Hi Chris....

Just a couple of thoughts before I quit as there seems to be some folks that are offended by any talk of religion and make the giant leap that if you speak any word about it at all you are some flamming evangelist trying to convert all them and their children. It always cracks me up... the leaps of logic that are made. < vbg >

>As you the individual sees fit. It does not mean that my children will be >forced to follow your religious beliefs, much less be exposed to them, or any >one else's, in a public school.

Where is this happening?

>You can practice your religion and your beliefs any time you want. Just not on >my time. *g*

Humm..... ??? < vbg >

>>So would putting up a poster with the communist manifesto also be prohibited?
>>What about the stuff of secular huminism?? by the way... recognized as a >>religion under current laws.

>I'll leave that to the courts. Are you arguing that you are better qualified >to rule on this than they are?

Good %#@* NO. How did you get that?

I was simply stating that if you are goning to exclude the 10 commandments on a basis that they support relision then you have to exclude any other religious material.

At what point is this decided and who decides it? A communist principal putting up Marx is just as bad as a Jewish principal putting up the 10 Commandments.

But if you REALLY believe in freedom of speech.....

>I disagree. The posting of the Ten Commandments is a not so thinly veiled attempt at the establishment of Christianity in our schools.

Well I respect you opinion but I do no agree. < s >

>I have no problem with children learning the religious backrounds and thoughts >of our founding fathers.

GOOD! Then you will be all for a change in the current books being used to "teach" our children as EVERY instance of belief in ANY faith is totally gone from the texts.




But the argument has never been about that. It is a backdoor method to the establishment of religion, plain and simple. And the US Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand.

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or >of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to >petition the government for a redress of grievances

mval=occurs('seperation of church and state')
?mval
0

That is all I argued... those words are not there! < s >


>And posting the Ten Commandments, a clearly Judeo/Christian document, would be >the first step in the establishment of religion.

As I said, I'm not that hip on HAVING to have the commandments posted in schools. I do think, however, that it is a denial of the right to expression if they are refused. So we are not going to agree on that and that is fine. < s >


>This is incorrect. The US Supreme Court struck this down in Boerne v. Flores, >June 25th, 1997.

You may be right about the supreme court.. I will check. I do know that it did pass both the house and the senate so it at the very least speaks to the recognition that religious freedoms have been taken away.

>Yeah, me too. Too many flies in Canada during the summer. *g*

NOt to mention the fact that their beer stinks! < vbg >