People like fundamentalist Christians choose to suspend all reason. And they use mental gymnastics to prove that book of nonsense, the Bible. Fine. If that's what you want to do, it's a free country. But then they say they want to force us to do that. And they want to indoctrinate our kids in public schools too. No. If you want to do that, that's up to you. But the rest of us choose not to.
As to the bigger question whether or not there is a God, who knows. Maybe we'll never know. But I know there probably isn't an afterlife. Or it's safer to assume there isn't. Because for centuries people have suffered hardships, like working long hours for little pay. And they were poor and homeless and starving. And they think maybe when they die they'll get reward. Maybe food then, I guess. But that's a bad attitude to have in any event. Because even if there is a God, it's still safe to assume, like labor activist Joe Hill said in 1911. There is no pie in the sky.
Talking about religion to those eager for some form of "guidance" is a lucrative hustle. Many have gotten huge sums of money, ( no taxes to pay) lavish life styles , outlandishly large homes, free slave labor, plenty of pussy, ( ordained by god , of course) ---so it works pretty good for some. And I suppose it works for those who value the bible spiel. Or some other forms of religion, even those that'll kill you if you don't agree with their dogma. Wacky world we have here.
I'm usually pretty tolerant, but as of late it's become very easy to slide from criticism of certain religions into full blown bitching about them. I need to work on that, otherwise I'm afraid i might end up like like the fundies I despise. An overly negative hypocrite.
Also, some people want to ban what kinds of books are allowed in public schools. And even the liberal Warren court said that public schools have more power to control what the students there read and say. But if they want to ban a really explicit book, a book that is full of violence, hate and all kinds of deviant sexual practices, they should consider the Bible. For hundreds of years people have claimed the Bible is religious. But so are things in the Hindu religion like the Kama Sutra and the Tantric scripts. So why not just ban both? Also, some people say that the first amendment establishment clause was never meant to apply to the states, like the Supreme Court did in 1947. That's true. A state can always have an establishment of religion. But as Clarence Thomas once pointed out, that could be Buddhism. And the Supreme Court said in the past mandatory school prayer was okay. But in 1925 they said no child can be forced to take part in them. Yes they can. But, those prayers could be Wicca or satanist. And students can also be forced to attend gay weddings and forced to take gay sensitivity classes. They can't do that now. If that's what you want.
Wrong! That's clearly false! The Supreme Court in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Educaiion held that the establishment clause of the First Amendment does apply to the states via the due proscess clause of the First Amendment, although a majority Court found that the particular practice in question--providing reimbursements to parents who took public buses to public and private religious schools-- was not an establishment of religion, was not an establishment of religion. Then came Engel v. Vitale in 1962, and the succession of subsequent cases making clear that prayers of any kind weren't okay in public schools or at school events, although a moment of silence could get by in the classroom, and prayers outside around the flagpole were acceptable. The courts still use the test in the three-pronged test in the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurzman: does the practice in question: (1) have a secular purpose; (2) neither advances nor inhibits religion; (3) doesn't foster an excessive entanglement with religion. Your statements here seem a tad incoherent. Students, of course, can be "forced" to do things by errant teachers and school boards acting unconstitutionally, and their parents can cash in on lawsuits for violating the kids' constitutional rights. The teachers and school boards might claim these experiences are educational, but so would be Christian religious exercises--saying the rosary in class, for example. See how that goes over! Shit happens. but that doesn't make it right or legal! Incidents like these fuel the culture wars, and guess who recently got burned. In my home state of Oklahoma, the Retrumplican State superintendent of Schools, Ryan Walters, has decreed that schools are required to incorporate the Bible and the Ten Commandments in their curricula--cuz "the Bible is a necessary historical document to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of Western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system. " Guess which version of the Bible he picked for this educational experience. It's the one that also contains the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and sells for $60. (Superintendent Walters, along with Governor Stitt. seems to be bucking for a position in the Trump Administration! I wouldn't be surprised to see this upheld by the courts on educational grounds.
I am tolerant of all religions. Even accepting of some. What I will not accept or Tolerate is Proselytizing. Do not try to push your beliefs on me. I won't convert. and continued attempts will only lead tobad things..
I'll have to read your first statement more carefully later. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. Then the due process clause of the 14th amendment (not the First) applied them to the states. And the Supreme Court has said that the state has more power to regulated the speech, etc. of minors. Like in Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), where they said a school could outlaw coarse (not just obscene) speech.
By "never meant", you must mean by the framers of the U.S. Constitution in its original form. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, said for the first time that the States could not deprive us of our life liberty and property without due process of law. That's what it said. What did it mean? That was left for the Supreme Court to figure out. The Justices turned naturally to the Bill of Rights. They eventually decided that some of them applied to the states as well as the federal government. This is known as the process of incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Gradually, starting in the 1929s, one after another of these rights was read into the 14th to apply to the states, starting with the First Amendment freedom of speech provision, in 1925 (Gitlow v. N.Y.) Most of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated on a case-by case basis. The only ones that haven't yet been incoporated are the right to a grand jury under the Eighth Amendment, the seventh amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits, and the tenth amendment concerning states' rights. Note: the First Amendment, including both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause pertaining to religion have been fully incorporated into the 14th amendment. incorporation doctrine
