Christian Politics

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:17 pm

As a Christian statesman, rather than churchman, I would claim that Christian citizens can freely exercise their constitutional and God-given rights to free religious speech and free exercise of religion within both church and state assemblies here in America, if not anywhere else in the world.

I'm sure there may be a few posters on this political forum who may disagree with, and object to, such a Christian political claim in their state and city government. However, I am willing to prove that they would have no more right to speak freely in government than a Christian statesman does, if they deny him his God-given and constitutional right to speak religiously and to exercise and express his religious beliefs and opinions in state government.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:40 pm

Barring any and all religions in government and public schools is a case of blatant religious discrimination and in violation of our Bill of Rights and our civil rights, the SCOTUS notwithstanding.

Discrimination implies that one group is treated differently than another. Religious discrimination implies either that one religious group is denied rights that others have, or that all religious groups are denied rights that the non-religious have.

What possible right do non-religious people in the the US have that religious people do not? What rights can you point to that some religious groups have that others do not? Remember, the distinction must be made solely on the basis of religion, not gender or another category.

Since when do secular atheists, sexists and racists have all the rights in government and public schools?

Any such people that exist have the same rights as religious people. Christian sexists and racists have the same rights as non-Christian sexists and racists.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:06 pm

micatala wrote:What possible right do non-religious people in the the US have that religious people do not?

Non-religious teachers can teach and indoctrinate non-religiously in US public schools.

jcrawford wrote:Since when do secular atheists, sexists and racists have all the rights in government and public schools?

Christian sexists and racists have the same rights as non-Christian sexists and racists.

Only atheistic and secular sexists and racists are indoctrinating children in US public schools though.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:26 pm

micatala wrote:
What possible right do non-religious people in the the US have that religious people do not?

Non-religious teachers can teach and indoctrinate non-religiously in US public schools.

jcrawford wrote:
Since when do secular atheists, sexists and racists have all the rights in government and public schools?

Quote:
Christian sexists and racists have the same rights as non-Christian sexists and racists.
Only atheistic and secular sexists and racists are indoctrinating children in US public schools though.

Again, two very sweeping statements. My guess is that both are likely entirely false.

Please provide evidence supporting them, if you believe them to be true.

I can say that in our area, there are essentially no non-religious teachers. Nationwide, the percentage of non-religious teachers in the K-12 educational system is likely to be a small minority, given that upwards of 85% of Americans are Christians, and there are significant numbers that practice other religions.

Here is a definition of indoctrination.

1 indoctrination

teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

and of doctrine

a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school of thought

Can you provide any evidence that non-religious teachers are indoctrinating students in public schools? Please spell out what the particular doctrines are, document that they are being taught as part of the curriculum only by non-religious teachers, and document that they are being taught uncritically.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:53 pm

micatala wrote:Can you provide any evidence that non-religious teachers are indoctrinating students in public schools? Please spell out what the particular doctrines are, document that they are being taught as part of the curriculum only by non-religious teachers, and document that they are being taught uncritically.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03122006/po ... /65103.htm

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4579

http://www.rae.org/indoctrination.html

http://www.equip.org/free/DN118.htm

http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/001921.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/12/ ... chool.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=18309

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:57 pm

I asked for evidence.

Opinion is not evidence.

Most of these are nothing but the biased opinions of people who want to convince others that indoctrination is actually occurring. A few of them might be actual isolate occurences of a teacher who is not examining the issues as critically as they should.

I did not see anywhere documentation that the teachers in question were 'non-religious'. Without this, you have failed to provide documentation to respond to my question.

Some of these sites noted that controversial subjects were being debated in the classroom. Because some of the opinions expressed were not those of those writing these screeds you cite, they claim indoctrination. However, if there is a debate going on, this in and of itself implies that their is at least a good faith effort to approch the views critically.

Remember, indoctrination means teaching people to accept certain beliefs uncritically.

It is the people writing the articles you cite that are asking people to accept a certain view uncritically, and it seems you have bought into this hook line and sinker.

These articles, including the one citing the infamous 'bashing Bush' speech did not consider viewpoints other than the one they want to push. This is uncritical. Can these people prove this teacher did not provide a contravening view for students to consider? Did they consider all of what this teacher has said over a number of class periods, or only the 20 minute segment that they found useful for inflaming their political base? Can you document that this teacher is 'non-religious'?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:31 am

micatala wrote:Opinion is not evidence.

But that's all he has. In fact, that's all any theist has, that's what theology is based on.

Most of these are nothing but the biased opinions of people who want to convince others that indoctrination is actually occurring. A few of them might be actual isolate occurences of a teacher who is not examining the issues as critically as they should.

You have to remember that according to a lot of Christians, the very refusal to allow Christianity to proseletyze is somehow anti-Christian indoctrination. It's the same thing as the people who throw out the "intolerance" card whenever someone suggests that Christianity shouldn't be allowed to be intolerant and hateful toward other religions and peoples. I'm not quite sure where being intolerant toward the intolerant is somehow a bad thing.

Can you document that this teacher is 'non-religious'?

Good luck, you'll just get a lot of empty, baseless claims, insults, etc. and he'll never be able to document a thing. His beliefs are without basis, which is why everyone laughs at him all the time.

1John2_26 · Post by **1John2_26** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:36 pm

jcrawford wrote:
If atheists and secularists have the right to force their beliefs on others, don't Christians, Jews and Muslims have the same right in America? If not, what are we doing supporting and defending religious states in the Middle East and Afghanistan with our tax dollars for?

Since when are atheists trying to force their beliefs on anyone?

How about every public school in the western world? And many private universities have parasitized by the secular gospel promoted by atheist prophets of Chucky D. No dissent aloud. Oops I mean allowed.

When was the last time there was a law passed to close your church or burn your Bible? You're blowing smoke out of your patootie, as usual.

yeah the Christians can stay in their ghetto's as long as no one can hear them speack that may get "offended."

And I don't know, why don't you ask your CHRISTIAN President about that?

Would that be President bush a secualr leader of the United States of America? A country founded on secualrism?

That "Christian" Preseident?

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:32 am

How about every public school in the western world? And many private universities have parasitized by the secular gospel promoted by atheist prophets of Chucky D. No dissent aloud. Oops I mean allowed.

First off who is this Chucky D you're speaking of, only Chuck D I know of is from the band public enemy. Sounds like you are saying that if an educational institute isn't teaching religion as part of its curricula that it has been coopted by the secular establishment? It also seems as if you consider secularism to be a religion which is strange since secular refers to the non religious specifically, so there CANNOT be a secular gospel.

yeah the Christians can stay in their ghetto's as long as no one can hear them speack that may get "offended."

What ghetto's reserved for christians are you talking about? In the U.S. at least christians speak out often, look at the recent I.D. debate that has been raging, mind you they messed up horribly but it wasn't because they weren't allowed to speak. In fact if anything things went as badly as they did for them because they WERE allowed to speak.

Would that be President bush a secualr leader of the United States of America? A country founded on secualrism?

That "Christian" Preseident?

Theres a reason why Bush is the secular leader of the U.S., that being that he never bothered going to seminary. Non-secular leaders have titles such as cardinal, bishop, imam, rabbi etc. In fact the only country with a non-secular leader that I can think of is vatican city.

Most countries are monocultures, one people, one language, one religion. On the other hand there are countries like the U.S. which is made from people from many places who have many languages and many religions. In this type of a setting anyone who wants to be president although they have their own religion they are required by oath to represent all the people not just one group.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:08 am

1John2_26 wrote:How about every public school in the western world? And many private universities have parasitized by the secular gospel promoted by atheist prophets of Chucky D. No dissent aloud. Oops I mean allowed.

I think that it is somewhat flippant to refer to Charles Darwin as Chucky D. Whether you agree with him or not, his importance to the development of science should not be minimized in such a way. This manner of reference is apparently confusing to some. I think that it would be some what confusing and perhaps insulting if I were to refer to Martin Luther and C. S. Lewis as Marty and Clive.

1John2_26 · Post by **1John2_26** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:01 am

Oh McColluch, you're awesome sometimes. I need a laugh sometimes.

1John2_26 wrote:
How about every public school in the western world? And many private universities have parasitized by the secular gospel promoted by atheist prophets of Chucky D. No dissent aloud. Oops I mean allowed.

I think that it is somewhat flippant to refer to Charles Darwin as Chucky D. Whether you agree with him or not, his importance to the development of science should not be minimized in such a way. This manner of reference is apparently confusing to some. I think that it would be some what confusing and perhaps insulting if I were to refer to Martin Luther and C. S. Lewis as Marty and Clive.

Did I blaspheme that leader of all things? Please excuse me. But you proved my point of the ultimate power of evolution and its "take no prisoners" motives. Exactly my point that now the intolerant ones are the secualrists. How fascinating.

Quote:
How about every public school in the western world? And many private universities have parasitized by the secular gospel promoted by atheist prophets of Chucky D. No dissent aloud. Oops I mean allowed.

First off who is this Chucky D you're speaking of, only Chuck D I know of is from the band public enemy. Sounds like you are saying that if an educational institute isn't teaching religion as part of its curricula that it has been coopted by the secular establishment?

How is that you didn't know what I mena but understand my point perfectly. Religion dominates the earth's people's and is purged from our education systems. Somethings up.

It also seems as if you consider secularism to be a religion which is strange since secular refers to the non religious specifically, so there CANNOT be a secular gospel.

Secualrism is a religion now. Defendeed by apologists of secualrism as well. Click on infidels.org and see the homogenized club for yourself.

Quote:
yeah the Christians can stay in their ghetto's as long as no one can hear them speack that may get "offended."

What ghetto's reserved for christians are you talking about? In the U.S. at least christians speak out often, look at the recent I.D. debate that has been raging, mind you they messed up horribly but it wasn't because they weren't allowed to speak.

The Dover board lied it seems quite clear. yet, the many scientists that support ID do not. Yet, it is silenced by the Secular Priesthood of totalitarians.

In fact if anything things went as badly as they did for them because they WERE allowed to speak.

The school board members deserved what they got and seem lucky if they were not charged with a crime when lying under oath. But interesting to note. what do the take an oath on in a secualr court?

Quote:
Would that be President bush a secualr leader of the United States of America? A country founded on secualrism?

That "Christian" Preseident?

Theres a reason why Bush is the secular leader of the U.S., that being that he never bothered going to seminary. Non-secular leaders have titles such as cardinal, bishop, imam, rabbi etc. In fact the only country with a non-secular leader that I can think of is vatican city.

What? Bush became a "Born-Again Christian" from studying the Bible with Christians. He is still the secular President. He has sent no missionaries anywhere.

Most countries are monocultures, one people, one language, one religion.

How many? Islamic ones? I cannot find any. Even in Suadi Arabia there are silenced Christians. Hey, just like the US?

On the other hand there are countries like the U.S. which is made from people from many places who have many languages and many religions. In this type of a setting anyone who wants to be president although they have their own religion they are required by oath to represent all the people not just one group.

Ummm, just what Bush did. He even sent out "holiday cards" during "Christmas."

Ahhhh, I mean the "Winter Holiday season." Please don't report me to the ACLU.