-44 votes

Is There Room for Christian Preaching Teachers in Public Schools With Ron Paul as President?

"In God We Teach" is a poignant illustration of my own personal concerns regarding the inroads that religious Christians, particularly evangelicals in the United States, have made in the republican party. I will admit that although I have taken great pains to study the links between Christian ideology and real libertarianism I am unable to find much in terms of consistency between both. Indeed, I would argue that the principles of both are not mutually consistent. Religious teaching is based on a pre defined truth regardless of societal needs while true libertarians promote the concept of freedom from all dominating forces, including religion.

It is difficult to argue philosophy especially on a such a contentious subject as the role of Christianity in the constitution and more importantly modern American society. This is why I find this film very educational. It basically describes the issues:

American must become more Christian to be saved (Santorum/fox and friend)

The right of the individual to record and challenge teachers that don't follow the constitution (liberty dude as far as I can see). As quoted in the video "to be a troublemaker is good" in this society.

The right of all and every citizen to public education free of religious brainwashing from zealous teachers (liberally minded people)
Quote from the film: The constitution is a purely secular document"

The right of any teacher to preach religious ideologies regardless of the fact that he is a public school teacher paid by the State on the basis that the bible is truth and it belongs in any and all classrooms including history class.

The question that I continued to ask myself watching this video was this:

Which side would a true libertarian support:

The young student that stood up for his rights and what he believed in even if it meant getting into trouble with officials and other schoolmates

or

The obvious lying Christian "History" teacher preaching his crap at any opportunity he has. Keep in mind that after his preaching became public he defended his preaching with the following comment "What I said was only private opinion. I wasn't preaching". He was willing to preach the word of Jesus so long as it was secret. Once it became public he chose to fight to protect his job and not the word of God. LOL

Yeap, once again...I post a divisive question. Grow up. We are all adults and debate makes us stronger. As for me, I think that student is great and he represents what makes America strong. A 15 year old boy confident enough to take on his teacher and school for what he believes in. He's a true libertarian and defender of the constitution. Awesome example of what makes American great. This begs the question....if you support the teacher in this case what does that make you?

IN GOD WE TEACH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&feature=player_embedded&h...!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No.

No.

wrong question...

the question should be "should we have public schools?"

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Spot on

Best comment

As long as they are not federally controlled

and without any state mandates.

That would be too scary for the statists.

I think the place for teaching about God is . . .

in the home (mostly); sometimes churches can do it successfully, but not always--

I believe in God, and I want my children to believe in God. But I don't want other people, however well-intentioned, to each my children about God.

But then I'm a grandparent now, and I taught my children at home.

As a Christian I don't believe that God and education can be separated, but that doesn't mean that a specific religion must be or should be taught, and even for those who don't believe in God, question everything our child/ren is/are taught--
as a parent that is your right and responsibility--

it might not be from the perspective you want, even if it is not religious (for those who aren't believers) or is religious (for those who are believers)

I think that education should not be supported by taxes, but it should be supported by parents. Let Christians support Christian schools (including separate categories for whatever denomination any parents want), Jews support Jewish schools, Muslims support Muslim schools--

schools don't have to be large to be effective. Atheists should not have to pay for religious schools, but they should be able to unite and teach their own children.

Separate school buildings for educational purposes below college level are ridiculous. Use church buildings for religious schools (of whatever kind)--

families who don't have any religion to be taught to their children still have many philosophies from which to choose. Churches are ideal, because they are empty on week days--

but atheists won't have to pay taxes for others' children to be taught and can find solutions in a society that doesn't give 'perks' to religious groups, but leaves them alone. So they will be free to use their educational dollars for the education of their children--

As a long time home educator (beginning decades ago) I had to pay taxes to support public schools, so I feel strongly about this. Nobody should have to support anyone else's children--

Get rid of the notion of 'bigger is better' in education.

Get rid of the idea that government must be involved; it should never be; it should never have been--

communities, perhaps, but communities are made up of many different kinds of groups--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Very well stated

Thank you for the very wise and fair point of view.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

it would

be a state and local issue with dr. paul as prez. he wants the federal govt out of edumacation.

Denise B's picture

To have an honest discussion

on this topic, it is necessary to clarify two very important things:
1. Although the Constitution does not specifically reference God in it, there can be no doubt that the very idea of individual rights is based on the precept that they come from God. The pre-cursor to the Constitution, (in fact, to the very Revolution for Independence itself) is that belief stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nowhere else but God himself.."We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are CREATED equal and are endowed by their CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights.....".

To deny the fact that our founders firmly believed this is simply ignorance of the facts, or at worst dishonest. It also, in my humble opinion, creates quite a quandry for the atheist/agnostic Libertarian. Many, if not all of our founders believed wholeheartedly that our rights came from God (for if they did not, they would not have agreed to sign the document under penalty of death). It is the very basis for Constitutional government because knowing that one's rights come as a gift from God, what man or government then has the right to take them away? In fact, if you try to take God out of the equation, what then is your argument for the reason that governments can not take your rights away? Why not? Because it's not fair or isn't right doesn't quite cut it as a legitimate argument - not fair or not right to whom? I'm sure they could find a whole lot of people who would claim that it is right and fair for you to lose your rights. See the issue?

2. The second clarification required is what exactly the First Amendment says and means. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the Establishment of regligion or PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF". First off, who is it that this clause is referenced to? Well, that's obvious, it's CONGRESS. Second, what is it that Congress can not do?....Establish a national religion (i.e. everybody needs to be a practicing Catholic, by Law ) and also they are prohibited from passing any LAWS which PROHIBIT the free exercise oF relgion.

That being clarified, who is breaking the First Amendment when LAWS ARE PASSED which PROHIBITS bibles from the classroom, or PROHIBITS nativity scenes on the town square, or strips a child from his diploma because he mentions Jesus in his acceptance speech?? The Constitutional Separation of Church and state is a lie. The phrase is nowhere in the Constitution itself and was concocted as a means to get God out of our public schools and institutions by the very same people who want to strip us all of our rights.

Don't you get it yet? If there is no God, than our rights do not come from Him, therefore, they are free to strip you of them.

Amen!

Amen!

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

You make the case clearly and

You make the case clearly and with a very matter of fact approach. Well done.

It amazes how much disdain is expressed against the very religion that helped form the founding of this nation. It can only occur from a lack of study concerning the nations origins. Any honest person, regardless of religious belief or lack there of, would respectfully conclude that our founders were religious men to some degree or another depending on the specific individuals.

The term "separation of church and state" is taken from a letter written by Jefferson to an assembly of Baptist preachers in which he was abating their fears of yet another state run tyrannical church in the new Republic. The end of this concept was always the protection of the liberty of mind concerning religious affiliations. Christians of that time fully understood the need for man to remain a free agent of thought when considering spiritual matters as only then is man able to come to a saving knowledge of faith without the thuggishly enforced will of the state run church or perhaps the church run state. After imprisonment, public whippings, heavy fines and even banishment of preachers by state endorsed churches the need for protection was of major importance to those who wished to worship freely without fear of negative consequences.

Denying the facts of the founders firmly held religious beliefs is indeed, as you have stated, ignorant and/or blatantly dishonest. In closing I will quote Madison in his comments regarding the rights named in the Declaration and the Constitution. Of those he has said that those rights "are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments," but rather "they are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself." Yes, the founders knew full well from whence man derived his basic human rights of life, liberty and property.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

Denise B's picture

Thank you

I guess that the bottom line of what I am trying to get across is that freedom of religion, from a Constitutional standpoint, was meant as something very different than the "freedom from religion" viewpoint which is so prevalent today. I just think if you're going to have an honest discussion on the topic, you have to get to the truth first of what the First Amendment actually means. I fully respect all persons rights to worship in whatever way they choose, or not at all if that is what they believe; however, I do not respect a person who willfully twists the truth to try to make it fit what they want it to mean. When you go down that road, you are in danger of doing exactly what you profess yourself to be against. For the Constitution to be effective as a governing document, it must be adhered to and respected in its entirety or else the rule of law is undermined. If you don't like what it says, that's fine too, there is a method which our founders gave us to adjust it if needed (ie Amendments) - not that I personally think it needs adjusting, mind you. You would think that Libertarians, of all people would understand this.

Well said. Thank you

Well said. Thank you

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Get Smart,

hey Maxwell, hope you hold fast and stay tuned to 99.
that is more helpful than Trinity for Neo, re the Matrix.

Always

Always

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Denise B's picture

Thank you!

:)

Consider this

We tell people to Vote for Ron Paul because he is a cool guy who has the right Idea about things ... so how is that any different then telling people Jesus is a cool guy who has the right Idea about things?

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

Jesus isn't running for

Jesus isn't running for president.

Which side would a true libertarian support:

The young student that stood up for his rights and what he believed in even if it meant getting into trouble with officials and other schoolmates.

or

The obvious lying atheist "History" teacher preaching his crap at any opportunity he has. Keep in mind that after his preaching became public he defended his preaching with the following comment "What I said was generally accepted "science". I wasn't preaching". He was willing to preach the words of Darwin so long as it was secret. Once it became public he chose to fight to protect his job and not the atheism he was so intent on brainwashing his students with. LOL

Hey, it can work both ways. Those of us that believe in the Bible don't want our tax dollars going into the propagating of evolution. The answer is simple. Encourage school choice, guarantee freedom of opinion and expression for all students in every school, and keep decisions at the local, school board level.

Your right

If you let the religion of Darwin in school then let other religious teaching in as well.

BTW don't start the crap that Darwinism is not a religion ... when a chicken can lay and hatch a duck then I might start to listen to that foolishness.

Darwinism = greek mythology = Big boom theory

Never ever do you get order from a big boom

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

Darwin believed in God

Similar to Franklin's beliefs. Probably 'deist.' He believed it all started with God, including the creation of natural laws, but God did not direct every change thereafter.

Darwinism has nothing to do with the Big Boom.

Animal breeders select for traits that they prefer, and they try to eliminate traits they do not want. Pressures in nature can do the same thing. Over time, the traits of the new species become so different from the original as to constitute a new species.

I forget who Darwin was talking to (either Cardinal Newman or Lord Alfred Tennyson) but they agreed that evolution did not prove God did not exist. To their way of thinking, evolution is such a neat tight theory that they felt it may actually prove God exists through natural laws.

Darwin was agnostic

He was Christian earlier in his life but grew to hate Christianity and the Christian God.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

But he continued to believe there was an original Power

He rejected Christianity, but not the concept of a creator.

Darwins Deadly Legacy

http://archive.org/details/DarwinsDeadlyLegacy

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Sigh

Come on. Really? Do we have to have these sorts of silly arguments here?

Trollbaiting is just bad form.

Eric Hoffer

I and the bible might disagree

Religion and the Bible are not the same thing silly

“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive.

1cor 10:23

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

I can do what I want

Live like free people, and do not use your freedom as an excuse for doing evil. Instead, be God's servants.
- 1 Peter 2:16

I just CHOOSE to do whats good ...

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

It's simple

If I wanted to be told what to do or tell others what to do I wouldn't be a Libertarian or a Ron Paul supporter..

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

tell me sensei, is it

tell me sensei, is it possible to pray inside of a bureau that does not exist?

23

I certainly hope NOT!!!!

Pray as you wish to whatever diety you see fit...AT HOME!! Do not force MY CHILD to pray to anything or anyone. Teach the subject matter to the best of your teaching ability and nothing more.
I am a firm believer in the Jefferson papers...separate church and state. Look how well combining religion and government has worked in the Muslim world...fanatics always get to the top somehow.

------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

I too agree with the

I too agree with the Jefferson papers. However, it would appear for reasons other than your own. The purpose of those papers, in specific the letter which is so often quoted, written to an assembly of Baptist preachers, was to assure the free worship of believers free from state interference. It seems that the context of "separation of church and state" is often neglected.
Ultimately, the decisions of what is to be taught to pupils ought to be determined on a VERY local level and thereby involve parents in the education of their children far more than many presently are willing or able to do. Our public schools could sadly be estimated as little more than tax funded, state controlled day cares which endeavor to turn out a dumbed down and dependent generation of pupils. This end has been well accomplished without the "interference" of religious..."fanatics", was it?

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin