What is more important to be taught in school - Gay themes or the Constitution?

Seems a pretty easy answer. No need for the Gay themes, at all.

 

Technically, it is mentioned. If you look at the 1st amendment in which it speaks of feligion, iit has two clauses, the Establishment clause and the Free exercise clause. Sccial conserviatives want to ingore the establishment clause and go totally into their version of the free erciscse clause as long as it meets with their religious approval.

 

Name one politician that wants to institute a State sponsored religion? Religious principles were important to the Founders, just not any one particular Religion thus the use of Creator in the Declaration of Independence. Now anyone that even mentions religious principles (unless it is a democrat) are ridiculed.

 

Basically, what you are arguing is only "your version" of science and the Constitution.

That is BS. What I stated is what the schools should do, not take a specific stance, but teach critical thinking in science and the Constittuion. But that is not what the Party of "ignoring science and history" wants.

 

You want to teach your kids that bestiality is OK at home that is your decision. Would you support it being taught in K-12 school?

 

The best "school' is someone with a brain utilizing the internet to create a strict program and schedule for their children to follow.
HOWEVER. When your parents are morons, it isn't an option.

 

I think my support for religious teaching is more pragmatic.
(1) Public teacher's unions proclaim openly that they're not in it for the kids: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2...g-wig-says-its-not-about-kids-its-about-power
(2) Religious teachers typically have a moral obligation to help educate our children.

When you think about it like this, I think the choice pretty much makes itself. Hence why public institutions make it illegal for any tax dollars to go to religious institutions.

 

he bill restored at least $52,000 for the College of Charleston, and at least $17,000 for USC-Upstate, which were the original amounts cut back in March. The legislation also says that any school that conducts a mandatory reading program must provide an alternative in case the chosen book conflicts with any students’ moral or religious beliefs.

Gov. Nikki Haley went along with the Constitution requirement on Thursday, saying she did not agree with it but kept it in because lawmakers spent so much time on the bill. She said her office "didn't want to interject ourselves into that."

"I don't believe legislators should micromanage our boards," she said, according to The Associated Press. "They elect board members, so if they want to beat up on them, go for it... but to go in there and micromanage books being read, I think that's out of our purview."

Governor Haley was right on both accounts.

This was a stupid anti-gay move- but the Governor was right to just go along with letting the legislators be stupid and anti-gay rather than waste more time on it.

 

Blubbering nonsense has little point.

 

Then try a new approach.

 

Why should there be a education dichotomy? To be clear officials nix the gay themed education for the Constitution...why? Why not both?

 

You know what beastiality is. Where did you learn about it...Church? Why would anyone object in teaching on any subject? You are conflating education with acceptance.

When your church instructed you about beastiality...did that make you want to marry your cat?

 

So basically you would be all for grade school teaching your kids about all kinds of perversions.

 

No one is talking about teaching beasality and tyring to connect such terms with homosexual behavori is nonsense, igonroant, and irrational/illogical. What is being, or should be taught, however, is that different poeple are atteched to other people for different reasons. It is the same that if a male is attracted to only Asians, Blonds, Brunettes, Redheads, Latinas, etc, or woemn attacted to Blacks, redheads, blonds, Asians, brunettes, etc. In scinece, it can be observed that in some circumstances, animals are attracted to the same sex and to explain that rationally. What you are proposing is an irrational fear.

 

What a sick and insulting assumption on your part.

 

For starters, the Declalaration of Independence is not law nor does it have any bearing on the Constitution. Second, two politicians, Rep. John Blust and Rep. Larry Pittman, have stated that laws should be endored by the Bible and to stamp out any religion that does not meet with the standard of the Bible. And third, like political correctness, freedom of religion has gotten way out of hand, espeically for those who want to quash points of view that are different from Christianity. Case in point, The Last Tempation of Christ and Mel Gibson movie, The Passion.

 

"...did that make you want to marry your cat?"

¡Je, je! Good one, TexMex. Too funny!

The Spaniard from Brownsville agrees.

 

You are the one that will not back up what you say. You have been on here long enough to know that naked claims (claims without support) are worthless. This is why I support what I say as opposed to you.

You say the point of your comment, "Freedom of is not freedom from" is obvious. If you are claiming something then state it plainly.

Better yet if you want to be taken seriously you could provide some commentary that supports your claim.

Naked claims are worthless= blubbering nonsense

So far that is all you have provided.

 

"Freedom of is not freedom from" when the discussion is the Constitution/ Bill of Rights and Religion is about as plain as it gets. Its not making a "claim" as you put it and it doesnt need any commentary to explain it except it seems to you.

 

Which part of the Bill of Rights are you referring to ? I was talking about the first amendment and the first amendment includes freedom from laws made on the basis of Religion.

 

You made a comment about it being meant to place a wall between Government and Religion which is not true as most of our Politicians are religious. It was set up to provide you the right to your religion while at the same time not forcing you to be religious ( as in a state sanctioned Religion)

What now? Are you going to try to nit pick again? Any other way i can explain it to you?

 

ROFL. So you expect me to take your unsupported opinion on what the founders meant over the words of the founders.

What part of "not enforce the legal observation of religion by law" is unclear to you.

What part of "nor compel to worship God in any manner" = forcing people (compel) to abide by religious beliefs on the basis of law, are you having trouble with ?

If there was any doubt ... the statements of the founders make it perfectly clear what they thought the past practise of mixing church with state and in particular "Christianity" which is exactly and specifically what they are refer to at times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Your claim that the founders could not have wanted separation of Church and State "because they were religious" just plain wrong.

 

I suggest you read what i wrote again and then try replying again. I never suggested the Founders wanted nor suggested a State Religion.

Why do i think you are the type that just likes to argue when there is no disagreement just to go Ahah! and feel better? There simply is no reason not to be able to read my words and understand them instead if the hack job you typed.. Might i suggest working for Addictinginfo? They would suit your debating skills.

 

LOL I did not say that you suggested the Founders wanted a state religion. Perhaps it is you that needs to learn to read, including your own posts.

Now you are trying to run away in denial of your own words with a helping of Ad Hom on top.

The topic was the separation of Church and state and my response proved your claim wrong.

 

I did quote you, this will be the third time.

Don't blame me for you not being able to remember what you said.