Religion in Schools

[bbk 188]

Haha, nice, here I thought I was thinking too metaphysically about the topic

 

The question I pose then is what is reality? Reality itself is arguably created on two fronts, the personal and the socially constructed. They are in fact recursive, in that they work with each other, repeatedly, and infinitely. However, I would dispute that notion, and simply say that reality is always created by the personal. Social construction in itself is a powerful thought, but lends authority to society. The creation of reality as a personal indicates that we, as individuals, are capable of essentially being our own reality... our own universe, god, etc. This is similar to the Buddhist philosophy (and I say that lightly as I'm not overly familiar with Buddhism). By being our own reality, the fact that whether we understand certain dimensions and are oblivious to others is moot (though the whole topic of alternate dimensions is fascinating).

 

To go off on a further tangent though, the whole alternate dimensions/reality thing is pretty wild. There is empirical data that indicates that the human can only understand certain frequencies-- hence truths. We see in a short range of colors, hear a limited range of decibels, and are heavily dependent on only five senses (and for many not even all five). Our spatial reasoning is hence limited to understanding essentially four dimensions (the fourth being time), while there could be countless. So, what truths actually exist? What are the true anomalies? Ghosts? Daemons? Fairies? Of course these references are to original folklore, the type that predate the rise of organized, monotheistic religion. Its actually a given that in many of these cultures that shared these folk stories it was understood that there was simply a realm of reality beyond the comprehension of humans. This is found in places like Southern UK (I believe), and East Asia (notably China). The same references could be made to Native American tribes with the idea of spirit walking, as well as Mesoamerican cultures and their rituals (like bloodletting). Interestingly enough, the experimentation with LSD in America, both recreational and by the government (remote viewing, anyone?) would also be examples.

 

But back to my point. Reality is created by the personal, and, like faith, as long as it exists, whether in the mind of one or many, that reality will never cease to exist (until that person is gone, so to speak). That's really metaphysical, so, sorry if it doesn't make much sense.

 

As for your input, Dave, I get a Wachowski brothers' vibe + something else my tired brain just can't think of right now-- good stuff regardless!

[dave545 15]

oh no i knew it was a joke lol i did think of inception when i was writing that and was like oh god THEY KNEW

[dave545 15]

dont know who the wachowski brothers are but i might need to find out now lol. I like your concept of Metaphysicality and i somewhat agree with it that is where my idea of dream worlds being alternate universies an us being our own gods being in charge and in control of our future. As for remote viewing that stuff is crazy i wish i was able to unlock my minds true potential, i do believe that remote viewing is possible, why couldnt it be. everything gives off different types of waves and frequencies and they never dissapear but only lessen in strength but if you can train your brain to pick up on those slight waves and disturbances if you will than your brain can re organize them into something familiar like shapes and images and then you would be in theory looking at something else somewehere else and the time difference would only be as long as it would take those waves to reach you. your brain would assemble them in ways similar to that of how we can comprehend and understand words which are just sound waves and then quickly associate them with a meaning.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

dont know who the wachowski brothers are but i might need to find out now lol.

 

no need to look, u already know who they are.... the matrix lol.

[dave545 15]

oh lol

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Do you read Arabic? Are you sure you know what that treaty says?

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Your comment reads as if you believe we cannot trust anything we read that wasn't originally written in our native language. Do you read Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin? Most religious works have been translated many times.

[woodentoe 14]

 

Most religious works have been translated many times.

 

 

And, therefore should be approached and studied very carefully. Lest the whims of man cloud the message.

[rdsmith3 19]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Your comment reads as if you believe we cannot trust anything we read that wasn't originally written in our native language. Do you read Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin? Most religious works have been translated many times.

 

It is not wise to use one paragraph from one treaty to support the contention that America was not founded as a Christian nation. I am not an expert on this treaty by any means, but I have read enough to know that the translation from Arabic to English is very controversial, and it may not say what you think it says. That treaty also exists with a political context, and context is very important. If you read the Declaration of Independence and other documents from that era, it is clear that the founding fathers were deists, if not Christian.

[rdsmith3 19]

I think the issue is not so much religion as it is one of values. Where do your values come from? Are they absolute, or relative?

 

Parents should certainly be teaching values to children, but they don't always do that. Schools should be reinforcing the values. We can avoid religion in our schools, but we cannot avoid values. Virtually every law in our country is based on someone's idea of morality.

 

When the vast majority of people in the country shared Judeo-Christian values, even if they did not realize it, then there was generally a consensus. However, I believe the problem now is one of moral relativism. People try to rationalize all sorts of immoral behavior.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

&--#60;p&--#62; &--#60;/p&--#62;

&--#60;p&--#62;

&--#60;br /&--#62;

It is not wise to use one paragraph from one treaty to support the contention that America was not founded as a Christian nation.  I am not an expert on this treaty by any means, but I have read enough to know that the translation from Arabic to English is very controversial, and it may not say what you think it says. That treaty also exists with a political context, and context is very important. If you read the Declaration of Independence and other documents from that era,&--#60;strong&--#62; &--#60;/strong&--#62;it is clear that the founding fathers were deists,&--#60;strong&--#62; if not Christian.&--#60;/strong&--#62;&--#60;br /&--#62;

 

Being a deist and a Christian are two completely different things. The latter part of your last sentence is completely misleading, Christian Revisionism at its best! Regardless, even if they were Christians, which they were not, that doesn't mean they founded the country on Christian principles. Please show me in the Declaration, The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers where the words; God [referring specifically to the Christian interpretation], Jesus, Christ, Christianity, or the Bible are mentioned. Just so you don't waste your time... they aren't mentioned. You will find no reference to Christ in any of the founding documents of the U.S. Our founding fathers were educated, intelligent men. If they had meant to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation, surely they would have mentioned that intention in one of the founding documents. Instead they made the most important of all directives include the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

 

The Treaty was one example. It is also not wise to assume because one is Christian that every act he/she undertakes is in the name of Christianity.

[rdsmith3 19]

<p> </p>

<p></p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Being a deist and a Christian are two completely different things. The latter part of your last sentence is completely misleading, Christian Revisionism at its best! Regardless, even if they were <strong>all</strong> Christians, which they were not, that doesn't mean they founded the country on Christian principles. Please show me in the Declaration, The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers where the words; God [referring specifically to the Christian interpretation], Jesus, Christ, Christianity, or the Bible are mentioned. Just so you don't waste your time... they aren't mentioned. You will find no reference to Christ in any of the founding documents of the U.S. Our founding fathers were educated, intelligent men. If they had meant to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation, surely they would have mentioned that intention in one of the founding documents. Instead they made the most important of all directives include the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Treaty was one example. It is also not wise to assume because one is Christian that every act he/she undertakes is in the name of Christianity. </p>

<br />

 

Not sure why you're so angry but 1) you avoided the issue of the treaty, and 2) I am having a hard time reading your post.

 

ETA: If you read carefully what I wrote, rather than just reacting, you will see that I did not claim the US was founded as a Christian nation.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

When the vast majority of people in the country shared Judeo-Christian values, even if they did not realize it, then there was generally a consensus. However, I believe the problem now is one of moral relativism. People try to rationalize all sorts of immoral behavior.

 

You could easily argue that Judeo-Christian values were born of simple rules that civilized cultures realized they needed to incorporate so that there wasn't anarchy. No stealing, murdering, etc. Is it necessary to frame those rules with religions meaning? For some I guess it is, others can take it for what it is, the innate desire to survive, whether alone or in a group. The more densely populated the group the more important it is to stick to rules of civilized behavior.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Not sure why you're so angry but 1) you avoided the issue of the treaty, and 2) I am having a hard time reading your post.

 

LOL, seriously, a few formatting errors and you're unable to read it? Why is a direct and factual response angry? I addressed the treaty, it is one example. Obviously not a good example to you but since neither of us read Arabic I'm not going to debate with you the meaning of the Article.

 

FYI: I fixed it.

 

As for you're not claiming the U.S. is a Christian nation, that isn't what my post was countering. You found an issue with the validity of my referencing the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. You either did that because you believe the U.S. is a Christian nation or you just wanted to argue. So, I did what most would do under such circumstances, provided additional information on how I formed my opinion, since it is unwise to base an opinion on 1 particular source of information If you don't believe the U.S. is a nation founded on Christianity I'm not sure what your argument is and why you would share your opinion that the founding documents make it clear [they don't, as I've shown] that the founding fathers were mostly Christian.

[rdsmith3 19]

There is a difference between the founding fathers being Christians, as individuals, and the US being founded as a "Christian" nation. The evidence on the founding fathers seems to be that some were deists (e.g. Franklin and Jefferson) and many were Christians.

 

Also, when you make statements such as, "Christian Revisionism at its best!" that is not a factual response. It is an opinion, which you are free to express, but you should not claim it as a "direct and factual response."

[rdsmith3 19]

One interesting thing I came across is the New Jersey Constitution of 1776.

 

As noted on this web site, Articles 18 and 19 outlawed a religious establishment, prohibiting the use of tax dollars to support any religion. However it limited public office to Protestants.

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/168/New_Jersey_Constitution_of_1776_1.html

 

 

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any pretence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.

 

XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

[leahcim 680]

Separation church and state... doesn't get much simpler then that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Singing a traditional and/or patriotic song in a public school is not Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Also, when you make statements such as, "Christian Revisionism at its best!" that is not a factual response. It is an opinion, which you are free to express, but you should not claim it as a "direct and factual response."

 

So you're stuck on 5 words out of the entire paragraph? The least 5 important words in the paragraph. Ignoring the other words which basically pooped all over your argument that the founding documents make it clear that our nation was founded by bible thumping Christians?

 

At this point I really don't know what your argument is for or against. You're just playing devil's advocate and for some reason won't actually choose a side of the fence, that's fine you don't have to. But I've responded to your initial comment questioning the validity of basing an argument on one excerpt from a translated treaty. I did so in a factual manner. So I'm done for now. If you would like to show some proof that our founding documents are based in xtianity and/or that our founding fathers founded this country on xtianity, we can pick it up again. Or you can just say something equivocating like "well I never said the U.S. was based on Christianity".

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Singing a traditional and/or patriotic song in a public school is not Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

 

please read

Everson v. Board of Education

This is one of MANY rulings, but the most well known AND took part here in NJ.

 

The 1st ammendment is design to protect religious freedom, it is not about separation of church and state which has been broadened using supreme court rulings and the ideas Thomas Jefferson laid forth.

 

Separation of church and state does not come down to a simple excerpt from the 1st amendment, it is much more complicated, however the idea is simple.

 

I could easily sit here and copy and paste the 2nd amendment and tell everyone they can carry a gun based on what it says, that's basically the reasoning you just gave me. We all know that to be not true.