>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 >

It does not bother me. From my perspective, I have had one too many people try to tell me that their religion is the true religion. With absolute certainty. This use to bug the &%@#! out of me, but it does not anymore. But neither your nor Doug's posts have come across that way to me.

>>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?

That is what I feel will happen if the Ten Commandments are posted in schools. It is the first step of the establishment of religion in our schools, and I have a healthy fear of the Christian right, and their agenda.

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

*g*

>>>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 don't think the US Supreme Court has a problem with the Communist Manifesto being posted. And if they do, I'll trust there opinion. Didn't mean to jump down your throat. *g*

>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 believe in freedom of speech. But there are limits. To paraphrase Steve Martin, you can't yell "movie!" in a crowded firehouse *g*. And I do not know about the Communist Manifesto. But I believe enough in the Supreme Court to let them figure that out.

I guess what I am saying is that I put a lot of trust in the Supreme Court, and when they say that posting the Ten Commandments is illegal. If they say that posting the Communist Manifesto is illegal in schools, I'll abide by that too. I'll start to worry when they say that adults cannot read the Communist Manifesto.

>>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 >

And I respect yours. Tomorrow we will be having another meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society. *g*

>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.

And I have no problem teaching them the religious tyranny of the Puritans. *g*

>>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 >

I agree, but their intent is clear to me. No posting of the Ten Commandments in the schools. If you want your children to learn religion in school, send them to a private school that teaches religion. I have no problem whatsoever with that. Don't get me started on school vouchers. *g*

>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 >

No, there are a lot of things we do not allow in our schools. Freedom of speech and expression clearly have their limits, especially concerning children.

>>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.

I disagree, I think it speaks of politics, and the desire of politicians to be reelected. Similar to the burning the flag debate. Proposing an amendment to the Consitition prohibiting burning the flag helps them get elected or reelected.

>>Yeah, me too. Too many flies in Canada during the summer. *g*
>
>NOt to mention the fact that their beer stinks! < vbg >

And I think they gave us Celine Dion. *g*