Liberal re-education camps in America

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

schools are religious free zones... that's all that maters. thats not liberal thats not conservative.. it just make obvious bipartisan sense.

They are also no smoking zones. Dam gubmerment... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And that is exactly the problem, government telling citizens what is or isn't allowed which is propagated by the citizens. You simply become a tool of the state, a servant of government. Schools are not suppose to be "religious free zones" or any form of self expression which is acceptable behavior in our culture. The very thing that is suppose to be protected is being suppressed by those that feel they have the higher moral ground by their own personal interpretations. They do the very thing that they tell others they cannot do. Yes, as smoke free zones, to hinder word and thought so it not offend your poor eyes and ears. Use liberty to destroy liberty, under the guise of liberty.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Filthy_Pagan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Public schools are government run so there isnt a religious curriculum.

Private schools are not government run, so they can have a religious curriculum.

It isn't to 'protect people's feelings" it's because learning about religion is 100% pointless in a place that is meant to educate you. You cannot solve math problems with religion, you cannot learn to write an essay with religion.

It sounds to me like you're the one with hurt feelings lol

Then you are a tool of the government. If you have no right to express your view in such a setting, than you are suppressed by the very entity that is suppose to be protecting your right to do so. And it's not religious expression specific, this covers anything that is your right as a citizen to practice and/or discuss. For a self-proclaimed constitutionalist, you have an odd view of the liberties granted by the foundations of this nation.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then you are a tool of the government. If you have no right to express your view in such a setting, than you are suppressed by the very entity that is suppose to be protecting your right to do so. And it's not religious expression specific, this covers anything that is your right as a citizen to practice and/or discuss. For a self-proclaimed constitutionalist, you have an odd view of the liberties granted by the foundations of this nation.

schools are minors idiot, they have no rights.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Filthy_Pagan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh I just thought it was funny that you were trying to teach me something about Sun Tzu and using the most well known quote. Proves your superficial understanding of the art of war. I doubt you've even read it.

As a constitutionalist I strongly support the separation of church and state, which apparently you feel is oppression because your pastor told you so.

And let's not repeat history. Remember what christianity did to europe when the jews brought it there? Its called the dark ages for a reason.

What part of the Constitution states seperation of church and state. That is NOT in the Constitution ANYWHERE.

It's only found here, first to ensure context I have included the letter from the Danbury Baptists followed by Jefferson's response.

Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

President Jefferson's Reply:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and 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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65

When studying the context of these 2 letters the conclusion is clear:

•Danbury baptists want clarification of who AFFORDS the right of religious liberty to the people, The federal government or God. (Inalienable Right)

•Jefferson agrees with the Danbury baptists that religious liberty is a Inalienable Right.
•Jefferson also goes even further to proclaim we have a "Right of Conscience."
•Jefferson says "Wall of Separation" (which is the correct wording) Never does Jefferson use Separation of Church and State. The context of these letters implies the "Wall" is to protect the church from the state, NOT vice versa. If politicians or teachers want to pray on school grounds it's perfectly fine. It is also fine for anyone to decline through "Right of Conscience" to participate. For example refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance is also perfectly fine.
•He also speaks about actions only, and that is the only power government has when dealing with Faith. For instance a jihadist beheading someone would not be protected by the 1st amendment.
•Jefferson lastly defines a right of social duties (in respect to religion). A person has NO natural Right in OPPOSITION to his social duties. This statement I would apply to the Kansas Clerk who opposed signing marriage license's of homosexuals. If "Right of Conscience" is protected by the 1st Amendment as Jefferson clearly states it is. Then it was the State that failed in this scenario not the clerk. Marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it has always been a State issue. Therefore the State had the responsibility of exempting the clerk and finding someone else (appoint a deputy clerk) to sign the marriage license, or remove the requirements of the clerk's signature altogether.
•Jefferson then reciprocates KIND PRAYERS for the protection and blessings of the common Father.

•Original intent by our Founders should NOT be neglected when considering religious liberty.
•The 14th Amendment does not nullify ones "Right of Conscience." The 14th Amendment ensures "Equal Protection" therefore the state must also "Equally Protect" the "Right of Conscience."

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What part of the Constitution states seperation of church and state. That is NOT in the Constitution ANYWHERE.

It's only found here, first to ensure context I have included the letter from the Danbury Baptists followed by Jefferson's response.

Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

President Jefferson's Reply:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and 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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65

When studying the context of these 2 letters the conclusion is clear:

•Danbury baptists want clarification of who AFFORDS the right of religious liberty to the people, The federal government or God. (Inalienable Right)

•Jefferson agrees with the Danbury baptists that religious liberty is a Inalienable Right.
•Jefferson also goes even further to proclaim we have a "Right of Conscience."
•Jefferson says "Wall of Separation" (which is the correct wording) Never does Jefferson use Separation of Church and State. The context of these letters implies the "Wall" is to protect the church from the state, NOT vice versa. If politicians or teachers want to pray on school grounds it's perfectly fine. It is also fine for anyone to decline through "Right of Conscience" to participate. For example refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance is also perfectly fine.
•He also speaks about actions only, and that is the only power government has when dealing with Faith. For instance a jihadist beheading someone would not be protected by the 1st amendment.
•Jefferson lastly defines a right of social duties (in respect to religion). A person has NO natural Right in OPPOSITION to his social duties. This statement I would apply to the Kansas Clerk who opposed signing marriage license's of homosexuals. If "Right of Conscience" is protected by the 1st Amendment as Jefferson clearly states it is. Then it was the State that failed in this scenario not the clerk. Marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it has always been a State issue. Therefore the State had the responsibility of exempting the clerk and finding someone else (appoint a deputy clerk) to sign the marriage license, or remove the requirements of the clerk's signature altogether.
•Jefferson then reciprocates KIND PRAYERS for the protection and blessings of the common Father.

•Original intent by our Founders should NOT be neglected when considering religious liberty.
•The 14th Amendment does not nullify ones "Right to Conscience." The 14th Amendment ensures "Equal Protection" therefore the state must also "Equally Protect" the "Right of Conscience."

lol no1s gona read this

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

schools are religious free zones... that's all that maters. thats not liberal thats not conservative.. it just make obvious bipartisan sense.

They are also no smoking zones. Dam gubmerment... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Religious free zones?

Gun free zones?

Shit this isn't gunna end well for anyone in those zones.

Btw common core requires teachers to teach Islam.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Religious free zones?

Gun free zones?

Shit this isn't gunna end well for anyone in those zones.

god I wish elementary school had cigerette machines and gun vendors in every hallway GOD I WISH

[maskedmelon]

I am awaiting P99's implementation for "retard free" forum zones wherein S.o.R.P. might run wild.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

schools are minors idiot, they have no rights.

As I've said a couple times, to control the children is the path to controlling their parents and society. Even Hitler used this tactic to gain power over a nation, and nearly a world by the result thereof. This is textbook liberal doctrine in practice to the purpose of divide and conquer. You are well indoctrinated, sir. Children have the right to equal protection under the law, under the bill of rights and under the constitution. You, sir, for some reason believe that these rights are stripped away from a good portion of our society; from the youth of America. You, sir, are mistaken.

mis·tak·en
məˈstākən/
adjective
adjective: mistaken

wrong in one's opinion or judgment.
"she wondered whether she'd been mistaken about his intentions"
synonyms: wrong, erroneous, inaccurate, incorrect, false, fallacious, unfounded, misguided, misinformed
"they were acting on mistaken information"
antonyms: correct
(especially of a belief) based on or resulting from a misunderstanding or faulty judgment.
"don't buy a hard bed in the mistaken belief that it is good for you"

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Filthy_Pagan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no religion taught in schools =/= you can't voice your opinion. I very strongly support freedom of speech, but spouting "JESUS IS LERD" in the middle of an algebra class doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?


Your interpretation of constitutional rights seems to be the problem here. There is no teaching of religion in public (government run) schools, but at the same time the military isnt going to show up and blow your teeth out of the back of your skull for practicing the wrong religion. You're free to practice any religion or none at all without fear of sanctioned persecution, but that doesn't mean the entire country is your personal venue to rant about some highly buoyant israelite.

If you can convince me of some practical, valuable reason for teaching religion in schools, I'd reconsider my stance, but considering there isn't any, I think you're gonna have a hard time doing it.

I actually agree Pagan. Do we really want the public school system teaching our kids about Religion. Most of these teachers are nothing but tenured HAX bleeding the system. The last thing I want is some liberal asshat trying to tell my kid how great Islam is. Definitely agree bro.

I do support religious freedom, and if you want to pray on school grounds or if you want to have a voluntary bible club that meets in a school classroom I'm completely fine with that too.