-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


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?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Why say in a thousand words

Why say in a thousand words what one or two sentences can adequately convey?

Good point..


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



~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Once the dept of education is

Once the dept of education is cut and public education is removed from the federal government, you may see states take up their own public education system and youre likely to see a lot more private schools.

As to those state public schools they are legally bound by the US constitution.

Supreme Court per internet search...
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Riddle me this.

If Christianity and freedom are inconsistent, I have a crapload of questions for you.

#1: Why did the Founders - most of whom were Christian, and all of whom had that same basic worldview - get together and write what has so far been the single most freedom-oriented governing document EVER? Why did real freedom first appear in Christian-majority, Christian-culture Western nations, rather than in pagan/Islamic/Easter religion nations like China, India, or others?

#2: Is atheism consistent with freedom? Where do our rights come from? Also, compare the freedoms of these: semi-secular government with no explicit religion but no bias against it, and slight bias TOWARDS religion culturally (early U.S.), overtly religious government (medieval Europe), and overtly atheistic government (all I can think of are socialist nations: Red China, Soviet Union, modern Europe, modern U.S.). I just named those in order of decreasing freedom. Certainly, merging church and state leads to oppression quite often, but historically, explicitly atheistic/secular governments have been orders of magnitude more oppressive, or majority-secular worldview cultures. By far the most free has been the early U.S., which was heavily religious culturally, but without a FUSION of church and state.

Now, regarding the history teacher, that is not to be decided on a national level; if public schools are to exist, they must be controlled at an absolutely local level. Please do note that Jesus was a historical figure, whether you follow His teachings or not. We have more evidence for His existence than we do for the existence of Socrates. As in, way more. You'll find that many places and empires in the Bible are quite historical, and events that are questioned merely need verification. They thought Jericho didn't exist, then they found it. Same with Ninevah.

For bonus Bible accuracy points: Luke (author of Luke, obviously, and Acts) goes out of his way to provide historical context, allowing us modern readers to cross-reference it with other sources. The detail, especially in Acts (my personal favorite book of the Bible) is really surprising.

Okay, sorry for the wall o' text, but I had to spit it out eventually.

Dr Paul believes public schools are state and local

government issues, to fund and to what they teach. He will not give advise on your issue, because the Constitution doesn't give the Fed's any power to intervene, as they do now. I am a Christian, but when you except the teaching of the Bible in the classroom, you don't know if they will teach the 'TRUE' message of Yaheshua or their own apostate brand of Christianity. In other words, I definitely don't want apostate Christian dispemsationalism and Zionism promoted by the Scofield Reference Bible taught in the public schools, but that should be determined by local school boards.
The premise in your first paragraph, that 'Religous teaching is base on pre-difined truth' is completely and totally inaccurate. All Christian 'religions' are based on different doctrines of beliefs. Do you as a 'evangelical' think a Catholic should be teaching his/her doctrine to your children? Even if it's a teacher of 'evangelism', you still have to question what message they actually teach. I'm no Bible scholar, but Christ's teachings state, that those who believe in Him are the 'chosen' and will spread the remnant of Israel throughout the world. He never refered to the Holy Land until Revelations. Those who support Israel should read Rev 2:9 and 3:9, to understand what they are supporting.

With Ron Paul as President...

...there's no room for public schools.

Assuming that public education is here to stay ...

Paul's position is the most correct in the eye of the libertarian.

Local funding.
Local elected School Boards highly accountable to the local voters.
No more department of education at the federal level.

Then the more accurate libertarian question should be, "What should be taught in general?

Competition will mold the best answers.


We have the right to our religon, to influence ourselves in whatever manner. You then live your own life based on your beliefs and may influence people in that way, if they want to learn more they can ask and then be guided. No one should be able to "preach" in public schools only teach the course they are supposed to. If the example you set by your life is not enough to win people over then you need to work on yourself more anyway.

Here's the connection

Since the time of Jesus Christ, the only time Liberty has prevailed it has been with the help of His grace, i.e.- they were Christians. Because if you serve God, you cannot serve man. God gave them the strength to succeed, and without it, they would not have, and neither will we.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Let There Be Light =

= Let Truth Be Spoken.

Yes, but No license to bs in the name of religion. Let there be a free market of ideas & info, put them to scrutiny & verification.
Non-aggression, no coercion, & voluntary assembly.

I certainly hope not.

I certainly hope not.

Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!

Want the solution?


Competition will provide for your wishes.

We will be free to choose to put our children in a non-religious school, a christian school, or any school we choose.

It is wrong to steal from others to provide for something you want for "free".

In order for government to fund schooling it has to steal money at gunpoint, to do so.

If they aren't taking huge chunks of our wages, and there is plenty of free market competition in schooling, it could be as cheap as paying your electric, water, or cable bill.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I don't necessarily disagree,

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'll provide a counter-argument... If all schools were privatized, the poorest segment of the population would eventually end up with advertiser and corporate-sponsored schooling that would tailor the educational component to benefit these sponsors, yes?

Thus, we would eventually have primary and secondary schools teaching children of the benefits of Nike and Martha Stewart health and home-economics programs, Microsoft science and mathematics, history by Goldman Sachs and comparative religions sponsored by Glenn Beck Entertainment.

To borrow a small bit of "bible wisdom", the poor (and disabled) will always be among us and there will always be economic disparities, even under a strict Libertarian economic and political system, so should a smaller, liberty-first government focus it's resources on those hidden poor and unable to care for themselves in addition to it's Constitutionally limited functions? Or should "survival of the fittest" / charity of good people be the only answer to a self-actualized American population?

Government is violence.

How can we truly be free, so long as a gang of thieves can deprive us of our property?

In order to pay for public schooling, men with guns and badges have to steal from us, if we refuse they will lock us in a cage, if we refuse to be caged and defend ourselves, they will kill us.

Do "good" intentions, or shiny badges, make stealing and initiatory violence alright?

I don't believe so.

What if there was a way we could all be free to do as we pleased, so long as we did not commit aggression against one another?

I believe there is a way.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Again, I am arguing the

Again, I am arguing the opposite point of view to explore the subject...

I think we will agree that most all of us act in our own self-interest, hopefully we act with enlightened self-interest, but it is not required. People who are economically disadvantaged or unable to provide for themselves... How can they exercise their freedoms and natural rights if they will simply perish without a social safety net? As critics of conservatives like to say (and I'll use the term "conservative" in a pejorative form here), 'a conservative is the only one who will raise hell and fight for your birth, then leave you to die when you're no longer a baby'.

The Film


I hope you watch the film. What I would like to know is whether or not the the young 15 year old boy is a patriot and a libertarian or would you side with his teacher that claims he should be free to teach religion in History class.

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Quit bumping your own thread.

Quit bumping your own thread. We detractors are doing just fine keeping it on top.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln


sorry for the bump, that was a good one.

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

And quit voting up your own

And quit voting up your own comments too.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

If you lived in China

You'd be learning their religions in school. The religions prevalent there are Buddhism and Taoism.

As a Christian would feel comfortable learning about the religion, not because you were interested and wanted to pick up it, but because you had no choice? That's a hypothetical question. We both know what the answer is.

So, is it fair, in the US where everything is supposed to be free and equal to expect everyone else to learn your religion? No, it's not. Being forceful is NOT the way to get people to join you, in fact it's a turnoff.

And then wrap your mind around this...in 100 years, the US could have a majority belief in atheism. At that time they may feel it's appropriate to ban religion from schools and only allow the big bang theory to be taught.

At that point, people like you will be yelling and screaming, "Hey! We deserve a right to learn about things we believe in too!" and you think you'll get a reasonable response, but you'll hear a shocking truth: "You made us learn religion in school since the existence of our country. It's our turn now."

What's the solution? Liberty and freedom. Get the government out of school and everything else and let the people decide.

It's the same thing with gay marriage, abortion, etc. - Right now you have the opportunity to block those laws on a federal level, but when a majority of people who don't think like you decide to change that...good luck. Remember the golden rule and apply it to everything and you should do just fine.


Lmfao, look at the highest rated comments on the video...

"'Without heaven, why be good?'
Because I'm not an asshole who requires a grand prize to act humane."

"The teacher can't even get through a simple interview without throwing around bible verses. And he puts God and his country before his family. How would you like to be his wife and kids sitting in last place of his top three priorities. Sorry, but my family is #1."

Well, those are some good observations. I think I've made my decision on whether or not to watch.

As is typical here, opinions stated as fact...


In the People's Republic of China, formal religious education is banned except in licensed schools of theology, which are usually college-level and above. These colleges are state-supported and usually very small, with limited enrollments and budgets. Religious education usually occurs in scheduled sessions in private homes.[2] Religious teachers usually move on a weekly or monthly circuit, staying as guests in private houses in exchange for teaching.

Teaching Christian morals, kindness, tolerance etc

is one thing, but Christianity is a personal relationship and can't be "taught", only experienced.

Those morals are shared by

Those morals are shared by all good people, including atheists and the religious of other stripes.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

In a word, no.

The question is trollish.

Federal involvement in public schools is contrary to Paul's platform. If it is not possible to get the feds out of the education business, then religion does not belong in the classroom, except maybe comparative religion. But I would say even that should not be taught in public schools, because teachers would bring prejudice. Reading, riting, and rithmetic, I say.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Public Schools should not teach religion

nor should they prohibit religious expression by the students. I am an evangelical Christian, but not a religionist because religion is an established organization of particular theological practice. If teaching religion is allowed, whose brand of religion (Baptist, Catholic, Seventh Day Aventist, Sunni Muslim, Buddhism, Janism) should be allowed? It allows the state to dictate religious practice. Right now, the state dictates secular humanism, and that too is a religious belief. Neutrality is how it should be.

You left out Mormon.

You left out Mormon.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Cromite, Mithraist...

...Gaeaist, Baalite, Thespian, Opportunist, Materialist...

Very little difference between atheists and mystics. Atheists just believe one fewer goofy thing than mystics, whose faith requires them to reject most goofy things except their own.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Thank you

Thank you for your opinion. I hope you watch the film and let us know later on if your views have changed.
Thank you

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Self-bumpish response.

Self-bumpish response.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln