Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Posted By: at Yale has this to say - sm - Starcat on 2005-11-30
In Reply to: Again, Jefferson was in the minority - Rep.
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Certified graduate of the *How to Insult like a kindergartener* school of insults. SM
White house butler guy.....you can't be serious.
He will be one of Obama's top advisors. You can't be that naive.
As to the Chicago political machine...google it. The Daleys of Chicago...crooked as a dog's hind leg comes to mind...you don't remember the current Mayor daley's dad?
Can't believe you never heard of the Chicago political machine. Obama was part of it, and he is bringing it with him to the White House. Yeah, that concerns me...and last time I looked, I have a right to be concerned.
The White House Butler guy
Ever see One Life to Live. Remember Asa Buchanan's butler, Nigel? Nigel knew more about Asa than his own family. OF COURSE, I understand what a Chief of Staff is. The position still sounds like a great big butler to me...one who sees all and knows all, exercises great discretion and is trusted by his employer.
To begin, I live in a parallel universe from you. I have no reason whatsoever to Google Chicago politial machine. I have seen the term thrown around here and there in paranoid rants and I am also acutely aware of how Chicago politics has been depicted by the right-wingers ever since the 60s...my mom being my prime source on that one (a Goldwater republican). I do not share this world view. When I think of Chicago politics, I think in terms of ideology, but that is a different story from this.
I was simply trying to get you to explain YOUR take on it and also why it is that you find so much fault ALREADY with Rahm Emanuel. He certainly will not be Obama's only advisor. As a matter of fact, Obama is bound to surround himself with many, many advisors from both sides of the aisle who represent a very WIDE variety of viewpoints, all of which he will listen to, consider, draw conclusions, formulate plans and policy initiatives and execute what he feels best. That's my thing. I was simply trying to get you to explain yours.
huh? He did this after school hours, in the catholic school...nm
nm
also, courts ruled the draft was not forced servitude in Butler v. Perry. nm
x
Did you graduate kindergarten this year?
This is an opinion piece from a graduate of
Will not be accepting this as gospel without further resarch and investigation. My gut's telling me somebody somewhere is trying to serve a partisan agenda. Pardon me while I go check a few facts, read the bill for myself and get a few more viewpoints before buying into this hook, line and sinker.
Olbermann is a graduate of Cornell University...
and you are a graduate of what?
they had to join a community service organization to graduate?
x
Howard Dean is also an MD
so he's just a stupid "crat?" Who's stupid?
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
Why settle for a Harvard graduate who sees a vision of a kinder world.
I didn't believe him initially. I felt he had a hidden agenda, pay back time for the wrongs done to his ancestors until I saw his family photos, mom and grandpa as white as mine. This guy was raised as a white boy. And maybe that is why he expects more from the black men (raise your kids).
Give him a chance. Listen to his speeches over the years. Research him.
Though honestly, I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a New York minute.
article from john dean
Was Pat Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader a Crime?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com
Friday 26 August 2005
Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.
More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.
We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.
No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.
From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?
For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.
The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.
And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:
Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.
Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.
As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.
Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does
If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?
Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.
Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.
This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.
In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.
In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.
Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.
For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?
If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm
Them's strong words Mr Dean!
John Dean on MSNBC: Dik Cheney may be guilty of "murder"
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dik Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin
Identifying the CORRECT Mr. Dean since you don't know any better........no child left behind?
I mean Dean is a real republican, not like the ones today.
Ummm...wrong Mr. Dean, Einstein
Howard Dean was the Vermont Governor who ran in the 2004 election. JOHN Dean was Richard Nixon's Aide - get it?
John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
I seriously doubt the Dems would claim you,Zauber. You're another Howard Dean.
Wow! Where did you go to school?
At Youngstown University - we complained more about the Indians (hygiene - phew). We partied like animals with the Iraqi's and Iranians and never felt looked down upon by these students - they were good people and treated the female population as equals..........maybe the school wasn't good enough for terrorists?
When I was in school, we were
told to treat others as we would have them treat us.
We didn't get pulled aside and have everything listed out. You can't make fun of fat kids, ugly kids, sissy kids, kids with pimples, kids with body odor. We were told to treat others as we would want to be treated. That is all that needed to be said.
If you want acceptance taught in school then you are going to have to list sex, color, sexual orientation, and all religions. It is much simpler just to say....and always remember the Golden Rule.....treat others as you would have them treat you because bullying and teasing will not be accepted. End of story.
When I was in high school ...
Spanish and French were both offered. They were optional, however. I don't think we should REQUIRE any child to learn a second language. If they want to, fine. And Obama makes the point that most French, Spanish, etc. are bilingual...speaking English AND their native language. Well, duhhh. Of course they do. How else do they cater to American tourists, the lifeblood of several European cities. Or cater to American business. If I moved to France and was going to live there, I would learn French. If Mexicans are going to immigrate and live here, they need to learn English. Where's the rub?
We don't compete with overseas MTs because they are bilingual, trilingual, or multilingual. We complete with them because they will do what we do for a whole lot less money. End of story. Then it has to be run back through American editors to good ENGLISH. Not good INDIAN, FRENCH, SPANISH, et al. Not a real good argument. And I don't know how our children speaking Spanish or French is going to help them unless they plan to move to Spain, Mexico, or France. Last time I checked, speaking Spanish or French did not pay the bills either.
I go to school right now and it is free -
The money comes from our Georgia lottery proceeds. It is called the HOPE scholarship. If you graduate high school with a B or above you get the scholarship. If you were graduated before the program was enacted there is a HOPE grant that will pay for either a certificate or a diploma from a technical school/2 year college and once you complete 45 hours with at least a B average you can then be eligible for the HOPE scholarship which can be used at any university.
I right now am attending school to get a degree in accounting and it is not costing me a penny out of my own pocket.
I have to say that I did see a lot of high school age...sm
kids standing behind him at his rally yesterday.
when he was in elementary school
His teacher asked everyone what they wanted to be when they grew up and he said that he wanted to be the president of the United States. He was the only one who said that because he was in an elementary school in Indonesia at the time. Then he was president of the Harvard Law Review and he like that, so there you go, he volunteered. Better him than me. I would not want to be apologizing to Nancy Regan right now.
Because just like the school systems...
you would start having churches or religious groups saying that they weren't getting as much money as some other church or group and then accusing the governement of trying to back a particular religion. That's the whole reason behind the government staying out of religion. Those that came here from England didn't like the fact that there was a Church of England and if you didn't belong to it, you were jailed or killed.
They don't have to hear it in school.....
By all means, put them in a Christian PRIVATE school. Yea it costs a little bit, but it will teach them to be close-minded just like you. You would be proud of them and their accomplishments!
There ya have it.....the school of thought that put
nm
Didn't we all go to school
with someone just like JTBB? You know the one, slumped in her seat, talking under her breath, smirking and laughing, rolling her eyes and generally distrupting all serioius business. I think gum cracking was involved as well.
Theories have to stay out of school?
I certainly agree religion needs to stay out of our schools except when clearly labeled for everyone to know, such as a comparative religion class or even the history of a particular religion. But no theories in school? Think about what you're saying. Or did you have a particular theory in mind, say the theory of evolution? Why is that such a hard one for some people? There's more scientific evidence to support evolution than there ever was to support the idea that this rabbi a couple thousand years ago was the physical son of God. And anyway, evolution doesn't disprove creation. You can believe there was an intelligent force behind it all and still believe that evolution was the way it was carried out. Seems like some people want to be able to name that intelligent force, and say what it wants and thinks and force those beliefs on others, though.
Law school 101. Not indicted does not mean not guilty.
I think everyone knows that he had prescriptions from more than a couple of docs.
No one on your side of the fence has answered my question posed above. If MJF had aired an ad against stem cell research, would you have had the same reaction? Would Rush have had the same reaction? I think not. I think you would have applauded him for his courage and his willingness to do such a thing especially in light of the seriousness of his disease. Another question, what do you think about Nancy Reagan and her son Ron being pro stem cell research openly?
Were you the bully in high school too?
nm
Went all the way, school, college degree
nm
OMG! (lol!) In the public school system,
Thanks for a good laugh!
High School Politics
So I've kinda realized something lately. The presidential election is very similar to a high school election this time around:
~In high school, you usually have a couple of candidates, but it usually narrows down to two. Usually you have one candidate who will promise the stars and the moon in the form of soda machines, more "senior lunches", more time off, etc. Now we all know full and well that a high school class president can't get these things, but he will say he can. Usually the candidate that can promise the most is the one that wins.
~Don't forget, in high school it's also a popularity contest!
~Oh yeah, and if it's two guys, most of the girls don't care what they say, they just vote on the cutest one.
~90% of the voters never even hear what the candidates have to say. They usually just vote off of what everyone else says or who is their buddy.
~In the end, nothing changes at the school. Still the same amount of vending machines with crappy food, still only get one senior lunch per month, and if anything, you lose a few days off.
Now tell me this doesn't sound at all like what is going on right now?
She sounds like a kid out of school, maybe not even 20 yrs old, unskilled nm
j
Did ya ever think it could be a school field trip?
Most high school kids don't get a chance to see a presidential until they are of voting age.
I don't put any faith in anything MSNBC writes or talks about. They are are for the O.
It is mandatory for graduation in our school
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The only school for the deaf in our state
is being closed. That's how much the governor cares. He also wants to turn 500 school districts in 100. Don't know how that would be possible. Yet, he will hand out money to professional sports arenas and others that does not benefit the citizens of the state.
So glad this is his last term and cannot be re-elected. Hopefully, there will be more qualified candidates (but doubt) running for governor next election.
P.S. Know his name is Barney Frank. I just like Barney Fife better.
Shouldn't someone who taught school
for 20 years know it's 'twice as well to be thought half as good"? And besides, that slogan was stolen from the feminist movement. A woman has to work twice as hard and do twice as well to be thought half as good as a man."
No points for originality. Minus 1 point for grammar.
I actually went to a private CHRISTIAN school.....
Throughout high school. I'm not saying I would never put my children there, but at this point they have a good school and I am happy with it. BTW, at their school they actually pray still, say the blessing, pledge the flag, etc. Not sure how they get away with it, but yea they do it.
My son is being told in high school
in a lot of his classes that there will not be SS anymore in the near future. SS will be gone.
o.k., inside the catholic school....nm
nm
Yeah, there is the school of thought that says
''Just don't do it in the street an scare the horses.''
I don't particularly care about who's doing what with whom either, except I do think that the sneaking and the lying are still indicative of basic character. There's this whole alpha-male thing where guys with a little power (businessmen, politicians, doctors, cops, lawyers, soldiers, etc.) seem to be irresistable to some women, especially the guys who would attract little female attention without the trappings of power. I think they actually begin to believe they are mega-hunks and act accordingly.
And I suspect half of it will end when you return to school --
as you claim you will be doing soon (I hope). 
Infantile? High school behavior?
So it's only okay when you do it?
bone up - he also attended Catholic school
so do you think he is the antichrist now?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/
My son came home with something from school sociology class saying (sm)
that there is not a law on the books that people in Ohio cannot vote more than once but that they don't encourage it.
I heard he graduated from ballet school
Evanston School of Ballet.
|
