n2sooners says: So, they are now allowing prayer in school again, but only Muslim prayers and your grades depend on it. I just wonder why it is only Muslim. I wouldn't mind this so much, but they should include all major religions such as Christianity (maybe even broken down between Catholic and Protestant since they are quite different), Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism (not as big world wide, but not uncommon here in the states). But what really gets me is that after all the "separation of church and state" attacks on anything Christian in public that they (the courts and the ACLU) would allow the teaching of Muslim and Muslim only in public schools. YOU CAN NOT MAKE THE BLIND SEE OR THE DEAF HEAR. n2s, please do me a favor, and search at CM for the same topic, there has been significant discussion on this and enbar has provided lots of information which you may not see in the sound bite above. And please, let's not blame ACLU for everything wrong in this world. And another favour, CJ. No more SHOUTING caps. Check the date on my clip and you will see I posted it two weeks ago. There was a discussion going on at the time and the source was questioned so I provided another source. As for the ACLU, I don't blame them for the wrong, I blame them for defending those wrongs in court. If ACLU won't do it then who would? And I'm not talking this particular case here for ACLU, in general they defend your rights and free speech, what is so wrong with that? I know the Limbaughs may have you believe otherwise so that is another story. The ACLU is very selective of what rights and whose rights they are upholding. If they didn't seem to have such an agenda (and in the distant past they didn't) then I wouldn't have a problem with them. The idea behind the ACLU is a good one, but the execution has lately become very shoddy. Can you give me some examples? My opinion is that they are generally quick in upholding minority's rights, but I'm no expert. Again, I don't believe in believing sound bites, and there's always a learning curve in all matters. I'd also like to be pointed to evidence of "very selective" action on the ACLU's part. I don't think it's true. Here's a story that bears on the question of whether the ACLU is "selective" in the cases it takes on: ACLU Sues Library for Allegedly Blocking Access to Second Amendment Foundation Site (among others) I think there is a good demonstration of the ACLU's biases when the chose to side with Rush Limbaugh. It was a pretty obvious case of the government breaking it's own laws, so the ACLU said they sided with Limbaugh. Now, if the ACLU was known for defending everyone's civil rights fairly, this would have been seen as no big deal. But it was a HUGE deal. Everyone was talking about it. Those on the right were somewhat surprised while those on the left were touting it as proof the ACLU wasn't biased. Well, if the ACLU truly wasn't biased, then they would need no such proof. Just the simple fact it was a big deal proves that it was an aberration instead of the norm. But we could look at other ca... How often do they defend religious rights of Christians?Wow. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble: July 23, 2006 You not only didn't burst my bubble, you just made my point for me. That isn't a real religious group, it is a hate group. They represent some of the worst of humanity and the fact that the ACLU defends them only shows how wrong the ACLU is. I don't even know if you read what you posted, but that whole case is about the right to protest at funerals. They go around protesting at funerals spewing hate speech and telling people they are going to hell. They do this at the funerals of servicemen who died in Iraq, and they were going to do it at the funerals of the Amish children who were killed in the school house slaying until a radio show host convinced them not to in exchange for air time. Th... Coming to the aid of the Phelps lunatics is supposed to be representative of a defense of the right of Christians? Cynical, calculated defense of extremist groups seen as being of the right does not a balance make. Sorry anonymology, I didn't mean to shout. On its surface it may appear to be unconstitutional. But a few questions: Is this part of a daily curriculum of purely religious instruction? Is this part of a larger curriculum on the History of religion and multicultural experiences? Was the object of the lesson to convert the students or impose a particular religious view over them? Worth investigating, yes. |
View the Top Clips from November 7, 2006
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||