Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^charliem:
Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.
Pretty sad really.

You've got to be joking. "Just pushing the party line" alone, if that's all she's doing, speaks to her intelligence, imvho. Bush graduated from Yale, ffs. Maybe he's smarter than he lets on, too.


Intelligent shills with no souls to mention, still go home with a paycheck

>> ^quantumushroom:
On September 25, 1789, the day that it approved the First Amendment, the First Congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:
The first part of Washington's Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.

No one is being forced to recite any portion of the Pledge, so his argument is moot anyway.


At the time that resolution was passed, members of congress objected on the grounds that congress is proscribed from legislating religious matters.

qm is, as usual, lying and/or misinformed. While the phrase "separation of church and state" was indeed first traced to Jefferson's letter, he is obviously oblivious of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (...)".

>> ^quantumushroom:
Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.

You've missed several vital points in this debate completely (or, if you ask me, you've purposefully thrown a red herring).

The separation of (any) church from the establishment of State has to be just that - political atheism (NON-theism, NO religion - seriously, is it that hard to grasp?), which is what the Constitution demands. Noncompliance is anti-constitutional; the current situation is anti-constitutional.

This particular debate isn't about the morality of the ways to bring up one's kids, which is where you were trying to steer it (not that education, a state program, doesn't deserve full attention in terms of thorough verification for its concordance with the Constitution, it's just that education ≠ kids). Taking religious service out of the classroom, which this debate is about, unfortunately does in no way negate parents' opportunities to brainwash their offspring. But that's not where you were going, is it?

I could ignore your musings, but I'll address them: anyone claiming "I've found God" is either lying or deluded - and that's mainstream Christianity talking. It maintains that god does not meddle in our everyday affairs apart from the occasional "miracle", therefore it logically follows that it's impossible to "find god". Not that Christianity makes many "leaps" of logic on a regular basis, though.

In conclusion: bringing one's children up to rely on logic and empirical questioning isn't indoctrination, it isn't child abuse and it isn't brainwashing. It's making sure they grow up to be intelligent, knowledgeable and successful, while on terms with the reality and the mundane world, which constitutionalization of education is all about.

>> ^harlequinn:
I wonder how many atheist parents would be happy to let their child tell them "I've found God" and accept it without trying to reeducate that child to their point of view (that god doesn't exist)?
Just as we know that educating a child in one's religious ways will shape their future to be religious, educating a child in one's atheist ways does the same thing (some like to call this brainwashing - either religious or atheist).
How many would call their own children stupid, dumb, illogical, blinded, indoctrinated, etc?
How many could simply "get over it" and just "deal with reality instead"?
This is an American debate and I can therefore point out that the American constitution allows for freedom of choice in religion (or to have none). Would it be constitutional to try and convert that choice one way or the other? Certainly American atheists are often vocally angry at religious people trying to convert them to a religion. Should the child in my hypothetical be just as angry if said parents were to try and convert them to atheism? Or should said atheists just leave the child alone to his/her choice?

>> ^westy:
Is this woman stupid , oh yes she is. like she cannot see the point of the constatutoin and the atheist guy points out exactly the point of it with the black issue just because 90% of yanks r honky's dose not mean that permits people to be racist.


I think it is legal for someone to be a racist.....

>> ^charliem:
Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.
Pretty sad really.


You've got to be joking. "Just pushing the party line" alone, if that's all she's doing, speaks to her intelligence, imvho. Bush graduated from Yale, ffs. Maybe he's smarter than he lets on, too.

On September 25, 1789, the day that it approved the First Amendment, the First Congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:

The first part of Washington's Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."


Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.


No one is being forced to recite any portion of the Pledge, so his argument is moot anyway.

>> ^volumptuous:
Earth to asshats:
Kids don't give one shit about reciting the pledge of allegiance, and would be much happier if you scrapped the whole stupid thing, and just start the classroom morning by, oh I dunno, teaching?


But if they ditch the Pledge how will they indoctrinate the younglings with nationalistic dogma?

The Pledge is something I've always had a problem with being in schools. Children simply don't have enough knowledge needed to form an opinion about any country's worth, let alone affirming their devotion to it.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^rottenseed:
I wish they would hold REAL debates...you know, with formal rules. I hate this talking over each other bullshit.


Well, usually the reporter would be adjudicating 2 people with opposing view points rather than pushing a viewpoint themselves...

I pine for the days when the news was reported, not packaged with a neat little party line bow then force fed to me...

>> ^lavoll:
religion.. why not get over it and deal with reality instead


Two up-votes.

I was thinking about that today. If we look around our world, here, now, the Bible is as relevant as Beowulf. It's a great story, but it just doesn't apply to this situation, unless we get symbolic, and even then, it's just the enactment of a different story.

I actually believe that there is something greater than me, like invisible threads tying me to everything, but I don't have to be indoctrinated to a lesser ritual to touch those strings.

I'm not bashing the ritual. I'm just saying that I'm as close to it as any holy man.