>>People are teaching Islam in public schools? And when did they ban Bibles or private prayer from public schools? I must have missed something very important.<<

‘pears that you’ve indeed missed matters of extreme importance.

“private prayer”! you temporize, sir – why ought prayer in our public schools be relegated to such as “private”? Say what!? --Pogo

“...in 1892, in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that America is a "Christian nation." ”

Regardless, the opinion of this or that person..., the ruling above has not since been reversed or otherwise overturned by our highest Court. To submit otherwise is to forward arguments constructed from whole cloth, as it were. However,

one cannot fail to recognize that there is a divide between what is de jure and what is de facto. Example: our kids, wishing to have communal prayer are often forced to “gather at the flagpole” to do so; our kids still have their depictions of things Xtian confiscated by their educators; public school principals are known to literally ‘trash’ our kids Bibles in the waste; etc. To provide honesty to our posterity in their school environs – require constant legal action.

Say what!? –jasd

One can probably trace much of the problems re our teacher’s and our children’s rights to honesty and justice ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District) to a PC and/or gross misinterpretation of the so-called “establishment clause”.

>>Of course, Christians do tend to be the least favored religion in places like that.<<

No, local, and not so local, officials disfavor Xtian practices in both public schools and other forums for reason of PC – Federal rulings notwithstanding...

>>But we're supposed to be happy when we're persecuted, and not allowing us to Christianize public schools doesn't even really count as "persecution".<<

Okay, Biblically you may have a point; however, was Writ speaking to the spiritual man or to practical realities? and, it may be more correct to state, “reChristianize public schools”.

>>We should thankful that we aren't in a country where our religion is outlawed altogether. But, incidentally, private Bible reading and prayer are perfectly legal in public schools, and everywhere else in the country.<<

“private” is noted; and although aspects of the above are true, it is not so in its entirety.

>>Also, a movie depicting the destruction of the world in 2012 is not what I would consider PC as a whole.<<

To encompass the many particulars of PC other than by example by increment – would require volumes that should prove prohibitive given this format; that said, I propose that Theo van Gogh probably gave as much thought to PC and the Muslim community in his own country.

>>And what the producers have to say about this religion vs. that religion doesn't really concern me.<<

One should readily apprehend the portent...; as the producers admitted that they left Mecca standing as to avoid the foreseeable consequences of ‘offending’ Islamic extremists, as it were. THAT OFFENDS ME! We are not Dar Al-Islam. We are a

nation which covenanted with the Xtian Gd before our forebears left the Mayflower to set foot upon this land. Our Colonies, likewise, covenanted with a Xtian Gd in their separate constitutions. We are that Biblically prophesied “nation of nations” – Gd’s.

>>What's the difference between "simple concern" and tact and empathy?<<

“tact” (loosely: constrains one to emphasize the ‘delicacies’ of the other);
“empathy” (loosely: identifying with another’s ‘driving forces’);
“simple concern” eschews the color of altruism indicated by both “tact” and “empathy” – addressing more the entire concerns of a matter – particularly, including self.

>>Are those things bad or are they good?<<

Both good and bad.

The 1st amendment says that the government can't endorse any particular religion. Which means that, fortunately, we're no more a Christian nation than we are a Deist nation (many of the founding fathers were deists). We should not be trying to force people to pray and be indoctrinated into Christianity in public schools, regardless of former practice. However, if you read the link I quoted from, the government's guidelines say that if a student initiates religious activities and does not try to force anyone to participate in religious activities, there is nothing the school can do to stop them. I'd say to show that to all the radical people who want to keep free exercise of religion out of public schools. The only thing prohibited is for the school itself to endorse a religion.

Separation of church and state is a good thing, jasd. If we were a "Christian" nation, we could just as easily be Catholic as Protestant, or Mormon as Evangelical.

If you lived in a country where there was an official religion, you'd have it forced down your throat all the time and there would be nothing you could do about it. State religion was what we had during the Dark Ages (and that was 'Christianity'), and how well did that work out?

Schools were un-Christianized for a good reason: for a public government-run school to endorse a certain religion and alienate people of other religions in a supposedly "free" country is unconstitutional.

Actually, according to traditional Adventist understanding of prophecy, America is the beast in Revelation that was like a lamb and spoke like a dragon, and forced everyone to worship the first beast--the papacy. Which is what will happen if we Christianize our country.

Anyway, we've sort of gotten off track... the main point is that, regardless of what words you use to describe kindness and the way we should act, some people who abandon PC also abandon that. And if you knew any of them you'd probably agree, because they aren't very pleasant to talk to. For some examples you can look on the internet (maybe even this forum...) and on certain conservative radio talk shows.

>>The 1st amendment says that the government can't endorse any particular religion.<<

1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

>>Which means that, fortunately, we're no more a Christian nation than we are a Deist nation (many of the founding fathers were deists).<<

Except by placing a meaning of ‘de facto practice’ upon it, you are wrong. Read the particulars of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States – to find that, indeed, we are a Xtian nation. Per your mention of “a Deist nation”, our early and founding documents reference a specific and definite [Xtian] Gd, not an indefinite and/or numinous ‘divine power’ of Deist thought. Anyway, there remains Holy Trinity v.

>>We should not be trying to force people to pray and be indoctrinated into Christianity in public schools, regardless of former practice.<<

Forced? indoctrinated? that is not only opinionated but in essence, pejorative.

>>However, if you read the link I quoted from, the government's guidelines say that if a student initiates religious activities and does not try to force anyone to participate in religious activities, there is nothing the school can do to stop them.<<

That is true as pertains privileges due clubs and sundry similar sorts; however, the ACLU (and other like-minded groups) has and does file so many suits against local governing entities – that whatever guidelines ‘set forth’ in Federal opinions are translated to whatever the locals (school boards, etc) deem them to be.

>>I'd say to show that to all the radical people who want to keep free exercise of religion out of public schools. The only thing prohibited is for the school itself to endorse a religion.<<

On substance, I’d tend to agree except in the matter of preferment as opposed to endorsement; after all, I reiterate, we are, Holy Trinity v. not having been vacated, de jure, a Xtian nation...

>>Separation of church and state is a good thing, jasd.<<

“Separation of church and state” was a concept found in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson and had nothing to do with the First Amendment. The “establishment clause” has been crudely misunderstood and misinterpreted.

>>If we were a "Christian" nation, we could just as easily be Catholic as Protestant, or Mormon as Evangelical.<<

The Supreme Court held that this nation is Xtian; do you not believe the above three .orgs are Xtian?

>>If you lived in a country where there was an official religion,<<

The First Amendment proscribed Congress from making a “law respecting an establishment of religion...”

For centuries Xtianity, almost to the exclusion of any other religion, was practiced in America – forming the foundation which led to our becoming the Greatest Nation ever to take its place in known history.

>>...you'd have it forced down your throat all the time and there would be nothing you could do about it.<<

Neither our founding fathers nor I make the argument for an “official religion”.

>>State religion was what we had during the Dark Ages (and that was 'Christianity'), and how well did that work out?<<

Several things: if you attempt to advance a ‘cause and effect’ argument that Catholicism equated to the Dark Ages, it would be unmerited; moreover, Western Civilization owes a large measure to Catholic Xtianity. Extreme weather variance and subsequent hardships, as noted in the few writings still extant – caused, and for the most part, sustained the Dark Ages. It is to the RCC credit that they shepherded the remains of civilization through the Dark Ages.

>>Schools were un-Christianized for a good reason: for a public government-run school to endorse a certain religion and alienate people of other religions in a supposedly "free" country is unconstitutional.<<

That may be; however, as matters currently stand, it is beyond the pale when our kids are being disinherited in their country.

>>Actually, according to traditional Adventist understanding of prophecy, America is the beast in Revelation that was like a lamb and spoke like a dragon, and forced everyone to worship the first beast--the papacy. Which is what will happen if we Christianize our country.<<

Don’t you think that Gd-inspired Writ misleads when, after having identified Persia as a Ram, it then goes on to correlate a beast with lamb-like horns to other than Persia/Iran? and isn’t it Persia/Iran who today speaks as a dragon? whilst we seem to be diminishing on many fronts? moreover,

the Papacy!? as it has historically stood? how so?

Non, non, it appears that should it be the papacy which symbolizes the first beast – it would be a papacy no longer recognized as the entity which contributed so much to Western Civilization, but one, I believe, Islam will destroy.

>>Anyway, we've sort of gotten off track... the main point is that, regardless of what words you use to describe kindness and the way we should act, some people who abandon PC also abandon that.<<

What of those who will not and have not embrace(d) PC? rejecting it as manipulative and indisputably junk.

>>And if you knew any of them you'd probably agree, because they aren't very pleasant to talk to.<<

I’ve never cared for oily-talk – preferring and subscribing to straightforward truths and principles.

>>For some examples you can look on the internet (maybe even this forum...) and on certain conservative radio talk shows.<<

Search the internet to see what you can find on the “Wilding of Palin” – and see from whence truly vile, vile, vile dialogue originates – if not from the most vocal of PC subscribers.

Since church/state is not the subject of this thread, I'll just reply to this statement:


That's fine and dandy. But when Jesus told us to treat others like we would want to be treated, I don't think He meant to treat others as if they have the same mindset as u, but that we should treat others as we would want to be treated if we thought the way they did. Which, for most people, would be gently, since most people are too stubborn in their thinking to recognize what you call "truth".

What if someone called you ugly? Would it make any difference if they said that they were just telling the "truth"? What if someone said that you weren't smart enough to know what they were talking about? Would it make any difference if they said, "Hey, I'm just telling you the truth. What, do you think I should be PC or something?"

We all have different ideas about "truth". To me, your opinion of religion in schools is not true, and to you my opinion is not true. It won't make any difference for either of us to say to the other, "It's just true."

>>But when Jesus told us to treat others like we would want to be treated, I don't think He meant to treat others as if they have the same mindset as u,<<

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

And, of course, Jesus Christ’s words also state that we ought not to do unto others what you don’t want them to do unto you.

I’m good to go there, as I don’t scrue others and don’t expect anything from them – that doesn’t already and inherently belong to me. I’m certain that most good and true Americans are disturbed by what is happening to our country – as well its traditional values.

Here are more of Gd-inpired Writ: “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” (Heb 12:16)

Harsh?

>>...but that we should treat others as we would want to be treated if we thought the way they did.<<

That’s the rub, eh? that we all should think as faceless arbiters decide. Example: profiling – bad. Remember when our airline personnel could not pull a Middle Eastern guy from line – but did pull blue-haired grannies aside for the ‘whole nine yards’? Like, poor grannie fit the profile of an in-country terrorist! PC at work, goodfellow. Good for Nat’l Security, yes?

>>What if someone called you ugly? Would it make any difference if they said that they were just telling the "truth"?<<

Been called worse.

>>What if someone said that you weren't smart enough to know what they were talking about? Would it make any difference if they said, "Hey, I'm just telling you the truth. What, do you think I should be PC or something?"<<

What? I should think that I know what half the illiterate are talking about!? Truth I can deal with; PC? Yikes!

>>We all have different ideas about "truth". To me, your opinion of religion in schools is not true, and to you my opinion is not true. It won't make any difference for either of us to say to the other, "It's just true."<<

“It’s just true.” Indeed, that would be error on your part – as one has only to recourse back to the beginnings of our country – when the Bible was the primary textbook in our schools and Bible-thumpers founded our institutions of higher learning. I submit that

PC is massively contributing to our nati’l decline and serves, again, sinistral interests – to our immeasurable detriment.

“the same mindset as u”

Of course, some people who are so proud of themselves for not being politically correct are just plain rude.

And they don't even know it.

Umm, you might wanna consider taking it up a notch.

>>PC is massively contributing to our nati’l decline and serves, again, sinistral interests – to our immeasurable detriment. <<


Yep

Who's arguing for PC?

Why is it so hard to just be kind to others while taking into account their own feelings?

I assumed that my initial statement wouldn't be disputed. How can people not see the rudeness all around them? Does anyone else have any idea how annoying it is to see the people emerge from their lairs (the "PC lair" and the "Mac non-PC lair") and hiss at each other when they could just... be nice?

But I suppose it's never that simple. Before we can be nice we must debate over the meaning of "nice", debate over practical applications of "nice", get rid of all PC, and so on and so forth. It's just like in that other thread: we can't just "love" terrorists, we must define "love", debate about whether or not we should pardon them for everything, slap everyone who disagrees with us, etc.

Why can't we just GET ALONG????

Oh, wait. Oops... I had set a rule earlier about posts not being longer than two sentences (who can find offense in such a short post?)...

Oh wells.

I don't see the point in going round and round arguing about what it means to be kind. That's kind of... ironic? Oxymoronic? Really. Who gives a care about PC vs. non-PC? All I'm getting from this discussion is frustration over the constant, "Gasp! How dare you accuse a single one of my non-PC comrades of being rude?"

If we can't just get over labels and definitions and be kind, I'm done here.

And really, you needn't clap and shout good riddance at me. That would be... uh... rude.