Tell Me Again How Public Schools are Cesspools of Atheism

[PureX]

State and federal legislators create the laws. Judges enforce those laws on an individual basis. If the individual does not believe he has been treated justly under that law enforcement, he can appeal to a higher court. And that court will either uphold the lower court's decision or set aside the lower court's verdict. And even that judgment can be appealed to a higher court, until it reaches the Supreme Court. At which point the decision cannot be appealed any further.

When a higher court determines such appeals, it sets a "precedent" that other lower court judges will then follow, so as not to have their decisions subjected to appeal in the higher courts.

No judge, anywhere, makes laws. They simply apply the laws that legislators have made to the situations brought before them. If you think judges are making laws, you have fallen for a lie, and you should stop doing that.

 

[Clete]

Not atheistic in the sense that they are teaching students that gods don't exist, or any other positions regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. All they're saying is the school takes no position one way or the other on questions of religion. That seems fair.

This cannot be done!

If God exists and you ignore Him then you are tacitly teaching either that He doesn't really exist or something even worse than atheism.

Sure it is.

No, it isn't!

Whether God exists is the central question of ALL learning! Attempting to teach ANYTHING while ignoring a God that exists is akin to teaching painting while ignoring color.

Your "neutral" stance attempts to presume the answer to the question of God's existence without actually answering it. It is the quintessential eating your cake and having it too.

In other words a so called "neutral" stance looks exactly like what schools would look like if everyone was an atheist and the question of God's existence never came up. It is an atheistic system, by default, which is the reason why atheists are in favor of it.

Yes there is. A student can think of 2+2=4 as theistically as they want.

But they will not do so in an atheistic school system! They won't and the atheists know they won't! If you think atheists are neutral about the existence of God, you're wrong.

Not everyone is limited to such black/white thinking.

Right and wrong thinking. Only those who haven't recovered from their public school education think in shades of gray. The rejection of absolutes is a terrific example of just the thing I'm talking about. You cannot ignore the existence of God, which presupposes that there is no absolute truths and expect anything other than to graduate a bunch of kids that, at the very least question, if not outright reject the morals that hold civilized society together.

Ah yes... Public schools are a liberal plot. :chuckle:

If you think otherwise then you're just naive. It is the tenth plank in the Communist Manifesto and has always been a desire of the government (all governments) to control the education of its citizens. If you control the education system you control the population. Marx understood this well.

The public school system is the most Marxist thing about this nation and we have progressively (I use that term intentionally) become more and more liberal ever since their inception to the point where we now have what is effectively a fascist form of government.

Of course you don't know this because you were educated in a government school, which is precisely the problem with government schools! It is far too much power to put into the hands of the government. The society is overthrown without even understanding what is happening.

Not only that but public schools, by there very nature are socialistic. Kids that stand out are made fun of. The kids who finish their work first are told to go help the slower students. If part of the class misbehaves the entire class is punished as often as not. Its all about group think. Kids are pressured from a hundred different directions to not stand, to think as a member of the group and not as an individual. The kids are taught to follow the rules for the sake of following the rules, not because the rules make any sense. In fact, the less sense a rule makes the more strictly it is enforced. The result is a generation of citizens that do not think for themselves, believes it is their duty to be their brother's keeper and to comply with whatever those in authority say the rules are.

This is anything but "neutral" and it is the natural and unavoidable result of a school system that ignores the existence of God and therefore the basis and the very source of right and wrong. In a world where there is no ABSOLUTE right and wrong, there is no such thing as human RIGHTS. Your RIGHT to free speech is an issue of right and wrong. Your RIGHT to freedom of religion is a matter of right and wrong. Your RIGHT to a fair trial is a matter of right and wrong. All of your RIGHTS are a matter of morality. If you think that you can maintain a moral society by attempting to educate children while ignoring God then you deserve the totalitarian government that you'll end up producing and even supporting.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

State and federal legislators create the laws. Judges enforce those laws on an individual basis. If the individual does not believe he has been treated justly under that law enforcement, he can appeal to a higher court. And that court will either uphold the lower court's decision or set aside the lower court's verdict. And even that judgment can be appealed to a higher court, until it reaches the Supreme Court. At which point the decision cannot be appealed any further.

When a higher court determines such appeals, it sets a "precedent" that other lower court judges will then follow, so as not to have their decisions subjected to appeal in the higher courts.

No judge, anywhere, makes laws. They simply apply the laws that legislators have made to the situations brought before them. If you think judges are making laws, you have fallen for a lie, and you should stop doing that.

This might be the way its supposed to be but if you think that the courts do not make defacto law in this country then you need to wake up to reality.

 

[gcthomas]

This might be the way its supposed to be but if you think that the courts do not make defacto law in this country then you need to wake up to reality.

What you need, then, are lawmakers who know how to write a decent law that does not, and never will, need judicial interpretation.

Either that, or you leave judges to their proper task of interpreting laws.

 

[PureX]

This might be the way its supposed to be but if you think that the courts do not make defacto law in this country then you need to wake up to reality.

Courts don't make "defacto" laws or any other kind of laws. They apply the laws that have been written to the situations put before them. That's their purpose.

When people don't like their decisions, they whine and cry about them, and they make up lies about courts making "defacto" laws. But if anyone doesn't like a court's decision, they can always appeal it, even to the Supreme Court. Then when they still don't like the decision, they'll lie about that court, and those judges, too. Some people think the whole world is supposed to serve them, exclusively, and so they whine and cry and slander others when they don't get their way.

 

[ok doser]

purexcrement's retarded version of what judges do:

No judge, anywhere, makes laws. They simply apply the laws that legislators have made to the situations brought before them.

gcthomas gets it:

Either that, or you leave judges to their proper task of interpreting laws.

judges interpret laws



now, if a judge chooses to interpret a law in a way that has never been done before, and that goes contrary to the will of the legislators who wrote that law and the people who voted those legislators into office, explain how that is not making law

 

[Clete]

What you need, then, are lawmakers who know how to write a decent law that does not, and never will, need judicial interpretation.

Either that, or you leave judges to their proper task of interpreting laws.

What you suggest is not possible. Therefore, what you need if for people to stop writing laws - period.

Laws are not to be made, they are to be obeyed. God is the Law Giver, not man.

 

[Clete]

Courts don't make "defacto" laws or any other kind of laws. They apply the laws that have been written to the situations put before them. That's their purpose.

Theoretically but this is not what we are living with in the country.

When people don't like their decisions, they whine and cry about them, and they make up lies about courts making "defacto" laws. But if anyone doesn't like a court's decision, they can always appeal it, even to the Supreme Court. Then when they still don't like the decision, they'll lie about that court, and those judges, too. Some people think the whole world is supposed to serve them, exclusively, and so they whine and cry and slander others when they don't get their way.

Head in the sand liberal!

Nevermind!


:wave2:

 

[gcthomas]

What you suggest is not possible. Therefore, what you need if for people to stop writing laws - period.

Laws are not to be made, they are to be obeyed. God is the Law Giver, not man.

You and ISIS have a lot on common. But how do we decide exactly whose divinely inspired laws to obey? Do we make a judgement, or have a majority vote?

 

[PureX]

You and ISIS have a lot on common. But how do we decide exactly whose divinely inspired laws to obey? Do we make a judgement, or have a majority vote?

And like ISIS, he wants to destroy America, and create a dictatorial theocracy. We have labels for people like this.

 

[ok doser]

And like ISIS, he wants to destroy America...

rather, unlike isis, he wants to save america from its slide into degradation and corruption and filth

..., and create a dictatorial theocracy. We have labels for people like this.

upstanding?

righteous?

moral?

intelligent?

 

[gcthomas]

Anti-American.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not American history. The question was about this country.

What specifically do you want taught?

Yep, by a judge who thought he had the authority to single handedly declare and enforce as law a supreme court decision.

Um.....all judges are required to uphold and enforce Supreme Court decisions. That's why they're called the Supreme Court. This is high school government class stuff.

In the Kim Davis case, the Supreme Court had ruled that states cannot deny same-sex couples the ability to marry, because it violated their Constitutional rights. Thus, once the ruling was issued, when same-sex couples went into a government office and requested a marriage license, there was no longer a legal basis for refusing to give them one.

So in Kentucky, when Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, they sued her in federal court for violating their Constitutional rights. The judge agreed with them and issued a say, temporarily preventing Davis from refusing to issue marriage licenses. Davis tried to appeal that, but the 6th Circuit unanimously denied it. Davis then appealed to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear her appeal. This effectively ended Davis' attempt to continue to stop issuing marriage licenses. Yet she adamantly refused to issue any.

So Judge Bunning issued a court order for Davis to begin issuing marriage licenses again. She refused, so Judge Bunning found her in contempt of court and had her jailed.

So you see, no judge created new laws.

This is how supreme court decisions work.

The Supreme Court rules on appeals.

When they make a decision it governs how the lower courts can try cases.

In this case the 2 lesbians who sued her will have to take her back to court.

Unless they can get a jury to award them anything it is an exercise in futility.

The Supreme Court has no authority to try her, let alone have her locked up.

Nor especially a lower federal court judge.

The Judge had to let her go, or the Supreme court would end up having to rule on his authority to make and enforce laws.

In which case he would lose hands down.

Thereby opening himself up to a lawsuit.

Actually, depending upon her wanting to pursue it, and finding an honest judge that would let her in his court, he already has.

I'd surely welcome a chance to be on that jury.

There's so much wrong in that, it's not worth the time it would take to correct it all. Suffice to say, I'm sure you'll be stamping your feet and shouting at the TV as this case progresses and it doesn't go the way you think it should.

If I'm wrong, perhaps you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the Supreme Court can make and enforce laws.

As explained above, no judge made any new laws. Try and get the basic facts of a situation straight before you start to debate it.

 

[Jose Fly]

This cannot be done!

Sure it can.

If God exists and you ignore Him then you are tacitly teaching either that He doesn't really exist or something even worse than atheism.

Again, not everyone is limited by black/white thinking.

Whether God exists is the central question of ALL learning!

No it's not. I'm sure that's what you believe, but that's all it is....something you believe.

Attempting to teach ANYTHING while ignoring a God that exists is akin to teaching painting while ignoring color.

Who said they're ignoring gods? Many schools cover world religions.

Your "neutral" stance attempts to presume the answer to the question of God's existence without actually answering it. It is the quintessential eating your cake and having it too.

Again we see the limitations of your black/white way of thinking. Look at it from the perspective of a school. Among its student population are Christians, Mormons, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and students who are "spiritual" but don't belong to any particular religion. So the school takes a "hands off" approach, where all those students are free to practice their religion as they see fit, even during the school day (provided it's not disruptive) and the school may even help them out (e.g., provide space and materials for a Christian club, provide a space where Muslim students can pray). But at no point does the school teach that one of those beliefs is right and the others are wrong.

And that's the way it should be.

In other words a so called "neutral" stance looks exactly like what schools would look like if everyone was an atheist and the question of God's existence never came up. It is an atheistic system, by default, which is the reason why atheists are in favor of it.

Then why do public schools have Bible Study Clubs, prayer at the pole events, and a host of other God-oriented functions? Would an atheistic system allow that?

But they will not do so in an atheistic school system! They won't and the atheists know they won't! If you think atheists are neutral about the existence of God, you're wrong.

That doesn't even make sense, given what you claim to be responding to (A student can think of 2+2=4 as theistically as they want).

Only those who haven't recovered from their public school education think in shades of gray.

Uh huh. There ya' go....anything other than absolutist, black/white thinking is atheistic!!! :kookoo:

If you think otherwise then you're just naive. It is the tenth plank in the Communist Manifesto and has always been a desire of the government (all governments) to control the education of its citizens. If you control the education system you control the population. Marx understood this well.

The public school system is the most Marxist thing about this nation and we have progressively (I use that term intentionally) become more and more liberal ever since their inception to the point where we now have what is effectively a fascist form of government.

Ok then.... I see by the rest of your posts that you are yet another Christian theocrat at ToL, who wants a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Let's just say I'm very glad that your views are an extreme minority.

 

[Ben Masada]

Tell Me Again How Public Schools are Cesspools of Atheism.

Tell Me Again How Public Schools are Cesspools of Atheism.

IMHO, it is because in public schools, the atheists find inexperienced young people to easily plant their seed of spiritual irresponsibility when they themselves are frustrated for not being able to believe what they do not understand.

 

[PureX]

IMHO, it is because in public schools, the atheists find inexperienced young people to easily plant their seed of spiritual irresponsibility when they themselves are frustrated for not being able to believe what they do not understand.

I spent some years in both Catholic schools, and public schools, and not once in the public schools did anyone even mention religion to me, let alone suggest that I believe or disbelieve anything.

You people just make this stuff up out of your ignorance and bile. And you do far more harm to religion than any atheists.

 

[Ben Masada]

I spent some years in both Catholic schools, and public schools, and not once in the public schools did anyone even mention religion to me, let alone suggest that I believe or disbelieve anything.

You people just make this stuff up out of your ignorance and bile. And you do far more harm to religion than any atheists.

I hope, albeit to me, you are addressing your post above to the poster who wrote: "Tell me again how public schools are cesspools of Atheism." What I meant is something like, If that's true, my opinion is that the reason is so and so. It means I had never heard it before. If it is true, what I said in my post remains for a fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

I spent some years in both Catholic schools, and public schools, and not once in the public schools did anyone even mention religion to me, let alone suggest that I believe or disbelieve anything.

You people just make this stuff up out of your ignorance and bile. And you do far more harm to religion than any atheists.

You're not thinking like a fundamentalist. In their black/white world, if the schools aren't actively promoting and endorsing Christianity, then the only other alternative is that they are actively suppressing and denouncing Christianity. There is no room in their heads for any other possibility.

 

[Ben Masada]

You're not thinking like a fundamentalist. In their black/white world, if the schools aren't actively promoting and endorsing Christianity, then the only other alternative is that they are actively suppressing and denouncing Christianity. There is no room in their heads for any other possibility.

And, are you implying that's when the season is open for the atheists to pit it in? Do you mean that the lack of promotion of Christianity is a sign for atheists to promote the doctrine that the Primal Cause does not exist?

 

[Jose Fly]

And, are you implying that's when the season is open for the atheists to pit it in?

You'll have to explain further, because that doesn't make sense.

Do you mean that the lack of promotion of Christianity is a sign for atheists to promote the doctrine that the Primal Cause does not exist?

No, I was describing the fundamentalist mindset.