My daughter says ..

[piece-itpete]

Yes indeed, those things equate to Christianity Finn

We can at least discuss things from an accurate historical viewpoint instead of tossing up whatever we want it to be.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Yes indeed, those things equate to Christianity Finn

We can at least discuss things from an accurate historical viewpoint instead of tossing up whatever we want it to be.

Pete

I didn't mean to equate them (even though they were perpetrated by a "Christian Nation" per your assertion.) My only point is that there are things we at one time may have been, but what does that have to do with anything moving forward?

Honestly, I would like to know what the motivation behind your (and Barton's) argument that we were a Christian nation (and that somehow today we're not). Why do you argue this point, ad nauseum, and why does he devote his life and a website to this quixotic argument.

Just for the sake of argument, let me stipulate your point. Again, so what?

[piece-itpete]

It absolutely applies to the original post. Go back to the first page and read from the beginning.

It also begs the question, what is 'free'? The Founders clearly had a different meaning than we do now, as I believe this thread shows.

Pete

[finnbow]

Well, back to the OP. If it is a Bible Study course in public school, it's inappropriate and should be discontinued. I don't think any reading of the First Amendment by any court anywhere would find otherwise.

OTOH, if it's a course on the history of religion, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., it is entirely appropriate and likely a very interesting and valuable course. All of my kids have taken such a course and found it to be quite interesting and useful.

[piece-itpete]

See? That's what I was getting at. Where along the line did it become impermissable? I think that's a legitimate question....

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

See? That's what I was getting at. Where along the line did it become impermissable? I think that's a legitimate question....

Pete

Per the Christian Post's website:

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not require devotional use of the Bible but explicitly acknowledged that academic study of the Bible in public schools is constitutional, as part of a good education.

The Supreme Court has held that public schools may teach students about the Bible as long as such teaching is “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”

Similarly, the U.S. Department of Education guidelines state that public schools “may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture.”

I'd say these guidelines are quite clear and comport perfectly well with the First Amendment.

I'm wondering about how much detail they should go into in their academic study of the Bible. Here's a suggestion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-s..._b_254677.html

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

They never supposed we wouldn't be, of course. But forget that and look at their actions.

These are the guys that wrote the Constitution. Who do you think knows better as to what they meant?

Pete

I honestly suggest that you find a copy of Madison's Note on the Debates at the Federal Convention in Philadephia. Read it, then go back a month later and read it again. I will happily argue the Constitution with Roberts, Alito and Scalia - and win.

[piece-itpete]

I should, I've had it for a while but still not...

Here's his actions though, according to the Library of Congress.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Finn, I missed your post.

So, the SC - in 1963, after over a century of it being done, decides it can't be done.

OK, skip that, it still says it can be taught but I suppose a good way to say it is 'not as truth' - does that sound right?

But then the Huffington says it's crazy because the Bible is what it is.

The folks who wrote our document again disagree:

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” James Madison

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I should, I've had it for a while but still not...

Here's his actions though, according to the Library of Congress.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Pete

From the link "... Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."

Seems like nothing's changed in 200 years (except republican should be capitalized).