digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

A Visitor From The Past: the Constitution and the Revolution

writeidea.org — I had a dream the other night, I didn't understand. A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said: "We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty. We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • xfactor72315, on 06/24/2008, -3/+55Right on brother!
  • mejaredme, on 06/24/2008, -3/+60This poem brings tears to my eyes...what have we done?
    • ElAssoWipo, on 06/24/2008, -1/+15Nothing. That's the problem.
    • blazes816, on 06/24/2008, -6/+10And I know the vast majority of Diggers will get pissed at this and I'll be buried to oblivion, but Obama stands for the exact same things this poem and the founders denounced.
      • dave122, on 06/24/2008, -1/+8no he stands for change and hope and dreams and rivers filled with chocolate.

        palmface
        • blazes816, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3But not white chocolate. That'd be racist.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2No he doesn't. This poem went right over your head.

        This represents McCain's values 100%.

        This poem is about teaching christian doctrine in public schools, overturning the right to get an abortion, not paying taxes, going back to precious metals as a form of currency regulation, and it's actually a criticism of the Ronald Reagan administration.

        It also criticizes the very popular prosecution of pedophile priests in the 80's. That's right, this poem is against prosecuting pedophiles when they are priests.

        Read it again.
  • 19592, on 06/24/2008, -3/+49This poem is right on. I could only imagine what our founders would think if they could see us now (sigh).
    • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -5/+20That would make a great script for a movie. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and gang get transported in time to the present day.... and wielding the constitution drive out the neocon scum.
      • bosssmiley, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5I have a similar dream of Oliver Cromwell climbing down from his plinth outside Parliament and heading indoors to wake up Winston Churchill. Then the two of them tag-team kerbstomp our thieving unelected pseudo-PM.
        • sturmgiest, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5this is about america, not britain, youve dealt with tyranny for over a thousand years, its standard procedure for you.
      • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+13Not just the neocon scum though. Let's not forget the liberals.
    • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -6/+17They'd probably be amazed how much taller and fatter the average american is...
    • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -2/+13Yeah well, don't you know that people would say that the ideals and principles espoused by the founding fathers are outdated and archaic for today's world. They couldn't predict the future! these people would say. We need a living document! /sarcasm

      That's really the way most people view the founding fathers now even if they don't come right out and say it openly. People may at best pay lip service to liberty, but they're either ***** or don't have the faintest idea what true liberty is. Americans today look at the founding fathers as something as a novelty, sort of a curiosity that we superficially celebrate with our fireworks on Independence Day. They look at it in a vacuous sort of way. They don't pay homage to their ideas and philosophy. Rather they see them and their ideas as being cute and trite. It amazes me when I see people act like such hypocrites when they celebrate Independence Day and as tourists visit places like Monticello but then they go back to their daily grind in which they support all their statist measures. The cognitive dissonance just baffles me.
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/24/2008, -4/+36Excellent post. Thank you.
  • vlemx1953, on 06/24/2008, -6/+26Excellant!
  • osko2052, on 06/24/2008, -2/+34Thanks for sharing that with us. It makes you think about all the blood shed for this country.
  • tkeeley, on 06/24/2008, -4/+30Excellent poem.
  • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -30/+21""Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate.
    Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state."

    "You pay for crimes that make our Nation, turn from God in shame.
    You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name."

    I don't think the poet who wrote this understands the concept of separation of church and state. Religious influences can GTFO of my government, especially the public school system. (which thanks to evangelical "conservatives", they exist more than ever...)
    • rightwingattila, on 06/24/2008, -11/+18Educated in a public school onetimer where you are told the phrase "separation of church and state" is actually in the Constitution? Here's a thought, try reading it.
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -5/+9When did I say those exact words were in the constitution? That's a strawman argument with nothing to back it up. Seriously, that's a ***** ***** claim and you know it.

        How about you read the Jefferson-Danbury letters and see where the phrase is *actually* used, before you start ignorantly criticizing me.
        • Nannybell, on 06/24/2008, -4/+6Yeah, so we take someone's personal correspondence and give it equal weight with the Constitution, as the court system has done. Makes sense to me (not).
        • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -2/+8Only so because that personal correspondence, along with other writings of the founding fathers, provide context for the true implication of the purposely vague statements.
        • lazerus9, on 06/24/2008, -3/+3Pretty good onetimer you managed to finish one whole sentence before breaking into your usual profanity laden diatribe. You may also want to voice your support for Washington's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements. You wouldn't like that now would you?
        • etherreal, on 06/24/2008, -5/+5Lazerus has got you there.....lets keep religion out of school and US out of Israel....
    • MacBigot, on 06/24/2008, -11/+18@onetimer
      You mean the "separation of church and state" which cannot be found in the Constitution of the United States of America? The same concept about which George Washington said the following in his Farewell Address?:

      "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
      Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp? ...

      That "concept of separation of church and state"?
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -8/+8That tired old fallacious argument isn't going to work, buddy.

        "Myth:
        The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.

        Response:
        That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

        There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

        Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.

        Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
        The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

        Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. "

        http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phr ...

        • MacBigot, on 06/24/2008, -3/+2That's right, ignore the Washington quotation that reveals the Founding Father's perspective on the interplay between government and religion.

          Jefferson coined the phrase, "separation of church and state." I wonder what else he said about religion's role in America?

          Hey, look...I can cut & paste too!

          From:

          http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp? ...

          The Separation of Church and State
          by David Barton

          In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

          The election of Jefferson-America's first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

          Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

          "Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator."1

          However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion":

          "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights." 2

          In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor."

          Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

          "[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3

          "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government." Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4

          "[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary." Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5

          "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises." Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6

          Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

          "It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion." 7

          Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

          "[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly." 8

          Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

          Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

          "Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem." 9

          Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

          By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." 10 That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

          So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

          "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" 11

          Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

          Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:

          "Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." 12

          That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":

          "[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State." 13

          With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."

          That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

          Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel"-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

          Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

          For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

          ne further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but al
    • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -4/+18This is a rarity for me to agree with onetimer. Those of you burying onetimer for that, you seriously believe religion and government should mix? Are you saying we should be a theocracy because that's what we would be if you don't have a separation.

      I'm all for the separation of church and state, and no, there wasn't those exact words in the Constitution, but there were certainly other parts that made it clear that we're supposed to be a secular republic and that doesn't mean that religious people don't have a right to be in government, but rather that they can't use their religious morality to create government policies based upon religion that have nothing to do with the sole purpose of government to protect individual rights.

      As for onetimer, I agree with him on the separation, but I wonder how he feels about his Jewish lobby influencing our government for unconstitutional purposes on the other hand. I wonder how consistent he would be there.

      @macbigot

      Those words by George Washington have nothing to do with having any sort of religious government. When some of the founding fathers said things like that, they were speaking about their opinion that society, in the private sphere needs to be moral and perhaps spiritual or religious in order to maintain the republic. They believed that the population needs to be informed and moral to keep civilization strong against government. You're misinterpreting that. That has nothing to do with mixing religion and government. He wasn't speaking of government. They are two totally separate things.

      In fact, many of the founding fathers were just deists. Some were even agnostics or atheists. One can find plenty of quotations, some out of context, that would seem to support or prohibit the notion of separation of church and state. People can argue all day about that in one upping each other with silly quotations. I think the 1st ammendment also states that we shouldn't have religion influence our government to be more theocratic.

      • MacBigot, on 06/24/2008, -6/+4@JDenigma
        Ah, yes, those nutty Founding Fathers of ours and their "silly quotations." What use are they in establishing original intent?!
        • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -3/+3Ah, the comeback of a simpleton. You obviously fail to recognize my point.
        • MacBigot, on 06/24/2008, -2/+3On the contrary, your ad hominem attack reveals your lack of historical evidence.
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -6/+6Yeah, this "not in the constitution" argument they have been making is a ridiculous strawman argument. I never even mentioned anything about the constitution!

        I was talking about keeping religious influences out of government agencies like public schools or courts, where religion shouldn't play a role whatsoever...
        • cashman57, on 06/24/2008, -4/+3It sucks when _your_ practice of strawman arguments comes back to you doesn't it?
          I am happy to see it and hope it is used on you often.
        • MacBigot, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2@onetimer
          "I was talking about keeping religious influences out of government agencies like public schools or courts, where religion shouldn't play a role whatsoever..."

          @ Pres. George Washington
          "Let it simply be asked, 'where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation IN COURTS OF JUSTICE?'"
      • Nannybell, on 06/24/2008, -3/+3The Founding Fathers did not establish a theocracy, but they established self-govt. which they stated could not be expected to survive without the foundation of a religiously moral citizenry who adhered to the Judeo-Christian ethic. ***religion and morality are indispensable supports...*** (Geo. Wash.)

        If a religiously moral citizenry is essential, then that means it would prevail in numbers, right? And if it prevails in numbers, does it make sense to you that it can reasonably be kept out of every sphere of society? How could that be achieved? It can't. People ARE their beliefs.

        And in the schools, why would we ignore the beliefs of the predominant religiously moral citizenry of the nation and kick it out of the schools, and in its place bring in secular humanism that denies the God of the religiously moral citizenry? Makes no sense.
        • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2Point 1.) Government should not even be involved in education, period. So there would be no "public/government" schools. The free market could provide you your religious education if that's what you or anyone else wants taught to their kids. No one is stopping you from that in a free market. However, with the government schools, it becomes tragedy of the commons and as a result, it's a finite pie in which everyone fights for control of it to dictate what in their precious little opinion, what should and should not be taught thus the minority loses out and gets the garbage of the majority shoved down their throats, like it or not. People who may not be religious would be forced to learn it and be subjected to it. Do you not respect their rights? What about people who don't even have kids who are forced to subsidize it through their private property taxes? Look, if you want to teach your fantasy religious beliefs, do so on your own terms voluntarily in the free market, but don't shove it down other peoples throats.

          Point 2.) A question rather.... Do you believe ONLY RELIGIOUS people can be moral?
      • lazerus9, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7There is just something so off-putting about onetimer lecturing us on the separation of church and state!
    • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -5/+9Oh, another thing, onetimer, as for this quotation.....

      ""Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate.
      Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state."

      Are you thus saying that you believe we should have government schools and that people shouldn't be free to teach Christianity in home school or a private school? I don't believe they should teach Christianity in a government school, but the bottom line is, we shouldn't even have government schools in the first place anyway. I would also support one's right to teach agnosticism or atheism. It works both ways.
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -3/+6How the hell did you infer that? Seriously, I understand alot of you don't like me and are desperate to find anything you can criticize me for, but I assumed that the author was implying that it was a *bad* thing that we couldn't teach "christian values" like creationism in public school, which I assumed is why he juxtapositioned that the "Christian values can't be taught" with the sentence about public schools...
        • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5Fair enough onetimer. I did jump to conclusions about you there in assuming that you were implying that. That's just the default suspicion I have of those on either side of this argument. Usually, people argue over the basis of either having Christianity taught in the "public schools" or not all based upon what their religious background or lack thereof, is. Everyone fights over who can CONTROL the government schools. It's the tragedy of the commons. It seems no one addresses the fundamental issues and the principles that....1.)religion should not be mixed with the public affairs that government is involved in such as government schools....... and 2.)the concept that government shouldn't even be involved in subsidizing schools in the first place.

          So my apologies there in jumping the gun on you there. At least I hope you are honest about being principled both ways with respect to government schools. You may be right that that was the authors intention. What the author said could be interpreted either way. It's incumbent upon the author to clarify those things.
        • MisterEX, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2To say that religion has no part in school is ridiculous. There is a place in school for religion. Hell, it's a subject on its own, but it also covers aspects of many different subjects as well.

          For example, in music to fully understand the compositions written, you must also understand the composer; his/her religious background, influence, and what the person's beliefs were. Some of the greatest composers of all time were very religious and one cannot fully understand their compositions without learning about the religion or beliefs they followed. There's also religion in our history. Like it or not, religion has mapped out what our world is today.

          I'm sure you're figuring out that one cannot simply exclude religion from school, because it expands to the beginning of man. I'm not referring to one in particular, but as humans worshiping as a whole. I believe it should be taught without the opinions of the teacher, but rather expressing the opinions of those historical figures being taught - and let the kids make the interpretation themselves.

          To ensure a full and useful education religion has a place to be taught, even in biology class, as long as it refers to the person's beliefs and can be used to get a different/better perspective of HOW this great scientist, musician, chemist, etc. thought. Learning about the personal beliefs of individual helps you to understand the "why's" and "what's" to the conclusions they came to.
        • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2@misterex

          1.)Your point about the broad subject of religion as a whole is true, but I think you know that the typical person that tends to push for this religion in schools isn't thinking of that, they're trying to specifically get Christianity and creationism into the schools which is different from what you're talking about there.

          2.)Do you believe in central planning? That's what it is when you believe in having the government act as a referee to determine the one size fits all solution curriculum amongst all the people who fight amongst each other over their each uniquely different idea as to what constitutes a good curriculum. That's what the free market is for. Get the government out of this and stop having some bureaucrats from on high play favoritism to some interest group of the moment that will get their agenda pushed through for the curriculum. If you feel some subject matter is important in a school then you are free in a marketplace to send your child to a school that meets that criteria or beyond that look for alternative solutions such as home schooling, self-education, virtual classrooms, distance learning, Internet, etc. and who knows what else the marketplace and technology in the future could provide. Just don't force your idea of what constitutes a good curriculum down other peoples throats.
    • FrankHope, on 06/24/2008, -10/+16Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. The founders did not call for Americans to renounce their religion. That would be communism.

      When did it become illegal to sing "Silent Night" at a school Christmas concert? For that matter when did it become illegal to call it a CHRISTMAS concert? Now its a holiday concert. Do you think the founders would agree with that?

      But its OK for Israel to be a "Jewish State". Right onetimer? Give me a f-ing break.
      • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -3/+3I know you were speaking to onetimer, but I don't know if you were meaning to direct that at me also.

        I agree with you on that. I support freedom OF religion. I just don't want it mixing with government. Besides, for those people who are religious, the last thing you want is for the government and religion to get in bed with each other. They'll both corrupt each other. If you're concerned about your religion and keeping it strong, then the last thing you want is for the government to gets its strings attached to your religion.
        • FrankHope, on 06/24/2008, -4/+5Beware of hidden agendas. Some people would like to ban the Bible because it is "anti-Semitic". But they hide their true agenda by saying they are for Freedom of Religion. Sounds very noble, but that's not their real intent.
        • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4Ok, I don't see what you're getting at and what your point is. Are you accusing me of that?

          I don't want to hear any religious proselytizing from any religion. Religion has no place in government, period. It should be a secular, neutral government, not favor any one religion over another.

          Personally, I'm an agnostic. Do you have a problem with me?
        • MisterEX, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1@JDenigma

          For the most part I agree. I do not want my religion to fully mix with the government. Power corrupts and history can prove that.

          The problem arises with the individual. Individuals are voted in by other individuals to create our government. But being voted in does not separate you from your personal beliefs. So if more religious individuals vote, the more likely it will be that there will be more religious government individuals as well. So the government itself may not be religious, but the individuals will make decisions based on their religious beliefs and backgrounds. It would be impossible to say you could ever completely separate religion and government, because religion is such a personal topic.

          By the way, I have no problem with you, JDenigma.
        • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2@misterex

          You make good points in your comments, but I think you miss the bigger picture. Yes, it's true that there always lies that potential that ones belief system whether it be religion or even something else entirely, can lead them to the temptation of being corrupted in their position of authority and be influenced to inculcate their beliefs into the molding of the government beyond its original intent. Religion is a very personal, emotional issue in which people tend to believe it for purely emotional reasons, not logical, rational reasons. Usually it's something that they were inculcated with since childhood and its futile to try to argue with people about their religion. You'll never get through to them.

          So yes, I understand the nature of religion and its influence upon people. I'm with you there, but this danger with people in government isn't exclusive to just religious people. People are also motivated by other things and have other belief systems besides religion and what you said about peoples religious ideas in government can also be said just as well about these other people with other belief systems. So what I'm getting at is that it's not just a religious issue, but an issue of the corrupting nature and inherent danger of human nature with people in positions of power and authority that they shouldn't have in the first place.

          I wouldn't say that religious people should be forbidden from government positions because of that reason. If that was the case, then we should just forbid anyone period from seeking positions in government, not just religious people. The built in checks and balances in our government and the American people are supposed to be there to make sure these religious people or anyone for that matter, do not allow their influences to change government. So much for that though huh? The checks and balances failed and the American people failed at keeping government in check. The real problem here isn't a persons belief system going into government. The real problem is the nature of government.
      • MacBigot, on 06/24/2008, -2/+5@FrankHope
        News Flash: Israel is not the United States. They can be a "Jewish State" if they want. As it is, the "Jewish State" is not "tearing down the high places" (other religion's centers of worship) as their forefathers did. In fact, they allow greater access to the "holy sites" for ALL religions than Roman and Islamic authorities EVER did.
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -5/+5FrankHope, read my ***** original post. I didn't say *anything* about banning religion, you idiot. If you hadn't been so quick to go into rabid-idiot-mode, you'd see I was simply decrying religious influences in government agencies like schools and courts...

        Oh yeah, because I'm jewish, i'm responsible for the actions if israel, right? Shut the ***** up man, they have a right to be a jewish state if they want (even though they *never* deny the right for others to practice their religion, something you can't say about their neighbors...)
        • franklymister, on 06/24/2008, -0/+24chan, has it ever occurred to you that onetimer has the Star of David because he's proud of being a Jew?

          Do my avatars make me a "troll," too?
    • Kent4jmj, on 06/24/2008, -3/+11Once again I will post this to show the TRUE context of the phrase Seperation of Church and State.

      "The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. (It's not in the Constitution!) His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

      The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business. !!!


      The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

      Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass interfering with religion. !!!

      Onetimer continues to ignore these facts and post misleading trash.
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -6/+4The only misleading trash is your conclusion that

        "The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business. !!!"

        Which is based solely on your fallacious interpretation of the Jefferson-Danbury letters, which certainly does not supersede the interpretation of legal scholars far smarter than you.
      • Conspiracy20, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6 added to Kents:
        This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause.
        http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-churc ...
      • Kent4jmj, on 06/24/2008, -2/+2onetimer

        for your post to be true, "that my conclusion is trash," you Have To Disprove the Truthfulness of the Metaphor upon which the conclusion is based!

        Which you did not do, nor can you.

        Trash back at ya.
    • rex84, on 06/24/2008, -8/+5“Religious influences can GTFO of my government…”
      So, does this include zionism?

      • Bilabrin, on 06/24/2008, -5/+5Carerful now, Onetimer has explicitly denied being a "Zionist" although his comments seem to motivated by something akin to that. It's like that Dave chappelle skit... " Ladies, just because you dress slutty doesn't mean you're a whore.....but it's confusing because you're wearing a whores uniform!"
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -6/+4Oh yeah, because i'm jewish, I must be a zionist, and am therefor responsible for their actions.

        Shut the ***** up you bigot.
        • rex84, on 06/24/2008, -3/+8I wasn't even talking about you, I was refering to members of the government. Is it okay for the US government to be influenced by zionism?

          I'm starting to understand why everyone on digg hates you.
        • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -9/+3The only people who "hate" me (which is pathetic to hate someone over the internet) are the troofer trolls like yourself. Which, is a fact I take with great pride.

          The "zionist" lobby has every right to Lobby, just like the christian lobby, muslim lobby, etc.

          but no, just like christian influences, they don't have any right to preach BS like creationism in public schools, etc.
        • rex84, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5“Religious influences can GTFO of my government…”

          “The "zionist" lobby has every right to Lobby, just like the christian lobby, muslim lobby, etc.”

          Can you not see how these two statements conflict with one another?

        • lazerus9, on 06/24/2008, -2/+7Take your Anti-Christian vitriol out of here you bigoted ethnocentric, xenophobic, Zionist! You are Jewish by birth, Zionist by choice!
        • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -7/+2Lobbying != setting policy. They, like every other organization, have the right to collectively make their needs known to politicians whether you agree with them or not. But, again, like other religious organizations, they should not be setting policy like what is taught in public schools, or how courts should rule cases. You keep missing the point...
        • rex84, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3So when religious groups “collectively make their needs known to politicians”, this is not influencing these politicians?
    • Bilabrin, on 06/24/2008, -3/+3I didn't exactly see the author promoting any kind of link between religion and the state here. Their religious references you site are appeals to the dreamer and their sense of religion (generically presented BTW, could even be Judaism). The reference to education is a allusion to recent moves by many states against home schooling where you might teach your children your religion as well as the ABC's.

      Anyway, I think you inferred something not present.
      • onetimer, on 06/24/2008, -6/+6"(generically presented BTW, "

        Oh yeah, that's why they said "christian values" huh?

        Recent moves? This poem was written over TWENTY YEARS AGO.

        In short, you fail.
        • Bilabrin, on 06/24/2008, -3/+2Well since the term "Recent" is subjective and would be appropriate in context of when the country was founded and since homeschooling has actually been under attack for at least that long, you sir fail.

          Furthermore, since the term "Christian Values" is generic as well (Separate from "Christian Doctrine") then you fail again.

          So I, in fact, do not fail. You, however fail doubly. Go sit in contemplation of your failure.

          Ignominious self-righteous pricks and the tools who digg them up can go get fornicated!
    • BBoombastic, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Did I just stumble into the Bizarro Digg?
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5Saw onetimer's comment at negative nine....got out my burying shovel....popped open the comment to find that what he said makes perfect sense.

      Religion should always be personal and optional. I have a problem with people who force their religion on their own families.

      The idea that the government or the schools should be shoving it down our throats is ludicrous to the point of being sickening.
    • MelvinSchlubman, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Despite being predominantly of one religion, the founders were wise enuf to not codify a single state religion into the constitution. With all the fighting there is over church/state now, it would be much worse if the govt were used to force this vs that variation of Christianity on the nation. I'm not religious, but I like living in a country that is relatively tolerant of a plurality of religious expression. The big trouble comes in when the die-hard believers (of whatever kind) want to have everything the way they prefer, including the so-called "get govt off our backs" conservatives who greedily want to use the power of govt to create a Christian-only nation. I don't want to end up kicked out of my own country or severely marganalized because the beliefs in my head don't toe the line of the one permitted religion.
  • michaelwong38, on 06/24/2008, -3/+29inspiring
  • HumanCattle, on 06/24/2008, -2/+35I'm not even an American, yet this poem fills me with American pride.
  • Catspaw, on 06/24/2008, -1/+32That brought tears to my eyes and reminds me of "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
  • devoted, on 06/24/2008, -2/+21thats it!
  • franklymister, on 06/24/2008, -24/+8Wow. That was the literary version of a velvet painting of an eagle with a tear in his eye clutching an American flag in one talon and a cross in the other.

    As poetry, it was a dismal attempt at a couplet - the best I can say for it is that all the lines rhymed. I imagined a high school girl reciting it in a singsong voice to her church group.

    But what does the poem actually say?
    "You buy permits to travel" - what? I've traveled throughout America and outside of America, and I've never had to buy a permit. What permit?

    "On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent." - Is this supposed to be about taxes? Property tax has existed since the birth of our nation, and before.

    "Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money's spent." - No idea what that comma is doing there, but whatever. We don't get to vote directly on line items in the budget, but we do have a representative democracy. I'd call that a voice.

    "Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state." - I went to a Catholic school, and learned plenty of Christian values.

    "You read about the current news, in a regulated press." - Regulated how?

    "You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S." - Questionable. I hate income tax, but it has been Constitutionally tested.

    "so they can padlock churches," - Really? What church has been 'padlocked?'

    I get it, the author hates America, and wishes it were a Born-Again Christian nation instead, but that's no reason to make up a bunch of untruths and put them in a poorly-metered poem.
    • KJeffV, on 06/24/2008, -5/+11How do you manage to type in your cave? Are you using light fr/the monitor, or have you memorized the keys?
  • FrankHope, on 06/24/2008, -4/+30Perhaps the man in the three-cornered hat that visited him was young Nathan Hale, who's last words before being executed by the British in 1776 were, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." Ironically, Nathan was hung by the British for being an "illegal combatant", a spy. The same rationale that Bush uses today to justify stripping the rights of American Citizens, except now he uses the term "enemy combatants". King George of England would be proud of King George of America.

    Or perhaps the man that appeared with a flintlock in his hand was Patrick Henry, who in a fiery speech in Virginia spoke these famous words in 1775, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" After the Revolution, Patrick thought the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government and was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
  • macwac, on 06/24/2008, -1/+13Same - however much with shame as well, for letting it happen.
  • bosssmiley, on 06/24/2008, -2/+11A counterpoint to the above::

    Twas not while England's sword unsheathed
    Put half a world to flight,
    Nor while their new-built cities breathed
    Secure behind her might;
    Not while she poured from Pole to Line
    Treasure ships and men--
    These worshippers at Freedom's shrine
    They did not quit her then!

    Not till their foes were driven forth
    By England o'er the main--
    Not till the Frenchman from the North
    Had gone with shattered Spain;
    Not till the clean-swept oceans showed
    No hostile flag unrolled,
    Did they remember what they owed
    To Freedom--and were bold.
    • mejaredme, on 06/24/2008, -2/+6That sounds pretty deep.
      • Bilabrin, on 06/24/2008, -2/+9For some reason that reminds me of the unabridged national anthem.

        Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
        What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
        Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
        O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
        And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
        Gave proof thru the night that our flag was still there.
        Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
        O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?


        On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
        Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
        What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
        As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
        Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
        In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
        'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
        O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


        And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
        That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
        A home and a country should leave us no more!
        Their blood has washed out of of their foul footsteps' pollution.
        No refuge could save the hireling and slave'
        From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave:
        And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
        O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


        Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
        Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
        Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
        Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
        Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
        And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
        And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
        O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

        I like the part where it talks about the enemies blood washing away the foul pollution of thier trespassing footprint on our soil!
    • franklymister, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4Putting Kipling up against the "poem" from the article is like sending the Royal Philharmonic to face off against a Hootie & the Blowfish cover band at a dive bar in Memphis.

      I think it's hilarious that mejaredme's entire response was "sounds deep." Read the lines - Kipling is pointing out how the American colonies were happy to be English while there were cities to be built and enemies to be protected from, and waited to be "bold" until England had done the dirty work.

      I'm not agreeing with the sentiment, just admiring the talent of Rudyard Kipling.
  • chicofaraby, on 06/24/2008, -23/+5Nothing funnier than right wingers wailing about the constitution they don't understand and help subvert.

    I hope this got a D- for the author.
  • beesaretasty, on 06/24/2008, -12/+8Copyright 1986. Hoorah for the anti-abortion, pro-church-in-school poem.


    Wait a minute...

    Oh, to hell with it. Whatever gets those Godful Republicans aboard.
  • Sornos, on 06/24/2008, -5/+7The American Constitution should not be revered as a Holy document. It should be questioned at every turn. Doubted even. It should be like this so that you can understand why it was written.
    • etherreal, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3I agree. All things must be scrutinized, all assumptions questioned.
    • Kent4jmj, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7So lets begin our "doubt" and "questioning" with sornos and eterreal's qualifications and authority to critique, dishonor and trivialize a document that is The Law of the land and defines us as a people giving us our very existence as the Nation that we are.

      The assumption that you have something worthwhile to say should be "questioned" and "doubted" not the Constitution.

      The Constitution has a little more weight in my book.
      • etherreal, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3The Law of the Land was not handed down by angels descended from heaven. The Constitution is a document crafted by imperfect men. My qualification to critique is that I am a human being with the ability to reason, and the Constitution itself guarantees my right to critique it. Don't get me wrong, I defend the Constitution at every turn, but I dont revere it as a holy document that commands my unquestioning faith.

        To question and scrutinize, performs two functions:
        1) To discover if the subject at hand has merit to be included as a "truth"
        2) To understand that truth and incorporate it into your own being.
        • Kent4jmj, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3In this time of Constitutional revisionists who interpret by other than objective standards ie. personal agendas and subjective opinions, I find myself seeing enemies where there may not be any.
          If that is the case here I apologize.

          Blind following without understanding is useless. Still the document is a work of Genius. It provides a form of Government, that until recently was acknowledged as giving its citizens the greatest amount of freedom and prosperity the world has ever seen.

          Its basic tenets however have been eroded considerably. Personal freedom non intervention, free trade and property are more and more the domain of new legislation that seriously limits these in a frightening way.
  • mikesbaker, on 06/24/2008, -5/+15I thought this poem was going to end like this:

    If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you're asleep,
    and wonders what remains of our Rights he fought to keep,
    what would be your answer, if he called out from the grave:

    WRITE IN RON PAUL!!!!
  • ElAssoWipo, on 06/24/2008, -15/+10This is about religion, not the government.

    Sounds like something the Phelps came up with. Buried as insane bible-thumping.
    • CryRightardCry, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2BINGO!!!
      Gee, you made a truthful comment and the rightards are burying you.
      Shocker.
    • shauncorleone, on 06/25/2008, -0/+149 lines in that poem, and you choose to focus on the couple that even mention religion rather than the multiple assaults on our freedoms. You're the reason people like to paint all atheists as self-important douchebags.
  • 911ArtStudent, on 06/24/2008, -3/+10This poem comprises the bumper music to "The Intelligence Report" a great show for those interested in the patriot movement. Here are the archives:
    http://mp3.wtprn.com/Koernke08.html

    ^Don't forget "weapons wednesday" shows
  • DrPaul2008, on 06/24/2008, -2/+15Part of what this dude is talking about is a problem with the separation of schools and state. Or, the lack of it.

    Our lovely government shouldn't endorse any single religion. If we didn't allow for the government schools/indoctrination systems, this issue about the government supposedly not allowing us to teach whatever religious practices we want wouldn't come up. Also, we wouldn't have the most useless education system possible.
  • mjanning, on 06/24/2008, -2/+12very nice!
  • whataboutdave, on 06/24/2008, -8/+15"Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state."

    That's when I closed the window.
    • cashman57, on 06/24/2008, -11/+8Closing your mind along with it
    • evilunleashed, on 06/24/2008, -7/+7It shows how truly pro-government and pro-control they are , when it is offensive to them that they are forced to be personally responsible for brainwashing their children into superstitious bondage rather than letting the government do it for them. They also don't want anyone to challenge their myopic view, hence the need to have EVERYONE'S child indoctrinated with their hogwash as early as possible and without choice, so they won't have an alternate opinion to interfere. Who are the tyrants here? The ones who want the education system to focus on the knowledge necessary to contribute to modern society such as mathematics, science (the science that is derived from the scientific method, not Bronze-Age superstition and assumption), language, and history, or the ones who would rather our education system focus on religious indoctrination and submission to the hive mind?
      • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3If you're one who favors the State educating people then that makes you just as bad as those who would purport to have religion taught in the government schools.
        • evilunleashed, on 06/24/2008, -2/+2I'm sure there are idealistic fantasy lands where education is provided by the knowledgeable and capable through the kindness of their own heart and supported by money from their own pocket. I'm sure there are comparable fantasy lands where it is possible that education can be left to the free market and it will be provided at a cost that all people can afford and will have an equal opportunity to take advantage of. But it is more likely that if the government didn't see to it that there was an educational system provided for every citizen to have an opportunity to get an education, that we would regress to the patterns of past societies who worked that way. Education would be provided only to the upper (or noble/aristocrat) class, even those who would be capable of paying for the schooling would still be subject to the whims of those in control of the schools, who could choose to not allow your child to attend simply because you once upset someone who holds a stake in the school, because they don't like your skin color, because you live in a neighborhood they don't like, because you have red hair, or whatever reason they choose. The ability to read and write would be a right granted only to those whom power will be bequeathed to, and if you aren't in that line, you had better be comfortable with a shovel, because you have no recourse and no option for getting a better education for a higher station than digging and filling holes in the ground. Humans have tried this, and in some countries that is still the way it is. It works great if you want an easily controlled populace.
          I have no love for the government, and am at my core an anarchist, but I am also a rational person, and see that government does have its uses. If the government weren't making sure you have the right to an education, there's no guarantee you would be capable having this discussion, because there's no guarantee that you could read and write. I guess that's not such a bad thing after all, since apparently most people prefer to squander that opportunity and frolic in blissful ignorance.
        • JDenigma, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2First of all, I don't know how you could call yourself an "anarchist" if you somehow see governments role in education as being pragmatically necessary, that is if you're a free market anarcho-capitalist type of anarchist, not an anarcho-communist type of anarchist.

          As for your line in which you said.... "...but I am also a rational person, and see that government does have its uses." , I could certainly see an anarchist saying something like that when it comes to government providing the function of law enforcement and courts, but I just can't understand an anarchist using that reasoning when it comes to something like education. Why stop there while you're at it? If you as an anarchist supposedly as you claim, rationalize that way about the issue of education, there are so many other equally important issues that you could apply that same reasoning to as well, whether it be providing health care, food, you name it. Anarchist in name only?

          All your claims and excuses which are typical unfounded claims and conjecture used by liberals against any free market functions, could just as well be applied to everything else that is quite important. If education is so important that it somehow needs to be handed over to the state, then there are a litany of other things you might as well hand over to the state just as well based upon that reasoning.

          Of course you also state that somehow the free market solution for this is fantasy land when in reality you already have your Utopian or rather dystopian fantasy land in which the State is educating our population and failing miserably and dumbing future generations down. You're in good company with the liberals who make these same type of gratuitous assertions against getting the government out of education. It's just all pure speculation and conjecture out of fear mongering and you just close your mind to considering the possibility of an alternative. For a time early on in the history of the U.S., we didn't have the governments hand involved in education and everyone including poor were getting educated just fine, but ever since the first state, Massachusetts set the precedent at getting the state government involved in the 19th century and then the federal government involved with the State Dept. of Education, it has been slipping and getting worse over time.

          Your worn out claims about only the rich getting educated and that they would somehow hold power and sway over children with no where to go, is absolutely absurd and you know it. That's not the way it works in a free market anyway. So you see the government involvement as the better alternative? It's an either/or choice of a government run education system or a free market system and you're picking the immoral, bureaucratic choice. Besides, it's probably the poor and the middle class who suffer the most under our current system such as the poor in the inner city government schools which represent the worst of the worst. I guess the lily white suburbanites out of touch with that don't have to worry about that. In a free market, competitive system of education, there would be much more choices and cheaper ones at that for poor people, including even some for profit and non-profit education that could be provided free that would be sponsored. Everytime there is an unfettered free market, you always have an increase in the amount of competitive choices to choose from, an improvement in the quality of the goods and services provided, and prices come down. You don't get that in today's system. What's to say also that we always need conventional education in the form of schools and classrooms? There could be alternative, outside the box methods of teaching and learning such as home schooling, self-education, distance learning, virtual classrooms and learning and the Internet itself as a widely available tool today for educating. Open up your mind and your imagination instead of repeating these tired old bromides about only the rich will benefit blah blah blah. That is so old.

          Meanwhile today, we have the indocrination system as envisioned by Horace Mann with the Prussian school model that works as a social engineering institution in not providing quality education in history, philosophy, science, politics and civics, etc. and doesn't teach kids to think critically and logically and shapes and molds them to be little worker bees and consumers who won't question authority. Is that what you love and want today?
    • Pitofdoom, on 06/24/2008, -3/+2What values do you recommend ?
      • xtinamo, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5Values that are not based upon what a certain deity has deemed to be sinful.
        • Pitofdoom, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1Seeking after that which is generationaly sound would be a good start !
      • relic180, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4Values have no place in school. Values come from the parents.
        Information should be taught in school.
    • relic180, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3I interpreted your response to mean that you closed the window because the poem seems to imply that Christian values should be taught in school, and they're not. And if that was your reason, I agree with you.

      First off, values shouldn't be taught in school at all. They should be taught at home.
      But second, to appease the pathetic, whining christian masses, it could be made available in school... as an elective... without trying to hint that it's somehow science... and a giant disclaimer telling of the dangers that "christian values" bring (intolerance, ignorance, divisive behavior and a meltdown of logical faculties).
      • Pitofdoom, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1If you would, Please put down the crack pipe for just a minute.
        What is it in GOD's word that is intolerant, ignorant and or a meltdown of logic or generally generationaly destructive ?
        • relic180, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Nothing really. Only MANS interpretation of it.

          Intolerance = Gays are bad
          Ignorance = Intelligent Design is Science
          Divisive Behavior = Nonbelievers are going to hell and you're not
          Meltdown of Logical Faculties = Belief in god is not crazy
  • Naidim, on 06/24/2008, -7/+2I find it amazing that atheists get offended by unicorns. I don't espouse teaching religion in school, but values should be taught in all walks of life.
    • etherreal, on 06/24/2008, -2/+5When unicorns are presented as a fairy tale, fine. When unicorns are presented as fact, thats where I have the issue.
    • dave122, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2religion != values, well good ones anyway.
  • KMye, on 06/24/2008, -2/+9Thelen Paulk's classic poem "A Visitor from the Past" is neither classic, nor a poem...discuss!
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3As a lover of literature and poetry I can offer this:

      Just because something rhymes at the end of each line doesn't make it poetic. This is more like a collection of thoughts from a political ideology, organized into rhyming couplets.

      As for being classic, there are many elements of universal truth in the lines, but no original ideas. So again this piece of writing could be construed as a collection of classic ideas organized into rhyming couplets.

      Personally I would not go so far to say that it isn't a poem, but I will say that the poetic meter is standard and weak and it offers little more than a reminder of the great things written and said by others.
      • franklymister, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1aabb is the poetic equivalent of a gum-snapping high school cheerleader.
  • Hetman, on 06/24/2008, -3/+10It was awesome until he started preaching to me. I stopped reading after that.
  • tycity, on 06/24/2008, -3/+7I was inspired until: "Your daughters visit Doctors, so their children won't be born."

    For the record, back then, abortions were not performed by doctors, but by whatever was lying around the house, swallowing poisons and dangerous chemicals and/or lifting heavy things in an effort to miscarry. When the poem started talking about my politics as a woman and the choices I have as a free person, well, it lost me after that. I'd give it a B- for effort. The preachy parts are lame.
  • perot9296, on 06/24/2008, -2/+3The message is good, but this is NOT a good poem.
    • franklymister, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2Digging you up because even though I don't really dig the message personally, the real crime is the tortured attempt at poetry.
  • Pitofdoom, on 06/24/2008, -5/+3If you believe not in Christ, what do you believe ?
    The State, all of it belongs, is owned by "we the people" one big mountain of failed debt !
  • CryRightardCry, on 06/24/2008, -9/+4Lame.
    Can't help but notice he managed to work in a whole bunch of rightard stupidity into the rational stuff.
    Buried for rightard stupidity.
    Even when they are TRYING to get it right they still ***** it up with the rightard agenda.
    Notice it's against women's rights, it's for guns a plenty. Notice the line about "put men of god in jail". Yep, if they are criminals. The rightard view is that anyone on their side should be given special treatment.
    Then all the dragging GOD into it.
    The more I go over it the crappier it is.
    It's rightard LIP SERVICE to doing the right thing, yet the rightard asshat who writes that site has been a cheerleader for everything Bush has done, including the assault on the consitution.
    Given the position of the author this appears to be other moronic right wing propaganda piece. Why is the author just getting a clue NOW, after years of blindly supporting the Bush regime?
    Seems like every rightard is now trying to pretend they had a clue the whole time.
    I can't bury this moronic right wing load of crap enough.
    If this loser cares about America he can start by holding those who have done the bad things accountable, right?
    Oh, right. The right wing just gives Bush a pass on the last 7 years.
    Wow, what integrity.
    • chicofaraby, on 06/24/2008, -3/+1Are you really surprised that the right wing is running away from George Bush's disastrous presidency?

      I think the funniest part is how they all claim to be "Libertarians" suddenly, as if the solution to the failure of right wing policies is to go even further out on the fringe of the right wing. "George Bush isn't conservative" has to be the funniest freaking thing I've seen in a long long time.
    • shauncorleone, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1You must really hate yourself. Fortunately, I'm sure plenty of other people share that feeling.
      For the record, "Rightard" has to be the weakest attempt at namecalling ever, and I'm sure you just get so proud of yourself every time you say it aloud. If your parents weren't already embarassed of you, this would do the trick.
  • D4N747, on 06/24/2008, -0/+10Though I dislike the religious points, this is an excellent poem in all other respects. Drives several points home, painfully well.

    However, as an above poster commented, there is a logical and well-placed reason for the separation of church and state. Digg me down as far as you like because I disagree with religion, but religion has no place in the government. I'd rather fight a war for Mr. Bush than anyone's church (mosque, ect.)
  • iamconanobrien, on 06/24/2008, -3/+5Damn. That's actually really good.
  • wynja, on 06/24/2008, -2/+6It sickens me to see how true it is. We are now several generations into the slavery and noone seems to care at all.
  • lhodsdon, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2wow.
  • avengingturnip, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5344 diggs and still no front page. Digg is absolutely broken.
    • franklymister, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4Not broken, the article got buried.

      You can tell by searching for "visitor" and ordering by most recent - it's not there. Then do the search again but check "include buried stories" and it shows up.

      I wondered why it wasn't on the front page even after 300 diggs, I guess Digg's algorithm counts buries in the mix as well.
      • avengingturnip, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Sounds broken to me if that is they it fails to work.
        • franklymister, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Once again in English please?
        • avengingturnip, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Seems broken to me if that is how it fails to work.
        • FrankHope, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I agree that it's broken. I'm not at all pleased at how the bury feature works. There is no indication of a bury count. It's impossible to find out who is burying an article. I do not agree with this policy. It's really turning me off to digg. It would be quite easy to create a bot that goes around burying stories because there is no capcha required for burying.

          Once again, digg is broken because of the implementation of the bury feature. This is an invitation to a cowardly group to anonymously influence digg.
  • isparadiselost, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Interesting that this was buried. I guess the PTB and their minions don't want the fires of liberty getting rekindled. Sorry, bitches, it's starting whether you like it or not!
    • shauncorleone, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Maybe we can get it posted on the HuffingtonPost. Then it'll make the front page.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.