:32 GMT -5
Since it is the individual's choice, why wouldn't it be? You make no sense sometimes. One is the government passing a law REQUIRING it. The other is an individual choosing it and it has nothing to do with the government. Apparently I do make sense. At least to you.🤪 You just made the same argument I made that the use of religious symbols or references in government is not unconstitutional though the requirement of it is. Thats quite different from what some were calling for several years back where they wanted any religious references expunged from government buildings, monuments, etc. Allowing an individual to choose a Bible to take an oath on is not using it in government business. The President can have a Bible on his desk, that is not using it in government business. The removal of religious symbolism in government building depends on why it was put there originally.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 23, 2024 18:08:35 GMT -5
That’s one opinion. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 24, 2024 7:05:16 GMT -5
So now you care about people picking your pocket? You might not be quite as liberal as you like to make yourself out to be!🤣 Yes, I care. If it were not for blue states, the red states would be out of business, I don't work and pay taxes to support a bunch of "taker" states. Then why do you live in a Red State?
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Jun 24, 2024 8:11:41 GMT -5
Minnesota, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois and Florida are least dependent on the federal government. These states all contribute multiples more to the federal government than they receive, with residents paying at least $5 in taxes for every $1 in direct support received from the federal government.
|
|