Muslim Congressman (D) "America Schools Should Be Modeled after Madrassa's [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Muslim Congressman (D) "America Schools Should Be Modeled after Madrassa's


DonGlock26
07-06-2012, 07:21
Muslim Congressman Andre Carson, "America Schools Should Be Modeled after Madrassa's & Use

Muslim Congressman Andre Carson, "America Schools Should Be Modeled after Madrassa's & Use Korans" - YouTube

_

JFrame
07-06-2012, 07:25
I await all the leftist progressives jumping in on this, tearing their hair and thumping their chests about the "separation of church and state."


.

DonGlock26
07-06-2012, 07:49
I await all the leftist progressives jumping in on this, tearing their hair and thumping their chests about the "separation of church and state."


.

:popcorn:

Got a chair? My dogs are aching.....


_

JFrame
07-06-2012, 07:54
:popcorn:

Got a chair? My dogs are aching.....


_


Pull up a seat...We can also pop a couple of cold ones to get a jump on the heat... :cool:


.

DonGlock26
07-06-2012, 08:06
Pull up a seat...We can also pop a couple of cold ones to get a jump on the heat... :cool:


.

Sounds like a plan....... :cheers:


_

JFrame
07-06-2012, 08:11
Sounds like a plan....... :cheers:


_


:beer: :drink:


.

Bren
07-06-2012, 08:17
I await all the leftist progressives jumping in on this, tearing their hair and thumping their chests about the "separation of church and state."


.

Huh? So you're in favor of modelling American schools after madrassas? I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea.

JFrame
07-06-2012, 08:28
Huh? So you're in favor of modelling American schools after madrassas? I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea.


Please re-read my post -- I don't think there was any inference of what you suggest.


.

Bren
07-06-2012, 08:35
Please re-read my post -- I don't think there was any inference of what you suggest.


.

The congessman favored religious schools - using the term "madrassa" is just substituting a foreign word for it. You implied that you don't favor separation of church and state, which is the only rule that prevents religious based schools here, so I took it that you are in favor of religious schools, rather than against them.

I guess I could have assumed a more hypocritical viewpoint - like that you are only in favor of religious schools if they choose your religion - but that would have been insulting.

rgregoryb
07-06-2012, 08:39
The congessman favored religious schools - using the term "madrassa" is just substituting a foreign word for it. You implied that you don't favor separation of church and state, which is the only rule that prevents religious based schools here, so I took it that you are in favor of religious schools, rather than against them.

I guess I could have assumed a more hypocritical viewpoint - like that you are only in favor of religious schools if they choose your religion - but that would have been insulting.

too early in the day? go get a second cup of coffee and come back when you wake up

rgregoryb
07-06-2012, 08:40
bet that muslim still gnaws a pork chop...........

JFrame
07-06-2012, 08:41
The congessman favored religious schools - using the term "madrassa" is just substituting a foreign word for it. You implied that you don't favor separation of church and state, which is the only rule that rpevents religious based schools here, so I took it that you are in favor of religious schools, rather than against them.

I guess I could have assumed a more hypocritical viewpoint - like that you are only in favor of religious schools if they choose your religion - but that would have been insulting.

Bren -- my only point was to make a sarcastic aside about the hypocrisy of progressive leftists, who will always scream the "separation of church and state" mantra -- but only when it is reference to a Judeo-Christian theme.

DonGlock26 knows me well enough, and knew right off where I was coming from. Stick around long enough, and you will "get" what I'm saying also... :)


.

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 09:09
They're going after the children.

Do you think they'll convert children to Islam in these madrassa
type schools?

I've been telling all of you that between the Islamic invasion, the homos
and the pedophiles, our children don't stand a chance.

..

callihan_44
07-06-2012, 09:12
I doubt the libs say much, they have a tendency to embrace those who would destroy them

Batesmotel
07-06-2012, 09:17
Bren -- my only point was to make a sarcastic aside about the hypocrisy of progressive leftists, who will always scream the "separation of church and state" mantra -- but only when it is reference to a Judeo-Christian theme.

I have noticed that basic attitude also.

Remember a few years ago when a Christian kid got in trouble for wearing a crucifix in school but Sikh kid was allowed to wear his head dress and knife?

Or when a christian church couldn't get a permit for a prayer meeting in a city park but a group of druids were allowed to block a public sidewalk so they could worship at a concrete traffic barrier?

snerd
07-06-2012, 09:31
He's black. You won't hear a peep. Hell, the entire Black Caucus walked out to protest one of their own being held in contempt. You can't get more racist than that! Blacks pretty much have a free pass because we are a nation of cowards that won't have that national discussion on race. They won't allow it, it's a better deal for them the way it is.

automatic slim
07-06-2012, 10:34
Hmm. Let's see.....

Bomb making 101. That should cover chemistry and physics. PE includes "Dodge-Rock" and "Smear the Infidel". Pretty well covered. Girls will learn Hijab making and inferiority. Boys learn their way around Toyota pick-ups. Everything else seems to be covered in the Koran...


Where can I sign my kids up? :dunno:

nmk
07-06-2012, 10:39
Bren -- my only point was to make a sarcastic aside about the hypocrisy of progressive leftists, who will always scream the "separation of church and state" mantra -- but only when it is reference to a Judeo-Christian theme.

DonGlock26 knows me well enough, and knew right off where I was coming from. Stick around long enough, and you will "get" what I'm saying also... :)


.

There's another side to that coin. What about those on the religious right who feel church and state should not be separate? How do they feel about this? What if it's not their church?

ETA: I completely agree about the hypocrisy, but I'm amazed that some people only see it on one side.

JFrame
07-06-2012, 10:48
There's another side to that coin. What about those on the religious right who feel church and state should not be separate? How do they feel about this? What if it's not their church?

ETA: I completely agree about the hypocrisy, but I'm amazed that some people only see it on one side.


The rule should be applied equally to either side -- but IMHO, it is the left that more often (by a considerable margin) exhibits this hypocrisy.

I also think the "wall of separation" concept can be taken to ridiculous extremes -- as in cases such as those noted above, or when people file suit against the use of the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, or petition to have the words "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, or sue to have Christmas removed as a national holiday.


.

snerd
07-06-2012, 11:20
He also has another idea.............

Muslim Congressman: ‘Imagine’ The First Female Muslim President Wearing ‘A Hijab’ in the White House

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/muslim-congressman-imagine-the-first-female-muslim-president-wearing-a-hijab-in-the-white-house/

RC-RAMIE
07-06-2012, 11:29
as in cases such as those noted above, or when people file suit against the use of the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, or petition to have the words "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, or sue to have Christmas removed as a national holiday.


.

At one time "under God" didn't appear in the pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we Trust" was not on our currency.

What is the difference from Muslims trying to use the government to promote their religious ideas but the christian feel the above examples are ok?

It doesn't bother me but since we are pointing "hypocrisy of progressive leftists"

Fred Hansen
07-06-2012, 11:30
Are crack-babies already old enough to be congressmen? Damn! Time just flies. :wow:

kirgi08
07-06-2012, 11:34
:popcorn:

JFrame
07-06-2012, 11:51
At one time "under God" didn't appear in the pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we Trust" was not on our currency.

What is the difference from Muslims trying to use the government to promote their religious ideas but the christian feel the above examples are ok?

It doesn't bother me but since we are pointing "hypocrisy of progressive leftists"


Was there some major debate or opposition when those words were incorporated? But now, evidently some leftists have real issues with it.

Is God Christian? Does no one else have a right to use that word to mean what they want? It sounds pretty non-denominational to me.

And are you truly equating a word inscribed on currency or two words uttered in the Pledge of Allegiance to the concept of setting up public schools in the Muslim manner and adhering to the teachings of the Koran?

Now, do you want to do away with Christmas? That IS getting pretty specific...


.

Fred Hansen
07-06-2012, 12:04
At one time "under God" didn't appear in the pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we Trust" was not on our currency.

What is the difference from Muslims trying to use the government to promote their religious ideas but the christian feel the above examples are ok?

It doesn't bother me but since we are pointing "hypocrisy of progressive leftists"For people who regularly attended church services inside the nation's Capitol building, such things were already too obvious to mention.

It says God, not Allah. Pick one, don't pick one, nobody cares one way or another. The Muslim death-cult psychotic method of promoting their so-called "ideas" is considerably different.

There isn't enough room in all of cyberspace to thoroughly chronicle the "hypocrisy of progressive leftists". :upeyes:

countrygun
07-06-2012, 12:07
Hmm. Let's see.....

Bomb making 101. That should cover chemistry and physics. PE includes "Dodge-Rock" and "Smear the Infidel". Pretty well covered. Girls will learn Hijab making and inferiority. Boys learn their way around Toyota pick-ups. Everything else seems to be covered in the Koran...


Where can I sign my kids up? :dunno:


"where does the time go Abdul? one day your teaching him to unroll his prayer rug, and it seem the next day, he's all blown up"

aircarver
07-06-2012, 12:18
"where does the time go Abdul? one day your teaching him to unroll his prayer rug, and it seem the next day, he's all blown up"

:rofl:

.

JGlockman
07-06-2012, 12:21
Hmm. Let's see.....

Bomb making 101. That should cover chemistry and physics. PE includes "Dodge-Rock" and "Smear the Infidel". Pretty well covered. Girls will learn Hijab making and inferiority. Boys learn their way around Toyota pick-ups. Everything else seems to be covered in the Koran...


Where can I sign my kids up? :dunno:

Lol!

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Fred Hansen
07-06-2012, 12:22
"where does the time go Abdul? one day your teaching him to unroll his prayer rug, and it seem the next day, he's all blown up":supergrin:

brickboy240
07-06-2012, 13:16
I thought his party did not want religion in public schools?

....oh...I am soooo confused!

LOL

- brickboy240

Bren
07-06-2012, 13:18
Bren -- my only point was to make a sarcastic aside about the hypocrisy of progressive leftists, who will always scream the "separation of church and state" mantra -- but only when it is reference to a Judeo-Christian theme.

DonGlock26 knows me well enough, and knew right off where I was coming from. Stick around long enough, and you will "get" what I'm saying also... :)


.

OK, I get it. Your point was to say that the libs will not say "separation of church and state" because it's a muslim, instead of a christian. This being Glock Talk, it's more common to get the standard "no such thing as separation of church and state, no matter what Jefferson said about it" argument.

Bren
07-06-2012, 13:21
The rule should be applied equally to either side -- but IMHO, it is the left that more often (by a considerable margin) exhibits this hypocrisy.

I also think the "wall of separation" concept can be taken to ridiculous extremes -- as in cases such as those noted above, or when people file suit against the use of the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, or petition to have the words "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, or sue to have Christmas removed as a national holiday.


.


So changing our money and our pledge of allegiance in the 1950's, during the "red scare"/McCarthy era was NOT a ridiculous extreme, but trying to go back to the original is?

:upeyes:

JFrame
07-06-2012, 14:04
So changing our money and our pledge of allegiance in the 1950's, during the "red scare"/McCarthy era was NOT a ridiculous extreme, but trying to go back to the original is?

:upeyes:


I can't speak for ol' Joe -- but I can tell you that I wouldn't be wailing, gnashing my teeth, and filing lawsuits if those words didn't exist in the currency and pledge. :upeyes:

But if you have an emotional investment in seeing those words expunged -- go for it. My guess is that you would be aligned with about 20 percent of this country who have a similar investment -- roughly the number of hard-core leftists there are here.

And again -- are you equating a word inscribed on currency or two words uttered in the Pledge of Allegiance to the concept of setting up public schools in the Muslim manner and adhering to the teachings of the Koran?


.

coastal4974
07-06-2012, 15:06
I thought his party did not want religion in public schools?

....oh...I am soooo confused!

LOL

- brickboy240


I guess because it's not really a religion it doesn't count. :dunno:

countrygun
07-06-2012, 17:11
So changing our money and our pledge of allegiance in the 1950's, during the "red scare"/McCarthy era was NOT a ridiculous extreme, but trying to go back to the original is?

:upeyes:


Just for the heck of it I have to ask,

you do know that documents obtained, from the Kremlin, after the fall of the wall showed that McCarthy was not that far off base, don't you?

janice6
07-06-2012, 17:19
This is a "religion" wrapped around a precept of governing by punishment. I want nothing to do with it.

beforeobamabans
07-06-2012, 18:39
Funny how the Jews in the 7th District of Indiana vote democrat 70%.

Andre Carson inherited this seat from his grandmother, Julia Carson. The black community here blindly votes for him because of his name and his color and the Jewish community has proven they are no more independent in their thinking.

G17Jake
07-06-2012, 19:45
At one time "under God" didn't appear in the pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we Trust" was not on our currency.

What is the difference from Muslims trying to use the government to promote their religious ideas but the christian feel the above examples are ok?

It doesn't bother me but since we are pointing "hypocrisy of progressive leftists"

At the time, most people self-identified as Christian.

It wasn't until recently that open hostility towards Christianity has become so widespread.

It took a while, but the communists are methodical and patient... and effective... with their plan to destroy religion and family.

Deployment Solu
07-06-2012, 19:59
Congresscritter Carson...here is a rope, go piss up it. These people are begging for a showdown. Are there any people who will stand up and fight against this crap. Let him to to Afganistan or Iraq or Iran and practice his faith/govt.

hogfish
07-06-2012, 20:19
So...all this arguing back and forth, and noone backing the "America schools should be...". It's pretty obvious that nobody here agrees with that.
I've only seen madrassas on TV, and it's pretty scary how those kids keep bobbing back and forth while reading/reciting the Koran. I've seen Hasidic Jews doing that on the piers by Sheepshead Bay, but I didn't find it as scary. Also, they are reading something else, I'm sure.

:psycho:

samurairabbi
07-06-2012, 20:35
I am in Andre Carson's district (by about 150 feet); such are the joys of the 2010 redistricting.

The funny thing: there is a perfect example of religious schools in America ... namely, the enormous Roman Catholic parochial school structure. If you don't ask for GOVERNMENT funding, you can educate pretty much any way you want.

Jerry
07-06-2012, 21:06
There's another side to that coin. What about those on the religious right who feel church and state should not be separate? How do they feel about this? What if it's not their church?

ETA: I completely agree about the hypocrisy, but I'm amazed that some people only see it on one side.

I would love for someone to show me the "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution. What I see is a amendment that says the Government is not to be involved in forming religions or make laws concerning the practice of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Should any religion be taught in public schools? No! Should kids be allowed to talk about religion or pray on brakes and at lunch. Absolutely!

cowboywannabe
07-06-2012, 21:22
the democrats and other extremist groups wont shout seperation of religeon and state unless that religeon is christian or orthodox judism. muslim teachings in public schools getting public money is just fine.

countrygun
07-06-2012, 21:27
I would love for someone to show me the "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution. What I see is a amendment that says the Government is not to be involved in forming religions or make laws concerning the practice of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Should any religion be taught in public schools? No! Should kids be allowed to talk about religion or pray on brakes and at lunch. Absolutely!


Most folks don't grasp two things about the Constitution and the history.

If you look at the Bill of Rights, you will notice that in nine of the amendments no branch of Government is specifically mentioned, meaning of course that all branches and levels are effected. Only in the First is a branch, Congress, specifically mentioned and and proscribed from an action.

This has bearing as well when you are aware that (IIRC) 9 of the 13 "Colonies", when they became States, had the "official religion" (Christian denomination) as part of their State charters and descriptions. This was well known before the BOR was written and it did not occur to the Founders that a Federal Constitution should prohibit States from the practice.

RC-RAMIE
07-06-2012, 21:37
I would love for someone to show me the "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution. What I see is a amendment that says the Government is not to be involved in forming religions or make laws concerning the practice of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Should any religion be taught in public schools? No! Should kids be allowed to talk about religion or pray on brakes and at lunch. Absolutely!

Is there examples where kids are banned from talking about religion or pray on their own time?


....

samurairabbi
07-06-2012, 22:43
I would love for someone to show me the "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution. What I see is a amendment that says the Government is not to be involved in forming religions or make laws concerning the practice of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The actual phrase "separation of church and state" first appears in the judicial usage in a 1944 US Supreme Court decision. The phrase has now been around long enough so that everyone thinks it has been there forever.

Big Mad Dawg
07-07-2012, 03:09
Anyone that has spent time in the Middle East will be able to confirm that the education system is a huge example of failure. Those who can send their family members to a western country for education why they know that their education system turn out undereducated religious fanatical hate mongers.

Madrassa style education for my children? No thanks I want more than brain washed gibberish mumbling idiots.

happyguy
07-07-2012, 04:37
You guys just don't get it. :shakehead:

It's "separation of the Christian church and state."

How could the founders, in the 18th century, envision the religion of peace coming here.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
07-07-2012, 04:41
At one time "under God" didn't appear in the pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we Trust" was not on our currency.

What is the difference from Muslims trying to use the government to promote their religious ideas but the christian feel the above examples are ok?

It doesn't bother me but since we are pointing "hypocrisy of progressive leftists"


Nowhere on our currency or in the pledge does it specifically mention the God of Abraham. In a modern context it could be viewed as a reference to god simply as a belief in a higher power and so encompass all the worlds great religions.

Anyway, the true argument has always been the separation of CHURCH and state, not RELIGION and state. It's simply been twisted in recent years by deceitful and/or ignorant people.

One also, wonders if your failure to capitalize Christian is a slip or accidental.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Bren
07-07-2012, 04:43
Just for the heck of it I have to ask,

you do know that documents obtained, from the Kremlin, after the fall of the wall showed that McCarthy was not that far off base, don't you?

And? Nothing to do with my point, which is that the references to god in the pledge and on money are recent inventions - part of the "godless communists" theme of the 50's - rather than something coming from the founding of the country, like a lot of christians seem to think.

Bren
07-07-2012, 04:49
The actual phrase "separation of church and state" first appears in the judicial usage in a 1944 US Supreme Court decision. The phrase has now been around long enough so that everyone thinks it has been there forever.

The first "judicial usage" I find in a quick Westlaw search is an 1825 New York divorce case, in the Chancery Court of New York. However, there are many, many cases using the term, even here in Kentucky, between then and 1944. "As such it is the law of this land, except in those cases where the proceedings are had in the ecclesiastical courts, solely pro salute animarum, and excepting those cases in which the separation of church and state and our own political institutions have abrogated this part of the English law." ELIZABETH BURTIS v. JOHN BURTIS, Hopk. Ch. 557, 561 (1825). Maybe your source meant that it was the first U.S. Supreme Court usage, but even that would be wrong: "a wall of separation between church and State...." - the first U.S. Supreme Court reference I can find is actually quoting Thomas Jefferson on the subject, in a polygamy case in 1878. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).


On the other hand, the actual phrase "separation of church and state" first appears (as far as I know) in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. You can read it at the library of congress. It is significant for 2 reasons:

(1), at a time when churches were in favor of separation, it said "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.." Read it at the library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

(2) The first amendment was based on earlier writing by Thomas Jefferson, so his interpretation of its meaning is fairly important and, as I noted above, is quotyed often by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

happyguy
07-07-2012, 05:07
The first "judicial usage" I find in a quick Westlaw search is an 1825 New York divorce case, in the Chancery Court of New York. However, there are many, many cases using the term, even here in Kentucky, between then and 1944. "As such it is the law of this land, except in those cases where the proceedings are had in the ecclesiastical courts, solely pro salute animarum, and excepting those cases in which the separation of church and state and our own political institutions have abrogated this part of the English law." ELIZABETH BURTIS v. JOHN BURTIS, Hopk. Ch. 557, 561 (1825)

On the other hand, the actual phrase "separation of church and state" first appears (as far as I know) in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. You can read it at the library of congress. It is significant for 2 reasons:

(1), at a time when churches were in favor of separation, it said "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.." Read it at the library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

(2) The first amendment was based on earlier writing by Thomas Jefferson, so his interpretation of its meaning is fairly important.
Context matters.

Jefferson was acutely aware of the role of the Catholic Church in perpetuating the dark ages for its own gain and for the abuses it inflicted as a result of its political ambitions.

He was also rather knowledgeable about the Church of England.

The vast majority of Christians would have a problem with any organized church, Christian or otherwise, wielding the kind of political power he was against.

Still, I doubt the "leftists" would devote much effort to keep our schools from becoming Muslim training grounds.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Bren
07-07-2012, 05:13
Context matters.

Jefferson was acutely aware of the role of the Catholic Church in perpetuating the dark ages for its own gain and for the abuses it inflicted as a result of its political ambitions.

He was also rather knowledgeable about the Church of England.

The vast majority of Christians would have a problem with any organized church, Christian or otherwise, wielding the kind of political power he was against.

Still, I doubt the "leftists" would devote much effort to keep our schools from becoming Muslim training grounds.

Regards,
Happyguy :)
The context is exactly the point - when the baptists were a minority, they wanted reassurance that there WAS a "wall of separation between church & state" to keep other religions out of political power. Now that they have the numbers and money, they seem to want to be what they were afraid the catholics would become, in 1801.

As for the "under god" etc., stuff, we know it doesn't "encompass all the worlds great religions" since we know what the people meant who put it there - it is recent history and well documented. Not to mention, even if that was true it would exclude polytheistic religions and non-religion. Giving a preference to a group of religions over the others is no more allowable than giving preference to a single religion.

Bren
07-07-2012, 05:16
Still, I doubt the "leftists" would devote much effort to keep our schools from becoming Muslim training grounds.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

It is the right who are most likely to make our schools "Muslim training grounds." Why? Because, these days, the right is most interesting in making changes that promote religion in schools. However, if you make changes that allow religion in schools, I forsee that the same legal change that allows christian religious observance in schools this year would allow the muslim observance in schools next year (or even this year) in any community where muslims are the majority or become the majority.

samurairabbi
07-09-2012, 21:29
The story continues to bounce around the media here in Indy.

Carson is now contending that he meant that religious schools of ALL denominations could serve as sources of ideas and innovations for improving all schools, even public ones. His "re-interpretation" of his comments may be plausible, but he is historically off-base.

A problem in urban public schools is not LACK of innovation; rather, it is TOO MUCH innovation. Any idea that catches the fancy of government educators, administrators, and teachers will find its way into practice, even if the idea lacks any kind of depth. Religious schools are usually far SLOWER in adopting new structures in their organizations and operations. That lack of speed in trying every new idea that comes along can be a strength rather than a weakness.

Paul7
07-10-2012, 12:04
The congessman favored religious schools - using the term "madrassa" is just substituting a foreign word for it. You implied that you don't favor separation of church and state, which is the only rule that prevents religious based schools here, so I took it that you are in favor of religious schools, rather than against them.

I guess I could have assumed a more hypocritical viewpoint - like that you are only in favor of religious schools if they choose your religion - but that would have been insulting.

You really can't see the difference between the hate taught in madrassas and what goes on in your local parochial school?

http://www.care2.com/news/member/296771588/3378212

Paul7
07-10-2012, 12:06
It is the right who are most likely to make our schools "Muslim training grounds." Why? Because, these days, the right is most interesting in making changes that promote religion in schools. However, if you make changes that allow religion in schools,

You mean like an opening prayer, like Congress does?

Paul7
07-10-2012, 12:10
The first "judicial usage" I find in a quick Westlaw search is an 1825 New York divorce case, in the Chancery Court of New York. However, there are many, many cases using the term, even here in Kentucky, between then and 1944. "As such it is the law of this land, except in those cases where the proceedings are had in the ecclesiastical courts, solely pro salute animarum, and excepting those cases in which the separation of church and state and our own political institutions have abrogated this part of the English law." ELIZABETH BURTIS v. JOHN BURTIS, Hopk. Ch. 557, 561 (1825). Maybe your source meant that it was the first U.S. Supreme Court usage, but even that would be wrong: "a wall of separation between church and State...." - the first U.S. Supreme Court reference I can find is actually quoting Thomas Jefferson on the subject, in a polygamy case in 1878. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).


On the other hand, the actual phrase "separation of church and state" first appears (as far as I know) in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. You can read it at the library of congress. It is significant for 2 reasons:

(1), at a time when churches were in favor of separation, it said "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.." Read it at the library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

(2) The first amendment was based on earlier writing by Thomas Jefferson, so his interpretation of its meaning is fairly important and, as I noted above, is quotyed often by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have separation of church and state, not faith and state.

This is from Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution':

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

Paul7
07-10-2012, 12:12
the democrats and other extremist groups wont shout seperation of religeon and state unless that religeon is christian or orthodox judism. muslim teachings in public schools getting public money is just fine.

As seen here:

http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38269/

Mrs. Tink
07-10-2012, 14:19
Most folks don't grasp two things about the Constitution and the history.

If you look at the Bill of Rights, you will notice that in nine of the amendments no branch of Government is specifically mentioned, meaning of course that all branches and levels are effected. Only in the First is a branch, Congress, specifically mentioned and and proscribed from an action.

This has bearing as well when you are aware that (IIRC) 9 of the 13 "Colonies", when they became States, had the "official religion" (Christian denomination) as part of their State charters and descriptions. This was well known before the BOR was written and it did not occur to the Founders that a Federal Constitution should prohibit States from the practice.

Then the Fourteenth Amendment came along and made the First apply to all of the states as well.

Is there examples where kids are banned from talking about religion or pray on their own time?
....

Apparently Missouri voters (http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=671502) will have the chance to determine if they think this is enough of a problem that it should be guaranteed to students.

Students can no longer request any kind of prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman)at graduation ceremonies, as there seems to be a disagreement about what is considered to be a "voluntary" activity that may be sponsored by the school, and in any case the decision would not have turned on this point.

ETA: This would seem to suggest that Judaism is equally apt to be struck down as Christianity, as the clergyman in question in the above-cited case is a rabbi.

School prayer has been forced into enough of a corner that it hardly matters in any case. My own school district is in a fight to permit vouchers to go to parents to decide which of our private school partners are the best fit for their child. This is being litigated against us by the ACLU among others. Fortunately, the Zelman case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris) allowed vouchers and should really be where Andre Carson concentrates his energy. By expanding vouchers and educational freedom of choice, he could, ironically, achieve his goal, although most Dems hate vouchers and want to get rid of them.