[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2645821]I'll be happy to hear Doggin's response as well, but you seem to be meshing a bunch of ideas that need to be separated. The bottom line is that teh government does not fund religious education for the obvious reason that it would be a violation of the separation clause. What kids do in their spare time is not the business of the government, including participating in religious clubs, although I think it might be hard to determine in a public school setting when a line is being crossed re the "club" accessing services, space, or utilities that are taxpayer funded.
Re your last point, I don't know what you mean when you refer to money being available to others but denied to the religious family. The religious family pays taxes and is not denied access to public education. What they are denied is the use of tax-generated funds to promote a specific religious belief via education. That function is where it belongs: in the churches, synagogues, mosques, or in home-schooling that the family voluntarily opts for out of their own pocket.
One question: how would the government regulate what happens in a home school to validate that taxpayer monies are not being used for promote religious training? It seems an impossible task.[/QUOTE]
To tell you the truth, I am kind of fuzzy on the whole thread. i read the first few posts, read a response about homeschooling nad then saw a snippet about funds and homeschooling. IF (and I don;t know of any funds that the gov't pays toward homeschooling) such funds are available, I think provocative arguments could be made that would emand that homeschool kids be just as entitled as anybody else.
As for the point about clubs. Kids and even adults can preach, teach and run complete services in religious clubs at school. THe catch is that it can not be teacher directed. Usually, a teacher sits in as a "guide" but the clubs are run by the kids and an advisor not employed by the school. I am 100% sure that is how it works because (1) I listen to Jay Sekulow and the issue comes up frequently and (2) I have advised such clubs (as the "guide" not the content leader. The clubs can only be run IF other nonreligious clubs are run. THe logic is that you can not deny the students a voluntary extracurricular club just because it is based on their religion - that woiuld violate freedom of religion.
OIn the other hand, if no extracurricular clubs are allowed, a religious club can not exist, either.
[QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2645096]They don't? They don't live in a society where women aren't allowed to drive, where the only acceptable chant at a soccer game is "Allah um akbar," where people get imprisoned and executed for disagreeing with the Imam?
Yes, I forgot, Islamic extremists are very tolerant and open to new ideas. :rolleyes:
You completely missed the point of my post. Wanting a kid to be punished for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is step number one toward turning into a society like those in the midde east.[/QUOTE]
the one thing politicians can always use to rile up patriotic Americans is to use that bullcrap line, people around the world don't want us dead out of jealousy of our freedoms....thats crap
besides how ironic is it thaht this administration used that line post 9-11 and then began to systematically dismantle those very freedoms, its a BS politico anthem thats even worse than the Change anthem used by BO
So my entire post agrees with the kids fundamental right to do what he did, and what you get out of it is not my support for Freedom (my intent) but that I might be offended?
Talk about derailing a thread. You and Ken should get together. This thread isn't about Public Education as a right, nor is about my being offended. It's about the kids right to express his freedom, even if it IS offensive to someone else.
It'd be nice if folks could actually make some effort to stay on topic once in a while.....
But since you ask, yes his choice here, his expression of freedom offends me in a very slight and minor way. Similar to being offended if someone breaks wind whilst sitting next to you at work type offense.
I personally believe standing for the pledge and facing the flag is a minimal-level respect gesture for the Nation that provides us with so much freedom and personal liberty. But am I crying in disgust that he choose nto to do so? Um, no. Not at all.[/QUOTE]
who is Ken? I've never tag teamed with anyone on this board, I'm a solo artist brudda
why do you always seem to get bothered, annoyed, offended by others, they do what they do and funk em if its different than what you like, first you said offended and now its just slightly offended, who cares really what some jackass does? lighten up :D
Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member
[QUOTE=Mean Bro Green;2646790]the one thing politicians can always use to rile up patriotic Americans is to use that bullcrap line, people around the world don't want us dead out of jealousy of our freedoms....thats crap
besides how ironic is it thaht this administration used that line post 9-11 and then began to systematically dismantle those very freedoms, its a BS politico anthem thats even worse than the Change anthem used by BO[/QUOTE]
Please describe a single freedom that has been taken away from you, personally, by this administration.
[QUOTE=shakin318;2647218]Please describe a single freedom that has been taken away from you, personally, by this administration.[/QUOTE]
The right for my kids not to have to pay a trillion dollar debt for some stupid ass war in some stupid country where we shipped over money on freaking pallets to pay off crooked Iraqi officials...
The right to have a leadership that doesn't look and sound like a bunch of morons. Freedom. Stand up. Stand down. Turning corner. Terror. Be afraid. Crap your pants. We are all gonna die. Weapon of mass destruction program related activities. Run away. Run away.