Cupertino Union School District: Why stop there?

With the Cupertino Union School District in California prohibiting a teacher from giving out handouts regarding the Declaration of Independence due to the references of God (Separation vs Exclusion Continued.....), I thought I would help them with other historic documents, moments in American history, that have always been taught in public schools that need to be banned because"GOD" is mentioned. Are there more examples? Undoubtedly.

(I add emphasis to point out where God is mentioned)

The Gettysburg Address:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

FDR'S speech to Congress the day after the Pearl Harbor attack (edited for space):
Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.......
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces- with the unbounding determination of our people- we will gain the inevitable triumph- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

JFK's 1961 inaugural address (edited for space)
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987 (edited for space):
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!...... (President Reagan closed this speech with the following: 'Thank you and God bless you all.'

Dr. Martin Luther King's 'I have A Dream' speech (edited for space):
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and every mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plains and the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my father's died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!"

And when this happens, when we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every tenement and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old spiritual, "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

Separation vs Exclusion Continued......

The Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. How do you make this argument? Well, if you're the Cupertino Union School District in California, you can. According to them, discussion of the Declaration of Independence should be forbidden from public schools because "God" is in the writings.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41623

I continue to be amazed at how the "separation of church and state" continues to be misconstrued. But, even beyond that, the Declaration of Independence is a historic document leading to the founding of the nation. Historical revisionism strikes again! Isn't it interesting how God has been removed from public schools, yet the same schools are closed for Christmas, Easter break, and Thanksgiving, all religious based holidays. Thanksgiving is not based in religion, you say? Here are George Washington's words declaring it a holiday back in 1789:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4045

If you TRULY want GOD removed from public schools, then these holidays should not be celebrated with days off from school because they are based in religious origins. Or, the public schools should also be off for Hanukkah, Passover, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, and every other religious holiday you can think of, in support of diversity and "separation of church and state" After all, one religious holiday shouldn't have preference over any other, if you follow this line of thought.

Separation vs Exclusion

Does anyone recognize this passage?

"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. "

For those ignorant few who do not, this is Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution. It's amazing how the first 16 words can be SO misconstrued to say things that are not written.

What I am referring to are the people who are complaining so vociferously about the religious right, and Fundamentalist Christians in particular, taking part in the political process. For example, on the radio this morning, I heard one of the hosts upset about the moral values of these people being imposed upon everyone. In other words, these people putting forth their ideas and beliefs into the public and hoping to influence how others and governments act. This is now called a violation of Amendment I. Let's see how it's a violation.

• Congress did not make a law establishing Fundamentalist Christianity as a national religion, thereby making all others illegal, no violation there.
• Congress didn't prohibit ANYONE from exercising their religion freely, no violation there.

Where's the violation of separation of church and state? If anything, the people who are complaining are the ones who actually want to violate the Constitution. They want to have these people silenced by government as the Fundamentalist Christians, in their view, should not take part in politics. Well, that IS a violation of the same Amendment I, abridging the freedom of speech.

In theory, if you are against one set of people imposing their values on you, are you not imposing YOUR will and values on someone else? That's the whole point of politics and debate. Arguing your points and trying to get the hearts and minds of others to agree with you. One could argue that the election of George W. Bush is also an election of those values he agrees with, which happens to coincide with the Fundamentalist Christian's values. But, if you're willing to make that argument, then you HAVE to agree that the dual election of Bill Clinton was therefore a validation of the values that he had.....whatever they happened to be on that particular day.

Why is it that if you have a religious background, your opinions should not be considered, but only if you are of a right-wing viewpoint? Have you ever noticed the hypocrisy of the left who scream separation of church and state (again incorrectly)? They have no problem with people like Reverend Jesse Jackson taking part in the political process, or liberal politicians like John Kerry and Bill Clinton campaigning in black (sorry, bad choice of word, see prior post) churches? Ever notice that the religious right doesn't make the complaint in return? It's because they actually do understand that it is not a violation. In fact, it's a right in Amendment I (right of the people peaceably to assemble).

What is the solution? It's actually simple. Everyone who wants to take part and push their ideas should do so freely (Amendment I) and let the public decide via the voting box. If these ideas are so threatening, wouldn't they be defeated at the polls? Is the left that afraid of these ideas that they can not defeat them by defending their own values as an alternative?

BasketBrawl

I'm sure everyone by now has seen the events that took place at the Palace of Auburn Hills on Friday night between the Detroit Pistons and the Indiana Pacers. As of this writing, four players, Piston Ben Wallace and the Pacers' Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, and Jermaine O'Neal have all been suspended indefinitely. Good. There was no excuse for what happened. A hard foul on Wallace by Artest was uncalled for, as was Wallace's hard shove afterwards. However, that's not what I want to focus on. Players fight each other, it's emotional, and in this case, was pretty much resolved before the "fans", and I use the term loosely, decided that they should get involved. The utter stupidity of these people can not be understated. Cheering/booing is expected, and frankly, the basis of home-court advantage. However, nothing, and I mean NOTHING, excuses throwing objects at players or onto the playing surface. Well, throwing hats for a hat trick, or octopi for Red Wing playoffs is different, as those examples are a CELEBRATION of events. Too bad hockey won't be played this season.

As for these "fans", what were they thinking in their drunken hazes? Obviously nothing. It's disgusting, pure and simple. Even after the idiotic Artest running into the crowd, inciting the melee that followed, how absolutely brain-cell deficient do you have to be to go ONTO the court and challenge MEN who are finely tuned athletes? The morons who got clocked by Artest and O'Neal deserved the bruises and punches they received. Hopefully, all the fans who were involved in this can be identified and receive the following: Jail time/fines for disorderly conduct and banishment from all NBA arenas forever. What will happen? Cynically, nothing from the police, no bans from the NBA for these fans, and lawsuits against the involved players where the pond scum of the human gene pool will PROFIT from this. Am I excusing the players for their roles in this? Of course not. Unlike the apologists of ESPN who think and have stated that the players were justified because beer was thrown on them (more inane logic), I think they deserve everything they get. I'm just ticked off that this will give real Detroit sports fans another black eye nationally. An absolute disgrace and embarrassment.

TV Infringement

I'm disappointed and ticked off at the Republican Party in the Senate this morning, after reading this link.

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/34357.htm

The mere fact that the Senate, particularly Senators Hatch and Specter (the sponsors) are even considering this bill, is to me irresponsible. Instead of doing important things like simplifying the tax code or privatizing any aspect of social security (After all, I would like to see something for what I pay into it every two weeks), they're wasting time with nonsense like this - criminalizing fast forwarding of commercials for DVR users. It reminds me of the Clinton health care plan in 1993, where, if passed, would have made a crime of visiting the doctor of your choice if the doctor wasn't in your "Regional Health Alliance". Complete nonsense. And the Republicans wonder why they are thought of, at best, the lesser of two evils. I would expect something this idiotic to come from Maxine Waters or Ted Kennedy, but not the Republicans, although Specter may as well be a Democrat, based on how he votes.

BTW, what if you're still old school and use a VCR to record shows? Will this also be banned by this bill?

Belle (foreground) and Priscilla. Belle's eyes are spooky.... 

Joey vs. Peyton

All right. Before anyone starts the wild accusations, I'm not saying that Harrington is as good as Manning. That's not the point of what I'm going to throw out there. Just bear with me.

It's obvious Joey Harrington is having struggles recently. Struggles being an understatement. Also, the injury card gets used too often, and I'm tired of it as well, but I do think there is some validity to it. Just consider this.....

Tell Peyton Manning to be as successful as he is this season in the following scenario:

*Edgerrin James had ankle injuries and is not at full speed (Kevin Jones)
*Marvin Harrison is done for the season on the 3rd play of the year (Charles Rogers)
*Reggie Wayne has an ankle sprain that severely hampers his ability to run routes, and miss considerable time (Roy Williams)
*Brandon Stokely is out with a hamstring injury (Tai Streets)

Am I saying that Peyton would look as awful as Joey? Of course not. What I am saying is that without weapons, Peyton would not have the incredible numbers he does.

Pick any team that is successful, and what is the common ingredient? Playmakers that help the quarterback. Steelers? Burress, Ward, Staley & Bettis. Does anyone REALLY think Roethlisberger would be as hot as he is if there were injuries? Patriots? Their receivers and now Dillon. Yes they had success before Dillon, but those receivers were still there. How about the Eagles? McNabb was very over rated until he had someone to throw to in Owens. Look at the Vikings. Culpepper was on fire until Moss went down. It's amazing what injuries can do. They are a part of the game.

What's the point of all this? Joey Harrington has played horribly the last two weeks. Can he play better? Yes. Will he? I hope so, and I do think he will.

Health Care

All throughout the 2004 Presidential election, Senator John Kerry had been discussing his health care plan that was going to save the system. In fact, his wife stated that anyone who opposes the plan are "idiots". One question. Now that the race is over, and Senator Kerry is still a Senator, will he propose the plan in the Senate? Is it really that amazing of a plan that it could ONLY be implemented if he were President? Ok, that's really two questions......

Colors?

I've made a decision after hearing on the local news recently that there is an uproar in Macomb County, MI about a Councilman there using "racial slurs". The slurs were to call African Americans "coloreds". I must be behind the times, as I wasn't aware that this was now a "racial slur". I suppose then, that the leading African American organization in this country is itself a slur, right in its title. NAACP. For those who do not know what this stands for, it's the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED People (emphasis mine). Granted, this organization was founded in 1909, and was the accepted term for the time. However, if they do not see a need to change, why should anyone else? To do so would be insensitive, wouldn't it?

I think a leap can be made to say that to call someone 'black', is itself a slur, as that too implies "color". Black is, by definition, full color. This then means that an organization within Congress is also a "racist slur", the Congressional BLACK Caucus.To be fair, if the goal is true sensitivity for all, or diversity, if you will, I have made a decision. To call myself "white" is not sensitive, as white is absence of color.And, since the politically correct term is "African American", I have decided that I should be known as an Czech Republic-American". But wait, that is too narrowing. After all, there aren't "Mozambique-Americans" or "Zaire-Americans". To be consistent, I am now a "European-American", with all rights and privileges that go with it.

I leave you with a final thought. Teresa Heinz Kerry was born in South Africa, and is now, I assume, a U.S. citizen. If I may make a politically incorrect observation, she is also "white". Is she an African American?