Darrel Scott Testimony Judiciary Committee

I'd say ditto, but AK might start to think I'm stalking her

 

Seperation of church and state arguments aside the fact remains that when children do not get sound morals taught to them they are much more likely to do things that cause so many of the problems in our schools.

 

Darrel Scott's point is that Separation of Church and State has become legislated into a dogma that was never intended by those who wrote the constitution..a situation where our schools are no longer allowed to honor God..and our nation no longer honors God. Our schools and our children are paying the price.

 

Um, this is not true at all. Madison and Jefferson specifically spoke/wrote about the absolute necessity of separating the two:

Here's another take, and I don't mean anything at all political when I post this. I find this to be a very moving opinion on the issue:

Boyd argues against the politicization of Christianity and Christians

 

Being compelled to say "under God" during the pledge is not = teaching morals.

 

Harry,

Our Public School Systems have been impacted by ACLU
suits to the point that all decent God fearing folk who can afford to do so, have left the public schools in favor of home schooling and private schools where traditional Judeao-Christian values can be discussed openly, rather than being limited to morning flagpole prayer groups.
I take it that you 1) either don't have children or 2) are educating them privately.

By legislate this is what I mean:
For more than 50 years, the American Civil Liberties Union has worked to convince courts that the Constitution mandates the complete exclusion of religion from public life. The landmark Supreme Court cases below have been used to erect and extend the modern “wall of separation between church and state.” The ACLU served as direct counsel or “friend of the court” in each case.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): The First Amendment requires neutrality towards religion and erects a “high and impregnable...wall of separation between church and state.”

Engel v. Vitale (1962): Public school teachers are prohibited from opening class with non-sectarian prayers.

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963): A state cannot require recital of the Lord’s Prayer and reading of Scripture in public school classrooms even when students have the opportunity to opt out of such recitals.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968): A state cannot prohibit teaching of evolution in public schools without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985): It is unconstitutional for a state to pass a law allowing voluntary silence or prayer at the beginning of public school classes.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987): A state requirement that schools give “balanced treatment” to both the theory of evolution and creation science violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Allegheny v. ACLU (1989): Government sponsored nativity scenes violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and must be removed.

Lee v. Weisman (1992): Non-sectarian prayers delivered by ministers or rabbis at public high school graduations violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.



That claim of political nonalignment has been open to question ever since Roger Baldwin, a socialist, nudist, and self-avowed communist “fellow traveler,” founded the ACLU in 1920. While Baldwin never joined the Communist Party, he left no doubt about his sympathies—and many Communists did serve on the ACLU board in its early years.

 

AK- you said,

"I don't believe I've ever heard of any sort of country with a national religion that truly prospered as a result of that faith."


Don't believe anyone is advocating the establishment of a national religion, and that in fact is what separation of church and state was meant to prohibit.

 

Absolutely. Every decision you cited upholds that standard, as they should. Yet prohibition occured, the phrase "under God" was added to the declaration in the 50s, against the wishes of the author, and our current administration is attempting to legislate its christian based morality (or at least paying lip service to the effort) by outlawing gay marriage and abortion.

This is ridiculous. What propaganda blog did you pull that from? Attorneys from both sides are considered officers of the court. There is no such thing as "friend of the court".

Um, 3) none of the above. Don't make assumptions about me, please.

 

I was kind of hoping someone would discuss these parts of that story:

Maybe my bias is showing, but I find his opinions to be very moving. There's something pure about his [disassociation w/ politics & govt] principle that reminds me of the Jesus I learned about in Sunday school.

 

Harry, some comments by Dr. D James Kennedy:

.The ACLU’s Worst Nightmare
Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, was a skeptic, a man so hostile to Christianity that he cut all references to miracles out of his Bible. He was, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation tells us, “a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.”
Or was he? While Jefferson has been lionized by those who seek to drive religion from public life, the true Thomas Jefferson is anything but their friend. He was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation’s third president was in fact a student of Scripture, who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes.
Moreover, his Notes on Religion, nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are “very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ,” according to Mark Beliles, a Providence Foundation scholar and author of an enlightening essay on Jefferson’s religious life.
And what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.
But didn’t Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? Here again the record tells a different story. For the ACLU, Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, proves its claim that the First Amendment is an eviction notice for all religious expression in public life. But if that’s so, why, two days after he wrote that letter citing the First Amendment’s creation of a wall of separation between church and state, did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?
Indeed, many of Jefferson’s presidential actions would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest’s salary and for the construction of a church.
Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated official documents. Instead of “in the year of our Lord,” Jefferson used the phrase “in the year of our Lord Christ.” Christian historian David Barton has proof—an original document signed by Jefferson on the “eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state “must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” Judging from the record, it looks like the wall that some say Tom built is, in fact, the wall Tom breached.
The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU’s worst nightmare.
.