-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.

lol- nice formula ya got there

" How to start any flame war under the guise of being topically legitimate simply by adding '...with Ron Paul as president'"

about as subtle as a cockroach on white carpet.

"Is there any room for a white Hispanic to shoot a black teenager with tea and Skittles...with Ron Paul as president?"

"Is there room for homosexual adoption...with Ron Paul as president?"



I have always enjoyed the "no pants" game. Is there room for Christian preaching teachers in public schools, with no pants on? Works good with fortune cookies too.

The pleasure of what we enjoy is lost by wanting more with no pants on.

Questions provide the key to unlocking our unlimited potential with no pants on.

The human spirit is stronger than anything that can happen to it with no pants on.

Click for more cookies to de-pants.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

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

Please suggest a title

I didn't realize that it would be that sensitive for you. Please suggest an appropriate title. I've already changed it twice because of over sensitive people like you that attack this topic without even bothering to watch the film. Seriously, you make this forum look like a playground for unemployed idiots.

Which of the two would Ron Paul support? How is that?

Btw, do you know what causes a flame war? Here's the answer. Idiots that don't bother to watch the film and then comment. I only posted this thread a few minutes ago. The downgrading began along with the moronic comments. What causes a flame war is not my posting of this video and asking for opinions. It is the Kool Aid drinking idiots that have nothing better to do than troll negative comments on a well meaning thread.

Grow up!
Watch the film and then comment.

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

I am not going to watch the

I am not going to watch the video. Don't call me an idiot, Koolaide drinking or otherwise.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

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


Your idea of a 'debate' is to call people bi-polar and idiots etc. You have pet causes- we all do. But it speaks more to your character to drag your crap out into an open forum and proceed to date yourself by constructing your own soapbox from which to belch out your urban proverbs and caustic little bumper sticker philosophies. Howsabout rescheduling your 'debate' for after the convention. Some stale old church & state smackdown just seems...i dunno... distracting.

Ignore it then

Why not ignore it then? An open forum is simple just that. A forum for all people to raise questions for discussion. You chose to attack with insults because my pet project doesn't coincide with yours. As for my character you need to be concerned with that. Participate in the discussion or ignore it. That's all you need to do.

Your pedantic focus on the title has already shown me all I need to know about your motives for posting here.

Grow up.

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

meh- you're right, i fold

didnt watch your video. Just rubbed me the wrong way to see you calling people I respect 'idiots' for engaging you. Threads like these never end well. They generally seem to be mean-spirited. I usually avoid them because I feel bad later for saying things I regret to people with whom I agree on the important things. My bad.

Saying things we regret

I don't recall calling anyone an idiot for engaging me in a debate even when I don't agree with their views. Usually I reserve such insults for those that attack my right to post or for making comments that are not relevant and idiotic :-)

I created this thread in the hope to be "engaged" in debate. I'm open minded and truly want to learn both sides of the debate. I believe you misunderstood the postings.

Thank you for taking the time to understand my purpose of this thread.

This issue is a big one for many people and I really feel that it would serve the cause for people to express various views on this topic. To be honest it does seem that not all Ron Paul supporters agree on this topic which can lead to misunderstands within the movement.

Thank you

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

Do you know that without Christianity there would be no

Western Civilization as we know it? That is not "religious brainwashing", that is a fact. But go ahead, keep following the secular revisionist "history", little sheeple.

By the way, even my atheist history teacher did a lesson on how Christianity and the Bible shaped the West.

Also your statement that "The Constitution is a purely secular document" is totally false. America is not and was never meant to be a theocracy; however, it was founded as a Christian nation and our government's structure has roots in Christianity.

P.S. Nearly every thread you have made here on the DP has been controversial and divisive. Please stop your trollish activities. The last thing the r3VOLution needs right now is division.

“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

Again, opinion stated as fact.

Various 'laws' appeared in numerous sources before being coopted:


Wikipedia is such a reliable source

I could edit it in a second and make it say anything I wanted it to.

“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 do realize the bipolar nature of your accusations. In one single posting you accuse me of being a sheep as well as being an individual that questions the status quo. Well, which is it?

Read your posting again. It is sickening that people like you claim to be libertarian.

Watch the video an then share your comments. Otherwise ignore this thread. Don't worry, a single thread will not be cause of the return of the devil.


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


"In one single posting you accuse me of being a sheep as well as being an individual that questions the status quo."
No I didn't. I called you a sheeple for blindly accepting the secular revisionist "history". Then I said you made divisive threads - I did not call you "an individual that questions the status quo."

"It is sickening that people like you claim to be libertarian."
I could say the same thing about you. Libertarians tend to be "awake" and always open to the truth, rather than blindly accepting what they are told and being biased against the truth.

“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

Ron Paul is a Republican not a Libertarian.

Ron Paul is not a pure Libertarian. The Bill of Rights is copied from the 10 commandments. The Bill of Rights tells government what it cannot do as per the 10 commandments. It cannot kill, steal,lie, or bear false witness. It is not to commit adultery (adulterate)the people's rights. And it cannot take away the people's right to worship God. And the state cannot make itself into a God to be worshiped. And the people cannot be forced to work day after day with no day off. And the people have the right to congregate.

You seem to assume..

that libertarians aren't religious.

Tom Woods = Judge Napolitano = Ron Paul = Lew Rockwell = etc = religious

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


I believe that the term is loosely being applied these days. I do concede however that there lacks consensus on the definition of the term but I was using it more in its generic form and not as a definition specific to the Ron Paul movement.


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

First and Foremost

there would never be a Libertarian State school, enough with the divisive posts already

Title Changed

Obviously you haven't watched the film yet. I also think you are being a bit over zealous in attacking the title of thread. Perhaps you were desperate for something to attack without taking the bother of watching the film. Well, fair enough. I changed the title for you. Now watch the film and share you comments if you are able to.

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


It’s a FREE COUNTRY a Christian preacher can do and say what he wants it doesn’t mean that another individual has to endorse it but they do have to accept how other individuals use their own FREEDOMS. If that is how he feels then so be it that's his right. If anyone thinks differently or has an issue with how other individuals use their FREEDOMS then don't listen or leave.

This view is why I support Ron Paul:
Ron Paul on Compromise and Democracy

I’m a Ron Paul Republican and I will abide by the Constitution and the Paul Doctrine WIN, LOSE or DRAW.

Hold the LINE for FREEDOM and MARCH steadfast with the CONSTITUTION in HAND


Thank you for sharing your views. I don't personally agree with you though. Have you watched the film to the end? It is very interesting. In the end the History teacher had to apologize and admit that the student was right in bringing this case forward. The school board quoted the constitution in its final finding against the teacher.

Watch the film to the end. Basically it is clear to me that you cannot be a libertarian that loves the constitution if you support the teacher's right to preach religion in a public school.

You seem to say that the constitution should be the guiding light of Americans and yet the constitution is secular.


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

But that is your personal opinion

But that is your personal opinion. In a way I personally agree with you but on the other hand I don’t but that doesn’t matter because we are FREE individuals protected by the Constitution. I’m Haitian and many people made stereotypical judgments about by fellow countrymen and still do today. People made harsh judgments about African-Americans in this country some still do today. So I’m not going to bar someone from exercising their constitutional rights because I disagree with their religious views. I employ a white supremacist 30%er. Do I judge him? NO that’s his personal perspective. When he was hired he was more like a 75+%er and didn’t know that the owner of the establishment was black but he needed employment because he had a child. His child plays and goes to school with one of my cousins they are close friends. He has come around a lot and is more excepting of others that are different from him and that don’t necessary share his social views. FREEDOM is POPULAR but we have to accept people’s differences. You don’t have to endorse what a Christian preacher does but you have to accept it in a FREE society. When you trample or impede on another’s constitutional rights you only weaken your own. Let’s have PEACE if you disagree with the Christian preacher then work with him. Try to have better dialog with him. Inform him on your personal perspective and concerns. You never know you might find common ground and even if you don’t at least you both know where each other stand. RESPECT

evangelicals in the United States

Evangelicals in the United States are nothing but mouth pieces for Zionism(Talmudic Judaism). Has nothing to do with Christianity.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Talmudic jews

it had nothing to do with the book of the Talmud, which is a collection of Jewish writings mainly about the law of Moses. Even the ultra-orthodox groups who basically see the Talmud as scripture yet are anti-Zionist because they believe the scripture says that the Messiah will restore Israel. I'm not Jewish but I know a little about Judaism.

Are you Libertarian?

Not more than 2 minutes after posting this thread the downgrading began. Considering that the film is more than 90 min long I find it very sad that this forum continues to be trolled by people that don't have the courage to at least watch the film before attacking this thread.

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

I think people downvote...

...before watching the video because they feel it is an attack against Christianity. I didn't vote because I didn't see it yet. This late...90 minutes I will doze off. That was a pretty sneaky/clever test though...LOL! ;-)

hee hee, I'm not in the US, early morning here for me.

I hope you take the chance to watch it to the end. I really admire this young student for standing up for for the constitution against a religious zealous that preached religion when it was not part of his job description.

thank you.

I hope to learn how one can be zealous about preaching religion in public school while attesting to true libertarian principles. I'm sorry to say that it simply does not make sense to me.

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

coffee_sponge's picture

True libertarian principles

would negate the very existence of public, i.e. government, schools.

However, when there are public schools, the morality taught should roughly reflect the moral standards of the local community, not the standards of Washington bureaucrats. There are basic tenets of most religions that most people could agree with, e.g. "Thou shalt do no murder." In the past, it was acceptable to teach these moral basics without delving too far into particular dogma, particularly since the basis of "inalienable rights" is the idea that they are imparted at birth by a creator, not granted by some agency of government. Thus, posting the Ten Commandments, for example, should not be a big deal, and it wasn't until relatively recently.

I think there is much confusion in this subject area, much of it because of sound bites that have been repeated so often that many people simply assume they are true.

For example, the statement "You can't legislate morality" is accepted as axiomatic by many people, when careful inspection reveals it as stunningly ludicrous.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, morality is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct". Law is "the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties".

Thus, morality and law are both prescriptions for conduct. The only difference is law is mandated. Law in fact IS legislated morality. The real question is not whether morality should be legislated, but rather what system of morality shall the legislated law be based upon.

Our system of law originally was based upon Judeo-Christian morality, and the idea that each individual is entitled to as much freedom as possible, up to but not past the point where another person's rights would be infringed upon. (This contrasts with the "progressive" view that with enough government and enough regulations, society can be perfected.)

The question of what system of morality should be legislated is very important, and must be answered beyond the most basic platitudes of don't murder, don't steal, etc. In Judeo-Christian morality, every life is precious and must be protected, regardless of whether some people think it is a worthless life, and cannot be deemed less than human simply because of positional and functional factors, such as mental or physical infirmities, or the presence in a womb. In the warped, post-Christian morality of the Third Reich, it was illegal to murder, but killing Jews was not considered murder, because they were redefined as non-persons.

The atrocities of Hitler were "legal" because the man-made system of morality Hitler's legal system was based upon made them legal. Similar observations could be made in regard to Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. That's why the Founders were clear that our country's law is based upon a system of morality that recognizes a creator God as the Supreme lawgiver, and basic human rights as flowing from the laws of nature and nature's God.

Since God-given rights are the basis for our American heritage of freedom, how can schools teach about our heritage if they can't mention the deistic Creator God prominently referenced by the Founders?

Morals without an anchor in a Creator are as unreliable as a currency without gold backing. As Voltaire so irreverently pointed out, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

I think the Founders recognized this, and I think this is why we had no public schools in America at least until the 1840's. The ultimate solution is abolition of government education. Until then, freedom-from-religion must give way to the return of freedom-of-religion.

The value of the dollars in your pocket can benefit from gold backing, even it you don't own gold. Likewise, you can benefit from the consistency of laws legislated in a system that recognizes rights as deriving from a Creator, even if you personally choose not to believe in that Creator's literal existence.