Bleacher Bums Forum

I know I will get hammered for this but the constitution does not state that you can not have prayer in school...it's meaning is that it can not have a state sponsored religion that everyone is forced to partake in.  Our founding fathers believed in GOD and put his name on our money, in our pledge etc.  Now for the bashing from the liberals because I have a different opinion then they do.   But we live in a free country and they have that right.   

The Constitution also does not say government can not pay for the construction of churches or burn infidels at the stake.  Seriously.  Those words are nowhere in the document.

What it DOES say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  And thru the 14th Amendment, that language is taken to be applicable to state and local government.

Do you seriously contend that having a school lead children in prayer (and this only addresses schools leading prayer or teaching any religious dogma as fact, not students praying on their own, or the actual study of religion) is not "respecting religion"?

The key Supreme Court decisions addressed the issue more than 35 years ago.  Abbngton was in 1963 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/374/203 and Engle was in 1962 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421 

Both of those decisions were well before Dusty was born, let alone before he began school.

One thing I often find amusing is how many conservatives and how many of those who are most strident in their mindless insistence that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited in school (in spite of the fact that the kids are reciting something they do not even begin to understand) is that the reason it was written, and its logical actual function (to the extent that it has any), is the exact opposite of what those conservatives would want.

AndyMcFAIL is right that the author of the Pledge was Bellamy and that he was a socialist.  He wrote it at a time when the American spirit was so strongly individualistic that he and other socialists were quite aware of the fact that the American public as it then existed would never accept socialism, let alone embrace it or vote for it.  So he came up with the Pledge in the hope of indoctrinating kids, getting people to pledge allegiance to the all powerful state, and to gradually come to believe and accept what they were reciting.  The Pledge was intended to help pave the way for socialism in this country, and, to a remarkable degree, it has done exactly that.

If Rubio had been as eloquent in the debates as he was in his suspension speech, he might have won.

I don't know, Rubio's had his eloquent moments.

In hindsight, he should have focused on getting re-elected to the Senate instead of jumping the gun on running for President.  The people in Florida obviously didn't like that he probably spent more time the last two years running for President instead of being their senator. 

I spent part of my childhood living in England. I attended a little village school, no more than 75 kids, five teachers and a headmaster. The first thing the students did in the morning was pray.  The headmaster would loudly announce, "Lord's Prayer please, Yanks excused".  After that we sang, "God Save the Queen please, Yanks excused".  I was the only "Yank" in school.  I prayed, I sang, I lived.

I don't think anyone has suggested a person would not survive (or has not survived) if they are required to recite the pledge, or a prayer, or even to join a particular church and tithe to it.  It is equally true that the nation will survive (and has survived) in the absence of someone doing any of those things.  Survival really is not the question.  The question is whether the First Amendment, which (in conjunction with the 14th) prohibits government from doing anything respecting the establishment of religion, and, whether you or I think it does, the Supreme Court has decided that having a public school lead kids in prayer does qualify as "respecting" the establishment of religion.

If Rubio had not joined the "gang of eight" on the immigration issue, he might have had a chance.  A great many conservatives are sick and tired of politicians claim to be conservative during campaigns, but sacrifice what they claimed to be their beliefs once elected.

The line in the sand formed many conservatives on this issue seems to be a path to citizenship for those that came here illegally.  If he had resisted that aspect, he would not have so much of his conservative base.  Having shown himself to be willing to compromise on this issue caused many to fear that he would do so on other issues important to them.

Survival really is not the question.

Of course.  I was just sharing a little personal experience.

Interestingly, I can remember my 3rd/4th grade teacher, Mrs. Jones, a great and wonderful person, pointing out to the class one day that, as the only 'Yank", I was the only person in the room who had a choice concerning praying and singing. I liked that. Never had time to get a big head about it...as soon as I got on the playground my school chums would start asking me why my country was napalming little Vietnamese children. And when they found out what town in America I was from they wanted to know why I nuked all those poor little Japanese children.  Hard questions to answer even for an eight year old.

yes many more lives would have been saved if we would have invaded japan...not

yes many more lives would have been saved if we would have invaded japan...not

The military had ordered 500,000 body bags.