Steve RE: Freedom of religion

 
...of religion You have the right to worship as you please. The government has no business either supporting or opposing religion.

 
Jack, you didn’t react to my feeler:
 
"Billy Bob hoped that he would still be able to bring his Bible to school and read it in free time. He hoped he could still write essays on spiritual matters and give Christian literature to and pray for his classmates while telling them about Christ."

Does your ‘freedom of religion’ tenant allow Billy Bob to do this without government opposition?

 
Would it be allowable to offer elective courses: ‘The Bible as Literature’, ‘The Bible as History in the Light of Archaeological Evidence’, ‘Old Testament Survey’, ‘New Testament Survey’, ‘Christian History’, or ‘Major Christian Doctrines’?

 
I know that, in general, the liberal philosophy would denounce this notion, but your ‘freedom of religion’ statement would, on its face, seem to allow it. As these would be elective choosings, it would appear that government is neither supporting nor opposing. (I know that the courts have declared these all illegal, including most of Billy Bob’s activity. But, I want to know what you think.)

It seems odd to me that activities that were constitutional for over 150 years magically became unconstitutional in the last 50- 60. I hadn’t seen the amendments passed in support of these changes.

 
Let’s get real... the Constitution don’t mean nuthin’. It has a nose of wax that can be reformed in the image of whoever has usurped the power to do so– usually judges who consider themselves far more intelligent, wiser, and insightful than the rest of us. They bypass the lawful means of making these changes, since they would have to rely on votes by the ignorant masses or even their duly elected commoners. It would be tough to make the case that "I also think that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Actions have consequences. Since God had been effectively expelled from government schools in 1962 there have been results. (You'll say coincidences, but it’s definitely worth pondering.) In the subsequent 30 years births to unwed teens jumped from 15 to 45 per thousand (legalized abortion has even slowed that rate) , cases of teen gonorrhea jumped from 14 to 54 per thousand, female headed, single parent households jumped from 5 to 12 million, the growth of violent crime jumped from 300,00 to 1.9 million cases.

 
For 10 years I taught and administrated in a small school. I would receive information from organizations such as SAT and ACT. Their data indicated that, although grade point averages were rising since 1962, achievement scores had dropped considerably. SAT scores dropped 90 points in less than 15 years. They later ‘dumbed down’ the test to get scores falsely to a higher level. We tested our own students annually with the California Achievement Test using 1963 norms even though the CAT testing board had since lowered the norms twice.

 
"Progress is what Liberalism really means; moral progress, economic progress, and social progress to benefit all humanity. This represents the path towards a better world. At its heart, Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy."

 
It is my claim that liberal government involvement has been the major impetus in exacerbating problems in education, health care, crime, and poverty. So please pardon my skepticism when someone looks to the federal government to solve a cultural crisis and blaze ‘the path towards a better world.’

Would you buy a Yugo from this man?