Taking Back America By Taking Back Our Schools
A North Carolina community is community is embroiled in controversy after a school ordered a 6-year-old girl to remove the word "God" from a poem she was supposed to read during a school assembly marking Veterans Day at West Marion Elementary School, Fox News reports. The poem, which honored the girl's two grandfathers who had served during the Vietnam War, read: "He prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength." A parent reportedly found out about the poem and expressed concern about mentioning God during a school event. According to one account, the parent did not want God's name mentioned anywhere in the program. "We wanted to make sure we were upholding the school district's responsibility of separation of church and state from the Establishment Clause," said superintendent Gerri Martin, who made the decision in consultation with the school's principal and vice principal. "We jointly decided that we must err on the side of caution to prevent crossing the line on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution," principal Desarae Kirkpatrick said.
© 2023 Created by Harry Mathews. Powered by
Harry, what does our Constitution actually say about "Separation of church and state?"
Letter I sent to S.C. dept. of tourism. "Greetings, I had intended to visit S.C. on my way to visit my brother in North Carolina. However, West Marion school won't allow the word God in a girl's tribute to her 2 Viet Nam veteran grandfathers? Is this true? I question my decision to visit your state but if you would follow Harvard University's lead and establish a bondage social club, I may reconsider. Spare me the usual reply relating to the First Amendment which I obviously know the wording better than you. Sincerely John F. Berend" Note to this blog's readers- I was listening to Tina Turner singing "You better be good to me" or I may have gotten nastier.
Good job John!
That's a great idea John, lets go further and write or e-mail to West Marion school. Maybe Harry can shed some light on a address or etc. I think we all should express our dissatisfaction how this young person was treated.
This is, in fact, a potential violation of the First Amendment, of the Constitution. To quote, that part of the Constitution,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ..."
That seems clear enough.
But what is atheism? It is a belief. Possibly meeting the definition of "Religion". It is the belief that there is no "Higher Authority", or God, and a moral code that endows with Man with the highest authority.
So, isn't it possible to see the action of these people (School board members, Principles, etc) as requiring the practice of Atheism. A religion. In direct contradiction of the First Amendment.
Just as they can not require the mention of God, they, also, can not forbid the mention of God. A two way street, you know?
At least that's how it seems to me.
Mike, you make a very good point! Secular Humanism/Socialism IS a religion. I prefer to call it Secular Inhumanism which would be more accurate or you could call it Satanism since it is, in philosophy and practice, rabidly anti-Christian and opposite in beliefs to Christianity.
I don't want to call it Devil Worship or Satanism or anything like that. It'll allow them to squiggle out.
Call it what it is, and what they call it, Atheism. We're going to have to fight them in the courts. Stay away for calling them anything else. They don't believe in Satan or the Devil, either. Going there gives them an out.
They are a new age religion and their court actions is simply an attempt to proselytize society. We need to recognize this and respond accordingly. Challenge them, with doing, what they accuse us of doing. It is a more logical argument, on its face.
Just so you know Atheist literally means "against God." But, you make a good point. It's all about the narative.
Exactly, my friend. And that's where we need to concentrate our actions and words.
Define them as a religion, and show that they're trying to impose it on the rest of us. That, and not their "hurt feelings", is what is prohibited by the First Amendment